This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Thanks for creating Automeris louisiana, Qbugbot!
Wikipedia editor Nick Moyes just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
Ive taken out the mention of other species via their common names - hyperlinking to other taxa was a bit [o]f a sloppy error to make as far as I can see.
To reply, leave a comment on Nick Moyes's talk page.
Learn more about page curation.
Nick Moyes ( talk) 22:20, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
May beetle or junebughas mixed capitalisation? In this instance the use of 'or' does work, but I can't remember what WP:MOSCAPS says about capitalising months - but I'd imagine we shouldn't have one of each style?
Trichodesma pulchella has an incorrect taxobox, attaching it to a plant genus. William Avery ( talk) 20:35, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll fix that. Bob Webster ( talk) 20:57, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, that was done by the bot and not manually. I also made that mistake today manually. Bob Webster ( talk) 21:00, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
There seems to have been a problem with "digger-cuckoo bee" misspelt as "digger-cuckpp bee". Not sure if I caught them all, or this might recur. I have corrected:
I notice the final character sometimes gets dropped from common names, but I can find the correct value on BugGuide. I corrected as follows:
Your bot is creating Drosophila stubs using the common name vinegar fly. This term is not the consensus term. Where are you drawing the data from? Abductive ( reasoning) 04:52, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
See [1]. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 01:28, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Please explain. Xx236 ( talk) 06:58, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi, there appears to be a problem with the reference xcit1 on articles created by the BOT. The |url=
parameter has a second "url=" which breaks the cite. See
Xenodusa as an example of problem.
Keith D (
talk) 10:59, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
FYI, the stubs created by Qbugbot have been mass tagged by JCW-CleanerBot with {{ Underlinked}} (e.g. [4]). Kaldari ( talk) 18:20, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Here's an update, I'm not done, but it's a massive update that cleans up a crap ton of errors, and adds a lot of information, with new fields.
I've added and re-ordered several fields, but tried to keep the same format (tab delimited text file) and things should be self-explanatory. If you could re-code the bot to update old citations based on the new info, that would be great.
Also, I added/normalized a lot of ISSN infos, but it would be best if the bot simply omitted those from citations, since it's mostly clutter and ISSNs should really only be added when the journal is unclear (e.g. some obscure out of print Czech journal). Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 13:58, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
I notice that in the spider articles the bot creates you don't add "Category:Spiders described in YEAR", although I assume this can be automated. It would be helpful if the bot could do this. Peter coxhead ( talk) 19:03, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Mecaphesa celer seems to be the same thing as Misumenops celer. To be honest I'm surprised there haven't been more such collisions. William Avery ( talk) 18:32, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Biografer has been removing your references to new articles, writing in edit summaries "Those refs are not reliable" (e.g., [5], [6], [7], among others), in addition to removing the category Category:Articles created by Qbugbot. I don't know why they think this/are doing this, but I figured you'd want a heads up that this is happening to your articles. Umimmak ( talk) 06:21, 15 May 2018 (UTC) Addendum: I now see Biografer has commented above in this talk page so this is probably redundant.... 06:25, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
@ Biografer: This bot and its operation were discussed in detail in February and March in the Village Pump, and a consensus was reached for its current status, including the content of the articles. The use of those references you've been deleting was reached by consensus in the Tree of Life. Suggestions and constructive criticism are welcome. Wholesale deletion of the references in articles is not so helpful. Bob Webster ( talk) 01:13, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
@ Biografer:Good! Constructive help is good. The reason there were four references for two lines is so people could know that the taxon is listed in all four references, lending some credibility (or lack of it, if it is not found in some references). There are many taxa with questionable backgrounds. I also understand the argument that these are not all necessary. Either way, it is necessary in Wikipedia for information to be backed up with references, so it is a Wikipedia requirement to leave or add enough references so that all the information in the article is supported.
Regarding Nebria gregaria, it's definitely an improvement to narrow down the distribution range as you did. It might be a good idea to make it clear that the Aleutian Islands are part of Alaska, and Alaska is part of the United States, rather than three separate places. Nebria gregaria is endemic to the Aleutian Islands but is also found along the south coast of Alaska, down the panhandle toward Ketchikan. While there have been questionable occurrence records in British Columbia, it is found exclusively or almost so along the Aleutians and south Alaskan coast. It might also be worth it to mention that Nebria gregaria cannot fly, which is a little uncommon for beetles. Another improvement would be to add a photo or two. There are a some available under Creative Commons license on Bold Systems and a few other places on the internet. I think it's interesting that these beetles prefer cold, rocky areas, and are found on beaches as well as in the mountains but not in the grasslands as you might expect. Fischer von Waldheim described this species in 1820 when Russia owned Alaska. He made a lot of other discoveries there, including insects, mammals, and other animals. That must be an interesting story.
I think it will help these pages immensely to add information like this, if you have the time and inclination. That should be much more significant and rewarding than debating the number of references. Bob Webster ( talk) 04:27, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Any chance the bot could collapse the reference templates it uses? It's not such a big deal when it's one or two references, but when there's for example half a dozen refs and another half a dozen "further reading" cite templates written in one-parameter-one-line style, you get stuff like Euclea incisa, where everything above the References section, taxobox and blank lines included, takes up a mere eleven lines, whereas everything from "==References==" downwards up to and including the taxonbar takes up 97(!) lines. AddWittyNameHere ( talk) 04:51, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
First off, I love your bot! Such a great idea. I did notice that a lot of stubs were created linking to shining leaf chafer which was a redirect at the time to Anomala binotata. I've since changed the redirect to Rutelinae because another user objected to it being to a disambig page due to all the incoming links. Do you know of a quick way to fix this? Mvolz ( talk) 07:26, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi Bob, thanks for Qbugbot! It's great to have more articles about arthropods. My main critique: most Qbugbot pages have a long list of "Further reading" that often doesn't contain any mention of the article subject, or if it does, it might only be as an inclusion in an inventory list ("list of taxa X of location Y"). The reading may only pertain to other species within the parent taxon (e.g. a few journal articles on other Trechinae spp. for Bembidion scudderi). I have only come across a few cases where the further reading entries were actually helpful or "further" reading. More often than not it is actively unhelpful as it leads the reader to believe there is a plethora of information about what is usually an obscure taxon, which then leads them on a wild goose chase for non-existent information.
I looked into some of the past discussion around this bot and this issue was raised a few times by different people. You did mention it had been tweaked some for improvements, but I am seeing issues on the later-created articles too. Is there any way to systematically get the further reading removed, especially from the species pages? Perhaps all further reading added by Qbugbot that doesn't explicitly include the article name in the reference title? Thanks, Hyperik ⌜ talk⌟ 19:20, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm planning a new "round" with qBugBot, which includes making some improvements to pages created by the bot. I should be able to remove the general "further reading" items, although I am partial to Le Conte's 1861 piece. (I'm mostly joking. Maybe that could be reserved for subfamily and above.) I also think it would be good to remove Encyclopedia of Life references. I'm thinking about dumping the entire "Further reading" section for species, but would hate to do that if someone else has added to it.
Hello - I am a fan of bot generated pages, but I have come across another example of why they must be labelled as 'stubs' and then 'curated' if possible. Yesterday, I transferred most of the contents of this page to tribe Hadenoecini (in another subfamily) ... some authorities placed this in its own subfamily, but I am not sure how it ended up in the Dolichopodainae: which contains a single European/Asian genus. Roy Bateman ( talk) 07:41, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Hello. I've been poking away at fixing the (giant) list of articles flagged with the {{Underlinked}} template ( Category:All articles with too few wikilinks). I ran across Campodea barnardi, thought it was very well-linked, and removed the underlinked template. I started working my way though other Campodea articles before I realized that these articles were created by a bot, that AWB was used to assign the template, and that in spite of my good intentions I might have screwed up your cool project.
Can you tell me why you assigned the {{Underlinked}} template? What links did you think were missing? I'll undo my work if need be. I can see that there are thousands of Qbugbot articles with this template, so manually editing them is an insane proposition.
Thanks!
Jenniferz ( talk) 00:08, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
[[Category:Arthropods]]
I would like to suggest that "in the family of beetles known as x" is excessively wordy and informal, and should be changed to something like "in the beetle family x". WolfmanSF ( talk) 09:43, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
A lot of references have 'Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Sciences'. It should be 'Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science' (no s). Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 22:26, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
See [8]. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 01:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
BugGuide is a user-generated, tertiary source that is geographically biased (only North America), lacks discreet publication dates, and may be prone to other errors. As such, it is not a reliable source, and should largely not be used for taxonomic information: the information in BugGuide pages can almost always be found in more reliable sources: use them instead. --Animalparty! ( talk) 20:47, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
I've edited a bunch of pages like this for Hyperepia jugifera. In those, an authority was listed in the form "Barnes and Lindsey, 1922" and I've changed it to "Barnes & Lindsey, 1922", substituting an ampersand ("&") for the word "and". The ampersand is standard in that use. To me it mostly makes it hard to make semi-automated edits linking their names. I hope that helps in future runs of Qbugbot. Keep up the good work. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 02:57, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Qbugbot 3 is an operation of the Qbugbot to scan and upgrade pages previously made by the bot. The Qbugbot 3 Request for Approval has a detailed description.
Bob Webster ( talk) 21:48, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
This template was created with what appears to be an incorrect value for |parent=
. I could be wrong. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 03:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
I noticed the bot's fired up again. Good to see. I do have a note though: many of the new articles lack images, which is understandable, but they should have |needs-image=yes
added to the {{
WikiProject Arthropods}} or other template so that one can be found for them. I thought this was done in earlier runs, but maybe I'm misremembering. --
Nessie (
📥) 22:31, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
As a note, Wikiproject:Palaeontology guidelines are that individual fossil species in a fossil genus should be redirected to the genus article and discussed there. E.G. Palaeovespa. Qbugbot just recreated an article for Eotapinoma gracilis which had been correctly redirected to Eotapinoma beforehand.-- Kev min § 22:45, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
@ Edibobb: please take a look at
The bot replaced working redirects with redirects to red links. Thanks, -- DannyS712 ( talk) 07:18, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi, there is a reference issue on some 1118 pages that I've come across as part of some journal citation data checking. Taking Trichordestra_rugosa as one of the examples, there is a reference to ZooKeys / Lafontaine / 2015 including PMID 26692790, and also ZooKeys / Lafontaine / 2010 with the same PMID again. The PMID (and its corresponding PMC) are for the 2015 paper / doi: 10.3897/zookeys.527.6151. On that article it was your bot's August 2019 edit that introduced the issue. I assume, but haven't checked, that the other 1117 articles with this problem are also from your bot's edits as by name they appear to be butterfly/insect articles. Would you be able to go through and edit again to remove the incorrect PMID and PMC from the 2010 cite (the 2010 cite does nto appear to be in pubmed at all), or should I go ahead and bulk correct these myself? Thanks Rjwilmsi 12:50, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
This project is new, but WikiProject Diptera is a thing. I think they’d appreciate including {{ WikiProject Diptera}} on the relevant talk pages. Otherwise, keep up the good work. -- Nessie ( 📥) 14:29, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Qbugbot 4 will replace the redirect pages used in arthropod self-redirect links with new Wikipedia articles. The Qbugbot 4 Request for Approval has a detailed description.
The Qbugbot 4 task is complete, and manual review is in progress. No major problems. Bob Webster ( talk) 01:04, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Treatia and Cryptoseius have multiple described species, contrary to "There is one described species in Cryptoseius, C. khayyami". GBIF lists only one species in these genera, but GBIF is not necessarily complete. I think you had used some phrasing that didn't imply a comprehensive list of species in a genus when you were creating articles referencing ITIS or Bugguide (which are also not necessarily complete).
GBIF isn't reliable for complete lists of species in a genus. I'm a little concerned about it's reliability in general when it is the only source given for a Qbugbot taxon article. GBIF has previously included misspelled taxon names scraped from Wikipedia. GBIF aggregates data from other sources with little quality control (it has previously included misspelled taxon names scraped from Wikipedia). I don't think I've raised my concerns about GBIF with you before, but I was under the impression you wouldn't be using GBIF as the sole source for an article ( "I don't plan to add articles for all entries in GBIF.").
Taxon self redirects are awful, and I fully support turning them into articles in principle. However, I'm not sure that GBIF alone is a source of sufficient quality to support an article. Plantdrew ( talk) 03:31, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
I
GBIF is really screwing up Morinda angustifolia. Not sure how plant species in Morinda L. ended up with Morinda Emelyanov, 1972 as the parent. Plantdrew ( talk) 04:01, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Please note [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], and [14]. I'm not sure if those were placeholders in a data file that never got replaced or just a value inserted by the code in the absence of data. Either way, you should change your code to avoid that. These are just the ones I ran into while looking at Archaeognatha, so I don't know if there are similar problems in other entries. Chuck Entz ( talk) 23:15, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't notify you about this earlier Bob, but I was hoping you might have been informed by now! I guess that hasn't happened, so I'll just report it myself. Back in September or so last year, Qbugbot went around making this rather confused book reference in some leaf beetle pages (e.g. in this revision):
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)What's confused about it exactly is that the book "Host Plants of Leaf Beetle Species Occurring in the United States and Canada" seems to have been combined with an unrelated ZooKeys article ("How many genera and species of Galerucinae s. str. do we know? Updated statistics (Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae)") by accident. I would have fixed this myself, but I don't know how widespread this mistake has been made. And it may be better for the bot to fix it anyway possibly? Monster Iestyn ( talk) 04:01, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
There's an article, Nereis sandersi; Qbugbot had something to do with its creation, I think. I found it in Category:Flies and a stub category for the Tachinidae family of flies. Since this creature is not a fly, nor even an insect, but an annelid worm, I moved it to the appropriate categories. The matter that remains, though, which I'm not prepared to deal with, is that one of the two References and both of the "Further Reading" items listed are about those Tachinidae flies. Incidentally, in case you're wondering, I found this while doing a big project. There are several hundred articles created by Qbugbot about species of flies in the family Tachinidae. Most of them had been in the Category Flies; I've been moving them to the category for the family Tachinidae, and as appropriate, adding them to a category for monotypic genera (as I write this, I've gotten through the letter O in the list). Uporządnicki ( talk) 17:18, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
This user appears to behind the most common spelling mistake on Wikipedia, being "entroph". Perhaps it does mean something, but I was unable to find out what. In use it could be an abbreviation for "Entrophospora" or an error for entropy, and neither is applicable. So what should this word be? "dipluran" is a possibility. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 05:07, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
@ Edibobb Looking at this, the bot seems to have alphabetised the synonyms, but at least in this case, the authors were written in the order as in the source, neglecting the performed reordering of the synonyms. Is it possible that there are more instances of this bug? 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 ( 𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:51, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello again, any reason Qbugbot did not add {{ WikiProject Diptera}}? 1234 kb of .rar files ( is this dangerous?) 22:41, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Seems that Anasimyia is the generally accepted genus for this species and think that this article name should be changed accordingly. Skevington has it as Anasimyia. I think that in the article Lejops, grisescens is listed as a species in that genus. Sorry to say I am not up to speed on all the consequences to a name change might be or how to fix them without creating more problems. Thanks in advance for looking in to this. Styrphid Fox ( talk) 13:58, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Hey – I've noticed that on the "List of X species" articles created by Qbugbot, instead of inline references it creates greyed-out superscript letters, which it places next to entries like this:
*
Alluaudomyia abdominalis Wirth & Delfinado, 1964 c g
My concern with this is that these letters might be semantically meaningless for a user using a screenreader, who would have to wait to read to the bottom of the list to see what these letters meant. The <small/>
tags don't make text small on mobile, either; I've just finished editing
List of Cubaris species to convert these superscript letters to inline references and the html small tags to {{
small}}.
(I'm also not sure why Qbugbot wouldn't just use inline references to begin with – if the concern is having a reference section that's three foot thick with "a b c d [...] aaa aab aac", then I'm sure someone's come up with a solution somewhere.)
I'm not sure if these articles are older ones, and if so and things have changed, then please ignore me; however, if not, I felt I needed to bring it up. Thank you for all the hard work your bot has done to create articles on Wikipedia; it's valuable work to have articles to work on at all.— Ineffablebookkeeper ( talk) ({{ ping}} me!) 11:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Thanks for creating Automeris louisiana, Qbugbot!
Wikipedia editor Nick Moyes just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
Ive taken out the mention of other species via their common names - hyperlinking to other taxa was a bit [o]f a sloppy error to make as far as I can see.
To reply, leave a comment on Nick Moyes's talk page.
Learn more about page curation.
Nick Moyes ( talk) 22:20, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
May beetle or junebughas mixed capitalisation? In this instance the use of 'or' does work, but I can't remember what WP:MOSCAPS says about capitalising months - but I'd imagine we shouldn't have one of each style?
Trichodesma pulchella has an incorrect taxobox, attaching it to a plant genus. William Avery ( talk) 20:35, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll fix that. Bob Webster ( talk) 20:57, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, that was done by the bot and not manually. I also made that mistake today manually. Bob Webster ( talk) 21:00, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
There seems to have been a problem with "digger-cuckoo bee" misspelt as "digger-cuckpp bee". Not sure if I caught them all, or this might recur. I have corrected:
I notice the final character sometimes gets dropped from common names, but I can find the correct value on BugGuide. I corrected as follows:
Your bot is creating Drosophila stubs using the common name vinegar fly. This term is not the consensus term. Where are you drawing the data from? Abductive ( reasoning) 04:52, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
See [1]. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 01:28, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Please explain. Xx236 ( talk) 06:58, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi, there appears to be a problem with the reference xcit1 on articles created by the BOT. The |url=
parameter has a second "url=" which breaks the cite. See
Xenodusa as an example of problem.
Keith D (
talk) 10:59, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
FYI, the stubs created by Qbugbot have been mass tagged by JCW-CleanerBot with {{ Underlinked}} (e.g. [4]). Kaldari ( talk) 18:20, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Here's an update, I'm not done, but it's a massive update that cleans up a crap ton of errors, and adds a lot of information, with new fields.
I've added and re-ordered several fields, but tried to keep the same format (tab delimited text file) and things should be self-explanatory. If you could re-code the bot to update old citations based on the new info, that would be great.
Also, I added/normalized a lot of ISSN infos, but it would be best if the bot simply omitted those from citations, since it's mostly clutter and ISSNs should really only be added when the journal is unclear (e.g. some obscure out of print Czech journal). Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 13:58, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
I notice that in the spider articles the bot creates you don't add "Category:Spiders described in YEAR", although I assume this can be automated. It would be helpful if the bot could do this. Peter coxhead ( talk) 19:03, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Mecaphesa celer seems to be the same thing as Misumenops celer. To be honest I'm surprised there haven't been more such collisions. William Avery ( talk) 18:32, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Biografer has been removing your references to new articles, writing in edit summaries "Those refs are not reliable" (e.g., [5], [6], [7], among others), in addition to removing the category Category:Articles created by Qbugbot. I don't know why they think this/are doing this, but I figured you'd want a heads up that this is happening to your articles. Umimmak ( talk) 06:21, 15 May 2018 (UTC) Addendum: I now see Biografer has commented above in this talk page so this is probably redundant.... 06:25, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
@ Biografer: This bot and its operation were discussed in detail in February and March in the Village Pump, and a consensus was reached for its current status, including the content of the articles. The use of those references you've been deleting was reached by consensus in the Tree of Life. Suggestions and constructive criticism are welcome. Wholesale deletion of the references in articles is not so helpful. Bob Webster ( talk) 01:13, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
@ Biografer:Good! Constructive help is good. The reason there were four references for two lines is so people could know that the taxon is listed in all four references, lending some credibility (or lack of it, if it is not found in some references). There are many taxa with questionable backgrounds. I also understand the argument that these are not all necessary. Either way, it is necessary in Wikipedia for information to be backed up with references, so it is a Wikipedia requirement to leave or add enough references so that all the information in the article is supported.
Regarding Nebria gregaria, it's definitely an improvement to narrow down the distribution range as you did. It might be a good idea to make it clear that the Aleutian Islands are part of Alaska, and Alaska is part of the United States, rather than three separate places. Nebria gregaria is endemic to the Aleutian Islands but is also found along the south coast of Alaska, down the panhandle toward Ketchikan. While there have been questionable occurrence records in British Columbia, it is found exclusively or almost so along the Aleutians and south Alaskan coast. It might also be worth it to mention that Nebria gregaria cannot fly, which is a little uncommon for beetles. Another improvement would be to add a photo or two. There are a some available under Creative Commons license on Bold Systems and a few other places on the internet. I think it's interesting that these beetles prefer cold, rocky areas, and are found on beaches as well as in the mountains but not in the grasslands as you might expect. Fischer von Waldheim described this species in 1820 when Russia owned Alaska. He made a lot of other discoveries there, including insects, mammals, and other animals. That must be an interesting story.
I think it will help these pages immensely to add information like this, if you have the time and inclination. That should be much more significant and rewarding than debating the number of references. Bob Webster ( talk) 04:27, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Any chance the bot could collapse the reference templates it uses? It's not such a big deal when it's one or two references, but when there's for example half a dozen refs and another half a dozen "further reading" cite templates written in one-parameter-one-line style, you get stuff like Euclea incisa, where everything above the References section, taxobox and blank lines included, takes up a mere eleven lines, whereas everything from "==References==" downwards up to and including the taxonbar takes up 97(!) lines. AddWittyNameHere ( talk) 04:51, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
First off, I love your bot! Such a great idea. I did notice that a lot of stubs were created linking to shining leaf chafer which was a redirect at the time to Anomala binotata. I've since changed the redirect to Rutelinae because another user objected to it being to a disambig page due to all the incoming links. Do you know of a quick way to fix this? Mvolz ( talk) 07:26, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi Bob, thanks for Qbugbot! It's great to have more articles about arthropods. My main critique: most Qbugbot pages have a long list of "Further reading" that often doesn't contain any mention of the article subject, or if it does, it might only be as an inclusion in an inventory list ("list of taxa X of location Y"). The reading may only pertain to other species within the parent taxon (e.g. a few journal articles on other Trechinae spp. for Bembidion scudderi). I have only come across a few cases where the further reading entries were actually helpful or "further" reading. More often than not it is actively unhelpful as it leads the reader to believe there is a plethora of information about what is usually an obscure taxon, which then leads them on a wild goose chase for non-existent information.
I looked into some of the past discussion around this bot and this issue was raised a few times by different people. You did mention it had been tweaked some for improvements, but I am seeing issues on the later-created articles too. Is there any way to systematically get the further reading removed, especially from the species pages? Perhaps all further reading added by Qbugbot that doesn't explicitly include the article name in the reference title? Thanks, Hyperik ⌜ talk⌟ 19:20, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm planning a new "round" with qBugBot, which includes making some improvements to pages created by the bot. I should be able to remove the general "further reading" items, although I am partial to Le Conte's 1861 piece. (I'm mostly joking. Maybe that could be reserved for subfamily and above.) I also think it would be good to remove Encyclopedia of Life references. I'm thinking about dumping the entire "Further reading" section for species, but would hate to do that if someone else has added to it.
Hello - I am a fan of bot generated pages, but I have come across another example of why they must be labelled as 'stubs' and then 'curated' if possible. Yesterday, I transferred most of the contents of this page to tribe Hadenoecini (in another subfamily) ... some authorities placed this in its own subfamily, but I am not sure how it ended up in the Dolichopodainae: which contains a single European/Asian genus. Roy Bateman ( talk) 07:41, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Hello. I've been poking away at fixing the (giant) list of articles flagged with the {{Underlinked}} template ( Category:All articles with too few wikilinks). I ran across Campodea barnardi, thought it was very well-linked, and removed the underlinked template. I started working my way though other Campodea articles before I realized that these articles were created by a bot, that AWB was used to assign the template, and that in spite of my good intentions I might have screwed up your cool project.
Can you tell me why you assigned the {{Underlinked}} template? What links did you think were missing? I'll undo my work if need be. I can see that there are thousands of Qbugbot articles with this template, so manually editing them is an insane proposition.
Thanks!
