Wikidata:Bot requests/Archive/2013/09

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Species => genus

I have generated a list of ~48K links from species items to genus items:

  • All species items ate of "taxon rank: species" and have no genus, family, or "parent taxon" yet
  • All species items have a "taxon name" that consists of two words
  • All genus items are of "taxon rank: genus"
  • At least one genus label or alias is identical to the first word of the species "taxon name"
  • Format is "species_item - TAB - genus_property - TAB - genus_item"

I've been using a tiny script based on Wikidataquery to generate this. It would be possible to run this query every month or so, as well as queries for different purposes, which is why I used a more "verbose" output format to allow for a more generic "execution bot" (that actually adds the claims). I'm open for suggestions for other queries. --Magnus Manske (talk) 14:49, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Addendum: Everything that has a "taxon rank" property should be "instance of:taxon", unless it has that property already. --Magnus Manske (talk) 14:26, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
There are several cases like Macgregoria (Q1039531) (a genus of plants) and Macgregoria (Q14643448) (a genus of birds) where the same name is used for different taxa. While I support this request, it would be required to check if the species and the genus are linked in a Wikipedia taxobox to cope with this ambiguity.  — Felix Reimann (talk) 12:17, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
@Magnus Manske: Is there an list update available? --Succu (talk) 20:04, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Not unless I hear that the first one was actually used. --Magnus Manske (talk) 23:14, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Succu (⧼Talkpagelinktext) 23:19, 5 December 2013 (UTC)⧽

Mountain ranges in the Alps

(previous discussion: → Wikidata:Forum#Gebirgszüge eine Instanz von Berg?)

Mountain ranges of the Alps were tagged as instance of (P31) mountain (Q8502) (e.g. Berchtesgaden Alps (Q679384), Pennine Alps (Q1270), Bernese Alps (Q327221), Wetterstein (Q264223) etc.) by a bot. Source is French Wikipedia (Q8447). IMHO this is wrong, as these ranges are not single peaks. So all mountain ranges should be tagged as instance of (P31) mountain range (Q46831).

German Wikipedia is more precise than French Wikipedia in differentiating between mountain ranges and mountains. So could a bot please check all items connected to the articles in de:Category:Gebirgsgruppe (Alpen) (= mountain range in the Alps) and update the items?

For example de:Grigna is in de:Category:Berg in den Alpen (= mountain in the Alps) and de:Category:Gebirgsgruppe (Alpen) (= mountain range of the Alps), this should be the same for Grigne (Q1546653).

Whereas de:Ötztaler Alpen is only in de:Category:Gebirgsgruppe (Alpen) (= mountain range of the Alps), so mountain (Q8502) should be removed from Ötztal Alps (Q307518).

Thank you --тнояsтеn ⇔ 07:32, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done --Pasleim (talk) 20:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Pasleim (⧼Talkpagelinktext) 20:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)⧽

Change instance of mountain -> to instance of mountain system

"Instance of mountain" was added to many items on the faith of infoboxes. However, this is not really reliable, as the infobox can be used for various things. It would be great to change instance of (P31) -> mountain (Q8502) to instance of (P31): non-geologically related mountain range (Q1437459) when the French label starts with any one of the following words "chaînon", "chaîne", "préalpes", "monts", "montagnes", "massif", "alpes". That is not perfect but already much better. The sooner the better as fr:Infobox Montagne is currently being converted to Wikidata and that would make the transition much smoother. --Zolo (talk) 17:22, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

See also my request above on the same field of interest: #Mountain ranges in the Alps. --тнояsтеn ⇔ 17:47, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
✓ Done --Pasleim (talk) 20:46, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Pasleim (⧼Talkpagelinktext) 20:46, 9 December 2013 (UTC)⧽

Bilateral relations

Articles on bilateral relations from the English, Portuguese, French, Spanish and other Wikipedias can probably be assembled and have certain tasks performed on them, such as:

Some feedback would be enriching. Pikolas (talk) 19:18, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

There is also diplomatic relation (P530). --  Docu  at 06:21, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Good point, that should probably come first. Pikolas (talk) 15:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Unlabeled species

Unlabeled species could be labeled with their scientific name into all languages rather easily. Pikolas (talk) 21:14, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

See Wikidata:Requests for comment/Automatic labelling#wissenschaftlicher Name (P225). --Succu (talk) 21:35, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up. Pikolas (talk) 02:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Globe problems with coordinates

Following the update to the coordinates datatype (see WD:Contact the development team#Red_error_messages_for_coordinates), there are now some coordinates that are malformed, see User:Ivan_A._Krestinin/Database_errors. There are also a few at User:Byrial/Globes.

These should be fixed in one way or the other. --  Docu  at 05:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Removing duplicate statement

ProteinBoxBot created 11 same P686 statements in Q14330621. Please clean it.--GZWDer (talk) 10:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I've just blocked it. --Ricordisamoa 11:03, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Many other items are affected (see Q14860769). --Ricordisamoa 11:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Revert unpatrolled "new editor removing sitelink" edits after some time

The idea of reverting "new editor removing sitelink" edits after some time by a bot had been discussed on Wikidata:Project chat/Archive/2013/04#Vandalism again, but after one objection came up, discussion faded out. This objection is perfectly valid in general: Just removing a sitelink often is no vandalism, but only some editor not knowing how to finish the process, or not finding the correct target item, or facing another conflict there (there's already a - possibly incorrect - sitelink there, etc.), or just needing some time to finish it. (My) conclusion: It's not a good idea to revert such edits immediately and without a thorough check, as you likely to sabotage totally valid corrections of an unexperienced editor. But not reverting immediately might cause these edits to come out of sight, if they are inspected by anyone in the first place at all. And so if it is vandalism, chances are high that nobody takes action on it. I don't see, however, this kind of conflict with Ricordisamoa's proposal of handling this by a bot (nearly cited, with the correction of one word, to prevent misunderstandings):

  • Detect edits with this tag ("new editor removing sitelink", YMS)
  • Exclude edits older younger than 24 hours (to prevent instant-reverting);
  • Exclude sitelinks that have been added to another item;
  • Exclude edits of trusted users, and patrolled edits; (trusted users should produce patrolled edits, so simplified statement,YMS)
  • Mass-revert those edits.

This way, the new editor would have plenty of time to finish the process of splitting items or moving sitelinks correctly, while experienced editors would have plenty of time to prevent the bot from an inadequate revert by simply patrolling the new editor's edits, or by linking the sitelink to another item, or by linking another sitelink to the item the other sitelink was removed from. And if there's no sign that anybody investigated into this edits after a full 24 hours, they'd get reverted. --YMS (talk) 16:27, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Maybe having a dedicated bot account only for this task would be better than having a multi-purpose bot doing it. So everybody who distrusts this mechanism could easily check the reverts for validity, without having to crawl through thousands of other edits. --YMS (talk) 17:20, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
... and after the revert, bot warns user ({{Uw-link-removal1}}). Matěj Suchánek (talk) 17:55, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
With most of these edits coming from IPs, most IPs being dynamic ones, and a typical timerange for a dynamic IP to change being 24 hours, I think warning only the (probably small) fraction of registered users will be better. (Or IPs, if the waiting time is reduced very significantly. I personally don't insist on having it set to 24 hours. One hour would be enough time to don't disturb the good-willed new editor, I guess, but 24 hours would give the patrollers world-wide more time to fix things or patrol the edit.) --YMS (talk) 19:12, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
As the one who started the April discussion, I obviously still support the idea.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:58, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Looks great, thanks! --YMS (talk) 22:37, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Some more comments on Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Bot/LinkRecoveryBot would be appreciated. And maybe, some more test edits, too, to see that this logic does not revert edits which should not be reverted? --YMS (talk) 12:10, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Bot made some additional test edits. In BRFA there was a proposition to warn users whose edits were reverted. In my opinion it's a good idea, but we should choose a message for it. It can be something like Template:Warn in English Wikipedia but internationalized. --Emaus (talk) 01:22, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: YMS (⧼Talkpagelinktext) 13:41, 23 December 2013 (UTC)⧽

<Country> in the Eurovision Song Contest <year>

Could a bot find and (inter)link all the articles about the Eurovision Song Contest too each other. I have tried it by hand, but there are 37 countries in 50+ years in very likely 10+ languages to check. It is too much to check by hand. In the pt language the articles are for all the countries and all the years created. So pt:Países Baixos no Festival Eurovisão da Canção 1956 is good starting point. Carsrac (talk) 20:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Philippines Municipalities

There are 1400+ pages need to be updated, kindly help in adding the items from this list: List of Municipalities in the Philippines . Thanks. --Exec8 (talk) 20:56, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Adding "category's main topic" (Property:P301) to year and decade categories

  • Year categories: "Category:X" and "Category:X BC" where item "X" (resp. "X BC") exists and is an instance of "year" (Q577)
  • Decade categories: "Category:X0s" and "Category:X0s BC" where item "X0s" (resp. "X0s BC") exists and is an instance of "decade" (Q39911)

Thanks. -- Bjung (talk) 16:02, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Bot_requests/Archive/2013/09&oldid=750497069"