Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Monkbot 11

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 11

• (BRFA
• Approved BRFAs
• talk
• contribs
• count
• SUL
• logs
• page moves
• block log
• rights log
• flag)

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

Time filed: 14:28, Monday, May 16, 2016 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic

Programming language(s): awb/c#

Source code available: User:Monkbot/task 11: CS1 multiple authors/editors fixes

Function overview: fix cs1|2 author/editor parameters in articles listed in Category:CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list and Category:CS1 maint: Multiple names: editors list

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): no recent discussions

Edit period(s): primarily one-time with additional runs as necessary

Estimated number of pages affected: at this writing there are 107,538 + 8,268 pages in the two categories

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): yes

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

Function details: User:Monkbot/task 11: CS1 multiple authors/editors fixes

Discussion

Comment to Trappist: I support this work. Have you considered testing for and skipping the pathological case in which |firstn= is present with no corresponding |lastn=, i.e. articles in Category:CS1 errors: missing author or editor? If not, I suggest trying to do so. "Correcting" author lists in articles with this case present will probably result in malformed citations with no error messages. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:50, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Point. Now, any template that has |firstn= after empty parameters have been removed is ignored. I actually haven't seen any of these in the wild (yet) but no doubt, perhaps as one of the artifacts of citation bot, there are |author=name, name, name |first2=first name.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:08, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

{{BAG assistance needed}}

Yay? Nay? As of this morning, I've made some 2800 edits manually with the bot's script (see Special:Contributions/Trappist the monk).

—Trappist the monk (talk) 10:33, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Approved for trial (250 edits or 10 days). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:20, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Trial complete. The first 125 edits were made using articles listed in Category:CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list; the second 125 edits were made using articles listed in Category:CS1 maint: Multiple names: editors list.

These anomalies are noted:

1. H. A. Willis: |author1=Curle Smith, H. Nora looks like two authors with a comma separator. Since there is only one comma, this author name is not the reason that the article is a member of Category:CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list. I reverted this edit; refined the bot code, and ran the bot again over the page where it properly did not make an edit.
2. Steve Hagen: |author=Brussat, Frederic and Mary Ann omits Mary Ann's last name though the bot cannot know that. This is a case of garbage-in-garbage-out. cs1|2 do not support such naming conventions; complete author names are required.
3. Ron Holland: gigo; three names marked-up as two authors.
4. Buddy Holly: I neglected to remove a debug statement; the edit was reverted and the bot retried
5. to fix the Buddy Holly bug, it was necessary to disable the selective skipping in the code; I neglected to re-enable the selective skipping so edits that would not normally be made were made to:

   Hospital Food

   House of Fraser

   Housefly

   Houston Astros

   Houston College Classic

   Howard Johnson (baseball)

   Howard Lake (Washington)

   HTC HD2

   Huascarán National Park

   Hudson_County, New Jersey

   Hudson Yards, Manhattan

   Hudson's Oldfield mouse

   11th Fighter-Interceptor Squadron

   13th School Group

   14th/32nd_Battalion_(Australia)

   14th_Battalion_(Australia)

   14th Operations Group

6. Lester S. Willson: gigo: |editor=William H. Powell, Lt Col, U.S. Army should not include rank and affiliation
7. Lexis diagram: gigo: |editor=Demographic Research, vol. 4, art. 3, pp 97-124 is not the name of an editor

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:45, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I have modified the bot so that it skips templates with author/editor parameter values containing digits or the word 'army'. Items 2, 3, 6 & 7 above have been corrected manually.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:16, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Approved for extended trial (250 edits or 10 days). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Please make a final run to demonstrate that errors have been cleared. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:23, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Trial complete.

Thank you for posting this notification on my talk page. I had forgotten about this brfa. Can I ask why the significant delay between the end of the first trial and the approval for an extended trial? Should I have done something different?

Anomalies noted:

1. Atlah Worldwide Church: gigo; {{cite court}} is a more appropriate template than {{cite web}} but I have no experience with that template so I reverted with corrections and added 'supreme' and 'court' to the bot's list of banned words;

—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:54, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:BAG/Status is kind of backed up right now, I'm working through as many as possible. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:37, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Minor side effect in this bot trial, may be addressable via code: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alain Haché: Vancouver style error introduced. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:58, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Yep, know about that. This bot task is not in the business of fixing the content of the parameters. It cannot know if hyphenated initials in your examples are correct for those names or if the hyphen should be removed. Those sorts of decisions require an editor's brain. I have fixed that template.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:31, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

 Approved. Well this has certainly sat around for a while - there has been no complaints here, you are good to go. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:57, 4 December 2016 (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.