Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Qbugbot 6

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard. The result of the discussion was  Approved.

Operator: Edibobb (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 01:03, Wednesday, March 8, 2023 (UTC)

Function overview: Carabidae.org appears to have long been used as the authoritative reference for Carabidae taxa. Carabidae.org has disabled direct links used in references. Qbugbot 6 would replace references with dead Carabidae.org links with corresponding references to Catalogue of Life.

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): VB

Source code available: Yes

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life#Carabidae.org_has_left_the_building

Edit period(s): One time run, possibly in segments, with a few small additional runs to pick up missed pages.

Estimated number of pages affected: 6,800 - 7,500

Namespace(s): Mainspace/Articles

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

Function details:

1. Qbugbot 6 will process Wikipedia articles for Carabidae taxa that are also found in Catalogue of life.

2. If a page has a "{{Cite web}}" reference that includes a link to carabidae.org/carabidae/..., a dead link, it will be replaced with a reference to that taxa in Catalogue of Life. There are 6,837 articles that meet this criteria. Most are stub class articles.

3. Some articles with disambiguation titles (such as Dolichus (beetle)) may be missed, and some of those will be collected for processing.

4. Articles not found in Catalogue of Life may be for invalid taxa, or may be valid but missing from Catalogue of Life. These will be handled manually when possible.

5. 288 articles have valid reference links to carabidae.org that go to a subscription page, (http://carabidae.org/taxa/anthia-weber for example). Tentatively, these will be left alone, but it's a simple matter to replace them with a Catalogue of Life reference if that's what people prefer.

Excellent. Thanks for taking this on. I would suggest that there is no benefit in keeping any links to Carabidae.org at all, such as the one to Anthia, as the paywall prevents display of all relevant information. Just switch them all to CoL? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:33, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (100 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Primefac (talk) 10:20, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. Diffs: User_talk:Qbugbot#Qbugbot_6 No problems. There are a few cases (1 of 100 in this sample, Carenum obsoletum) where duplicate Carabidae of the World references or existing Catalog of Life references may cause a conflict with reference names. The potential conflicts are flagged to be manually checked (by me). Bob Webster (talk) 08:01, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

{{BAG assistance needed}}

• From a spot-check of edits, only possible issue is that in this edit, the text says 1899 but the new ref says 1898. Similarly here we have a disagreement between 1866 and 1867. – SD0001 (talk) 11:51, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Catalogue of Life (new) reference seems to be correct in both cases, according to Google Scholar for both, and a title page from Google Books for the second one.

Since the year in a Catalogue of Life reference is part of the title, it should probably not be changed.

Either way, it's not unusual for the authority date for species to vary or change by one year, possibly a result of an article containing the original description being released in the year before or after the official date of the journal article. Bob Webster (talk) 01:13, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Approved. – SD0001 (talk) 19:42, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard.