Wikipedia:Request a query

This is a page for requesting one-off database queries for certain criteria. Users who are interested and able to perform SQL queries on the projects can provide results from the Quarry website.

You may also be interested in the following:

• If you are interested in writing SQL queries or helping out here, visit our tips page.
• If you need to obtain a list of article titles that meet certain criteria, consider using PetScan (user manual) or the default search. Petscan can generate list of articles in subcategories, articles which transclude some template, etc.
• If you need to make changes to a number of articles based on a particular query, you can post to the bot requests page, depending on how many changes are needed.
• For long-term review and checking, database reports are available.

Quarry does not have access to page content, so queries which require checking wikitext cannot be answered with Quarry. However, someone may be able to assist by using Quarry in another way (e.g. checking the table of category links rather than the "Category:" text) or suggest an alternative tool.

Check for company articles that use both Parent and Owner field.

I'm wondering if it would be possible to check for articles that use both the Parent and Owner field in infobox company. The reason being, I have noticed that many articles incorrectly use the infobox company template to show higher-level ownership. This is not allowed per the infobox documentation. I have fixed this on most pages. However, there are many that I cannot find. ^Wiinter_U 22:45, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

@WiinterU: Quarry can't do that, because it doesn't have access to the wikitext. This search should catch most of the offenders but will contain a lot of false positives, such as articles with parent= and owner= in different infoboxes. Certes (talk) 08:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. ^Wiinter_U 12:31, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hah. I typed up almost the same thing as Certes, so will defer to their great answer. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:05, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Query to get all articles without inline citations

Can somebody here help me write a query for all articles that don't have <ref> or {{sfn or {{sfnm or {{harvnb in the article's wikicode? Here is the context of the discussion: User_talk:CactiStaccingCrane#Untagged_unreferenced_articles CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:41, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't believe occurrences of <ref> are stored in any table to which Quarry has access. Certes (talk) 20:09, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. According to my sandbox, ref tags aren't placed into any categories, so we can't search the categorylinks table either. The others that OP mentioned can be queried via the templatelinks table. Or, for new pages, you can use Special:NewPagesFeed, and tick the filter for "have no citations", which should detect most of these but maybe not all (I forget which ones). WP:PETSCAN could also be useful since I think it lets you search by templates and/or categories. OP, what direction would you like to go in with this? –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:30, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

It's also possible to query for use of {{Reflist}} and similar, though many articles use a bare <references /> tag. Certes (talk) 20:43, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

We could generate a list of pages without any external links at all, or no external links except to specific sites like imdb. That's functionally the same thing - there's no real difference between a formally unreferenced page that has its subject's official site properly placed in ==External links==, and one that plugs it into ref tags instead. —Cryptic 22:10, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Or pages that don't transclude anything in the Category:Citation templates tree. Which will miss bare <ref>[external link]</ref>s, of course; I suppose we could mitigate by also excluding pages in Category:All articles with bare URLs for citations, and tag the remaining false positives as they're noticed. —Cryptic 22:19, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

You're looking at quite a lot of pages. For example, there are about 30,000 with titles beginning with A. [1]. Many of them have a References section with plausible looking citations but no inline refs. Certes (talk) 22:56, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

CactiStaccingCrane, I wonder if it would be easier to start with the known 50,000 articles that transclude {{no footnotes}}? Once editors are done with those, come on back and we'll figure out how to find more. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:39, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

The linked discussion shows the original user was specifically looking for unreferenced pages that aren't already tagged. (I can't imagine why, unless the intent is merely to tag them without actually looking for sources, but whatever.) —Cryptic 07:13, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah that's exactly the point. Both of us are on WP:WikiProject Unreferenced articles and we want to tag all articles that don't have citations before launching another drive around June-July. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 09:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

ListeriaBot issue

I already have a query, albeit SPARQL, but been running into this issue and I thought somebody could help here. Thanks! Assem Khidhr (talk) 05:11, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

You might have better luck asking at d:WD:RAQ. —Cryptic 12:09, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Help with expanding the self-transcluded-templates report

Hey. I was wondering if this is even possible and if someone here might be able to help with this. The query in User:Jonesey95/self-transcluded-templates collects templates that either have zero transclusions or are only transcluded on the template itself. I'd like to extend this to also the sub-pages of the template.

The new logic would be:

• Get all templates with number of transclusions less than 6 (5 valid transclusions are: main, talk, /sandbox, /doc, /testcases - of the same template).
• Keep in the report all templates that have all of their transclusions only on one of the above pages.

Is this possible? Gonnym (talk) 09:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

What you ask for in your first paragraph and in your bulleted list aren't the same things, or even terribly similar. Also, while we could literally do what you're asking for in your bulleted list - first generate a list of templates with 0-5 transclusions, and then cull that - but it would be complex, quite likely would be very slow, and possibly wouldn't do quite what you want. Generally it's a better idea to ask for what you actually want, rather than how to get it, and that's especially true with SQL since, since it's primarily a descriptive language, that's what the query-writer does too. (At least, until something goes wrong.)

What I'm guessing you're really after is to exclude transclusions on

1. the template's own talk page, and
2. either
   1. the template's own "/sandbox", "/doc", or "/testcases" subpages, or
   2. all of the template's own subpages.

Which of B1 or B2 are you after? —Cryptic 17:01, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

What you ask for in your first paragraph and in your bulleted list aren't the same things I know... The first paragraph is what we currently have at User:Jonesey95/self-transcluded-templates. What I asked in the bulleted list is what I hoped we could modify it to.

Regarding your second question, B2. Exclude all of a template's own subpages (and talk page). So the finale result would be a database report with templates that have "zero" transclusions (but might have actual transclusions on their own pages). Gonnym (talk) 17:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

If I've understood correctly: as well as the existing condition tl_from <> page_id, tl_from also has to differ from the page ids of all subpages and any talk page. Certes (talk) 17:23, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

My knowledge of SQL is limited so can't answer that. Gonnym (talk) 17:34, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

(I meant the "I'd like to extend this to also the sub-pages of the template." sentence.)

Do these results look right? —Cryptic 17:49, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

No. The transclusion check is meant to reduce the number of valid transclusions to zero. So for example, if template is transcluded only on itself, it then it should be on the report. Template:Article length bar/L0 was removed, but it shouldn't as it's unused other than itself. Gonnym (talk) 17:53, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, just realized that I was only removing items from the list that already showed no transclusions. —Cryptic 17:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I've created Template:Test SQL report so help test this. It should appear on the report. Gonnym (talk) 17:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Take 2. —Cryptic 20:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Looks great! I've browsed it and everything looks good. I'll have a deeper dive into it and if I find something I'll let you know, but so far works as requested. Thank you! Gonnym (talk) 20:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

How do the patrol/pagetriage-curation logs really work?

Does anyone really know, definitively, what the distinction between (log_type = 'patrol' AND log_action = 'patrol) and (log_type = 'pagetriage-curation' AND log_action IN ('reviewed', 'reviewed-article', 'reviewed-redirect')) is? In particular, why do you variously get one, the other, or both even for patrols by the same person within minutes of each other (example: both, pagetriage only, patrol only); exactly which on-wiki actions result in those cases; and is there a good way to distinguish genuine multiple reviews of the same title without doublecounting the various log_type/log_action combinations (perhaps group by log_page)?

(Context is Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elli#General comments, starting with User:Hey man im josh's comment at 21:42, 31 May 2024; my best guesses for the answers are in the description of quarry:query/83443.) —Cryptic 00:05, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:New pages patrol#Patrol versus review is my attempt to document this. It is confusing. I think the native patrol system has some unintuitive behaviors (maybe autoreviewing in certain cases, maybe being revision-based instead of page-based, not exactly sure, but I sense some differences), that I haven't quite wrapped my head around yet and that make it not correspond 1:1 to reviewing. Also, the original PageTriage authors tried to keep the patrol and review logs in sync but missed some cases such as page moves, so there are some bugs. phab:T346215, phab:T337356. Finally, PageTriage reviewing only occurs in the main namespace (and formerly the user namespace), whereas native patrolling with the "[Mark this page as patrolled]" link can occur in any namespace.

When evaluating an NPP's number of reviews, one should use the pagetriage-curation log exclusively because it corresponds to the NPP clicking the reviewed button in the Page Curation toolbar. The patrol log is less accurate. When the Page Curation toolbar is open, as it is for most NPPs unless they close it, the "[Mark this page as patrolled]" link is hidden.

Confusingly, XTools only displays the patrol count, not the reviewed count. quarry:query/70425 is an old query I wrote to get a count of a person's reviews only. I think I'll go file an XTools ticket to use "reviews" instead of "patrols" for enwiki. phab:T366397

One other thing. 'reviewed', 'reviewed-article', 'reviewed-redirect'. It used to be only reviewed, then we got rid of reviewed and split it into reviewed-article and reviewed-redirect for easier querying. This split happened about a year ago. phab:T349048 –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:08, 1 June 2024 (UTC)