Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Rfambot 3

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

Approved.

Rfambot 3[edit]

Operator: Jennifer Rfm (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 11:57, Monday October 3, 2011 (UTC)

Automatic or Manual: Automatic , some supervision

Programming language(s): Perl using the MediaWiki API

Source code available: email me

Function overview: To replace the old rfam box template with the new Infobox rfam template and update fields with current data from Rfam.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): I originally was the operator of User:Rfambot see User_talk:Jennifer_Rfm#Change_of_bot_operator. Rfam has been moving over to using the better template User_talk:Boghog/Archive3#Infobox_rfam and User_talk:Boghog#Infobox_rfam

Edit period(s): one (or two) time run

Estimated number of pages affected: curated list of ~550 pages

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Y

Already has a bot flag (Y/N): Y

Function details: A curated set of ~550 pages are checked/edited. The old rfambox template is replaced with the new infobox template. The existing ncRNA information is maintained and in most cases additional data from Rfam is added to the new fields. If no rfambox template is found no edits are made.

Discussion[edit]

As a former Rfambot operator I support this proposal--Paul (talk) 10:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In those cases where no new information is added, wouldn't a template redirect work just as well? - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 19:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe they do intend to add new content eg. new links to SO and GO terms. Also, many of the families have been updated so the boxes need to be changed to reflect that too.--Paul (talk) 20:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (23 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Anomie ⚔ 01:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. 23 pages edited (Rfambot contributions). After ~10 edits I changed the image caption to use the family abbreviation rather than the family description as for some it is was too longwinded. Jennifer_Rfm (talk) 10:46, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overall it looks good, but I see a few minor issues. I question the use of [[Viruses]] instead of [[Virus]]es, as the former is marked as an "unprintworthy redirect". The trailing semicolons in the |RNA_type= and |Tax_domain= fields look odd to me, unless that is some sort of standard in biology. Also, [[Eukaryota]];[[ Viruses]]; (as in [1][2][3]) should instead be [[Eukaryota]]; [[Viruses]];; note the differing position of the space. Anomie ⚔ 13:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anomie OK I can easily fix those. I will remove the trailing semi-colons in RNA_type and Tax_domain fields but I will leave the semi-colons in between the values. Thanks for pointing out the problem with the extra space and the viruses link. Shall I fix the code and do some more trial edits? Jennifer_Rfm (talk) 08:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Approved. No need for more trials, the changes are extremely minor. Just be sure to test it before turning it completely loose. Anomie ⚔ 11:13, 13 October 2011 (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.