Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Monkbot 7

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.

Monkbot 7

Operator: Trappist the monk (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 19:32, Saturday, April 11, 2015 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): AutoWikiBrowser

Source code available: Yes, here

Function overview: Removes the text 'et al.' (and various corruptions of that) from author and editor parameters of CS1/2 citations because inclusion of 'et al.' in author/editor name parameters corrupts the citation's COinS metadata; adds |display-authors=etal or |display-editors=etal as appropriate to replace and standardize et al. display.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): As needed

Estimated number of pages affected: Category:CS1 maint: Explicit use of et al. at the time of this writing has 27,643 pages and 2 subcategories.

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): yes

Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): yes

Function details: See full documentation

Discussion

((BAG assistance needed))—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (100 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:21, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. I noticed a couple of anomalies:

Apollodorus (crater) – the edit to this page unmasked a pre-existing error; I do not consider this to be a bad thing
AOAH – This page wrapped some et al. text in double quotes. Task 7 removed et al. but left the pair of double quotes. I reverted that edit, tweaked the bot and allowed it to re-edit the page, this time correctly.

Otherwise, nominal operation.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 21:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The edit summary needs a tweak to say "authors"... or "editors". And (very picky) is there a reason for the semicolon at the end of the edit summary? – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Summary tweaked. Why the semicolon? I don't know; I guess I like them.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:14, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed all of the edits. I found the following:

This edit to APG101 does not look right. No harm was done, but the edit summary is not valid and the bot did not really modify the article.

That's it. Everything else looked good. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:49, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The citation that causes AGP101 to be in Category:CS1 maint: Explicit use of et al. is this one. It has |displayauthors=1 and |last2=et al so Monkbot leaves it alone. As a result of removing et al. from some parameters (most notably |author2=), we are left with empty parameters so task 7 cleans up after itself. It is possible to prevent task 7 from doing this but I suspect that there are, in comparison, relatively few of this kind of edit; and as you've noted, the cleanup is harmless.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:26, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think all minor issues can be dealt. I am satisfied by the result too. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:06, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trappist the monk before the final approval I would need link to the test edits for the record in case I have to check this page again in the future. Ping me when you do this. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 14:08, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Magioladitis, here's a link to the test edits. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:38, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Approved. Magioladitis (talk) 16:25, 26 April 2015 (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.