This is up for debate: I'm only +0.2 here.

The renaming was done in matplotlib#27901, which renamed the parameter `labels`
to `tick_labels` for `boxplot()` and `bxp()`.

One can take two views here:

- If `boxplot_stats()` is specifically for the input of `bxp()`, one
  can justify the renaming as being consistent with the `bxp()`
  signature. Note however, that the returned dict still
  contains the key "label" for back-compatibility. So that brings us
  an inconsistency between the parameter name and the returned dict key.

- One can alternatively view `boxplot_stats()` as a generic function to
  define box parameters. Here, we'd only have a general `label` for
  the boy and no information that this should be used as tick
  label.

If we could make a clean transition and also rename the dict key, I
would tend to go with the first view. But the inevitable inconsistency
of the fist view let's me sway towards the second view, so that with
the revert, we've effectively not touched `boxplot_stats()`.

This is up for debate: I'm only +0.2 here.

The renaming was done in matplotlib#27901, which renamed the parameter `labels`
to `tick_labels` for `boxplot()` and `bxp()`.

One can take two views here:

- If `boxplot_stats()` is specifically for the input of `bxp()`, one
  can justify the renaming as being consistent with the `bxp()`
  signature. Note however, that the returned dict still
  contains the key "label" for back-compatibility. So that brings us
  an inconsistency between the parameter name and the returned dict key.

- One can alternatively view `boxplot_stats()` as a generic function to
  define box parameters. Here, we'd only have a general `label` for
  the boy and no information that this should be used as tick
  label.

If we could make a clean transition and also rename the dict key, I
would tend to go with the first view. But the inevitable inconsistency
of the fist view let's me sway towards the second view, so that with
the revert, we've effectively not touched `boxplot_stats()`.

This is up for debate: I'm only +0.2 here.

The renaming was done in matplotlib#27901, which renamed the parameter `labels`
to `tick_labels` for `boxplot()` and `bxp()`.

One can take two views here:

- If `boxplot_stats()` is specifically for the input of `bxp()`, one
  can justify the renaming as being consistent with the `bxp()`
  signature. Note however, that the returned dict still
  contains the key "label" for back-compatibility. So that brings us
  an inconsistency between the parameter name and the returned dict key.

- One can alternatively view `boxplot_stats()` as a generic function to
  define box parameters. Here, we'd only have a general `label` for
  the boy and no information that this should be used as tick
  label.

If we could make a clean transition and also rename the dict key, I
would tend to go with the first view. But the inevitable inconsistency
of the fist view let's me sway towards the second view, so that with
the revert, we've effectively not touched `boxplot_stats()`.

This is up for debate: I'm only +0.2 here.

The renaming was done in matplotlib#27901, which renamed the parameter `labels`
to `tick_labels` for `boxplot()` and `bxp()`.

One can take two views here:

- If `boxplot_stats()` is specifically for the input of `bxp()`, one
  can justify the renaming as being consistent with the `bxp()`
  signature. Note however, that the returned dict still
  contains the key "label" for back-compatibility. So that brings us
  an inconsistency between the parameter name and the returned dict key.

- One can alternatively view `boxplot_stats()` as a generic function to
  define box parameters. Here, we'd only have a general `label` for
  the boy and no information that this should be used as tick
  label.

If we could make a clean transition and also rename the dict key, I
would tend to go with the first view. But the inevitable inconsistency
of the fist view let's me sway towards the second view, so that with
the revert, we've effectively not touched `boxplot_stats()`.