Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Monkbot 3

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 3

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

Time filed: 14:00, Monday March 31, 2014 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): AWB

Source code available: Yes (source)

Function overview: Working in Category:Pages containing cite templates with deprecated parameters, replace deprecated CS1 parameters |coauthor= and |coauthors= with individual |authorn= parameters (n is a number 2–10). Task 3 operates on CS1 citations that have |coauthor= parameters that contain comma-separated lists of names roughly following the Vancouver system.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): Occasional

Estimated number of pages affected: At the time of this writing, Category:Pages containing cite templates with deprecated parameters has 99,310 pages.

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

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

Function details: Full details are listed with the source.

Discussion

Please add |display-authors=9 when there are exactly nine authors in the citation after it is processed by the script. The existing citation (using |coauthors=) displays nine authors, and the resulting citation will display nine authors, but without |display-authors=, the citation will display an error message. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I can do that. But, wait! What? Doesn't that contradict what your position when we discussed |displayauthors=9 re: Monkbot task 2?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:41, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. I am apparently a self-contradicting sort of person.

On reconsideration, I think I was wrong in the previous discussion. Since |coauthors= has no limit on its size, the editor who created that citation was presumably not thinking about the nine-author limit and was choosing to display nine authors exactly. As such, I think it would be proper to introduce |display-authors=9 in any nine-author citations resulting from conversion of |coauthors= to individual author parameters. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:13, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I've added it to task 4 and will add it to tasks 2 and 3 as well.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 01:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Added to task 3.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:22, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

{{BAG assistance needed}} —Trappist the monk (talk) 11:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend approval for test edits. I have checked edits of this operator's other bots, and they have been of high quality. The operator has been responsive to the minor changes I have recommended based on other bots' test edits. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:51, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. --slakr^\ talk / 06:52, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. Thank you. First half or so of the edits had the et al. un-italicize, empty and single coauthor rules enabled. I disabled them for the second half so that Monkbot would fix only multiple coauthor citations. I did not find any untoward edits.

The test edits are listed at Special:Contributions/Monkbot beginning at 10:45, 12 April 2014 (UTC) and ending at 11:07, 12 April 2014 (UTC). The test edits have this edit summary: Task 3: Fix CS1 deprecated coauthor parameter errors (bot trial) also edit summary search results.[reply]

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:26, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked all 50 of these test edits, and I found zero errors. I recommend approval. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:48, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A user has requested the attention of a member of the Bot Approvals Group. Once assistance has been rendered, please deactivate this tag by replacing it with {{t|BAG assistance needed}}. —Trappist the monk (talk) 11:55, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Approved. MBisanz ^talk 05:01, 4 May 2014 (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.