Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Taxobot 3


 * 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.

Taxobot 3
Operator:

Automatic or Manually assisted: Manually supervised by users

Programming language(s): PHP

Source code available: Will be available at Google Code, which currently hosts code for existing task (WP:BRFA).

Function overview: This function will help editors who wish to replace an existing taxobox with an automatic taxobox (see below).

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Template_talk:Taxobox. Note that this task will only be performed in cases where, at the editor's discretion, an automatic taxobox is beneficial.

Edit period(s): When explicitly triggered by an editor.

Estimated number of pages affected: One page per user activation.

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Yes

Already has a bot flag (Y/N): No; approval subject to approval of Task 2.

Function details:

Template:Automatic taxobox is a template that removes the clutter from Template:Taxobox, automatically generating taxonomic information based on a series of templates that are invisible to the user, and will be generated by Taxobot if Task 2 is approved.

In some cases, it is already desirable to upgrade to an automatic taxobox. At present, this must be done by hand, which makes it easy to introduce mistakes.

If a user decides that the automatic taxobox template is appropriate for a page, the bot will present the user with a side-by-side comparison of the wikicode and output of the existing taxobox and the proposed replacement.

The bot will generate the replacement by removing redundant parameters (e.g. phylum) from the existing taxobox; re-naming other parameters (e.g. genus_authority &rarr; authority); and retaining others (e.g. image). It will also suggest improvements (e.g. by using the geological range template in the fossil_range parameter, if possible). The generated wikicode can be amended by the user, and the results previewed.

Once the editor has verified the results, the bot will replace the existing taxobox with the approved automatic taxobox.

The user will be asked to provide their username, which will be displayed in the bot's edit summary; only valid usernames will be allowed to use the tool. (This system works well at User:Citation bot and has been proposed in the other bot task request.)

I propose that during the initial testing period, only I am authorised to activate the bot. Once the bot is operating as I expect, I suggest allowing other users to use the bot, with the output being scrutinized by myself (and the BRFA team?) during the trial period. During the trial period, this task will only operate on organisms for which an automatically-generated taxonomy already exists.

Discussion

 * Note; this can now be previewed; so far I've only tested it on the page Mollusca, but it should work (with varying success) elsewhere.  Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  19:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. What is bad with this:
 * example 1. I want to edit for example Vauxia and I will want, for example, change the family of this genus. I will click at "edit this page" button http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Leptomitus&action=edit and I can not change this, because it is impossible to change it this way. I can not change the article page by clicking "edit this page" per How to edit a page, so this is non-standard method.
 * even one of two examples from Bots/Requests_for_approval/Taxobot_2, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Leptomitus&oldid=388019372 contain some errors. So even bot and the template author is not familiar enough with this, so how can be familiar with this non-standard solution thousands of wikipedians.
 * There is no need to change to  in articles. Instead of this it is easier to incorporate new features of automatic taxobox into taxobox, if needed.
 * There is solved how is is possible roboticaly change existing articles to this other method. The idea of hierarchical structure is good, but the practical implementation (using additional webpages) is bad (at least meantime). There is not solved, how could be easily possible (at least as easy as in actual solution in taxobox template, that is used for 6 years) to edit existing informations BY WIKIPEDIANS.
 * There have changed since Bots/Requests for approval/Taxobot 1 to Bots/Requests for approval/Taxobot 2 only one thing: that creating of this is activated by user and performed by a bot. Nothing other have changed since Request for Taxobot 1, that have been criticized for example for this "there is even no discussion if "{taxobox}" should be replaced with "{automatic taxobox}".
 * There must be such solution that allows Wikipedia, anyone can edit. If a user will not understand how User:Citation bot works (there are certainly thousands of wikipedians that are not familiar with this), then such user will not understand how User:Taxobot works, and he/she will be able to change nothing. --Snek01 (talk) 18:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Sounds to me like these criticisms are directed at the implementation of Template:Automatic taxobox, and are not relevant to the task requested here. This template is under development, and bot requests such as this are vital steps on the route to a mature template that is intuitive to edit.  Indeed, this bot's primary function is to make it easy for editors to interact with automatic taxoboxes.  Until the template is in a stable and suitable state and supported by bots where helpful, it is premature to discuss its use throughout Wikipedia.  Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  18:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support although I'm interested in how the needed "Template:Taxonomy"s get created? Does the user have a chance to edit these, or does the bot assume the taxobox being replaced has correct/complete data? ErikHaugen (talk) 21:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The user is required to check and validate the data extracted from the taxobox by the bot. You can try that part yourself at ~verisimilus/Bot/taxobot. Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  21:53, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've done the majority of the coding and am ready to begin a trial. Since the comments above are off topic, I'm marking this BAG assistance needed. Thanks, Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  05:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * . Okay, let's see whether this is a pracitcal implementation; as you request, just yourself please at this moment in time :) – Jarry1250 [Who? Discuss.] 17:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll get testing as soon as I'm free. Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  05:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Preliminary testing has begun. Comments welcome!  Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  01:22, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks good so far; I'd like to voice a preference, however, that the bot ONLY applies taxonomies to taxa where the taxonomy templates have already been created by an editor. This will prevent the accidental complications of erratic, outdated, or simplified automatic taxonomy creation. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 04:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Absolutely; that's all that the bot will do at this point. Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  04:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * It makes sense, whilst the bot is at it, to perform a little basic tidyup; it thus converts pages to use Template:Fossil range where possible (it has an error-cathcher built in so that if the fossil range template generates an error, it won't be converted; here's an example); uses Template:Species list where conversion is straightforward ; and adds missing authority information from the Global Names Database (example; see / API) .  Since these are all associated with automating the taxobox they seem to fall within the scope of this task; I thought it best to mention them so that they don't slip under the radar. Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  05:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * View 20 trial edits. The bot currently checks the parsed output of the taxobox template and only makes an edit if there's a 100% match in the HTML (with some permissiveness; e.g. if a link points to a different target).  This should make it impossible for the bot to cause damage.  I'll look at relaxing the match once consensus emerges as to whether the template should be rolled out more broadly. Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  01:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Impressive! Biased approve. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 03:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

BAGAssistanceNeeded

The output looks good and the edits are user-triggered, so there aren't any issues I see. The actual few comments on whether this should or should not be done at all is a little irrelevant as this is editor-triggered tool. By the same way editors could do this manually, just a lot more cumbersome. Anyway, (Mandatory disclaimer: if in the future the community finds it unnecessary to do this, then obviously the approval is suspended.)
 * 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.