Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 60

Archive 55

←

Archive 58

Archive 59

Archive 60

Archive 61

Archive 62

→

Archive 65

Bot to fix The Lord of the Rings redirect

I am requesting that a bot be assigned to fix links to The Lord of the Rings film trilogy. The correct link they should be using is The Lord of the Rings (film series), where the original link redirects to. Spidey104 13:22, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

@Spidey104: is The Lord of the Rings film trilogy going to be retargeted? -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:42, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

@Magioladitis: No, it will not. Naming conventions establish that The Lord of the Rings (film series) is the correct title for the article, so there is no reason to expect 'The Lord of the Rings film trilogy' to be retargeted. I have already corrected all of the various other redirects to The Lord of the Rings (film series), but this one has too many articles using that link for me to handle. Spidey104 18:34, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

@Spidey104: Please see WP:NOTBROKEN. —David Levy 18:43, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Spidey104: I'm confused. Why would we want to de-redirect all the inbound links to The Lord of the Rings film trilogy? Isn't that the purpose of redirects, to transparently point the user to the right name? Could you link to the recent consensus to make this kind of change? Doing a mass change like this needs a very clear consensus to make the change and I'd really prefer to see a RFC endorsing this action prior to us changing ~550 articles and a great many other pages.Hasteur (talk) 18:49, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

@David Levy: "Not broken" does not apply here as this is typically used within the piping of a link and not in the link itself. It looks bad to have this incorrectly. Spidey104 20:18, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

@Spidey104: Unless the redirect is unclear, misleading or targeted to an article other than the one intended (which "The Lord of the Rings film trilogy" isn't), there's no need to "fix" links to it. WP:NOTBROKEN's current wording focuses primarily on piped links, but the first sentence ("There is usually nothing wrong with linking to redirects to articles.") is key. There's no need to expend resources on the replacement of functional links that you feel "look bad" (though it's considered acceptable to include such changes in edits that also accomplish other improvements). The section previously was clearer on this point. —David Levy 20:50, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

@Hasteur: I'm confused by your comments. The Lord of the Rings film trilogy redirects to The Lord of the Rings (film series). I am asking for all The Lord of the Rings film trilogy links to be changed to The Lord of the Rings (film series) links. Isn't it better to transparently point the user to the right name with the actual right name instead of a redirect? Spidey104 20:18, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Maybe I should specify that my request is only for articles and links where the incorrect link is used within the piping. Spidey104 20:20, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

You keep referring to the redirect as "incorrect". The mere fact that it isn't the article's actual title doesn't mean that. "The Lord of the Rings film trilogy" leads to the intended article and clearly and unambiguously identifies its subject. —David Levy 20:50, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

David, you're right that I shouldn't call the link "incorrect" but I can definitely call it sloppy. Redirects serve a purpose, but the continued use of this redirect makes Wikipedia look sloppy, unprofessional, and amateurish whenever anyone clicks on the link. Spidey104 00:12, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

@Spidey104:You're entitled to your opinion, but it means that most of the encyclopedia "look[s] sloppy, unprofessional, and amateurish". (I just viewed fifty random articles, forty-five of which contained redirects.) Do you realize how disruptive it would be to deploy bots to "fix" these links across millions of articles? Do you regard this particular case as special (and if so, why)? —David Levy 00:23, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

@David Levy:Thank you for pointing out one of many reasons why no one outside of the Wikipedia community takes Wikipedia seriously. No, I don't regard this one as a special case. I have fixed the sloppy use of redirects I have found before, but this one is a larger obstacle than I have encountered before. Why would it be disruptive to have bots make thousands of tedious edits that help clean-up Wikipedia? It's the only reason bots are used. Spidey104 00:32, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

@Spidey104: I'm sorry that you don't understand why deploying bots to edit ~4 million articles — purely to "fix" links that aren't broken (and then re-edit the pages whenever a redirect appears again) — would be disruptive. I'm baffled as to how our failure to engage in such a task discourages the general public from taking Wikipedia seriously.

Yes, bots are used to perform tedious edits that help to clean up Wikipedia. In this instance, no cleanup is needed; the links that you've deemed "sloppy" are fully functional. Please refrain from editing pages solely to "fix" them. —David Levy 01:18, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

@Spidey104: I suspect some cross-purposes here. When someone clicks on the link, they are taken straight to The Lord of the Rings (film series)- for example in this link. They will never see the redirect page if everything is functioning correctly. The obvious exception is when a page move leaves double redirects. A bot will clean these up, by fixing the double redirects. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:08, 11 May 2014 (UTC).

@Spidey104: From your concerns, I was thinking that maybe a fourth film was released, so that the series wasn't a trilogy anymore. But no, the J. R. R. Tolkien article says: "From 2001 to 2003, New Line Cinema released The Lord of the Rings as a trilogy of live-action films that were filmed in New Zealand and directed by Peter Jackson." I'm afraid I don't see the point of moving to a less specific title, and see from talk:The Lord of the Rings (film series)#Revert to The Lord of the Rings film trilogy that there is some desire to move the title back to film trilogy. Your request might be viewed as an attempt to preempt such a reversal of the move. Considering all that is truly "sloppy" about Wikipedia, this request is pointless. Wbm1058 (talk) 01:06, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

@Wbm1058: I think some of the "How should we title this?" comes from trying to define what role does The Hobbit (film series) have in affecting the larger series set since there are multiple characters/scenes/items that cross over from one set to the other which makes the larger series set complicated. I stand by my previous assertion that "fixing" this redirect is against the currently existing consensus as endorsed/ratified by core policy. If Spidey104 wants to persue this further, they should really open the RFC I mentioned above with probably a notice on WP:CENT and a specific invitation to Wikipedia:WikiProject Film to comment on the proposal. Hasteur (talk) 12:52, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Bot Request

Resolved

I am requesting a bot to revert any edits done to the Death Section of the article Premakeerthi De Alwis, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premakeerthi_de_Alwis The death section has been vandalized to include a reference to a book published by the wife of late Mr. De Alwis. The book violates several Wikipedia policies and has been addressed by several independent Administrators (can be viewed in the Talk page). Therefore, I am kindly requesting a bot to be placed on this page, so that the vandalism to this page can be minimized.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramya20 (talk • contribs) 14:20, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Ramya20 What you're asking for is essentially Page protection. I have entered the request there for you and further commentary should be handled there. Hasteur (talk) 18:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Remove unnecessary 'Image requested' templates

Could a bot check transclusions of {{Image requested}}, on talk pages, and remove them if the corresponding article includes an image? It would probably be best to ignore flag icons and similar. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:34, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: Plain Image requests yes, however if a image request is of a specific item (i.e. Talk:AOL) I don't think a bot can in good conscience remove the image. Hasteur (talk) 14:44, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

ITYM "remove the template", but yes, that's reasonable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:47, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Yep... mind was partially on something else. Hasteur (talk) 14:53, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

There's only 141,889 transclusions of that. If you start checking them manually now... - X201 (talk) 15:41, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Bumping so It stays on the page. This could be a fine task for a up and coming Bot Operator to take on... Hasteur (talk) 15:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

So just looking at a random request: A photo request was placed on Talk:Acantharea on 8 March 2013 (diff), populating Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of palaeontology. At the time there is already an image file in the article, File:Haeckel Acanthometra.jpg, albeit an artists' drawing, not a photograph. Should the bot remove the request? If not what is the algorithm for knowing not to do that? Wbm1058 (talk) 19:33, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Another example: John Ogonowski – Is the memorial panel all that was wanted, or should we hold out for a photo of the person? The (diff) shows that removing such requests may not be trivial: there are three separate templates requesting an image. Wbm1058 (talk) 19:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Requesting a bot to automatically generate featured topic progress templates for categories

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) 16:40, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Migrate CleanupListing tool from Toolserver to Wikimedia Labs

I would like to volunteer to migrate the CleanupListing tool from Toolserver to Wikimedia Labs. I am bringing it up here because I would be creating a bot to update bot userspace pages with cleanup listings. Toolserver is scheduled to be decommissioned around June 30, 2014.

History

• WolterBot appears to be the original version of this bot. Last run March 2010. Sample listing
• Svick (talk · contribs) has a tool running weekly on Toolserver that generates cleanup listings. Sample listings: Michigan (CSV, by cat, history)
• Hhhippo (talk · contribs) created HhhipBot which takes a CSV file from the Svick tool and creates enhanced lists. Sample listing

Previous discussions

• Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 37#Replacement for Wolterbot
• Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 54#Merge requests by subject

Proposed enhancements

• Add sub-categories of Category:Articles with incorrect citation syntax per User talk:Svick/Archive 4#Add new categories to cleanup listing by Renata3 (talk · contribs).
• Display new and resolved issues like HhhipBot.
• Group issues by type like HhhipBot.
• Create a Wikipedia page for the "by cat" list with <section /> tags that can be transcluded individually.
• Use a Wikipedia page to maintain the list of WikiProjects that are participating.

--Bamyers99 (talk) 20:31, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Removing pages from deleted categories

Do you think we can and/or should get a bot to do this? Jinkinson talk to me 23:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Is there a page showing all of the red-links in category namespace? Wbm1058 (talk) 11:54, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, there's Category:Pages in non-existent country centric categories, though it's more specific than I would like. Jinkinson talk to me 19:02, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

@Jinkinson: No, that cat is populated by Template:Globalize, i.e., all of the pages in that category transclude {{Globalize}}. It doesn't have anything to do with red-linked or deleted categories. Wbm1058 (talk) 20:31, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Are you looking for Special:WantedCategories? — HHHIPPO 20:54, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's it. Thanks. May take a human to tell the difference between a category that's red-linked because someone desires to create it (or "wants it") and one that's red-linked because it was rejected by a WP:CFD consensus. In the latter case, for the 30 or so that have 50+ members, it would be easy to set up a WP:AWB bot to delete the red-links, on a cat-by-cat basis. Do I need to get special approval for my Bot1058 to do such a simple task, or can I just do it? Wbm1058 (talk) 22:46, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

@Jinkinson: Is there a specific deleted category or categories that you had in mind that you wanted to delete the links to? Wbm1058 (talk) 22:53, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Not really, just Category:Eponymous debut albums, which I created before it got deleted. Nothing's in it anymore but I thought we should be able to get a bot to uncategorize pages in such cats easily enough. Jinkinson talk to me 23:11, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

WP: FT and GT

Would it be possible to have all the pages linked at wp:GT and wp:FT have their {{classicon}} changed to {{icon}}? Nergaal (talk) 11:50, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

@Nergaal: Could you please provide a link to a discussion where there was consensus to make this change? It would be helpful to provide that information when submitting the bot request. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 00:19, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia_talk:Good_topics#Reducing_page_size. I am not sure what sort of consensus you are looking for, but it seems to be a sensible move. The wp:Ft and wp:GT pages are a set of transcluded templates; for the wp:GT page, there are over 250 templates transcluded right now. Nergaal (talk) 11:47, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

@Nergaal:  Done - only found 18 pages that began with "Wikipedia:Featured topics/" that contained {{classicon}}. If I've missed something, please let me know. GoingBatty (talk) 00:55, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Spaces after initials in page names

In a recent discussion on whether or not to allow more leniency towards omitting spaces between a period and an initial in page names, In ictu oculi remarked this would probably cause problems unless a bot can prevent undesirable effects.

See Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)#Proposed change to the naming convention for people with multiple initials

Could someone look into this? Maybe also inform whether there is a bot currently preventing duplicate articles with names that are only different by a space less in the article name? --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:07, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Bot Request - Meetup Invite

Hello! I'd like to request a bot that invites users on the NYC Invite list to Writing for Wadewitz: Adrianne Wadewitz Memorial Edit-a-thon. Mwacha (talk) 20:08, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Requesting a check for items on pages

I have a semicolon delimited data file, with the first item on each line being an article title, and the rest (~100-900, averaging 250 Japanese characters) being items that should be found within that article. I would like a data dump on which items either do not appear in an article, or appear more than one time, with an indication of the article for which it does not conform, either by grouping by article, or indicating individually for each entry. You can replace the above data file with the results if you wish. A big shiny barnstar and my eternal gratitude on double checking about 500 edits and a month's worth of my Wikipedia time goes to the bot owner who can pull this off. VanIsaac_WS^cont 00:04, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Requests I responded to

I said I was "considering" two requests (now archived: one concerning Category:Articles containing video clips, another concerning talk pages of IP addresses). I would like to inform everyone that I've been too busy to implement them at this time. If anyone else wishes to take these up, please make a note here. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 03:06, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Mass piped link redirect fix

Request to change all piped links of Empire (magazine) to Empire (film magazine), so the former page can be redirected to Empire (disambiguation) due to the creation of Empire (South African magazine). –Dream out loud (talk) 18:45, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

@Dream out loud: Could you please point us to where consensus was formed to make this change? Seems that you could leave the film magazine article as Empire (magazine) per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 18:43, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

West Midland Bird Club

Resolved

The West Midland Bird Club website - http://www.westmidlandbirdclub.com/ - [Disclosure: I used to mange it] has been replaced with a new site [Disclaimer: Nothing to do with me!]. All the links in our citations, in a number of articles, are now broken, and most of the previous content is not on the new site. Can someone replace the links in citations with the Wayback Machine versions, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

This applies to some external links, too. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:05, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: -  Doing... this manually since I only see 47 articles that contain "westmidlandbirdclub.com". GoingBatty (talk) 01:37, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: - how would you want pages such as Alan Dean (ornithologist) done where the URLs are within Books and Articles sections? GoingBatty (talk) 01:50, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. The same, please. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:17, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: In this edit, I added |archiveurl= and |archivedate= parameters to citation templates. Since pages such as Alan Dean (ornithologist) don't have the links inside citation templates, could you please be more specific as to what you would like? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 02:12, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: Like this, perhaps? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:35, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: -  Doing... GoingBatty (talk) 15:00, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: -  Done GoingBatty (talk) 18:37, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: Many thanks. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:28, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Stub templates renamed

Resolved

At Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 May 14#Category:England_MP_stubs it was agreed to rename the following two templates, whose previous name is ambiguous:

• Template:England-MP-stub to Template:England-pre1707-MP-stub
• Template:Wales-England-MP-stub to Template:Wales-pre1707-MP-stub

The renaming has taken place, and I now want to delete the redirects from the old ambiguous titles. However, that cannot be done until all uses of the template have been updated.

Please can some kind bot-owner update all article-space uses of these old names?

Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:08, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I can do it later today. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:12, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Magioladitis. That's great news :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:59, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

 Doing... -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:08, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I finished the "Wales-..." -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:28, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I did 1,800. Still 271 to go. I need some rest. I'll finish it later today. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:41, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done 2,076 pages! -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:27, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl all done + I deleted the old stub for you. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:11, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Magioladitis. It's wonderful to have that done. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:30, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Create one page of Actor

Please create one Page on Actor Called "Aashish Mehrotra" from C=the serial of #Paanch from #Channel V :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShruSD (talk • contribs) 05:50, May 30, 2014‎ (UTC)

@ShruSD: Creating one article isn't a job suitable for a bot. Wikipedia:Requested articles might be a better forum for you. Good luck! GoingBatty (talk) 23:07, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Trams

Can I please have this done for WP:TRAM all articles are in Category:WikiProject Streetcars articles and I need the WikiProject Trains template replaced with {{WikiProject Streetcars}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fremantle99 (talk • contribs) 09:09, June 2, 2014 (UTC)

@Fremantle99: Just checking - you would like {{WikiProject Trains|...|streetcars=yes|...}} changed to {{WikiProject Streetcars|...}} and leave the other parameters as is? Or replace it with {{WikiProject Streetcars|class=|importance=}} so others can populate the parameters? Could you please point us to a discussion where consensus was made for this move? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 23:44, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: {{WikiProject Streetcars|class=|importance=}} Please. You can find consensus at [1]. Sorry for the late reply. Fremantle99 (talk) 22:59, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

@Fremantle99: No apologies needed - I think replying within 24 hours is fine. Thank you for providing the link. If I'm reading it right, I see three editors that don't agree with creating a new WikiProject, and none that agree. I also don't see any discussion about removing the |class= and |importance= parameters. While this would be easy for a bot operator to do, I'm concerned that there doesn't yet seem to be consensus to perform this task. GoingBatty (talk) 01:54, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

@GoingBatty:, Yes, you do read it right to a certain degree, only two editors disagreed, however, on WikiProject trains I received support, and those editors are now on board with the idea particularly @Bahnfriend: who helped create the portal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fremantle99 (talk • contribs) 08:56, June 4, 2014 (UTC)

@Fremantle99: I don't see a conversation at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains. Could you please provide a link to the discussion? I should have mentioned before that the request for bot approval form asks bot owners to provide a link to demonstrate consensus. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 16:19, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: [2] is the discussion that is old enough to make it to the archives. Redrose64, gave reluctant support, Bahnfriend helped work on the portal and DanTD gave some advice. If you require a more definitive consensus on this particular move I could make a vote but I would think these are sufficient. Aneditor (talk tome) 20:02, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Changing USA to U.S. but only in pages with certain templates

As stated in the guideline WP:NOTUSA, the term "U.S." is preferred over "USA", with some exceptions. I primarily edit geographic infoboxes, so it occurred to me that a bot could make many of the edits I have made such as this without much risk of error.

My idea is to have a bot that would make the change 'USA → U.S.' only if USA appears within a geographic infobox template (such as Infobox mountain, lake, river, mountain pass, etc.) and only then make the same change in the body of the article if USA appears there as well. Bot action would include a linked reference to the MOS guideline WP:NOTUSA in the edit summary.

My rationale is if USA appears in the these templates, it is almost certainly a part of location description of a geographic feature in the United States, so the change to "U.S." (rather than to "US") would be appropriate. I have already made a couple hundred of these edits myself and it seems the vast majority of times, USA is appearing in small, under-developed or inactive articles. It is unlikely these articles would also have an exception term such as "Team USA"; and I suppose you could program exceptions, so the bot would ignore certain character strings such "Team USA", as an added measure to reduce false positives.

While a bot working under these rules would only be fixing a small percentage of total number misuses of USA globally within WP, it would take care of most of the articles on geographic features, and do so with a very low error rate I expect.

Is it feasible for someone to create this bot? --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 00:21, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

On second thought, maybe not. I just remembered the infobox location map names often include USA in front of the the state name, 'map = USA Washington' for example. In some cases I think this is necessary and with some states it's optional. Either way the resulting text "U.S. Washington" would cause an error as it would be an invalid value for the map parameter. And there's probably more things I haven't considered. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 00:35, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Could the bot's action be confined to only certain parameter values within the infobox templates? The 'map_caption = ' and 'location = ' parameters for example are two places where the term is likely to appear, and neither of those parameters require specific syntax in order to be functional. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 00:57, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

• There is an issue with the "Roads" infobox (one of the places we use ISO 3166-3 due to the project's local standards), which would require the undeletion of a small template before this could be done. I will try to find the template name and get it undeleted anyway, since it is a Good Thing.
• "US" is better than "U.S.". There are various reasons for this, firstly it is a valid ISO 3166-2 code, so it is especially good for templates where it can be manipulated, secondly you don't get the issues with multiple fullstops as at the end of the previous sentence, thirdly style in general (and on Wikipedia in particular) is shifting away from dotted abbreviations, and fourthly whenever we use US with UK, USSR, USAF (US Army and USAF) we don't dot the abbreviation. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 10:38, 1 June 2014 (UTC).
  

I am pleased to hear "US" is preferred to "U.S.", agree is better, but the MOS differs as pointed out above. Can that guideline be changed easily? --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 14:40, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Nevermind last question as it has already been changed a couple weeks ago.

OK, so could a bot change "USA" to "US" in only certain parameters of geographic infobox templates, assuming we can get around any foreseeable problems, and change "U.S." to "US" while we're at it? --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 15:18, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

@Racerx11: For the benefit of the person interested in taking on this task, could you please provide a list of the geographic infobox templates to be changed, and a list of parameters for each infobox to be changed? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 23:02, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Sure:

• Infobox mountain

location, photo_caption, map_caption, range, first_ascent

• Infobox mountain range

photo_caption, country, country1, country2, border, border1, highest_location, map_caption

• Infobox mountain pass

location, photo_caption, map_caption, range

• Infobox lake

caption, caption_lake, location, basin_countries

• Infobox river

caption, origin, mouth, location, basin_countries

These are the templates I am familiar with and the ones I am interested in for the bot. If the bot designer really wants to carry it further with deserts, swamps, etc. that would be up to them, and they should get an idea from the above which parameters to fix and which to avoid, as well as I can decide, for those. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 23:43, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

There are 40,663 pages using these templates. Very few as a percentage use "USA" in those fields (I have not looked at "U.S."). I will post a list of the articles tomorrow, meanwhile I have manually fixed the river ones. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:11, 4 June 2014 (UTC).

Thanks. I have manually "fixed" large percentages of the mountain, mountain pass and lake templates, although my "fix" was to "U.S." rather than to "US" I'm afraid. There should be fairly large number of cases where USA still appears in lake infoboxes. That one looked really dense. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 01:21, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

There's about 1,349. The list is at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Rich_Farmbrough/US_mountains_rivers_and_lakes. It will very slowly become out of date. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:36, 4 June 2014 (UTC).

If you want to use this list directly you can copy it to en:WP or use https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Rich_Farmbrough/US_mountains_rivers_and_lakes/remote which has the interwiki link to en:WP. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:44, 4 June 2014 (UTC).

How did you compile the list? If I use it to manually fix the remaining pages it may help or become necessary to update it. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 22:49, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I created it with WP:AWB. I can re-create it later if needed. There will doubtless be a few oddities in it, since we are dealing with human generated text. Note that the template {{USA}} (which it picks up) puts a flag and the words "United States", I believe the flag icons are deprecated in this type of infobox. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:20, 5 June 2014 (UTC).

OK thanks Rich, and on the flag icons, yes, another ongoing endeavor of mine. I have removed several thousand flag icons from geographic infobox templates over the past couple years, so I would be getting those as well. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 02:38, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Can someone make a bot to scan articles on prehistoric creatures and add the Category for the year it was described?

Can someone make a bot that would scan articles in WikiProject Paleontology and WikiProject Dinosaurs, extract the year from the genus authority heading of the infobox, and automatically add Category: Fossil taxa described in 2014, to the bottom of the article with the appropriate year extracted from the infobox substituted for 2014? Abyssal (talk) 16:38, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

There appear to be some 4-6,000 such articles. I have created a new template {{Fossil taxa by year}} for the new categories that will be needed. I will post a list of articles presently. Should we include ichnotaxa? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:45, 4 June 2014 (UTC).

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Rich_Farmbrough/dino list of 6624 articles that use taxobox or species box, and don't have a suitable category already. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:21, 4 June 2014 (UTC).

There are some more subtleties. Titanosaur I gave two categories, one for the Titanosauroidea superfamily and one for the parent Titanosauria clade. The type species has its own article.

Troodon is simpler, since the article is about the genus, it gets the 1856 category:

Troodontinae should get 1924

Troodon formosus (type species) also 1856

Other species

Troodon inequalis 1932

Troodon asiamericanus 1995

So we can do this with redirects.

But we are moving away from trivial here. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC).

Ifasya seems to be a fossil genus, but it's not in WikiProject Palaeontology. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:12, 5 June 2014 (UTC).

That is really amazing work, Rich! I am a bit concerned about including categories for the year non-type species in articles on genera, though. If a genus was erected in 1951, but a second species was named in 1987, a reader viewing the "Fossil taxa described in 1987" category would probably assume the genus itself was named that year instead of a second species inside it. Is there any way we can remove the categories for years that only non-type species in a genus were described? Abyssal (talk) 02:40, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I did with Troodon. All the other categories are in redirects, so Category:Fossil taxa described in 1856 contains an entry for Troodon formosus.

Titanosaur is different because it's not a clade (or maybe it is: a monophylic taxon, the article is not quite clear) - but we should decide how to handle paraphylic and polyphylic taxa.

The categories could again go in the redirects for Titanosauroidea and Titanosauria, I believe this would probably be best. Done

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:19, 6 June 2014 (UTC).

Faulty ISBNs that substantially match DOIs

I've been doing a bit of work fixing articles in Category:Pages with ISBN errors. I've noticed that a number of them were of journal articles, where a completely fake ISBN was pulled from the DOI. I finally got around to looking for the source of the error, and discovered that it was the fault of a bot. Would it be possible for someone to make a list of articles where a citation template has both a DOI and an ISBN parameter defined? I'm concerned that there may be cases where this bot introduced an error that created a nominally valid, but fake, ISBN which wouldn't show up in the cleanup category. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 22:17, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I think there will be too many of these. I'll have a think. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:22, 5 June 2014 (UTC).

I would be inclined to narrow this down by looking at the bot's edits which mention ISBN in the summary. if this list is too long, it can be narrowed down further. What do you think? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:10, 6 June 2014 (UTC).

That sounds like a good approach. :) {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 15:50, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Category:Integers tagging

Proposal: Per Category talk:Integers#199E03 vs. 199e03 (no objection, from 2011, but PrimeHunter still hasn't gotten around to it) All articles (not redirects) in Category:Integers which start with a digit are to have sort key set as follows (ignoring commas and spaces):

One digit "d" or "d (number)"

0d

Two digits "de" or "de (number)"

d e

Three digits ("def"), etc

def

or not set

Four digits ("defg"), etc.

dE03 defg

Five digits ("defgh"), etc.

dE04 defgh

... etc

If it starts with a digit, and is not of the form digit-string or digit-string (number), or if starts with a "0" and and is not just "0"

- pagename

To be run occasionally. As Category:Integers presently has only 384 members, it doesn't cost much. I have no objection to an AWB addon, but it would require a new macro (template) to compute the key. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:50, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

This only works for numbers less than a googol, but I guess that's OK. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:04, 7 June 2014 (UTC).

The key is computable with AWB regexen. However there are only 55 pages that need changing, so I am just doing it manually. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:51, 7 June 2014 (UTC).

That was 55 four or more digit pages. Also 27 3 digit pages and a whole bunch of 2 digit pages. Oh well. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:27, 7 June 2014 (UTC). Done

Resurrecting bot request - bot to tag Category:Physiology articles

Resolved

In order to get a grip of articles under the scope of the new WP:Physiology, I request that all articles under Category:Physiologists and Category:Physiology and all subcategories be tagged with:

{{WikiProject Physiology |class=|importance=|field=}}

Thanks in advance, --LT910001 (talk) 00:13, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Do you want the "class" parameter copied from existing banners? And set to stub if the article is a stub? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 05:57, 25 April 2014 (UTC).

Thanks for your help! If you are able to, that'd be wonderful. Thank you! --LT910001 (talk) 06:16, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

How's this going, Rich Farmbrough? --LT910001 (talk) 23:17, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I can't do it - I am not allowed. I was just reminding you to specify the auto class setting, as I said at VP. I'm sure there are are people who do this a lot. If no one volunteers, I'll find someone. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:34, 3 May 2014 (UTC).

Keeping this eminently doable request from being archived without action. Thryduulf (talk) 07:41, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Ping to keep this thread alive. Would be very grateful if someone would take it on. --LT910001 (talk) 23:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• sigh* LT910001 I'll take a look at it tomorrow. If only the WP:BAG would do something about the last tagging request you made (Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/HasteurBot 7) I could do this as well. Hasteur (talk) 12:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeh, and thanks again for helping out, I've responded there. This particular shouldn't be a difficult request and would be much appreciated by WP:PHYSIOLOGY. Who is this group? As they are small and this appears to be holding things up for a number of months, we may need eventually to hold an RfC to change this structure. There is no process that I know of on Wiki that has been delayed for 2+ months because a very small group of (apparently) unelected Wikipedians are not responding. I am sure the BAG mean well, but this is not fair or appropriate on WP. --LT910001 (talk) 10:24, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Posting to stop this from being archived. Still in need of attention. --LT910001 (talk) 21:31, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Pinging again. Would value some help! --LT910001 (talk) 02:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I can do it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 02:41, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you!! --LT910001 (talk) 10:51, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

 Doing... -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:41, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done LT910001 I did the all the pages in the first category and all its subcategories. It was impossible to grab all the pages of the second category and subategories. They should be thousands. Maybe to badly constructed category tree? -- Magioladitis (talk)

Thanks Magioladitis. This is a relatively new WP which I anticipate will probably have a moderate scope. If you could start with tagging all pages directly situated in Category:Physiology I'd be grateful, and I'll endeavor to sort out the subcategories shortly. --LT910001 (talk) 01:36, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Specific requests

Resolved

Looking at the confusing category tree makes me quite depressed... I think instead I will ask for some specific subcategories, and then other things can be tagged as the project develops. If possible, could you please tag:

 Done With {{WikiProject Physiology|class=|importance=mid|field=neuro}}:

1. Articles directly in Category:Neurophysiology (no subcategories)
2. Articles directly in Category:Proprioception (all subcategories)
3. Articles directly in Category:Reflexes (no subcategories)

 Done With {{WikiProject Physiology|class=|importance=mid|field=}}:

1. Articles directly in Category:Sleep physiology (all subcategories - has none)
2. Articles directly in Category:Homeostasis‎ (depth of three subcategories, ie. to [[:Stress] and its pages, but not the subcategories of Stress)
3. Articles directly in Category:Electrophysiology‎ (all subcategories)
4. Articles directly in Category:Circadian rhythm‎ (all subcategories - has none)
5. Articles directly in Category:Physiological instruments (no subcategories)
6. Articles directly in Category:Physiology templates (no subcategories)
7. Articles directly in Category:Skin physiology (all subcategories - has none)
8. Articles directly in Category:Thermoregulation (all subcategories - has none)
9. Articles directly in Category:Human hormones‎ (all subcategories - has none)

 Done With {{WikiProject Physiology|class=|importance=mid|field=renal}}:

1. Articles directly in Category:Urine (all subcategories) *I'll remove the eight articles about urinals, but it's a bit cumbersome otherwise.
2. Articles directly in Category:Acid-base physiology‎ (all subcategories)

 Done With {{WikiProject Physiology|class=|importance=mid|field=cell}}:

1. Articles directly in Category:Human cells‎ (all subcategories)

 Done With {{WikiProject Physiology|class=|importance=mid|field=respiratory}}:

1. Articles directly in Category:Respiration‎ (depth of 2, ie. to the level of Category:Abnormal respiration but not including any subcategories

 Done With {{WikiProject Physiology|class=|importance=mid|field=blood}}:

1. Articles directly in Category:Blood (no subcategories)
2. Articles directly in Category:Blood antigen systems‎ (all subcategories - has none)
3. Articles directly in Category:Blood products‎ (no subcategories)
4. Articles directly in Category:Blood proteins‎ (all subcategories)
5. Articles directly in Category:Fibrinolytic system‎ (all subcategories - has none)
6. Articles directly in Category:Hematology (no subcategories)

And that should be a fairly comprehensive overview of articles under our scope. Please let me know if there's any grouping I can do to make this easier for you. I and WP:PHYSIOLOGY are very grateful for your help! --LT910001 (talk) 02:16, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

As a note to any physiologists who are watching, these fields are somewhat approximate, but will hopefully be more helpful than not. --LT910001 (talk) 02:23, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

LT910001, Rich cannot do it and I have to do it manually since by bot is blocked for 2 weeks now! -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:07, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Dammit! You were my main hope! Maybe @Ohconfucius: can help? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:21, 31 May 2014 (UTC).

If not, Mag, can you make a list of articles talk pages in a sandbox page? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:23, 31 May 2014 (UTC).

Thank you all! --LT910001 (talk) 21:12, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Asking for Noting bot

Pinging Ceradon for status on something that seems to have been dropped. If Ceradon is no longer active, or does not respond, can anyone else provide information? Please see Did You Know Noting bot. Matty.007 originally input the request on Feb 23, 2014, and Ceradon said on March 2, 2014 that he was coding this. Ceradon again replied March 28 that the coding was going well, and he should have the task filed by Monday, March 31. We are now two months past that date, and no bot in sight. It looks like Ceradon created Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Cerabot II, User:Cerabot/Umbox and User:Cerabot/Run/Task 2 for DYK, but nothing has been done with these. I don't see anything on Bots/Requests for approval that bear Ceradon's name, or anything in the bots denied. — Maile (talk) 21:47, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

@Maile66, Matty.007, and Ceradon: I am currently writing a bot that will perform that task. The code is located on GitHub. APerson (talk!) 21:46, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Hooray! You are now receiving a virtual pat on the back. Matty and I are just contributing editors at DYK, so, hopefully, you can work out how this will all automatically work. — Maile (talk) 21:51, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much APerson! Best, Matty.007 10:33, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

• APerson, Just to make sure, recapping what was requested of this bot. There should be a feature to "opt out" of getting this bot, enabled/disabled under individual user Preferences settings, not the nomination template. The criteria for this bot is found on the nomination template, and not the article history. When a DYK nomination template is created for any article, if "created by" is other than "nominated by" or "self nominated", a bot posts on the individual user's talk page to notify them of the nomination. This means registered users, IP addresses and unregistered users listed under "created by". Some nominations have multiple creators that include the nominator's name as a creator. In such a case, all but the nominator listed as "created by" would get the notification.

Mandarax, BlueMoonset, Orlady, Crisco 1492, Victuallers, Allen3, Casliber, Art LaPella, Materialscientist, ThaddeusB, Nikkimaria, PFHLai, TParis, pinging some DYK interested parties who might like to keep an eye on the progress of the bot. — Maile (talk) 13:45, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Sure - I'll expand some articles....this not is if someone nominates something I've expanded, right? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:20, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

FYI, I pinged you as a frequent DYK admin, so you aren't left out of the loop. This is for all nomination templates, and is the result of a Feb 2014 RFC by Matty.007. And the "opt out" feature would prevent you from getting these notices if you don't want them. — Maile (talk) 14:31, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

@Maile66: Is it fine if the opt-out only makes use of {{bots}} as opposed to some other mechanism? APerson (talk!) 20:25, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

APerson, I don't know what that means. Please explain. — Maile (talk) 20:32, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Maile66: I was wondering if it's fine if the "feature to 'opt out'" which you described is not enabled through the preferences, as you said, and is instead implemented using {{bots}} as the flag telling the bot that the user has opted out. APerson (talk!) 21:16, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

APerson, I guess the part I don't understand is how any bot would know to tell another bot the user opted out. It should be a blanket opt out by user, enabled or disabled at the user's discretion. And the opt out should not be something that could be done on the templates themselves. Let me explain how the DYK nominating process currently works, and why this notification bot has become necessary. Let's say APerson has created a new article but doesn't think it's ready for DYK, which means an appearance on the main page. Meanwhile, because there is no ownership on Wikipedia, Maile66 can come along and see that new article out there, and nominate it at DYK without APerson knowing it happened. The "created by" editors are frustrated that they are not notified. On the other hand, some editors contribute to so many articles that they don't want all those notifications. But it's the article creator/expander who should make that decision, not the nominator who creates the template. The only way I know that could happen is with Preferences. Please explain how a bot would know to notify another bot about this. — Maile (talk) 22:46, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Maile66, {{bots}} tells whichever bot(s) is (are) specified in the template that they should (or should not) edit the page where the template is. I was planning for the bot to use that.

As a side note, the bot now successfully generates a list of user talkpages to notify. APerson (talk!) 02:11, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

APerson, Thanks for the update. And I believe you need a more informed editor to answer your question as to whether or not a bot can be used, instead of user Preferences, to opt out any individual user. Pinging Orlady, Materialscientist and BlueMoonset, hoping one of them can answer that question correctly. — Maile (talk) 12:10, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

APerson, None of the editors I pinged have answered here. But I've been reading and think you might be referring to Template:Bots, possibly by any given editor placing one on their talk page and have something like {{bots|optout=APersonBot/DYKNotice}} - and if that's all there is to it, I think it serves the purpose. Just please make sure you let us know exactly what wording should be there to opt out, and if it's supposed to be placed on the user talk page. Thanks for all the work you're doing on this. — Maile (talk) 20:40, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to but in: APerson: what kind of timescale are we talking before the bot goes operational? Thanks, Matty.007 12:17, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll most likely be ready to submit a BRFA in about 14 hours. I'm currently coding the part where the bot places messages on the user talkpages. APerson (talk!) 12:27, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

BRFA submitted. APerson (talk!) 13:37, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Any idea when it will be up and running? Thanks, Matty.007 13:40, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

You can check the status of the bot at the BRFA page. APerson (talk!) 20:44, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

OpenStreetMap wiki

Would any of you care to assist with the OpenStreetMap wiki? (It documents OSM; it's not part of the map itself.) There is an apparent need for a number of bot tasks, for example resolving hundreds of double redirects. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:36, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Coding.... All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:43, 4 June 2014 (UTC).

Nicely done thanks. Rich.

There's another OSM bot job that needs doing, which is more directly relevant, and of benefit, to Wikipedia - adding links from OSM entities (that is editing the map, not the OSM wiki) to Wikidata (and optionally to Wikipedia). It's a large and complex task, which will need to be tested and agreed with the OSM community. Details are in my OSM user space. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:27, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Incoming link fix bot

Can someone create a bot to fix some incoming links for Skate? Per talk:Skate (fish) pages were swapped. So pages in Category:Rajidae that linked to "skate" should now link to ((skate (fish)|skate)) and "skates" to ((skate (fish)|skates)) . -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 06:39, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

 Doing... using WPCleaner. GoingBatty (talk) 20:42, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done! GoingBatty (talk) 21:02, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Bot that operates on orphaned files

Hi! I want to create a bot called Nahnahbot (named after me), but I don't know programming language. I want to request for a bot that can help to put the {{di-orphaned fair use}} template at orphaned files quickly, so that it will be easier. Not just that, the bot will after that add it into the category and then inform the owner of the file. In this case, it will be easier. Thanks! --Nahnah4 | Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here! | No Editcountitis! 06:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I believe this is a task that Betacommand Bot used to do, or akin to it. The category would be transcluded by the template, so that bit is simple. I would suggest that you familiarise yourself with WP:AWB to get some idea of how such a thing might work. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:38, 3 June 2014 (UTC).

The problem is that it can't be used on my comp. --Nahnah4 | Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here! | No Editcountitis! 05:11, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Tagging unreliable/dead sources

Could a bot tag all references to Falling Rain Genomics as ({{unreliable source}}) and all references to FindArticles.com as {{dead link}}s, as proposed in this discussion? Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive 170#An_unreliable_source_and_a_dead_one:_Falling_Rain_Genomics_and_FindArticles.com. There are about 3,700 of the first, and 2,400 of the second. Colonies Chris (talk) 14:37, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Image cpationing.

Recently I requested that a script assisted tool for pulling image captions from Article pages was developed.

This was implemented as part of Vada.

I was now owndering if it was feasible to have a bot do essentialy the same task as the VADA script, automatically for recent uploads.

I've found that in MANY instances descriptions for images can be found in the captions where they are used.

Automating the caption genneration process would assist image patrollers like me, by furthe reducing the worload of doing mundane tasks, allowing more focus on the edge cases, requireing greater investigation.

On that note I would also appreciate it if someone could write a bot to identify Commons candidates. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Bot to fix The Lord of the Rings redirect

I am requesting that a bot be assigned to fix links to The Lord of the Rings film trilogy. The correct link they should be using is The Lord of the Rings (film series), where the original link redirects to. Spidey104 13:22, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

@Spidey104: is The Lord of the Rings film trilogy going to be retargeted? -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:42, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

@Magioladitis: No, it will not. Naming conventions establish that The Lord of the Rings (film series) is the correct title for the article, so there is no reason to expect 'The Lord of the Rings film trilogy' to be retargeted. I have already corrected all of the various other redirects to The Lord of the Rings (film series), but this one has too many articles using that link for me to handle. Spidey104 18:34, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

@Spidey104: Please see WP:NOTBROKEN. —David Levy 18:43, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Spidey104: I'm confused. Why would we want to de-redirect all the inbound links to The Lord of the Rings film trilogy? Isn't that the purpose of redirects, to transparently point the user to the right name? Could you link to the recent consensus to make this kind of change? Doing a mass change like this needs a very clear consensus to make the change and I'd really prefer to see a RFC endorsing this action prior to us changing ~550 articles and a great many other pages.Hasteur (talk) 18:49, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

@David Levy: "Not broken" does not apply here as this is typically used within the piping of a link and not in the link itself. It looks bad to have this incorrectly. Spidey104 20:18, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

@Spidey104: Unless the redirect is unclear, misleading or targeted to an article other than the one intended (which "The Lord of the Rings film trilogy" isn't), there's no need to "fix" links to it. WP:NOTBROKEN's current wording focuses primarily on piped links, but the first sentence ("There is usually nothing wrong with linking to redirects to articles.") is key. There's no need to expend resources on the replacement of functional links that you feel "look bad" (though it's considered acceptable to include such changes in edits that also accomplish other improvements). The section previously was clearer on this point. —David Levy 20:50, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

@Hasteur: I'm confused by your comments. The Lord of the Rings film trilogy redirects to The Lord of the Rings (film series). I am asking for all The Lord of the Rings film trilogy links to be changed to The Lord of the Rings (film series) links. Isn't it better to transparently point the user to the right name with the actual right name instead of a redirect? Spidey104 20:18, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Maybe I should specify that my request is only for articles and links where the incorrect link is used within the piping. Spidey104 20:20, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

You keep referring to the redirect as "incorrect". The mere fact that it isn't the article's actual title doesn't mean that. "The Lord of the Rings film trilogy" leads to the intended article and clearly and unambiguously identifies its subject. —David Levy 20:50, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

David, you're right that I shouldn't call the link "incorrect" but I can definitely call it sloppy. Redirects serve a purpose, but the continued use of this redirect makes Wikipedia look sloppy, unprofessional, and amateurish whenever anyone clicks on the link. Spidey104 00:12, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

@Spidey104:You're entitled to your opinion, but it means that most of the encyclopedia "look[s] sloppy, unprofessional, and amateurish". (I just viewed fifty random articles, forty-five of which contained redirects.) Do you realize how disruptive it would be to deploy bots to "fix" these links across millions of articles? Do you regard this particular case as special (and if so, why)? —David Levy 00:23, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

@David Levy:Thank you for pointing out one of many reasons why no one outside of the Wikipedia community takes Wikipedia seriously. No, I don't regard this one as a special case. I have fixed the sloppy use of redirects I have found before, but this one is a larger obstacle than I have encountered before. Why would it be disruptive to have bots make thousands of tedious edits that help clean-up Wikipedia? It's the only reason bots are used. Spidey104 00:32, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

@Spidey104: I'm sorry that you don't understand why deploying bots to edit ~4 million articles — purely to "fix" links that aren't broken (and then re-edit the pages whenever a redirect appears again) — would be disruptive. I'm baffled as to how our failure to engage in such a task discourages the general public from taking Wikipedia seriously.

Yes, bots are used to perform tedious edits that help to clean up Wikipedia. In this instance, no cleanup is needed; the links that you've deemed "sloppy" are fully functional. Please refrain from editing pages solely to "fix" them. —David Levy 01:18, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

@Spidey104: I suspect some cross-purposes here. When someone clicks on the link, they are taken straight to The Lord of the Rings (film series)- for example in this link. They will never see the redirect page if everything is functioning correctly. The obvious exception is when a page move leaves double redirects. A bot will clean these up, by fixing the double redirects. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:08, 11 May 2014 (UTC).

@Spidey104: From your concerns, I was thinking that maybe a fourth film was released, so that the series wasn't a trilogy anymore. But no, the J. R. R. Tolkien article says: "From 2001 to 2003, New Line Cinema released The Lord of the Rings as a trilogy of live-action films that were filmed in New Zealand and directed by Peter Jackson." I'm afraid I don't see the point of moving to a less specific title, and see from talk:The Lord of the Rings (film series)#Revert to The Lord of the Rings film trilogy that there is some desire to move the title back to film trilogy. Your request might be viewed as an attempt to preempt such a reversal of the move. Considering all that is truly "sloppy" about Wikipedia, this request is pointless. Wbm1058 (talk) 01:06, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

@Wbm1058: I think some of the "How should we title this?" comes from trying to define what role does The Hobbit (film series) have in affecting the larger series set since there are multiple characters/scenes/items that cross over from one set to the other which makes the larger series set complicated. I stand by my previous assertion that "fixing" this redirect is against the currently existing consensus as endorsed/ratified by core policy. If Spidey104 wants to persue this further, they should really open the RFC I mentioned above with probably a notice on WP:CENT and a specific invitation to Wikipedia:WikiProject Film to comment on the proposal. Hasteur (talk) 12:52, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I apologize for the late reply, but as you can see from my editing history I have been away for some time. Also, I am posting this as a final reply to explain parts of my position that have been misinterpreted by other editors, but I am no longer attempting to sway anyone's opinion or get a bot to perform this action. This is merely for information dissemination.

David Levy, I think your bafflement comes from exaggerating my claim. I said thousands (when I should have said hundreds) and you interpreted that as millions. Do I need to grab a calculator? Also, I never said the links weren't functional, and the sloppiness to which I referred to was how ("Redirected from incorrect link") shows up whenever a redirect link is used. It doesn't appear sloppy for the new article linked to but the article now left behind because it shows a degree of laziness on the part of editors who wrote that article. Many readers will justifiably wonder if they can trust the information in that article if the links aren't even properly maintained. A professional website for a company would be considered bad or sloppy if it had the same type of problems.

Rich Farmbrough, see what is directly above.

Wbm1058, if you read the discussion you linked to you will see having "film trilogy" in the title of the article is not supported by Wikipedia policy. Furthermore, why would I be involved in an attempt to preempt such a reversal of the move if I wasn't even involved in the original move? Spidey104 00:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Valid point. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 04:07, 11 June 2014 (UTC).

Where the displayed link is LOTRFT it seems sensible to leave well alone, but I am sympathetic to cases where the link is piped. I think the reference to millions of pages was by extension, were this to be applied to all redirects. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:42, 11 June 2014 (UTC).

Rich, the link is piped in many cases, which is why I initially made this request, but I'm not going to worry about it anymore and I've now said my final piece. All the best to you as well. Spidey104 19:10, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

MediaWiki message synchronization

A (sysop) bot that would be able to synchronize the messages in the MediaWiki namespace to the /en-GB and /en-CA subpages of a MediaWiki page, so that these variants of American English do not miss the customizations of these messages. The bot would need to run regularly, updating the messages in case primary messages have changed. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:17, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Making Category:Wikipedia template categories a container category

In theory, Category:Wikipedia template categories should be a container category with nothing but subcategories. In practice, it's not. Could a bot go through the main categories and systematically remove every subcategory from Category:Wikipedia template categories? This is a massive undertaking I'm aware (approximately 24k subcategories into a few main ones). For example, Category:10-Team bracket templates is in Category:Tournament bracket templates which is in Category:Sports templates, etc., etc. If it was cleaned out, I think it would be useful as a holding area for templates that haven't been categorized. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:19, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

It may be a few moments work. The issue lies with {{Template category}}. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC).

24574 transclusions. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:33, 12 June 2014 (UTC).

@Ricky81682: let me ensure I completely understand... you want every single subcat removed from Category:Wikipedia template categories? Or just certain ones? If it is the first, it should be simple, but if it is the second, I am afraid someone will have to manually go through every single subcat, pick out the ones that need to be removed, and either do it themselves, or list it somewhere for someone else to review. --Mdann52talk to me! 15:27, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

@Mdann52: Does that seem like the accurate thing to do? Hypothetically, if it is a container category, it should be just that. It's an admin category so I know it's not critical remotely to the actual encyclopedia. Let me think on ways to come up with this a bit more realistically. Maybe a table of just one small subset for now (tourney brackets or something small) and see if it can be done in bits and pieces over time (like in the next decade or so). -- 17:17, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

@Ricky81682: due to the nature of the task (mainly the 24000 edits!) This will probability require wider discussion. May I suggest posting at WP:VPPR? If no-one objects, or confronts, let me know. --Mdann52talk to me! 06:10, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Eh, I'll drop it. These are being added by numerous templates too. Until I get a better picture, it'll be a waste of time. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:11, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Template:Cite CAstat subtemplates

Can someone move the subtemplates under Template:Cite CAstat (such as Template:Cite CAstat/title 1895 128) from Category:Law citation templates to Category:California law citation templates). There may be about 100 or so. There's also five under Template:Cite WAstat that could go to Category:Washington (state) law citation templates but five I can handle after a break. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:16, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

As there are less than 200 edits, I will do this under my main account in a bit.  Doing.... --Mdann52talk to me! 06:35, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

 82 pages Just a heads-up; You appear to have 2 different formats for categories. Some use just [[Category:California law citation templates]], while others (eg. Template:Cite CAstat/title 1943 964) use [[Category:California law citation templates|{{PAGENAME}}]], however this does not appear to affect the page or category. I also found a few which did not have any categories on, so I added the replacement category on them (with noincludes). --Mdann52talk to me! 07:11, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

@Ricky81682 and Mdann52: Regarding categories in template code: using |{{PAGENAME}} for the sortkey: this has two common reasons. The first, when used used on categories that are either bare, or wrapped in <includeonly>...</includeonly>, is a valid purpose: it overrides any {{DEFAULTSORT:}} that may be present on the transcluding page, so that the transcluding page sorts in "natural" order. The second, when used on categories that are wrapped in <noinclude>...</noinclude>, is obsolete: it excludes the namespace from the sort order. At one time, templates always sorted under T, because the namespace was taken into account for the "natural" sort order; but somewhat more than five years ago the system was changed so that the namespace is ignored, meaning that constructs like <noinclude>[[Category:Foo|{{PAGENAME}}]]</noinclude> may be simplified to <noinclude>[[Category:Foo]]</noinclude> in the majority of cases. The only times that such simplification may not be advisable is if the template has a {{DEFAULTSORT:}}, which is rare. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:23, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Stub adding bot

I was recently helping someone out and noticed there was no stub relating to beauty pageant related stubs. I made one and would like to apply it to the 1000+ articles that are in the category without manually doing all of it. I hope I'm in the right place. :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 05:38, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

@Solarra: seems simple enough...  Doing... --Mdann52talk to me! 15:03, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

@Mdann52: All of the articles have the category pinned to the talk page, just an FYI. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 02:40, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

@Solarra: Should Template:Pageant-stub classify the article in something like Category:Pageant stubs? The current Category:Stub-Class Beauty Pageants articles appears to contain talk pages. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 02:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: It does and there in lies the problem. All of those talk pages are for actual stub articles that need a stub tag and 1000+ articles clearly warranted having its own template. Rather than making things complicated and making a completely new category when one already exists, I want to re-tag all those talk page articles on their corresponding main page with the existing category. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 03:05, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

@Solarra: I've asked for guidance at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting#Pageant stubs. GoingBatty (talk) 03:24, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

@Solarra: I am aware; It is simple enough to flip namespaces. @GoingBatty: I am assuming you do not oppose going through and adding the templates; as it will be transcluded, it is easy enough to change them in future. --Mdann52talk to me! 06:34, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Category:Stub-Class Beauty Pageants articles is the wrong place to put these; {{Pageant-stub}} should feed Category:Pageant stubs. We already have {{Pageant-bio-stub}} and the associated Category:Beauty pageant contestant stubs - I think there should be a connection between the contestant cat and the pageant cat, either by having one as the parent of the other, or making sure that they have a common parent. Redrose64 (talk) 11:02, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

@Redrose64: I have cleaned all of this up - the contestant article is now a subcat, and the template now uses the correct category. --Mdann52talk to me! 10:14, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

@Mdann52: I didn't have an issue with adding the stub template, so I asked the question about the categorization here. Now that Redrose64 has brought {{Pageant-bio-stub}} to our attention, I will add a comment at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Mdann52 bot 3. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 15:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Stubs or little articles for instances of canton of France

The list

• http://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-terminator/?list&lang=en&mode=tx&q=claim[31:(tree[618123,15642541][][279])]

shows several cantons of France that have an article in 10 or more Wikipedias but not in the English Wikipedia. Here is some research:

• item class: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q184188 canton of France
• instances in WikiData : 4040
• There is no canton specific article in English Wikipedia Category:Cantons of France that is not matched to an instance of "canton of France" in Wikidata: [3] , the page lists only dab pages, list articles or some other non-canton specific article
• instances in Wikidata that have no item in Category:Cantons of France [4] : 3225

So, it would be nice if a bot could use data from Wikidata or/and French Wikipedia to create stubs or little articles.

The page Canton of Chalamont could be used as a model.

Tamawashi (talk) 01:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

@Tamawashi: Not a good task for a bot. Article creation bots are generally controversial, so it would Needs wider discussion. at the very least. --Mdann52talk to me! 15:34, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Vosges and Moselle bot request

Vosges has just been moved to Vosges (department) and Moselle to Moselle (department) to make way for primary topics (Vosges mountains and River Moselle). However, there are hundreds of villages in those departments now pointing to the primary topic instead of the department. We could make a big inroad into the changes if a bot could change all instances of [[Vosges]] [[Departments of France|department]] to [[Vosges (department)|Vosges]] [[Departments of France|department]] and similarly for Moselle. --Bermicourt (talk) 12:10, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

@Bermicourt: This does not seem to be a common occurrence. I will scan through properly when I have the time and resources to do so (ie. the next few days). --Mdann52talk to me! 16:36, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Done by AWB. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:39, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Pop music banner tagging

Resolved

I have a request for a bot insert the WikiProject Pop music banner on every talk page under the category for Pop music and the bot automatically asses the class on auto-inheritance. Erick (talk) 17:28, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

@Magiciandude: Could you please specify exactly which subcategories (if any) you want included? Also, could you please start a topic on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pop music to make everyone aware of this request? (See User talk:Yobot#New rules for WikiProject tagging via Yobot for context, but I'm not making a commitment for Yobot.) Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 18:08, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: All of the subcategories look fine to include the project and I have started a topic on the WikiProject talk page as well. Erick (talk) 18:26, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: Could you have a look at the project's talk page to see if the bot request has sufficient approval to tag the article pages? Erick (talk) 23:55, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

@Magiciandude: Thanks for starting the talk page conversation to show consensus. Now all you need is a willing editor to run their bot for you. GoingBatty (talk) 00:00, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Need recurring bot to build list of all pages in WikiProject Louisville

Hello, I'm looking for a bot that can run roughly once a week that can build a list of all the pages in WikiProject Louisville, namely all the files and associated talk pages in Category:WikiProject Louisville and its subcategory Category:WikiProject Louisville articles. What's linked are the talk pages, so the list builder would have to pull all those, and create links not only for those but the associated pages. The bot will replace the info in Wikipedia:WikiProject Louisville/Watchall using the format you currently see. This list will be used for change patrol for the project. Thank you for your consideration. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 20:28, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

@Stevietheman: - so what you want is a bot to scan through the template's use, and return a list of article and talk pages related to it? If so, I should be able to get a manual task running quickly, but a auto one will take me a bit longer (if ever....). --Mdann52talk to me! 15:37, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's technically what I'm looking for, although I would like all pages (and corresponding talk pages) (e.g., categories, templates, etc.) rather than just articles (and their talk pages) in the list. A manual run will be perfectly fine for now, although I would like an automatic run eventually (or even a way for me to manually run it). Note that the template is currently {{WikiProject United States}} with the parameter "|Louisville=yes" (I think this is case-insensitive). Thank you very much for your assistance! Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Sort of... the {{WikiProject United States}} template is coded to recognise |louisville= as an alias for |Louisville=, similarly |louisville-importance= and |Louisville-importance=, so it's only case-insensitive on first letter. But the way that it's written, funny things will happen if you specify both: part of the template is coded to ignore the small-l form if the capital-L form is also present, but part of the template will process both forms together. I'd say to stick with |Louisville= and |Louisville-importance=, don't use the other two. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

@Stevietheman: I have run AWB through the categories, and the result is this. While I doubt I will be able to run this automatically for a while, I can run it manually when I am about if it would help? --Mdann52talk to me! 08:52, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Looks great - thanks! Thanks also for the offer to run it manually on occasion. If it's not too much trouble, running it whenever you have a moment would be of great assistance. Alternatively, I could install AWB and with your instructions perhaps I could do it? Either way, it's cool. Cheers! Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:41, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

@Mdann52: I just figured out how to use AWB to do the same thing. So, I'll go ahead and take this over from now on. Thanks again for your assistance! Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:27, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Missing Image Skyline within County Seats of the United States

This isn't so much of a BOT request but rather a hidden category request. I would like to have a hidden category to check entries in subcategories of Category:County seats of the United States for the image_skyline variable within the Infobox settlement template. If no image_skyline variable, then put it in Category:County Seats Missing Skyline Photo. Most county seats are significant enough settlements that they should have a photo associated with them. --Ichabod (talk) 20:15, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

a) You obviously haven't been to many county seats in the west if you think they are necessarily significant settlements.

b) Can't you do this without a bot by simply adding code to the infobox template, eg. {{#if:{{{image_skyline|}}}||[[Category:County Seats Missing Skyline Photo]]}}? VanIsaac_WS^cont 22:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

a)Depends on what your definition of significant is. I'm really just trying to include photos of U.S. settlements which serve as a center of local government.

b)If the if-then statement is made will it effect the all articles worldwide using the Infobox settlement template? I really just want to concentrate on U.S. County Seats. Plus I'm really unfamiliar with editing the templates, which is why I posted here. --Ichabod (talk) 19:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC)19:01, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to have this discussion at Template talk:Infobox settlement? GoingBatty (talk) 20:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Ahh, oops. I had vaguely in the back of my head the seat = parameter, but that's the other way around - it's for a link to the county seat from the county article. You might be right about this needing a bot. VanIsaac_WS^cont 20:05, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Notification of speedies

Mendaliv brought up a great point over at AN/I. I imagine if this was done with proper parameters we could ensure that every creator of a tagged article is notified, which would resolve this rather long-standing issue in the community. Of course, this may have been presented and denied before and I'm just unaware... but I figure, in the best interests of the community, the question should at least be formally asked. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 11:47, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

• @Coffee: just out of curiosity, would this take the place of automatic notifications for users with Twinkle, or be an alternative to it? G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 13:26, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • As the guy who proposed roughly this over at ANI, the thought was that it would be used primarily where the editor who left the speedy tag didn't give the notice for one reason or another (e.g., not using TW, doesn't believe in notices, etc). My thought was that the logic the bot would use would be:
    1. If the bot sees an edit leaving a speedy tag (other than, say, U1 and a few others); and
    2. More than (something like) five minutes have passed since that edit in 1 happened; and
    3. The article still exists; and
    4. There were no edits to the creator's user talk page matching a regex that searched for a link to the article and the phrase "speed(il)?y delet(e)|(ion)"; and
    5. Certain other conditions were met (e.g., editor not a banned user, is marked retired, or other circumstances where they really shouldn't get a notice); then
    6. The bot would leave the standard speedy deletion notice. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:33, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • @G S Palmer: As Mendaliv said, this is something we'd like to see used in conjunction with already accepted methods of notification. The bot would kind of be the final coverall to ensure that everyone who should be notified that their article is about to be speedily deleted, (or just was), is. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 17:18, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
• This would require a (somewhat minor) change in policy and maybe a larger discussion, but in general, I support this. It might result in overnotifications, such as banned users, but I think we have nobot tags that can take care of most of that. Regardless, the negative effect of notifying where it isn't needed is virtually zero. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:10, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

• I am keen that we do something like this, though I would like two differences from Mendaliv's proposal. Some of the most bitey deletions are where the article isn't just tagged for deletion but deleted instantly by the tagging admin or otherwise within the five minutes suggested above. So I would suggest that this be an adminbot that could inform people even if the article has been summarily or very speedily deleted (this would require access to deleted edits, hence the need for an adminbot). The other issue is who signs the notice. If the tag is signed by the bot then the bot operator is going to get an awkward amount of user interaction as people turn up at their talkpage wanting to know why their article was deleted. Better in my view to have the template say either this article was deleted by user:Example or this article was tagged for deletion by user:example. ϢereSpielChequers 15:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it needs to be an adminbot; seeing deleted diffs won't help if the templates user can't. Origamian (talk) 01:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

• Absolutely not. "We can't get everyone to agree with us that people should be notified about speedies, so we are going to take it out of their hands and notify the creator whether the nominator chose to or not" is a really bad path to go down. If you can get the community to agree to make the notification mandatory, then writing a bot to do so is appropriate. Until then, it's disruptive. This isn't "resolving" an issue, it's simply trying to present those that disagree with you a fait accompli.—Kww(talk) 03:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

• Might it be easier to just have a simple notification (not a talk page note, but a notification) any time one of your watched articles gets tagged for any kind of deletion? This will tend to hit the article creator, but also accounts for anyone else with an expressed interest in the article to know about a speedy, whether they've checked their watchlist or not. VanIsaac_WS^cont 04:19, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Finding users who misuse their user page for advertisement

Based on this discussion I am wondering if a bot operator is able to compile a list of users who have exclusively edited their user page. A large fraction of such users is likely to have misused for advertisement. --Leyo 21:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Looking for "exclusive" edits won't really do the job. Most userpage adverts I've come across have been added to categories, that I've then removed from that page, ruining your exclusive criteria, pages will also have been edited by users and bots removing FUR images as well. Try searching for templates like Infobox VG, and then manually checking to see if its an advert.- X201 (talk) 16:13, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

@X201: I think you're talking about something different than what Leyo is asking for. You are asking for "The set of user pages that have only ever been edited by the page owner". What I think Leyo is asking for is "The set of Users who have only ever edited their own userpage" Hasteur (talk) 19:53, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant. --Leyo 21:55, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

That sounds like the people who think Wikipedia is like Facebook/MySpace/Linkedin, etc. and who log in only to setup their "profile". Most edit only that user page and sometimes their talk page. Some might also edit things related to their user page, but usually one or two articles at most. It is doable, but not sure how much resources. If you went simple and made a list of editors with <50 contribs, and >70% of their contribs contain their user name (user and talk pages), you are going to be pretty darn close. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:06, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

You might also want to add users who have not edited in the last x days, to avoid those new editors who are in good faith actively working on an article draft. GoingBatty (talk) 13:43, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Good idea. What about restricting the query to users who edited no other page than their user page? A second query might then be done in a more sophisticated manner. --Leyo 20:43, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree that limiting it to "last edit >90 days" or similar, but you want to also get the guys that make a couple of edits outside of their user page. Such as to their band or similar article. I see that pretty often, hence the ratios I gave. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:45, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

The details may be decided by the bot operator. I hope there is one around who is able to do such a task. --Leyo 19:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

It would need to be an admin bot so that it can look at deleted edits. Otherwise we add insult to injury by both rejecting and deleting the article that someone contributed and then biting them for being left with only edits to their userpage. You also need to check other wikis in case someone is active elsewhere in Wikimedia and has left a welcome in English on their page here. Better I would suggest would be to used advanced search and search for spammy phrases such as "Market leading" in userspace (I've just done a quick trawl and deleted several, but there are hundreds more just on that search). So I would suggest rather than a bot you just trawl for spammy phrases in userspace and where appropriate tag as G11. ϢereSpielChequers 17:53, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be possible for a non-admin bot to compare the number of visible edits and total edits? If they are equal, there are no deleted edits. --Leyo 01:03, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Leyo, Not sure if that can be done, but if it could that would address that part of my concern. ϢereSpielChequers 22:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

This looks very much like Special:AbuseFilter/354 'Promotional text added by user to own user(-talk) page'. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:10, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

There are more than 50 hits daily. :-( --Leyo 18:26, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

WereSpielChequers, I was thinking an admin bot as well, but one that wouldn't delete and instead add a category or add to a list for humans to decide on. I don't want the bot "acting" , just searching and finding potential candidates and putting them in a list we can look at and decide if CSD or MFD is appropriate. Baby steps, so we can judge the accuracy without fear of collateral damage. We want to be able to see the disposition of everything it tagged for that reason, measuring accuracy. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:01, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with a list for humans to decide on - though with the combination of searches and the 354 filter I'm not convinced we also need a list, rather more people to use what we already have. But I would be concerned about a bot that added a category to userpages, especially if it was sometimes wrong. Remember people struggle to argue with bots so we try to only use them for things they will very rarely get wrong. ϢereSpielChequers 22:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

A better category to review for humans at least is Category:Userspace_drafts_created_via_the_Article_Wizard. At least half of what I see if that kind of stuff and there's at least 44k to go through. A bot could pull a list off that if it's helpful. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:31, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Romanian river stub articles

Resolved

Hi, I would like to make a request for a bot to add a low importance rating to 8,000 or so Talk pages of Romania river stub articles. The articles are those that have a WP:Rivers and a WP:Romania project banner, and have a class of Stub for both projects, and also have an unknown importance for both projects.

The wikicode on the Talk pages is the same, and looks like this, see Adona River as an example.

  
{{WikiProject Romania|class=Stub|importance=}}
{{river|class=Stub}}

Changed to;

{{WikiProject Romania|class=stub|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Rivers|class=stub|importance=low}}
  

I am a member of WP: Rivers and have approval from the project here, I also asked User:Afil here who created these articles, who agreed that they can be marked as Low importance. Afil is also a member of WP: Romania.

The requested changes will help to reduce the backlog of unknown importance pages on both projects. Thanks...Jokulhlaup (talk) 16:28, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Possible Looking into how hard this will be now. As this is a large task (>200 edits), I would say a BRFA is probably needed to do this. --Mdann52talk to me! 07:44, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

@Jokulhlaup: Would this be what you want? --Mdann52talk to me! 08:08, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

That is spot on, just what is needed. I have realized that there are some 50 or so redirects with the same coding, so I will edit those talk pages as redirects, to save them getting changed by your bot. Will do that now, and let you when finished...Jokulhlaup (talk) 16:03, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

BRFA filed --Mdann52talk to me! 16:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

All of the pages that were redirects have been edited. Thanks, Mdann52 for picking up this task...Jokulhlaup (talk) 17:16, 25 June 2014 (UTC). Good news, I see that it has been approved for a trial run...Jokulhlaup (talk) 17:58, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Bot approved. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:04, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

fix CNET links

Resolved

I recently noticed that many Wikipedia articles use the CNET news site for one or more references. That is great -- in general, I wish more people added more references to Wikipedia articles.

Alas, it appears that the CNET news site has (recently?) moved from the "news.com.com" domain name to the "news.cnet.com" domain name.

(Could someone please tell the nice people at CNET that Cool URIs don't change ?)

Could someone write a bot that converts these references to the new domain name?

For example I manually changed[5]

• http://news.com.com/Power+could+cost+more+than+servers,+Google+warns/2100-1010_3-5988090.html
• http://news.cnet.com/Power+could+cost+more+than+servers,+Google+warns/2100-1010_3-5988090.html

and I think I saw another article use

• http://news.com.com/PC+milestone--notebooks+outsell+desktops/2100-1047_3-5731417.html
• http://news.cnet.com/PC+milestone--notebooks+outsell+desktops/2100-1047_3-5731417.html

It seems to me that such substitution is completely mechanical and repetitive and uncontroversial, exactly the sort of thing bots are good at.

I suspect that well-meaning editors may have deleted some of these apparently dead links. Is there some way a bot could dig through the history and detect such deletes? --DavidCary (talk) 14:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

@DavidCary: Coding.... --Mdann52talk to me! 16:24, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

It turns there were only 50 occurrences. I fixed them all. Let's see if more pop-up. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done I fixed 500 more occurrences semi-manually. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:04, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Linking libraries

Per [6] “We envisage the actual task of annotation [as] a Wikipedia bot.” I so request. EllenCT (talk) 05:09, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

@EllenCT: Needs wider discussion. in fact, a bot may not be the best way to do this; a extention may be a better solution. This would be a major change, so I feel it requires further eyes on it before anyone adds hundreds of thousands of links. --Mdann52talk to me! 20:35, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm sure Wikidata must be involved somehow. Aren't they re-doing geographical proximity search on mobiles? Perhaps there could be a footer or sidebar template defaulting to "Someone thinks that there could be related library resources nearby, but none were found in the [library proximity] database. Try [nearby library catalogs]." EllenCT (talk) 05:12, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, what they seem to want at the moment is fairly ambiguous. From my reading of their plan, they wish for there to be an extensive list of "extended reading" material added to each page. What may work better is an extention that adds a link to the sidebar (eg. Extended reading), that when clicked on links to a page on WC that has a list of materials relating to an article, however, with the plan in it's current state, I feel that as a bot task, this status of this is Idea is not well explained.. --Mdann52talk to me! 15:07, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

You're right, it's a database format to store the records, a client query interface and library to obtain location with consent (and allow for corrections as part of the consent process), and then a lookup during render to display the records. That is definitely an extension, not a bot. Would someone please remind me where to propose new extensions? EllenCT (talk) 13:22, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

@EllenCT: I didn't see anywhere in the article that Wikipedia already has the ability to link ISBNs to library catalogs - see Help:ISBN for more information. Adding libraries to Wikipedia:Book sources (or asking for help adding libraries at Wikipedia talk:Book sources) would be a great benefit for Wikipedia's readers. GoingBatty (talk) 17:37, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

My understanding is that they want something like a footer template, that works on mobiles, for related printed matter in proximal library collections. If I am mistaken please correct me. EllenCT (talk) 13:09, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Please see: reviews needed for upcoming query functionality for Wikidata. EllenCT (talk) 23:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject talk page tagging

Resolved

WP:CHICAGO could use a project tagging run. Who is doing that now?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:56, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

TonyTheTiger I am doing it but after a series of failures I have some rules: User_talk:Yobot#New_rules_for_WikiProject_tagging_via_Yobot. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:15, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I am a member of WP:CHICAGO.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 10:23, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I have placed a notice at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chicago#Tagging_request_notice.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 10:23, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

The request is for pages in the WP:CHIBOTCATS list.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 10:23, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

TonyTheTiger I'll start tagging in two days due to other priorities. I see a lot of red-linked categories in the list you gave me. Can you please clean it up? Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 15:11, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Will the bot inherit ratings. I.e., if an article is a GA, FA or FL for other projects, will it tag the article with the same rating for us?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:50, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I can do that. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:52, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Great, I am just realizing how obsolete our bot tagging category list is. Can you wait until it has gone unrevised by me for 48 hours or until I leave a notice here that I am finished updating it.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:40, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Magioladitis, did you see this request?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:05, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Magioladitis, acknowledgement would be good.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:27, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

TonyTheTiger should I start? -- Magioladitis (talk) 05:33, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Magioladitis, I have finally finished updating the category list. You can start now.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:31, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I started loading the pages from the list. I am do more than 1 run per page to ensure that the page was tagged + properly assessed. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:28, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

41608 pages on the list. 4865 without the banner. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:22, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

That is a lot of pages. Are you inheriting GA, FA or FL like mentioned above?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:00, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

TonyTheTiger only 4865 are going to be tagged. The 40k is the total number in these categories. 36k are already part of the WikiProject. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:25, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I understood that. What about inheriting at least GA, FA or FL?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:57, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

TonyTheTiger 359 pages are categories. 70 are files. 73 are templates. 4 are user pages. 1 is a draft. 4358 pages to be checked for inheriting class. This is going to be done as step 2. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:59, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Step 1 completed. Moving to step 2. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:25, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

From the 4358 pages only 17 are GA/FA/FL. I'll do them later today. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:03, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

• That is a lot. I have never had more than 3 or 4 from a run like this.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:03, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

The list. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

TonyTheTiger I finished. Should I assess for stub class too? -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Sure, if it is not too much trouble.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Wow, 3 FAs!--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:58, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

1697 new pages in stub class. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:01, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

TonyTheTiger I finished stub-tagging too. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:59, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:04, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

• I just noticed a bunch of new WP:GANs at WP:CHIAA. Maybe 4 more GAs from this work.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:04, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Just deleted a bot generated tag at Talk:Berard Haile. This is the second time a bot generated such a tag. Haile's only connection with Chicago was that he briefly studied anthropology at the University of Chicago. Please be more careful with the use of bots. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 13:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

US code - dead links (help me learn to make bots?)

The wiki is full of broken links of this form:

• U.S. Code Title 17 via United States House of Representatives
• U.S. Code Title 17, via United States Government Printing Office

as I noted in this diff. This includes most if not all of

Anyone interested in bot-fixing the dead/broken links? I'll figure out the form of replacements if someone expresses interest in fulfilling the request.

Perhaps better: anyone willing to help me learn to make bots by learning to make this bot? I'm working toward it. I program. I have a working labs account. I guess I can ask around per this --{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 17:01, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't have any ideas about how to do this with a bot. But it is a concern that the instances you mention don't contain a date for the version of the code that was consulted. If these are citations, they should have a date because the code does get amended from time to time. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:33, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

True.--{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 23:33, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

If you post what they need to be replaced with here, you are far more likely to get a response. Just saying. --Mdann52talk to me! 10:02, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I did say, "I'll figure out the form of replacements if someone expresses interest in fulfilling the request." Cornell my be the most sensible destination. (links like http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/chapter-5 ...) However, we should use a template, so that if there's linkrot again, just the template needs updating. And we have one. 15 U.S.C. § 45(a)(2) Something like s/http://uscode.house.gov/download/title_(\d\d).shtml/{{UnitedStatesCode|\1}}/ would be my first stab at it, but I'm guessing someone's written code to replace a form of URL with a template appropriately, whether they're raw, wikilinks, or in a cite... --{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 23:33, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

So esentially, what you want if for all the links to be amended to a template? That should be doable with WP:AWB regex, or similar. --Mdann52talk to me! 08:52, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Pop music banner tagging

Resolved

Per request on User_talk:Yobot#WikiProject_Pop_music_banner_tagging Yobot will run and tag with WP Pop music banner every article in the following categories:

Tagging will start in 1 or 2 days. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:51, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Bot started. Wish me good luck. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:21, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

15,219 new tags are expected in 680 categories. WikiProject notified 24 June 2014. I was noticed 28 June 2014. List given 8 July 2014. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pop_music#Bot_request. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:24, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Task completed. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)