Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DreamRimmer bot II 6
- The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard. The result of the discussion was
Approved.
Operator: DreamRimmer (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 15:29, Tuesday, October 7, 2025 (UTC)
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic
Programming language(s): Python
Source code available:
Function overview: Replace {{reflist|refs= ... }} with <references> ... </references> when the reflist template has only one parameter named refs.
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 88#List-defined references format, Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 223#Bot to make list-defined references editable with the VisualEditor
Edit period(s): one time
Estimated number of pages affected: ~55,000
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No
Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): Yes
Function details: The VisualEditor can't parse the list-defined references that are based on the template {{reflist}}. This bot will replace {{reflist|refs= ... }} with <references> ... </references> when the reflist template has only one parameter named refs.
Discussion
[edit]- Comment: In case it matters, I don't know how this zombie figure of 55,000 pages keeps coming back from the dead. I linked to the monthly parameter usage report for Template:Reflist suggests that there are 183,000 articles using
|refs=. I think that figure may be closer to the bot's operating scope than 55,000. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:22, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]- @Jonesey95: I believe the insource search provided by Qwerfjkl is more reliable. I have used the source you provided before and found that it produced fifty percent false positive results. – DreamRimmer ■ 14:10, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, fair enough. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:16, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jonesey95: I believe the insource search provided by Qwerfjkl is more reliable. I have used the source you provided before and found that it produced fifty percent false positive results. – DreamRimmer ■ 14:10, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- {{BAG assistance needed}} Tenshi! (Talk page) 16:16, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete.. You're free to use the bot flag for the trial edits. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:49, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Trial complete. Edits – DreamRimmer ■ 11:43, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]- {{BAG assistance needed}} Tenshi! (Talk page) 01:25, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Approved. Primefac (talk) 10:01, 10 November 2025 (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 Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard.