Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Monkbot 7

{{Newbot|Monkbot|7}}

Operator: {{botop|Trappist the monk}}

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 {{para|display-authors|etal}} or {{para|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: {{cl|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

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

{{BotTrial|edits=100}} -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:21, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

{{BotTrialComplete}}

I noticed a couple of anomalies:

• Apollodorus (crater) – the {{diff|Apollodorus_%28crater%29|659030632|613658184|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 {{diff|AOAH|659014185|605273850|removed}} et al. but left the pair of double quotes. I reverted that edit, tweaked the bot and allowed it to {{diff|AOAH|659030123|659022124|re-edit}} the page, this time correctly.

Otherwise, nominal operation.

—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:

:*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=APG101&diff=prev&oldid=659014579 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 {{cl|CS1 maint: Explicit use of et al.}} is this one. It has {{para|displayauthors|1}} and {{para|last2|et al}} so Monkbot leaves it alone. As a result of removing et al. from some parameters (most notably {{para|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)

:{{U|Magioladitis}}, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Monkbot&dir=prev&offset=20150309030020&limit=102&target=Monkbot here's a link to the test edits]. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:38, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

{{BotApproved}} 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.