Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BacDiveBot
- 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
Denied.
Operator: Tobias1984 (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 21:25, Tuesday, November 15, 2016 (UTC)
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Supervised
Programming language(s): Pywikibot
Source code available: User:BacDiveBot
Function overview: Query Bacteria items on Wikidata that have a Badive ID. Check for the taxonbar on the wiki page. Add it if it doesn't exist.
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):
Edit period(s): Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Microbiology#Discussion_about_external_links
Estimated number of pages affected: 2700
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No):
Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): No. But I don't really need it. The task can run at a speed so I can monitor it.
Function details: User:BacDiveBot Task 1
Discussion[edit]
Approved for trial (25 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. I think this will be demonstrated better than explained, please make a small run and report back here. — xaosflux Talk 22:44, 15 November 2016 (UTC)- @Xaosflux: Thank you for the quick review. I made the test edits. --Tobias1984 (talk) 18:08, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Tobias1984: You should use {{BotTrialComplete}}
Trial complete. Thanks! --Tobias1984 (talk) 18:34, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Tobias1984: I'm a bit concerned about the {{taxonbar}} template on articles - we don't normally put cross-namespace (much less cross-project, cross namespace) links to wikiprojects directly in to articles (talk pages are 100% ok) "Taxon identifiers" make me as a reader think this is a link to an article about what these identifiers are. Thoughts? (this is not really a bot "problem" but before we add 1000's of these want to be on the same page. — xaosflux Talk 02:46, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Xaosflux: It is pretty much the equivalent to {{Authority control}} just for taxonomic information. But I agree that the links could cause some confusion. But I am not aware of a discussion about this yet. --Tobias1984 (talk) 18:55, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
- Discussion opened at Template_talk:Taxonbar#Linking_to_cross_project_wikiproject. — xaosflux Talk 19:10, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
- Notified wikidata:Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_Taxonomy#Template_use_on_the_English_Wikipedia as well. — xaosflux Talk 19:12, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
- Good idea. I also posted a note at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Microbiology#Taxonbar and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biology#Taxonbar. --Tobias1984 (talk) 21:19, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
- As for the trial, you went way over the 25 edits requested, these limits are to prevent recent changes flooding for un-flagged bots. Should we need another trial, please respect the limit; we will want to flag this bot to prevent flooding once "live" . The edits themselves seem to be OK. — xaosflux Talk 02:46, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry about that. I should have used a counter. --Tobias1984 (talk) 18:55, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
- {{on hold}} pending Template_talk:Taxonbar#Linking_to_cross_project_wikiproject (should a TFD be filed, this should extend for the duration of the TFD). — xaosflux Talk 15:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Copied from: Template talk:Taxonbar:
- I'm not arguing for deleting the template; I know that others think it useful. But I do strongly object to it being added by a bot. For many groups, it currently lacks the most important links, and includes ones that just duplicate Wikipedia. Added manually, it is much better – for example, a link to the World Spider Catalog can be added for spider articles. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:38, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
- As with Peter, I feel that the bar should not be bot added, and that the data that is linked in a given entry needs to be vetted before going live. Also I don't feel that the bar actually adds anything to the vast majority of taxa, especially extinct for fossil organisms, that make of 90% of described taxa.--Kevmin § 20:53, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Peter coxhead: This task only discusses adding the template to Bacteria articles. The overall goal of this template is not to change the amount of links (even duplicates), but to move identifiers that are currently stored in the infobox to the bottom of the article, so the infobox is free for more descriptive information. @Kevmin: This bot task will not edit any fossil articles. But the taxobar also has the fossilworks-id which is very useful to do authority control for fossil taxa. Edit: Please also review this discussion: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Microbiology#RfC_regarding_EL --Tobias1984 (talk) 22:26, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
- As with Peter, I feel that the bar should not be bot added, and that the data that is linked in a given entry needs to be vetted before going live. Also I don't feel that the bar actually adds anything to the vast majority of taxa, especially extinct for fossil organisms, that make of 90% of described taxa.--Kevmin § 20:53, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
A user has requested the attention of the operator. Once the operator has seen this message and replied, please deactivate this tag. (user notified) As there have been community objections to this task, do you want to work on establishing a consensus or withdraw this for now? — xaosflux Talk 22:06, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
- I would like to continue the discussion. I think we should wait for more people from WikiProject Microbiology to comment. --Tobias1984 (talk) 22:26, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
