Wikipedia:Bot requests
| Commonly Requested Bots |  |
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.
| Legend |
|---|
|
|
|
|
|
| Manual settings |
| When exceptions occur, please check the setting first. |
| Bot-related archives |
|---|
Mass source fix and link fix
If possible, I like to request a bot run to correct/change the following edits. I have written more than 160 articles about Michelin starred restaurants and it would eat up a shocking amount of time to figure out where the outdated sources are placed and correct them. The last edit is a link fix, because I am sick of all the people saying that it is POV to name a Michelin starred restaurant a "quality restaurant", although they are judged on the quality of their food. The Banner talk 15:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC) If I am at the wrong place, sorry. Please move it to the right place. This is out of my comfort zone.
Extended content
|
|---|
|
- Link fix
- [[restaurant rating|quality restaurant]] TO [[Types of restaurant#Fine dining|fine dining restaurant]]
- As all pages are on my watchlist, I will check each and every edit to see if it went okay. The Banner talk 20:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Is this more difficult then expected? Or is it just that I am too impatient? The Banner talk 14:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- Is this something that a bot could blanket find/replace on? If so, you might want to try looking into using WP:AWB. Otherwise, is there a common pattern a bot could follow? Additionally, what is the easiest way to get a list of pages that the bot needs to run over? Is there a category or template that can be used? Maybe Special:LinkSearch? Some more info will help in speeding up your request :) Legoktm (talk) 14:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- I have no AWB anymore, as I did never fully understood what you could do with it. So I did not renew my permission after a namechange of my account. All articles can be found in Category:Michelin Guide starred restaurants in the Netherlands (regarding to the sources), and in that category plus Category:Michelin Guide starred restaurants in Ireland for the linkfix. The Banner talk 14:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Is this something that a bot could blanket find/replace on? If so, you might want to try looking into using WP:AWB. Otherwise, is there a common pattern a bot could follow? Additionally, what is the easiest way to get a list of pages that the bot needs to run over? Is there a category or template that can be used? Maybe Special:LinkSearch? Some more info will help in speeding up your request :) Legoktm (talk) 14:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Is this more difficult then expected? Or is it just that I am too impatient? The Banner talk 14:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- The link fix would be pretty trivial to do with AWB. Let me know (here) if you would like me to give it a go. Regards, Illia Connell (talk) 22:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- For sure you could make me me happy with that! So, please! The Banner talk 23:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Seen, spotchecked and ok. The Banner talk 14:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- Second serie als seen and checked. All other changes are in fact also search and replace request, but with a longer text. The Banner talk 20:11, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Seen, spotchecked and ok. The Banner talk 14:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- For sure you could make me me happy with that! So, please! The Banner talk 23:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- The link fix would be pretty trivial to do with AWB. Let me know (here) if you would like me to give it a go. Regards, Illia Connell (talk) 22:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Wed address by domain name
Please substitute "http://198.62.75.1/" with "http://www.christusrex.org/". Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- It appears that either link takes the user to the same content. Could you please explain why this would be beneficial? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 14:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- If something happens and the server hosting the site gets a new IP address all the links will break, using a domain name prevents such breakage. Werieth (talk) 15:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- That is. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 22:09, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Doing... - There only seem to be 78 articles to fix. GoingBatty (talk) 01:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Done --GoingBatty (talk) 02:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you. Could you do the same for http://198.62.75.4/ and http://198.62.75.5/ ? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 22:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- I don't see any links to http://198.62.75.4/ or http://198.62.75.5/ on the English Wikipedia. GoingBatty (talk) 17:39, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- Already Done. Noom (t) 19:57, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- Already
- Thank you. Could you do the same for the other Wikipedia? (de:, nl:, da: ...) Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Doing... manually, since there aren't that many. GoingBatty (talk) 00:30, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- Done with all the other Wikipedia articles/files that came up in a Google search. GoingBatty (talk) 01:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- I don't see any links to http://198.62.75.4/ or http://198.62.75.5/ on the English Wikipedia. GoingBatty (talk) 17:39, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you. Could you do the same for http://198.62.75.4/ and http://198.62.75.5/ ? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 22:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- That is. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 22:09, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- If something happens and the server hosting the site gets a new IP address all the links will break, using a domain name prevents such breakage. Werieth (talk) 15:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Text after reflinks
Sorry, can pywikipediabot automatically add templates or other text after reflinks on certain sites? For example:[1], [2]. Thanks.--Ворота рая Импресариата (talk) 11:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- I believe add_text.py can do something close to what you're looking for. Legoktm (talk) 14:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- I tried to use this script, but it adds the text to the top or the end of a page, but not after reflinks on the website. Thanks.--Ворота рая Импресариата (talk) 14:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Same vein, try replace.py Werieth (talk) 19:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Using the spamremove.py it seems I can do what I need. Thank you all.--Ворота рая Импресариата (talk) 16:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- Same vein, try replace.py Werieth (talk) 19:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- I tried to use this script, but it adds the text to the top or the end of a page, but not after reflinks on the website. Thanks.--Ворота рая Импресариата (talk) 14:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Tidying up infoboxes
