Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 63

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Bot requests. 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 main page.

Archive 60

Archive 61

Archive 62

Archive 63

Archive 64

Archive 65

→

Archive 70

 Done paused
-DePiep (talk) 08:22, 3 February 2015 (UTC) Request. About: Category:Chembox templates, that lists ~150 templates (at top level). I'd like to have:

• a wikitable with the templates (wikilinked) + their number of transclusions in mainspace.

If not too difficult, I'd like to have too:

• a wikitable with the templates (wikilinked) including those 1-deep (= those in first subcategories; expected total ~220 template pages).

+ their number of transclusions in all namespaces.

The table can be written on any convenient page, also my User:DePiep/sandbox or a new page in my userspace. Can someone make that? -DePiep (talk) 15:04, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Part 1 posted at User:DePiep/chemtemplates. More to follow. TB (talk) 15:50, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Part 2 posted at User:DePiep/chemtemplates2. TB (talk) 16:06, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Y Exact. Thanks. -DePiep (talk) 22:01, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• Topbanana. A question. Category:Chembox templates has 146 template pages (now; top level only). But the first report only has 126. (see your original post: [1]). Interestingly, I think, and that original post link suggests, that the rows "0-transclusions in ns=0" have disappeared. I could list those ~20 manually, but if it is easy for you, I want to ask you to rerun both queries to include them. (I've moved data to Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals/Lists of pages/Chembox templates transclusion count including your SQLs; better use new report pages I think). -DePiep (talk) 08:22, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

It is I'm afraid a little messier than that; there are 146 templates in Category:Chembox templates; 7 of these are not transcluded at all, and a further 13 are only transcluded into namespaces other than 0. I've regenerated the first report to include both these sets for you at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals/Lists of pages/Chembox templates transclusion count.

The second report does not currently list templates in Category:Chembox templates or any direct subcategory *that are not transcluded at all*. Should it be ammended to match the first report? - TB (talk) 10:21, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, very useful. For that second report the same: when not too complicated. Drop it at any page=OK. When I use them, I'll have to keep thinking anyway, so it's not that exact. -DePiep (talk) 10:48, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Done. Report #2 now includes 21 more entries that have a transclusion count of 0. Shout if you need anything adjused or re-run. - TB (talk) 13:25, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

All fine, done. (And very useful; these are 200 templates interacting to make one old infobox :-(. ). Later on I can clean up the set having these lists, after I've made some template edits). -DePiep (talk) 21:14, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi! I would like to request User:Yobot or any other bot to tag all ant-related articles with Template:WPINSECTS. I've notified WikiProject Insects about this request and estimate that this run involves about 1800 pages excluding redirects.

• What to do:
  • Add or expand {{WikiProject Insects|class=|importance=|ants=yes|ants-importance=}} to the listed categories
  • If possible, auto assess stubs

• List of categories:
  • Category:Ant taxonomy including all subcategories
  • Category:Lists of ants‎
  • Category:Ants

I am aware that "including all subcategories" requests goes against Yobot's rules, but there should not be any "oops I forgot to exclude that category" moments here as all member pages of Category:Ant taxonomy are taxa or list of taxa (and I've spent quite some time expanding/managing these categories). If the bot owner still prefer a 100% no-oopises list, I'll expand this list with the about 30 remaining subcategories.

Thanks in advance, jonkerz ♠talk 16:03, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

n.b. as the sandbox presently stands, it will be |ants-importance= not |ants-priority= as shown above. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Good catch, I've updated the request. jonkerz ♠talk 14:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Some stats:

• • Category:Ant taxonomy including all subcategories: 2522 pages
  • Category:Lists of ants‎ no subcategories: 17 pages
  • Category:Ants no subcategories: 35 pages

Seems reasonable. I already normalised banners waiting for final bot run. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

@Magioladitis: Great! I'll ping you when the banner has been updated. On second note, is it possible to add needs-photo=yes to articles not containing any images? jonkerz ♠talk 14:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

@Magioladitis: The template has been updated and tested. jonkerz ♠talk 14:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

jonkerz please type me once again, what the text to be added is. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

@Magioladitis:

{{WikiProject Insects|class=|importance=|ants=yes|ants-importance=}}

Bot assessing stub articles is more important than needs-photo=yes, but if the bot could take care of both tasks, that would be a real timesaver. jonkerz ♠talk 23:18, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Started tagging (at last!). -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:16, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

jonkerz bot done with |ants=. I did not do the stub articles and the needs-photo=yes part... yet. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:12, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

THANK YOU, Magioladitis! For all the work you have put into this so far. jonkerz ♠talk 16:58, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Greetings,

I'm reaching out to you because this wiki is the 2nd wiki with the most files missing machine-readable information, and I'm hoping you can help.

As you may know, the official Licensing policy of the Wikimedia Foundation mandates that "Non-free content […] must be identified in a machine-readable format so that it can be easily identified by users of the site as well as re-users."

As part of the File metadata cleanup drive, I and others have been adding machine-readable markers to many templates, but that is not enough.

Many files on this wiki don't have an Information (or similar) template, which means that the description, author and source of the file can't be accessed by image tools.

Due to the high number of images to fix, it would take a long time to fix every file manually, so it's recommended to use bots. You may want to use a tracking category for the bot-fixed files, so you can check them later to improve the fields manually. In the meantime, the information will be available thanks to the bots, even if it's not perfect.

You may try different approaches to add the information template. What has worked well on other wikis is a progressive approach like this:

1. Identify groups of similarly-formatted file pages (for example from the same user or series) and run a bot to add the template around the information.
2. Otherwise, take larger groups of files, like files with a == Summary == section, and put everything from that section into the "Description" field of the information template (example)
3. Otherwise, do the same for all content on a file page that isn't a license template or a category.

This approach isn't perfect, since some information like the Author and the Source may be put into the Description field. However, it's better for it to be shown in the Description field than not be shown at all, at least until the file is checked manually.

More information is available in the how-to, and I'm also available if you need help. Over a third of all broken files have already been fixed across all wikis, and I'm hoping that we can continue this work to get rid of most of those files.

Guillaume (WMF) (talk) 18:02, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I note the bit about "must be identified in a machine-readable format" is a red herring here, as it seems fairly clear that what has to be identified is the fact of non-freeness rather than all the other metadata that might be available. That's not to say that more structured information isn't a good idea, of course.

I'd be very wary of having a bot blindly shove information into the template for the sake of having a template, though. Is garbage data really better than no data? Anomie⚔ 21:31, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I think we can have different interpretations of the Board resolution without resorting to calling the other interpretation fallacious.

The goal is not to "blindly shove information into the template"; it's to make that information accessible in some way. Right now, there are over 250,000 files on the English Wikipedia that don't make that information accessible in any way. What I'm proposing above is a progressive approach, where we add the template with decreasing specificity, but we add it nonetheless. If you consider the example I mentioned, is it better to have no information about the file at all, or to have a description that says « "April in Paris" refrain. Created by Hyacinth (talk) 03:37, 28 March 2010 using Sibelius 5. Image:"April_in_Paris"_refrain.mid" »?

The only alternative I can see is manually adding the template to those 250,000 pages which, at the current level of interest, will take years. That's years during which the information stays outside a template and never shows in PDF exports, MediaViewer, Mobile, etc. I'm open to other suggestions if you have any. Guillaume (WMF) (talk) 23:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

You say that this information is not "accessible in any way". What are you talking about? Any human can figure out the needed information in these files. Machine-readable is ideal, and I understand that these aren't machine-readable, but there's a huge difference between "not machine-readable" and "not accessible in any way". Moreover, if a machine can't figure out that {{Non-free fair use}} means that the image is non-free, that's a machine problem: anything tagged with a template in Category:Wikipedia non-free file copyright tags is machine-readable as being non-free. "Non-free content used under an EDP must be identified in a machine-readable format", and if you can make a machine capable of reading this stuff, you can tell your machine to interpret a fair-use tag as non-free. Nyttend (talk) 02:18, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

This is, I hope, a relatively simple request – all the bot has to do is mark nominations on Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/Nominations with {{Approved}} ~~~~ or {{Unapproved}}: <insert reason> ~~~~, with the following conditions:

• Net supports = number of '''Support'''s minus number of '''Oppose'''s (participants are already instructed that only those bolded words will count)
• Approve nominations with 3 net supports
• Unapprove nominations with 3 net opposes (i.e. −3 net supports)
• Unapprove nominations where the last timestamp is more than 21 days ago

That is all, as archiving is handled by Cluebot. Ideally run once every day or two, or at least once a week.

• Optionally (not required, but would be nice): for approved nominations, add the article (linked) to the bottom of the numbered list at Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/Holding area#Selected_articles. Thanks in advance for anyone who considers this request. - Evad37 [talk] 03:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello? Anyone? - Evad37 [talk] 04:15, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello Iam mogoeilor and I'm user of luri lrc and bqi and lki wiki incubators and I want to have a bot with mogoeilor name please help me to create this bot best wishesMogoeilor (talk) 01:15, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

@Mogoeilor: Before creating a bot to use on the English Wikipedia, I suggest you spend some time editing some articles manually. Wikipedia:Bot policy has lots of information about using bots on Wikipedia. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 01:27, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

so thanks Going Batty I want to have bot in luri lrc incubator please help me best wishesMogoeilor (talk) 13:32, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Since we've got syntax-fixing bot tasks (stuff linked with WP:CHECKWIKI), I wonder if one of these bots' operators would be willing to add a link-fixing task. Not everyone knows that [[Subject (disambiguator)|]] doesn't expand to [[Subject (disambiguator)|Subject]] when encased in <ref></ref> tags, so fixes like this one are sometimes necessary. I'm interested in seeing a bot expand these links. It doesn't seem like a WP:CONTEXTBOT problem, since it's obvious what was intended when we see [[Subject (disambiguator)|]] in ref tags. Nyttend (talk) 15:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

@Nyttend: Making the fix would be easy, but finding the articles that needed to be fixed would be challenging. GoingBatty (talk) 01:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Couldn't it just be added to other minor fixes, which are apparently already bot-findable? For example, BG19bot is already going around, fixing things like missing brackets. Couldn't we find these links through the same process? And even if we couldn't do that, imagine that BG19bot and similar bots fix |]] links that appear on pages that the bots are already editing; would this be workable? Nyttend (talk) 02:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

@Nyttend: Now that I've successfully downloaded a database dump, I can do this bot task. BRFA filed. GoingBatty (talk) 01:24, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Nyttend (talk) 01:57, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

@Nyttend:  Done! GoingBatty (talk) 04:27, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Very good, and thanks again. Nyttend (talk) 04:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

It would be helpful to have a bot that compiled a numerical result showing how many articles on any given Wikipedia edition lack references. While quality assessment is very difficult, such an analysis would give a rough 'verifiability index' of individual editions (and a possibility for comparisons between editions).

I assume a simple string search for <ref or reference tags in each article would suffice. If found, the article can be added to the number of referenced articles and the bot can skip to the next one. If it reaches the end of the article and no reference tag is found, the 'unreferenced' count is increased. The end result would just have to be the two resulting sums, which constitute the ratio of referenced vs. unreferenced articles.

I realize there is a certain error margin due to several factors, e.g. malformed references, but that would probably even out, as such errors would be equally distributed between editions.

There's no need for the bot to make any markup, it would just be for statistical QA.

If such a bot already exists or easily can be modified for the task, please advice. Thank you! Asav | Talk 18:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, the trick will be to get a transclusion count of the {{Reflist}} template. The current number is 3,410,088. Then, subtract it from the number of articles (currently 4,717,510). The downsides of this method are:

• Jarry1250's tool counts all transclusion, AFAIK, even the non-mainspace ones.
• All articles with {{Reflist}} might not have references.
• Articles might have malformed references.

--QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 18:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, the article might use <references /> instead. Then there are the articles with neither, but which are still fully-referenced - such as Actuary. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:22, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Actuary does have a {{Reflist}}. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 04:41, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

It shouldn't have done. It looks like it was added in error by PoeticVerse (talk · contribs) as the wrong fix for this edit, which had used <ref>...</ref> (contrary to WP:CITEVAR and WP:PAREN). Following this edit, the {{reflist}} should definitely have been removed; so I've now done that. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:50, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your responses so far, but the bot has to be edition agnostic, so so looking for '<references>', '{{Reflist}}' or '{{references}}' tags won't work; as the Norwegian edition uses '{{Referanser}}' and the French '{{références}}', for example. The bot needs to tackle localized editions as well, hence my suggestion that it count occurences of articles containing '<ref'. (This probably won't work for non-Latin alphabets, but it's better than nothing.) Malformed references and related errors are not a major problem; they'll even out in statistical terms, given the huge numbers we're talking about. Asav | Talk 20:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't read the "any Wikipedia edition" part. We can run the templatecount.py script through a global bot on each wiki. And we can just change it to the localized template each time on a new wiki. All sensibly referenced articles have the {{Reflist}} template, so I believe we'll get almost accurate numbers. In fact, most articles with inline citations will have the template. We can change it to transclusions in article namespace, so the python script should work fine. I'm fine with running the script but someone has to help me migrate it to the Labs cluster. And I'm going away on 21st. So, I would rather do it before that. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 04:41, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

And some wikis still use the deprecated {{Ref}} which can be tackled by the script. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 04:46, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I may be a bit slow here, but when you say 'All sensibly referenced articles have the {{Reflist}} template,' do you mean the localized or the translated versions (such as {{Referanser}} and {{références}}) as well? Also, quite a few articles still use the deprecated <references> tag. Would that bot work on those too, or will it have to be adjusted for national/localized editions?

Would python templatecount.py -count {{Referanser}} <references> do the job on the Norwegian edition, for example? Asav | Talk 19:17, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

May I please have the services of a bot that will run a copy of http://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/1889 every week, add columns for the article assessment class, first image, and first sentence, and post the result to Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-02-11/Traffic report where "2015-02-11" is incremented by 7 days each time? EllenCT (talk) 01:13, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Relevant discussions: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-01-28/From the editor and Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-02-04/Traffic report. --Bamyers99 (talk) 22:57, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

@West.andrew.g: how do you automate the article class for WP:5000? EllenCT (talk) 01:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

My WP:5000 code is not a lightweight process; it is written in Java with some memory management tricks to handle the massive amount of raw pageview data. However, getting article class data alone is relatively straightforward. For each article under assessment, I obtain all the categories in which the corresponding "Talk:" article resides. Then it is easy to run some regexps/matches over those categories; indicative strings like "FA-Class", "A-Class", ... "Start-Class" are well standardized. West.andrew.g (talk) 03:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

@EllenCT, Milowent, and Serendipodous: Are you still interested in this most edited articles report? I have coded a bot to generate it. Here is a sample. --Bamyers99 (talk) 04:21, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

@Bamyers99: that is fantastic! Can you please delete the weighted rank, which is just a bookkeeping meaningless dimensionless value and add another column on the far right with the article's first sentence? Either way, thank you so much! EllenCT (talk) 04:51, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

The issue for me is how to turn the info into a report. While there is a slight correlation between edits and offsite events, many edit storms occur for no real reason other than a group of editors decided to improve an article. Basically, articles get edited because they get edited. I suppose tracking the talk pages might produce something. Serendi^podous 10:02, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Really? They almost all look externally-driven to me. Which do you think a group of editors decided to focus on in advance of any triggering event? And why is it advisable to add any editorial comment? I understand why and appreciate that you do so with readership statistics, but the primary interest in the top articles by edits and editors is to see what has drawn the most attention of the editing community. Is it necessary to comment on entries or speculate on their reasons for appearing in that list? EllenCT (talk) 09:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

@Bamyers99: I asked for a regular expression matching an article's first sentence here. If you show me your code, I might be able to help suggest ways to delete the weighted rank column. EllenCT (talk) 16:11, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

@EllenCT: New report is available. I have written some first sentence extraction code. The weighted rank column has been deleted from the report (though not from the SQL).

Re: non-free images, I have coded 3 options: suppress, link only, show thumbnail.

Re: updating a page in the Wikipedia namespace, in order for the bot to update any page outside its own userpage, I would need to file an approval request. I am not going to do that until/if the report is going to be used. --Bamyers99 (talk) 19:41, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I noticed that see also sections sometimes contain multiple redirect links that point to the same page. Would it be possible to automatically remove duplicate links from see also sections, like this section here? Jarble (talk) 21:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Here's an example of a section that contains a duplicate link. Can we set up a bot to remove duplicate "see also" links automatically? Jarble (talk) 21:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I can imagine that very occasionally it would be a good idea; this would therefore be a WP:CONTEXTBOT situation, one where a human's needed. Nyttend (talk) 15:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Under what circumstances would we want two links to the same page? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:01, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Consensus at talk might hold that a duplicate link is helpful, e.g. if a link appears in the body of a long article, and then it's deemed helpful to provide at the end. See United States for an example: List of states and territories of the United States is linked at the top of the "Political divisions" section, and it also appears in the see alsos. This I think is useful: it's an important related topic, and by concentrating a small group of see-alsos at the end of this very long article, we make it convenient for the reader who might not remember where again that link was found. Also, consider Race and ethnicity in the United States Census; if the link to Race and ethnicity in the United States didn't appear in a {{further}} hatnote, its only appearances would be in a piped link and in the see alsos, so removing it in that context on WP:SEEALSO grounds would be unhelpful. This is greatly different from when a short article has an in-body link or intro link that's easily found without the see also. It's not hard to imagine other plausible scenarios in which such a link would be helpful; as such, this is a context-sensitive change that requires human attention. Nyttend (talk) 17:24, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I think the very first question we have to answer is how many pages contain duplicated see also links. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:03, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

@Nyttend, Magioladitis, and Pigsonthewing: It would only be necessary to remove links that appear twice within the same see also section. That would be a very easy task to automate. Jarble (talk) 21:46, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I think we all misunderstood you; I definitely did, and maybe I misunderstood everyone else too. I can't imagine a good reason to oppose your request. Nyttend (talk) 21:49, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Category:Redirects with possibilities? Anomie⚔ 23:39, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

We need a bot to scan redirects to sections, and to tag any where the section no longer exists (such as this one; since fixed), with a cleanup tag and/or category. This could be run on a periodic basis Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:27, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: The database report Broken section anchors is run monthly to find these. --Bamyers99 (talk) 14:48, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:52, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Could somebody extract some data for me, please?

I need the Journalisted ID values from: {{UK MP links}}, {{UK Peer links}} and {{Journalisted}}, in a CSV (or Goggle spreadsheet or similar), with the corresponding Wikidata IDs. I'll then add the values to Wikidata. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:00, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: I have created a CSV File. Also includes the redirect {{MPLinksUK}}. --Bamyers99 (talk) 21:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

@Bamyers99: That's just the job, Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:39, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

The {{unreferenced section}} tag sometimes appears in sections that already have references, including this one. Is it possible to automatically remove these outdated tags? Jarble (talk) 02:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

@Jarble: I submitted an AWB feature request several years ago to recommend that AWB automatically change {{unreferenced section}} to {{refimprove section}} when a reference exists, but the request is still open. GoingBatty (talk) 04:03, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I've been meaning for ages to ask if some kind bot would take this on. The subpage name is of the form Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2015 February 26; it needs to be added to Wikipedia:Copyright problems after seven days; i.e., the page for 19 February is added at midnight on 26 February. It's being done manually at the moment, would be good if it could be automated. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:24, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

As noted at WP:AN (same section title as this one), this category is supposed to be removed from users that haven't edited lately or that have been indef-blocked, but it's chock full of both kinds of users. Evaluating the first criterion will require a human, but a bot could do the other side. Could someone write a bot that loads each page in the category, examines the block log, and acts on it? With a user that's not indefinitely blocked (this includes temporarily blocked users and non-blocked users), the bot should do nothing, while with a user that is indefinitely blocked, the bot can simply remove the category. Administrative rights might be required in a few exceptional cases, but in most or all cases, the bot wouldn't need any unusual privileges. Nyttend (talk) 21:19, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I see that User:KingpinBot is already supposed to be doing exactly this (see KingpinBot 3) and has been editing recently, have you tried asking @Kingpin13: why it's not doing this task? Anomie⚔ 00:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

No, because I wasn't aware that it was supposed to do this. I'll ask if Kingpin doesn't respond to the ping. Nyttend (talk) 01:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

List of these users, thanks to something by Betacommand on the toolserver:

Not sure if this is useful or not, but I appreciate being shown the list. Nyttend (talk) 01:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The bot is essentially broken. Very old and ugly code. I will probably get around to recoding it sometime in the next month or so if nothing is done before then. But anyone is welcome to take over the task. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 16:05, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I have found a possible way to make filling out the annoying table much easier at WP:TAFIACCOMP. The way is to have a robot to fill out the rest of the {{Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/Accomplishments/row}} template once the oldid and the diff are added in. I won't have trouble adding the oldids and diffs but am easily bored of adding the rest of the table. If you go to WP:TAFIACCOMP and see the source, then you can see what the other template information is. Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 03:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

@Theopolisme: Do you have a bot that takes care of this stuff? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 22:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Stub sorting has been a perennial problem. All too often editors tag articles with Template:Stub, Template:Bio-stub, and other vague stub categories. This leaves categories that should be empty, like Category:Stubs, with hundreds of articles that have to be manually resorted. I propose a bot that leaves a message on the talkpage of users who add vague stub tags, informing them of how stub sorting works and linking them to the article they tagged, asking them to retag it. The disambiguation bot works this way now, so I'm sure it would work for stubs. The stub categories defined as too vague by WikiProject Stub sorting are Template:Animal-stub, Template:Japan-stub, Template:Magazine-stub, Template:Bio-stub, Template:Rpg-videogame-stub, Template:Sports-videogame-stub, Template:Stubs, and Template:Videogame-stub.  Liam987(talk) 01:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Bot-doable, of course, but I don't think it's a good idea. For example, you might not have time to use a more specific stub, or you might not understand Japanese topics well enough to use anything more precise than Japan-stub. You're definitely helping by adding the stub in the first place. Nyttend (talk) 03:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Some people, if asked to be more specific, but not knowing enough about the topic, might guess - and get it wrong. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

They will at least know enough to be able to categorise it as {{France-stub}} or similar. The main problem is people using {{stub}}.  Liam987(talk) 00:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to put anyone off from adding {{stub}} to appropriate articles, without stub-sorting them, except in the specific case where they're obviously working on a large group of very similar articles (eg British badminton champions of the 1950s) and it would be sensible for them to work out the correct stub type for {{UK-badminton-bio-stub}} or whatever, and add it as they go.

The editors who might be worth messaging by bot in relation to {{stub}} are:

1. the ones who put it in the wrong place (usually at the top)
2. those who add it to articles which already have a sorted stub template (often those two groups coincide)
3. those who don't add a stub template but put the article directly into Category:Stubs or one of its subcats, without adding the template which creates the note on screen.

Different people do different things. I stub-sort like mad, but I don't often add categories, usually just slamming in {{uncat}} (or {{catimprove}} where I've done the {{subst:L|bdate|ddate|sortkey}} thing which I always do while stub-sorting bio stubs, as it adds a couple of cats). Each to our own, as long as we're not actually doing anything which harms the encyclopedia or makes life harder for other editors. If you're going to criticise editors for adding {{stub}} rather than {{Widereceiver-1950s-stub}} or {{Chittoor-geo-stub}}, then you might as well criticise them for not adding {{DEFAULTSORT}}, not adding geocoordinates, not adding Category:Living people, not adding image or inforbox, not expanding the text to the level of an FA ... but we don't. PamD 08:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

If there is a wrong place for this template then rather than botslap people for putting a template in the wrong place, why not use a bot to simply move templates to the right place? That would seem to me a helpful sort of bot ϢereSpielChequers 06:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Could someone add Authority control templates to c. 1000-4000 biograms like bot [2] [3] in Polish wikipedia. Code here: [4] Thanks. Mały koleżka (talk) 15:29, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

@Mały koleżka: You may have more response by asking on the Polish Wikipedia equivalent of this page: pl:Wikipedia:Zadania dla botów. Good luck! GoingBatty (talk) 16:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello all, we at the Signpost are currently underway introducing technical archival architecture at the Signpost, and we're in need of talented people to develop the damn thing =). There are essentially two different things we're trying to do:

• Story-tagging: Mr. Stradivarius has written and is still working on a module that tags stories in the Signpost archives according to a manually-generated list which I've put together on top of an automatic "greatest-hits" one. So for instance, if you hit {{#invoke:Signpost|tag|wikisym}} you will get:

{{#invoke:Signpost|tag|wikisym}}

We want to extend this system to every Signpost article to date, a massive task that'll require combing through more than a decade's worth of published material by volunteers. For the moment, however, I have presented what I hope will serve as the lynchpin of this effort, a proposed research hub of sorts, at User:Resident Mario/sandbox. The next steps are outlined in the To-do. Even populating this list is going to be a challenge and so we need a userscript that'll help us maintain the hub—adding things, deleting them, changing information, etc.

• Historical linking: I've created a proof of concept in one of my other sandboxes but have not acted much further than that so far because at this point. This is a simple idea—an option to give readers links to articles as they appeared at publication time—that I think would be valuable to people going through old stories trying to get a picture of the "way things were". Introducing this into articles will require the work of a bot working together with the templates that the Signpost has used over time to integrate this feature into all of our articles.

Please help us! :) ResMar 17:11, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Why not use a bot to move all pages listed at Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation to the corresponding Draft: title? All pages should be moved except (i) redirects and (ii) pages beginning with a number (which are not drafts but talk pages of archives). SD0001 (talk) 20:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• SD0001 This has been proposed before and has been shot down as WP:BEANS inducing It is better to let editors to manually move them to the right namespace. Has a consensus to make this change been secured at the AFC project talk page? Hasteur (talk) 12:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • @Hasteur:Okay, could you tell me where it was proposed before? No attempt to discuss this on WT:AFC has been made (yet). SD0001 (talk) 15:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
    • SD0001 Your search fu is weak: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/2014_3#Proposed:_That_a_bot_be_allowed_to_move_all_Pending_AFC_submissions_to_Draft_space. The reason why it's only locked to pending submissions is so that we don't disrupt pages that are already aging in their G13 state. Hasteur (talk) 16:23, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
      • And I must say that your English "fu" is weak. I think this nature of page moves can certainly be excused for G13 purposes. Also see WP:G13 - bot edits do not matter. What I was proposing is to move all pages into the draftspace, even if they are not pending review and even if they were never submitted for review. SD0001 (talk) 12:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

A common issue with novels is to take a non-notable cheap modern edition of a classic work - say, a Penguin Classics, a Signet Classics, you get the idea. Some modern paperback - and claim irreplaceable fair use on it, when, of course, they are not only replaceable with at least a {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} image, the replacements have far more encyclopedic value.

I'd like a bot to work backwards from Category:1922 novels until, I don't know, categories will presumably stop by the 17th century or so, and after giving seven days to allow for any actually valid justifications to be stated and made into a whitelist - I wouldn't expect very many - it should nominate all images not on that whitelist for RFU. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

@Adam Cuerden: (Non-expert comment) I'd prefer to see this run as a report first. Is this going to find tens of images, hundreds, thousands? What proportion of the claimed fair use images are likely to be (a) deletable, (b) fair use with a custom rationale, (c) old enough to be public domain? -- John of Reading (talk) 07:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

If the novels were published before 1923, we can use covers of their first editions under {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} - there will be a small number of cases where a novel was written, but not published before 1923 which will be the exception. I've done three spot checks:

Category	Number of articles	Number of bad fair use images found	Number of images that shouldn't be fair use in the first place.	Uncertain (insufficient documentation)
Category:1920 novels	45	1 1a, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6a 6b, 6c, 6d, 7, 8	1, 2, 3, 4 (this one really bad: very obvious.), 5, 6, 7, 8	1 (may be a valid fair-use. Published as book much later than written; depends if this is the first book edition, really.)
Category:1870 novels	15	None	None	None
Category:1820 novels	5	None	1 (at worst, needs cropped)	None

Moral: People are idiots when it comes to copyright. Also, it may be better to list for discussion, rather than nominate for deletion. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:03, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Could someone help with this request please. It used to be processed by SporkBot, but unfortunately Plastikspork is not around lately. It is uncontroversial/maintenance related (which was steadily ongoing for about a year), and can be done quickly. Rehman 06:51, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

@Rehman: You might want to first contact Plastikspork on their talk page. I see that SporkBot was active yesterday. GoingBatty (talk) 14:54, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

My guess is that those are fully automated... I have also sent him/her an email; no reply yet... Lets wait till tomorrow same time anyway. Thanks, Rehman 15:04, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

@Rehman: Hi! Nice seeing you around! M bot can do most of it but I have a couple of questions: My note on parameters standardisation say that |caption= and |alt= is generally preferred than |image_caption= and |image_alt=. Moreover, the infobox seems to support both. I see no reason to rename |caption= to |image_caption=. Same for alt. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Magioladitis! Great to see you too :) Looking at the rename from |caption= to |image_caption= alone, there is no use. But this is part of the cleanups we did (since about a year) to comb the parameters on both {{Infobox power station}} and {{Infobox dam}}. The target parameters are the most commonly used one anyway, the rename is just to update the last few remaining articles, so that the older parameters can be removed from the infobox once and for all. Thanks, Rehman 15:29, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

@Rehman: OK! I can do it. Is there any link to relevant discussions about the renaming? Is this part of some WikiProject? -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:36, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

@Magioladitis: Great! Yes, this is part of WikiProject Energy. Discussions are at the template talkpage, with lots more in the archive. Do let me know if there is any clarifications; lets take this slow, steady, and neat. I will be offline in about 30mins, and will be back again tomorrow at about UTC 12:00. Rehman 15:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

@Rehman: I can start tomorrow to give time to other editors to check this bot request. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

That would be great. Thanks! :) Rehman 16:43, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

@Rehman: My bot is done. I replaced/removed the requested parameters. -- Magioladitis (talk) 02:34, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks for your swift assistance Magioladitis :) Can you also help with Step-2 and Step-3? Those are just usage scans, and not article modifications... Rehman 13:26, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

@Rehman: Someone has to check and fix the problems occurred so far. Approx. 250 pages with duplicated parameters created. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:25, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Fixing @Rehman: on behalf of Magioladitis GoingBatty (talk) 18:44, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

This part was fixed. Additional request was made. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Can someone help an admin out here? I closed Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_February_11#Sailors_at_the_Olympics and have been manually removing the CSD tag and adding {{cfd result|Sailors_at_the_Olympics | date = 2015 February 11}} on each talk page. I'm up to 1932 and I really don't want to finish this out. There's possibly more than 75 to go. I'd rather be closing the CSD backlog than doing this. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:45, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Ricky81682 It turns you did all by yourself afterall. :) -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't get any help there lol. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:32, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I think there are many pages (in many languages) which uses references beginning "http://comenius.susqu.edu/bi/", which changed to: http://comenius.susqu.edu/biol/... eg.: Parazoa(this one I corrected). Can somebody check and correct these URL references? Thanks,JSoos (talk) 20:31, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

@JSoos:  Not done I only found 10 articles using this URL, which isn't enough for a bot.

• You fixed the link in Parazoa, and I manually fixed Oomycete, Hacrobia, Chrysolaminarin, and Progymnosperm.
• The links on Chlorarachniophyte, Cercozoa, Bennettitales, Acanthometridae and Temnodontosaurus are broken, but changing "/bi/" to "/biol/" don't fix them. Therefore, I tagged each of them with {{dead link}}. I hope you can figure out the correct URLs and fix them manually. GoingBatty (talk) 23:58, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I could not check how many occurances, or where they are! JSoos (talk) 08:32, 2 March 2015 (UTC) I found the correct links and removed {{dead link}} except for Chlorarachniophyte, where I added a possible source of the original reference info. JSoos (talk) 09:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi all. Could someone help create a table like this, please (second table)?. Basically, the table should list all articles which uses parameters currently not documented in Template:Infobox power station/doc. The bot owner that handled it previously is no longer active, unfortunately :( Rehman 10:43, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Anyone? Rehman 13:16, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Done. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I use the visual editor for most of my edits, and I've noticed a class of reference errors that weren't easily visible in the wikitext editor. Here's an example: <ref ="dictionary">Christensen, Lawrence O, (1999) Dictionary of Missouri Biography ISBN 0-8262-1222-0.</ref>; I fixed it, but it's a nuisance because you have to switch to the wikitext editor to do so -- to VE it's not a reference, it's just text, so it can't be easily converted to a proper reference. Another similar problem is when there's no closing or opening quote on the name of the reference -- e.g. <ref name = "dictionary>. Is there a bot that already fixes these? Or is this something that an automated tool such as AWB could do? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:15, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: AWB will add the extra quotation marks to <ref name = "dictionary>. It doesn't currently add "name" to <ref ="dictionary">, so I opened an AWB feature request for that. I'm not aware of any bots that currently fix either of these. GoingBatty (talk) 21:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I figured it might be AWB. Thanks for putting in the request. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: It seems that reference tags missing a quotation mark still work fine, such as French Republican Calendar#Famous dates in the Republican Calendar and other cultural references reference #24. It would be hard to get a bot approved where the primary goal is to add a missing quote that doesn't change how the page is presented to the user, but at least these errors are getting fixed when AWB bots are visiting for other reasons. GoingBatty (talk) 22:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I just looked at it in VE, and it displays correctly, so it appears that is now fixed in VE. The missing "name" is still a problem currently, though; if you look at this (you may need to enable VE -- not sure) you'll see the malformed reference at the end of the "Businessman" paragraph. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: You're right - that example looks malformed in VE edit mode, but not when reading the article. GoingBatty (talk) 22:58, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

GoingBatty cn you make a database scan and tell me how many pages are with this problem? -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

@Magioladitis: Using a regex search of the March 4 database dump, I found 344 instances of \<ref\s*= in mainspace (excluding comments). GoingBatty (talk) 23:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

GoingBatty did you fix these 344 instances? Do you want me do it? Maybe Rjwilmsi could add something in AWB. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

@Magioladitis: No I didn't - I was hoping one of the AWB developers would respond to my feature request for this. Would this be a reasonable thing to add to CHECKWIKI? GoingBatty (talk) 02:31, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

GoingBatty rev 10869 -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

 Doing... -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:46, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Please see this discussion.

Some citation titles were filled in as "Log In - The New York Times" by Reflinks users because of a technical glitch. I believe that there are about 70 articles, some with more than one citation.

Can a bot or AWB user please do a search for "title=Log In - The New York Times" in article space and simply blank the |title= parameter? An empty title will generate a red error message in the citation so that helpful gnomes know to look up the article's actual title and fill in the missing information.

Extra credit task: If you are able to generate a list of articles that have had their incorrect titles blanked, I will be happy to fill in the citation titles by hand. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

 Doing... GoingBatty (talk) 03:19, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: Only found 10 from the Feb 5 database dump, and have already fixed the first 4.

• Albania
• The Wachowskis
• Bernard Malamud
• Transportation in New York City
• Shane Bitney Crone
• Cat Sense
• Mark Worth
• Kyle Funkhouser
• Todd Whitaker
• Tuhao

Want to work from the bottom and we'll meet in the middle? GoingBatty (talk) 03:33, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done with list above, but this search gives 57 more. GoingBatty (talk) 03:47, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done removing the bad title from these articles, so they should now appear with the error to flag people to add the real titles. GoingBatty (talk) 04:51, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll work on filling in the missing titles. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:02, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I have added titles to all of the articles listed, unless I missed one or two. Thanks, GoingBatty. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:00, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

For next time, I have a bot task that should be able to add missing NYT citation titles. Rjwilmsi

Per the discussion at Template talk:Asbox#Prevent categorization in user sandboxes?, would someone be willing to run a null edit bot over the user pages in the stubs categories listed on Wikipedia:Database reports/Polluted categories? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 20:34, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Have you asked Joe Decker (talk · contribs)? --Redrose64 (talk) 20:41, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Yes, I asked Legoktm (talk · contribs) and Joe Decker (talk · contribs) in this edit and didn't receive any response. GoingBatty (talk) 21:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

GoingBatty done. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:21, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi there! The |format= parameter at Template:Infobox television was deprecated a while ago, but as editor Mdrnpndr pointed out, according to Category:Articles passing format parameter to Infobox television there are still 13.6k articles using |format=. Per his suggestion in this discussion on WikiProject Television's talk page, I am requesting a bot to remove the parameter and its contents from these articles, please. If there's anything I can do to help, please ping me. Thank you, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Coding... GoingBatty (talk) 00:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I read "this discussion", but I don't understand what the problem is. When the parameter no longer does anything, why does it matter if we include it, and why does a bot need to remove it where it's currently present? Nyttend (talk) 01:29, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: BRFA filed before I saw Nyttend's comment. GoingBatty (talk) 01:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Nyttend: I'm not sure if I understand your confusion, oddly enough. |format= represents data in the system that is not useful. It exists in 13,000+ television articles, but is no longer supported, and was deemed unnecessary after a lengthy discussion (which was actually the last of of several similar discussions I'd opened over several months/years). People keep adding the parameter, presumably because they are copy/pasting from out-of-date infoboxes with which they are familiar. The useless data is taking up space, and if I were slick enough and fast enough with regex and AWB, I'd remove it myself over a looooong span of time and without contest. May I ask what exactly is your objection to the removal of this data that it should be countered with something more verbose than "the parameter has been deprecated"? That is to say that the discussions have already taken place, the parameter was deprecated a few months ago, I don't see a clear reason to oppose the automated removal unless you wish to challenge the change. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:46, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I have no opinion on whether the parameter should have been deprecated. I just don't see the benefit of running a bot task to remove something that's seemingly just adding a maintenance category; the bot policy requires bots to be useful, and this seems to be useless. Imagine that you edit the template so that the parameter doesn't add Category:Articles passing format parameter to Infobox television. What effect will it have? Imagine that you then go and add a nonexistent parameter (example) — it doesn't hurt the page at all. Why is this different? I mean, if you want to go and do it manually, to have the bot do it when making other fixes, etc., I wouldn't object. But how is this different from, for example, changing {{Infobox Television}} to {{infobox television}}, or {{infobox_television}} to {{infobox television}}? It doesn't appear to have any influence whatsoever on the finished page, and it's going to add extraneous revisions to lots of page histories. [Not threatening you; I think the situation was absurd] Remember that people objected to Rich Farmbrough for making changes for the sake of appearance, such as the suggestions I just give, that didn't have any practical effect. Nyttend (talk) 03:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Could the removal of this parameter be added to AWB's general fixes? That might result in a gradual fix for these parameters that are no longer displayed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:17, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

99% certain that it can. WP:VG have got a couple of similar template fixes in the AWB general fixes list. - X201 (talk) 12:48, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: You could make a feature request if you like. GoingBatty (talk) 04:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

No complaints with this idea. Nyttend (talk) 12:41, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I see your point, Nyttend, and it is a good one. Thank you for your explanation. I'll keep that in mind for the next time as I believe the bot is already running. This was my first bot request. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

It looks like Yobot (talk · contribs) is already on the case, see this edit. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:35, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Yobot did a small part of it. I 'll leave BattyBot to complete the task. I think cleaning these categories is useful so that we can track new additions in the future and understand why they are done. Moreover, keeping infoboxes clean helps us spot many sorts of vandalism. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

And I think this is the reason AWB is better than other tools to perform this task. At last, we can do at the same time some other minor fixes and changes that would not be worth to do them as sole edits. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:18, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

To build on Magioladitis (talk · contribs), it would be a good idea if all wikiprojects started building their own list of small fixes that need doing, but can't be done due to falling foul of the "small/inconsequential edits" rule. If you have this list of pre-approved (by project consensus) jobs, when a big job like this comes along, the small fixes list can easily be tacked on to it and executed at the same time. - X201 (talk) 09:35, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

X201 I agree on that. We could make a list of "small fixes" and perform them all at once instead of doing all these small requests one per one. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:36, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

{{ForaDeJogo}} and {{ForaDeJogo manager}} should replace ForaDeJogo.net links (in association football articles). SLBedit (talk) 17:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

@SLBedit: Like this edit? Would you want the template used in references, such as Teófilo Cubillas? If so, how? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 21:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Only in external links. Thank you. SLBedit (talk) 21:38, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

@SLBedit: BRFA filed GoingBatty (talk) 00:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

@SLBedit: Doing... - see these 250 edits. GoingBatty (talk) 03:29, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

All good. SLBedit (talk) 00:15, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

@SLBedit: Still doing... GoingBatty (talk) 00:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

@SLBedit: Y Done! GoingBatty (talk) 16:10, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, bot operators. I'd like to request a bot to substitute all transclusions of {{Infobox Ireland disused station}}, per the TfD outcome. All that needs to be done is to replace {{Infobox Ireland disused station with {{subst:Infobox Ireland disused station. In addition, would it be possible for the bot to relocate any {{coord}}s to the infobox's coordinate parameters? Thanks! Alakzi (talk) 20:31, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

• I support this proposal. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:06, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

@Alakzi and Pigsonthewing: The result is this and then I had to do this. Anything else I should be aware of? -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:25, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

That wasn't supposed to happen; I've fixed it. Alakzi (talk) 00:28, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

 Doing... -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:13, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

{{Infobox standard}} is now a wrapper for {{Infobox song}}, per this discussion. Each of the ~800 instances of the former needs to be Subst:. please. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits _Infobox_song" class="ext-discussiontools-init-timestamplink">13:10, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

@Magioladitis: Could we use WP:AWB/TR for tasks like this? GoingBatty (talk) 02:26, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

It won't work. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

 Doing... -- Magioladitis (talk) _Infobox_song" class="ext-discussiontools-init-timestamplink">21:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done Magioladitis (talk) _Infobox_song" class="ext-discussiontools-init-timestamplink">00:26, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

and fixed Frietjes (talk) 21:29, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

 Request withdrawn

With the deployment of Module:TeamBracket-Compact-Tennis, cells are now styled with cell padding instead of with a leading whitespace. To match the indentation in doubles tournaments, <br/>&nbsp; is used to indent the second player in each team. This is no longer necessary.

Requesting change (in AWB format):

• Source: What transcludes Template:16TeamBracket-Compact-Tennis3
• Find and replace – Advanced settings:
  • Type: Inside templates
  • Find:
    • Find: <br */?> *&nbsp; *
    • Replace with: <br/>
    • Find options: Regular expression, case insensitive
  • If:
    • Contains: 16TeamBracket-Compact-Tennis3
    • Not contains: 16TeamBracket-Compact-Tennis3-

--SocietyBox (talk) 03:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

@SocietyBox: You seem to have a good handle on what's necessary for this bot to be successful. Have you considered making a bot account (User:SocietyBot is available, for example) and submitting your own request for bot approval? GoingBatty (talk) 04:21, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Will give it a try. BRFA filed --SocietyBox (talk) 08:04, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

We've got a problem over in Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting - by far the largest stub category is Cat:Main Belt asteroid stubs, with 14,000 articles. The thing is, a couple of thousand of them aren't articles - they're redirects, which shouldn't have stub templates (the result of a huge merging campaign on asteroid articles). Is it possible to get a bot to remove the stub templates from all the redirects in this category? Note there are a lot of genuine articles in there too, which would still require stub templates. TIA, Grutness...wha? 00:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

@Grutness: I created a AWB feature request for this. GoingBatty (talk) 01:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Cheers. Grutness...wha? 03:21, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

@Grutness: BRFA filed GoingBatty (talk) 19:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

@Grutness: Doing... GoingBatty (talk) 20:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Stub_sorting#.7B.7BCl.7CMain_Belt_asteroid_stubs.7D.7D. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

@Grutness: Y Done - there were less than 500 redirects with stub templates. Please let me know if I've skipped any. GoingBatty (talk) 00:03, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! Far fewer than I thought looking through the first few pages of the category! Grutness...wha? 10:56, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

A bot that ran through the Signpost archives in 2010 broke a lot of articles circa 2006 by removing (?) closing small tags. These need to be reinserted. For instance: [5], [6], [7]. @FinalRapture: though he appears to be vanished. ResMar 16:29, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I looked through the history again and this appears to not be the full narrative. I'm not sure why but it appears that this particular author consistently opened and did not close small tags in their publications...? Regardless the task remains the same. The issue was fixed in this issue: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-09-05/In the news. ResMar 16:30, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

The complete list of publications affected is:

• 2006-01-23, In the news: Wikipedia in the news
• 2006-01-30, In the news: Wikipedia in the news
• 2006-02-06, In the news: Wikipedia in the news
• 2006-02-13, In the news: Wikipedia in the news
• 2006-02-20, In the news: Wikipedia in the news
• 2006-02-27, In the news: Wikipedia in the news
• 2006-03-06, In the news: Wikipedia in the news
• 2006-03-13, In the news: Wikipedia in the news
• 2006-03-20, In the news: Wikipedia in the news
• 2006-03-27, In the news: Wikipedia in the news
• 2006-04-03, In the news: Wikipedia in the news
• 2006-04-10, In the news: Wikipedia in the news
• 2006-04-17, In the news: Wikipedia in the news
• 2006-04-24, In the news: Wikipedia in the news
• 2006-05-01, In the news: Wikipedia in the news
• 2006-05-08, In the news: Wikipedia in the news
• 2006-05-15, In the news: Wikipedia in the news
• 2006-05-22, In the news: Wikipedia in the news
• 2006-05-29, In the news: Wikipedia in the news
• 2006-06-05, In the news: Wikipedia in the news
• 2006-06-12, In the news: Wikipedia in the news
• 2006-06-19, In the news: Wikipedia in the news
• 2006-06-26, In the news: Wikipedia in the news
• 2006-07-03, In the news: Wikipedia in the news
• 2006-07-10, In the news: Wikipedia in the news
• 2006-07-17, In the news: Wikipedia in the news
• 2006-07-24, In the news: Wikipedia in the news
• 2006-07-31, In the news: Wikipedia in the news
• 2006-07-31, Interwiki report: Report from the Polish Wikipedia
• 2006-08-07, In the news: Wikipedia in the news
• 2006-08-07, Interwiki report: Report from the French Wikipedia
• 2006-08-14, In the news: Wikipedia in the news
• 2006-08-21, In the news: Wikipedia in the news
• 2006-08-28, In the news: Wikipedia in the news
• 2006-09-05, In the news: Wikipedia in the news

Thanks, ResMar 16:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done with old-fashioned editing. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

You've more patience than I, friend. Thank you very much. ResMar 21:06, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

 Not done

Https ought to be encouraged and as such where an URL is available in https rather than http and the content is the same the https version should be used. I therefore propose a bot which goes through http links, checks if they exist in https, checks the content if they do and if the content is identical replaces the link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dizzi90 (talk • contribs) 12:36, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Not all users are able to use a https: connection, and if a site offers the same content via both http: and https: we should use WP:PRURLs and not express a preference for either form. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose the https and http cites are not always the same. I know that is stupid, but it is the case. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 14:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

 Not done Per reasons expressed above this task can't be done. -- Magioladitis (talk)

It would be helpful for dealing with some of the over 10,000 broken redirect section titles if we could had a bot that quickly found very similar section titles for redirects, having found List_of_Tom_and_Jerry_characters#Tom_.26_Jerry_Kids to not work, it would check section headings and find List_of_Tom_and_Jerry_characters#Tom_and_Jerry_Kids works, so replace/recommend replacing it with that (depending on if it is automatic or semi-automatic). Ideally it would also do captialisation

It would also be helpful if when presented with Direct sum of abelian groups which redirected to the broken Direct sum#abgrps it noticed Direct sum#Direct sum of abelian groups and suggested this (ie noticed the title of the page it's redirecting from as a section header).

Ideally I'd like this bot to run on the two pages of Wikipedia:Database_reports/Broken_section_anchors directly. Banak (talk) 05:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

@Banak and Ladsgroup: Dexbot operated by Ladsgroup was fixing some of them, but its last fix was on December 20, 2014. --Bamyers99 (talk) 14:20, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

If you want I can re-run it :) currently I'm planning on rewriting it for better performance :)Ladsgroup^overleg 23:26, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

If it's easy to restart the bot, it would help a lot. Banak (talk) 00:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Sure. :)Ladsgroup^overleg 00:28, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Is this really resolved? Special:Contributions/Dexbot shows zero contributions since 19 March 2015, before his discussion started. Banak (talk) 14:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Banak please contact Ladsgroup directly so that we have this case cleared out. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 09:13, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

It is resolved, Ladsgroup has run/is running Dexbot. Banak (talk) 22:06, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Per discussion at WT:SHIPS#On hull/pennant numbers I'd like to request that a bot create redirects from IMO Numbers to ship articles. The redirects would be in the form of IMO 12345767890, where 1234567890 represents the actual number. The IMO numbers are listed in the infoboxes of ship articles where the ship is listed in Category:IMO Number. Once created, a monthly or bi-monthly run to update would be required. Mjroots (talk) 20:34, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Considering how {{IMO Number}} works, it would be easier for the bot to look at the category sortkey (i.e. this query). This might cause unexpected results if an article has multiple instances of that template, though (specifically, it would use the number from the last instance of the template) or if an article doesn't use the template correctly (it'd probably get skipped); would that be ok?

Also, is there an appropriate "R from" template to place on the redirects? If not, I'd recommend creating Template:R from IMO number for that purpose. Anomie⚔ 20:58, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

An article should not have more than one {{IMO Number}}. The IMO Number is something that does not change, even if a ship's name changes several times. Should there be a case of duplicate instances, then skipping is fine. Maybe the bot could report these for manual fixing. Mjroots (talk) 17:44, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

If I do the bot (I've got code started already), it won't even know about duplicate instances. Anomie⚔ 19:31, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, we'll just have to sort those out manually. Mjroots (talk) 20:03, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

BRFA filed Anomie⚔ 01:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Bot approved. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:16, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Please remove {{Iw-ref}} from all articles and replace with {{Translated page}} on the article's talk page. Consensus here: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 March 22#Iw-ref. Thank you, Oiyarbepsy (talk) 14:37, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Quite a simple request. Need a bot to go through the template populated category of Category:Maintained articles and remove all uses of {{Maintained}}. I have been using this edit summary so far, but with 4,000-ish transclusions a bot would be quicker. Removing {{Maintained}} from header per Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 March 16#Template:Maintained. Thanks! EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 00:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

 Done by SporkBot (talk · contribs) Thanks! EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 14:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

On a daily basis, I come across {{Citation needed}} templates placed incorrectly. When put at the end of a sentence, the template should be located after the period, not before. For example: "X is Y.{{Citation needed}}" is correct; "X is Y{{Citation needed}}." is wrong. Would it be possible to have a bot move the template (as well as other similar inline templates) to the correct position? Many thanks. --Albany NY (talk) 16:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I could swear that I already saw bots doing that ... Krano (talk) 16:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Yobot, BG19bot and other fix this error daily. In fact, is part of WP:CHECKWIKI and in particular it is part error #61. We provide list of pages with references and citation templates before punctuation. The fix is also part of WP:AWB's general fixes. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I did wonder whether it was already being done. Any idea why the error remains so widespread with so many bots working on it? --Albany NY (talk) 16:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Albany NY No idea. We get more than 500 pages per day with misplaced punctuation. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:23, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

When working on some other page, I found that there was more than one Hungarian Politician named Imre Horváth. I created a new article for the other one (Imre Horváth (Hungarian politician, born 1944) Currently the name links to one of them, and has a number of backlinks (which I assume are to the correct person, as he seems more famous). My request is to help change the links that link to Imre Horváth to link to Imre Horváth (Hungarian politician, 1901-1958) (also, did I get the naming correct?), so a disambiguation page can be added for the name. WP:FIXDABLINKS recommends changing links before creating a disambiguation page, and seing as it suggest using a bot to accomplish this I though it would be relevant to ask here. Øln (talk) 00:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

EDIT: Please ignore this request, as it turns out most of the links are from the same template, so fixing it manually won't be as much work after all.Øln (talk) 00:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I messed up with User_talk:Legobot#GA_bot.2FStats. Can anyone help? -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Denied Legobot with the bots tag as a temporary fix. Banak (talk) 16:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I feel bad because it was my intervention that resulted to that. Still, we have to find a solution that the bot will work independently of any edits made by others in the page. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:54, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Problem fixed. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:12, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

The "Edit" links on many "List of minor planets" articles no longer work, due to some mass page moves a few years ago. To fix this, and to keep things tidy, these articles should be edited to bypass the redirects that say "asteroids" instead of "minor planets". Specifically, every occurrence of "List of asteroids/" should be replaced with "List of minor planets/" on every page beginning with "List of minor planets: ". See List of minor planets: 16001–17000 for an example of a page that needs to be fixed, and see my manual edits here and here for examples of the change that needs to be made. Thank you. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:31, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

On a related matter, five months ago Yobot (talk · contribs) added a {{DEFAULTSORT:}} to a lot of these subpages, but placed them outside the existing <noinclude>...</noinclude>, with the result that the pages transcluding them end up in Category:Pages with DEFAULTSORT conflicts - because e.g. List of minor planets: 110001–111000 transcludes ten subpages, each with a different {{DEFAULTSORT:}}. I've fixed a few, like this. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:58, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I have SporkBot working on it. I am going to use <onlyinclude>...</onlyinclude> instead of the dual <noinclude>...</noinclude> since that one is easier for Yobot to understand. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:51, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks guys. Nobody have ever reported this bug on the past AFAIK. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:53, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Plastikspork is this task done now? -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:34, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Probably, but you can double check if you want. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:09, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Instances of {{Infobox German location}} which use German parameter names should have them replaced with English parameter names (both sets of names are listed in the template's documentation). Can someone oblige, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I can do it. Easy. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing I need you to complete Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Rename_template_parameters#Infobox_German_location. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:42, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

@Magioladitis: Thank you. Now done. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing Bot started. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing Bot done. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:34, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

It would be useful to have a bot update the lists at WikiProject Fix common mistakes. This would need to be done every month when a new database dump is produced. The bot would;

1. Scan the database for each of the 'common mistakes' and produce a numbered list of articles with those errors potentially present.
2. Replace the relevant pages with the new list. i.e new "an an" list replaces the content at Wikipedia:WikiProject Fix common mistakes/an an
3. Update the table on the main page;
   1. Add the date of the latest dump
   2. Replace the content in the 'Done By' column with {{Not done}}

The above would save a lot of hassle for human editors and ensure that the list were always up to date. A possible addition could be to check the 'list pages' Wikipedia:WikiProject Fix common mistakes/a a etc. once a week and remove any pages from the list that no longer contain the error (this would clean up after editors that forgot to and would mean later editors wouldn't be checking pages that had no mistakes) Jamesmcmahon0 (talk) 10:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Jamesmcmahon0, Bgwhite already started updating the lists. In fact, he started... yesterday! The lists will be available soon. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:19, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

For example, Wikipedia:WikiProject Fix common mistakes/an an is now updated. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:23, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

@Magioladitis: - Yeah I saw that Bgwhite had started, I've been doing a few too. My thoughts were that the job is very tedious to do as a user, I think this is a big contributor to the fact that they have been so infrequently updated over the past few months. Personally I've been using the AWB database scanner to come up with a list, this means that to come up with all the lists I would have to run each typo pattern as a separate search which both takes a lot of time and is computationally very wasteful. My thinking is that a Bot could do one run through the database file and produce a separate list for each typo pattern from the single scan.

What are your thoughts Bgwhite? Obviously if you're happy to take this on as a monthly (or so) task then fair enough! Jamesmcmahon0 (talk) 18:18, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Jamesmcmahon0 I agree with you, a bot would be best. I also come up with the lists in the same manner (AWB database scanner) and it is tedious. Bgwhite (talk) 23:31, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Bgwhite is it possible that BG19bot generates the lists the same way is done for CHECKWIKI? -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:33, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I would like a bot to add Template:WikiProject New Zealand to the talk page of all articles and lists that are in Category:New Zealand and descendants. I'm not 100% sure that none of the descendants link to Category:Humans or something insane, so some kind of check may be needed. Leakage to other parts of the Realm of New Zealand is expected due to the ambiguity of 'New Zealand' and not a problem. I'm happy to do manual checking if necessary. I expect these additions to be non-controversial, but I'll post a message to the Wikipedia:New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board pointing to this discussion. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:New_Zealand_Wikipedians'_notice_board#Automatically_adding. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

That's an excellent initiative. I'd like to suggest that we go a tad further than that and also tag the active sub-projects / task forces: politics (Category:Politics of New Zealand), Māori (Category:Māori and Category:Moriori), and music (Category:New Zealand music). The relevant tags to add would be |politics=yes, |maori=yes, and |music=yes. Lastly, I'd like to suggest that the class and relevant importance parameters be included as empty fields. By way of example, if an article were to be part of all three sub-projects, the complete code to add would be as follows: {{WPNZ|class=|importance=|politics=yes|politics-importance=|maori=yes|maori-importance=|music=yes|music-importance=}} Schwede66 10:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

The list of categories needs to be explicit, there cannot be any "and subcategories" shorthand, because there is the danger of tagging too many pages. The last time that this matter came up on this page was Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 61#Tagging articles for a WikiProject. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:13, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Can the list of categories be based on their membership of the wikiproject like this ? Stuartyeates (talk) 22:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

@Schwede66:: I've created a list at Wikipedia:WikiProject New Zealand/Category List from this. The only obvious issues are those containing 'Australasia' I'm very tempted to just remove all of those immediately prior to the bot running. If anyone adds/removes non-trivial numbers of cats let me know and I'll rebuild. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:15, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Category:1950 British Empire Games, Category:1974 British Commonwealth Games, and Category:1990 Commonwealth Games shouldn't be included in the bot run. Plus remove the yyyy in Tokelau categories, and the various Heineken Opens. Schwede66 11:09, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Tokelau suggests that it's part of New Zealand. All the others I agree with. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

A bit of playing around suggests that quite a few biographies are going to be added to the wikiproject, either as having played sports in / for New Zealand or having been educated in New Zealand. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:55, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

@Stuartyeates: When you say "played sports in New Zealand", would that include the members of touring sports teams from other countries, such as the British and Irish Lions or the English cricket team? --Redrose64 (talk) 11:56, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

@Redrose64: No, people who've played for New Zealand and/or top level New Zealand sports leagues. The examples you give should not be included and I can find no indication they would be. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:24, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Good, that's what I hoped --Redrose64 (talk) 20:25, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I have removed all the suggested cats as per above. Stuartyeates (talk) 11:24, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Can anyone help to subst {{cite isbn}}? Fewer than 1,000 tranclusions. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Magioladitis:  Doing... Rcsprinter¹²³ (pronounce) @ 18:54, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Magioladitis: It produces this load of syntax [8] - is that what you want? Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (collogue) @ 18:58, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Rcsprinter123 Thanks for trying but nope. Check User_talk:Frietjes#Cite_isbn. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:00, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I've installed User:Frietjes/substciteisbn.js and will use that to substitute them for you. [9] Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (push) @ 19:05, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Rcsprinter123 I did somethting like that: [10]. The code needs tuning to work perfectly. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:06, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Frietjes do you know why the script does not work for August Kekulé? -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:31, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Magioladitis, you probably want to fix the pages first. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Plastikspork Thanks!! -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:40, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

yes, the script is currently cautious in that it only substitutes things that match a particular pattern. the inside a ref pattern requires that it's the only thing inside the ref tag. I could expand the patterns if there is another valid pattern. Frietjes (talk) 15:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I also tried to get it to remove the comment tags, but with no success. I think it has something to do with the order in which things are expanded by the parser. Frietjes (talk) 15:02, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

145 left, which the regex didn't pick up. Quite a few don't actually have a cite isbn subpage, which means it's no different than writing out "ISBN" and the number; unfortunately, it also meant that I was substituting cite isbn with itself. Alakzi (talk) 18:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

• Can someone explain why this is being done? The only thing like a consensus is here, specifically for {{cite doi}}—where several of the arguments don't apply to {{cite isbn}} (such as that {{cite doi}} was often only used once, whereas {{cite isbn}} is more frequently used in many articles). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:57, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Frietjes, Plastikspork I did some more. What is to be done with those with no subpage attached? -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:56, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Magioladitis, probably start by looking up to see if there is a book with that ISBN, and if so, then there are automatic bibliographic entry generators out there (try http://www.ottobib.com/ in wikipedia mode). but, given the low number of remaining transclusions, those can be done by hand. Frietjes (talk) 23:04, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Frietjes After we are done, should I do and delete all the subpages? -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Magioladitis, I would suggest using WP:TFD, but without tagging all of the subpages since that would be extremely tedious. Frietjes (talk) 23:10, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Frietjes, Plastikspork 41 pages in mainspace. Any help is appreciated. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:34, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I am doing some by hand, slowly but surely. Can you guys attack {{cite hdl}} now too. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 03:21, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Dear @Magioladitis:, @Alakzi:, @AManWithNoPlan: and all other editors!

There is no consensus on replacing cite isbn.

There is no consensus on whether the discussion on cite doi is relevant to cite isbn.

As per WP:NOCON, when there is no consensus, the status quo should prevail.

Therefore, I kindly ask you to stop making mass replacements until a consensus is reached. Thanks! --Erel Segal (talk) 08:16, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Pinging Magioladitis, Alakzi, AManWithNoPlan as Erel Segal did not sign when doing so at 08:16. Rcsprinter¹²³ (drawl) @ 16:23, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

ISBN suffers from all the problems that cite doi does plus several more. Not bot fills them, ISBN is not unique, there is no dx.isbn.org. The template was marked as marked as deprecated more than half a year ago. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 02:29, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi - I'd like to request a bot run a quick text edit on about 100 New Zealand-related articles which refer to "Northern Canterbury" (about 70 articles) and "Southern Canterbury" (about 30). In New Zealand usage, such terms are never encountered - the two areas are always known as "North Canterbury" and "South Canterbury" respectively. TIA, Grutness...wha? 02:25, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I can confirm the usage of the terms as described by Grutness. Schwede66 18:57, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Any bot edits should be careful to avoid changing quoted text; and deliberate uses of the terms. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

My guess would be that in most instances, the terms were added when User:Stuartyeates created some 2000 stub articles for people who had an entry in the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography (see, for example, Robert James Kerridge). If the bot run produces a list of diffs, I'd be happy to go through those 100 edits and confirm that they haven't changed quotes. Schwede66 19:44, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that. By the way - the numbers I gave for how many articles use these terms are simply how many articles link to those terms. There could be far more which also use them unlinked in text. Grutness...wha? 00:41, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

On it. bd2412 T 00:47, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Done. Cheers! bd2412 T 00:52, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

A little late to the party, but I'm happy to take to blame for any unintentional incorrect use of the terms. It was my first large-scale stub creation. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:20, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

No probs Stuart - better to have the stubs there with a slight glitch than not there at all! Thanks for the bot work BD! Grutness...wha? 11:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I second that on both fronts. Schwede66 18:38, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I have just made a humungous mass-nomination (over 2000 categories) at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 May 1#Churches/Church buildings, and I need a bot to tag most of these - I tagges the base category (Category:Church buildings), a pair of categories which will need to be merged, and a single category which has an unrelated deletion nomination; I would like a bot to tag the rest - see full list at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 May 1/list. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Doing... APerson (talk!) 20:49, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Y Done APerson (talk!) 02:21, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Could all articles in the categories listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject_New_Zealand/Category_List please be added to WP:WPNZ using the {{WPNZ}} template. As a secondary concern, the automated tagging of biographies, politics, maori and music subs would be icing on the cake. Stuartyeates (talk) 11:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Stuartyeates I can do that. Here are the rules: User:Yobot#WikiProject_tagging. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:18, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

5157 categories... -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:20, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

1. Stuartyeates is member of the WikiProject ΝΖ
2. I was notified
3. Wikipedia:WikiProject New Zealand was notified on its talk page about the request
4. Official bot request was made
5. Request includes list of pages or categories with no subcategories.

Thus, the bot run will start in 3 days. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 22:27, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Stuartyeates I expect 20,000 new pages to be tagged for the project. The project right now has 36,714 pages and after the tagging it will expand to 56,714 pages. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:31, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

As somebody who does a lot of WPNZ article assessment, could I please ask that {{WikiProject New Zealand|class=|importance=}} be added instead, so that assessment is a tad easier? Schwede66 01:47, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Schwede Of course. In fact this is what I was planning to add anyway. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I am 100% ready to run the bot. I performed the preliminary run that is needed in order to avoid duplicated tags, etc. If I have not started in the next 2 days, please ping me. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:38, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

 Doing... Bot started. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:05, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I just reverted this edit on the article for Backspacer. It has nothing to do with New Zealand. I'm assuming it was tagged as it's in this category - Category:Albums certified gold by Recorded Music NZ. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:21, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

@Magioladitis: - the bot is tagging dozens, if not hundreds of albums that have nothing to do with NZ. Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, Mothership (album), Ten (Pearl Jam album), Metallica (album), etc. Please can you take a look at this. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: thanks for stopping the bot. Stuartyeates please check the category tree again and remove the inappropriate categories. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:28, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: The bot did 1523 edits prior to stop. Please free to remove all those who were not appropriate. I won't be online for the next 48 hours. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 18:29, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Stuartyeates please check the category tree again and remove the inappropriate categories. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 18:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Oops. Yes, there's a problem. I've reverted a couple and I'll go through the rest when I have time in the nest 48 hours. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:03, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I reverted Abbey Road, The Beatles (album) and Back to Black - there are probably more. If a bot does this again, it would be useful if its edit summary could link to a discussion like this, as it just looked like a routine maintenance copyedit until I checked carefully. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 06:22, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I think I got the rest of them. Not the way I want to be increasing my edit count. There may also have been an error in the bot setup, since I asked for only talk pages of articles, but see, for example Category talk:People from Alexandra, New Zealand. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:46, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Stuartyeates I missed the "only articles part". I removed all non-articles from the list just right now. 14,846 to be tagged unless someone tells me which categories are going to be excluded. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:35, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Ritchie333 I renamed the section in order to directly link here per request. I set some rules of how the bot tagging is done. It is responsibility of the person who requests the tagging and of the wikiproject to check the details. This is the reason I give 3 days to raise questions about the tagging. I usually start 3 days after the last comment. This time I started 4 days after. It turns to be a common situation that a bad category is included in the list requested. It was slightly reduced after the tagging stopped including subcategories. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:41, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I concur with User:Magioladitis on this. I'm happy to shoulder the blame. In the medium term I have a proposed solution to this problem and will ping you when I post about it. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Magioladitis I've removed even more cats. Are you thinking of restarting the bot, or are we giving up on this? I'll trust your judgment as a bot operator. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:18, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Stuartyeates I started generating the new list. Let's see first how many pages are subject to tag. 5,102 categories loaded. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:01, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Less than 10,000 pages. Much better than last time. List reduced 50%. I'll start the bot soon. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:48, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

 Doing... Bot started again. Lugnuts, Ritchie333, Stuartyeates feel free to stop the bot at anytime. I'll limit tagging in 6 pages per minute for the first few hours. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:30, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Spot checking a couple of dozen looks good. Lots of flora and fauna, some footballers who've played a season down here. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:59, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Have done some assessment and the only strange one I've come across is "Oh Yeah!" Live; any idea what triggered this? Schwede66 22:15, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

@Magioladitis: Why? --Redrose64 (talk) 22:19, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

These cats now removed from the list. I'll go through the cats and remove inappropiately tagged articles when I have time over the weekend. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:27, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I stopped the bot to investigate. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:25, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

@Redrose64 and Schwede66:: These were in the category tree

• Category:English language
• Category:English-language literary awards
• Category:English-language television stations

-- Magioladitis (talk) 22:27, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

213 pages affected... -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:29, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Stuart, the bot appears to be going through the list category by category, so it's perhaps easiest to just undo from the 'user' contributions list; try to find the beginning here. Schwede66 22:35, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

@Redrose64 and Schwede66:: I'll fix all. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:38, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

@Redrose64, Schwede66, and Stuartyeates::Done. I removed all the invalid tags. I resumed the bot. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:49, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I stopped temporarily to fix my PC. I'll resume in a few hours. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:09, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Resumed. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:50, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

America (Razorlight song) and American Boy don't make sense to me. Schwede66 07:40, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I stopped the bot to investigate. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Schwede66 pages are in hidden Category:Singlechart usages for New Zealand. (A reason I dislike hidden categories). -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Removed category from the list. 412 pages affected. Fixing them. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

2000 pages excluded from the to-do list. Bot resumed. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:04, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

@Redrose64, Schwede66, and Stuartyeates:: Bot run completed. Feel free to review the edits. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:43, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Great effort, team. Thanks to everybody involved. The WPNZ article count now stands at close to 45,000. Schwede66 03:39, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

@Stuartyeates: I question the tagging of international treaties in Category:Treaties of New Zealand, e.g. Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the International Criminal Court. Following that logic, Talk:Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the International Criminal Court should be tagged with the banners of the national WikiProjects of all 74 parties to the agreement, which doesn't seem helpful to me. Also, I have reverted the tagging of non-NZ-native members of Category:Tasman Series, Category:Tasman Series cars and Category:Toyota Racing Series drivers - racing cars and drivers compete all over the world - I don't think it is appropriate or helpful to tag their articles for the national WikiProjects related to all the series in which they compete. DH85868993 (talk) 01:09, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

two points here. Firstly, reverting a bot is an entirely appropriate thing to do if you disagree with them. So thank you. Secondly, which articles fall under which wiki projects is up to the projects themselves and open to a consensus debate within them (you mention logic, which has little role here). I disagree on your first call (but don't feel strongly enough to revert you) and agree with you in the second call. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:00, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. Note that I didn't actually revert the tagging of the international treaties; I was just questioning it. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 06:43, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

@Stuartyeates:, @DH85868993: I have to agree with DH85868993 in this regard. The articles in Category:Treaties of New Zealand have little to do with the WikiProject and should not be tagged as such. Since you, Stuartyeates, are the curator of the Category List, would you be open to removing it? I'm not sure what the procedure is for making this change. – Zntrip 21:19, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

@Stuartyeates: I reverted 7 pages per User_talk:Magioladitis#Yobot_and_WikiProject_New_Zealand. The rest is up to WikiProject to decide. Everyone feel free to revert my bot. I just did what I was asked to do. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 18:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

@Magioladitis: done. The run is over but I'm hoping to reuse the list. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:08, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Its been years since Wikivoyage moved under Wikimedia umbrella and it was discussed somewhere that links to Wikitravel articles on respective geographical articles on WP will be replaced by links to Wikivoyage articles but I can still see many WP articles still have links to to Wikitravel articles but not to Wikivoyage. I on behald of Wikivoyage community kindly request that a bot be run to replace all the Wikitravel links with Wikivoyage and add template where there's no link right now. --Saqib (talk) 14:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

@Saqib: Could you please provide an example of an edit like this that you've done manually? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 21:41, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

[11] and [12]. --Saqib (talk) 22:12, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

@Saqib: Thanks, although I believe the second one should be this diff. GoingBatty (talk) 22:32, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. BTW, many geo articles on WP also missing link to Wikitravel articles but Wikivoyage as well Wikitravels have articles on those geo places. Is there a way to make sure Wikivoyage template be added to all geo articles? --Saqib (talk) 22:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Apart from valid links in Wikitravel and List of wikis I only found 21 English Wikipedia mainspace links to http://wikitravel.org with Special:LinkSearch, using my own ad hoc text filter to isolate mainspace links:

1. http://wikitravel.org is linked from Pauri Garhwal district
2. http://wikitravel.org/en/Ba%C3%B1os is linked from Baños de Agua Santa
3. http://wikitravel.org/en/Deoghar is linked from Thakur Anukulchandra
4. http://wikitravel.org/en/Iran is linked from History of Iran
5. http://wikitravel.org/en/Japan's_Top_100_Cherry_Blossom_Spots is linked from Nihonmatsu, Fukushima
6. http://wikitravel.org/en/Katiki_falls is linked from Katiki Falls
7. http://wikitravel.org/en/Khagrachhari is linked from Alutila Cave
8. http://wikitravel.org/en/Kunming is linked from Western Mountains
9. http://wikitravel.org/en/Leighton_Buzzard is linked from Will Ludford
10. http://wikitravel.org/en/Lundazi is linked from Lundazi
11. http://wikitravel.org/en/Lviv is linked from The Mother of God
12. http://wikitravel.org/en/Mae_Sai is linked from Mae Sai River
13. http://wikitravel.org/en/Orlando is linked from Little India (location)
14. http://wikitravel.org/en/Pauri is linked from Pauri Garhwal district
15. http://wikitravel.org/en/Rail_travel_in_India is linked from Indian Railways
16. http://wikitravel.org/en/Roatan// is linked from Pirate's Grog Rum
17. http://wikitravel.org/en/Salar_de_Uyuni is linked from Salar de Uyuni
18. http://wikitravel.org/en/Sicily is linked from Sicily
19. http://wikitravel.org/en/Solapur is linked from Solapur
20. http://wikitravel.org/en/Taipei/Beitou is linked from Hot spring
21. http://wikitravel.org/en/Wuhan is linked from Wuhan

This is too little to code a bot. Just examine them manually. There are around 1200 links in other namespaces but I don't think they are worth dealing with. http://www.wikitravel.org has no mainspace links. I guess the mainspace WikiTravel links have already been systematically removed before but 21 were later added to those articles. If you want to prevent this in the future then you could post a request to MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. I don't know whether it would be accepted. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you PrimeHunter. You're right we don't need to run bot for such a small task which can be done manualy. Now repeating query I posted earlier above: Many geo articles on WP also missing link to Wikitravel articles but Wikivoyage as well Wikitravels have articles on those geo places. Is there a way to make sure Wikivoyage template be added to all geo articles? --Saqib (talk) 10:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure but somebody would have already asked it.
Can there something be done to Teahouse so that unanswered questions have some notice (either in bold or a tag on it like {{unanswered}}) for those questions which has not been answered yet?
Sometimes, I see some user's question goes down (under other questions:) and other were actually answered quickly but not his/her
aGastya  ✉ let's have a constructive talk about it (: 15:04, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

This is very similar to Wikipedia talk:Teahouse#Idea and Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 136#Idea, please see WP:MULTI. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:21, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi there! As part of WikiProject X, we are looking for volunteers to work on some bots and gadgets that will help address the various needs of WikiProjects and Wikipedia editors. If you are interested, check out Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Volunteers, which will be updated as new ideas are developed. Thanks, Harej (talk) 21:03, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

i have created two articla one name Chrome (Rapper) AND THE OTHER IS AN ARTICLE ABOUT A RAPPER NAME CHROME WHO I HAVE BEEN WRITTING AN ARTICLE ABOUT THE TITLE OF THE PAGE IS project landlord (chrome)..can you please help me
MuzicFan1981 (talk) 09:36, 16 April 2015

Specifically. What are you are asking for help with? There isn't an article called project land lord (chrome), there is one called Project Land Lord (Album), what help do you need? - X201 (talk) 11:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Per this discussion: Help_talk:Citation_Style_1#access_date_without_url And this categoryCategory:Pages_using_citations_with_accessdate_and_no_URL Remove access dates from {{citation}} and {{cite}} when there is no url. Only do this if(and only if) there is another link out such as HDL, PMC, PMID, JSTOR, or DOI. Otherwise assume that a human needs to look at it, since there is an access date, but no link of any kind. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 15:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

what is HDL, BTW? I did not find it in the documentation to those templates. --Pavlo Chemist (talk) 09:07, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Looks like just need a bot to remove them all Help_talk:Citation_Style_1#Error_data_-_accessdate_without_URL AManWithNoPlan (talk) 00:20, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

This can't be that difficult. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:26, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I can do the task with the following restrictions:

• accessdate parameter (name and value) will be removed, if there is no url provided, even if such identifiers as DOI are given. In case of DOI, for instance, there is always a fixed link in the form http://dx.doi.org/(DOI), so accessdate does not really matter here. If you think that it does matter, then you have to discuss it in an appropriate place, because Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration adds pages to the Category:Pages with archiveurl citation errors, only if there is no url regardless whether identifiers such as DOI are provided.
• accessdate will not be removed from {{citation}} and {{cite}}, if there is a parameter "website", as there can be found missing url from the given title and website (e.g. 20th hijacker: {{cite web|last1=Sciutto|first1=Jim|title=New Allegations of Saudi Involvement in 9/11|website=CNN.com|accessdate=April 9, 2015}}). Here human intervention is necessary.
• accessdate will not be removed from {{citation}} and {{cite}}, if there are present any "http" or "www", as the url is likely to be just misplaced (e.g. 1990 FIFA World Cup: {{cite web |title=Mascots |http://www.fifa.com/about-fifa/marketing/brand/mascots.html |publisher=FIFA |accessdate=24 April 2015 }}). Here human intervention or for many such cases another bot task is necessary.

Please comment, if you agree with this restrictions or there are any other restrictions necessary. --Pavlo Chemist (talk) 09:07, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

@AManWithNoPlan, GoingBatty, and Rjwilmsi: for advice and for the questions posed by Pavlo. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 02:12, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

@Pavlo Chemist: Presuming that this applies to all citation templates, I think this looks good. I also suggest adding a restriction to present removal of the accessdate if the reference contains ".com" or ".net", as those would probably fall into the logic behind restrictions #2 and/or #3 above. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 17:19, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Most of the Indian villages and towns does not contain any population data or have older(2001) data. This bot will update insert data from official Indian census website — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mittalmailbox (talk • contribs) 14:52, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Last year, a dft_category parameter was added to {{Infobox GB station}}. However, still only a minority of railway station articles are using it, although there have been Wikipedia categories for them for much longer.

I am therefore requesting a bot to go through these articles (categories A–C2 have been done manually, and so only D, E, F1 and F2 still need to be done). The action to be performed on each is to add | dft_category = [category] to the infobox, and remove the manually-added category (since the infobox automagically adds the article to the relevant category, and having it there manually as well would create a risk of the two becoming out of sync).

I can see that there are cases that would need to be considered:

• pages where the parameter has already been added (in which case the bot shouldn't do anything, except possibly remove the redundant manually-added category if there is one)
• stations that are in more than one category (in which case the bot should flag them for human attention)
• redirects and other similar templates (Infobox London station)
• nested templates that may be present (though if the new parameter is added right at the beginning of the template transclusion this shouldn't be an issue).

— Smjg (talk) 17:28, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I am not fun of categories added via templates/infoboxes in pages. This causes inconsistencies between pages having an infobox and those how don't. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

That would be WP:TEMPLATECAT. But there are no articles without an infobox for which one of these categories is applicable: every station that has been assigned by the Department for Transport to one of their categories (A, B, C1, C2, D, E, F1, F2) has a Wikipedia article; and every one of those articles has either {{infobox London station}} {{infobox GB station}} or its redirect {{infobox UK station}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Note also that the comment in WP:TEMPLATECAT is merely a recommendation, not a policy. Moreover, the reasons for it don't seem to be applicable here - once this work is complete, these categories will be populated almost entirely through these templates, thereby making it easier to restructure. Maybe there are still drawbacks to this approach, but I think it is a lesser evil than having to maintain the DfT category in two places in parallel (the infobox and the article categories) and the consequential likelihood of somebody inadvertently updating one but not the other. — Smjg (talk) 14:04, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

It's been nearly 2 months now. Anybody? — Smjg (talk) 17:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Smjg, I can see why you'd want to do this and it wouldn't be tricky to do. But there are some tricky edge-cases that suggest it's not as simple as you suggest. For instance, United Kingdom railway station categories says that St Pancras railway station is in two categories. I see how the template handles this, but how would the bot know what to do? Relentlessly (talk) 18:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Relentlessly, I already began to explain this. When the bot stumbles upon an unusual case such as this, it would not alter the article, but flag it for human attention in some way. — Smjg (talk) 22:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Can anyone write a bot that could scan all the categories under the jurisdiction of a particular Wikproject, fill in a template like this along with a calculation for what percent along the way the category is to each article having featured status, then paste that template as a new section on the category talk page and in a new subpage for the wikiproject listing all of the newly generated templates, vaguely like the bot that does the popular pages template? I think a bot like that would be really useful for helping wikiprojects evaluate which categories are most in need of work and which could be most easily made into good or featured topics. Abyssal (talk) 04:11, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Abyssal, I've been thinking about this a bit. It looks like the bot will do 2 things:

1. Post a message to each category talk page saying something like "X% of the articles in this category are featured", and
2. Update a subpage of the wikiproject with a table containing the percentages for all the categories

I agree that this would be a great idea for a bot. Am I understanding you correctly? APerson (talk!) 05:44, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, but don't forget filling in the template! :D Abyssal (talk) 10:56, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I need a bot that can receive input data, feed it into a field on a page, and then request that data be returned from the server. This process needs to be done repeatedly with hundreds of data samples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.141.50.174 (talk) 02:37, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

@120.141.50.174: We'll need more information about what input data, and what pages this will be used on. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (pronounce) @ 16:49, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

There are many articles on Wikipedia that have too many cleanup tags, and many of these tags have remained in place for years without being resolved. I propose the creation of an automatically maintained category called Category:Articles with more than 5 cleanup tags, which would help us to remove these unnecessary tags. Jarble (talk) 03:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

The bot could add tag to such articles... Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

One issue that I realised years ago is that many tags exist on articles in cases where the article itself has already been fixed. I have always wanted to create a single bot to basically manage all of the tags possible to manage by bot, but I have never had the time. :/ ·addshore· ^{talk to me!} 19:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Do we also have a bot to see if a tag and its more generic version are used on the same article? For instance, {{One source}} and {{Refimprove}} shouldn't be used together. APerson (talk!) 15:18, 8 May 2015 (UTC)