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:USURPREQ, for reporting a domain be usurped eg. |url-status=usurped
• 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	Bot to remove template from articles it doesn't belong on?		4	4	Wikiwerner	2024-09-28 17:28	Primefac	2024-07-24 20:15
2	Removing redundant FURs on file pages		5	3	Wikiwerner	2024-09-28 17:28	Anomie	2024-08-09 14:15
3	de-AMP bot	BRFA filed	13	7	Usernamekiran	2024-09-24 16:04	Usernamekiran	2024-09-24 16:04
4	QIDs in Infobox person/Wikidata	BRFA filed	11	4	Tom.Reding	2024-10-06 14:23	Tom.Reding	2024-10-06 14:23
5	Remove outdated "Image requested" templates		3	2	7804j	2024-09-21 11:26	DreamRimmer	2024-09-19 18:53
6	"Was" in TV articles		6	4	Pigsonthewing	2024-11-11 12:30	Primefac	2024-09-29 19:34
7	Films by director	done	9	4	Usernamekiran	2024-10-03 13:30	Usernamekiran	2024-10-03 13:30
8	altering certain tags on protected pages?		10	5	Primefac	2024-10-20 14:47	Primefac	2024-10-20 14:47
9	Request for Bot to Remove ARWU_NU Parameter from Articles Using Infobox US University Ranking Template		4	2	Primefac	2024-10-13 12:50	Primefac	2024-10-13 12:50
10	Removal of two external link templates per TfD result		6	4	Primefac	2024-10-14 13:48	Primefac	2024-10-14 13:48
11	Replace merged WikiProject template with parent project + parameter	Done	7	3	Primefac	2024-10-21 10:04	Primefac	2024-10-21 10:04
12	Bot Request to Add Vezina Trophy Winners Navbox to Relevant Player Pages		3	3	Primefac	2024-10-19 12:23	Primefac	2024-10-19 12:23
13	Replace standalone BLP templates	Done	7	3	MSGJ	2024-10-30 19:37	Tom.Reding	2024-10-29 16:04
14	Assess set index and WikiProject Lists based on category as lists		19	5	Mrfoogles	2024-11-06 16:17	Tom.Reding	2024-11-02 15:53
15	Request for WP:SCRIPTREQ		1	1	StefanSurrealsSummon	2024-11-08 18:27
16	LLM summary for laypersons to talk pages of overly technical articles?		10	7	Legoktm	2024-11-12 17:50	Legoktm	2024-11-12 17:50
17	Redirects with curly apostrophes		6	5	Pppery	2024-11-11 17:30	Primefac	2024-11-11 16:52
18	Bot for replacing/archiving 13,000 dead citations for New Zealand charts		3	2	Muhandes	2024-11-14 22:49	Muhandes	2024-11-14 22:49

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.

Bot to automate a task for U.S. Wikipedians' collaboration of the month

The United States Wikipedians collaboration of the month has been back up and running for the last few months and we would like to automate a couple tasks that currently is done manually.

1. When an article is submitted as a candidate to be the collaboration of the month using Template:USCOTWnom can a bot add Template:USnom to the talk page of the article?
2. We would also like a message to be sent to any WikiProjects associated to the article notifying them that the article was submitted as a collboration candidate.
3. If an article is selected as the Collaboration of the month can a comment be sent to any WikiProjects associated to the article telling them the article was selected.

These three tasks would help tremendously. If anyone accepts this task we can discuss what the messages should say. --Kumioko (talk) 02:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I assume at this point that there is no interest in doing these so I will continue to do them manually until I can find someone willing to add them to an existing bot. If anyone is familiar with a bot that could be suited for one or all of these tasks please let me know.--Kumioko (talk) 17:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Could be a useful task to add to my messenger bot. Can put it together this weekend. Noom _talk ^stalk 14:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok that sounds great. Just let me know what you want me to do. --Kumioko (talk) 14:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

What messages did you have in mind for WikiProjects? Noom _talk ^stalk 19:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The messages I was thinking of are:
For the nomination:
The Article, an article within the scope of this project, has been nominated to be the United States Wikipedians' Collaboration of the Month for next Month Year. You can vote for this or other articles to be next months Collaboration of the Month here.

For the selection:
The Article, an article within the scope of this project, has been selected as the United States Wikipedians' Collaboration of the Month for current month year. All editors interested in improving this article are encouraged to participate. You can also vote for next months article of the Month here.

with a title of:
"Article has been selected/nominated as the United States Wikipedians' Collaboration of the Month for current Month/next month Year"

• Article = The article selected
• current Month = the Month the article was selected.
• Year = the year the article was selected.
• next Month = the next Month the article was selected.

I asked the other maintainer of the collaboration to review it (Casliber) and they concurred. If you have any questions please let me know. Thanks again for doing this task for us. --Kumioko (talk) 01:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Greetings, I just wanted to check back and see if there were any more questions on this request. --Kumioko (talk) 13:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, personal issues took over much of my weekend. About half done at the moment, will finish soon. Sorry for the wait, Noom _talk ^stalk 21:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Semi-automated tagging of Commons duplictes..

There is a tool on toolserv : http://toolserver.org/~magnus/cgi-bin/duplicate_images_across.pl?lang=en&max=25

That lists duplicates of image between Commons/enwiki.

Would it be possible to automate the tagging of these duplicates? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:30, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed I could. What is the template I should use to tag duplicates? Tim1357 ^talk 03:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Bot for talk page redirecting

HOw about a bot to make talk page redirects from page redirects.
Example:
WP:POKÉ redirects to Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon, but WT:POKÉ does not redirect to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokémon. Could bots do such? ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 22:41, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this is a good task for a bot. Not all of these talk page redirects will be useful. Also, this is not always desired. An example is Malamanteau, which is a redirect, but was so often discussed that it's talk page has 2 archives. Not to mention the overwelming amount of talk pages this would create - we currently have only 6,911,279 articles, but we have over 8.5 billion pages in the article namespace! ^Avic_ennasis @ 04:15, 12 Sivan 5771 / 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I think Ebe123 was talking about only redirects in the WP namespace. By the way I ran a quick database query to search for them and found that there were more than 74000. (The full results are here, but be warned, its 7.4M) Tim1357 ^talk 03:21, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

And I don't know where you got 8.5 billion. We only have 61,848,197, including talk pages, redirects, ect. Tim1357 ^talk 03:25, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Typo'd. Billion above should be million. I just downloaded the most recent Database Dump file "all-titles-in-ns0", and it seems to have one article title per line, with 8,584,771 lines in it. A random sampling I took from it seems to be mostly redirects. As mw:Help:Magic words points out, {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} does not include redirects and disambig pages - you would use {{PAGESINNAMESPACE:0}} for that number, and that magic word is currently disabled. ^Avic_ennasis @ 07:36, 17 Sivan 5771 / 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Škoda link replacement

Hi, I'm not very experienced with bots and such but I'd like to ask if there is someone who could make bot that would change every [[Škoda Fabia|Škoda Fabia S2000]] to [[Škoda Fabia S2000]]. This relates many pages so it'd help a lot. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hakulin (talk • contribs)

Pretty much unnecessary. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 20:26, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Project template fixes and assessment

Would it be possible for a bot to do the following?

1. Either remove WikiProject templates from the talk pages for redirects or tag them as Redirect-class, no importance, with a priority on WikiProject templates that are on redirected talk pages
2. Correct misspellings, word-choice, and capitalization which cause the assessment / importance value to not show up (i.e. "Class=stub" or "Importance=low" instead of "class=stub" or "Importance=low", "priority" instead of "importance" [except for WikiProject Biographies], "classs" to "class" and whatnot)
3. Automatically assess articles on a regular basis, based on other projects' classification, ignoring articles that have received different assessments from different projects (similar to what BetacommandBot used to do)
4. Tagging the talk page when there are differing assessments of an article and adding that talk page to a category (perhaps Category:Articles with inconsistent assessments) for manual examination

I've been cleaning out the assessment backlog at WikiProject Indonesia and I've noticed many of these problems; having a bot take care of it would help take care of all the backlogs and help the Wikipedia 1.0 project immensely. Thanks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you please give more specific instructions of what is to be done? There are million of pages out there. I can give it a look. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:21, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposed tasks for the bot:

1. Remove WikiProject templates (such as Template:WikiProject Indonesia) from the talk pages of redirects OR automatically assess redirects as "class=redirect|importance=none"
2. Remove WikiProject templates (such as Template:WikiProject Indonesia) from redirected talk pages OR automatically assess them as "class=redirect|importance=none"
3. Correct mistakes causing the breaking of WikiProject templates on talk pages (i.e. changing "Importance=low" to "importance=low" [big I vs. small i])
4. Automatically assess articles based on other WikiProject assessments on the talk page, like what was done by BetacommandBot at Talk:Rufous-necked Sparrowhawk and thousands of other pages
5. Identify assessments that are not the same so that they can be manually checked, i.e. WikiProject Foo assesses example as a B, but WikiProject Goo has it assessed as a start-class article

5a. Identify GA, FL, or FA-class articles that have one or more WikiProject template with an assessment that is not GA, FL, or FA for manual checking (i.e. WikiProject Foo assesses example as a FA, but WikiProject Goo has it assessed as a B-class article

5b. Identify GA, FL, or FA-class articles that have one or more WikiProject template(s) with an assessment that is not GA, A, FL, or FA for manual checking (including unassessed, i.e. WikiProject Foo assesses example as a FA, but WikiProject Goo has it assessed as a B-class article

Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

As for finding the articles, I am under the impression that it can be done automatically by the bot, perhaps by crawling categories like Category:Unassessed Germany articles. I am not a coder myself, so I am not sure of the bot's limitations Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• Are you suggesting a bot do this for projects despite them not having requested it? Or are you specifically asking about WikiProject Indonesia? Not all projects want auto-assessment to be done. –xeno^talk 12:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Good point. I plan on doing WP Indonesia myself, so I am striking 1, 2, and 4. Adding another though

6. Flag WikiProject templates on the talk pages of redirects and/or on redirected talk pages if they are not assessed as redirects (i.e. "class=redirect") for manual checking

6a. Flag redirect talk pages and/or redirected talk pages with WikiProject templates that are not classified as redirect-class or similar class (NA-class, for example) for manual checking

Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Point 5 is also a bit weird too. Every wikiproject has it own criteria on the assessement level. Moreover, there are projects that dpn't support class C or other classes. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

How about 5A? Since GA, FA, and FL are assigned by the community, there should not be any problems with different standards. Are 3 and 6 okay? Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

 #5 seems ok - but it should only address unassessed templates as most projects also have an "A" class which is between GA and FA. As regards #6, not all projects use "redirect-class". Still not so sure about acting on project templates without the project's request, though. –xeno^talk 13:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

How about 5b and 6a? I have modified the requests slightly in accordance with the above input. Number 3 seems to be minor, but can be RFCed if it it could be controversial Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Still think this probably should be done on an opt-in basis - as there are already enough projects that are explicitly looking for bot tasks to be done (like those waiting at User:Xenobot/R - I don't have time to complete those tasks). –xeno^talk 13:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't 5b and 6a be considered project-wide? (Wish I was able to program; then I could create a CriscoBot to help) Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

5b - flag something for manual checking? I suppose. Who will do the manual check? =) This could be easily done as a dump report rather than a bot task. 6a - some projects might just want their tag removed in this case, rather than flagged as redirect or NA-class. –xeno^talk 14:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

<Deer caught in headlights> Don't understand dump reports </deer caught in headlights> Ah. So 6a would require a discussion at a central place, with WikiProjects opting in for removal, classification, or opting out? Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that there are merits to some of these but as Zeno put it the WikiProject should request it not be forced to do it. I would suggest creating a category or template that the bot could use to identify which projects want the task or you could make a optin page that the bot could use. Here are a couple notes about some of the items that I see:

1. if the article is a redirect but the talk page reflects something else we should tag it as redirect not delete it. Some project may not support these though so there should be a way to exclude them.
2. Correcting misspellings is a good idea, I already have some logic to fix some of the parameter problems mentioned (replace Class with class or fix things like no =, - instead of =, + instead of = etc.
3. Automatic assessment of articles can be done through several bots currently so the precedent has been set for this. Of course again the Project should optin not be forced to use it.
4. I could also see some falue in having a category as mentioned for articles with inconsistent assessments but I would restrict this to GA and higher. We would also need to create a template that the bot could use for Assessment verified or something so it doesn't keep retagging the ones that have already been checked.
5. I see some problems with 5 because some projects have different criteria. (for example, I would trust a Milhist B class more than many others). If the articles is GA or higher though they should all be consistent IMO.
6. I have also noticed a lot of articles with a redirect being improperly marked as other things. I just fixed about 1000 for WikiProject US and I continually recheck for them. A category for this would be good I think but it would probably need to be project specific. --Kumioko (talk) 13:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Some of your comments have been addressed in the proposed tasks (currently active: 3, 5b, 6). Reactivating the automatic classification would be nice, but I think it may need to be a separate proposal since it has a much larger scope. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)  #3 seems OK too but then we 'll need tracking categories for invalid parameters. I could add something to AWB's code but I don't think this problem is common. AWB already fixes importance/priority problem for all(?) cases. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I've encountered roughly 10 (out of 500) I <-> i problems today. It happens, but I cannot say how often. Low-traffic pages almost certainly can be missed for years, like the ones I corrected earlier. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I like the idea of fixing (or at least producing a list) redirect-class articles—both articles tagged as redirects when they aren't (any longer) and articles assessed as articles or lists when they're actually redirects. If someone wrote such a bot, I'd be happy to help advertise it to WikiProjects that might be interested in it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Bot that requests pageprotection

I was wondering if a bot could detect pages that have been vandalized more than 3 times in 24 hours and automatically list them at wp rpp. people will still be able to request protection and the bot will find edits reverted through twinkle or huggle by cluebot or with an edit summary like rvv or revert vandal. itllbe like at uaa. would this be possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heyitsme24 (talk • contribs) 15:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

User:AntiAbuseBot, but you have to opt in. --The Σ ^talk_contribs 01:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

qroti.com

Hi. The "qroti.com" domain is dead for several years, but has been crawled by the "wayback machine". Is it possible for a bot to check these, and either prefix the URL with the Wayback archive (like I did at Mungar railway station), or even better would be to change them to full citations with the |archiveurl= and |archivedate= and the direct link to the most recently crawled version of the page. Thank you. Frietjes (talk) 21:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Seems easy enough, but more opinions are needed. --The Σ ^talk_contribs 00:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The request should be removing these links, since this website—which ran as a one-person show—isn't a reliable source. —[d'oh] 04:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Bot to replace WikiStatsBot for WP:JCW

Could I interest someone with experience with the xml dumps to update this compilation of journals?

In a nutshell, it a bot that would compile all the |journal= found in citation templates, and build various lists (top 1000 cited journals, top 1000 cited journals without articles, and a comprehensive alphabetical list of everything). Something like

Journal	Target	Citations	Articles (if ≤ 5 uniques)
Am J Foo	American Journal of Foobar	98	>5	Wikipedia · Google
American Journal of Foobar	American Journal of Foobar	3	1, 2	Wikipedia · Google
American Journal of Foobar A	—	7	1, 2, 3	Wikipedia · Google
American Journal of Foobar B	—	1	1	Wikipedia · Google
J Foo	Journal of Foobar	4	1, 2	Wikipedia · Google
J. Foo	Journal of Foobar	47	>5	Wikipedia · Google
Journal of Foobar	Journal of Foobar	32	>5	Wikipedia · Google
Journal of PENIS!!!1h!AHA	—	1	1	Wikipedia · Google

It's been over a year since WP:JCW has been updated and WP:JOURNALS really could use a fresh one. I've been begging ThaddeusB for ages, but he's missing in action since forever. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll work on it. Some questions:

1. It looks like the templates to capture journal entries from are {{Citation}}, {{Cite journal}}, {{Vancite journal}}, and {{Vcite journal}} (plus their associated redirects as applicable). Is this correct? Any others?
2. They way you wrote "It's been over a year since WP:JCW has been updated and WP:JOURNALS really could use a fresh one" implies they are updated separately. But as far as I can tell, WP:JOURNALS points back to WP:JCW via the template at the top. Am I missing something?
3. I assume the current way the pages are broken out ({{JournalsMain}}) should be kept?
4. For cases where a journal is cited by both its fullname and its abbreviation (like the first two lines above), do you want those counted together or separately for purposes of the Top 1000?
5. Currently, the list has a Top 500. You really want that bumped to Top 1000?

-- JLaTondre (talk) 13:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

1. I think it was only covering {{Citation}} and {{Cite journal}} (and redirects), but {{Vcite journal}} and {{Vancite journal}} are certainly perfectly valid additions to the templates considered.
2. WP:JOURNALS is the journals project. So basically I was saying WP:JCW (i.e. the compilation) could use and update, and it would really benefit WikiProject Academic Journals.
3. {{JournalsMain}} is basically the navigational template for the hundreds subpages involved. For example, Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Journals cited by Wikipedia/A1's structure is

   {{JournalsMain}}

   {{JournalsLetter|letter=A}}

    

   [Compilation table]

    

   {{JournalsPrevNext|previous=|current=A1|next=A2}}

4. I'm really undecided about this. For several journal this would be nice (counting PNAS and Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences as one), but for others, it would be a bit weird. Physical Review D redirects to Physical Review, but Physical Review E is a standalone article. Keeping the current sorting method is probably best per the KISS principle, although maybe a compilation of the most popular "targets" could also be made. I suppose that mostly depends on you. If you want to code that part, we'll make use of it. But if you'd rather spend the time doing something else, no one will throw eggs at you either.#
5. The top 500 most popular all have bluelinks now. Upping this to 1000 lets us know where missing journals sits in terms of Wikipedia-usefullness.

I usually roam #Wikipedia-BAG (freenode) BTW, so if you want a live chat about this, head over there. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm good with keeping it simple. If you find a need, we can always make changes later.

I've got the parsing done. Now it's time to work on the output. I have some questions on the columns. The previous bot displayed the journal name as a link and then a redirect target if that link was a redirect. It looks like your table above is similar except that the target column repeats the link if the link is to a page that exists and is not a redirect. Do you care about what is displayed as the title of the journal vs. the journal title links to? For example, for these three cases:

• | journal = Nature -- displays Nature with no linking
• | journal = [[Nature]] -- displays Nature linked to Nature
• | journal = [[Nature (journal)|Nature]] -- displays Nature linked to Nature (journal)

I believe the first two cases should be listed as [[Nature]] | [[Nature]] per the examples, but for the third one do you want [[Nature]] | [[Nature (journal)]] or [[Nature (journal)]] | [[Nature (journal)]]?

And then for a case like this, how do you want it handled?

• | journal = The Shorter [[Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy]]

The bot just slapped brackets around the whole thing which produced the output on this page. If that's all that's needed for all these cases, I'm fine with that. However, it seems like there should be three columns: 1) the journal name as displayed by the template; 2) the link provided by the template or the displayed name linked if no link given in the template; 3) the redirect target if 2 is a redirect. So for the four cases above, it would produce (where the first two would be summed together when counted, but left separated here):

Journal	Link	Redirect
Nature	Nature	--
Nature	Nature	--
Nature	Nature (journal)	--
The Shorter Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy	Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy	--

-- JLaTondre (talk) 22:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

With regards to the compilation, Nature, Nature, and Nature (journal), should all be treated as the same entry on the list. Links should be converted to the pipe (aka. if you find [[Foobar (journal)|Foobar A: Toilets & Plumbing]], treat the entry as Foobar A: Toilets and Plumbing, rather than Foobar.

So basically, if you find

• | journal = Nature
• | journal = [[Nature]]
• | journal = [[Nature (journal)|Nature]]
• | journal = The Shorter [[Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy]]
• | journal = The Shorter [[Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy]]
• | journal = Sheng li xue bao: [Acta physiologica Sinica]

Then that would make the left side of the table look like

Journal	Target	Citations
Nature	Nature (journal)	3
Sheng li xue bao: Acta physiologica Sinica	—	1
The Shorter Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy	Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy	1

[Convention: Bold = exist, italics = redirect]

Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay. I think there are going to be some odd cases that will need special handling (ex. same title with different piped, non-redirecting, links), but let me generate some real test output and we can worry about that when they occur. -- JLaTondre (talk) 20:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, the kinks can be worked out after some draft is made. For testing purposes, you might want to run the code on a small subset of articles (you can get small xml dumps generated via http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Export) Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

It's already working off the database dumps. For testing, I just limit the number of records it parses. -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Direct links after move 2

This request has a "two" in the headline because it is very similar to a previous request which was successfully carried out by The Σ and Avicennasis. Some pages have been moved and I'm asking you to bypass the redirects in all the other pages as they are unencyclopedic, bizarre and de facto unprintworthy. The pages are:

• Italian Liberal Party – moved from Italian Liberal Party (historical)
• Italian Liberal Party (2004) – moved from Italian Liberal Party (current)
• Christian Democracy (Italy) – moved from Christian Democracy (Italy, historical)
• Christian Democracy (Italy, 1997) – moved from Christian Democracy (Italy, current)
• Christian Democracy for Autonomies – moved from Christian Democracy for Autonomies

The Σ and Avicenassis did a wonderful job the last time. Thanks in advance to whoever will "unleash" his/her bot this time. --Checco (talk) 19:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I call it , but for the sake of process I feel I must go through a BRFA. --The Σ ^talk_contribs 21:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Drat, beat me to it! I'm a day late and a dollar short. ^Avic_ennasis @ 02:54, 15 Sivan 5771 / 17 June 2011 (UTC)

BRFA filed --The Σ ^talk_contribs 04:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Moving reviews out of Infobox Albums

A bot request for my request was made in February, though it was not responded to. From discussions elsewhere, it sounds like DASHbot was actually doing this for a very short while (and no longer does). But I thought I would give it another shot because any help would be tremendous. Consensus was reached back in 2009 to remove the Reviews parameter from {{Infobox album}}, and possibly the bot was initiated at this point. It stopped working for whatever reasons, and the archives have several discussions trying to pick up this project throughout 2010. Only recently has activity really picked up after a notice of deprecation was implemented which would make the project a highly visible one. There are 50,000+ articles that need to have reviews moved into the {{Album ratings}} template and placed directly below the Infobox albums template. What would it take to get another bot to kick this project into super high gear? The manual labor on this is fairly extensive and time-consuming and this will most likely otherwise take months, if not a year, to complete.

I'm more than happy to give specific details the bot would be required to do, some of which I think I can easily explain below, using Songs in the Attic and an example:

1. This is the way the article originally looked: Songs in the Attic

• The bot would need to move the articles from the Review parameter and place them into the {{Album ratings}} template. The review source would be placed in the rev# parameter, and the review rating and URL would be placed in the rev#Score parameter. The hash sign is replaced with the order number, rev1, rev2, rev3, etc.
• The reviews parameter in the infobox is naturally deleted. Some people format the infobox parameters weirdly, with pipes occurring after each parameter, or extra pipes appearing for no reason.
• The external links beside each review are against WP:EL and should technically be citations. The brackets and "(space)link]" should be replaced with <ref></ref> tags.
• Allmusic reviews sometimes (very often, but not always) have their URL listed in the {{Allmusic}} template (seen in the Attic example), and these are also placed in brackets with the word "link" as the external link.
• {{Review-Christgau}} templates can get kind of messy. I suppose the URL would need to be broken out and become its own citation, while the name "Robert Christgau" (wikilinked) would become the review source, and the rating could remain in the template. This isn't always the case for Christgau, though, as some people simply write the rating out by hand.
• Review URLS already cited properly and in "ref" tags can be left alone.
• The {{Album ratings}} template would be placed directly beneath the infobox unless a Reception/Critical reception section is located.
• A great many of the articles found in the category (linked above) don't have References sections, so if a {{Reflist}} or </references> tag is missing, a section should be created.

2. The resulting article diff looks like this.

I think that sums up most of the things I've noticed while doing this manually. How feasible would it be to do something like this? Even if the bot were allowed to say "no" to certain articles due to complexity issues, a bot working on the thousands of easier articles would be tremendously helpful. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 06:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

What do I do when there is no score given (see this) Tim1357 ^talk 15:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Also would a section like "chart performance" be appropriate place to put the template, given that there are no other places? Tim1357 ^talk 15:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Tim1357, thanks so much for your response. In answer to the first question, if there is no rating, I've been putting (?)<!--add rating--> <ref>.... as a quick placeholder, but I haven't asked the people at WikiProject Albums if there's a more professional way of handling that. I'll bring it up and see what I get for responses. As for your second question, if there is not Reception/Critical reception section, then I suppose the Chart performance section (if there is one) would be a viable alternative. Let me also bring this up at the WP and see what people say! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 00:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I've just "walked in" and a few changes have been made that I've already forgotten about. The Album ratings template now has the same width as the infobox, so placing it directly beneath should be the alternative if there is no Reception section. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 00:49, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, it's not pretty, but it looks like if a rating does not exist, we'll stick with the (?) inserted in there before the citation. This way the review isn't lost (removed) and someone can manually update it (shouldn't be too hard) or remove the review at a later point. Thanks! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 13:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Any progress on the bot request? Should it be whittled down to be less complex? Maybe only articles with one review, or all articles without any Allmusic and Robert Christgau reviews (since those have one or two separate templates, respectively, which can get confusing)? – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 21:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes. All the code has been done for a while now (I completely re-wrote it from last time). The thing that makes me nervous is that there is so many weird ways that people format the reviews. I programed it so that it is supremely timid: If it encounters any format that I have not coded for, it skips the page and logs it for human review. That being said, I want to be around to watch it go for a long time before it can go on its own. I'll do that tonight, and if I'm comfortable, I'll let it do work unsupervised. Thanks! Tim1357 ^talk 23:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Wonderful, thanks so much for your help and for the work going into the code (both old and new). Let me know if I can be of any assistance. If it logs the pages that bother it, I'd be more than happy to glance through the log and either deplete it by manually updating them, or if you need the log to (as best it can) remain "full" so you can use it for your own purposes in fine-tuning the bot, that's fine too. There are definitely some variations in how people format the reviews, which is a shame. If you'd rather proceed forward without any assistance, ignore me, and good luck! :) – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 23:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

This is really good news. I'm looking forward to seeing the bot in action. Thanks in advance. I agree that there's a lot of variety in the current articles, so we should expect it to be necessary to make some bot adjustments along the way. Here are my two questions: (1) Will the bot try to find a "Reception" or "Critical reception" section and put the "Album ratings" template there, and, if there is no such section, put the "Album ratings" template right after the infobox? (2) Where will I be able to see a list of the bot's updates? I suppose the bot will have its own user page so I can go there and click on "User contributions", so where will that be? — Mudwater ^(Talk) 23:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The bot will put the reviews in a section that matches the regex string.([rR]eception|[Rr]eview|[Cc]ritical|[Ll]egac|[cC]hart)+.*. That means it will will use the section if it starts with any combination of the words: Rectption,review,critical,legacy,chart. If more than one section is found, the bot chooses the one with the lowest heading level (==Review== will be chosen over ===Review===), and afterwards (if more than one heading remains) it will take the first match.

For your second question: Here is a list of DASHBot's article edits. I'll be checking each one so it will be slow going for a bit. Keep this section watched so that I can ask questions. Hope that answers your question . Tim1357 ^talk 02:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Album ratings operations

So far, so great. I'm going to post about this at WikiProject Albums, I think the crew over there will be pretty excited to hear about this. I know I am. And without further ado, here's some feedback. In my opinion, the template should not be added to a Chart section, or to a Legacy section. The ratings do not directly relate to the charts, and I would also argue that they don't directly relate to the legacy. Other editors might have a different opinion about this, but that's what I think. Reception, Review, and Critical all sound good though. Anyway, yeah, I'll watch this space. Thanks, and keep up the good work. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 02:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Whatever sections the bot ends up looking for and adding the album ratings template to, the current consensus is that, if none of those sections exist, the template should be added right after the infobox, with no section headers or tags being added to the article. Thanks. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 03:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Tim1357, excellent news, and it looks like it's working great! This will really help things out. Two things that come to mind:

I did find a curio, which the bot would have eventually run into, so I'm glad it happened so soon. At this diff, you can see that the ratings, in this case, were placed after the link, which the bot will apparently miss. As this format is so rare from what I've done, it never rang my bell enough to mention it to you. Sorry! — Wait, nevermind, my diff was apparently you noticing this lol, so we're synchronized there, I think.

Here is a clarification of Robert Christgau reviews, because these get really annoying (even manually). There are several ways these reviews seem to appear, but I think DASHbot may need to recognize the last example:

| review = [[Robert Christgau]] (B-) [http://www.foobar.com link]

Robert Christgau (B-) link — DASHbot should handle this one properly

| review = [[Robert Christgau]] {{rating-Christgau|hm2}} <ref>[http://robertchristgau.com/get_artist.php?name=they+might Robert Christgau Review]</ref>

Robert Christgau ^[1] — DASHbot should handle this one properly

| review = {{Review-Christgau|A-|cgurl=http://music.msn.com/music/consumerguide/april07}}

Template:Review-Christgau — DASHbot can maybe add "[[Robert Christgau]]" to the rev# parameter and parse the URL from the template and move it into the rev#Score</rev> parameter.

| review = {{Review-Christgau|A-|album=411}}

Template:Review-Christgau — DASHbot can maybe add "[[Robert Christgau]]" to the rev# parameter and expand the URL to http://www.robertchristgau.com/get_album.php?id=411, replacing the id number each time.

What a pain in the butt, I know, and apparently these templates are condoning the usage of external links in an improper manner/format, but that's for a separate discussion later. Tell me what you think. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 03:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I did a random spot check, and noticed at 3121, the Pitchfork Media rating (6.0/10) was replaced by {{Rating|0|0}}. Maybe the decimal interfered? Otherwise, this is great, thank you! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 06:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

 Fixed Thank you. Tim1357 ^talk 14:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, at the same article 3121 (album), the bot duplicated the HTML comment "See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums" and put the duplicate in an unnamed parameter. It certainly shouldn't copy the param, if anything it should (IMHO) remove it, but keeping it is OK as long as it isn't doubled. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, could the bot add the "|noprose=yes" parameter of {{Album reviews}} if there is no reception section? Might result in a handful of false positives, but overall I think it would be helpful tagging. Nevermind. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:12, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that we need to add 52000 articles to a maintenance category just like that. In my opinion, the message should be mostly just be used in the case of a specific article or group of articles undergoing an actual drive for expansion and improvement. Most of these articles are stubs, and that should be enough tagging to say that the entire article needs to be expanded and improved. I don't think that the need for accompanying prose for this template is more important than say, a more complete lead section. —Akrabbim^talk 16:19, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I have to disagree as well, the noprose thing is a nice parameter, but it should be used on an article-by-article basis. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 16:58, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, good point. Nevermind; 'twas just a thought. @Akrabbim: Pleased to say that the backlog is now under 50,000 articles, and not at 52,000 articles! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Any news about the bot? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 12:38, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

So I have a question. I wrote my template parser so that it preserves the parameters' spacing, and preserves blank fields. :For example:

{{Infobox Film
|     |name=blablabla|
||director=Mr. Rogers|
|}}

will be turned into:

{{Infobox Film
|
|name = blabla
|
|
|director=Mr.Rogers
|
|
}}

Is it ok to remove blank fields? Tim1357 ^talk 14:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd think so, for that template. IIRC, it doesn't haven any unnamed parameters, so removing blanks should be fine (although other templates it may be more problematic for). –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:24, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Drilnorth, that's why the bot duplicated the comment, because it thought it was a parameter. Tim1357 ^talk 14:33, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

A perfectly reasonable assumption. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:49, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

So I let the bot do 119 edits by itself. I'm going to look through them before I let it go out into the wild. Tim1357 ^talk 16:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Awesome! I looked briefly through parts of the list and checked a few random edits, and it seemed mostly fine. The only one I noticed as being incorrect is this; an article about a TV series with a section about the soundtrack, and the bot moved the reviews box to the reception section for the TV series as a whole. Maybe put in some code so the bot skips articles where the infobox is in a section? That way more complicated situations like this can be done by humans. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:46, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

bot

Eu gostaria de saber se é possível fabricar um bot para o jogo Metin2? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.186.130.2 (talk • contribs)

This page is for bot requests for English Wikipedia, not for any other software/game. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 20:33, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Você pode tentar postar este pedido, http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia_Discuss%C3%A3o:Coordena%C3%A7%C3%A3o_rob%C3%B3tica, mas eles só vão considerar bots para a Wikipédia. Boa sorte. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 21:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Bots for a game are probably against their rules... We're definitely not going to help you now. --The Σ ^talk_contribs 21:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

UK railway usage needed to be updated

Could I askthat a bot is used to update all 2526 stations across the UK National Rail network? It would need to take the usage from documents located here and worked with {{Infobox GB station}} and {{Infobox London station}} which use two slightly different coding.

Simply south...... eating shoes for 5 years 23:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Example diff? --The Σ ^talk_contribs 01:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

In the relevant field London box uses 'railexits0203', 'railexits0304' etc... whereas GB Stations uses 'usage0203', 'usage0304' etc. GB stations also uses the field 'lowusage0203' to display single digits if its a small number (e.g under 0.5m) whereas 'usage' displays the number in millions. Protocol is you display the last 5 years for which data is available so if you add 09/10 you take away 04/05. WatcherZero (talk) 02:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

If you are wanting diffs on stations, Emerson Park, Mill Hill Broadway, Blair Atholl in Scotland and Bridgend in Wales. Obviously some stations have been updated. Low usage tends to be below 100,000 although there is no complete uniformity on this. Simply south...... digging mountains for 5 years 21:18, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

File replacement request

File:Vote.png, on Commons, was deleted recently, leaving lots of broken image links here on WP, mainly on user pages (through userboxes), portal pages, and WikiProjects. Could someone fire up a bot to replace all usages with the very similar looking File:A coloured voting box.svg, please? I've found some of the userboxes and the one template that used it, so there shouldn't be much left to do. Special:WhatLinksHere/File:Vote.png Thanks. Bencherlite^Talk 12:19, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Except you wouldn't want to change image derivatives, such as this one, I don't think. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 12:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Good point, but that's the only one, I think. In fact, File:Demarchy.png is probably vulnerable to deletion: Vote.png was deleted as a deriative of non-free content, and Demarchy.png is therefore a deriative of a deriative of non-free content. Bencherlite^Talk 13:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Can't we place the new version at the old name? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that's advisable, because that would leave a redirect at File:A coloured voting box.svg, which doesn't always link nicely thereafterwards (as I found out when trying to solve this issue using a redirect at Vote.png to A coloured voting box.svg). Also, are .svg and .png the same format? If not, I don't think that having one format under the name of another is a good idea. Bencherlite^Talk 14:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I meant placing a copy and marking it as such. A derivative work if you will; a PNG version of the SVG sized to fit the old usages. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Resurrecting WatchListBot

I am contemplating resurrecting WatchListBot, a bot which generated a list of wikiproject-tagged articles used by RecentChangesLinked (example). The bot owner seems to be MIA. Luckily she published the source code, written in python. My plan would be to upload the code to the Toolserver and run the bot there. Any comments? Lionel (talk) 08:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Not to say we can't have 2 bots doing it but Femto Bot is already doing this and if the project contacts Rich Farmbrough he seems to be willing to add more projects to the list. --Kumioko (talk) 12:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Bot for the Welsh Wicipedia

Has someone moved this thread? If so, then where and why? See [here]. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 05:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

It got archived by User:ClueBot III. You can find it in the archives, over here. --The Σ ^talk_contribs 05:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

AFC pages, again

nobody want to do this job? Wikipedia:Bot_requests/Archive_42#moving afc pages mabdul 10:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

NO STUBS + wikia bot

To eliminate stubs is NEEDED and the wikia page needs repairing