Jenniferz ( talk) 00:08, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
[[Category:Arthropods]]
I would like to suggest that "in the family of beetles known as x" is excessively wordy and informal, and should be changed to something like "in the beetle family x". WolfmanSF ( talk) 09:43, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
A lot of references have 'Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Sciences'. It should be 'Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science' (no s). Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 22:26, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
See [8]. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 01:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
BugGuide is a user-generated, tertiary source that is geographically biased (only North America), lacks discreet publication dates, and may be prone to other errors. As such, it is not a reliable source, and should largely not be used for taxonomic information: the information in BugGuide pages can almost always be found in more reliable sources: use them instead. --Animalparty! ( talk) 20:47, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
I've edited a bunch of pages like this for Hyperepia jugifera. In those, an authority was listed in the form "Barnes and Lindsey, 1922" and I've changed it to "Barnes & Lindsey, 1922", substituting an ampersand ("&") for the word "and". The ampersand is standard in that use. To me it mostly makes it hard to make semi-automated edits linking their names. I hope that helps in future runs of Qbugbot. Keep up the good work. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 02:57, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Qbugbot 3 is an operation of the Qbugbot to scan and upgrade pages previously made by the bot. The Qbugbot 3 Request for Approval has a detailed description.
Bob Webster ( talk) 21:48, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
This template was created with what appears to be an incorrect value for |parent=
. I could be wrong. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 03:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
I noticed the bot's fired up again. Good to see. I do have a note though: many of the new articles lack images, which is understandable, but they should have |needs-image=yes
added to the {{
WikiProject Arthropods}} or other template so that one can be found for them. I thought this was done in earlier runs, but maybe I'm misremembering. --
Nessie (
📥) 22:31, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
As a note, Wikiproject:Palaeontology guidelines are that individual fossil species in a fossil genus should be redirected to the genus article and discussed there. E.G. Palaeovespa. Qbugbot just recreated an article for Eotapinoma gracilis which had been correctly redirected to Eotapinoma beforehand.-- Kev min § 22:45, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
@ Edibobb: please take a look at
The bot replaced working redirects with redirects to red links. Thanks, -- DannyS712 ( talk) 07:18, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi, there is a reference issue on some 1118 pages that I've come across as part of some journal citation data checking. Taking Trichordestra_rugosa as one of the examples, there is a reference to ZooKeys / Lafontaine / 2015 including PMID 26692790, and also ZooKeys / Lafontaine / 2010 with the same PMID again. The PMID (and its corresponding PMC) are for the 2015 paper / doi: 10.3897/zookeys.527.6151. On that article it was your bot's August 2019 edit that introduced the issue. I assume, but haven't checked, that the other 1117 articles with this problem are also from your bot's edits as by name they appear to be butterfly/insect articles. Would you be able to go through and edit again to remove the incorrect PMID and PMC from the 2010 cite (the 2010 cite does nto appear to be in pubmed at all), or should I go ahead and bulk correct these myself? Thanks Rjwilmsi 12:50, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
This project is new, but WikiProject Diptera is a thing. I think they’d appreciate including {{ WikiProject Diptera}} on the relevant talk pages. Otherwise, keep up the good work. -- Nessie ( 📥) 14:29, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Qbugbot 4 will replace the redirect pages used in arthropod self-redirect links with new Wikipedia articles. The Qbugbot 4 Request for Approval has a detailed description.
The Qbugbot 4 task is complete, and manual review is in progress. No major problems. Bob Webster ( talk) 01:04, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Treatia and Cryptoseius have multiple described species, contrary to "There is one described species in Cryptoseius, C. khayyami". GBIF lists only one species in these genera, but GBIF is not necessarily complete. I think you had used some phrasing that didn't imply a comprehensive list of species in a genus when you were creating articles referencing ITIS or Bugguide (which are also not necessarily complete).
GBIF isn't reliable for complete lists of species in a genus. I'm a little concerned about it's reliability in general when it is the only source given for a Qbugbot taxon article. GBIF has previously included misspelled taxon names scraped from Wikipedia. GBIF aggregates data from other sources with little quality control (it has previously included misspelled taxon names scraped from Wikipedia). I don't think I've raised my concerns about GBIF with you before, but I was under the impression you wouldn't be using GBIF as the sole source for an article ( "I don't plan to add articles for all entries in GBIF.").
