Wikipedia:Bot requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Frietjes (talk | contribs) at 21:43, 30 March 2012 (→‎tag a large number of templates for tfd). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcuts
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

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 automatically revert date change vandalism 16 6 Pppery 2024-04-03 19:25 Primefac 2024-02-06 13:49
2 Implementing the outcome of Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#Follow-up RfC on TV season article titles BRFA filed 18 9 Wikiwerner 2024-04-20 17:49 Primefac 2024-03-27 12:55
3 Auto-WP:NAVNOREDIRECT Declined Not a good task for a bot. 10 5 Wikiwerner 2024-04-28 12:22 Primefac 2024-03-13 18:37
4 Bot to add uncategorized tag to untagged uncategorized pages Y Done 3 3 GoingBatty 2024-03-23 03:43 GoingBatty 2024-03-23 03:43
5 NFL Draft move downcasing cleanup BRFA filed 22 4 Bsoyka 2024-03-23 02:55 Primefac 2024-03-18 10:12
6 Bot to clean up wikiproject templates 8 2 Cocobb8 2024-03-24 15:05 GoingBatty 2024-03-23 19:12
7 Update WP: maintaince pages 1 1 OrdinaryGiraffe 2024-03-21 23:43
8 IMDB Bot 1 1 BabbaQ 2024-03-29 13:27
9 Automatic NOGALLERY keyword for categories containing non-free files (again) 9 5 Wikiwerner 2024-05-15 18:43 Usernamekiran 2024-04-13 02:17
10 Automatically replace superscripts with sup and sub tags 5 3 Qwerfjkl 2024-04-06 19:54 Qwerfjkl 2024-04-06 19:54
11 Green Bay Packers draft picks (1936–1969) & Green Bay Packers draft picks (1970–present) Y Done 3 2 Gonzo fan2007 2024-04-22 15:57
12 UTF-8 debugging 4 2 Qwerfjkl 2024-04-07 20:55 Qwerfjkl 2024-04-07 20:55
13 Long-dash URL 1 1 GreenC 2024-04-08 22:16
14 Can we have an AIV feed a bot posts on IRC? 6 2 Lofty abyss 2024-04-29 10:29 Usernamekiran 2024-04-15 11:27
15 Bot to sync talk page redirects with their corresponding page 10 5 Anomie 2024-04-17 11:40 Anomie 2024-04-17 11:40
16 Bot to update match reports to cite template 1 1 Yoblyblob 2024-04-16 13:01
17 Converting Category:Harold B. Lee Library-related articles to talk page categories Y Done 10 3 HouseBlaster 2024-04-20 17:08 Primefac 2024-04-19 20:37
18 Bot to mass tag California State University sports seasons 2 2 Primefac 2024-04-19 18:13 Primefac 2024-04-19 18:13
19 Football league infoboxes 7 4 Bagumba 2024-04-25 13:43 Primefac 2024-04-25 12:01
20 Clear Category:Unlinked Wikidata redirects 6 3 A smart kitten 2024-04-23 10:56 DreamRimmer 2024-04-21 03:28
21 Find linkrot with a specific pattern 7 3 GreenC 2024-05-01 16:20
22 Converting positional parameters to named parameters  Done 10 2 MSGJ 2024-05-04 05:49
23 Fixing stub tag placement on new articles Declined Not a good task for a bot. 3 2 Paul 012 2024-05-10 14:28 Primefac 2024-05-10 11:14
24 Bot to change page links from Baetylus to Baetyl 2 2 Pppery 2024-05-12 23:45
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-related archives (v·t·e)
Noticeboard
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19
Bots (talk)
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22
Newer discussions at WP:BOTN since April 2021
Bot policy (talk)
19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28
29
Pre-2007 archived under Bots (talk)
Bot requests
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86
Bot requests (talk)
1, 2
Newer discussions at WP:BOTN since April 2021
BRFA
Old format: 1, 2, 3, 4
New format: Categorized Archive (All subpages)
BRFA (talk)
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15
Newer discussions at WP:BOTN since April 2021
Bot Approvals Group (talk)
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
BAG Nominations



Project tagging bot

The people who have tagged articles in WP:CHIBOTCATS with {{WikiProject Chicago}} have mostly gone inactive, except for one admin who no longer tags. Are there any bots that tag by category? If not we need a new one.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:47, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just got approval for one. What are you trying to do? Do you just want to tag as WPChicago or was that just an Example? --Kumioko (talk) 14:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes we need all the new articles in the cats listed at WP:CHIBOTCATS (but not their subcats) tagged with {{WikiProject Chicago}}. Auto rating unrated pages would be good. I.e., if a majority of other tags have a class=x, then fill that class in for Chicago.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:06, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have a request sitting with DodoBot - User_talk:DodoBot/Requests#WP:UKROADS - if you'd like to steal that one away and do it, I'd be much obliged. All details there, but you could come back to me - if you feel like doing it - should you need to know more. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I am currently going through some for WPUS and Oklahoma asked for a couple hundred too so after that I'll start working with these unless someone grabs them first. IN the Chicago one may I suggest also adding WikiProject Illinois if its not there already. --Kumioko (talk) 18:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for UKRoads. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just so you know, my bot, Hazard-Bot, is approved for such tasks.  Hazard-SJ  ㋡  23:47, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd like to steal UK Roads, I'm sure no-one would object. I'd just be fascinated to see it done ;) --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please do Hazard. Got another 65000 in the que before I can do it. --Kumioko (talk) 00:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I started, but not sure if I will do them all at once. I'll finish at a later time if so.  Hazard-SJ  ㋡  00:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So is Chicago in somebody's queue now?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:30, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hazard-SJ (talk · contribs), can you handle this for me?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:17, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you watching here? I will ping your page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:08, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I should be able to help with it in the next few days. Got a couple others in the hopper at the moment. --Kumioko (talk) 04:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry about the delay. I've started the UKROADS more than once and left it to run, but it seems an error prevented it from continuing. I believe I should make a page for these kinds of requests so it is easier to follow? I will continue working on UKROADS. If Chicago isn't done when I'm done, I'll attempt it too.  Hazard-SJ  ㋡  06:12, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Any estimate on when you will be done with UKROADS?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late reply. I did some more, but I was having some problems, hence this. I'll get back to it ASAP, hopefully. As for Chicago, that would be a longer hold.  Hazard-SJ  ㋡  03:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can probably do some on Chicago but I'm not sure my bot is authorized yet to do that type of task. I can do WikiProject Banner replacement but I think I need to request a separate one for tagging new articles to a project. Its a pretty straightforward request with plenty of precadent though so it should be pretty quick. --Kumioko (talk) 04:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago tagging task

I submitted a BRFA to allow my bot to do this type of task but before I get started I got a couple questions about this one.

  1. Can I remove the red linked categories from the above page so it doesn't conflict?
  2. Does the project support all types of content classes (i.e. Category, template redirect, etc.)? If not which ones does it support.
  3. Are you just looking for me to add the Chicago banner or do you want me to do assessment as well? If you do want me to do some assessment what projects do you want me to inherit the class from? --Kumioko (talk) 17:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the past I believe we inherited by majority. Can you do that? Just make sure not to automatically do subcategories.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick reply. I have to admit I don't know how to inherit by majority. I'm afraid that programming is above my level. What do you mean by not to automatically do subcategories? --Kumioko (talk) 17:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The list at WP:CHIBOTCATS includes the categories that are associated with WP:CHICAGO. Some of the subcategories of those categories include things that are far afield from the project. I will wait for Hazard-SJ (talk · contribs).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. --Kumioko (talk) 04:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Me sees.  Hazard-SJ  ㋡  07:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What is the latest?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Any update?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How about a Me dos?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I could help eventually but my bot is still awaiting the authorization to tag an article and even then it will be a bit limited. It can easily add the chicago banner but doing the assessments is a bit of a different story. As I mentioned above it can inherit the class from another project but my programmer skillz aren't enough to look for what class is most used. I usually just pick another project (usually one I have some faith in the class being correct like MILHIST, USRoads, NRHP and a few others) run through that and then pick the next one. Once I have gone through the more trustworthy ones then I can use the less reliable ones (like Biography for example). --Kumioko (talk) 20:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am waiting for some reply from Hazard-SJ (talk · contribs). I am under the impression that he may be able to do more of what I want.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is one pain in the @$$ request.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I got approval to do tagging but as I mentioned before I am still working on logic that does the assessments reliably. --Kumioko (talk) 15:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The assessment is a big part of it. I am hoping that you stumble across GAs, FLs, and FAs and want to maximize the possibility of finding them.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:29, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Im not going to be editing much anymore and the bot is shutdown. good luck. --Kumioko (talk) 01:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'm waiting for someone who can run it with functionality.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:27, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck, thats why I created my own bot because I got tired of waiting. --Kumioko (talk) 14:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any projects that are currently being tagged regularly.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:30, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are bots categorized in a way that I could find ones that tag for projects?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:04, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - see Category:WikiProject tagging bots. GoingBatty (talk) 03:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info. I will look at this cat.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:09, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that no bots are autotagging class anymore based on the feedback I have gotten. Was there a discussion somewhere that determined such bots are a bad thing?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:35, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No but Kumioko go so much flak over his bot that he left the project (Wikipedia). I might look at this one day, but right now I'm getting flak for breathing. Which is a seasonal affliction. Rich Farmbrough, 23:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Asteroid Thingy

