Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DannyS712 bot 61

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

Withdrawn by operator.

DannyS712 bot 61

Operator: DannyS712 (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 01:56, Tuesday, September 10, 2019 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic

Programming language(s): AWB

Source code available: AWB

Function overview: Fix citation template errors `Italic or bold markup not allowed in:` parameter

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Bot requests#Bot to fix gazillions of formatting errors in "Cite news" templates

Edit period(s): As needed, first 39000 are a one-time run

Estimated number of pages affected: 39000

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

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

Function details: Remove bold/italic formatting from the publisher field in {{Cite news}} and other citation templates, following Help talk:Citation Style 1#update to the cs1|2 module suite after 2 September 2019.

Discussion

This is context sensitive. For example:
{{cite news |url=http://nytimes.com |publisher=''New York Times''}}

The correct solution is remove the italics and rename |publisher= to |newspaper=. There are a bunch of other scenarios. -- GreenC 02:08, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DannyS712, please explain the proposed fixes in more detail. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:11, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is already WP:Bots/Requests for approval/Monkbot 14. --Izno (talk) 02:14, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Izno: Ah, I see... can you delete this please? DannyS712 (talk) 02:15, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@DannyS712: is this {{BotWithdrawn}} ? — xaosflux ^Talk 02:30, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Xaosflux: I guess, but given that it was filed in error (I didn't realize the task already existed) I'd rather it be deleted if that is possible DannyS712 (talk) 02:31, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DannyS712: as others have already participated in this discussion, deletion isn't the best option. Marking as withdrawn and closing. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:34, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by operator. No longer required per the discussion above. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:34, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.