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.

Dispute resolution noticeboard

Over at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard we have accrued an ad-hock combination of scripts and templates, assisted by EarwigBot and MiszaBot. In particular, we seem to be asking The Earwig for a lot. He has been very responsive and has been great about our constant stream of requests, but rather than dumping more and more on him I am wondering whether someone who is really good at automation has the time and inclination to do a proper job of re-engineering all of our DRN automation tools from top to bottom. If we manage to get a smooth-running system working, other noticeboards might be interested in using the same system. Is anyone interested in working on this? --Guy Macon (talk) 06:59, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: Let me finish out my 2 active bot requests (and possibly have a mini-vactation), and then I'll put an automation/bot-er hat on and sit down with the users to hash out requirements for the DRN process improvements. Hasteur (talk) 16:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

@Hasteur: Thanks! Among other issues, here is a taste of the things I have been manually repairing: [1][2][3][4] :( --Guy Macon (talk) 23:12, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Bot needed to make a list

A bot is needed to make a list of all articles in the category Minor planets that are just like 11451_Aarongolden in that they don't have enough in them to pass WP:NASTRO. Also, you might want to tag each one with some sort of appropriate tag that you judge appropriate or helpful in terms of keeping track of them or whatever. You be the judge; just don't delete them or anything like that, just yet.

Please give the list a descriptive title with a date, such as "Minor Planet articles that might fail NASTRO - Phase One" with the date the list was completed.

To explain, at the moment, this is just to know how many such articles there still are, despite earlier efforts, so we can know the size of the situation and discuss what to do, if anything, with the articles. Later, if we decide to pursue it, WP:NASTRO requires a multi-step "good faith effort" to establish notability that you can read about there if you wish, but if that fails, NASTRO asks that they be converted into redirects to the List of minor planets and the info in the articles transfered there and so on - suffice it to say that it looks like a big job, so let's not get ahead of ourselves. I just offer this second paragraph in case you want to know the reason for this request.

If you need/want more information or more specific instructions or something, please do ask. Chrisrus (talk) 04:44, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

@Chrisrus: How is the robot to determine if a given article is notable? You'll need to be very specific; bots can't work magic, and need detailed parameters and constraints. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 04:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your help! How about this: Like 11451_Aarongolden, the article has no references, and contains no more text than "(name of object) is a (type of object) discovered on (date) by (discover(s)) at (place)". They may or may not have other stuff such as an infobox, navigators, categories, and so on; i.e.: nothing that would establish notability. What do you think, enough specificity to be doable? Chrisrus (talk) 05:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

So, for each article in Category:Minor planets or one of its subcategories, if

• the article does not contain the string <ref
• the article's body text only contains only one sentence

list that article at User:Theo's Little Bot/Minor planets.

Is this sufficient? While it may have some false positives, I think this is better than trying to match a specific sentence, which is a tricky thing to do. Thoughts? Theopolisme (talk) 06:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

If it contains no references and only one sentence, how realistic is the risk that we get a false positive and the article actually does contain proof of its own notability, and is therefore a false positive? If an article has no references and only one sentence, while it might still be notable (as per NASTO's definition), how it could establish that notability internally itself as it stands? Chrisrus (talk) 06:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I meant false positives versus the "(name of object) is a (type of object) discovered on (date) by (discover(s)) at (place)" that you said earlier, which is obviously a bit more specific. However, you know the contents of the category much better than me! :) Theopolisme (talk) 06:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok. Let's say 1) only one sentence and 2) no references. Therefore, no risk of accidently including any that have, umm, let's coin a term, say "internally established notability". How's that? Chrisrus (talk) 06:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

You might want to look at those articles with {{Infobox astro object}} or {{Infobox planet}} tagged with {{Notability}} (which should be {{Notability|Astro}}). GoingBatty (talk) 13:59, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The bot is generating a list now; be forewarned that it might take a while. Theopolisme (talk) 19:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Great news! Thank you so much.

While we're waiting, I've been thinking: last time we tried this, we later wished we'd started with a good naming and placing and annotating system for the evolving lists.

1. We should have called the first list something like "2013 Minor Planet Project: List #1" or "Phase one" or "part one" or something, you be the judge. The point is, the first part of the name will stay the same throughout the entire project should there be additions or subractions later, each further iteration is given a version number.
2. And also please do put right up front a sentence or table or whatever explaining what exactly has been done: a description of the work, when, by whom, and with what tools. You might want to put it in chart form so the next botsman can just fill out the next line. You be the judge.
3. Also, can we keep it on a neutral place, like a botreq project page? Last time the location of the lists were kept on each botsman's user pages and such and there were problems because of that putting the situation back together jumping around from place to place keeping track of what happened. I trust your judgment as to exactly where, but the general idea is keep it somewhere neutral and permanent.

Chrisrus (talk) 02:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry my delayed response; somehow I missed your message. (An aside: it looks like the script was getting confused, so I've had to restart it--results will take another day or so). Hmm, a botreq project page? What exactly do you mean by that? Theopolisme (talk) 02:06, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

@Chrisrus: The task has been completed and the list has been generated at User:Theo's Little Bot/Minor planets (around 3.2K articles met the criteria). I can write details about what I did specifically (as well as link to the source code) wherever you'd like me to--just tell me where! Theopolisme (talk) 02:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

You have my most sincere gratitude in abundance. I will look at it and discuss with you more about the whole placement, naming, and annotating and so on, but for the moment I'd just like to take this moment to celebrate this milestone and give it a good looking and figure out what to do next. Chrisrus (talk) 02:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

To answer your question "What exactly do you mean by that?"; right now, it's housed on an extension of your personal user page. The next iteration might be by another botsman, and will be on his talk page extension, and so on. It gets messy. Couldn't we put it in some one neutral place where it can stay, perminently, no matter who or how many more people work on it? I just made up the idea of a botreq project page, just to give you an idea of the type of place I was thinking about. Chrisrus (talk) 03:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

@Chrisrus: I have created Wikipedia:Minor planet articles that might fail NASTRO, is this okay? Your assistance in writing the copy and filling in the details would be much appreciated. Theopolisme (talk) 04:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

That's a perfect place for it! Thanks again. I'm working on it now. Chrisrus (talk) 05:22, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Uh-oh. I noticed some problems. The second one, 2984 Chaucer, has two sentences. Also, there are some doubles and other multiples. For example, 1486 Marilyn appears five times. Chrisrus (talk) 05:27, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Let's continue this at Wikipedia talk:Minor planet articles that might fail NASTRO. Theopolisme (talk) 05:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Tally T:AH

I have been told that T:AH is in use in 33,000 pages (which sounds like a low estimate to me). I need to know how many of these pages have four=no. four=no is used by WP:FOUR to distinguish the WP:FAs that have been WP:GA and WP:DYK according to T:AH that are rejected from the four=yes. The four=no should populate Category:Wikipedia articles rejected for Four awards in the near future and if the bot both counted and categorized that would be optimal although I just need the count for now. Because of this, it could take weeks for this category to populate itself. The expected number is between 300 and 1300 of the 3980 FAs have four=no.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 06:14, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Note that after 24 hours only 13 articles populated the category and after 5 days only 18. It may take months for all the articles to populate the category without a bot.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 17:11, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Revised estimate of final total is in the neighborhood of 400.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 17:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog

really would be nice to have a bot to update Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog/items automatically, rather than relying upon editors to do it. perhaps there is already a bot for backlogs that can merely have that page added to it's tasks.... -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 18:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Redirect template documentation talk pages

For some time now, I've been doing this manually, as I edited templates or their documentation, but I've hardly scratched the surface. Can someone assist, please?

The process is:

1. For each page in the Template: namespace, say Template:Foo
2. if Template talk:Foo exists
3. and if Template:Foo/doc exists
4. and if Template talk:Foo/doc DOES NOT exist
5. then create Template talk:Foo/doc as a redirect to Template talk:Foo

We should also so the same thing for /sandbox and /testcases and other subpages' talk pages.

This prevents fragmentation of discussion between the various talk pages; particularly as documentation pages seem to be under-watched. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Bot needed to check a list against a database as specified in NASTRO

A bot is needed to perform the good faith effort to establish notability specified in the "Dealing with minor planets" section of NASTRO: Wikipedia:NASTRO#Dealing_with_minor_planets Here is the list: Wikipedia:Minor_planet_articles_that_might_fail_NASTRO. The bot should add to that list how many, if any, hits the name of the object gets on that database NASTRO specifies.

Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. Chrisrus (talk) 04:12, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

List of new sandboxes in user space

Over the past several months, those of us working in WP:SPI have confirmed a whole raft of related paid-editor sockpuppets — over 300 so far, according to SPI reports, and that's probably the tip of the iceberg.

These socks all have a similar editing pattern: make some minor random edits to get autoconfirmed status, sleep for a while, maybe a month or two, and then build a seemingly well-referenced but often-promotional article in their sandbox, which they then move to main space. The identity of the company creating these socks is known but I won't reveal it here.

Right now we're in whack-a-mole mode. The socks aren't identified until they actually post an article into main space and a patroller familiar with the SPI case notices the pattern and reports it.

Therefore, it would be really useful if there were a bot that maintained a page that listed new sandbox creations. Such a list would be most useful if it showed the date of creation, link to the sandbox, and a snippet of the lead sentence.

Patrollers could then more easily report potential socks in advance to SPI, and a checkuser could verify them and block them, before the material goes to main space.

A bot maintaining such a page would help us get a jump on this army of socks, thereby denying them their revenue and perhaps, eventually, convincing this company to work with the community rather than resort to block evasion and other tactics. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I've been participating in that SPI, and Amatulić invited me to comment. I've noticed that these hired writers have changed their behavior in the last few weeks as they've come under greater scrutiny. If this bot proves effective, they are likely to stop using sandboxes in user space. I've already noticed some drafts by them in Articles for Creation. That said, I do think the bot as proposed would be a useful tool against these contributors. If it would also monitor Articles for Creation, the Incubator, user pages that are not sandboxes, pages created directly in article space, and talk pages, there wouldn't be a way to avoid it...I think. That would be a lot of material to wade through. I don't know how to code this, but I have a partial list of Morning277 clients, and if the bot could highlight pages that mention those clients, it would be especially helpful. Another possibility would be to make an edit filter. —rybec 23:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I have some questions about this case, not relevant here, Where is the main discussion taking place? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

At WP:SPI, mostly. See your email. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:39, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Received, thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:17, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Rybec: Actually WP:AFC is the place where editors with a conflict of interest should go. We routinely hard-block new accounts with company names that put an article in main space, but we hold back on blocking if their first edits are to AFC. I have no problem with this company dumping their article drafts at AFC for others to review. Occasionally a COI editor actually writes a good article. This particular sockmaster has created hundreds of socks involving a lot of people, some are better editors than others, and some are capable of creating good content with encyclopedic value. The bulk of it, however, is promotional fluff, and WP:AFC can put brakes on that pretty effectively, if the folks working at AFC are vigilant. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:44, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

That's the kind of discussion I was hoping to have elsewhere. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:17, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Setting class=redirect on medical redirects

Hi, while going through many of the medical stubs, I encountered a lot of stubs (and some other articles) which have been turned into redirects and are still classified in the assessment (WPMED) on their talkpage as an article. Could a bot set the class to redirect in those articles and remove any importance rating? --WS (talk) 14:27, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Bot to replace old 2000 census citation??

An editor has been tagging the 2000 census data in articles with {{not in reference}} ([5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24]) because the {{GR|2}} citation template now leads to a redirect page at the Census Bureau website. Is there any way this can be fixed with a bot? It affects hundreds of thousands of articles. Thanks for looking into this. 71.139.153.14 (talk) 14:42, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's me tagging those links. I imagine you'd need to work out if there's a conceivable method of recovering the 2000 data. A quick glance at the website seems to indicate that's not totally straightforward. A bot would only be of use if the formula for transforming the existing specific link to a new specific link was defined. Or if there was a way of getting precisely the 2000 data for a given village etc. I don't think that's possible. We'll need to remove the 2000 census info from all these weak articles if we can't replace the reference. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

IP, I think the point has been made, you don't need to keep adding diffs for no good reason. The link is dead on hundreds of thousands of crap articles. Why not try to suggest a fix? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:03, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Infobox Korean name as a module

Instance of {{Infobox Korean name}} which are underneath a biographical infobox (for example {{Infobox person}}) need, where possible to be made a module of that infobox, as in this edit. I'm not asking for anyone to start work immediately, but - so that I can draw up a plan and get consensus - can anyone ease advise whether that's something it's likely at a bot could do, or would there be too many false positives? Could we perhaps work on the basis of proximity? Say, "if there is no subheading between them, make the edit"? Or "If nothing but white space separates them"?

Also, would it be possible, please, for someone to draw up a list of articles which use both of the infoboxes named above? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:46, 8 August 2013 (UTC)