Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/The Anomebot2 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 neutral vote.svg Request Expired.

The Anomebot2 3
Operator:

Time filed: 14:43, Thursday January 10, 2013 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): Python

Source code available: Own custom framework

Function overview: Adding templated external links to Wikivoyage articles where (a) there is a Wikivoyage article is unambiguously about the subject of the Wikipedia article, and (b) the content of the corresponding Wikivoyage article has substantial non-trivial human-added content, as determined by a character count of the gzip-compressed contents of the Wikivoyage article, after all boilerplate templates, section headings, interwiki links etc. have first been removed.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Non-controversial, I believe, as many such links already exist, see the template Wikivoyage-inline, with well defined conventions for use

Edit period(s): continuous

Estimated number of pages affected: several thousand (see http://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Wikivoyage:Script_nominations for some background)

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): no: well-debugged framework with internal self-checks which will only make non-controversial edits to article space: could easily add this if needed for this specific function

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

Function details: First phase: a list of correspondences between Wikipedia and Wikivoyage will be generated automatically, by a combination of cross-referencing of database entries and heuristics, and also from existing human-generated interwiki links on Wikivoyage. Manual spot-checks of this process after bot-based addition of interwiki links to Wikivoyage (see http://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Wikivoyage:Script_nominations above for context) have already shown this process to be highly reliable and accurate. Second phase: interwiki tags will be added to articles using the existing well-debugged Anomebot tool.

Discussion
 MBisanz  talk 19:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

No. Wikivoyage is still in Beta. I had never heard of it. Let's get community input. A trial may be okay, but, in general, adding a large number of unknown interwiki links to Wikipedia articles, for a project in Beta, should be run by the community first. Even if it was not in beta, I'm not sure everything in Wikimedia space should be linked to Wikipedia articles. --150.135.114.58 (talk) 18:06, 12 January 2013 i(UTC)

Also, in general when adding something other than standard interwiki links, I would appreciate more than 5 hours before a trial. I saw this when it was first posted, and I thought I would get a chance to look at Wikivoyage and think about the task, when, of a sudden, trial! Just a trial, but without any community input, a beta wiki, and adding thousands of links? Community input should have been the first thing, not trial approval. --150.135.114.58 (talk) 18:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Linking to Wikimedia sister projects such as Commons, Wiktionary, WikiNews and Wikisource iis standard practice. With regard to this template, there are over 2700 such links already in place, created by other editors following discussion among the community. They are just not currently visible because the template has been deliberately blanked while Wikivoyage is in beta. This proposal is about filling out a set of links that are already well established, by adding links that have have been omitted through oversight.


 * Having said which, I will put this to one side for now, wait for the 2700 links that are already there to reappear, and open a community discussion about this then. -- The Anome (talk) 20:39, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Withdrawing your bot request is an option. --150.135.114.58 (talk) 21:37, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * No thanks. I've had time to do some checking; linking to sister projects in "External links" sections is explicity endorsed in the Manual of Style at Manual of Style/Layout, and therefore represents de-facto community consensus. See also Template messages/Sister projects. Note that I will only be linking to pages that are either flagged as "useful" on Wikvoyage, or have sufficiently substantial content to be worth improving. You can, of course, attempt to get that long-standing consensus changed. Until then, I'm afraid I will have to bow to community consensus here, as opposed to your preferences. By the way, have you considered getting an account. and making a substantial contribution to Wikipedia, before diving in and telling the rest of us what to do?  -- The Anome (talk) 20:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Snark removed. Please accept my apologies: I was not in a great mood at the time. -- The Anome (talk) 02:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Accepted. --69.225.3.72 (talk) 03:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If all that is required to be able to "tell the rest of you what to do" is that I make a substantial contribution, then I am already over-qualified. I have cleaned up thousands of bad articles on Wikipedia, articles in areas where I am often the only editor, including articles that get hundreds and more hits each day. So jump. -166.137.210.34 (talk) 05:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No fighting on BRFAs. The Anome, it is not helpful to argue ad hominem by questioning the IP's validity as a contributor. IP, chill out and don't turn this into a wiki-biecp contest. Make up, apologise, whatever. It ends here. I will not have BRFA slowly turn into the snarky bitch fest that goes on elsewhere in the 'pedia -- Chris 06:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Chill out yourself, the remark did not merit attention, the sole purpose being to call attention to the inappropriate nature of the operator's post, not to begin a battle the operator or you, hence the, "So jump." "Snarky bitch fest?" "Bicep contest?" For real? -166.137.210.16 (talk) 06:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Trials do not pre-suppose approval, they permit testing of code. If a project is in the WMF-sitematrix, it generally should be interwiki'd. However, it's my understanding that, within the next year, interwiki links will be replaced by the WikiData implementation. In such a situation, it might be more prudent to wait for that implementation before beginning the population with new WikiVoyage links. However, if it appears such links do actually drive traffic to WikiVoyage, it might be in the interests of comity to approve such linking, even if it is needed for only 6 months.  MBisanz  talk 20:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

The project is in beta. As the bot operator cannot maintain civility to discuss the issue, but instead chooses to try to demean editors raising concerns, the bot should not be even trialed until the operator shows the ability to follow bot operator guidelines for civil communication with IP editors. Attempting to get rid of my input into the discussion by saying I have not contributed is the type of ignorance of community standards that will make the bot a liability due to its operator. This bot, should the task be deemed desirable, should not be in a trial with a non-civil operator. -166.137.210.16 (talk) 05:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the "official launch" on the 15th means that Wikivoyage is out of beta now, but I'm not 100% sure about that. Legoktm (talk) 05:43, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You may be right, I don't remember the launch date, and I am too frustrated with too much about WikiVoyage. I do think the operator may have a civility issue, many interwikis have IP participants, and not being willing to interact with civility with them will be a problem. If the bot may be unnecessary soon enough, not having a trial may save everyone time. -166.137.210.16 (talk) 06:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC
 * I no longer have civility concerns. However, I have been yelled atby BAG members for criticizing their ability to monitor existing bots, and, if it is too luch work to monitor active bots, why spend time on a bot task that is first dealing with a project in developlent and second, may not be necessary due to a change? -166.137.119.44 (talk) 17:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * To MBisanz, there is no plan for Wikidata to handle inter-project links, AFAIK. It will only handle inter-language links (and Commons categories, potentially) for the time being. — This, that, and the other (talk)  01:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm ready to approve this task now once the trial is complete.  MBisanz  talk 14:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The reason I haven't done the trial yet was that I was waiting on an up-to-date post-beta dump of enwikivoyage, and a recent dump of enwiki to match it, to become available. They now are, and I should be doing the trial run in the next couple of days. Thanks. -- The Anome (talk) 13:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Just checking in if you've had a chance to get to this.  MBisanz  talk 19:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Poke.  MBisanz  talk 22:49, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


 *  MBisanz  talk 22:58, 19 March 2013 (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.