User:Anybot/bugs

Missing information
Calyptrella. It seems that the intended information under the "Species"" subtitle didn't make it there. All it says is:"The only species currently recognised is" at the moment. FingersOn  Roids  17:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)  FingersOn  Roids  17:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Same with Campanoeca. FingersOn  Roids  18:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, seeing as how this is becoming just as bad as the number of species inconsistency, here's a list of ones that need fixing. Any other editors, feel free to add on, or take off once they've been corrected: This is just the list I could compile manually. Think how many I missed out of the hundreds of articles this bot created. This bot needs to be blocked before more faulty articles are created. FingersOn  Roids  18:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Campylomonas
 * Calyptrella
 * Campanoeca
 * Cyanobotrys
 * Cyclagelosphaera
 * Cyclococcolithus
 * Cyclolithus
 * Cyclopsiella
 * Danea
 * Danubia
 * Dasyangea
 * Dasydiacrodium


 * - I'll run the bot to remove any errant sections. Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  18:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Failed redirect?
Microglena. It looks like this was a redirect that wasn't done right, can you confirm that? Meanwhile, I'm going to redirect it to Chlamydomonas. FingersOn  Roids  17:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've also redirected Crumenula. FingersOn  Roids  17:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Same with Epichrysis. FingersOn  Roids  18:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Same with Cystococcus... FingersOn  Roids  18:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * and bot repairing its errors Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  18:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * there are many more of these, basically every blue link on this page, Database reports/Broken redirects, could you take a look please, I've no idea what supposed to be done with them-- Jac 16888 Talk 00:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Jac, I think you are referring to something slightly different: the bot creating redirects to pages which don't (yet) exist. This seems to stem from a quirk of the AlgaeBase database; any pages that aren't created when the bot has finished can be safely left, or deleted. Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  00:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I just went for the section with redirect in the title to be honest. So is this bot likely to finish soon, or is it going to be a long running thing?-- Jac 16888 Talk 00:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's finished already! Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  01:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh right great(I so should have taken 5 minutes to read what this bot even does!). So I can nuke all those dead redirects then?-- Jac 16888 Talk 01:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There are still several bad redirects listed in WP:CSD. Do we delete, or revert to original stub? --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 12:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Number of Species Inconsistencies
On the page, it says that there are two species known currently, but it only lists one. FingersOn  Roids  17:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems the same thing happened with Gloeochrysis. FingersOn  Roids  17:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Another inconsistency, Prymnesium says it has 6 recognized species but lists 11. FingersOn  Roids  17:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hymenomonas says there are two species, lists four. FingersOn  Roids  17:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Chrysochromulina says there are 27 species, lists quite a bit more. Either this is a major problem with the bot, or I am absurdly ignorant of some way that algae species are counted. FingersOn  Roids  17:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Crumenula Dr. Blofeld       White cat 17:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Because of the rate that these inconsistencies in articles are going, I am making a list of articles that need to be looked at to clarify the number of species. Anyone else can add ones to this list, or take them off once they've been corrected:
 * Gloeochrysis
 * Prymnesium
 * Hymenomonas
 * Chrysochromulina
 * Woloszynskia
 * Kephyrion
 * Chrysopyxis
 * Cyclicargolithus
 * Cyclonephelium

FingersOn  Roids  18:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I've looked into this; the species listed include synonyms, while the number is the number of discrete species. I'll update the template code to this effect. Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  19:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The bot can automatically go through the pages it has already created and add a parenthetical (excluding synonyms) after 'approximately x species' - is this a good solution, or can you propose a better one? Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  19:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, for some articles, the species listed under the species subtitle are less than the approximate number species, not the other way around, which wouldn't make sense if the number was off because of synonyms. See Gloeochrysis and Woloszynskia. Do you see my reasoning? The approximate number should be less than the number of species listed, not more. FingersOn  Roids  21:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This was caused by species with a 'preliminary' status being included in AlgaeBase's total of distinct non-synonyms. Such 'preliminary' classifications are now listed by the bot. The bot now counts the number of species it enters into the article and uses that number (which should match the figure of 'distinct species' provided by algaebase, but I may have missed another nuance of the database...) Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  21:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, if it works, then I think its a good solution. We'll see, if it continues to be a problem, we'll have to review our options again. FingersOn  Roids  21:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Blanking page with redirect?
Any idea what the bot was doing with this edit? The page, for some reason, had a malformed redirect link at the bottom placed by an IP address a few months ago, and for reasons unknown the bot blanked the rest of the article to turn it into the redirect. ~ mazca  t 12:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, my crude bug-fixing algorithm didn't expect redirects to already be hanging around at the bottom of pages. The bot's finished now, so manual reversion will be fine. Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  13:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Great, i'm imagining that was a rather obscure situation so I doubt many (if any) other problems were caused by the same issue. ~ mazca  t 13:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Pseudaglo
Hi! Your bot seems to have created a page, Pseudaglo, that redirects to itself, with the edit summary 'Redirecting to genus'? I'm going to speedy it. If you're not an admin, let me know if you need any information from the deleted revisions. -- Vary Talk 16:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, Pseudotetra is another odd one; redirect to itself, although this one initially had an infobox, too. -- Vary  Talk 16:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, it looks like this may be more of a side effect than an actual bug. However, I did run across a few pages (Chledripole, Cladogirvanella and Conophyton), which the bot initially created as stubs (ending with the incomplete line 'the only known species is') and then later 'redirected to genus.'  Once I realized there were a few redirects that used to be actual articles, I restored them, but I'm not sure what to do with those now.  If you need them redeleted speedy tag them or let me know and I'll get rid of them.  Thanks! Your bot is creating an amazing amount of content! -- Vary  Talk 16:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Another redirect issue
The bot redirected this page to itself after creating it. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Empty categories
The bot is creating stubs with the code  (talk) 19:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Cyanobacteria, not algae
I wonder how frequently this has happened. AlgaeBase apparently includes 2,660 cyanobacteria: link. I just spot-checked a few genus names listed in AlgaeBase and it looks like every one of them is listed as a eukaryotic algae! E.g. Chroococcus. Any way there's an easy fix for this? --Rkitko (talk) 19:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I know you're busy with other bot stuff at the moment, but is there any progress on this? diff didn't fix the problem, just removed a sentence. The article still says it's an algae and is placed in the Archaeplastida. Any idea how widespread this problem is? --Rkitko (talk) 02:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Your bot
Here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eutreptiella "Specimens can reach around 0 cm in size." True, but odd, wouldn't you say? =) -OOPSIE- (talk) 06:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Major Malfunction
I was tempted to block the bot, but I won't, as it is not currently running. But you have a major problem that needs to be fixed before you run it any more. Your bot trashed about 2 dozen pages, leaving them as empty redirects to nowhere. Looking at the bot's logs, it looks like it trashed more than that, but proceeded to fix many of them. But it left around 2 dozen in the trashed state. It's the edits with the summary "Redirecting to genus" that are bugged. See Pterosiphonia for an example of the ones left trashed. The trashed ones need to be fixed ASAP. I do not know if this means reverting the bugged edit, or getting the bot to properly create a redirect. As for you seeing the list of the pages that remain trashed, check out this link. It's to a tools-server report of short pages on the project, and was how I spotted the bot malfunction in the first place. The trashed pages are the bunch of length 13 towards the top. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixing: See User_talk:Anybot. Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  15:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Taxobox color
Most algae are no longer classified within kingdom Plantae, but is by most taxonomists regarded to belong to the supergroup Chromalveolata, which have a different taxobox color than plants. Can this be looked into? --Rex shock (talk) 16:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Higher-level taxonomy
Please use the correct higher-level taxonomy when making those alga-related stubs. Note that cyanobacteria are bacteria, not eukaryotes. Also note that heterokonts (including haptophytes, cryptophytes, bacillariophytes, brown algae) and dinoflagellates do not belong to Archaeplastids. 194.86.94.11 (talk) 12:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I used the taxonomy used in AlgaeBase, but don't have a very thorough understanding of the current state of the art. I'd be happy to automate any changes if you can give me a very explicit list of what I need to change.  For instance:
 * Where the division is 'phaeophycaea' chance the kingdom to 'chromalveolata'
 * Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  14:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Here is the list:
 * Where the division is 'Cyanobacteria' change the domain to 'bacteria'. Also rename 'division' to 'phylum', and in the article text change the word 'algae' to 'cyanobacteria'. Example of a corrected article: Spirocoleus.
 * Where the division is 'Ochrophyta' change the kingdom to chromalveolata and rename division 'Ochrophyta' to phylum 'Heterokontophyta'. Examples: Gloeochrysis, Fucus vesiculosus.
 * Where the class is 'Dinophyceae' change the kingdom to 'Chromalveolata', rename division to superphylum 'Alveolata' and add phylum Dinoflagellata. Example: Heterocapsa.
 * Where the division is 'Bacillariophyta' change the kingdom to 'Chromalveolata' and rename the division to phylum Heterokontophyta. Add class Bacillariophyceae. Examples: Rhizosolenia.
 * Where the division is 'Haptophyta' change the kingdom to chromalveolata. Example: Prymnesium.
 * Where the division is 'Cryptophyta' change the kingdom to chromalveolata. Example: Chroomonas.
 * I also added the current reference to the manually corrected example articles. It seems there are thousands of articles that should be corrected. 194.86.94.11 (talk) 12:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * That should be easy enough to implement (when I get the opportunity). How would you recommend I reference the changes? (I'm not sure how universal the classification system is, and it is best to give readers an idea of which source we consider authoritative.) Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  14:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Heretofore En-Wiki has generally followed the higher-level classification system as presesented by Adl et al. 2005 (see the original review article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1550-7408.2005.00053.x) That article could be used as a reference. 194.86.94.11 (talk) 15:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Is that up to date for, e.g., the Rhodophyceae? Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  17:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that classification is mostly up to date, however, the research on the eukaryotic supergroups and their phylogeny is still going on. Currently the taxon Rhodophyceae is classified as a subphylum of the superkingdom 'Archaeplastida' (Plantae sensu lato). AlgaeBase currently classifies dinoflagellates under kingdom 'Protozoa', that paraphyletic kingdom is obsolete. Although AlgaeBase classifies the heterokont algae, cryptophytes and haptophytes under kingdom Chromista, En-Wiki has used the newer and wider taxon 'Chromalveolata' instead. When creating new articles it is best to follow the current En-Wiki's practice to avoid incoherence and confusion. 194.86.94.11 (talk) 10:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that this falls within the scope of a separate bot request. It would be useful if you could establish that there was consensus to use the Adl classification, perhaps at WP:WikiProject Plants? Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  02:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Tangle
This bot redirected Tangle to Laminaria. I undid the redirect. I hope this bot hasn't been making other similar mistakes. Neelix (talk) 02:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Anybot is in a slow revert war to redirect the valid disambiguation page Tangle to Laminaria. I just reverted the latest of 5 times. On Lichen irlandicus it is slowly revert warring with other bots which fix double redirects. If this bot war continues it may be added to Lamest edit wars. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * A buggy prototype of the bot was being run without my knowledge. I have now disabled the script and am attempting to undo these errors. Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  02:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Wrong count
In Borzia, it appears that the bot have counted wrong because it listed 7 species yet it said only 2 are accepted. In AlgalBase, it did indicate "16 species names in the species database at present, of which 7 are flagged as currently accepted taxonomically". As a side note, are you interested to assist Wikispecies and do similar task for our project? OhanaUnitedTalk page 18:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This was an error introduced when the prototype was run without my knowledge, overwriting the correct output of the bot. It is now being put back to rights. Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  02:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Accepted name does not equal accepted species count
This bot created articles that are incorrect.

