Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DismanetBot

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 Request Expired.

DismanetBot

New to bots on Wikipedia? Read these primers!

• Approval process – How this discussion works
• Overview/Policy – What bots are/What they can (or can't) do
• Dictionary – Explains bot-related jargon

• (BRFA
• Approved BRFAs
• talk
• contribs
• count
• SUL
• logs
• page moves
• block log
• rights log
• flag)

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

Time filed: 12:00, Wednesday, April 1, 2020 (UTC)

Function overview: The main purpose of this bot is to fill in missing disease codes (aka medical resources) in disease articles. This involves mainly minor changes in the medical resources box inside the external links section. Examples of these contributions can be found in here. In those articles without a medical resources box, the changes will involve adding the box and filling it with the corresponding information.

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Supervised: all edits are reviewed soon after being made

Programming language(s): Java, using the JWBF Wiki API Client (https://github.com/eldur/jwbf).

Source code available: Source code available under https://github.com/dismanet/wikibot

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): Currently it is run on manually triggered batches of diseases with missing mappings in their Wikipedia articles. Once a first wave is completed, the goal is to run the bot periodically (e.g. every month).

Estimated number of pages affected: Our estimation is to affect around 3,000 pages during the first wave.

Namespace(s): Only the "Medical Resources" box in the External Links section of disease related articles.

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No. The bot does not explictly skip these pages. We start with a list of disease related articles extracted from an initial search in Wikipedia. Those are the target articles, regardless of the template. No

Function details: For each disease related article in Wikipedia in which a new medical resource (i.e. not included in the Medical Resource box) has been found, the resource(s) are added to the box. If the article did not contain a Medical Resources box, the box is added. No changes are performed outside this box.

Discussion

Source code is already available.Eduardo P. García del Valle (talk) 17:31, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

@Nick: Hi, is there anything else I should do to have my bot approved? Or is it a matter of waiting? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eduardo P. García del Valle (talk • contribs) 15:30, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Eduardo P. García del Valle, read through WP:BOTAPPROVAL. You're missing some steps. Primefac (talk) 15:46, 17 April 2020 (UTC).

Primefac, thanks for the response. I had already read through the steps, but I was wondering if any information was missing in my request, or if it's just a matter of waiting for the first short trial to be approved.Eduardo P. García del Valle (talk) 12:22, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

You're missing probably the most important step. Primefac (talk) 14:36, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Eduardo P. García del Valle, where has this been discussed? Primefac (talk) 17:48, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

• {{OperatorAssistanceNeeded}}. @Eduardo P. García del Valle: please respond to the above or this task will be denied. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:50, 28 May 2020 (UTC).

Primefac There is a discussion open here: Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Populate medical resources in disease articles with information from curated sources --Eduardo P. García del Valle (talk) 21:57, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

In looking at the above (linked) conversation, it sounds like there might be some CONTEXT issues. Will let the discussion play out some more. Primefac (talk) 17:05, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Request Expired. The discussion has gone stale, and while not outright opposing this bot the main contributors were concerned about CONTEXT issues. Unless a new discussion surfaces to show that this would be a valuable task, I am closing this as "expired" (not declined, so there is no prejudice against re-filing should consensus emerge). Primefac (talk) 22:25, 2 August 2020 (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.