The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was Withdrawn by operator.

Operator: Trialpears (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 12:12, Saturday, August 10, 2019 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic

Programming language(s): Python

Source code available: Standard pywikibot: Source code at User:PearBOT/Aircraft specs/source

Function overview: Converting instances of the deprecated template {{aircraft specifications}} to {{aircraft specs}}

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft#Template:Aircraft specs merger bot, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 March 20#Template:Aerospecs

Edit period(s): One time run, probably with secondary run(s) when problems encountered by the bot has been fixed manually and the bot handles more edge cases.

Estimated number of pages affected: The template has 1868 transclusions. The bot will only be able to convert about half without human assistance, in a secondary run where problems have been manually fixed and/or the bot can handle more edge cases up to a few hundred more could be converted.

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): No

Function details: The bot will go through all transclusions of {{Aircraft specifications}} replacing the template with {{Aircraft specs}} after reformatting the information to be compatible with the new template. If the bot encounters anything unexpected it will skip the page and report the problem at User:PearBOT/Aircraft specs problems. After the original run editors can fix problems listed there (usually unit problems or extra text in parameters that usually only contain a number and a unit) or I can make the bot handle more edge cases and perform a secondary run converting more templates.

A lot of people in that discussion believe that this is too complex for a bot. Are they wrong? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:17, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo Eumerus There were many editors expressing concerns about difficulties with the conversion, but I believe my solution can satisfy all of these concerns by skipping a lot of pages and changes to the template (currently in an edit request). I've tagged everyone who participated in the TfD discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft#Template:Aircraft specs merger bot giving them a chance to review test edits and noone has objected to it in it's current state. The biggest issue in the TfD seemed to be double rounding leading to less precise figures, which was a major concern with the old version of the template, but now after I've modified {{aircraft specs}} it's a much smaller issue. It now use the parameter values if they're avalible which makes all figures the same before and after the conversion. For values not in the pre conversion templates there could still be double conversions, but since adding values in units (usually Knots and Nautical miles) not previously displayed is an unambigous improvement I believe this would be acceptable. If it's not acceptable the bot will only be able handle a few without some manual assistance, but even in this case the bot can still do most of the work. --Trialpears (talk) 20:14, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request is now completed. --Trialpears (talk) 23:12, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

{{BAGAssistanceNeeded}} The template changes are complete, there has been no objections at WT:AIRCRAFT and there's been two weeks. I think it's time for a trial. --Trialpears (talk) 16:03, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Please do not mark the edits as minor - I'd like as many eyes on this conversion as possible due to the previous issues and concerns. Primefac (talk) 00:06, 1 September 2019 (UTC) (please do not ping on reply)[reply]
• {{OperatorAssistanceNeeded}} Was approved for trial two months ago. Any info about that? Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:34, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Armbrust, have continued working on it, but have been encountering more and more edge cases and issues have been cropping up. It may someday be appropriate to run automatically, but right now I feel like I have to mark this as  Request withdrawn and continue working on this as a fully supervised script. --Trialpears (talk) 13:09, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA.