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 Denied.

Operator: Unidesigner

Automatic or Manually assisted: Automatic, Supervised.

Programming language(s): Python

Source code available: Not yet written. But basically it should just be a string replacement to add the link

Function overview: For a neuroinformatics/neuroscience project, we are building a semantic wiki with brain region/brain connectivity information. We have extensively linked many brain regions to wikipedia, but we want to have hyperlinks in wikipedia to our project, the ConnectomeWiki as well.

Edit period(s): one time run (later again)

Estimated number of pages affected: ca. 250 pages

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Y

Already has a bot flag (Y/N): N

Function details: Adding a link to appropriate Brain Region pages in wikipedia to the ConnectomeWiki's page.

Is there any reason you want to run this bot yourself instead of requesting an experienced bot operator to add the links?

No. I don't mind if an experienced bot operator could ask the links. I just found out how to find someone to do this.--Unidesigner (talk) 22:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, has there been any discussion here on Wikipedia as to whether those links are appropriate (e.g. at WT:WikiProject Neuroscience, WT:WikiProject Anatomy, or WT:WikiProject Medicine/Neurology task force)? Anomie⚔ 14:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I opened the discussion on this sites referencing to User:ConnectomeBot.--Unidesigner (talk) 08:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who is behind this proposal? I ask because it appears that Unidesigner (talk · contribs) has a total of two edits.

I'm a student of neuroinformatics at the Institute of Neuroinformatics, Zurich, Switzerland.

For my thesis, I'm working with people from EPFL Lausanne doing Diffusion Spectrum Imaging to find out about structural

connectivity in nervous systems (in-vivo). Some more information on Connectomics research.--Unidesigner (talk) 22:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I would ask for the external link to be identified, and some sample pages given where the link might be added. Johnuniq (talk) 07:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. I would send a list mapping ConnectomeWiki page links and Wikipedia pages. As an example:--Unidesigner (talk) 22:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occipital_lobe has an infobox, which would be extended by a ConnectomeWiki link to http://www.connectome.ch/wiki/OL_(Homo_sapiens)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medial_temporal_lobe mapped to http://www.connectome.ch/wiki/MeTG_(Homo_sapiens)

and so on

• This seems not to run afoul of WP:ELNO as the wiki in question likely has "a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors" and is sufficiently different from Wikipedia in that it is meant for specialist consumption. However, after going through CobraBot 1, I would advise that this discussion, which would result in mass external linking, although to a noncommercial site, be more heavily advertised before proceeding. --Cybercobra (talk) 12:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• This is a BAD idea, we are basically spamming for the wiki, before this user introduced them there where few if any links to the site. I assume by the users single focus on this topic that they are affiliated with the site. Ive checked with the bots that monitor links being added to wp and this site has only been added by this user. β^_command 12:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• This is SAD. It is true that the ConnectomeWiki is meant for specialists consumption in the first place. Nevertheless, there is information which is sufficiently different from Wikipedia (i.e. description of brain connections in a semantical form, semantic properties of brain regions, references selected by experts). I do not see why a link to Neurolex (a lexicon) or Neuronames should be added, but not to ConnectomeWiki. Maybe you can elaborate on this? --Unidesigner (talk) 14:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, if it has a substantial history of stability it probably does not run afoul of WP:ELNO. However, I can't find the substantial history. It is different from wikipedia. This is the future of wikipedia, to directly connect to wikis with specialist knowledge. But, Cybercobra is correct that more discussion should be HAD, and this is not the best venue for it.

• The user states that he/she is affiliated with the site, and the topic is extremely specialized, so there is no need for assumptions. A search for the links and of the user's edit history reveals, without bot checking, that this user is the source for the links on wikipedia. The user does not appear to be hiding any of this information or requiring us to make assumptions, so a discussion and asking direct questions might prove more useful.

• This does require greater discussion, imo. I downloaded the PLoS article that was an impetus to starting this wiki, and I meant to find time to discuss it with some of the scientists involved, but simply don't have the time. I think the best thing to do would be to put this up to discussion at the VP and ask neurology editors and medical editors to post comments, also. The bot page is not an appropriate location for the discussion, imo, because it won't generate the level of input and visibility that a large conversation at a community page will, and this can be remedied by posting a request for discussion on the VP policy or other, as there are a number of issues about this. --69.225.2.24 (talk) 21:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• At the minimum, the 3 talkpages Anomie listed should have very clear and explicit notifications about this BRFA added to them. The posts referred to previously appear to merely announce the existence of the wiki and are not bot-related. WP:ELN (or possibly the Village Pump) may also be advisable places to post notices. --Cybercobra (talk) 21:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone advertise to at least WP:VPR, WP:ELN, and the talk pages of the wikiprojects mentioned above; WP:VPR is probably the best venue to host the discussion. Once that's done, even if it's not done by Unidesigner, feel free to ((tl))-out the OperatorAssistanceNeeded template. Anomie⚔ 22:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[1] I posted a discussion, and I removed the template. I'm not sure if I should comment it out or something else. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 03:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've usually seen it done by replacing ((OperatorAssistanceNeeded)) with ((tl|OperatorAssistanceNeeded)), but it really doesn't matter that much. Anomie⚔ 03:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I posted also at the neurology and anatomy pages, as the bot operator posted notices there, and, of course, I notified everyone in this discussion. Please feel free to edit as needed, I'm a bit of a hurry. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 03:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

((BAGAssistanceNeeded)) Suggest this be closed as denied per the VP discussion, including the bot op's comment there. The ConnectToMe wiki apparently just isn't mature/established enough yet. The bot op can always try again in the future once the wiki has grown and matured. --Cybercobra (talk) 02:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be the appropriate action for now. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 02:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Denied. Agreed, the consensus in the VP discussion is clearly that mass linking to this wiki is not appropriate at this time. Anomie⚔ 05:03, 16 November 2009 (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 WT:BRFA.