First, AlgaeBase does not claim to be complete and authoritatively complete.

Leading to second, the bot has created articles stating that verified names in AlgaeBase are the "currently recognized species," and "the valid species currently considered to belong to the genus," implying the wikipedia list is authoritative. It is not, as its source is not and does not claim to be. These are names that have been entered and have been validated. Until the first requirement is met, that AlgaeBase be complete and authoritative in its completeness, a list of species copied from AlgaeBase should not be titled, "currently recognized." This requires a scientific paper on the genus and its species.

I see another user points out the taxonomic inconsistencies that bot has created within wikipedia. It is a disaster to the reader who reads one article, with one taxonomy, then clicks on a higher level taxon in the taxobox and the higher level has a different taxonomy. What?

Wrong information is worse than no information. An encyclopedia should not include data that its writers know are incorrect or data that confuse the reader. Please do not continue to create bad algae articles in this manner. Contributions/69.226.103.13 (talk) 10:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This bug has now been resolved. Establishing a pervasive taxonomy for the whole of WP is a matter which you could take up at WP:Algae. Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  02:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Fossil algae should be labeled
I think you should not create fossil algae articles without labeling them as such. I corrected one, Biscutum, but, your bot should distinctly label each fossil species as extinct when creating the articles. --Contributions/69.226.103.13 (talk) 20:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Will do in the next version of the bot. Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  02:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Wrong species count
Could you please wait for people to discuss the matter first? --69.226.103.13 (talk) 22:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I am simply undoing errors which over-wrote the bot's original edits. The discussion should be on the basis of what the bot originally produced, not what a vandal using the bot's account created.


 * Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  02:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Wrong removals

 * Also you're removing tetraspores from the red algae, they probably are producing tetraspores. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 22:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm removing information that wasn't sourced by Algaebase, and was only added in the first place due to a software error. If the bot doesn't know for sure that something is producing tetraspores, then it should not make this assertion.  Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  02:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * For others reading this history. No, you removed information that came from AlgaeBase.  Your bot adds information that isn't there, removes information that is.  Your code is all wrong.  It's still wrong.
 * If this is a new bot you should have done a test run. If it's the same old bot you should have done a test run.  You're not willing to discuss this with the community, which is your prerogative, so there's no point in my discussing it with you, but this page should have a record that, no, you didn't correct the bugs, no, the bot isn't only removing information that should not have been there (which is an entirely new bug), and no, you didn't correct the bot, and, no, you're not only editing articles that the bot created!  --69.226.103.13 (talk) 15:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)