Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BattyBot 48

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.

BattyBot 48

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

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

Time filed: 12:26, Sunday, September 27, 2015 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): AutoWikiBrowser

Source code available: AWB

Function overview: Fix |last-author-amp= parameters in citation templates

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 9#last-author-amp change, Template:Citation Style documentation/display

Edit period(s): One time run, run again upon request

Estimated number of pages affected: 750-1000

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

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

Function details: Due to the change of functionality of the |last-author-amp= parameters in citation templates, change values such as "1" or "&" to "y". GoingBatty (talk) 12:26, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

GoingBatty, thanks for submitting this bot request. In the interest of completeness, I have also found the following values for |lastauthoramp= and |last-author-amp=: "no", "n", "noe", "yese". The ones that mean "no" should simply be blanked. I have some regex patterns near the bottom of User:Jonesey95/AutoEd/unnamed.js. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:55, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• This is technically sound, but I'm not clear why we need to make the parameter more strict. Some users are likely to continue to use the old values; can't we leave in support for it but have the alternate values be undocumented? — Earwig ^talk 22:16, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

@The Earwig: Could you please ask your question at Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 9#last-author-amp change? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 22:34, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Done. — Earwig ^talk 22:38, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm satisfied enough with Jonesey95's response to continue here. We're dealing with a small number of pages, so there's not a ton of room for issues. Let's go for it. Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. — Earwig ^talk 01:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

@The Earwig: Trial complete. - see these 50 edits. GoingBatty (talk) 20:33, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

 Approved. I don't seen any issues with the trial. Would normally wait a bit longer, but since this is causing errors in mainspace pages I'd like to get the bot running quickly. — Earwig ^talk 20:51, 3 October 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.