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 Symbol keep vote.svg Approved

Monkbot 7
Operator:

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 etal or 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: 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)

-- Magioladitis (talk) 16:21, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I noticed a couple of anomalies: Otherwise, nominal operation.
 * Apollodorus (crater) – the 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  et al. but left the pair of double quotes.  I reverted that edit, tweaked the bot and allowed it to  the page, this time correctly.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 21:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Summary tweaked. Why the semicolon?  I don't know; I guess I like them.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 23:14, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * The citation that causes AGP101 to be in is this one.  It has 1 and 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)

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

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

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