Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PotatoBot 7


 * 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 Symbol keep vote.svg Approved

PotatoBot 7
Operator:

Time filed: 21:14, Wednesday April 16, 2014 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): Python, PyWikipediaBot

Source code available: User:PotatoBot/Code/7

Function overview: Adds Glottolog codes (i.e. the  parameter) to language infoboxes.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): User talk:PotatoBot

Edit period(s): One time run; probably additional runs as necessary (e.g. if new Glottolog codes are assigned)

Estimated number of pages affected: ~8000

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

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

Function details: Takes Glottolog codes, ISO 639-3 codes and Wikipedia page names from the database on WikiProject Languages/Glottolog 2.2 language names. Cross-checks the ISO parameter(s) and adds the Glottolog code, in form of a   parameter, to the Infobox language on the target page (after resolving redirects). The bot does nothing if Such cases are logged to the bot's user space (sample output).
 * the target page doesn't exist or is actually a section
 * the target page hasn't got a language infobox
 * the infobox already has got a glotto parameter (including )
 * the ISO parameter cannot be verified (the infobox has an ISO parameter that doesn't match the database, or there are several ISO parameters, or none)

As the glotto parameter creates a ref, the bot also checks for an existing references section and adds it if necessary (using PyWikipediaBot's noreferences module).

Note from operator: I'll be away from 19 April to 25 April.

Discussion
We've been adding Glottolog codes, parallel to ISO codes, for some time now. What I envision is that obscure language articles, which are unlikely to ever get much attention from us, will each have at least two references: One to the ISO code, which is a common means to distinguish languages in the literature, and through it to the Ethnologue article which was the basis of the ISO code; and one to Glottolog, where readers can find an extensive bibliography on the language, as well as a more rigorous (and more conservative) classification than the unreferenced, computer-generated, and error-prone classifications at Ethnologue. Both include live links.

Glottolog was established by the Max Planck Institute as a parallel to Ethnologue, which suffers from some serious deficiencies that make its use as a RS problematic. Thousands of our articles are currently sourced solely to ISO/Ethnologue, which is inadequate per our guidelines: Although few of them are tagged for ref improvement, they really should be, even for stubs. (I say that as one who sourced thousands of them to ISO/Ethnologue in the first place.) Most Ethologue entries do not specify their own sources, or give only a partial account of their sources, with no review of the literature. Glottolog intends to rectify that: With the more obscure languages, they provide every source on the language that the editors at the MPI have been able to find, going back centuries in some cases. (On the other hand, Glottolog does not address demographic information the way Ethnologue does, so they complement each other.) I've added Glottolog codes and links to 1,800 articles, and there have been no complaints. What we're proposing here is to automate only the most obvious cases: Where there's a one-to-one-to-one correspondence between Glottolog, ISO/Ethnologue, and Wikipedia. The remaining ca. thousand (?) cases will be done by hand.

I've posted this request at WP:WikiProject Languages.

The code correspondences we have are for Glottolog 2.2. As with the quadrennial updates to Ethnologue, we'll want to update this when Glottolog 2.3 comes out. — kwami (talk) 02:17, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

BAGAssistanceNeeded --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 16:39, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Max Semenik (talk) 01:17, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Special:Contributions/PotatoBot. No problems found (after I had some trouble with my old Python version, which I have updated now). One minor point is that, while the bot adds a references section if necessary, it doesn't remove Unreferenced templates . Should it replace them with Refimprove or just leave them? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 08:24, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd say log for manual review. That had two refs, which was plenty for a stub like that.  — kwami (talk) 21:06, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps add the Glottolog name as well, as here? I was going to say, add it if it differs from the article name, but if we include it every time, then we don't need to worry about the names getting out of sync if we move the article later.  (The Glottolog ref template inherits the name of the article if a name is not specified.)
 * I checked all 50 articles, and the results look good. — kwami (talk) 21:11, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Is the Glottolog name always the display name of the link in WP:WikiProject Languages/Glottolog 2.2 language names, i.e. "Aari" in the line
 * aari1239 [aiw] Aari
 * ? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 18:46, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 18:46, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Exactly. That line was originally aari1239  aiw   Aari. I used AWB to convert the ISO codes and language names into links.  Many of the language names were red links at first;  I created rd's for them so that we'd support both the ISO and Glottolog names.  (Because of this, we now have better support for Glottolog names than we do for Ethnologue names, since the latter have never been thoroughly tested.)  You'll notice that when a Glottolog code has no corresponding ISO code (covered by generic "[mis]"), the name is often a red link, because there is no one-to-one correspondence with an ISO name to link it to.  — kwami (talk) 23:21, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Done.  parameters are now added as well, but only if (1) a   param is added and (2) no   is already present. Other cases will be logged, but not edited. Could someone of BAG now take us to the next step? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 15:25, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

BAGAssistanceNeeded --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 08:45, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Good work. Sorry for the delay. —  Earwig   talk 17:19, 31 May 2014 (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.