Wikipedia:Bot requests

For the policy on bot requirements, see WP:BOTREQUIRE.

This is a page for requesting tasks to be done by bots per the bot policy. This is an appropriate place to put ideas for uncontroversial bot tasks, to get early feedback on ideas for bot tasks (controversial or not), and to seek bot operators for bot tasks. Consensus-building discussions requiring large community input (such as request for comments) should normally be held at WP:VPPROP or other relevant pages (such as a WikiProject's talk page).

You can check the "Commonly Requested Bots" box above to see if a suitable bot already exists for the task you have in mind. If you have a question about a particular bot, contact the bot operator directly via their talk page or the bot's talk page. If a bot is acting improperly, follow the guidance outlined in WP:BOTISSUE. For broader issues and general discussion about bots, see the bot noticeboard.

Before making a request, please see the list of frequently denied bots, either because they are too complicated to program, or do not have consensus from the Wikipedia community. If you are requesting that a template (such as a WikiProject banner) is added to all pages in a particular category, please be 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 (see example difference).

Alternatives to bot requests

• WP:AWBREQ, for simple tasks that involve a handful of articles and/or only needs to be done once (e.g. adding a category to a few articles).
• WP:URLREQ, for tasks involving changing or updating URLs to prevent link rot (specialized bots deal with this).
• WP:SQLREQ, for tasks which might be solved with an SQL query (e.g. compiling a list of articles according to certain criteria).
• WP:TEMPREQ, to request a new template written in wiki code or Lua.
• WP:SCRIPTREQ, to request a new user script. Many useful scripts already exist, see Wikipedia:User scripts/List.
• WP:CITEBOTREQ, to request a new feature for WP:Citation bot, a user-initiated bot that fixes citations.

Note to bot operators: The {{BOTREQ}} template can be used to give common responses, and make it easier to keep track of the task's current status. If you complete a request, note that you did with {{BOTREQ|done}}, and archive the request after a few days (WP:1CA is useful here).

---

Please add your bot requests to the bottom of this page.
Make a new request

#	Bot request	Status	💬	👥	🙋 Last editor	🕒 (UTC)	🤖 Last botop editor	🕒 (UTC)
1	Automatic NOGALLERY keyword for categories containing non-free files (again)		27	11	Anomie	2024-08-04 14:09	Anomie	2024-08-04 14:09
2	Can we have an AIV feed a bot posts on IRC?		8	3	Legoktm	2024-06-21 18:24	Legoktm	2024-06-21 18:24
3	Bot to update match reports to cite template	BRFA filed	14	5	Yoblyblob	2024-06-20 21:21	Mdann52	2024-06-20 21:11
4	Bot to mass tag California State University sports seasons	Doing...	5	4	Frostly	2024-06-10 17:05	Headbomb	2024-06-09 17:28
5	Clear Category:Unlinked Wikidata redirects		9	6	Wikiwerner	2024-07-13 14:04	DreamRimmer	2024-04-21 03:28
6	Fixing stub tag placement on new articles	Not a good task for a bot.	5	4	Tom.Reding	2024-07-16 08:10	Tom.Reding	2024-07-16 08:10
7	Bot to change citations to list defined references	Not a good task for a bot.	3	2	Apoptheosis	2024-06-09 17:44	Headbomb	2024-06-09 16:56
8	Adding Facility IDs to AM/FM/LPFM station data	Y Done	13	3	HouseBlaster	2024-07-25 12:42	Mdann52	2024-07-25 05:23
9	Tagging women's basketball article talk pages with project tags	BRFA filed	15	4	Hmlarson	2024-07-18 17:13	Usernamekiran	2024-07-18 17:10
10	Adding links to previous TFDs		7	4	Qwerfjkl	2024-06-20 18:02	Qwerfjkl	2024-06-20 18:02
11	Bot that condenses identical references	Coding...	12	6	ActivelyDisinterested	2024-08-03 20:48	Headbomb	2024-06-18 00:34
12	Convert external links within {{Music ratings}} to refs		2	2	Mdann52	2024-06-23 10:11	Mdann52	2024-06-23 10:11
13	Stat.kg ---> Stat.gov.kg		2	2	DreamRimmer	2024-06-23 09:21	DreamRimmer	2024-06-23 09:21
14	Add constituency numbers to Indian assembly constituency boxes		3	2	C1MM	2024-06-25 03:59	Primefac	2024-06-25 00:27
15	Bot to remove template from articles it doesn't belong on?		3	3	Thryduulf	2024-08-03 10:22	Primefac	2024-07-24 20:15
16	One-off: Adding all module doc pages to Category:Module documentation pages		6	2	Nickps	2024-07-25 16:02	Primefac	2024-07-25 12:22
17	Draft Categories		12	6	Big Blue Cray(fish) Twins	2024-08-07 17:56	DannyS712	2024-07-27 07:30
18	Remove new article comments		3	2	142.113.140.146	2024-07-28 22:33	Usernamekiran	2024-07-27 07:50
19	Removing Template:midsize from infobox parameters (violation of MOS:SMALLFONT)	Resolved	14	2	Qwerfjkl	2024-07-29 08:15	Qwerfjkl	2024-07-29 08:15
20	Change stadium to somerhing else in the template:Infobox Olympic games	Needs wider discussion.	8	5	Jonesey95	2024-07-29 14:57	Primefac	2024-07-29 13:48
21	Change hyphens to en-dashes		16	7	1ctinus	2024-08-03 15:05	Qwerfjkl	2024-07-31 09:09
22	Consensus: Aldo, Giovanni e Giacomo		16	4	JackkBrown	2024-08-07 06:30	Qwerfjkl	2024-08-02 20:23
23	Cyclones		3	2	OhHaiMark	2024-08-05 22:21	Mdann52	2024-08-05 16:07
24	Substing int message headings on filepages		8	4	Jonteemil	2024-08-07 23:13	Primefac	2024-08-07 14:02
25	Removing redundant FURs on file pages		1	1	Jonteemil	2024-08-07 22:29

Legend
In the last hour
In the last day
In the last week
In the last month
More than one month
Manual settings
When exceptions occur, please check the setting first.

IMDb links

Would it be possible to have a bot check through all articles using the |imdb_id= parameter in {{Infobox Film}} to see which of these do not otherwise contain a link to IMDb, i.e. through the use of {{imdb title}} (or any of its redirects), and present this data in the form of a numbered list? Such information would be useful in an ongoing debate over the use of such parameters in the infobox. Thanks in advance for any help! :) PC78 (talk) 15:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Bump. Is this request feasible or not? PC78 (talk) 16:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

This request is certainly feasible, I'll get coding and see what I can come up with. As the bot isn't actually going to be editing - only reading - pages it won't need approval, so I should be able to run through the transclusions later today. I'll put the data in a subpage of my bot's userspace (or anywhere else sensible if you'd prefer). Richard⁰⁶¹² 10:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm having a few issues with non-Latin characters in page titles, but I haven't given up, it'll just take a bit longer! Richard⁰⁶¹² 21:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps someone else could take a look at this. Pywikipedia seems not to like Unicode characters... Richard⁰⁶¹² 22:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Anomie⚔ 03:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Y Done Unless I screwed something up in my coding, this should be the list. There are 6112 article pages, and a handful of others. Feel free to copy it elsewhere if a permanent link into my sandbox isn't sufficient. Anomie⚔ 12:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks to you both! PC78 (talk) 15:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

How feasible would it be for a bot to remove the link from the infobox and add it to the relevant "External links" section of the article? PC78 (talk) 17:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Coding... It would be quite feasible, but I suggest having the bot process the other obsolete external link parameters (website and amg_id) fields at the same time, to get all three in one edit. I'd also have the bot generate a list of pages that need manual fixing or extra attention. Anomie⚔ 16:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, of course. There seems to be concensus at Template talk:Infobox Film for removing these parameters from the infobox, so all three will need to be processed. Whatever you think best. PC78 (talk) 17:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

BRFA filed Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AnomieBOT 24. Anomie⚔ 03:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Foundation and similar dates, in infoboxes

[I'm relisting this August 2008 request (including subsequent revisions), as the editor who said he would make the edits has not done so, nor replied to many enquiries as to progress (due at least in part to understandable family matters).]

To add "founded", "founded date" or "foundation", "released", "first broadcast" and similar dates to an infobox' hCard microformat, existing dates need to be converted to use {{Start date}}.

I've compiled a list of relevant infoboxes at User:Pigsonthewing/to-do#Date conversions.

Thank you.

Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that conversion of these dates into a form that needlessly imposes restrictions on editors is a controversial proposal for which there is no consensus. Microformat dates can be supported without the cumbersome {{start date}} template. See discussion at the WikiProject Time talk page. -J JMesserly (talk) 20:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

This request has already been agreed; it is simply that the editor who undertook some months ago, to do it has been unavailable. The many manual replacements on a number of pages have been utterly uncontroversial. There are no "needlessly imposes restrictions on editors"; and {{start date}} is successfully used in an even greater number of articles (well over 10K). There is currently no viable alternative. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It is a controversial proposal. Perhaps it would be prudent to await consensus on this matter after the Time wikiproject has time to properly consider the desirability of needlessly encoding dates in an arcane format. -J JMesserly (talk) 21:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Please provide evidence of this supposed "controversy". Note that "I don't like it" does not constitute such evidence, and, as I said above that this change has already been agreed, with consensus. In referring to debate on the Time Wikiproject, you appear to be promoting a "rival" (sic) template which you yourself created only a couple of days ago, and which has no demonstrable community support. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

No evidence having been provided; I suggest we proceed. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Anyone looking into this matter will know this isn't the case. For example, consider the following post on the microformats talk page:

I support the proposal of J JMesserly and favor the {{start-date}}: Before all, Wikitext must remain human readable. (BTW: There's in fact currently no chance - even for programmers - to enter a date like "7 December 1941 8AM HST" using {{Start date}}: I vainly tried {{Start date|1941|12|7|18|||Z}}, {{Start date|1941|12|7|18||Z}}, {{Start date|1941|12|7|18|Z}}). --Geonick (talk) 00:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC) (UTC) source

Pigsonthewing's assertion of no controversy is not accurate. There is no pressing need to encode dates in a wonkey format that make it more difficult for contributors to understand. Other contributors agree on this point. -J JMesserly (talk) 02:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

You have been asked to provide evidence of this supposed "controversy". You have not done so. You have provided an out-of-context citation of just one editor liking one aspect of your experimental template, but not objecting to the above proposal. As I have already said twice before; the example of {{Start date}} you give above is not one of the supported formats for that template; GIGO applies. Your pejorative use of the epithet "wonky" is fallacious. If you object to the use of {{Start date}}, them nominate it for deletion. As you say: "It is true [{{Start-date}}; your suggested alternative] is a new untested template and there may be bugs to fix with it"; as indeed there are. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I propose consideration of this proposal be suspended until

1. The documentation for {{Start date}}, {{End date}}, and the bot is improved to explain how the bot and the templates will deal with dates that are in the Julian calendar or the Roman Republican calendar.
2. Andy Mabbett states that he has read the ISO 8601 standard. One should never state or imply that one complies with a standard unless one has read it. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 20:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Please provide a reference for the Wikipedia policy which you imagine requires me to satisfy this bizarre demand. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Other discussion

For those interested in the nature of the controversy, please see Manual of style- dates discussion on the unnecessary obscurity and error prone nature of the {{start date}} template compared to alternatives that achieve the same goal. -J JMesserly (talk) 15:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no controversy. Please avoid unnecessary drama. There is no obscurity and the template is not "error prone"; unlike the supposed alternative. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Controversy shown

It has been demonstrated by the thread above and at the Manual of style- dates page that bot runs employing {{start date}} are controversial as evidenced by the responses from multiple other contributors. -J JMesserly (talk) 19:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

No such controveversy has been demonstrated, as any one can see Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Replacing calender templates

Templates of the style {{FebruaryCalendar2008Source}} are correctly tagged T3 speedy deletion candidates because they are redundant to templates of the style {{FebruaryCalendar|year=2008}}. I'd like to request a bot (should be easy to do) that replaces all instances of all templates of the first kind with those of the second kind, i.e. {{MayCalendar2007Source}} with {{MayCalendar|year=2007}} etc.

It should also be able to replace constructs like {{{{CURRENTMONTH}}Calender{{CURRENTYEAR}}Source}} with {{{{CURRENTMONTH}}Calender|year={{CURRENTYEAR}}}}.

And finally, it should tag all those former templates that are duplicates (i.e. of the style {{MonthCalenderYearSource}}) with {{db-t3}} (don't forget the <noinclude>-tags for that) and list them on a subpage in my userspace so I can delete them after the waiting period is over. So who wants to code me that little thing? Regards SoWhy 11:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll do it, but I'm wary of bot-marking a bunch of templates for WP:CSD. Has a consensus for this been reached elsewhere? Anomie⚔ 12:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. After all, T3 is a very simple criterion that only applies if the template is redundant and unused. But if you are wary about that, I'm happy if it just generates the tag-worthy list. I'll take care of it then. But thanks for your offer, I knew your bot would be perfect for such things :-) SoWhy 12:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll have to think about this T3 thing. What about the {{MonthCalendarYear}} templates (without "Source")? Also, are the new templates really completely compatible with the old? I note that the old ones have endnote and note as aliases for EndNote, for example, that seems to be lacking in the new.

Hmmm... Why not just make one template that takes both the month and year as parameters? Make the parameter names sane ("1a" is really a horrible name) and AnomieBOT can translate those at the same time too. Anomie⚔ 02:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I lack the insight as to why they are in this style, I just stumbled across the old ones on CSD duty. I invited Zzyzx11 (talk · contribs) who tagged them to contribute here. Regards SoWhy 11:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, User:SoWhy asked me to provide some background: Before parserfunctions such as #time: and #if: were created in 2006 or 2007 (I can't remember), we had to create separate templates for each year. Thus the existence of {{MayCalendar2004Source}}, {{MayCalendar2005Source}}, {{MayCalendar2006Source}}, etc. So with the existence of the parserfunctions, we could make general calendar templates there are more self-maintaining. So there have been discussions such as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Days of the year/Archive 7#The calendar on the date pages and Template talk:JanuaryCalendar to have those kind of templates.

Well, finally we had the time to merge all the parameters into a few templates such {{MayCalendar}}. I know it might look like spaghetti code, but it will have to do for now so it would be backward compatible for all the templates whose functionality were merged.

I believe I have already done most of the replacements already. The problem now is that since these templates were on so many pages, transcluded and cascading on multiple pages at a time, that I am currently waiting for the job queue to fully update all the backlinks so the "What Links Here" lists are fully accurate. I mean if you look at Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:MayCalendar2008Source, it lists a bunch of subpages of Portal:Music/DateOfBirth, but the template was actually only directly on the transcluded page Portal:Music/DateOfBirth/May.

Thus, any bot here is premature for the next month or two (last time I heard, the job queue takes about 40 days to fully complete a round of all the pages on Wikipedia). Cheers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Detection of articles that are better in other wikipedias

Following up on my previous request, I would like to be able to find which articles could benefit from translation. A bot could compare en.wiki articles (probably only stubs at this stage) with articles they are linked to via interwikis. Where the linked article is significantly long (a rudimentary measure of article quality), the bot could slap an {{Expand Spanish}} (or another language) tag on the en.wiki. Or the bot could just output a list of these articles so they could be reviewed manually. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

This is more for the actual template usage but stub articles should not also have an expand tag, that is overkill. Expand tags are already excessively used on Wikipedia, to also have a bot place them on articles.... Garion96 (talk) 13:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

But the expand tag actually points to more information, and where the article is better in another wikipedia the auto-translate link lets people read it in imperfect but often acceptable english. I think stub tags are worthless anyways, so I think the redundancy should be resolved in the template's favor.... (I also think the ordinary {{expand}} tag is pointless, but I suppose that is beside the point.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 03:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Stub tags at least are small. Imagine, you have a perfectly ok little article with a template about a third of the article size pointing editors to the Spanish Wikipedia where they might find information to expand the article..... (Or it points readers to a computer translation. I am not sure which is worse) That kind of information belongs on the article's talk page or at a list page at Wikiproject Spain. Garion96 (talk) 20:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Except the point is that it isn't perfectly ok! Stubs generally are awful articles for people who actually want to learn about the subject matter at hand. Which is more useful for the reader- this stub article, or this machine translation from es.wiki? Obviously the english isn't perfect, but I really don't think there's any comparison as to which contains more useful information. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

It is a small article, therefore a stub. It will grow in time. No need for a huge template for that. (talk page would be fine of course). The same counts for República Cromagnon nightclub fire or Hospital de Sant Pau, two other articles I saw using this template. The more tags like these are being made, the more I understand User:Shanes/Why tags are evil. Garion96 (talk) 10:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

What you are not seeing Garion is that these tags are markedly ***different*** to other tags on wikipedia. It precisely because of editors like yourself who dismiss these articles as OK that very little has been done about it. By dismissing these tags as "all tags are evil" is just typical of the kind of narrow minded attitude that many have on here in regards to our potential and ways in which we can improve. They are not administered to cleanup etc they are administered to produce a net result in expansion in direct translation which eventually will undoubtedly start to produce massive results in the content of english wikipedia. They serve as a direct gateway between english and the other and keep track and also makes other aware that the article is in the process of being improved in correspondence. Fact is listing articles for translation behind the workspace and in the talk page at peoples request failed miserably for years. It never brought it to somebody's urgent attention that the articles can easily be expanded in minutes with the link provided so the articles would just be lying about in some barely ever used log in the workspace gathering dust and people visit the article and move on with no results. I don't think you quite understand the purpose of this proposal. Yes tags are ugly which is partly why they are so useful, it prompts people to try to quickly sort out whatever perceived problem the article is experiencing and can therefore remove it asap. As for size I don't see a huge template at all, looks no bigger than most of the templates we have. It is essential in my view that we dramatically increase the coordination of translation on wikipedia and root out the articles which have far superior articles on other wikipedias and begin to draw peoples atttention to doing something about it. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 19:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I think I am seeing it perfectly, I just don't agree with it. And if you read my earlier comments, my objections are not simply a summary as "tags are evil" so stop using that "kind of narrow minded attitude that many have on here" towards opinions they don't agree with. For a project like this one could use Wikiprojects to expand these articles. A bot could help for sure with creating a list to work with. I just think of readers, I don't think readers benefit from a huge tag on an article stating the article could be expned. I also don't think readers benefit from a computer translation. Garion96 (talk) 20:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Not always, but then the tag isn't always intended to say to use google (which is far superior thatn most computer generated packages online). It is there as a background as is language groups and learning about translation. mOre often than not the editor is likely intelligent enough to either spot mistranslations by it or be able to proof read the foreign article themsevles and translate manually. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 21:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

A perfect example of its purpose is Westerstetten for instance. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 21:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Update table of bot edits

This page may have some use, but only if it's updated (it's currently a year out-of-date). Would some who'd got a minute look at it? - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 14:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done from the API. Happy‑melon 18:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Italicizing foreign words - such as kata (as in karate kata)

I wonder if it would be possible to get a bot to italicize all instances of the word kata. I tried doing it in AWB but couldn't figure out how to get the program to ignore it if it was already italicized. Thus, a command like "change all instances of kata to kata" would look only at the word inside the double single quotes, find it, add more double single quotes, and end up changing every instance of kata to 'kata', which is no good.

There is a potential for false positives, but I think that as long as the bot is confined to Category:Martial arts and its subcategories, it shouldn't be a problem.

Can anyone help out with this? Thanks. LordAmeth (talk) 20:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Did you try telling AWB to skip any pages containing ''kata'' (those are single apostrophes)? It seems like this would cover for you, since it is inducible that if a page has one instance of the word formatted correctly, then all instances in said page are formatted correctly. That of course assumes that you're willing to accept that induction, and that might leave you some pages with the non-formatted word still there. There is also probably a way to do exactly what you want using RegEx, but I'm really bad with that so you may have better luck either from someone else here or at another page like WP:VPT. As for automation, if you think that the above-mentioned skip parameter is acceptable I would be happy to file a BRFA and do this with my bot. Robert Skyhawk ^{So sue me!} (You'll lose) 04:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Totally untested, but a Perl-style replacement regex should be s/([^'][^'])(kata)([^'][^'])/${1}''${2}''${3}/i. No idea how to translate it into an AWB regex. Two important points about this: it won't italicize already-bolded instances, and it will make a hash of wikilinks. --Carnildo (talk) 10:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

AWB uses the same regex as Perl. However, I don't think you want to use that regex as it will also replace occurrences of kata within words (ex. 11kata22). I don't know, but I'd assume that might cause false positives. Something like s/\b(?:'')?kata(?:'')?\b/''kata''/i; would probably be better. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe this is a job for a bot as the risk of false positives seems high. AWB would be more suitable. Its find & replace supports regex. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Asteroids

If you have a look at Category:Wikipedia pages with broken references you'll see hundreds and sometimes even thousands of asteroid stubs. I personally hold thay should be deleted non slower than they are created. But at least they should include {{reflist}} too keep them from cluttering up this category. The category was down to almost 2000 and improving, and I was about to do some serious work on it. But these thousands of asteroids came along. Perhaps a bot, or a small remark to the right person could help us out.

Please keep me posted (I mean, please tell me how you propose to delete all of them in one day, joking). Debresser (talk) 22:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Doing... LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 01:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

You're a hero. What do you do with them? Add reflist, or delete? Debresser (talk) 09:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

If you just add reflist there is a request I'd like to ask from you. Could you teach me how to write a bot that adds "prod" to all of them? Debresser (talk) 11:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Y Done I finished adding {{reflist}} to all of them. I'm not sure if it is a good idea to add prod tags to over 500 articles. LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 02:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

That's just great. Perhaps you would know how to go about recommending all of them for deletion? Debresser (talk) 17:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

• You shouldn't reach for deletion as your first resort in this case. Remember our Wikipedia:Editing policy and our Wikipedia:Deletion policy. If cleanup, expansion, merger, or refactoring are the answers, then deletion isn't. Uncle G (talk) 14:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

You're right. We have a discussion now at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomical_objects#main_belt_asteroids. I am arguing that there is consensus for turning all those stubs into redirects to a big list. You'd like to comment? Debresser (talk) 22:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject/Taskforce Spammer.

Sometimes it would be incredibly useful to be contact all WikiProjects and taskforces at once. I've look for bots that can do this, and I haven't found any which is currently able to contact all projects and taskforces in one fell swoop. Anyone willing to code this? Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 04:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

If you can give me a specific list of categories/member lists to hit, I think I should be able to do it with AWB pretty efficiently (10 epm). Robert Skyhawk ^{So sue me!} (You'll lose) 05:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure, see (last column on the right give the link to the wikiprojects/taskforces)

• Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index
• Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index2

There are a lot of inactive projects, but if they are inactive no one should care that they are contacted. Some projects and taskforces probably aren't listed, but that's the best list I know of. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 05:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow...you really mean all of them don't you? But yes, if you have a message to distribute to all of these people, then I think AWB should be able to get it done in a reasonable amount of time...we could even organize multiple bots to split the workload. There is one potential issue though...you'll definitely need approval for this task, and I can already see that it will be hard to convince the Bot Approvals Group that you have a message that needs to go to this many people. Keep in mind that almost every user on the project is a member of at least one WikiProject. May I inquire as to exactly what kind of message you are needing to broadcast to all of these people? Perhaps WikiProject talk pages are a better way to go... -Robert Skyhawk ^{So sue me!} (You'll lose) 06:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC) Retracted, see below.

Yes I really do mean all. :P Obviously I'm not delusional enough to think that one could spam the all WikiProjects and Taskforces without approval of some form, but there should at least be a bot that could deliver one-time messages when required. As for the message, it would be to let projects know about a new feature called WP:Article Alerts (which is a basically a way for WikiProjects to know about the AFDs, PRODs, WP:FACs, etc, relevant to them), so I'm not really worried about the BAG being against this message being spread out (and the ~1500 or so resulting edits). There are currently about 75 or so subscribers to Article Alerts right now, and feedback has been uniformly positive. User:ArticleAlertbot has been throughoughly tested and we've recently overhauled the page to get ready for a massive influx of projects subscribing at once, as well as an increase in bug reports and feature requests. All that is left to be done is to make the projects aware that this exists. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 06:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I have a lot of sympathy - I spent a good hour on AWB manually posting my alert about my project, which is quite similar to yours (not in competition though, don't worry) to ~200 WikiProjects. It's long (at 4 epm), boring, but it does get the job done without the need for a BRFA, so if all else fails, you could consider it. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 11:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

That does make sense. I am thoroughly satisfied with the job that ArticleAlertBot does. However, I think it would be much more efficient to simply post this message on every active WikiProject's talk page. That would reduce the amount of edits that need to be made dramatically, and would make BRFA approval much easier, while still ensuring that active project members (who presumably watch their projects' talk pages) will be notified of this bot's services. If you do in fact decide that this is what you want to do, then we can go from there. If you still think you want to go with member lists, then I hope we can make that work too. Robert Skyhawk ^{So sue me!} (You'll lose) 15:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

If you just want a bot to get a message out to peoples talk pages quickly I have a bot that is already coded to do this and is very efficent. If you want it to go out to wiki project talk pages it should be able to be modified easily, It would need a list / cat / page or links or something similar to run from but I think this would be a better idea quicker and more efficent than AWB. (Already approved for the posting on talk pages) ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 18:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

• Robert Skyhawk: I'm not quite sure I understand what the difference is between "post[ing] this message on every active wikiprojects" and what I'm proposing.
• Addshore: The lists are already given above. Last column gives the Wikiproject links (the bot would obviously post the their talk pages). Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 21:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh...I understand now. I don't think I quite saw what you were trying to do, but now that I realize that just using the WikiProjects' talk page is what you were trying to do all along, this seems much more reasonable. Robert Skyhawk ^{So sue me!} (You'll lose) 23:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Now, I'm kinda curious about what you thought it was I was asking for. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 05:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

It would be nice if the bot skipped the projects that already use AAB. Shouldn't be that hard to remove them from the list as there's only a handful. §hep^Talk 05:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they are all in Category:ArticleAlertbot subscriptions. However, it's been four month since the first subscribers, and quite a lot changed at WP:AAlerts during that time, so they might not be aware of the recent changes. I think I'd still push for all wikiprojects and taskforces regardless of subscription, if only give the links to newly created bug reports and feature request pages, but I'll leave this up to the BAG's judgement once they see the actual message.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 05:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

If you must know, HeadBomb, for a while I actually thought you wanted to take the member lists of the projects and spam every member's talk page...gross misunderstanding on my part. Robert Skyhawk ^{So sue me!} (You'll lose) 05:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Ugh, that'd be horrible and way out of line. I can see why you'd be concerned.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 05:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

So Headbomb you want a message on all the wikiproject talk pages listed there? If so yes my bot can do it and I will throw up a BRFA as soon as you say yes :P ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 08:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Yuppers. If the BAG wants to wait for the message before it approves, I can have it ready by the end of the day. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 08:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Addbot_19. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 08:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I have 20 trial edits, if someone would care to give me the message and I will send it to the first 20 pages. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 17:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Alright, here goes.

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles tagged by their banner enter a workflow such as Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, and Peer review (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found at here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts".

Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 20:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Lossless Image Optimization and Compression Bot

I have looked around wikipedia and noticed that most images are uncompressed (including the actual logo file:wiki.png) I believe that a bot that compresses images would help save bandwidth and reduce page download time. While some people may argue that the savings would be nominal, they would indeed help. Reduced bandwidth would save the wikimedia foundation money(remember, your donations pay for that bandwidth) and the reduced page load time would make people with slower connections happier.

On average, I have been able to compress some images by ~25%. Some more(5kb for the wikipedia text logo on www.wikipedia.org), some less(23bytes for thefile:wiki.png). Compression can be accomplished in several ways. First, the color scale can be changed(such as from rgb to greyscale) can save kilobytes. Second, is the type of file such as jpeg, png, and gif. In some cases jpeg is better while png in others. Lastly, there is the actual compression through tools such as pngcrush, pngguantlet, and pngoutwin. The only downside is that like all compression, it is extremely computationally expensive. Together, they can compress an image a quarter or more.

I suggest that the bot begin with the standard mediawiki images followed by the top 1000 most viewed images. After that, it would simply work in order of "most bandwidth used" images. While I don't have the actual image download statistics(if someone could put them up, it would be nice), there can be savings. As I haven't programmed in years, I don't think I can write an adequate bot, but I can help. Please post if you support this idea or would like to comment, please do so.Smallman12q (talk) 18:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit 1: I would like to say that that what I have in mind is lossless compression. There is also a disccusion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Smaller Wikipedia Logo filesSmallman12q (talk) 22:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is a site that offers online optimization: http://tools.dynamicdrive.com/imageoptimizer/ 72.90.135.45 (talk) 18:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow thanks, didn't know they had an online image "optimizer." That link is very useful!Smallman12q (talk) 19:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

This won't do much good, if any. I think the minimal benefit of compressing the originals would be lost in the thumbnailing process. Plus you seem to ignore the possibility that anyone would want to download the uncompressed originals. The images that we upload are usually not the images that are displayed in articles. For example the Image:Felix Pedro.jpg I uploaded was 483×620px, 79,054 bytes:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1e/Felix_Pedro.jpg

You might argue that this is poorly compressed, with a 3.788 pixel–byte ratio, but most readers won't see this. The thumbnail you see on this page is rendered at 100×128px and uses 3,575 bytes:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1e/Felix_Pedro.jpg/100px-Felix_Pedro.jpg

Here the compression ratio is actually lower at 3.580. So even if we compressed the hell out of the full-size image (punishing anyone who wanted to print the original photo), the server would likely still generate thumbnails at the same file size as before (probably because it's intended to be fast, rather than efficient—your thumbnails have to be ready instantly when you hit the preview button to ask yourself "how does it look at this size") but probably be of measurably poorer quality. What would be the point of that?

If image loading times are a concern it would be better to use more aggressive compression (different software, or different settings within the same software) for the thumbnailing process rather than adulterating the originals, which shouldn't need to be compressed anyway. — CharlotteWebb 20:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Charlotte is right, the images people actually see when looking at articles are generated by ImageMagick(the image processing software mediawiki uses) with predefined compression settings. The software does provide access to the original image by clicking on the image on it's File: page. This original should be left unadulterated. Chillum 20:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Not a good task for a bot. There is nothing wrong with recompressing a PNG, and nothing in particular wrong with changing to palletized or greyscale if it results in no change to the image (note that some programs don't "like" palletized images with an alpha channel), although as noted above it would not do a whole lot to reduce the bandwidth used in articles. But converting to greyscale when the image uses non-grey colors would be a bad idea, as would reducing the number of colors used while palletizing. Recompressing jpegs (or converting png to or from jpeg) would be a bad idea to do automatically (and not a very good idea to do in general unless you know what you're doing), as jpeg normally uses lossy compression. Anomie⚔ 21:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I doubt a bot could reliably determine whether or not the colors in an image are "close enough" to grey that the viewer wouldn't notice a difference (especially if compression artifacts—often phantom shapes of false color—are present). The thumbnails will render at more or less the same file size regardless of whether the originals are compressed/corrupted. Forget the baby and bathwater, this would be about like pouring half the vodka down the sink (storing it in a smaller bottle), then adding water because you are still serving it in the same size glass. — CharlotteWebb 03:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe I forgot to mention that the compression would be lossless. A bot wouldn't need to recognize if the colors "were close enough", instead only the number of colors present. For example, for about a year, the file:wiki.png file was uploaded as an rgb rather than a greyscale. And the actual "compession" would only be for png's so it would be lossless. Please assume that the compression is lossless. Also, file conversion such as png to gif could save additional bytes without any quality lost. Please let me know what you think of lossless compression.Smallman12q (talk) 22:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a good idea for a bot. WP:PERFORMANCE should be added to the above. Also, PNG to GIF is a bad idea...that's why we have WP:PIFU. §hep^Talk 22:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:PIFU is wrong regarding file types(especially GIFS). Small gifs can be significantly less than pngs of similar size and quality. And while SVG's can scale better than PNGs, PNGs are smaller.And as for WP:PERFORMANCE, pictures do cost a lot of bandwidth, so minor improvements can be multiplied.Please see several examples at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Smaller Wikipedia Logo filesSmallman12q . You will notice that with the appropriate compression, a number of pictures(including the wikipedia logo) can be compressed without sacrificing quality. This in turn will reduce bandwidth usage(which your donations pay for).Smallman12q (talk) 21:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The savings are usually trivial. For example, if the numbers on the VP are correct, the reduced size of the logo will save the Foundation roughly 3 cents a year in bandwidth costs. --Carnildo (talk) 01:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment I would like to say that I don't know what the actual statistics are. Perhaps if someone could provide a link or request them from the wikimedia foundation, then that can be argued. But no statistics(and hence no empirical evidence) means that we just believe what we want to believe (and that is very subjective).Smallman12q (talk) 23:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Even if we uploaded smaller lossless copies and deleted the originals, deleted images are not actually deleted. They are still there for an admin to view or undelete. This is as intended as we always want the original version because many of the licenses we use require it. No space would be saved. Chillum 01:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment I don't believe I said the originals would be deleted. I'm not here to save space. (The entire wikipedia is still less than 1TB so there isn't really much space to save).Smallman12q (talk) 23:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Also it would not save bandwidth as all images shown on pages are created by mediawiki using image magick, the originals aren't sent unless you go and download them. If there was a need to save bandwidth the compression settings could be changes there. Also, since when are PNGs smaller than svgs? I suppose if it was a very complex drawing it could be, but svgs are normally pretty small. Chillum 01:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment, then perhaps the mediawiki software should be modified. Small images stored in optimized png are generally smaller than svg. This can be seen at the WP:V thread.Smallman12q (talk) 23:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

←Not sure what Smallman is trying to say but maybe he meant maybe he meant that the SVG→PNG thumbnails created by ImageMagick (or rsvg or whatever) have a larger file size than a visually similar PNG that was created manually. I can believe that, but that doesn't mean we should scrap the image-conversion software and leave a small man inside the server in charge of creating thumbnails. It… wouldn't scale.

Comment small man...clever ^.^. I don't mean manually created pngs, I mean automated ones. Its not hard...create a png from an svg and then compress the png. It will (generally) be smaller than the svg.(I'm referring to small pngs...the larger the png, the less likely it is to be smaller than its svg counterpart...not to mention the quality degradation).

Seriously something that actually would save bandwidth would be to tell the server to embed SVGs directly when the file size is smaller than that of the thumbnail that would otherwise be shown for the selected dimensions. But I suspect the outcry against this would be horrific. — CharlotteWebb 02:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

That's basically what I want...convert the SVGs as pngs when the file size is smaller...why there would be an outcry...I don't understand.Smallman12q (talk) 23:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

SVGs are text based and much easier to correct if there are errors you can lso translate them for sister projects without any problems. §hep^Talk 23:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Archive search box adder

Some articles' talk pages have huge archives. Adding auto search box to each one of them is an excellent duty for a bot or can be an additional task of an existing bot. It would just add {{Archive box|auto=yes|search=yes} to the proper line of talk pages.Logos5557 (talk) 22:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

This would definitely help searching a number of talk pages easier.Smallman12q (talk) 22:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Change links related to recent page move

I need a bot to accomplish one fairly simple task:

1. Change links to Fukuoka, Fukuoka into links to Fukuoka

This is across all namespaces, if possible. Thanks! ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, WP:R2D overrides here unless "Fukuoka, Fukuoka" will eventually be made into a separate article and not always be a redirect. §hep^Talk 03:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Needs X Infobox

To reduce clutter on talkpages and to make sure the pages are categorized properly since most of the of Needs X Infobox just place them in the Requested Templates category when most WikiProjects have specialized categories to make it easier. I suggest the following templates are replaced on the article talk pages with the wikiproject pages with the appropriate needs-infobox switch, or if the WikiProject banner already exists, remove the template and update the WP banner with the switch.

Template	WikiProject(/s)	Replace With
{{Needs television infobox}}	WikiProject Television	{{WikiProject Television|needs-infobox=yes}}
{{Needs football biography infobox}}	Wikiproject Football and WikiProject Biography	{{WPBiography|sports-work-group=yes|needs-infobox=yes}} {{Football|needs-infobox=yes}}

It might also be nice if the bot could check to see {{Infobox....}} exists in the article and then lists separately those so that they can be manually checked, but that isn't really needed. Peachey88 ^{(Talk Page | Contribs)} 10:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Coding... Are there any other templates, or is it just these two? [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 11:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Just those two at the moment that I'm aware of (and could find (well except for the general needs infobox one, but that one shouldn't be done)). Peachey88 ^{(Talk Page | Contribs)} 11:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

BRFA filed. Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Sambot 2. [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 16:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Bot to update project statistics

I'd like to request the creation of a bot to update these two project pages: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Traffic statistics, Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article statistics. It's not necessary for the bot to update the charts; but if it can then it's an added bonus. Thanks! SharkD (talk) 02:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Redirect tagger.

Since Article alerts has launched, its scope now included workflows such as WP:RfD. However, redirects are very rarely tagged, so it makes this feature less useful than in could be. So how about having a bot browse articles, check the "what links here", then tags the redirect with the same banners as the target article.

For example, quark has one redirect, quarks. The redirect tagger would copy the banners from talk:quark, and assess talk:quarks as redirect-class / NA-importance. It could run on a per-project basis, or continuously, whichever makes more sense to the BAG. I'm know WP:PHYS would be interest, and I'm sure other projects will show interest as well. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 03:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject tagging of redirects is apparently controversial, see some of the discussion at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/MelonBot 11 for example. Anomie⚔ 03:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I've place a notice on that BRFA to make sure bots aren't undoing or preventing each other's work.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 03:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

On a per-project-basis...I'm pretty sure almost any of the auto-assessor bots categorized above could do this. Most projects just don't use redirect class and some even discourage the tagging of redirects. §hep^Talk 03:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

On a per-project basis then.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 03:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Add navigational templates to Category:Exclude in print

The book tool will be rolled out on this site soon. There are various kinds of templates with content which is useless and distracting in offline exports(like PDFs or printed books). Such templates can be excluded in exports by assigning them to the Category:Exclude in print.

Navigational templates are widely used and are defined for most major topics. Unfortunately they often do not inherit from a meta template like Template:Navbox. What these templates do have in common is, that they are embedding Template:tnavbar.

Therefor the task would be to:

• build a list of all templates that embed Template:tnavbar (api call)
• for each template:
  • remove from list if tnavbar is only used within <noinclude/> (not visible in articles)
  • remove from list if it transcludes one of the other templates in this list (as it is sufficient to exclude the meta template)
• with each template in the shorted list:
  • add to Category:Exclude in print

--He!ko (talk) 14:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

i want a bot for theninja-rpg

sir, i want a bot for theninja-rpg.com it is a text based online game i want it to create ryo (in-game currency) and to train my character please help me sir