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.



Infobox power station[edit]

Resolved

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

Unfortunately, I am not fun of categories added via templates/infoboxes in pages. This causes inconsistencies between pages having an infobox and those how don't. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
That would be WP:TEMPLATECAT. But there are no articles without an infobox for which one of these categories is applicable: every station that has been assigned by the Department for Transport to one of their categories (A, B, C1, C2, D, E, F1, F2) has a Wikipedia article; and every one of those articles has either {{infobox London station}} {{infobox GB station}} or its redirect {{infobox UK station}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Note also that the comment in WP:TEMPLATECAT is merely a recommendation, not a policy. Moreover, the reasons for it don't seem to be applicable here - once this work is complete, these categories will be populated almost entirely through these templates, thereby making it easier to restructure. Maybe there are still drawbacks to this approach, but I think it is a lesser evil than having to maintain the DfT category in two places in parallel (the infobox and the article categories) and the consequential likelihood of somebody inadvertently updating one but not the other. — Smjg (talk) 14:04, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Resolved

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

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

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

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)
Yes, it should. The problem is however, templatecount.py (with -count) doesn't count the articles but the number of transclusions so if your mentioned "keywords" occur twice, thrice or more, it counts that number and not the number of articles it has checked. --QEDKTC 12:22, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! What about articles that use parameters within the {{Referanser}}< tag, such as {{Referanser|2}} (for two column layout). Would each possible parameter have to be listed, or is there some sort of a wildcard function? Asav | Talk 19:10, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Instead of -count, do not enter any arguments at all, just set it in the article namespace. Btw, this script would take days to output the number on a very large wiki. Anyway, the code for {{Referanser}} would be templatecount.py -namespace:0 referanser. I have no idea if this script supports redirects or parameters. --QEDKTC 16:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Broken references[edit]

Resolved

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

@JSoos: X mark.svg Not done I only found 10 articles using this URL, which isn't enough for a bot.
Thanks very much. I could not check how many occurances, or where they are! JSoos (talk) 08:32, 2 March 2015 (UTC) I found the correct links and removed {{dead link}} except for Chlorarachniophyte, where I added a possible source of the original reference info. JSoos (talk) 09:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Listing of articles[edit]

Resolved

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

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

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

Authority control templates[edit]

Could someone add Authority control templates to c. 1000-4000 biograms like bot [1] [2] in Polish wikipedia. Code here: [3] Thanks. Mały koleżka (talk) 15:29, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Fixing broken refs[edit]

Resolved

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

@Mike Christie: AWB will add the extra quotation marks to <ref name = "dictionary>. It doesn't currently add "name" to <ref ="dictionary">, so I opened an AWB feature request for that. I'm not aware of any bots that currently fix either of these. GoingBatty (talk) 21:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I figured it might be AWB. Thanks for putting in the request. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
@Mike Christie: It seems that reference tags missing a quotation mark still work fine, such as French Republican Calendar#Famous dates in the Republican Calendar and other cultural references reference #24. It would be hard to get a bot approved where the primary goal is to add a missing quote that doesn't change how the page is presented to the user, but at least these errors are getting fixed when AWB bots are visiting for other reasons. GoingBatty (talk) 22:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I just looked at it in VE, and it displays correctly, so it appears that is now fixed in VE. The missing "name" is still a problem currently, though; if you look at this (you may need to enable VE -- not sure) you'll see the malformed reference at the end of the "Businessman" paragraph. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
@Mike Christie: You're right - that example looks malformed in VE edit mode, but not when reading the article. GoingBatty (talk) 22:58, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes check.svg Done -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:46, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Remember TAFI. Found a possible way to become easy with TAFIACCOMP[edit]

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

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

access date without url[edit]

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

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

AWB or bot needed to remove inaccurate citation titles for New York Times articles[edit]

Resolved

Please see this discussion.

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

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

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

Doing... GoingBatty (talk) 03:19, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
@Jonesey95: Only found 10 from the Feb 5 database dump, and have already fixed the first 4.
Want to work from the bottom and we'll meet in the middle? GoingBatty (talk) 03:33, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done with list above, but this search gives 57 more. GoingBatty (talk) 03:47, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done removing the bad title from these articles, so they should now appear with the error to flag people to add the real titles. GoingBatty (talk) 04:51, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll work on filling in the missing titles. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:02, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
I have added titles to all of the articles listed, unless I missed one or two. Thanks, GoingBatty. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:00, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
For next time, I have a bot task that should be able to add missing NYT citation titles. Rjwilmsi

Request for null edit bot[edit]

Resolved

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

Have you asked Joe Decker (talk · contribs)? --Redrose64 (talk) 20:41, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
@Redrose64: Yes, I asked Legoktm (talk · contribs) and Joe Decker (talk · contribs) in this edit and didn't receive any response. GoingBatty (talk) 21:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Category:Wikipedia usernames with possible policy issues[edit]

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

I see that User:KingpinBot is already supposed to be doing exactly this (see KingpinBot 3) and has been editing recently, have you tried asking @Kingpin13: why it's not doing this task? Anomie 00:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
No, because I wasn't aware that it was supposed to do this. I'll ask if Kingpin doesn't respond to the ping. Nyttend (talk) 01:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

Leave a note on the talkpages of users who add vague stub templates[edit]

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

Bot-doable, of course, but I don't think it's a good idea. For example, you might not have time to use a more specific stub, or you might not understand Japanese topics well enough to use anything more precise than Japan-stub. You're definitely helping by adding the stub in the first place. Nyttend (talk) 03:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Some people, if asked to be more specific, but not knowing enough about the topic, might guess - and get it wrong. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
They will at least know enough to be able to categorise it as {{France-stub}} or similar. The main problem is people using {{stub}}.  Liam987(talk) 00:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't want to put anyone off from adding {{stub}} to appropriate articles, without stub-sorting them, except in the specific case where they're obviously working on a large group of very similar articles (eg British badminton champions of the 1950s) and it would be sensible for them to work out the correct stub type for {{UK-badminton-bio-stub}} or whatever, and add it as they go.
The editors who might be worth messaging by bot in relation to {{stub}} are:
  1. the ones who put it in the wrong place (usually at the top)
  2. those who add it to articles which already have a sorted stub template (often those two groups coincide)
  3. those who don't add a stub template but put the article directly into Category:Stubs or one of its subcats, without adding the template which creates the note on screen.
Different people do different things. I stub-sort like mad, but I don't often add categories, usually just slamming in {{uncat}} (or {{catimprove}} where I've done the {{subst:L|bdate|ddate|sortkey}} thing which I always do while stub-sorting bio stubs, as it adds a couple of cats). Each to our own, as long as we're not actually doing anything which harms the encyclopedia or makes life harder for other editors. If you're going to criticise editors for adding {{stub}} rather than {{Widereceiver-1950s-stub}} or {{Chittoor-geo-stub}}, then you might as well criticise them for not adding {{DEFAULTSORT}}, not adding geocoordinates, not adding Category:Living people, not adding image or inforbox, not expanding the text to the level of an FA ... but we don't. PamD 08:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
If there is a wrong place for this template then rather than botslap people for putting a template in the wrong place, why not use a bot to simply move templates to the right place? That would seem to me a helpful sort of bot ϢereSpielChequers 06:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox television — Format parameter has been deprecated[edit]

Resolved

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

Document-properties.svg Coding... GoingBatty (talk) 00:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
I read "this discussion", but I don't understand what the problem is. When the parameter no longer does anything, why does it matter if we include it, and why does a bot need to remove it where it's currently present? Nyttend (talk) 01:29, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
@Cyphoidbomb: Symbol wait.svg BRFA filed before I saw Nyttend's comment. GoingBatty (talk) 01:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi @Nyttend: I'm not sure if I understand your confusion, oddly enough. |format= represents data in the system that is not useful. It exists in 13,000+ television articles, but is no longer supported, and was deemed unnecessary after a lengthy discussion (which was actually the last of of several similar discussions I'd opened over several months/years). People keep adding the parameter, presumably because they are copy/pasting from out-of-date infoboxes with which they are familiar. The useless data is taking up space, and if I were slick enough and fast enough with regex and AWB, I'd remove it myself over a looooong span of time and without contest. May I ask what exactly is your objection to the removal of this data that it should be countered with something more verbose than "the parameter has been deprecated"? That is to say that the discussions have already taken place, the parameter was deprecated a few months ago, I don't see a clear reason to oppose the automated removal unless you wish to challenge the change. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:46, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
I have no opinion on whether the parameter should have been deprecated. I just don't see the benefit of running a bot task to remove something that's seemingly just adding a maintenance category; the bot policy requires bots to be useful, and this seems to be useless. Imagine that you edit the template so that the parameter doesn't add Category:Articles passing format parameter to Infobox television. What effect will it have? Imagine that you then go and add a nonexistent parameter (example) — it doesn't hurt the page at all. Why is this different? I mean, if you want to go and do it manually, to have the bot do it when making other fixes, etc., I wouldn't object. But how is this different from, for example, changing {{Infobox Television}} to {{infobox television}}, or {{infobox_television}} to {{infobox television}}? It doesn't appear to have any influence whatsoever on the finished page, and it's going to add extraneous revisions to lots of page histories. [Not threatening you; I think the situation was absurd] Remember that people objected to Rich Farmbrough for making changes for the sake of appearance, such as the suggestions I just give, that didn't have any practical effect. Nyttend (talk) 03:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Could the removal of this parameter be added to AWB's general fixes? That might result in a gradual fix for these parameters that are no longer displayed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:17, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
99% certain that it can. WP:VG have got a couple of similar template fixes in the AWB general fixes list. - X201 (talk) 12:48, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
@Jonesey95: You could make a feature request if you like. GoingBatty (talk) 04:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
No complaints with this idea. Nyttend (talk) 12:41, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
I see your point, Nyttend, and it is a good one. Thank you for your explanation. I'll keep that in mind for the next time as I believe the bot is already running. This was my first bot request. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
It looks like Yobot (talk · contribs) is already on the case, see this edit. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:35, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Yobot did a small part of it. I 'll leave BattyBot to complete the task. I think cleaning these categories is useful so that we can track new additions in the future and understand why they are done. Moreover, keeping infoboxes clean helps us spot many sorts of vandalism. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
And I think this is the reason AWB is better than other tools to perform this task. At last, we can do at the same time some other minor fixes and changes that would not be worth to do them as sole edits. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:18, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
To build on Magioladitis (talk · contribs), it would be a good idea if all wikiprojects started building their own list of small fixes that need doing, but can't be done due to falling foul of the "small/inconsequential edits" rule. If you have this list of pre-approved (by project consensus) jobs, when a big job like this comes along, the small fixes list can easily be tacked on to it and executed at the same time. - X201 (talk) 09:35, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Need both user-script writers and bot writers for an initiative at the Signpost[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

ForaDeJogo templates[edit]

Resolved

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

@SLBedit: Like this edit? Would you want the template used in references, such as Teófilo Cubillas? If so, how? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 21:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes. Only in external links. Thank you. SLBedit (talk) 21:38, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
@SLBedit: Symbol wait.svg BRFA filed GoingBatty (talk) 00:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
@SLBedit: Pictogram voting wait.svg Doing... - see these 250 edits. GoingBatty (talk) 03:29, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
All good. SLBedit (talk) 00:15, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
@SLBedit: Pictogram voting wait orange.svg Still doing... GoingBatty (talk) 00:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
@SLBedit: Yes check.svgY Done! GoingBatty (talk) 16:10, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Bot to substitute infobox[edit]

Resolved

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

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

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

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

Yes check.svg Done -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Infobox standard -> Infobox song[edit]

Resolved

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

@Magioladitis: Could we use WP:AWB/TR for tasks like this? GoingBatty (talk) 02:26, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
It won't work. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Doing... -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Magioladitis (talk) 00:26, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Remove whitespace from tennis bracket template[edit]

 Request withdrawn

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

Requesting change (in AWB format):

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

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

@SocietyBox: You seem to have a good handle on what's necessary for this bot to be successful. Have you considered making a bot account (User:SocietyBot is available, for example) and submitting your own request for bot approval? GoingBatty (talk) 04:21, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Will give it a try. Symbol wait.svg BRFA filed --SocietyBox (talk) 08:04, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Moving drafts in Wikipedia talk: namespace to draftspace[edit]

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

Find (likely) bad fair use in novels.[edit]

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

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

@Adam Cuerden: (Non-expert comment) I'd prefer to see this run as a report first. Is this going to find tens of images, hundreds, thousands? What proportion of the claimed fair use images are likely to be (a) deletable, (b) fair use with a custom rationale, (c) old enough to be public domain? -- John of Reading (talk) 07:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
If the novels were published before 1923, we can use covers of their first editions under {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} - there will be a small number of cases where a novel was written, but not published before 1923 which will be the exception. I've done three spot checks:
Category Number of articles Number of bad fair use images found Number of images that shouldn't be fair use in the first place. Uncertain (insufficient documentation)
Category:1920 novels 45 1 1a, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6a 6b, 6c, 6d, 7, 8 1, 2, 3, 4 (this one really bad: very obvious.), 5, 6, 7, 8 1 (may be a valid fair-use. Published as book much later than written; depends if this is the first book edition, really.)
Category:1870 novels 15 None None None
Category:1820 novels 5 None 1 (at worst, needs cropped) None

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

Stubbed redirects in Category:Main Belt asteroid stubs[edit]

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

@Grutness: I created a AWB feature request for this. GoingBatty (talk) 01:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Cheers. Grutness...wha? 03:21, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
@Grutness: Symbol wait.svg BRFA filed GoingBatty (talk) 19:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
@Grutness: Pictogram voting wait.svg Doing... GoingBatty (talk) 20:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

Close small tags[edit]

Resolved

A bot that ran through the Signpost archives in 2010 broke a lot of articles circa 2006 by removing (?) closing small tags. These need to be reinserted. For instance: [4], [5], [6]. @FinalRapture: though he appears to be vanished. ResMar 16:29, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Yes check.svg Done with old-fashioned editing. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
You've more patience than I, friend. Thank you very much. ResMar 21:06, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

SpongeBob SquarePants task[edit]

Over at WP:AFC/Redirects we've had a lot of requests for redirects for articles relating to SpongeBob SquarePants. Specifically, SpongeBob can be written as Spongebob, and SquarePants can be written as Squarepants. It is also reasonable to redirect squarepants to Squarepants.
The requested task would search for all articles containing the word SpongeBob and/or SquarePants and create appropriate redirects for alternative capitalizations. These redirects would be tagged with {{R from other capitalisation}}. Thank you. --LukeSurl t c 21:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

@LukeSurl: Since the correct spelling is "SpongeBob SquarePants", should redirects with typographical errors "Spongebob" and/or "Squarepants" be tagged with {{R from misspelling}} instead? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 01:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I think you're right. --LukeSurl t c 09:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Bot for fixing broken redirect section anchors[edit]

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

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

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

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