Sometimes infoboxes are added with the piping (vertical bar) added at the end of a line rather than at the start. It is a pain to fix and I am wondering if a bot is able to do it. As an example here is the Berekum Arsenal article infobox:
{{Football club infobox |
clubname = Berekum Arsenal FC|
current = 2012–13 Ghanaian Premier League |
image = |
fullname = Berekum Arsenal Football Club|
nickname = |
founded = 1978 |
ground = [[Berekum Sports Stadium]],<br />[[Berekum]], [[Ghana]] |
capacity = 5,000 |
chairman = Alhaji Yakubu Moro|
manager = Ebo Mends |
league = [[Ghana Telecom Premier League]] |
season = 2009/10 |
position = |
pattern_la1=|pattern_b1=|pattern_ra1=|
leftarm1=FFFFFF|body1=DD0000|rightarm1=FFFFFF|shorts1=FFFFFF|socks1=DD0000|
pattern_la2=|pattern_b2=_unknown|pattern_ra2=|
leftarm2=FFFFFF|body2=FFFFFF|rightarm2=FFFFFF|shorts2=FFFFFF|socks2=FFFFFF|
}}
To me it seems simple enough for a bot to fix. It would simply be a matter of detecting the pipe followed by a CR (or LF?) and transposing the two. It is not a big issue but it makes it easier to update infoboxes, especially for newbies. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- This is something that should be done as a general fix, so it might be worth seeing if it can be integrated into AWB. Legoktm (talk) 22:29, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- Or some of the cleanup bots? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:31, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- This task may be something I could attempt to code into ContinuityBot given the (seeming) simplicity of the task. Piandcompany (talk) 03:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- Or some of the cleanup bots? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:31, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- Perhaps not as easy as checking for a pipe at the end of the line - there may be some trailing blanks (or worse, other non-visible characters). Is there any reccommation regarding the spacing around the pipe at the beginning of the line? If so, could the bot enforce that? For example, a lot of the templates I see have blanks on either side of the pipe: "
| parameter =". Finally, I notice in the example, there are some lines in the template with more than one parameter, likeleftarm1=FFFFFF|body1=DD0000|rightarm1=FFFFFF|shorts1=FFFFFF|socks1=DD0000|. Could the bot fix these at the same time and put one parameter on its own line. Nothing like good old scope creep, eh? Regards, Illia Connell (talk) 04:34, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Good points, but since it in not a big issue the scope should be narrowly defined. If there are characters other than a space after the pipe then the edit for that line should not proceed. In the example above, even with the likes of
leftarm1=FFFFFF|body1=DD0000|rightarm1=FFFFFF|shorts1=FFFFFF|socks1=DD0000|(which are groups for good reason) a bot could still make it a cleaner layout.-- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:13, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Good points, but since it in not a big issue the scope should be narrowly defined. If there are characters other than a space after the pipe then the edit for that line should not proceed. In the example above, even with the likes of
- My thought would be something simple like:
{{Football club infobox
| clubname = Berekum Arsenal FC
| current = 2012–13 Ghanaian Premier League
| image =
| fullname = Berekum Arsenal Football Club
| nickname =
| founded = 1978
| ground = [[Berekum Sports Stadium]],<br />[[Berekum]], [[Ghana]]
| capacity = 5,000
| chairman = Alhaji Yakubu Moro
| manager = Ebo Mends
| league = [[Ghana Telecom Premier League]]
| season = 2009/10
| position =
| pattern_la1=|pattern_b1=|pattern_ra1=
| leftarm1=FFFFFF|body1=DD0000|rightarm1=FFFFFF|shorts1=FFFFFF|socks1=DD0000
| pattern_la2=|pattern_b2=_unknown|pattern_ra2=
| leftarm2=FFFFFF|body2=FFFFFF|rightarm2=FFFFFF|shorts2=FFFFFF|socks2=FFFFFF|
}}
Werieth (talk) 19:32, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Yep, but the last pipe (which is redundant) can be moved or removed. 19:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Handbook of Texas Online
I'm putting this back out here on this page. Rich Farmborough thought he could take care of it. Rich thought it was only about 120 articles involved, but it's literally thousands. The Texas Project has about 30,000 articles with the project banner. No way to know how many other Texas articles are there without the project banner. Countless numbers of those use the Handbook of Texas template in references. It is not unusual for an article to use that template multiple times in one article. .Too much to do manually, and Rich could not get permission to run a bot. Now Rich has been blocked (unrelated to this) from editing for two months. — Maile (talk) 00:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Per Talk page conversation Magioladitis. We need a bot.to correct coding on existing articles that contain the Template:Handbook of Texas. The handbook changed its URLs. User Magioladitis has changed the template so it works with all new uses. But we need to run a bot to correct how existing templates were coded in the template section "id="
- Mason County is one example. You can see "id=MM/hcm4". The new handbook URL has eliminated the double alpha "MM" and its forward slash, and inserted a zero to the left of the number 4. Handbook-Mason County
- However, the addition of the zero seems to apply only where there previously existed a single digit. Guadalupe County is an example. The digit in this one is 12, and the Handbook-Guadalupe did not add a zero, but eliminated the double alpha and the forward slash to the right of it
Therefore, we need a bot that makes these changes to the coding on "id=":
- 1) Remove the double alpha coding and the forward slash to the right of it
- 2) Add the extra zero to the left of any single digit coding
- So it would be like this for the Mason County example:
- Old coding "id=MM/hcm4"
- New coding "id=hcm04"
- Where there already exists double digits as in Rufus Hardy, it would be this:
- Old coding "id=HH/fha69"
- New coding "id=fha69"
- So it would be like this for the Mason County example:
There are possibly hundreds or thousands of Texas articles affected. Please let me know if you need additional explanation.— Maile (talk) 15:16, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
- There are about 120 articles affected at first blush. I will attend to these over the next few days if I can. Rich Farmbrough, 21:30, 24 December 2012 (UTC).
- Note - There are thousands of articles involved. — Maile (talk) 00:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- How can there be thousands of articles involved, when there are only 1,619 articles] using {{Handbook of Texas}}? GoingBatty (talk) 05:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, then there are 1,619 articles. It's also not the 120 Rich originally thought. And some of those articles used the template in multiple places pointing to different pages in the Handbook of Texas (or...is that included in Jarry's count?). I was unaware of Jarry1250's Toolserver tools, but I'm saving the link for future use. It's still a bit much to do manually. Please see note below from a user who seems to have come up with a secondary issue on the Handbook of Texas references. — Maile (talk) 15:53, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- How can there be thousands of articles involved, when there are only 1,619 articles] using {{Handbook of Texas}}? GoingBatty (talk) 05:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Note - There are thousands of articles involved. — Maile (talk) 00:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- It seems that the fix also has to remove the ".html" from the link as well. Compare the following:
- http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/CC/fcr24.html (Current link from Davy Crockett) (this did not use the Handbook of Texas template - it was a regularly formatted citation, either a cite template or otherwise) — Maile (talk) 16:35, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/fcr24.html (Suggested fix)(Handbook of Texas template does not point to html) — Maile (talk) 16:35, 23 January 2013 (UTC)- http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/fcr24 (Actual page)
- Regards, Illia Connell (talk) 05:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- The "html" is not a part of the above-mentioned Handbook of Texas template. At least, those I see with the Handbook of Texas template do not point to a "html". What you cite above in the article was inserted as a regular reference (cite template or otherwise). There is also a reference in the article that used the Handbook of Texas template for the same reference - and that one does not point to html. Davy Crockett probably needs to be cleaned up for duplicate references. However, you have brought up a good point. I don't know if this can be added to the same bot, or it requires a second bot. But where a non-Handbook of Texas template reference points to the Handbook of Texas as an html, it needs to be corrected.— Maile (talk) 15:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Ah, got it. Thanks for the clarification. Regards, Illia Connell (talk) 19:43, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
BRFA filed here. GoingBatty (talk) 05:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you. Hope it gets approved. — Maile (talk) 13:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Doing.... GoingBatty (talk) 19:19, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- Done. GoingBatty (talk) 03:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for all your help on this. — Maile (talk) 23:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you. Hope it gets approved. — Maile (talk) 13:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Ah, got it. Thanks for the clarification. Regards, Illia Connell (talk) 19:43, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- The "html" is not a part of the above-mentioned Handbook of Texas template. At least, those I see with the Handbook of Texas template do not point to a "html". What you cite above in the article was inserted as a regular reference (cite template or otherwise). There is also a reference in the article that used the Handbook of Texas template for the same reference - and that one does not point to html. Davy Crockett probably needs to be cleaned up for duplicate references. However, you have brought up a good point. I don't know if this can be added to the same bot, or it requires a second bot. But where a non-Handbook of Texas template reference points to the Handbook of Texas as an html, it needs to be corrected.— Maile (talk) 15:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- It seems that the fix also has to remove the ".html" from the link as well. Compare the following:
Bot to detect NFCC#10c violations
I would like to request the creation of a bot for detection of violations of NFCC Policy 10c. The bot should parse through all pages in File namespace and check whether it has a non-free copyright tag. If that's the case, then the bot should check, whether for each file use in article namespace there is a non-free use rationale (this should also include non-template based rationales, in that case it should at least be checked, whether that rationale mentions the article name). If that is not the case for a specific use, the bot should do the following:
- tag the file page with User:Toshio Yamaguchi/Template:File page NFCC concerns tag
- place User:Toshio Yamaguchi/Template:Article talk page NFCC concerns message on the talk page of the concerned article
- place User:Toshio Yamaguchi/Template:Original uploader NFCC concerns message on the talk page of the original uploader of the file
The tagging of the file page will place that file page in a maintenance category for human editors to check. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 16:35, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Note: I also notified the watchers of Wikipedia talk:Non-free content here and the wider community here. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 16:44, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- A bot used to do this work. I analyzed results of that bot's actions and found that it had no positive net effect on WP:NFCC #10c compliance. With respect, the bot is pointless. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- Since NFCC is still policy, we need a bot to maintain it - even if editors do actions to cause images to fall out of line via edits on file pages, articles, or in uploading of new articles. A bot (Beta's) did this work before back when we had to bring all images into compliance in light of the resolution and it worked then. It's likely the lack of the bot doing anything like that to why #10c is not being strongly enforced. --MASEM (t) 17:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- Likely? Worked? With respect, no. When there was 10c notification being done before, it had no effect on 10c compliance. None. I'm not suggesting NFCC isn't policy. Rather, a bot making notifications about images not being compliant will not cause NFCC #10c violations to decrease. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- Since this adds the afoul image to a human-maintained category, and after 7 days nothing has happened, outright removal/deletion is then performed (in line with policy). Just tagging is ineffective, it is the human action that is necessary to complete the cycle (a bot could do that cleanup as well, but that's going to have a much bigger complaint) --MASEM (t) 21:11, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- Likely? Worked? With respect, no. When there was 10c notification being done before, it had no effect on 10c compliance. None. I'm not suggesting NFCC isn't policy. Rather, a bot making notifications about images not being compliant will not cause NFCC #10c violations to decrease. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- Since NFCC is still policy, we need a bot to maintain it - even if editors do actions to cause images to fall out of line via edits on file pages, articles, or in uploading of new articles. A bot (Beta's) did this work before back when we had to bring all images into compliance in light of the resolution and it worked then. It's likely the lack of the bot doing anything like that to why #10c is not being strongly enforced. --MASEM (t) 17:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
I haven't made up my mind yet about whether a bot run would be useful, but I have concerns about the wording of the notification templates. They are too soft. "Please add a valid non-free use rationale if possible [...] or discuss the issues at WP:NFCR" points the reader in the wrong direction. In 90% of all cases, at my rough estimation, the correct outcome will not be adding of a FUR, but removal of the image. We don't want to push editors to just mechanically add bad boilerplate FURs to cover up bad usages. We also don't want to spread the myth that you cannot remove a bad non-free image without prior discussion (whereas adding one without prior discussion is okay). My suggestion for the notification would be: "Please consider if the use of the file in these articles can be justified under our policy criteria. If yes, please add an appropriate non-free use rationale explaining how and why it is justified. If not, please remove it from the article. If in doubt, start a discussion at WP:NFCR." Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- I made the message of the file template a bit stronger. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 21:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- Those templates should probably be moved into templatespace eventually. Hammersoft said a bot used to do this...which bot was it, and was there a reason it stopped? It's probably easier to get an old bot started than writing a new one. Legoktm (talk) 15:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- BCBot, which was ended for issues with BetaCommand directly in complaints about his use of bots/automated editing. --MASEM (t) 15:32, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oh. Legoktm (talk) 20:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- The other bot that did this was FairuseBot, which stopped running because MediaWiki kept getting changed on me. --Carnildo (talk) 01:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- That sounds like the bot wasn't using the MediaWiki API. If I'm mistaken and the bot was using the API and you were experiencing issues (breaking changes), please let me know, as that should not be happening. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:01, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- I was using the API. The problem was image redirects and especially the incomplete implementation thereof: see bug #27621 (which, four years later, still isn't fixed). --Carnildo (talk) 11:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- That sounds like the bot wasn't using the MediaWiki API. If I'm mistaken and the bot was using the API and you were experiencing issues (breaking changes), please let me know, as that should not be happening. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:01, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- The other bot that did this was FairuseBot, which stopped running because MediaWiki kept getting changed on me. --Carnildo (talk) 01:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oh. Legoktm (talk) 20:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- BCBot, which was ended for issues with BetaCommand directly in complaints about his use of bots/automated editing. --MASEM (t) 15:32, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Please let me know if there is something else that needs to be addressed regarding this request. Are the templates okay now? -- Toshio Yamaguchi 19:09, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Remove articles from non-existent categories
- Rationale
Special:Categories contains a number (probably dozens or scores, maybe hundreds) of non-existent categories with one article. It appears (to me at least) that these cats were added to articles either by mistake or in the hope that the cat would one day be created. It's unlikely that some of these will ever be created and the articles should be removed from the cat.
- Request
Identify from Special:Categories all non-existent categories (i.e., red-links) and remove the category from the articles therein. Run this bot occasionally, perhaps once a week.
- Comments
- In an ideal world, the non-existent cat would be replaced by an appropriate existing category, but I suspect that this is too much to ask of even the most sophisticated bot. At least the edit will alert anyone watching the article and maybe prompt someone to look for a replacement category.
- Some articles may be under construction and the editor working on the article may intend to create the cat. To avoid trampling on a work in progress, perhaps the bot could edit only those articles that have not been changed in a few days (perhaps a week)
- Some cats include pages that are not in the main space (e.g., Category:"Coptright violation" - Not a copyright violation contains User talk:Kippbakr [although I suspect this is likely to get fixed soon]). Perhaps in these cases the bot could insert a colon, (i.e., change
[[Categoryto[[:Category) - I've taken a crack at fixing some of these manually (a tedious chore) and notice that some of the non-existent categories include enough pages to warrant creation of the cat. Maybe limit the bots work to just those categories that have only one or two pages.
Regards, Illia Connell (talk) 04:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- "It's unlikely that some of these will ever be created and the articles should be removed from the cat." I'd disagree strongly with this last bit. In my experience (admittedly mostly on Commons), almost all such "1" cats are either "genuine" as part of a series (eg something like "FIFA World Cups in Africa". Hmm, maybe not the best example but you get what I mean) or are typos or misunderstanding of a standard format (eg "Villages IN Ruritania" rather than "Villages OF Ruritania" etc) or relatively rarely (<10%) are genuine red links waiting to be created. In all these cases those "problem" cats contain a lot of useful metadata, so just deleting that problem cat would be a mistake, it just needs humans to work through the list fixing them. I guess a bot could probably do some of the "simple" cases automagically (like IN/OF above), and mebbe suggest the right categories in a proportion of other cases. The problem here is more about bringing things to a human's attention rather than "this red link cat is never going to be created".Le Deluge (talk) 13:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Agree, but some of these cats have been red-links for months. Perhaps the bot could start with pages that haven't been touched in over a year. Wouldn't the edit to remove them alert anybody watching the page who could then address the issue as needed? Regards, Illia Connell (talk) 19:40, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- From my brief efforts at clearing some of them, only about 10% are what I would call "mistakes". The vast majority are filling in date series which are a) perfectly valid categories in their own right and b) useful metadata for the article in question. In fact you could probably do 30% of them automagically with a bot that took the red link cat DBR and looked for "xxxx establishments" type categories, to create them with {{estcatCountry|199|9|Ruritania}} and related templates. So no, deleting things that have been red for over a year doesn't work, because we do want that category to be created and it's useful for the article to have that cat. Yes, it looks a bit messy, but it's useful mess and there's no WP:TIMELIMIT on making this particular encyclopedia.Le Deluge (talk) 13:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Agree, but some of these cats have been red-links for months. Perhaps the bot could start with pages that haven't been touched in over a year. Wouldn't the edit to remove them alert anybody watching the page who could then address the issue as needed? Regards, Illia Connell (talk) 19:40, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose per Le Deluge. Perhaps a bot could add a cleanup tag which would categorise as Category:Articles with non-existent categories? that would also enable us to quantify the extent of the issue. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- There are a bunch of reports in the "Categories" section at WP:DBR that would help you do this manually. Legoktm (talk) 14:02, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- A number of red-link categories are simply mis-spellings or mis-capitalisations of a correct category. Keith D (talk) 18:02, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Conditional support. Any bot removal of redlinked categories MUST be accompanied by a user talk page notification and it MUST only be if there are a maximum of two in a non-existent category and it MUST only be related to article namespace. Obviously redlinked cats exist because editors are not being complete or thorough in their editing. By giving a talk page msg diligent editors can then go back and correct any mistakes or follow up on it in some way. If the editor does not follow up they can always be added at a later stage - if they are needed.
- We have the same problem with images as I outlined in a previous thread. Wikipedia will be improved by bot removal of redlinked cats or images because a lot of it is good or bad faith edits that are not needed. Content, as in actual prose, is king. Categories and images are nice to have but having these as redlinks does nothing for WP.
