Wikipedia:Bot requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shortcuts: WP:BOTREQ WP:BOTR WP:BTR

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 their 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, 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. You might not expect Category:World War II to be a subcategory of Category:Thailand, but it actually is, and a bot will find it! It is usually safer to give a complete list of categories that should be worked through individually, rather than one category to be analysed recursively. Compare a successful request with a similar one that made a mess.

Please add your bot requests to the bottom of this page.

Click here to make a new request

Commonly Requested Bots
Newsletter delivery · Talkpage Archiving · Template substitution · WikiProject tagging · Article autoassessment

Archives (Index)

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8	Archive 9
Archive 10	Archive 11	Archive 12
Archive 13	Archive 14	Archive 15
Archive 16	Archive 17	Archive 18
Archive 19	Archive 20	Archive 21
Archive 22	Archive 23	Archive 24
Archive 25	Archive 26	Archive 27
Archive 28	Archive 29

1 Bot to judge suitability of potential admins
2 Redlinkbot
3 Redirect a redirect
4 Baseball Reference link fix
5 Renaming of parameter in template
6 Template:rugbybox
7 WP:INDIANA Project banner tagging
8 Message for user talk pages of Maryland and DC Wikipedians (fairly urgent)
9 PROD-removal notify bot
10 Cleaning of Category:NA-Class video game articles

[edit] Bot to judge suitability of potential admins

As outlined at WT:RfA#WT:RfA.

This bot would take a user and look through the things which are considered in an RfA (so for example: What areas they take part in, block log, how much interaction they have with other users, how many AN/I threads there have been about them ;), what (if any) warnings they have received, etc. etc.) and then give the user a "score" of how good an admin they would make, it could also find the average score of failed/successful noms over the past month(s) and compare the user to that.

The way to do this which seems best (as we don't want the results to be public), is to have a page where users can request to be reviewed (optionally) and the bot will then email their results to the user via Special:EmailUser.

There is also talk about having a bot "fail" users before they go for RfA. It seems to be a bad idea to add this immediately, but it would be nice to have the bot save data about whether it would have failed them, if it was allowed to. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 08:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I guess the hardest part of this would be to work out all the metrics, if you intended to have an overall conclusion. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 09:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Aye. But this should be possible through trial and improvement. By comparing results of past candidates. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 10:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

What a horrible idea! Having sacks of bolts to pass judgement on human behaviour and hand out scores? Who in the world would have access to the results if they were not public? The small bunch of people who hangs at RfA? If the data is available upon request, who decides who has access? If it's no one, then the data is public, despite you saying otherwise. By querying the bot? Then what's to stop people from using it on non RfA candidates? I mean there's problems with the RfA process and the RfA folks, but this is something else. If you're getting too lazy to go through {{usercheck-full}} (which compiles everything you could possibly know about the user, with links to searchs at ANI and all these other alphabet soup location) or a variant of it yourself, don't !vote at RfA! Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 13:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

It's for he use of potential candidates to use to gain confidence/not go for RfA and avoid the disappointment of failure. The results are emailed to the user who requests them, so to find out someone else's score you would have to hack into their account or email. You seem to think it's designed for !voters, that's not the idea. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 13:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, well if that's the case, then disregard my previous remarks. Although I would worry about giving them false hopes of success. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 14:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment As I stated at WT:RFA, I feel this is an excellent idea. It's not going to be a simple thing to code, though, as there are a lot of factors to figure out and weight. Enigma^msg 16:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
As a completely opt in private assessment bot, there really is nothing to object to. However, getting a reasonable accurate score would be quite a programming task. More specifically, while a number of disqualifiers can be identified (insufficient edit history, recent blocks, lack of edits it certain areas, etc), it will struggle in accurately assessing candidates that don't have any obvious problems. The reason is that assuming someone meets all the unofficial criteria, they will pass or fail based on subjective (and realistically incomplete) information gathered from their edit history. That is, the pass or fail will depend on what is unearthed about their past and how that information is viewed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I think I had a hand in starting this idea off, there could be some truly terrible results from this or something really useful - depending on how it was setup and run. At one extreme a black boxed set of software that predicted whether or not someone would pass RFA based on the last 12 months RFAs would soon prompt questions such as What was your score on RFAbot? and of course would risk all sort of positive feedback loops as it came to influence who passed RFA. On the other hand an RFA bot that judged how a candidate fared against a set of criteria that each RFA voter could tweak would be of useful, but it would have to be parameter driven - eg a hypothetical criteria, variables marked in italics:

clean block log for at least 12 months
At least 300 edits last month and in at least two other months in the last 5
No warnings in the last three months and show me any in the last 6 months
No civility or npa warnings in the last 18 months.
At least 3,000 edits disregarding 90% of minor or automated edits.

Ϣere SpielChequers 18:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

It should be noticed that this proposal is just to determine how accurate a bot is compared to a bureaucrat in "closing" and RfA. The data would be compiled over the course of 6-12 months, and then reviewed. Whatever the outcome, the data would be useful and would also either shoot down the idea of a bot doing it or support it. ···日本穣^? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment This sounds like people want a statistical analysis done of past RFA decisions, as in a logit regression analysis, or a neural net prediction model. Creating such a prediction model would be an easy analysis for anyone knowledgeable who has a statistical software package, if the candidate variables were collected in a table for a bunch of past RFA decisions, but it is not the same a running a bot! doncram (talk) 01:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

90% sounds like too much for minor edits, about right for automated, but I think minor edits should be about 75% - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 13:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that this is an excellent idea to have a scoring system for Rfa. But I don't like the idea of E-Mailing the results, the results should be public, everything on Wikipedia is public including the discussions we are having right now! Khaled El Mansoury (talk) 01:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

But do you want to have users getting opposed at RfA because, say, the bot made a mistake? This is likely to happen. I doubt someone will oppose on the bot alone, but it's likely to contribute a lot. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 07:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment Yeah, got point. But that's why bots are tested and then fully approved. If the bot is programmed correctly by an experienced programmer, it is unlikely that it will make mistakes. Further it would also only handle statistics, which are not a complicated type of data to work with, this minimizes the amount of mistakes that could be made by the bot. The bot should be programmed in a well-known language (such as PHP) and the source code should be made available to everybody. So that the code can be peer-reviewed by experienced programmers to make sure it does not contain any major mistakes. I am a PHP programmer myself and plan to become a Zend Certified Engineer at some point this year. Khaled El Mansoury (talk) 17:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I think this might be better as a Toolserver tool. Anyone would be capable of querying it to see the results, but they wouldn't be publicly displayed. That way, interested users could use the tool, as well as the candidate themselves, but it wouldn't be able to play a major role in RfAs. Having this as an email-only bot seems rather useless, and one that displays the results to everyone could be harmful (as outlined above). The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 17:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree, having this as a toolserver tool seems more appropriate. Khaled El Mansoury (talk) 16:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Disagree You agree that having the results public is harmful (something I agree on), yet you still want to make them public... I don't think it's going to be obvious that the bot/tool effects people's !votes, but I do think it would. Bots should only make people not have to work as hard to the point where it's not harmful - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 17:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The point I was getting at was that a Toolserver tool is less noticeable to the average RfA !voter than a bot, but you're definitely right. This bot/tool/whatever will end up playing a large role in RfAs as long as anyone has access to it. How about we restrict the tool so that it can only be used by the candidate, but not by anyone else? (I'm thinking of Mangus's TUSC system.) It would be entirely voluntary, but may be a useful guiding force for curious wannabe-admins. I object to the idea in general, but remember: it will only be analyzing already-available data. The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 17:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with it being a tool if only the candidate views it. Yes, it will only be analyzing already-available data, but it will be handing out "scores", so in the beginning stage of this at least, it would be best to keep this away from public eyes. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 17:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree - Good points. Then let's just leave it as a Toolserver tool, with only the candidate having access to viewing his/her own score. Khaled El Mansoury (talk) 19:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Redlinkbot

Hi there, i am from the runescape wiki and i was wondering if you could make a bot for me. I would like to to have the name Redlinkbot and i want it to automatically find redlinks and remove them when needed, if not needed; just remove the [[,]] tags so it becomes a normal word instead of a link.

I would really appreciate if you could do it,

82.45.113.89 (talk) 15:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is page is just for requesting bots on the English Wikipedia, not for other wikis. You may want to see if Wikia has a general bot requests page instead. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

For the reason above, I have to

Decline this. However, I did do a quick search on the site, and found this page. Is that what you are looking for? There appears to be a forum where you can discuss bot concepts here. Interested Wikipedians might like to note that RSWiki's bot page links to WP:MKBOT locally, which may be a bad idea. Regards, The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 21:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect a redirect

The previous request was archived without a response. Would it be possible to modify all links that point to United States Census, 2007 and make them point to United States Census Bureau instead? I'd like to delete the 2007 redirect page. Timneu22 (talk) 17:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

There are around 50 links that would need to be updated; it's a little tedious I know, but that's probably less than an hours plain-old editing. Is there a reason it can't be done manually ? - TB (talk) 10:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good task for AWB, you could ask on their request page if you like (just post at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks). Just need to fill a list from "links to article", then find and replace "[[United States Census, 2007" with "[[United States Census Bureau". Very easy :), I'd do it myself except I'm currently cutting down on my automated edits, I dislike AWB and I'm programming my own bot at the mo (nothing more enjoyable than that) :) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 10:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll post on AWB. Thanks. Timneu22 (talk) 14:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Baseball Reference link fix

Over the years, a lot of links have been added to baseball-related articles that link to the Baseball Reference site. That site recently changed the directory structure for all its player articles, adding a new directory level. What was previously "http://www.baseball-reference.com/s/smithjo01.shtml" is now "http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/s/smithjo01.shtml". The old links still currently work as redirects, but there's no guarantee that will always be the case. Therefore, I'd like to request that someone create a bot to fix these links across Wikipedia. -Dewelar (talk) 14:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

~~Declined~~ Per WP:NOTBROKEN, links shouldn't be updated unless they are actually broken. If at some future point they actually break, feel free to leave a message at User_talk:DeadLinkBOT and I will be glad to have my bot fix them. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Though I don't have an issue with not changing the links at this time, I would like to note that the Wikipedia:Redirect page defines a redirect as a redirecting Wikipedia page, and so the guideline regarding changing redirects does not apply in this case. If this policy were to be extended to include external sites, then there would be no effective way to take advantage of transition periods offered by the external sites who wished to change their URL structure. Isaac Lin (talk) 16:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Your reason for declining this is not supported by the policy you cite. -Dewelar (talk) 16:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you are both missing the spirit of the law and listening to closely to the letter of the law. -Djsasso (talk) 18:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

So the answer is that it's better to wait until they are broken, even though we have foreknowledge that they are likely be broken at some point? That doesn't seem like a good spirit for this law to have. -Dewelar (talk) 18:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. How many links are we talking about? -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I did some searching, and a very rough estimate would be 10000 pages. That is a lot of edits for something that isn't even broken. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's more than I'd do by hand. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I struck the word declined, but this remains a bad idea. Yes external links aren't mentioned specifically in NOTBROKEN (it is part of a document on correctly handling internal redirects after all), but the principal is exactly the same - it is a waste of resources to fix something that isn't broken.

More to the point, we have no reason to believe these external redirects will actually break at some point. If we knew they were going to break, then sure we could fix the problem before it happened. However, it is just as likely the the redirects will work forever as it is that they will break sometime soon. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that, but I can understand why some might consider it a "waste of resources". It was a request, which I'd do myself if I knew anything about bots. If it's that much trouble, then forget it. -Dewelar (talk) 19:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, we do have some proof that these links may very well disappear. They changed the link structure of their minor league player pages as well, and in that case none of the old links have been kept. I wouldn't be so quick to assume these are any more likely to survive. -Dewelar (talk) 20:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I'm not sure why I'm missing the spirit of the law, as I said I didn't have an issue with not changing the links at this time. I have the same view as ThaddeusB on waiting to see if there is a known plan for the external redirects before engaging in an automated effort to change the links. Isaac Lin (talk) 19:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

How about a bot to change the relevant baseball-ref links to templates? Many of them already are but I gather 10,000 places are not, but should be. Something like {{Baseballstats}}... Wknight94 ^talk 19:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Ahh yes, I had suggested that as well, and now that you point out that particular template I see it is possible to do with baseball reference, I couldn't wrap my head around doing it without them using numerical ids like the main hockey reference site does. -Djsasso (talk) 19:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

If that were the type of link that needs changing, you would be correct. I'm talking about links used as references within the articles, not the summary links used in the External links section. And yes, they probably number in the tens of thousands, as ThaddeusB said. -Dewelar (talk) 20:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to those links as well, ie just rip the code out from one and place it in a new template. -Djsasso (talk) 20:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea how to do that sort of thing, but if it would work that would be a perfectly fine alternative. -Dewelar (talk) 20:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

You are correct, I misread your comments. -Djsasso (talk) 19:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Renaming of parameter in template

In the template {{Infobox UK property}}, I have renamed the parameter |imgage_name= as |image_name=. I'd like to request that a bot correct the name of the parameter in all articles where the template has been transcluded. Thanks. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 15:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Any idea how many there are? From this, it looks like only a few dozen. WP:AWB might do the trick. Wknight94 ^talk 19:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The number doesn't look huge, but I'm not very familiar with WP:AWB. If you think that is a better place to go with my suggestion, I'll check it out. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 05:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I left a message on the AWB notice board and a user there is helping me with this request. Thanks for your advice. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 05:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:rugbybox

Would it be possible for a bot to be created that would replace all instances of the "home" and "away" parameters in this template with "team1" and "team2"? The "homescore" and "awayscore" parameters would also need to be changed to "team1score" and "team2score". The reason for this change is that, when a match is played at a neutral venue, there is no "home team" or "away team", and this would make the template fall in line with {{footballbox}} and the cricket match summary templates. – Pee Jay 11:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

This could better to accomplished by editing the template to allow for either "home" or "team1", either "away" or "team2" etc. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

That is possible, and has been implemented (I hope correctly), but an eventual scenario in which "home" and "away" could be phased out would be preferable. – Pee Jay 14:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

So any chance of this happening then? – Pee Jay 20:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

It is generally considered a waste of resources to change something that isn't broken, so no the change probably won't happen unless it is being done as part of some larger task that would require the editing of all the affected pages anyway. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:00, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] WP:INDIANA Project banner tagging

Is it possible for a bot to check the articles in each of the following 641 categories and ensure that the Indiana project banner ({{WikiProject Indiana}}) is on the talk page? The bot could make the following decisions:

A. If the Indiana banner currently on the article talk page is {{WPINDIANA}}, change it to {{WikiProject Indiana}}, and if possible leave the assessment parameters in place. (This is something that could be done in pereptuity if there is a bot that does that)

B. If no Indiana banner is present on the talk page of an article, place one. ({{WikiProject Indiana}})

C. If the item in the category is in the file namespace, tag it as such. ({{WikiProject Indiana|class=image}})

D. If the item is in the template namespace, tag it as such. ({{WikiProject Indiana|class=template}})

E. On the categories themselves, also check for a Indiana banner, and if none is present add one ({{WikiProject Indiana|class=category}})

F. If the item is in the portal namespace, tag it is such. ({{WikiProject Indiana|class=portal}})

G. If possible, could a list of all the article that have been altered by the bot for this task also be created?

Note: Not all of the subcategories of Category:Indiana are listed here, as some are deemed to not be within the projects scope, so just pointing at Category:Indiana and subcats should not be done. Once the tagging is complete, projects members will be able to go through and assess each article's quality and importance and at that time make a final determiniation if the article is within the scope of the project. The primary benefit of a bot completing this task would be that it will put all the newly tagged articles into a our unassesed category autmotacally (because of the template syntax) making it easy to quickly go through them all. This will save the time of manually checking thousands of articles for banners. I expect that there are between 500-2000 articles that are not tagged with banners, out of an estimated 8-9 thousand articles in the categories. (I have not determined an easy way to count the articles). —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 14:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

List of categories

Hi, what exactly do you mean by "Not all of the subcategories of Category:Indiana are listed here, as some are deemed to not be within the projects scope, so just pointing at Category:Indiana and subcats should not be done."? How else would it find the pages? Thanks. AHRtbA== ^Talk 20:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello. What I mean is that, a list was made of all of the subcategories of Category:Indiana. From that list, number of categories were removed because they are not within the scope of the project. The remaining 641 categories that are within the scope of the project are listed. Those are the categories that should be scanned for banners and tagged. That is opposed to doing a top down searching starting in Category:Indiana, which is what I meant by my comment - that some of the subcategories of Indiana are not included in the above list. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I understand now, you want the bot to use the list above. If no one already has a bot to do this, I build one after CSDify get's approved. Do you have a deadline for this? Thanks. AHRtbA== ^Talk 23:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

No deadline particularly, but the sooner the better of course. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Note that running any sort of bot over "all subcategories" is strongly discouraged; the normal process is to do exactly what Charles Edward did here. Anomie ⚔ 03:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

So even if I come across a Sub-Category in the list he gave, I'm not supposed to go through it? Thanks. AHRtbA== ^Talk 19:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

If you're asking "Should I not process pages in Category:Taylor University faculty, even though that category is in Category:Taylor University which is in the list?", that should be correct. Only tag pages that are in one of categories specifically listed. Anomie ⚔ 20:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Message for user talk pages of Maryland and DC Wikipedians (fairly urgent)

Would a bot owner post the following message to the user talk pages of all editors who are in one of these two categories?

Thanks! -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Section heading for announcement:

Volunteer opportunity in Bethesda, Thursday, July 16

Body of section (announcement):

The Wikimedia Foundation will be conducting an all-day Academy at the National Institutes of Health, in Bethesda, Maryland, on Thursday, July 16. The team that will be teaching at the Academy, a mix of paid staff and volunteers, is looking for four more volunteers to be teaching assistants, providing one-to-one assistance in workshops whenever a workshop participant has a problem following the instructional directions. (We currently have two editors signed up as teaching assistants, and are looking for a total of six.)

The NIH editing workshops are only for two hours, but volunteers are asked to meet the Wikimedia Foundation team at the hotel in Bethesda at about 7:15 a.m. (time to be finalized shortly) and to stay for the entire day, which ends at 4:30 p.m. Lunch will be provided. (The full schedule can be found here.)

The team is not necessarily looking for expert editors (though they are welcome), just people who can help novices who might get stuck when trying to do some basic things. If you've been an editor for at least 3 months, and have done at least 500 edits, you probably qualify.

If you're interested, please send John Broughton an email. If you might be interested, but would like further information, please post a note on his user talk page, so that he can respond there, and others can see what was asked.

(You have received this posting because your user page indicates that you live in Maryland or DC.)

I can do this right now. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!! -- John Broughton (♫♫) 11:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Consider using Geonotices instead of just spamming people talk pages. — Dispenser 17:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. As the page says, however, Currently, only a watchlist geonotice exists. If there had been more time before the event (something totally out of my control, unfortunately), this would have been a viable alternative. (I typically check my watchlist every couple of weeks, and I'm sure that there are other editors who don't review it every day.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

It still would be a wise idea to get it listed there. Not everyone treats there user pages like a MySpace page and I certainly didn't know about the categories before this came up. 91.19.229.151 (talk) 15:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] PROD-removal notify bot

Hi there. Probably a task for an existing bot but here goes: I requested Special:AbuseFilter/200 to be created which tags edits where a prod template is removed (and not replaced by an AFD or speedy template). I think it might be a good idea to have a bot that notifies the user who placed the prod template (as opt-in or opt-out, I'm not sure here) so they can decide whether they want to pursue deletion through AFD. What do you think? Regards So Why 21:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

This sounds really good, and I think I think there is already an outstanding BRfA. NW (Talk) 00:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

That proves two things: a.) I have good ideas and b.) other people have them before I can articulate them. Thanks for the link :-) Regards So Why 06:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Aye :). Anybody's input on if it should be opt-in or -out would be welcome. Although you (SoWhy) sound hazy on that. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 07:24, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Cleaning of Category:NA-Class video game articles

Could a bot run through this category and remove any |class= or |importance= designations on any Category, Template, or File talk pages that are tagged with {{WikiProject Video games}}. Thanks, MrKIA11 (talk) 19:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be easier to just have the template basically ignore specifications of "class=category", "class=template", "class=file", and "importance=NA"? Anomie ⚔ 20:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

It uses {{WPBannerMeta}}, so no, I don't think so. Plus, it's only ~700 pages. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:13, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bot requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Bot to judge suitability of potential admins

[edit] Redlinkbot

[edit] Redirect a redirect

[edit] Baseball Reference link fix

[edit] Renaming of parameter in template

[edit] Template:rugbybox

[edit] WP:INDIANA Project banner tagging

[edit] Message for user talk pages of Maryland and DC Wikipedians (fairly urgent)

[edit] PROD-removal notify bot

[edit] Cleaning of Category:NA-Class video game articles

Views

Personal tools

Navigation

Search

Interaction

Toolbox

Languages

Overview of bots · How to create a bot · Bot Approvals Group · Bot policy · Bot status page · BAG tools
Requests for work to be done by a bot · Bot owners' noticeboard · Requests for bot approval