I co-manage a PtokaX based DC++ hub in my college.(Only relevant if you know what DC++ and hubs are) We had a script which registered a bot named Infobot to the hub. Since, those scripts were getting slower because of very bad programming skills and also, I had some newer features to implement, I rewrote the entire script and created another bot with the name [BOT]Info.

The prefix [BOT] is to maintain uniformity across a wide list of users. Now, to inform all the users about this change, I am mentioning:

Infobot has been deprecated. | Comments welcome at <forum link here>

My question is, am I correct in using the word deprecated here? Or should I instead be using replaced as follows:

[BOT]Info has replaced Infobot. | Comments...

as the older script has been deleted. In my opinion, I'd be using the word deprecated when I'm telling about this change to another co-managers of the hub(?) and replaced should be preferred word.


2 Answers 2


Deprecated means that it is still available for use but it is recommended to use the newer functionality. Deprecated functionality is typically removed after an adequate period of time.


You can also write :

Infobot is moved to [BOT]Info.|Comments....


Infobot has been moved to [BOT]Info.|Comments....

  • The thing with moved to in reference to bots is that they both shared same commands/features. I have introduced a lot of newer commands. Would using moved to still be applicable?
    – hjpotter92
    Apr 2, 2013 at 4:18
  • @hjpotter92: Jim's comment has already covered your question (if the older bot can still be used, it's deprecated; if it can't, you've replaced it). Where you "put" these bots, and what terms you might use to describe their "placement", are really a separate question. Apr 2, 2013 at 4:35
  • @FumbleFingers Oh, I missed the comment. Clicked on the answers notification in inbox.
    – hjpotter92
    Apr 2, 2013 at 4:37

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .