Wikipedia:Bot requests

This is a page for requesting tasks to be done by bots per the bot policy. This is an appropriate place to put ideas for uncontroversial bot tasks, to get early feedback on ideas for bot tasks (controversial or not), and to seek bot operators for bot tasks. Consensus-building discussions requiring large community input (such as request for comments) should normally be held at WP:VPPROP or other relevant pages (such as a WikiProject's talk page).

You can check the "Commonly Requested Bots" box above to see if a suitable bot already exists for the task you have in mind. If you have a question about a particular bot, contact the bot operator directly via their talk page or the bot's talk page. If a bot is acting improperly, follow the guidance outlined in WP:BOTISSUE. For broader issues and general discussion about bots, see the bot noticeboard.

Before making a request, please see the list of frequently denied bots, either because they are too complicated to program, or do not have consensus from the Wikipedia community. If you are requesting that a template (such as a WikiProject banner) is added to all pages in a particular category, please be careful to check the category tree for any unwanted subcategories. It is best to give a complete list of categories that should be worked through individually, rather than one category to be analyzed recursively (see example difference).

Alternatives to bot requests

Note to bot operators: The {{BOTREQ}} template can be used to give common responses, and make it easier to keep track of the task's current status. If you complete a request, note that you did with {{BOTREQ|done}}, and archive the request after a few days (WP:1CA is useful here).


Please add your bot requests to the bottom of this page.
Make a new request


Name hatnotesEdit

  • Hey everyone, I was busy in the last few days adding some custem names hatnotes. I then got the idea why not let a bot add those hatnotes instead of a human? However, the problem here is that some name hatnotes like the Philippine, the Indonesian, the Icelandic or the Chinese do have multiple naming customs within their country. Is it possible to let a bot adding name hatnotes in simpler naming customs like Dutch, Eastern Slavic, Germanic, Japanese, Burmese, Malay, Mongolian, Renaissance Florentine, Okinawan, Portuguese, Slavic, Spanish (including the Basque, Galician and Catalan) and Turkic names? Those countries or people should have normally one style of naming customs. Hopefully this'll be done easily. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:09, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
    CPA-5, hatnotes should be for disambiguation, not explanatory notes on naming conventions; I hate the fact that we still do so so widely. To give a tweaked version of an old comment I made:
    WP:HAT states in its first paragraph that "their purpose is to help readers locate a different article if the one they are at is not the one they're looking for". Despite that, the use of hatnotes for surname clarification does go way back to the 2000s. The basic argument against it is that putting it in a hatnote, the very first thing readers see after the title, is positioning way too prominent for what is basically trivia.
    Concerns over this issue have been brought up at the village pump at least twice — in 2011 here, and last year by me here — and both times there was interest in making a change. I introduced {{efn Chinese name}} and a few similar templates, with discussion here and here, and I hope they'll become increasingly widely adopted and eventually the old style deprecated. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 23:39, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
A complication is that, for many of these pages, the surname occupying the base name is nowhere near being a primary topic. I suspect that the vast majority of readers reaching Schoenberg, Braun or Wills have no interest in the surname, and that most of their incoming links were intended for other articles. (I've fixed several thousand such errors this summer.) We should really address that issue before claiming that Schoenberg is a {{German name}}, when 90% of uses intend the composer. Certes (talk) 09:55, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

External linksEdit

(This is not a request for a bot. This is a request for a sanity check.)

WP:ELN is discussing the ==External links== section of Mary Tyler Moore. It contains (in part) this list:

* {{NYTtopic|people/m/mary_tyler_moore/}}
* {{IMDb name|1546}}
* {{tcmdb name|id=134771|name=Mary Tyler Moore}}
* {{iBDB name|023123}}
* {{findagrave|175697586}}

This is not an unusual set of links for BLP articles. Obviously, the exact list of links and the order they're presented in varies. Most of them use external link templates.

Imagine a future in which we developed a consensus that some/all of this "standard link dump" should be combined into a single template, perhaps similar to Template:Authority control. Am I correct that it would (if that magical future arrives) be a relatively simple matter for a bot to remove some of these (existing) items from this list and transform them into the new template, in at least most articles? If it's harder than it sounds, then I'd rather know that in advance. (Please ping me.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:48, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I take it you're saying that you're envisioning some sort of template where when someone calls {{ELinksTemplate|Mary Tyler Moore}} it spits out the five templated links you mention? If so, I'm not sure how feasible it would be to do that, because you would need a HUGE module to account for the millions of names and links that would be required. Unless I'm mistaken on your future vision, the rest of the discussion is a rather moot point.
As I typed out the above, I thought about having this magical template be basically a wrapper for the links you mention, so you would set (for example) |imdb=1546 to have it kick out the IMDb link. I suppose that could be doable, but I don't think you'll ever get consensus to basically turn five templates into "five templates plus a wrapper template for them all". Primefac (talk) 18:26, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
This idea was discussed briefly at Template talk:Authority control in 2014. I remember a more recent discussion, but I don't recall where it happened. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:49, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Interesting. As mentioned in that discussion, it would be a nightmare to get consensus on what to include/exclude in such a template. Not to say it can't be done, just a little tedious. Primefac (talk) 18:53, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
I fear that this idea would have a similar problem to Authority control: no one would agree on a "standard" set of external links. For example, if a TV/film actor had a minor off-broadway role, they would be listed in iMDb and IOBDB, and both would likely be represented in Wikidata (because of course we'd use wikidata for this template). However, some editors might not want to link to the IOBDB page because it doesn't provide much more information, especially if there are already many external links. That would mean implementing overrides and having protracted discussions about what sites are suitable for general external links. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 18:59, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Primefac, what I want is for the bot to take that list and turn it into something like {{new thing |NYTtopic=people/m/mary_tyler_moore/ |IMDb name=1546 |tcmdb name=134771 |iBDB name=023123 |findagrave=175697586}} and have the template display the same links more compactly. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:18, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
I can't see why that'd be useful, personally. That template would call these under the hood, so the only thing that eliminates is writing out the bullets. imo this single template idea would only make sense if the data was to be sourced from Wikidata, perhaps some kind of {{links|imdb|tcmmb|ibd}} which sources the info from Wikidata? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:36, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
I think having it display in a standardized, compact format, similar to Template:Medical resources or Template:Authority control would be beneficial. My question for this group is whether it's feasible to have the bot convert the articles, given that not all articles will use the same templates, place them in the same order, etc. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:54, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Technically speaking, sure. It's possible to parse the vast majority, yes, despite those display differences. The order doesn't really cause issues with parsing, neither does them being bullets or newlines or something else. Displaying them again might need more design thought if those differences are to be retained whilst using a wrapper template. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:48, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate all the responses and the time people took to understand my question. There might (someday, not soon, possibly a couple of months from now) be a request for a bot to do this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:48, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: I don't have anything to add around the ability of a bot to make those changes, but in terms of your idea of grouping the links I suggest you check out {{Sports links}} and the underlying Module:External links. Sports links does exactly what you're talking about, for standard external links for athletes. That template and the underlying module are apparently based on similar template/module in Norwegian wiki, where they also have templates for other groups like film/art/astronomy. A202985 (talk) 17:29, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for telling me about this template, A202985. I'm hoping ultimately for something that it more compact than what's displayed at Mary Docter#External links (all seven items in that list are generated through the template). I don't know how people would feel about pulling the content from Wikidata. I suspect that in some cases, they already are, though. It might work very well with just a change to the formatting. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:24, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Article History template scriptEdit

Hi all, I was wondering if anyone was interested in developing a script for talk pages to automatically role templates like DYK, GA and PR into an {{ArticleHistory}} format? I occasionally Wikignome, and it occurs to me such a script would likely be very useful for myself and many other editors, by automating a fairly time consuming manual process. The benefits will be more readable and organised talk pages, as well as a more comprehensive history for some articles. What a noble goal! --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:44, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I posted at village pump earlier and didn't get any responses, so I assume such a script doesn't exist, therefore I thought I'd ask here :). --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:44, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

The MilHistBot has this capability. It normally does so when articles are promoted to A-class or FAC. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:37, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
@Hawkeye7 that's great! Is there a way to get it as a user script? --Tom (LT) (talk) 04:50, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Unfortunately, it would have to be rewritten. As far as I know, scripts have to be written in JavaScript. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:06, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
I have worte codes that may parse {{Article History}}. You may use the codes to modify {{Article History}}, and the codes are in JavaScript. But I think the request can execute automatically? --Kanashimi (talk) 11:37, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Kanashimi! I don't understand the second half of what you have said though. How will the script happen automatically? (Is it possible that I can choose for it to execute, like with most scripts via a button added to the "More" menu?) --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:52, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
For example, we may using a bot to merge DYK, GA and PR mark into {{Article History}}. But I don't know if there is a such mark... --Kanashimi (talk) 08:47, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
I see Kanashimi. But how can I do that using a script that I can initiate? --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:53, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Are there some sample edits for DYK, GA and PR, so we can know more clearly what to do? --Kanashimi (talk) 01:08, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
EG @Kanashimi see Talk:FC_Bayern_Munich. Merge the "Old peer review" template into the "Article history" section. If there are separate DYK and GA templates, do the same thing.--Tom (LT) (talk) 00:34, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Second example is Talk:Sonic the Hedgehog - would merge the GA and PR templates into a single "Article history" template. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:36, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
@Tom (LT): Thank you. I think it is possible using a bot to combine {{Old peer review}} into {{Article History}}. But I wonder if we really desiring a bot to do this. Also @KingSkyLord: please give some comments, thank you. --Kanashimi (talk) 12:25, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
@Kanashimi: A bot which automatically changes the {{Article history}} gets my full support! KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 13:07, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
It is a requirement for FAC, and the FACBot does so. It is trickier than the GA and DYK merges though, due to different formats of peer review used over time, and page moves. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:16, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks all. Just wondering if at least a user script could be developed (or a bot if there is community consensus!)--Tom (LT) (talk) 23:55, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
@Tom (LT): Since we could do this automatically, I think it will be better not to bother humans. @Hawkeye7: I see some pages transcluding {{Old peer review}}. Will FACBot clean them in the future? --Kanashimi (talk) 22:04, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
No, not unless they become featured articles. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:57, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7 could FACBot or MilHist bot be customised to run on new good articles or peer reviews every so often? --Tom (LT) (talk) 04:42, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

To merge the article history? Sure. That is doable. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:56, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
This is EnterpriseyBot task 7, but I haven't run it in a while. I could set it back up, though. Enterprisey (talk!) 02:14, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Either is OK! Options are each sweep going through all articles in Category:Old requests for peer review, or simply going through recent peer reviews (they are always placed in categories titled in the pattern Category:June 2020 peer reviews. A full sweep will be needed at least once. I will leave how you assess WP:GA to you, and also whether you want to do the same for WP:DYK and so on. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:47, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject redirectsEdit

A common mistake is to type "Wikiproject" instead of "WikiProject" to get to pages like Template:WikiProject Physics or Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics. So a bot that would automatically create those would be really useful.

This should only be the base pages, not the subpages like Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Quality Control. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:51, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

There was a deliberate action some time long ago to remove WikiProject template redirects to make it easier to maintain them. I am not entirely certain that part of this request would have consensus. --Izno (talk) 17:05, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
The redirects that people got rid of were those that were very weird/non-standard ("WikiProject Phys"). This would be a systematic creation for very common typos very often made by newbies. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:10, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
I'd be opposed to this template redirect creation as I find it useless (and template redirects always have a hidden downside later on). The templates are used exactly once per page. It's ok if it takes you 2 seconds more to type in the correct "P". --Gonnym (talk) 17:20, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
The point is newbies don't know that and make that mistake often. WP:CHEAP applies here. There is no downside to those redirects, and many upsides. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:21, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Newbies, and others, should be directed to User:Evad37/rater if you find them having problems with these templates. --Izno (talk) 18:00, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Newbies at AFC should not be directed to scripts. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:11, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Newbies at AFC should also not be directed to add rubbish to talk pages.
Using a bot to create redirects for variant capitalisation will not help much when a given miscapitalisation is rarely used a second time. Look through the history of Wikipedia:Database reports/Broken WikiProject templates beginning at this revision to see the sheer variety that the newbies come up with. The last column of the report tells you how many instances existed at the time that the report ran: it's rarely above 1. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:42, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
So? That's where WP:CHEAP applies. This doesn't fix every "mistake" someone can make, but it fixes a good bunch of them. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:12, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
A good solution to the common-mistake-by-newbies problem would be to provide a javascript-based form for them to add project tags. This can be done via mw:Snippets/Load JS and CSS by URL so that they don't have to install any script on their end. SD0001 (talk) 14:08, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Like Headbomb, and RedRose said; newbies, let them be at AfC or anywhere, should not be directed to scripts. Regarding wikiproject redirects, and shortcuts; they tend to be (just a little) headache. I had discussed a similar issue regarding wikiproject shortcuts on Primefac's talkpage a few weeks ago. For example, {{WPCannabis}} is not recognised by AWB/JWB as a wikiproject. Same goes for {{Uk-crime}}. If a new, or experienced editor is creating a new article, and looking for talkpge banners, they can copy-paste from somewhere, or at least would be able to see it somewhere. Repeating/copying it is not a difficult thing. While I have strong opinions on shortcuts, I am flexible with case-sensitive redirects. —usernamekiran (talk) 13:43, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Adding to the chorus above, I strongly agree that this is worthwhile. We should prioritize beginner-friendliness; the stuff for advanced users can and will all be figured out in due time, but there's no way to fix after the fact when a new user gets frustrated trying to tag a talk page and just gives up. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 20:08, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Getting Rid of Old IP WarningsEdit

I see a lot of users like BD2412 going around a just blanking IP talk pages with the {{OW}} template and I thought "Boy isn't that a tedious job" and then I thought "well, let's get a bot to do that". Here's my suggestion if this hasn't already been introduced or already given to a bot as a task:

A Bot that would go around and search for Old IP warnings/blocks (ones more than a month old [excluding block template, which would need more time]) and get rid of them by replacing them with {{OW}}.

Best, P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 01:39, 7 August 2020 (UTC).

Pretty sure this is a CONTEXT issue. Primefac (talk) 01:44, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
I've asked before and been told it can't be done, though the reasoning is somewhat opaque to me. All we need, I think, is a list of non-blocked IP editor talk pages from which no edits have emanated for ten years, and on which no edits have been made in that period. BD2412 T 02:25, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps it's a question of timing. Ten years: yes. One month: no. Somewhere between lies a happy medium. I'd also add: no blocks expiring during the period, so the page remains marked when an IP resumes editing after a long block. Certes (talk) 08:09, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
One month may be sufficiently long for a dynamic IP address where you pull a different one out of the hat each time you power up. I have come across people who change their IP whenever they pour another coffee - see these eight posts which I am certain were all the same person. But one month is certainly far too short when it comes to static IP addresses where I have people being disruptive, stopping when served a level 3 notice, waiting a few weeks and beginning again. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:50, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

It seems this issue has been discussed before in the following places:

It also seems in the past this was a very contriversial issue, so it was necessary to go to the VP. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 13:39, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

If you look at the VP you can obviously see that there was a lot support for the idea, but the proposal seemed to go nowhere. So I guess the question here is, is this feasible; as we may already have the support we need? P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 13:48, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Bot to subcategorize fair use images by dateEdit

I am surprised to find that our hundreds of thousands of images falling under the Category:Fair use images structure have no categorization by date. This is important because all of these images will eventually fall into the public domain, based on the passage of time. Most images that have been uploaded have a "date" field, and although a large subset of these are filled out as "unknown", that also should be categorized. In short, I would like a bot to parse the images falling under this category and create and populate all needed subcategories for, e.g., Category:Fair use images created in 1952. BD2412 T 15:34, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

That would be great, although what would be even better is thoughtful use of the Category:Out of copyright in... tree. (t · c) buidhe 19:14, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
@Buidhe: There are a number of variables to when something goes out of copyright, including the country of publication, whether the "author" is a person or a corporate entity, and where the author is a person, the date of their death. However, we have to start somewhere, so knowing when it was published (and having a sense of what proportion of works are missing that information) would be a good start. Of course, images without a known publication date should be in a Category:Fair use images missing date of publication. BD2412 T 05:59, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
BD2412, Whatever scheme is used should clearly distinguish creation and publication dates, which are not necessarily the same year. Unfortunately, the date parameter may be used for either and it's not clear which. Therefore, a bot scheme sholud categorize Category:Fair use images dated 1952 because it might have been created or published that year. (t · c) buidhe 06:02, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
That... should be changed in the upload process. Well, we're stuck with what we have, so I agree that we will need to treat those dates as ambiguous for classification purposes. I would think that we could at least presume our ~200,000 album covers to be publication dates. BD2412 T 06:08, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Yes, and most photographs are dated by the creation date. (t · c) buidhe 06:29, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

OpenSourceSyncBotEdit

Consider an open source software developed for the Wikipedia/Wikimedia movement, usually the tasks are tracked in tracking systems designed by and for software developer, such as Github Issues or Phabricators, but their major audience, i.e. people who cares their progress the most, people they need to solicit feedback the most, are on Wikipedia.

Hereby propose the idea to create a OpenSourceSyncBot to sync a Wikipedia page, e.g. mw:ORES/Synced_tasks with a search criteria in its relevant tracking system, e.g. ORES component on Phabricator.

Phase 1: for any tasks in the tracking system, sync them onto the subpage on Wikipedia, so it gives people more transparency and visibility to the development progress. The format could be a Wikipedia page table with "task title, progress, reportee, assignee". e.g. It will also periodically sync to update such information.

Phase 2: for newly added row on the Wikipedia page table, added by a Wikipedia user, it will create a new task on the external tracking system.

Proposer: xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 23:06, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

This seems like a waste of time. External software, including Phabricator, is easy to learn and follow, as well as log in (which seems to be a hump for some people). What driving need is there for this request? --Izno (talk) 01:03, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Examples of UsageEdit

For example, WP:Twinkle developers can better reach out their users Wikipedia:Twinkle#Reporting bugs or requesting features

WikiProject Curling template changesEdit

Hello! I originally posted this on WP:AWBREQ, but a bot makes more sense. Currently, articles about curlers use various combinations of {{Sports links}}, {{WCT}}, {{WCF}}, {{CurlingZone}}, and other templates for external links, but they can all be simplified to just {{Sports links}}, which would standardize our templates moving forward. Could a bot check all pages that use {{WCF}}, {{WCT}}, and {{CurlingZone}}; remove those templates in the external links section (but not other article sections), along with {{SR/Olympics profile}}, {{IOC profile}}, {{COC profile}}, {{USOPC profile}}, {{Olympedia}}, and {{Olympic Channel}} (all of which are redundant with {{Sports links}}); and then add {{Sports links}} if it's not already there? Thanks! Allthegoldmedals (talk) 11:59, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Allthegoldmedals, could you give example(s) of what sort of changes would be performed, either here or by diff link? Helps me to better visualise the complexity of the task. Primefac (talk) 15:26, 20 August 2020 (UTC) (please do not ping on reply)
Here are a few: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. As far as I can tell, most should be like the first two. Allthegoldmedals (talk) 16:52, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Sports links recommended use provides suboptimal HTML. Since it generates list items, it really shouldn't be preceded by a list bullet. Just as a note. --Izno (talk) 16:44, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
@Izno: Could you expand on this? As far as I can tell if {{Sports links}} isn't preceded by a list bullet then the first link isn't bulleted, though the proceeding links are. A202985 (talk) 18:49, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
I will try, but I can't guarantee it is the case as I said (code review on mobile is hard). I'm simply deeply suspicious that what is happening is that there is an empty list item being generated due to the implementation of sports links because a template cannot get out of a list item that has started outside the template, so far as I know. Templates should generally strive not to do that. --Izno (talk) 21:19, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Despite the fact that sports links has a minor HTML issue (which can be fixed on the template side), we at WikiProject Curling have discussed and decided that we'd still like to carry out this template change, because many of the external link templates currently point to dead links, which is a more pressing issue. I'd like to follow up about this bot request? Allthegoldmedals (talk) 22:41, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Replace template with another and remove where the other already exists re; Template:Germanic philologyEdit

Sorry for the messy entry, I'm not familiar with bot procedures but I wanted to flag this as it seems to have gone under the radar.

It would appear that a few months ago the content at Template:Germanic philology was merged into Template:Germanic languages, and the former was redirected to the latter. However, many pages included both templates, and so now they instead contain two copies of the same template (as the philology template simply reproduces the content of the languages template). For instance: Fingallian, Germanic philology. I am unsure how many pages this may affect.

To fix this, it seems it would be worthwhile to instruct a bot to:

  1. Convert all instances of the "Germanic philology" template to the "Germanic languages" template.
  2. Subsequently remove duplicate instances of the template within a single article.

Thanks. BlackholeWA (talk) 02:44, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I'll go through with my bot tomorrow and remove any duplicate uses. Primefac (talk) 02:48, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. It also belatedly occurs to me that it might also be worthwhile opening a TfD for the seemingly now defunct philology template. (Would do so myself now, but it's 3am here) BlackholeWA (talk) 02:51, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean, as it's still used and is clearly a useful redirect. I mean, I won't stop you from taking it to RFD, but it seems like a waste of time. Primefac (talk) 10:37, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
  Done, about 10 pages edited. Primefac (talk) 14:07, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Medical external links surveyEdit

Request
External links
Website Links
British Thoracic Society 15
MeSH 14
... ...

This might need two steps (per WAID, below) - generating a list of articles, and then generating a list of external links that have been used.

Goal
  • Use this information to request a bot to run through article space and commonly used links to templates
Reason

Make maintenance easier, by:

  1. Helping resolve the issue of dead links in bulk (done for existing templates, see for example 2014: Category_talk:Anatomy_external_link_templates)
  2. Helping future template discussions. For example, I recently completed a survey of templates used in medical space (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_139#Request_for_some_more_eyes_at_TfD) which revealed a number of templates which linked to sites no longer fit for use, either because of a change in our standards, paywalls, or deterioration or change in the website's standards.
  3. Helping future template discussions that may, for example, result in a change in location of that link to an authority control template or Wikidata.
Discussion
Discussions as to appropriate venue, and one not relevant to request
User:Tom (LT), I don't know if this needs a bot; it might be possible to do it as some sort of query.
In terms of which articles to search, I think it would be a good idea to exclude articles tagged by Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography, Wikipedia:WikiProject Hospitals, Wikipedia:WikiProject Business, and anything with the WPMED tag set to |society=yes. WPMED currently tags a very large number articles that are primarily about people and organizations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:13, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
That's a good point regarding excluding some articles, although if that's particularly difficult I have no strong opinion if they got included. I'm all ears if you have a suggestion as to what that sort of query you mention might be, otherwise as it involves running through some text in articles I thought a bot might be most appropriate. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:38, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
I believe the information you want is at Wikipedia:Request a query. You'd probably want two queries: Please give me a list of the right articles, and then please give me a list of the links. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:02, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, will give it a go. I have made slight alterations to the text based on the venue change. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:22, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Right, that did not work well. Moving back to BOTREQ as suspected. Thank you for your good intentions when you gave the advice above. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:57, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm not certain what you asked for is really what you want. Most of those are talk pages. Did you want external links from the talk pages themselves (if so, quarry:query/47794), external links from the non-talk pages associated with pages in those categories, or just mainspace pages of 'Talk:' pages in those categories (if so, quarry:query/47797)? —Cryptic 14:38, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
    Only mainspace pages, I believe. @Tom (LT), does that sound right? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:10, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
    quarry:query/47799 is the version of the same query that orders the counts in descending order (for mainspace pages). Surprised to see facebook linked 852 times. SD0001 (talk) 16:24, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
    (Quarry lets you sort results by column.) —Cryptic 16:59, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Cryptic and also WhatamIdoing is there a way just to get the links contained within the "External links" section of articles? --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:55, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
      • Not even in principle without a full database dump. Even then, you'd probably have to render all those articles and scrape them. I suppose you could try to parse them, but any existing templates there would make it difficult, even before considering the ones pulling from Wikidata. —Cryptic 09:22, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
        A full database dump isn't required. And it isn't that difficult provided you use a good bot framework. I see only about 70,000 articles in the categories combined. The API can pull the texts of 500 articles at a time, which means we're done in 140 API calls. As for the parsing, a good bot framework (like pywikibot) would provides ways to extract text from a section and also to parse external links and templates from them. You'd probably want to get the url= param of any templates whose names begin with "cite ", along with the raw external links. That may not cover everything, but I guess it's good enough. – SD0001 (talk) 10:31, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Excluding articles whose talk pages are in any of a list of other categories as mentioned above in passing, on the other hand, is easy. I just need the list. Filtering out ones with a given template parameter usually isn't, but it looks like this one adds Category:Society and medicine task force articles. (Setting important/quality just adds more categories and doesn't replace that one, right?) —Cryptic 09:22, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
    Right. We are verbose with WikiProject categories. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:59, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks all! To be clear I don't want to look at citation links, just those within the "external links" section of the articles. This is because it's a single section that, in my experience, is often unloved and would benefit from an update / oversight :). --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:51, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
    • @Tom (LT): If you're interested only in the links produced by the [external links] syntax, its a very straightforward problem which can be solved using pywikibot (to fetch the articles) and mwparserfromhell (to parse the links). These are fairly common libraries used by bot developers. If you post at WP:BOTREQ, there's a chance someone will get to it soon.
    • Database queries (which is what this page is for) are not helpful since they can't differentiate between links by the position on the page or the way they're present (external link, citation template, etc). – SD0001 (talk) 14:05, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
      • Thanks, I moved here after WhatamIdoing indicated they thought here might be a more appropriate venue, although as stated above I have felt this would be more appropriate for a bot request.--Tom (LT) (talk) 23:57, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
  • @Tom (LT): Although not same as the your original request, I ran the bot. Surveyed how many times do each medical external templates used in article space (summary). I did this based on the spirit that something is better than nothing. --Was a bee (talk) 12:51, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Medical external template usage

Transclusion counts of templates under the en:Category:Medicine external link templates. Main space (article space) only. Templates transcluded through Lua module were not (couldn't be) counted.

Template Transclusion count Article list
1 en:Template:Medical resources 6574 [8]
2 en:Template:MeSH name 5867 [9]
3 en:Template:ICD10 4180 [10]
4 en:Template:ICD9 4001 [11]
5 en:Template:FMA 3229 [12]
6 en:Template:Gray's 1778 [13]
7 en:Template:PMID 1671 [14]
8 en:Template:OMIM 716 [15]
9 en:Template:WhoNamedIt 656 [16]
10 en:Template:EMedicine 618 [17]
11 en:Template:ICD9proc 548 [18]
12 en:Template:NormanAnatomy 512 [19]
13 en:Template:EMedicine2 500 [20]
14 en:Template:SUNYAnatomyLabs 488 [21]
15 en:Template:ATC 485 [22]
16 en:Template:DorlandsDict 454 [23]
17 en:Template:ClinicalTrialsGov 405 [24]
18 en:Template:NormanAnatomyFig 334 [25]
19 en:Template:SUNYAnatomyFigs 318 [26]
20 en:Template:PMC 274 [27]
21 en:Template:NCBIBook2 238 [28]
22 en:Template:BUHistology 217 [29]
23 en:Template:MedlinePlusEncyclopedia 207 [30]
24 en:Template:ICDO 196 [31]
25 en:Template:UMichAtlas 158 [32]
26 en:Template:MeSH number 138 [33]
27 en:Template:TerminologiaEmbryologica 137 [34]
28 en:Template:OPS301 135 [35]
29 en:Template:Office of Rare Diseases 117 [36]
30 en:Template:LoyolaMedEd 102 [37]
31 en:Template:SUNYAnatomyImage 100 [38]
32 en:Template:LOINC 66 [39]
33 en:Template:DartmouthHumanAnatomy 65 [40]
34 en:Template:ViennaCrossSection 64 [41]
35 en:Template:BrainMaps 64 [42]
36 en:Template:NINDS 59 [43]
37 en:Template:DukeOrtho 56 [44]
38 en:Template:Chorus 49 [45]
39 en:Template:OklahomaHistology 49 [46]
40 en:Template:EmbryologyUNC 48 [47]
41 en:Template:BrainInfo 48 [48]
42 en:Template:UCDavisOrganology 46 [49]
43 en:Template:NLM 43 [50]
44 en:Template:UIUCHistologySubject 43 [51]
45 en:Template:MedicalMnemonics 41 [52]
46 en:Template:DiseasesDB 40 [53]
47 en:Template:EmbryologySwiss 40 [54]
48 en:Template:Cite GPnotebook 36 [55]
49 en:Template:AnatomyAtlasesMicroscopic 33 [56]
50 en:Template:ICD10PCS 32 [57]
51 en:Template:DermNet 31 [58]
52 en:Template:KansasHandKinesiology 31 [59]
53 en:Template:KansasHistology 31 [60]
54 en:Template:NICE 29 [61]
55 en:Template:GeneTests 26 [62]
56 en:Template:DermAtlas 25 [63]
57 en:Template:MerckManual 23 [64]
58 en:Template:MeSH PharmaList 22 [65]
59 en:Template:BiowebUW 22 [66]
60 en:Template:MerckHome 20 [67]
61 en:Template:UMichAnatomyModule 18 [68]
62 en:Template:PSUAnatomy 17 [69]
63 en:Template:EmbryologyUNSW 16 [70]
64 en:Template:MedlinePlusDrugInfo 16 [71]
65 en:Template:EmbryologyTemple 14 [72]
66 en:Template:DrugBank 12 [73]
67 en:Template:BrainstemWisconsin 12 [74]
68 en:Template:EatonHand 11 [75]
69 en:Template:MuscleUWash 11 [76]
70 en:Template:NeuroanatomyWisc 10 [77]
71 en:Template:DECIPHER 9 [78]
72 en:Template:Gray page 9 [79]
73 en:Template:HCPCSlevel2 7 [80]
74 en:Template:SUNYRadiology 7 [81]
75 en:Template:WhoNamedIt2 7 [82]
76 en:Template:GeorgiaImmunology 6 [83]
77 en:Template:ICD11 6 [84]
78 en:Template:UTGlucagon 6 [85]
79 en:Template:CDCDiseaseInfo 5 [86]
80 en:Template:MedlinePlusImage 5 [87]
81 en:Template:MedlinePlusOverview 5 [88]
82 en:Template:SUNYCrossSection 5 [89]
83 en:Template:WOROI 5 [90]
84 en:Template:DailyMed 4 [91]
85 en:Template:CNX A&P 4 [92]
86 en:Template:Medicinenet 3 [93]
87 en:Template:Orphanet 3 [94]
88 en:Template:SearchLOINC 3 [95]
89 en:Template:ECDC 2 [96]
90 en:Template:NHS 2 [97]
91 en:Template:AnatomyAtlases 2 [98]
92 en:Template:GNF GO 1 [99]
93 en:Template:Locus 1 [100]
94 en:Template:MedlinePlus2 0 [101]
95 en:Template:Terminologia Anatomica 0 [102]
96 en:Template:TerminologiaHistologica 0 [103]
97 en:Template:Gray's Anatomy link 0 [104]
98 en:Template:TA98 0 [105]

Thanks :) Close enough. I withdraw this request for the moment so that bot editors can focus on more worthy targets --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:52, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Double redirect botEdit

The current way of dealing with double redirects is slow and inefficient. A far simpler way to deal with them would be to simply have a bot that detects when a new redirect is created, either from a merger, or as a new page. If it finds a double redirect, it will fix it instantly. The current system is slow, and redirects can take several days to fix. If sinebot is able to sign posts in talk and user talk namespaces almost instantly, how hard can it be for a bot to fix double redirects faster? I-82-I | TALK 07:48, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Surely we already have several bots which fix double redirects? In any case, fixing a double redirect "instantly" could cause chaos in the event of a malicious edit. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:15, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Xqbot and others do this. It's not instant but I agree that an instant fix can cause problems. There are times when I'd have had to leave a set of pages inconsistent awaiting admin (or page mover) help if a bot had intervened to mess up my carefully planned sequence of moves. Certes (talk) 10:43, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
This has been discussed recently, and if I recall there are two active (and four approved) bots that deal with double redirects. They both work in different ways but they essentially do work as described by the OP. Primefac (talk) 12:31, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Bot for updating U.S. college admissions statisticsEdit

For many years, U.S. college articles were using manually updated tables like this to represent admissions statistics. Following a WikiProject Higher Education discussion, we've begun replacing them with {{Infobox U.S. college admissions}}, which uses data available from the Common Data Set (and I think also IPEDS) for everything (except the optional historical test score parameters). Symbols for historical data are chosen automatically using the new {{Fluctuation formatter}} I created.

Would anyone be interested in starting work on a bot that could gather the data and use it to update the templates automatically every year? Given the number of colleges in the U.S., doing so will save likely hundreds of hours of editor work per year. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 20:06, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Would it not make more sense to have a template or module to store all of the data, call it from the templates, and only have to update on page per year? A bot could still be used to import and format it, but it would save a lot of edits; what are there, something like 500 universities in the US? Primefac (talk) 20:21, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Primefac, that could certainly be an approach, since yeah, there's more like 2000 institutions. The centralized data storage approach isn't working that well for college colors, but it could perhaps be done better or done at Wikidata rather than here. I'll mostly leave those sorts of decisions to whoever wants to actually do the coding, so long as the system they set up is reasonably robust and durable. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 23:28, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
If it's being updated by a bot I don't really see an issue with it being unable to format its updates as a Lua table. The proposal at that link also kinda misses the point imo, people can always suggest updates on the talk if they can't edit the module, and even if they make a TPER with the new data (& sources, if applicable), I don't think TEs would mind adding it into the module's /data, so knowledge of Lua isn't really required. It sounds like people just aren't submitting updates? As for this thing, if statistics are to be updated by bot, people would only need to amend if the Common Data Set values were wrong, somehow. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:14, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Opt-in service to notify discussion of past AfDs when an article is renominatedEdit

Participation at AfD often requires considerable research and debate to find consensus. It's therefore understandable that people get frustrated when, sometime after it's closed, the article is renominated without them knowing. Given how few participants many AfDs have, it sometimes happens that a well attended AfD is overturned by a much smaller group. But even when that doesn't happen, the second (or subsequent) nomination loses out on the efforts of those who researched before.

Anyone willing to make a bot that would look for "nomination)" in the title (or some other method of determining renominations) and, based on an opt-in list, notify past participants (if they want)? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:11, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Not to ask the dumb question, but if one is concerned enough about the topic, could they not just watchlist the page? Primefac (talk) 12:50, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Well, I recently wiped my watchlist, but even before that I had about 20k pages on it. It's easy to miss a renomination if there's no notification. Especially if it's a topic I'm only marginally interested in. Participation in an AfD isn't necessarily interest in watching the article or being "concerned enough about the topic"; it's about the effort and the process. I've spent a good amount of time digging up sources (or trying and failing to do so) on topics I'm not super interested in, because that's just what AfD needs sometimes. If the same exact discussion is going to happen again, there's a good argument, I think, for not losing that effort (or not replicating it, or not risking a redo where nobody puts in that effort). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:11, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough. Primefac (talk) 15:16, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
I could probably do this soon, if nobody beats me to it. TheTVExpert (talk) 19:05, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Great! — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:25, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Just to clarify, in case it's unclear, when I say "opt-in" I intended that to mean opt-in for the service, and not on the level of the individual AfD. i.e. "I want this in general" rather than "if this specific article is renominated, I want to be notified". — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:25, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Tangentially related: WP:Bots/Requests for approval/SDZeroBot 6. – SD0001 (talk) 21:22, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Yobot wikiproject tagging requestEdit

This is a formal request to recruit @Yobot: to tag talk pages under WikiProject Phoenicia. Please tag the pages under Category:Phoenicia; no auto-rating. Thanks ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 13:34, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Yobot has not edited since 2018. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:12, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
I seem to recall User:AnomieBOT performs this task. Primefac (talk) 15:59, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
@Elie plus: In any case, you need to supply an explicit list of categories to process - unless you only want the 20 pages presently in Category:Phoenicia to be tagged, those can be done as an AWB job. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:34, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

WP:TALKORDER issuesEdit

I come across way too many article talks, like Talk:Jennifer Lawrence, where the {{Archives}} causes that ugly overlap. It happens whenever the template isn't at the bottom of the list of talk banners (view source to see what I mean). To fix, we'd need a continuous bot to make sure this template keeps getting moved to the bottom of talk page banners. I don't think a CSS fix is really possible for this, and a JS fix would not be preferable to just having a bot maintain talk pages. I've made a discussion on the talk last week, see Redrose's response there for useful info as well (perhaps a broader bot for that purpose should be considered). It reminds me that another issue we see is DS templates constantly in the wrong order, it's advised by the template itself, and WP:TALKORDER, to have them below the talk header. Yet they seem to be scattered randomly. We commonly have random whitespace in talk page banners, too, thus random newlines. Really a bot to clean all this up would be a good idea, and enforce order (except when opted-out, I suppose). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:04, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

You'll have to see Special:PermaLink/973120366 for the version PR refers to, since I went ahead and removed the {{archives}} (there's already a {{talk header}} so it makes it redundant). Primefac (talk) 22:19, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
@ProcrastinatingReader: I was just thinking about this the other day. WP:Talk page layout gives a fairly consistent indication of what the order for talk page banners should be, but they regularly end up more random. It'd be very nice to have a bot fixing that, and over time as people get used to a certain order, it could make the maze of talk banners easier to navigate.
Programming will be a fairly big task, though. You'd have to go through every talk page banner available and assign it an order. You'd also probably want to automate things like when to introduce collapsing of WikiProjects or {{banner holder}}. And we'd need to discuss what should happen when someone crates and adds a new banner that isn't part of the queue, or how to handle custom notice banners. I could also see complaints that if the bot operates too frequently, it's just making edits without a strong purpose. All those obstacles are possible to overcome, however, and I think if we did it'd make talk pages a lot nicer. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 20:00, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Category removal from about 1000 articlesEdit

Hundreds of redirects with the format [[YEAR US presidential election in STATE]] were created with superfluous/redundant categories. After a discussion under WP:RFD, it was decided to keep the redirects but request a bot to remove the categories and possibly to add {{R from abbreviation}} as well. See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 6#YEAR US presidential election in STATE. Thank you. —GoldRingChip 19:29, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Bot for fixing italicizations of movie/newspaper/etc. namesEdit

This might be something that'd more have to be done with AWB (in which case I'd appreciate advice on how), but to lay it out: I fairly often come across instances of e.g. Star Trek: The Next Generation that are not italicized. I can think of very few instances where this wikitext would show up, including the link, but we would not want to italicize. Would it be possible to get a bot to go around and identify instances of missing italicizations and fix them? (Italicization obviously isn't the most pressing issue facing the 'pedia, but since it is visible to readers, I don't think WP:COSMETICBOT applies.) {{u|Sdkb}}talk 21:10, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I can think of very few instances where this wikitext would show up are there any? If so, might not be a good task for bot, as it wouldn't be able to differentiate here. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:47, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
ProcrastinatingReader, giving this some more thought, the only instance outside of citations that I can think of is within a block of italicized text, in which case double italicization=no italicization. It also occurs to me that this goes beyond just titles to include any page at all that has an italic title but is linked to from another page not using italics. What would be the best way to address this? Should we set up a maintenance category and hand it over to the typo team or something? {{u|Sdkb}}talk 03:42, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Newspaper titles often show up in citation templates which dislike italics. Certes (talk) 17:02, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Certes, are bots able to ignore content within citations? {{u|Sdkb}}talk 01:57, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm sure a bot could easily be programmed to do that. WP:OABOT#Resources mentions a bot which uses that technique for a different purpose, and the functionality may even come out of the box with mwparserfromhell. However, the few bots I've written have been trivial read-only hacks, so an expert may be more helpful. Certes (talk) 11:00, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Move editnotices when underlying page is movedEdit

Usually editors moving pages don't move the editnotice attached to it. Either they forget, or aren't admin/TE so they don't do it (or both). {{Editnotice/notice}} categorises such cases into Category:Editnotices whose targets are redirects (which I've been updating for a while) but it often takes months for the job queue to go over transclusions and add moved pages into this cat (see this on VPT), which makes it hard to even do this manually. I'm thinking a bot would (a) be able to do this sooner and get around that issue and (b) actually just do the move automatically, suppressing the redirect. One way would be to listen to Special:Log/move and check if a editnotice for page exists, this could be done continuously. Another is to regularly loop over all transclusions of {{Editnotice}} (or [[Special:PrefixIndex/Template:Editnotices/) daily and do the moves. There's <20k so this is feasible, I think, but this would leave a period of up to 24 hours (ideally, the editnotice shouldn't just be disappearing for a day, especially when they're ones required for DS etc). Thoughts on these options, or other alternative methods? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:41, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

  BRFA filed ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:39, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Rcat templates specifying printworthynessEdit

A lot of rcat templates specify the printworthyness of redirects through the |printworthy= parameter of {{Redirect template}}. All of these have, in their documentation, a notice asking editors to also add {{R printworthy}} or {{R unprintworthy}} (as appropriate) to redirects categorised by the template, if in the mainspace. However, very few editors actually take notice of this instruction, so how about a bot to do this instead?

The bot would be implemented (I hypothesise; I've never actually done this myself) by running through Category:Printworthy redirects and Category:Unprintworthy redirects, checking if each page includes {{R printworthy}} or {{R unprintworthy}}, and adding the relevant template if the answer is no (within an {{Rcatshell}} if there is one).

Any thoughts? WT79 (speak to me | editing patterns | what I been doing) 17:13, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Not to ask the really dumb question, as I'm not heavily involved in that project, but if an "r from..." template includes the option to mark a redirect as unprintworthy, why do you then need another template to do the same thing? Primefac (talk) 22:20, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
I think it's meant as a visual thing, as the other templates only add categories. Fair point though. WT79 (speak to me | editing patterns | what I been doing) 07:01, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
After a bit further thinking, I think the reason is as follows: {{Redirect template}}'s |printworthy= parameter adds the pages to Category:Printworthy redirects, if they are in the main namepace. However, {{R printworthy}} / {{R unprintworthy}} are the standard Rcat templates to use to mark redirects as printworthy / unprintworthy; these are used separately to other templates on the redirect. They may be used other rcats which specify printworthyness, so isn't just part of {{Redirect template}}, which is only supposed to be used as a meta-template. I suppose they could have their functionality merged into {{Redirect template}}, and {{R printworthy}} and {{R unprintworthy}} replaced with '{{Redirect template|printworthy=<!--yes or no as appropriate-->}}', but it sounds like a lot of disruption for not much benefit. WT79 (speak to me | editing patterns | what I been doing) 14:23, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

A bot that can copy articles from non-diffusing subcategories into the appropriate parent categories.Edit

I was going to copy all films from the American television films category into the American films category (using Cat-a-lot), because the template on the American films category specifically tells editors to do this. However, an administrator objected because he did not want his watchlist to be full of hundreds of minor edits. He then requested that I get a bot to transfer articles from non-diffusing subcategories into the appropriate parent categories. I have taken into account the fact that such a bot may transfer categories that were inappropriately placed, though. Is this still an acceptable proposal? Scorpions13256 (talk) 20:31, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

adding "nobots", and "category:wikipedians who opt out of message delivery" to indef blocked usersEdit

I have seen many users who have been blocked indefinitely for various reasons (socking, disruptive editing, CIR, and what not), but they receive many newsletters, and other notifications. Currently, there is User:Yapperbot/Pruner to remove inactive users from lists (WikiProject membership, FRS, etc), notifying the removed users appropriately. I am not sure what is the extent of this task. Would it be feasible to spend resources on creating a bot task to add {{nobots}}, and "category:wikipedians who opt out of message delivery" on the talkpages of users who have been blocked indefinitely, and do not have {{unblock}} on talkpage for more than 30 days? That way, resources can be conserved by avoiding new bot messages being posted, and later being archived. In case the user returns after a while, or after standard offer, they can simply remove the "nobots", and the category. Opinions are welcome. Regards, —usernamekiran (talk) 13:22, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, I created a custom module, which did the edit(s) successfully: special:diff/978555212. I tested the module under different scenarios, and I also tested on a few (talk)pages from Category:Indefinitely blocked Wikipedians. I couldnt find any errors, as it is fairly a basic task. I didn't save these edits, just previewed. —usernamekiran (talk) 16:30, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Bot that automatically fixes spacing after periodsEdit

Scrolling through Wikipedia:Typo Team/moss/E, I noticed that a majority of typos marked are incorrect spacing after periods.As an example, I would like to name the typo I just made between "periods" and "as". Now, to qualify for correction, the words would have to:

  • Not be in links i.e:
  • Not be in the same string, without a space, as "www", "http", "com", "org", etc.
  • Not be part of a reference.
  • Be a correct word in the language. (A metric for this could be having a page on Wiktionary.) "Periods" and "as" would meet this condition
  • And have been on an article longer than a certain time period (in the case that someone misspells a link).

Interested to hear what you think. Opalzukor (talk) 16:11, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Since both "i" and "e" have entries at Wiktionary, your use of "i.e" above would presumably be (incorrectly) modified by such a bot. I think that a supervised bot task of this sort might be possible with considerable effort and a lot more conditions to avoid false positives, but an unsupervised bot is unlikely to be possible. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:37, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
WT:AutoWikiBrowser/Typos also works in this area. It already fixes many types of wrong punctuation but may be able to help further. Certes (talk) 17:42, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
A dedicated AWB user could have a field day fixing specific patterns, like "(letter).The", which currently has more than 5,000 hits in article space (including false positives in URLs and similar things that should not be fixed). Someone looking for and fixing common patterns like this could take a considerable load off of the Typo Team. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:45, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Jonesey95, wow, that is a field day in waiting indeed! {{u|Sdkb}}talk 18:04, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Bot that marks redirects with R to/from diacriticsEdit

This task should be relatively simple. Find all cases of redirects like

and mark them with {{R to diacritics}}

Then find all cases of redirects like

and mark them with {{R from diacritics}}

Obviously pages that are already tagged should be skipped. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:45, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

If the redirect already has similar templates, such as {{R move}}, then these and the new template should go within a new or existing {{Redirect category shell}}. Certes (talk) 07:55, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Bot to fix broken peer review linksEdit

Hi all, there are about 650 articles which were previously peer reviewed. However, because of article moves, the links to the reviews are now broken. Category:Pages using Template:Old peer review with broken archive link. See for example Talk:Battle of the Catalaunian Plains. I'm seeking bot help repairing the 650 links. Essentially, the bot will need to go through each article in that category, determine what the name of the article was when the peer review was closed, and then update the template {{Old peer review}} on the current article talk page by adding |reviewedname=the old name. Extra useful if the date can be found and inserted too (|date=date the review was closed). --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:25, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Fixing broken shortcuts to sectionsEdit

When someone changes a section name, there's no indication that someone else somewhere on Wikipedia might have created a link to that section that will be broken by the name change. I occasionally come across instances of such broken anchor links. Is there any bot patrolling for this and changing links (or, if that would be disruptive in some cases, adding an {{anchor}} to the destination page)? If not, I'd think we'd want to set that up. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 05:53, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Exactly what I was thinking of a few days back. We don't even have the automation to get a list of broken section redirects, let alone to fix them. We have no fewer than 730,000 redirects pointing to sections, in the mainspace alone. The only way AFAIK to check accurately if such a redirect is valid is to look at the rendered HTML of the target page and see if it has an element with the given ID. But the API allows for parsing only one page in a single call, which means we would have to make 730,000 API calls, and repeat the process every month or so??
A best-effort way would be look at the wikitexts of the target pages (this the API allows us to fetch for 500 pages at a time) and guess if the redirect would be valid by checking the section names and {{anchor}} tags. Even then we need 730,000 / 500 = 1460 API calls, but that's reasonable I guess. – SD0001 (talk) 10:10, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
It might take fewer calls if we group the redirects by target page, so Foo#bar and Foo#baz can be handled together. But how do we fix them once we have a list? We could add anchors for old versions of headings, at the considerable cost of retrieving multiple old versions, but I expect too many of those 730,000 redirects would need manual attention. Adding anchors automatically after future changes might be more useful. Certes (talk) 10:44, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
There is/was a bot that handles this, yes. I don't remember which. --Izno (talk) 14:25, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Hmm, interesting. It should probably be linked from WP:ANCHOR if it's identified. And if it used to exist but has stopped working, then it's part of the larger problem of quiet bot retirements, which I know some editors are tired of hearing about but which really needs to emphasized until it's addressed. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 14:47, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Are you sure? Just a few days back, I fixed a broken section redirect that had been broken for 4 years. – SD0001 (talk) 20:10, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Oh boy, we do have Wikipedia:Database reports/Broken section anchors. – SD0001 (talk) 20:16, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Also found Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BrokenAnchorBot and Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SteveBot 5. Neither of these have been active anytime in the recent past. Both needed to be run manually (not fully automatic). – SD0001 (talk) 20:25, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Hmm, 2010 and 2011. Could either of those be mined for code/techniques that we could use to get this running again? And while it'd be better to have something manual than nothing, I think ideally we should set up a bot that runs automatically and throws up a prominent error message if it ever stops functioning, since this is an issue that needs persistent work. Courtesy pinging Steven Crossin who is still active (as of last month). {{u|Sdkb}}talk 21:36, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Civil parish botEdit

This isn't another request (straight away) for a bot request but rather (at the moment) only a request to see if anyone has the skills to create the code for it. I placed a request at Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 79#Civil parish bot and there was discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 160#Civil parish bot and User talk:DannyS712/Archive 12#Json format that coding was needed. The basic format is at User:Crouch, Swale/Bot tasks/Civil parishes (current)/Simple and I have attempted to do coding at User:Crouch, Swale/Bot tasks/Civil parishes (current)/Coded. I don't have the skills to do the JSON bit so I'm wandering if anyone does? If not then this can be archived and I can get on with looking at creating them manually, thanks. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:58, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Do you have any sort of consensus that this bot is a good idea, which was asked for last year? You seem to be skirting around this again. Spike 'em (talk) 10:14, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
There did appear to be for the parishes themselves and the main point is that I we can get the technical bit then the approval might be easier since that was the problem last time. Even if the bot isn't actually approved this would be useful in detecting missing parishes. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:21, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Could you please explain exactly where you think there was consensus to mass create these articles, as I can't see any in the links you've provided? You have been asked multiple times to gain that consensus and then get the bot sorted, not the other way round. Spike 'em (talk) 16:53, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
At Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/Archive 18#Bot created articles there was a small amount but yes you're right there hasn't otherwise been much consensus either way. @Spike 'em: do you suggest that I start an RFC to deal with this? since there are also some related questions at User:Crouch, Swale/England. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:22, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorting on Wikipedia:Translators availableEdit

A bot would be useful on Wikipedia:Translators available for the sorting the lists of users, in each section, by the date of last edit (descending). I'd suggest running the task monthly. – SD0001 (talk) 12:19, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Replacing invalid values in currency templatesEdit

A recent change to the MediaWiki software has started assigning a tracking category, Category:Pages with non-numeric formatnum arguments, to pages that contain invalid input to formatnum, which is supposed to be given only numeric input. I have edited a few templates to get the article count down from about 150,000 to the current 31,000, but there are some instances of errors within articles that need to be corrected.

One of the errors is invalid input to currency templates, including {{US$}}, {{CAD}}, and other templates in Category:Currency templates. The invalid input often looks like {{US$|75 million}}, which should be written {{US$|75}}{{nbsp}}million. Here's a sample fix.

This search shows some of the 500+ articles that have invalid text in {{US$}}. The "insource" regex in the search shows the most common construction of the invalid text, and creating a regex to fix the affected articles should be easy. The tricky part is doing the same fix for about 50 templates and their redirects.

Is there anyone here who would be willing to work with me to fix these errors? I can create a list of probable articles and templates that are involved (although I don't know how to create a list of all of the possible redirects). I estimate that the affected article count is between 1,000 and 3,000. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:29, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Do we know what is behind this change? It would help both existing and future uses if {{formatnum:CAD 1234 squillion}} produced "CAD 1,234 squillion" and, in practice, it does. If the parser function is being changed to remove this useful feature, we might be better off writing a template to reimplement the current behaviour of formatnum: and changing {{US$}} etc. to use that template, rather than editing thousands of articles. Certes (talk) 17:46, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
This MW help page explains that sending non-numeric values to formatnum can produce "unreliable output". It looks like the MW developers have deprecated and started tracking this non-numeric input (see T237467 and T263592) as of sometime in the last week, so we either need to fix existing uses or write a new template. It would be great to have a new template that does what formatnum does; if you start developing such a template (it should have a better name than the poorly chosen "formatnum"), ping me and I'll help with QA. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:19, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
@Jonesey95: I've knocked something together in my sandbox (actual code in sandbox2). It almost works with a single #invoke:String|replace, but unfortunately the formatnum: executes before its argument gets replaced, so it formats the placeholder ("%1") rather than the actual number. Unless someone has a clever fix, we need to jump through some hoops with three String calls (or write some Lua). I've not assumed a name for the new template. {{Formatnum}} is currently a dummy "use a colon instead" warning but could be hijacked. Certes (talk) 19:41, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Clean up introduction sample pagesEdit

Related discussions:

A change back in June to the introduction shown to new users has resulted in new pages being created as subpages of Draft:Sample page when users complete the introduction without logging in (see Special:PrefixIndex/Draft:Sample_page). These are essentially individualized sandboxes, and should be routinely deleted - they're test pages by definition so WP:G2 applies, and they often contain material that qualifies for deletion under other speedy criteria. Can someone code an adminbot that will look for these subpages and delete them, maybe if they have not been edited in a few days? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:45, 30 September 2020 (UTC)