- Given the 4 million articles and high edit rate and attrition of established editors and the huge backlog we should be making more use of bots. I was trying to clear the backlog at Category:Articles with missing files but I gave up. I was getting nowhere and it was frustrating and it was mind-numbing. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 18:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Agree with Alan Liefting - this would be almost impossible task to do manually. Even a tracking cat suggested by Andy Mabbett would only help quantify the problem. To then go through that cat manually would be tedious and very mind-numbing. Regards, Illia Connell (talk) 19:40, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Comment. I would want to have the bot running continually and the reverts done within 24hrs. There is no need for a redlinked category to exist for more than a few minutes. They are very easy to create. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Sometimes a page has a redlinked cat because of CFD/CFR. I'm not saying that there is a problem with the CFD process: but there is an assumption that once the cat page for the old cat name is deleted, that's the end of the matter. Let's say that a biog is put in Category:Fooians (which is valid at the time); then a whole bunch of WP:BLP vios are added to the article over some days (or weeks); interspersed with these there might be a few good edits. Separately, Category:Fooians is taken to WP:CFD which in due course closes as "delete", "rename" or "merge"; so a bot goes around updating articles accordingly and then the Category:Fooians page is deleted. Then somebody spots all the BLP vios and, unwilling to sort the few good edits from the large-scale bad ones, takes the easy way out and reverts to the last clean version - so the page ends up in redlinked Category:Fooians. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- That senario would be handled by the proposal because the bot would remove Category:Fooians from the freshly reverted article. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- OK, that's fine for a deleted cat - but what about renamed/merged? In such cases, removal of the old cat should be accompanied by addition of the new. Would the bot do that too? --Redrose64 (talk) 19:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- I think there is a bot that goes around doing cat renaming and merging after the CfD has closed. The articles never get a chance to have a redlinked category. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Cydebot (adminbot) automatically enforces CFD closures if they are listed at WP:CFD/W Legoktm (talk) 20:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- @Alan Liefting: Yes, after the CFD is closed. But I'm talking about the situation when some time later (after closure and all associated cleanup) somebody reverts the article to a pre-cleanup state. These articles do get a chance to have a redlinked category: I've seen it happen. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:58, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Cydebot (adminbot) automatically enforces CFD closures if they are listed at WP:CFD/W Legoktm (talk) 20:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- I think there is a bot that goes around doing cat renaming and merging after the CfD has closed. The articles never get a chance to have a redlinked category. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- I guess this is the chain of events: category deleted → cat removed from article by Cydebot → article is reverted to a pre-Cydebot version AND the reverting editor did not check the result → redlinked category is then removed by the proposed bot. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Yes. Now that is fine if the CFD closed as "delete", but if it closed as "rename" or "merge", the article has lost a category. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- I guess this is the chain of events: category deleted → cat removed from article by Cydebot → article is reverted to a pre-Cydebot version AND the reverting editor did not check the result → redlinked category is then removed by the proposed bot. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Ah. Yes. I see what you mean. So should we go for expediency by using a bot at the expense of some categories that are not restored or do we have the status quo of big backlogs? I want accuracy and thoroughness and no backlog, but until we activate flagged rev/pending changes it won't happen. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:33, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Based on my very limited attempt to manually fix some of these red-linked cats, I would guestimate that about 10% of them were due to CfD or other deletion process. Most seem to be due to either someone not understanding cats and just adding a bunch almost randomly, or mis-spellings. Illia Connell (talk) 21:19, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- That sort of fits in with the work I was doing on redlinked images. The vast majority of redlinked images can be deleted sight unseen (pun??) because they don'texist or are bad good faith edits. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:59, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Sort of. "Red-linked" can mean the image never existed or it can mean the file was deleted. If the file was deleted, the link removal is easy and straightforward. If there's no evidence that the file was deleted, you (the generic you) must look through the page history to determine how the red link got there. Common vandalism often red-links files, but it's even more common to see users who have changed "Foo bar.jpg" to "Foo bár.jpg" (to match the page title, e.g.) and these users inadvertently break the file link. This can cause a cascading issue with non-free images, as then some bots will consider the image orphaned and will nominate it for deletion. It's kind of a nasty situation. In my view, removing red-linked files (or categories or...) that have no deletion log is definitely a task that's unsuitable for a bot. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:50, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- That sort of fits in with the work I was doing on redlinked images. The vast majority of redlinked images can be deleted sight unseen (pun??) because they don'texist or are bad good faith edits. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:59, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose - Instead, use Wikipedia:Database reports/Red-linked categories with incoming links and use judgement on whether the category should be added or whether the red-linked category should be fixed/removed. GoingBatty (talk) 16:02, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose; in many cases that I have come across, the category is almost right and just needs fixing, and in other cases it is worth creating. – Fayenatic London 20:56, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
User:OKBot is inactive
Just checked the article Wikiquote, and it looks like the last update for the Alexa rank by User:OKBot was on 2 August 2012. This bot is listed as active; however, the last updates for any articles were on 9 September 2012. Other editors have tried to contact the bot owner on 11 December 2012, but the request was archived without a response from the owner. This bot would be very good, if it was working. Maybe someone else can take over the bot? --Funandtrvl (talk) 19:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- I am interested in taking over
this taskWikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/OKBot 5. Filing BRFA. -- Cheers, Riley 13:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Article tagging/Detagging
In September I got tired of fighting a losing battle and stopped supporting WikiProject United States. Since then the project has basically gone inactive and so have many of the supported ones as well. As such some projects want to break back out on their own again (So far WikiProject Kansas and Suny but more will come). What is needed now is a bot operator who can help convert the banner from the WPUS format into the individual project. It should be a fairly simple task but doing it by bot would be best and quicker than doing them all manually. Any takers?Kumioko (talk) 01:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Needs wider discussion.. You should propose this idea first on WP:VPR or such, since removing WikiProject tags is probably going to be controversial... Legoktm (talk) 01:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)- Believe me there is nothing less controversial than removing these tags. 99% of the community has hated WPUS since I restarted it. All this is really doing anyway is converting the KS=Yes and KS-importance=whatever into the Kansas banner (as one example). For what its worth I have done as much as I am prepared to do. I have no intention of turning this into a long discussion yet again so everyone can tell me how horribly I did with the project, etc. Kumioko (talk) 01:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oops I