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 Symbol keep vote.svg Approved

Monkbot 3
Operator:

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, 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, 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 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)


 * Sure, I can do that. But, wait! What?  Doesn't that contradict what your position when we discussed 9 re: ?


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 17:41, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 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 9 in any nine-author citations resulting from conversion of coauthors to individual author parameters. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:13, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * Added to task 3.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 11:22, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

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)

-- slakr \ talk / 06:52, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

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.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:26, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 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)

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:55, 27 April 2014 (UTC)


 *  MBisanz  talk 05:01, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.