Wikipedia:Bot requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

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.

WikiProject talk page tagging[edit]


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)

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)
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)

Finding users who misuse their user page for advertisement[edit]

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 |  | 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 |  | 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 |  | 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[edit]

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=}}

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)

Symbol possible vote.svg 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)
Symbol wait.svg 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[edit]


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 "" domain name to the "" 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[1]

and I think I saw another article use

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: Document-properties.svg 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)

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

Linking libraries[edit]

Per [2] “We envisage the actual task of annotation [as] a Wikipedia bot.” I so request. EllenCT (talk) 05:09, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

@EllenCT: Symbol merge vote.svg 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 Symbol wtf vote.svg 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 taskforce tagging[edit]

We need a bot to automatically tag articles for WikiProject Architecture/Historic houses task force. If they are already tagged for WikiProject Architecture than only add the taskforce tag "|historic-houses=yes". If not than add the WikiProject Architecture banner as well. Tag all articles in Category:Country houses and subcategories, except Category:Films set in country houses (no consensus whether is in scope) and Category:Castles in Scotland (separate WikiProject). Relevant WikiProject discussion is here. --ELEKHHT 02:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

@Elekhh: Please follow the steps at User:Yobot#WikiProject_tagging, then get back to us here. --Mdann52talk to me! 15:15, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

@Elekhh, Mdann52:: Elekhh is a member of the WikiProject, posted here and in bot's page. I also need to see that it was posted on WikiProject's page and I'll start doing the task after 3 days. I would help if the exact categories where given to me (no subcategories) because I've seen a lot of "ooops I forgot to exclude this one" cases. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 07:05, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I already linked to the discussion at the WikiProject's page, so I'm not sure what else is expected. Listing all included sub-categories will take some time as there are hundreds of small categories. Is there no way to do it simply per above? Would you like them placed on a particular sub-page? Alternatively I could only list the ones with a larger number of articles as otherwise is almost easier to do full tagging manually. --ELEKHHT 12:50, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
@Elekhh: Post the list of categories anywhere it suits you and provide me the link. I'll do the rest. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:53, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Created a list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture/Historic houses task force/Scope. Let me know if this suits you. --ELEKHHT 05:43, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Architecture/Historic_houses_task_force#WikiProject_taskforce_tagging posted in task force talk page. I'll start tomorrow or the day after tomorrow of there are no disagreements. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 07:06, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Replace citation links[edit]


The web domain for the official German music charts has been changed without a proper redirect. These urls are being used by templates {{albumchart}} and {{singlechart}} and can be found on lots of pages. So updating the links may require a bot. If someone's bot has free capacity to do this, please perform the following operation:

On article pages, change (case insensitive).

Thank you. De728631 (talk) 14:30, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

De728631 Maybe we should use templates for this link in the future? -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:46, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
3,663 links. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:48, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Doing... -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:57, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the job. I don't think though that we need to create a separate template like {{allmusic}} for This change of domain seems to have been a unique event and apart from that they kept the entire structure of their website. De728631 (talk) 15:04, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

De728631 should the publisher change from to too? -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:08, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

De728631 I think we are basically done. The others are, most probably, through a template. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:43, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I just updated {{singlechart}}: 847 references with that change. There is a redirect from to, so there's no particular rush in taking care of stragglers.—Kww(talk) 00:59, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Kww thanks. I also updated {{allmusic}}. We are now done. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:47, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I also did some null edits but since there is a redirect that works there is no rush. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:48, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks again. I have updated the {{albumcharts}} template so it now displays the correct publisher. De728631 (talk) 15:27, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I did some more null edits because I also have missed some pages. 756 pages left. Most of them in non-article space. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

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

The wiki is full of broken links of this form:

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}} (tc) 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}} (tc) 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 ...) 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/\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}} (tc) 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[edit]


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)

Group Bot[edit]

Is their a bot that groups wikiproject templates on a talk page into a multiple wikiprojects banner if more than two. If not their should be. Another job could be putting clean-up tags under multiple issues header if more than three (if not already done). NickGibson3900 (Talk - Cont.) 10:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

@NickGibson3900: BattyBot's task 21 adds {{WikiProjectBannerShell}}, and it running now. Bots that include AWB general fixes when they do other tasks will add {{Multiple issues}} if there are two or more cleanup tags on a page - I'm not aware of any that have this as their primary job. GoingBatty (talk) 12:27, 12 July 2014 (UTC)