Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BotanyBot 4
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. The result of the discussion was
Approved.
[edit] BotanyBot
tasks • contribs • count • sul • logs • page moves • block user • block log • flag log • flag bot
Automatic or Manually Assisted: Supervised automatic
Programming Language(s): AWB
Function Summary: Find/Replace cleanups after Polbot.
Edit period(s) (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): Random short runs when I create lists for it to work on.
Edit rate requested: 5 edits per minute
Already has a bot flag (Y/N): Y
Function Details: Polbot has just completed autogenerating all the plant articles from the IUCN Redlist. I compiled a list of earlier contributions (not all are Polbot's) that had several problems including pink taxoboxes (supposed to be green for plant taxa), not using italics around a genus or species name in the taxobox, not using correct taxonomy (e.g. phylum = Tracheophyta instead of divisio = Magnoliophyta or Leguminosae instead of Fabaceae), not categorizing species. See diff for some of the changes I've been making manually that can be automated by my bot.
[edit] Discussion
Questions? --Rkitko (talk) 14:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Polbot articles also need grammatic corrections from "in the Xxxxaceae family" to "in the family Xxxxaceae", and a line space adding between the taxobox and article text. - MPF 20:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- For my own curiosity, could you elaborate on the grammar point (perhaps on my talk page). I'm not sure I see the problem, but I'm not very familiar with grammatical rules. I don't believe it would easy to do a find/replace with AWB to fix that, so I won't touch that for the moment. It's possible, but I'd be worried I'd be replacing with incorrect families. Also, I'm not sure what the line space after the taxobox accomplishes. It doesn't appear to make any difference. --Rkitko (talk) 03:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not really sure why, but it's standard convention to put the rank before the name ("Cassia is in the family Fabaceae"), not after ("Cassia is in the Fabaceae family" just looks plain awful). The line space after the taxobox doesn't make any difference to the page in final view, but it does help reduce the risk of editors accidentally breaking up the taxobox while adding or moving paragraphs, so is of practical benefit; it is (or at least was) recommended somewhere in the WP:TOL. - MPF 17:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- For my own curiosity, could you elaborate on the grammar point (perhaps on my talk page). I'm not sure I see the problem, but I'm not very familiar with grammatical rules. I don't believe it would easy to do a find/replace with AWB to fix that, so I won't touch that for the moment. It's possible, but I'd be worried I'd be replacing with incorrect families. Also, I'm not sure what the line space after the taxobox accomplishes. It doesn't appear to make any difference. --Rkitko (talk) 03:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- I see nothing wrong with "...in the Xxxxaceae family". Again, out of curiosity, convention where? Not sure I've seen this in our MOS as least. Well, anyway, both of these points are moot, since I won't be altering either of those. And as a general note to any potential concern regarding taxonomy changes to the taxoboxes with this bot, I will only change obvious shifts such as the examples given above. I will seek consensus before altering pages that I'm unsure of (e.g. is it Bombacaceae or Malvaceae subfamily Bombacoideae). --Rkitko (talk) 15:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- It's convention everywhere. Quadell can get PolBot to change this, though. But, yes, it should be in the family Fagaceae, of the order Fabales, not a member of the Fagaceae family--the latter is the form used when using the common names of taxa, a member of the Sunflower family. I don't always write it this way, and someone kindly copyedits. It's just how it's written. KP Botany 17:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- I see nothing wrong with "...in the Xxxxaceae family". Again, out of curiosity, convention where? Not sure I've seen this in our MOS as least. Well, anyway, both of these points are moot, since I won't be altering either of those. And as a general note to any potential concern regarding taxonomy changes to the taxoboxes with this bot, I will only change obvious shifts such as the examples given above. I will seek consensus before altering pages that I'm unsure of (e.g. is it Bombacaceae or Malvaceae subfamily Bombacoideae). --Rkitko (talk) 15:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
Approved for trial (50 edits). – for changes listed in function details. — madman bum and angel 19:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Done Bot edit for this trial are marked with "Bot trial: cleaning up after Polbot..." in the edit summary (I ran some project assessments later so you'll have to dig for the contributions in the last 150 or so). Edits were on the genera Dacrycarpus, Dacrydium, Falcatifolium, and Juniperus. 50 total. Cheers, --Rkitko (talk) 01:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Alternatively see User:BotanyBot/task4 where I've prepared the list I worked on. --Rkitko (talk) 01:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Approved. — madman bum and angel 21:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
