Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SdkbBot 2
- The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard. The result of the discussion was
Approved.
New to bots on Wikipedia? Read these primers!
- Approval process – How this discussion works
- Overview/Policy – What bots are/What they can (or can't) do
- Dictionary – Explains bot-related jargon
Operator: Sdkb (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 19:51, Sunday, November 21, 2021 (UTC)
Function overview: Removes overlinked country names in phrases with the form "is/was a(n) [[Country|Demonym]] ".
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic
Programming language(s): AutoWikiBrowser
Source code available: The bot will be operated by running through lists of pages from searches like insource:/(is|was) an \[\[United States\|American\]\] / with a find and replace for e.g was an [[United States|American]] →was an American .
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): MOS:OVERLINK is the relevant guideline.
Edit period(s): Continuous (when I have AWB open) to work through the backlog, then periodically (probably not more than once a week) to catch new instances.
Estimated number of pages affected: Approximately 43,000 for the United States. More minor countries, e.g. Colombia, appear to have on the order of 1000.
Namespace(s): Mainspace
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes
Function details: I recently did an AWB run where I manually went through approximately 400 articles in four countries (the United States, China, Israel, and India) to remove overlinked country names in phrases with the form "is/was a(n) [[Country|Demonym]] ". In every instance, removing the country name appeared to me to be a net positive (there were a small handful in which the best thing was to change the link to a more specific one, which I did manually e.g. here, but in those cases the article would still be better off with no link than an overlink, and removing it might help encourage others to add a specific link). I also have not encountered any concerns or been notified of any reverts, so I think this is a safe task to automate. I'd like to seek approval here to run this task for any of the 40 level-3 vital countries, which avoids any problems from the less clear guidance around wikilinking tiny countries. I plan to enable GENFIXes and to use the edit summary "Removed overlinked country wikilink and general fixes (task 2)".
Discussion[edit]
Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:56, 22 November 2021 (UTC)- Please also drop a note at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:56, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Trial complete.. Results: here. I did 25 for Australia and 25 for Japan. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:19, 22 November 2021 (UTC)- This seems like a useful task. But how are those entries going to be filtered out where the link is arguably appropriate (for example this: an article about a French village, where it makes sense for there to be a link to the country)? I can also imagine cases where a demonym, like American or Indian, is ambiguous in the given context and it's the link that specifies the exact reference.
If this task goes ahead, then it may interfere with this proposed future task for replacing– Uanfala (talk) 22:15, 25 November 2021 (UTC) striking off irrelevant bit. 00:03, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[[Country]]with[[Languages of Country|Country]]in language infoboxes, so it may be worth making sure the two don't work past each other.- Regarding the French village example, I would consider delinking a positive. Everyone knows what "French" means, and there are links to more specific pages like Corsica. Regarding the disambiguation example, the closest I came to anything like that was the Parashu entry here, but in that case the context still makes it clear. For accessibility and printing purposes, I don't think we should ever be solely relying on linking for disambiguation. Regarding the language infobox task, this shouldn't interfere because there's no "was/is a" construction in the infobox. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 23:21, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah, we're not supposed to rely solely on links for disambiguation, but the fact is that we still sometimes do, and automatically removing the link in those cases will not be an improvement. So, you're using AWB, which means you're going to have a look at each link before removing it? I think that can work: you will be able to spot any contexts where the link carries some meaning. Also, if you see a link that can, in principle, be more specific, then I think it's best to either actually make it more specific (as you've done with "Indian law" above), or otherwise to skip it. If you automatically unlink it, this will make it more difficult to insert a specific link in the future: for example, if I wanted to run an AWB task to see what instances of "Indian law" can be appropriately linked, it will be much easier to proceed with a search for
[[India]]n lawthan one forIndian law. – Uanfala (talk) 00:24, 28 November 2021 (UTC)- @Sdkb: What is the status of this? Have you seen the above? --TheSandDoctor Talk 22:42, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- I have, but I don't see any concerns that would give me pause taking this forward—there is a clear benefit, and I think I've established that there's no meaningful risk of harm. (I don't think the U.S. and India need to be excluded because of the vanishingly rare case of the links being used improperly but still debatably slightly helpfully as disambiguation.) Per above, this is proposed as an automatic task; anything else would be wildly infeasible given the number of pages. If it can't happen by bot, it won't happen at all. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 23:18, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Sdkb: What is the status of this? Have you seen the above? --TheSandDoctor Talk 22:42, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah, we're not supposed to rely solely on links for disambiguation, but the fact is that we still sometimes do, and automatically removing the link in those cases will not be an improvement. So, you're using AWB, which means you're going to have a look at each link before removing it? I think that can work: you will be able to spot any contexts where the link carries some meaning. Also, if you see a link that can, in principle, be more specific, then I think it's best to either actually make it more specific (as you've done with "Indian law" above), or otherwise to skip it. If you automatically unlink it, this will make it more difficult to insert a specific link in the future: for example, if I wanted to run an AWB task to see what instances of "Indian law" can be appropriately linked, it will be much easier to proceed with a search for
- Regarding the French village example, I would consider delinking a positive. Everyone knows what "French" means, and there are links to more specific pages like Corsica. Regarding the disambiguation example, the closest I came to anything like that was the Parashu entry here, but in that case the context still makes it clear. For accessibility and printing purposes, I don't think we should ever be solely relying on linking for disambiguation. Regarding the language infobox task, this shouldn't interfere because there's no "was/is a" construction in the infobox. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 23:21, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Approved. As per usual, if amendments to - or clarifications regarding - this approval are needed, please start a discussion on the talk page and ping. --TheSandDoctor Talk 17:37, 30 December 2021 (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 Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard.