Wikipedia:Bot requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:BOTREQ)
Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcuts:

This is a page for requesting work to be done by bots per the bot policy. This is an appropriate place to simply put ideas for bots. If you need a piece of software written for a specific article you may get a faster response time at the computer help desk. You might also check Wikipedia:Bots/Status to see if the bot you are looking for already exists, in which case you can contact the operator directly on his or her talkpage.

If you have a question about one particular bot, it should be directed to the bot owner's talk page or to the Bot Owners' Noticeboard. If a bot is acting improperly, a note about that should be posted to the owner's talk page and to the Administrators' Noticeboard. A link to such a posting may be posted at the Bot Owners' Noticeboard.

If you are a bot operator and you complete a request, note what you did, and archive it. {{BOTREQ}} can be used to give common responses, and to make it easier to see at-a-glance what the response is.

There are a number of common requests which are regularly denied, either because they are too complicated to program, or do not have consensus from the Wikipedia community. Please see Wikipedia:Bots/Frequently denied bots for a list of such requests, and ensure that your idea is not among them.

If you are requesting that a bot be used to add a WikiProject banner to the talkpages of all articles in a particular category or its subcategories, please be very careful to check the category tree for any unwanted subcategories. It is best to give a complete list of categories that should be worked through individually, rather than one category to be analyzed recursively. Compare the difference between a recursive list and a properly vetted one.



Journalisted IDs[edit]

Could somebody extract some data for me, please?

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

@Pigsonthewing: I have created a CSV File. Also includes the redirect {{MPLinksUK}}. --Bamyers99 (talk) 21:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
@Bamyers99: That's just the job, Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:39, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Can outdated {{unreferenced section}} tags be automatically removed?[edit]

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

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

Infobox power station[edit]

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

@Rehman: You might want to first contact Plastikspork on their talk page. I see that SporkBot was active yesterday. GoingBatty (talk) 14:54, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
My guess is that those are fully automated... I have also sent him/her an email; no reply yet... Lets wait till tomorrow same time anyway. Thanks, Rehman 15:04, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UK railway station categories[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Close out the CSD for Sailors at the Olympics[edit]

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

An article/reference bot[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Okay, the trick will be to get a transclusion count of the {{Reflist}} template. The current number is 3,410,088. Then, subtract it from the number of articles (currently 4,717,510). The downsides of this method are:
  • Jarry1250's tool counts all transclusion, AFAIK, even the non-mainspace ones.
  • All articles with {{Reflist}} might not have references.
  • Articles might have malformed references.
--QEDKTC 18:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Also, the article might use <references /> instead. Then there are the articles with neither, but which are still fully-referenced - such as Actuary. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:22, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Actuary does have a {{Reflist}}. --QEDKTC 04:41, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
It shouldn't have done. It looks like it was added in error by PoeticVerse (talk · contribs) as the wrong fix for this edit, which had used <ref>...</ref> (contrary to WP:CITEVAR and WP:PAREN). Following this edit, the {{reflist}} should definitely have been removed; so I've now done that. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:50, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your responses so far, but the bot has to be edition agnostic, so so looking for '<references>', '{{Reflist}}' or '{{references}}' tags won't work; as the Norwegian edition uses '{{Referanser}}' and the French '{{références}}', for example. The bot needs to tackle localized editions as well, hence my suggestion that it count occurences of articles containing '<ref'. (This probably won't work for non-Latin alphabets, but it's better than nothing.) Malformed references and related errors are not a major problem; they'll even out in statistical terms, given the huge numbers we're talking about. Asav | Talk 20:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't read the "any Wikipedia edition" part. We can run the templatecount.py script through a global bot on each wiki. And we can just change it to the localized template each time on a new wiki. All sensibly referenced articles have the {{Reflist}} template, so I believe we'll get almost accurate numbers. In fact, most articles with inline citations will have the template. We can change it to transclusions in article namespace, so the python script should work fine. I'm fine with running the script but someone has to help me migrate it to the Labs cluster. And I'm going away on 21st. So, I would rather do it before that. --QEDKTC 04:41, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
And some wikis still use the deprecated {{Ref}} which can be tackled by the script. --QEDKTC 04:46, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I may be a bit slow here, but when you say 'All sensibly referenced articles have the {{Reflist}} template,' do you mean the localized or the translated versions (such as {{Referanser}} and {{références}}) as well? Also, quite a few articles still use the deprecated <references> tag. Would that bot work on those too, or will it have to be adjusted for national/localized editions?
Would python templatecount.py -count {{Referanser}} <references> do the job on the Norwegian edition, for example? Asav | Talk 19:17, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm bumping this, since QEDK is on a wikibreak. Asav | Talk 10:06, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Broken references[edit]

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

Transclusion of daily Copyright problems subpages onto the main page[edit]

I've been meaning for ages to ask if some kind bot would take this on. The subpage name is of the form Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2015 February 26; it needs to be added to Wikipedia:Copyright problems after seven days; i.e., the page for 20 February is added at midnight on 26 February. It's being done manually at the moment, would be good if it could be automated. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:24, 26 February 2015 (UTC)