totally misread what you wrote. So if I understand you correctly, this would be copying parameters from the existing WPUS template, and adding a new one? That seems entirely uncontroversial ;-) Legoktm (talk) 01:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- Yep that's pretty much it. Although I don't see a huge need to keep the WPUS banner if KS is the only supported project parameter. I should clarify that discussions are still ongoing but I expect it to be supported qucikly. There's no reason to keep these project in WPUS if they want to exist now that WPUS is dead. Kumioko (talk) 02:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- Ah ok. Whenever that discussion finishes, feel free to poke me on my talk page and I can do the tagging. :) Legoktm (talk) 02:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- Ok thanks. BTW when are you going to submit an RFA? I'm sure you would pass easily. Kumioko (talk) 02:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- Ah ok. Whenever that discussion finishes, feel free to poke me on my talk page and I can do the tagging. :) Legoktm (talk) 02:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- Yep that's pretty much it. Although I don't see a huge need to keep the WPUS banner if KS is the only supported project parameter. I should clarify that discussions are still ongoing but I expect it to be supported qucikly. There's no reason to keep these project in WPUS if they want to exist now that WPUS is dead. Kumioko (talk) 02:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oops I totally misread what you wrote. So if I understand you correctly, this would be copying parameters from the existing WPUS template, and adding a new one? That seems entirely uncontroversial ;-) Legoktm (talk) 01:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- Believe me there is nothing less controversial than removing these tags. 99% of the community has hated WPUS since I restarted it. All this is really doing anyway is converting the KS=Yes and KS-importance=whatever into the Kansas banner (as one example). For what its worth I have done as much as I am prepared to do. I have no intention of turning this into a long discussion yet again so everyone can tell me how horribly I did with the project, etc. Kumioko (talk) 01:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Fix Multi-column references
There are quite a few articles where there are just a few references, yet because of copy/pasting reference sections (headers/templates) they use the multi column format which just looks really bad. An idea would be for a bot to go through and convert the multi-column's to the basic {{reflist}} for all articles with say less than 10 unique references. Werieth (talk) 14:41, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- examples [3] [4] Werieth (talk) 14:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- This is a fair suggestion if the majority of refs are long, as in your examples, since it looks messy when a long ref is forced to be wrapped onto several lines purely because the column width has been hit. However, some articles use the Shortened footnotes system, where most (if not all) of the refs don't wrap even with narrow columns, for example Abingdon Road Halt railway station where the column width is set to 20em - this gives four cols on my monitor, and no wrapping. If the multi-column feature were disabled for this article, the refs section would be four times the present height, and three-quarters of the page width would be blank. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- That is a fringe case. I just compared it with and without the multi column. With that few references the single column makes it more readable, while consuming a little more space. As it is I almost missed that section as it was so small. Werieth (talk) 16:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- This is a fair suggestion if the majority of refs are long, as in your examples, since it looks messy when a long ref is forced to be wrapped onto several lines purely because the column width has been hit. However, some articles use the Shortened footnotes system, where most (if not all) of the refs don't wrap even with narrow columns, for example Abingdon Road Halt railway station where the column width is set to 20em - this gives four cols on my monitor, and no wrapping. If the multi-column feature were disabled for this article, the refs section would be four times the present height, and three-quarters of the page width would be blank. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Bare URL/expand ref bot
Browsing and I notice a lot of bare urls which look scruffy and make it looks as if the article is lacking TLC (which it more often than not is but that's not the point!). I was wondering if somebody could code a bot to a] search all wikipedia entries for references with bare urls. b] To apply Template:Bare URLs to them, and then to format the ref in citation templates. Same goes for references which only name title not publisher and date of publication data and apply Template:Expand ref and do the same thing. I think it could prove very valuable for improving format and consistency on wikipedia.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 23:11, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- Other than title getting information from a bare URL reference is extremely difficult. Werieth (talk) 23:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- If the bot was able to add/expand a citation template, it wouldn't need to add the maintenance template. Try using the Reflinks tool on articles that already have Template:Bare URLs and you'll see lots of parameters are created incorrectly. There's also the issue of what date format(s) to use for the citation template parameters.
- If the bot was only going to add {{Cleanup-link rot}} ( {{Bare URLs}} redirects to {{Cleanup-link rot}} ) so humans can add the citation templates, be sure it does so in the References section instead of the top of the article. GoingBatty (talk) 01:09, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- I would strongly urge you to add WP:REFLINKS and hit the "reflinks" button every time you see bare urls (it installs a link in the toolbox). I never leave home without my Reflinks! I have had it add up to 17 filled in references. It does a few tidy up tweaks at the same time.-- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- I already have a bot task to expand bare URLs of the most common news sources, designed for high accuracy of parameter derivation on a specific set of sites. Reflinks covers the general case with less precision. Rjwilmsi 07:15, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- As far as I can see the problem with REFLINKS is that it uses ISO date formats rather than the prevailing format used in the article and you have to manually change them or just ignore thus leaving article inconsistent. Keith D (talk) 17:32, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- There are several problems with WP:REFLINKS. It can't properly distinguish an author from a date for a start, and there are other issues, see User talk:Dispenser/Reflinks#Please be careful with authors. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- It also puts some newspaper/magazine titles in
|publisher=instead of|work=. Rjwilmsi's CiteCompletion bot is carefully setup to correctly handle a small number of sites. Because of the wide variations in web site setups, I agree that this is the appropriate approach for automated edits. The maintainers of Reflinks don't seem to be doing this, so it requires human review and correction before saving each edit. GoingBatty (talk) 19:18, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- It also puts some newspaper/magazine titles in
- There are several problems with WP:REFLINKS. It can't properly distinguish an author from a date for a start, and there are other issues, see User talk:Dispenser/Reflinks#Please be careful with authors. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- As far as I can see the problem with REFLINKS is that it uses ISO date formats rather than the prevailing format used in the article and you have to manually change them or just ignore thus leaving article inconsistent. Keith D (talk) 17:32, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Dead link archive bot?
Is there a Bot that can find dead links and automatically find an archived link for them?-- Astros4477 (Talk) 04:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- There (used to be?) several: User:WebCiteBOT automatically archived reference links at WebCite and added the link to the archive to the citation in the article. However, that bot seems to have stopped operations in March 2012. User:DASHBot also includes two functions to retrieve the url of an archive copy at Internet Archive (see User:DASHBot/Wayback) or WebCite (see User:DASHBot/WebCite). It also automatically archived links at WebCite (see User:DASHBot/WebCite#Procedure). According to User:DASHBot/WebCiteLogs the WebCite archiving functionality doesn't seem to have been working lately. I don't know about the Wayback functionality.
- So there doesn't seem to be one that is currently active. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 10:51, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not quite sure, but maybe having a bot that scans links and detects if the website returns a 404 error which then in turns places a {{Dead link}} tag may be of help. Thoughts? Piandcompany chat 12:05, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- I think there was RjwilmsiBot and H3llBot that used to do this. Keith D (talk) 12:57, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, but is there in the English Wikipedia bot owners weblinkchecker.py ? I can't understand the principle of operation of this bot. Thank you.--Ворота рая Импресариата (talk) 14:16, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not quite sure, but maybe having a bot that scans links and detects if the website returns a 404 error which then in turns places a {{Dead link}} tag may be of help. Thoughts? Piandcompany chat 12:05, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Infobox football biography image param needs updating
Could anyone help in cleaning Category:Infobox football biography image param needs updating? -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:07, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Magioladitis! I looked at a couple articles in that category, and it appears that the infobox displays the image correctly even with the extra brackets in the image parameter. What needs to be fixed to improve how the article is displayed to the reader? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 01:39, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- For standardisation purposes. The image's caption should move to
|caption=, the alt text to|alt=, the image size to|image_size=and the filename to be be striped out. All other persons infoboxes use this system. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- For standardisation purposes. The image's caption should move to
Infobox cricketer using deprecated parameters
Could anyone help in cleaning Category:Infobox cricketer using deprecated parameters? -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- Hi again! Same question as above: Since the infobox seems to display the deprecated parameters properly, what needs to be done in order to improve how the articles are displayed to the reader? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 01:42, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- To save all you bot operators some time, "
|playername=needs to be renamed to|name=" and "|imagealt=needs to be renamed to|alt=" have been done already by Yobot. -- Cheers, Riley 01:58, 27 January 2013 (UTC) - GoingBatty, for standardisation purposes and to enable use of microformat the 3 birth date parameters should be grouped together. same for the 3 death date parameters, the 2 birth place parameters and the 2 death place parameters. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:33, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- Example. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:37, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- There's a little more.
- The
|living=and|partialdates=parameters, if present, must be removed since their presence will cause obsolete parameters like|yearofbirth=to be processed (even if the new parameters like|birth_date=are provided) and generate an error. - If the player has nothing to put in
|death_date=, then|birth_date=should be given{{birth date and age}}instead of{{birth date}}.
- The
- Example. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:23, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- There's a little more.
- To save all you bot operators some time, "
Remove fulfilled {{dn}} requests
See edits 1, 2, and 3 to Pelusium — in November 2011 someone tagged a link as needing disambiguation; someone fixed it within hours; and I removed it a few minutes ago, more than a year after the issue was fixed. Do we have a bot that's supposed to go around and remove these tags when the link has been fixed? I doubt that such a bot would have difficulties; while most inline templates are context-based, like {{cn}} or {{who}}, every link either goes to a disambiguation page or doesn't. I suspect that a bot would easily be able to go everywhere that this template exists, check the link in the text before each transclusion, and remove the template from pages where this link doesn't go to a disambiguation page. Nyttend (talk) 04:09, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Romanian orthography
Hello. The Romanian alphabet includes the letters Șș (S with comma) and Țț (T with comma). Before Unicode 3 was released and got common, these letters could hardly or even impossibly be typed on web sites, so people got used to the workaround of using Şş (S with cedille) and Ţţ (T with cedille) instead. Nowadays, this workaround is no longer needed: Romanian wikipedia has corrected them all, German wikipedia followed and – with some of my contribution – has finished meanwhile. Could someone make a bot on en:wp subsitute every Ş by Ș, every ş by ș, every Ţ by Ț and every ţ by ț in lemmas within the Romanian geography categories, and do the same substitutions within the article text? Thank you very much! --JøMa (talk) 12:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Doing... using AWB Vacation9 12:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Update: AWB has to recursively get all the categories. I did some test runs just with a search, some of which I had to revert because they weren't Romanian I realized after. Now I'm getting the list of all the Romanian geography pages. Hopefully this task will be done by the end of the day. Vacation9 16:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- You should probably review Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 39#Cedilla to Comma below bot for articles under Romanian place names and people before continuing this task. A blind search-and-replace is likely to cause issues. Anomie⚔ 16:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- I have replied to this on my talk page. I was before doing a blind search and replace on any pages, but this caused problems which I reverted, as you said. I am now entering Romanian Geography categories individually which need conversion. While these recurse, they are fairily small categories (I won't recurse the whole Geography of Romania category because as you said it can link to other categories and would take waaay too long). Vacation9 16:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- But are you making sure these articles in the "Romanian Geography categories" don't happen to also contain Turkish, Kurdish, Zazaki, Azerbaijani, Crimean Tatar, Gagauz, Tatar, or Turkmen words? Anomie⚔ 16:59, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- As mentioned in the previous request, this really would only be a problem if the page in question was not Romanian. I am checking if the page is Romanian before saving the edit. I am also checking if there is a non-Romanian city or place for example. Of course I cannot be 100% accurate but the damage caused, if any, will be very small and easily fixable. Vacation9 17:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- In addition, I am mostly skipping Category:Banat because it is not only in Romania. If it was not already clear, I am using the semi-automatic AWB and checking each edit before confirming. Vacation9 17:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- I did many and many of edits like these manually in de:wp, and therefore I suggested to keep in the geo corner of articles. ;o) My experience is that sometimes football players from Turkey can be mentioned, but that's (nearly) all. People's articles with some "Romania related categories" may be really too dangerous for automatisms... Will be a long way to go. Maybe some day when I'm too bored, I'll export a CatScan and filter it manually. That's exactly what we did on de:wp... By the way: You can edit Banat pages, because the "Banat neighbours" (Hungaria, Serbia, ...) don't use this letter. ;) Best wishes from Leipzig, --JøMa (talk) 17:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I am keeping in the geography corner for reasons mentioned. I'll take another look at Banat, but you may find it hard to manually correct the hundreds of thousands of articles here :). Also keep in mind that this is not really "automated" persay, because all edits are manually reviewed by me before saving, they're just generated by the computer. See WP:AWB. Vacation9 17:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- I did many and many of edits like these manually in de:wp, and therefore I suggested to keep in the geo corner of articles. ;o) My experience is that sometimes football players from Turkey can be mentioned, but that's (nearly) all. People's articles with some "Romania related categories" may be really too dangerous for automatisms... Will be a long way to go. Maybe some day when I'm too bored, I'll export a CatScan and filter it manually. That's exactly what we did on de:wp... By the way: You can edit Banat pages, because the "Banat neighbours" (Hungaria, Serbia, ...) don't use this letter. ;) Best wishes from Leipzig, --JøMa (talk) 17:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- In addition, I am mostly skipping Category:Banat because it is not only in Romania. If it was not already clear, I am using the semi-automatic AWB and checking each edit before confirming. Vacation9 17:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- As mentioned in the previous request, this really would only be a problem if the page in question was not Romanian. I am checking if the page is Romanian before saving the edit. I am also checking if there is a non-Romanian city or place for example. Of course I cannot be 100% accurate but the damage caused, if any, will be very small and easily fixable. Vacation9 17:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- But are you making sure these articles in the "Romanian Geography categories" don't happen to also contain Turkish, Kurdish, Zazaki, Azerbaijani, Crimean Tatar, Gagauz, Tatar, or Turkmen words? Anomie⚔ 16:59, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- I have replied to this on my talk page. I was before doing a blind search and replace on any pages, but this caused problems which I reverted, as you said. I am now entering Romanian Geography categories individually which need conversion. While these recurse, they are fairily small categories (I won't recurse the whole Geography of Romania category because as you said it can link to other categories and would take waaay too long). Vacation9 16:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- You should probably review Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 39#Cedilla to Comma below bot for articles under Romanian place names and people before continuing this task. A blind search-and-replace is likely to cause issues. Anomie⚔ 16:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Update: AWB has to recursively get all the categories. I did some test runs just with a search, some of which I had to revert because they weren't Romanian I realized after. Now I'm getting the list of all the Romanian geography pages. Hopefully this task will be done by the end of the day. Vacation9 16:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- I wish to point out that the automated edits miss about half of the diacritics on each page they touch. For instance, they don't seem to be doing anything about the diacritics included in notes or within brackets. Dahn (talk) 19:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- If you are talking about [[links]], I can't change those; they would need to be moved. If I changed them without moving it (which I can't do easily with an automated editor) it would become a redlink. Could you give an example? Vacation9 19:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Concerning your example, I would be inclined to ask for some kind of more elaborate move, where the bot would in fact move all the articles so that there would be no redlinks. Avoiding this measure, and going with just some of the diacritics, invariably creates a mess. But before we get there, let me elaborate on what I meant. In Alexandru Bogdan-Pitești, which is on my watchlist and is a good article, your edits had created another anomaly: you changed the Ş in PiteŞti, but not in, for instance, MiŞcarea (look though to the mass of notes at the bottom, you'll see what I mean). I can't say I favor either way; but I do favor consistency over chaos. Is there a sure method of ensuring that the switch will be done without making a mess of recognized content? Regards, Dahn (talk) 19:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- I have stopped editing these articles using AWB. It seems like this is becoming an automated task now. I am seeing what I can come up with in regards to a consistent regular expression for an AWB bot (User:VoxelBot) and will report back soon. Vacation9 20:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Will you also move the articles? IMHO the lemma should be correct as well. --JøMa (talk) 20:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- If you need a bot to move articles, Legobot is approved to mass do them, provided a RM has taken place. Legoktm (talk) 20:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- IMHO we don't need to move articles (generally non-supervised moving is a bad idea and would need to be supervised manually, something that for literally hundreds of thousands of articles wouldn't be feasable), but I agree that it should fix notes. I'll make it only ignore links and file names and hopefully file a BRFA later tonight. Vacation9 21:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- If you need a bot to move articles, Legobot is approved to mass do them, provided a RM has taken place. Legoktm (talk) 20:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Will you also move the articles? IMHO the lemma should be correct as well. --JøMa (talk) 20:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- I have stopped editing these articles using AWB. It seems like this is becoming an automated task now. I am seeing what I can come up with in regards to a consistent regular expression for an AWB bot (User:VoxelBot) and will report back soon. Vacation9 20:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Concerning your example, I would be inclined to ask for some kind of more elaborate move, where the bot would in fact move all the articles so that there would be no redlinks. Avoiding this measure, and going with just some of the diacritics, invariably creates a mess. But before we get there, let me elaborate on what I meant. In Alexandru Bogdan-Pitești, which is on my watchlist and is a good article, your edits had created another anomaly: you changed the Ş in PiteŞti, but not in, for instance, MiŞcarea (look though to the mass of notes at the bottom, you'll see what I mean). I can't say I favor either way; but I do favor consistency over chaos. Is there a sure method of ensuring that the switch will be done without making a mess of recognized content? Regards, Dahn (talk) 19:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- If you are talking about [[links]], I can't change those; they would need to be moved. If I changed them without moving it (which I can't do easily with an automated editor) it would become a redlink. Could you give an example? Vacation9 19:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Scratch the "tonight" part. Hopefully I'll be able to get to this tomorrow. To get this right takes quite a bit of tweaking. Vacationnine Public 22:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
The official name of K-League is changed.
The top division of Korean professional football league's official name was changed to K League Classic from K-League.(source:the-afc.com) So, some categories related K-League must be changed too. I request to move all articles in Category:K-League players category to Category:K League Classic players. z4617925 (talk) 13:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- See WP:CfD and speedy moves, Cydebot can take care of that. Werieth (talk) 16:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)