- I would like it if we could not hurry too much about this; it doesn't seem to be immediately urgent, so I don't see a need for a snap answer and I have only now become aware of the issue. And I have a couple of days in which I'll be out of action, which doesn't help. When I return I'd like to see some of the items on which the issues are being contended. Not that my personal intervention is likely to be in any way decisive and I recognise some of the participants better equipped to contribute than I am, but there are many biological topics dealing with large numbers of species or similar topics, so for some things bots sound good, though I am well aware of their shortcomings and hazards. JonRichfield (talk) 19:35, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- @JonRichfield: Any update? — xaosflux Talk 22:54, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Xaosflux: I am frankly uncomfortable. On the one hand I am in favour, but Peter et al have some valid points. The discussions here and linked elsewhere leave me with the feeling that we are dealing with a range of functions and contexts, rather than a clearly distinguished manageable class of problem. That is a dangerous sort of responsibility to throw to the bots. A few thoughts might be worth developing, but I haven't clarified them in my own mind, let alone evaluated whether the issue will pay for the necessary attention, so be forgiving. These are NOT in any logical sequence. If any prototype bot were to be considered, then it might be good to make it add each processed item to a stored list to permit (semi)automated rollback in the event of annoyance. As far as I can tell, the accumulation of bots is sufficiently ad hoc to make it difficult to tell whether there is conflict between, or overlap of, function; this is a serious control hazard. I know that @Slashme: takes an interest in such matters of control, and he might have some suggestions. Because of the varied nature of the articles possibly affected, and the difficulty of identifying conflicts between bot functions, and the clear fact that this constitutes a class of hazards (not limited to this candidate bot) there should first be a consensus on which standards could be imposed on the article layout and in which topics, categories, or projects. Of course if the bot leads to an increased (improved?) uniformity of layout, that should imply improved ability to repair or further improve... Maybe it would be better, if at all possible, first to work on an agreement on a completely standardised article format for a given relevant class of article (such as particular categories of micro-organisms for example), and consider what the prospect might be for a bot to achieve that, rather than a piecemeal accumulation of bots. However, any bot working on such a poorly defined population should have a clear ability to refer doubtful cases to human attention.
I trust you see why I am in difficulties in trying to suggest anything coherent; however this discussion turns out, the very scale of WP increasingly implies growing needs for automated, or at least assisted, uniformity of logical and functional structure, whereas a lot of folks labour under the impression that voluminous arbitrary guidelines on style etc would suffice to cut the mustard. Mind you, don't let me introduce further red errings. JonRichfield (talk) 07:42, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Xaosflux: I am frankly uncomfortable. On the one hand I am in favour, but Peter et al have some valid points. The discussions here and linked elsewhere leave me with the feeling that we are dealing with a range of functions and contexts, rather than a clearly distinguished manageable class of problem. That is a dangerous sort of responsibility to throw to the bots. A few thoughts might be worth developing, but I haven't clarified them in my own mind, let alone evaluated whether the issue will pay for the necessary attention, so be forgiving. These are NOT in any logical sequence. If any prototype bot were to be considered, then it might be good to make it add each processed item to a stored list to permit (semi)automated rollback in the event of annoyance. As far as I can tell, the accumulation of bots is sufficiently ad hoc to make it difficult to tell whether there is conflict between, or overlap of, function; this is a serious control hazard. I know that @Slashme: takes an interest in such matters of control, and he might have some suggestions. Because of the varied nature of the articles possibly affected, and the difficulty of identifying conflicts between bot functions, and the clear fact that this constitutes a class of hazards (not limited to this candidate bot) there should first be a consensus on which standards could be imposed on the article layout and in which topics, categories, or projects. Of course if the bot leads to an increased (improved?) uniformity of layout, that should imply improved ability to repair or further improve... Maybe it would be better, if at all possible, first to work on an agreement on a completely standardised article format for a given relevant class of article (such as particular categories of micro-organisms for example), and consider what the prospect might be for a bot to achieve that, rather than a piecemeal accumulation of bots. However, any bot working on such a poorly defined population should have a clear ability to refer doubtful cases to human attention.
- @JonRichfield: Any update? — xaosflux Talk 22:54, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
{{{1}}} If it moves identifiers from the infobox to lower in the page it is definitely a good idea. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:15, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Denied. This task is being denied for now due to lack of community consensus for the task. It may be revisited in the future; before reactivating please have a discussion with the concerned parties, and cross advertise it to the relevant projects for input. — xaosflux Talk 16:59, 23 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.