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.
Function details: Upon request the bot will remove external link template parameters that have been migrated to Wikidata.
The requester must place a notification on the template's talk page that ze wants the parameters to be removed by a bot.
After consensus is established on the template's talk page or minimum of one week passes without comment/objection, the requester will add the request here.
The requester or bot operator will add category tracking to the template to check that the local values match Wikidata.
The bot will only edit templates in "External links" sections of articles where there is one transclusion.
<includeonly>{{main other|<!--
-->{{#if:{{{id|}}}{{{1|}}}||{{#if:{{#property:P2767}}||[[Category:JudoInside template with no ID set]]}}}}<!--
-->{{#if:{{#property:P2767}}
|{{#if:{{{id|}}}{{{1|}}}
|{{#ifeq:{{#property:P2767}}|{{{id|{{{1|}}}}}}
|[[Category:JudoInside template with local ID same as on Wikidata]]<!-- Match -->
|[[Category:JudoInside template with local ID different than on Wikidata]]<!-- Conflict -->
}}
|<!-- Migration complete (property but no id) -->
}}
|[[Category:JudoInside template without an ID on Wikidata]]<!-- Need importing -->
}}<!--
-->}}</includeonly>
Support as requester. Thank you, JJMC89. Also, note that this excludes template transclusions in references. I've made a first draft of {{Wikidata property migration}}, for template talk pages, as described above. However, I have concerns that the seven-day wait would leave a window for people to add new instances of the template being migrated, whose data would not be on Wikidata when the bot operates. A shorter delay would reduce the likelihood of this being an issue. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits17:55, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with shortening the delay period. The categorization will ensure that only IDs that have been migrated and match those on Wikidata are removed. — JJMC89 (T·C) 15:54, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have corrected the issue in my module (Tools.SplitToSections adds an extra newline to the end of the last section.) that could cause insignificant changes with general fixes enabled if the desired task was not performed. If there are no objections I will run this task with general fixes enabled. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:57, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Trial complete. The bot edited as intended: 40 edits. The first half were without general fixes, and the second half had them enabled. Are there any objections and/or preferences for running this task with general fixes? — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:16, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I'd prefer it, please, if you removed the link to my user page from your edit summary, and linked instead to this page, or another which explains the task. By all means mention me on such a page, but I'd rather people read an explanation before being encouraged to contact me about it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits19:24, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Andy: It will be a link to a page in the bot's userspace after this is approved. If I need to run more trial edits, I will point it here. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see a final run - you may want to have a request list etc on the bot page or bot subpage, use some {{anchor}}'s and link to requests if you want. I'd rather see this run without genfixes if it will be "Automatic". — xaosfluxTalk01:50, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Approved for extended trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. — xaosfluxTalk01:50, 18 August 2016 (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.
Approved.
Trial complete. The bot edited as intended: 40 edits. The first half were without general fixes, and the second half had them enabled. Are there any objections and/or preferences for running this task with general fixes? — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:16, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Approved for extended trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. — xaosflux Talk 01:50, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Approved. Task approved. — xaosflux Talk 02:21, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]