Taxon self redirects are awful, and I fully support turning them into articles in principle. However, I'm not sure that GBIF alone is a source of sufficient quality to support an article. Plantdrew ( talk) 03:31, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
I
GBIF is really screwing up Morinda angustifolia. Not sure how plant species in Morinda L. ended up with Morinda Emelyanov, 1972 as the parent. Plantdrew ( talk) 04:01, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Please note [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], and [14]. I'm not sure if those were placeholders in a data file that never got replaced or just a value inserted by the code in the absence of data. Either way, you should change your code to avoid that. These are just the ones I ran into while looking at Archaeognatha, so I don't know if there are similar problems in other entries. Chuck Entz ( talk) 23:15, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't notify you about this earlier Bob, but I was hoping you might have been informed by now! I guess that hasn't happened, so I'll just report it myself. Back in September or so last year, Qbugbot went around making this rather confused book reference in some leaf beetle pages (e.g. in this revision):
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)What's confused about it exactly is that the book "Host Plants of Leaf Beetle Species Occurring in the United States and Canada" seems to have been combined with an unrelated ZooKeys article ("How many genera and species of Galerucinae s. str. do we know? Updated statistics (Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae)") by accident. I would have fixed this myself, but I don't know how widespread this mistake has been made. And it may be better for the bot to fix it anyway possibly? Monster Iestyn ( talk) 04:01, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
There's an article, Nereis sandersi; Qbugbot had something to do with its creation, I think. I found it in Category:Flies and a stub category for the Tachinidae family of flies. Since this creature is not a fly, nor even an insect, but an annelid worm, I moved it to the appropriate categories. The matter that remains, though, which I'm not prepared to deal with, is that one of the two References and both of the "Further Reading" items listed are about those Tachinidae flies. Incidentally, in case you're wondering, I found this while doing a big project. There are several hundred articles created by Qbugbot about species of flies in the family Tachinidae. Most of them had been in the Category Flies; I've been moving them to the category for the family Tachinidae, and as appropriate, adding them to a category for monotypic genera (as I write this, I've gotten through the letter O in the list). Uporządnicki ( talk) 17:18, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
This user appears to behind the most common spelling mistake on Wikipedia, being "entroph". Perhaps it does mean something, but I was unable to find out what. In use it could be an abbreviation for "Entrophospora" or an error for entropy, and neither is applicable. So what should this word be? "dipluran" is a possibility. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 05:07, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
@ Edibobb Looking at this, the bot seems to have alphabetised the synonyms, but at least in this case, the authors were written in the order as in the source, neglecting the performed reordering of the synonyms. Is it possible that there are more instances of this bug? 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 ( 𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:51, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello again, any reason Qbugbot did not add {{ WikiProject Diptera}}? 1234 kb of .rar files ( is this dangerous?) 22:41, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Seems that Anasimyia is the generally accepted genus for this species and think that this article name should be changed accordingly. Skevington has it as Anasimyia. I think that in the article Lejops, grisescens is listed as a species in that genus. Sorry to say I am not up to speed on all the consequences to a name change might be or how to fix them without creating more problems. Thanks in advance for looking in to this. Styrphid Fox ( talk) 13:58, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Hey – I've noticed that on the "List of X species" articles created by Qbugbot, instead of inline references it creates greyed-out superscript letters, which it places next to entries like this:
*
Alluaudomyia abdominalis Wirth & Delfinado, 1964 c g
My concern with this is that these letters might be semantically meaningless for a user using a screenreader, who would have to wait to read to the bottom of the list to see what these letters meant. The <small/>
tags don't make text small on mobile, either; I've just finished editing
List of Cubaris species to convert these superscript letters to inline references and the html small tags to {{
small}}.
(I'm also not sure why Qbugbot wouldn't just use inline references to begin with – if the concern is having a reference section that's three foot thick with "a b c d [...] aaa aab aac", then I'm sure someone's come up with a solution somewhere.)
I'm not sure if these articles are older ones, and if so and things have changed, then please ignore me; however, if not, I felt I needed to bring it up. Thank you for all the hard work your bot has done to create articles on Wikipedia; it's valuable work to have articles to work on at all.— Ineffablebookkeeper ( talk) ({{ ping}} me!) 11:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)