Hi Chrisrus, I remembered that I forgot to finish your request at WP:BOTREQ. The list of articles that returned no results from the Harvard Abstract Search is here (a revision of my userspace sandbox). The table of articles that returned at least one result from the Harvard Abstract Search is here (annother revision of my userspace sandbox). Leave me a message if you want anything else done! --Tim1357 talk 02:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! That's great. Thank you so much. Shall I talk about the next step, which looks like it might be to transform all the "zeroes" is you will, into section redirects to the correct place on List of minor planets, here, or start a new section on the WP:BOTREQ page? Chrisrus (talk) 04:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I've got a lot on my plate right now, and I'm not sure I have enough time to do this. If you're fine waiting one or two months, then I'd be happy to do it. If you need it sooner, WP:BOTREQ might be a good idea. Tim1357 talk 21:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bot Needed to Convert List to Redirects

OK! Now we have a list! On to the next step: Needed: a bot to convert all of the following to redirects to the List of minor planets as described in Wikipedia:NASTRO#Dealing_with_minor_planets:

List of redirection candidates moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy/Candidates for redirection because it was making this page super slow to load. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:55, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wait: Check JPL SBDB first?

While this seems nice and all, wouldn't it be a good idea to cross check that list against the JPL Small Body Database too? Some data on the traffic stats of these minor planets might also reveal a few that are notable for reasons other than pure scientific research. Still looking forward to having a mini-purge on these useless stubs however. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:43, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I read WP:NASTRO, it seems to be one option. We went with the harvard one because botreq people found that easier to use. But please, look into doing that. It's not a bad idea. Is it doable or would you need some help or something? Chrisrus (talk) 20:12, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We're talking about converting over 5,000 articles into redirects here. Doing this by bot makes sense, but care should be exercised, especially since databases are often incomplete. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. How should we write the new botreq? How about "Bot needed to run the Harvard list through SINBAD/JPL"? Chrisrus (talk) 21:23, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bot needed to give "articles failing NASTRO" through another "good faith effort" test

Needed: Bot to search the titles on this list through another "good faith effort to establish notablity" websearch, as per Wikipedia:NASTRO#Insufficient_sources, this time using the JPL Small Body Database (http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/sbdb.cgi) and to report number of hits, as was done here last time with this list using the Harvard site:[1], explained here.

This site is reportedly much less user-friendly than the Harvard. Please look into what it would take and let us know if it looks extremely difficult or impossible, or whatever the case may be. Chrisrus (talk) 05:40, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With a little luck I will have some results for this shortly. Rich Farmbrough, 06:07, 26 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
363 have references on JPL sbdb. The rest have will need greater efforts. Rich Farmbrough, 07:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
The rest are listed here Rich Farmbrough, 07:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
BRFA at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 50 - should we also make redirects form alternative names? Rich Farmbrough, 01:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you so much Mr. Farmbrough! You've done great work and it is much appreciated. I'll send you a Wikibeer or some such. A few points:

  1. Where is the list of 363?
  2. With regard to the matter of the possible alternative codings for each item before redirection may start, my understanding is that it'd be nice, if possible, but it's not clear whether it's completely necessary to fulfill WP:NASTRO's "Good Faith Effort" to establish notablity. But please do read it yourself and see if you agree with me. Wikipedia:NASTRO#Insufficient_sources, third sub-bullet speaks about alternative codings for each referent. But don't let that stop you from going ahead with alternaive codings searches if it's what you want to do. Thanks again!

Chrisrus (talk) 04:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Help with CFD logjam

Resolved

The current workload at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working & Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/Large includes several aime & manga categories that contain many huge articles that individually take far longer than average to edit and thus the categories take hours to rename. This in turn is creating a logjam for the regular bot.

Can extra bots please help to rename the following (all renamed per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy):

Many thanks in advance. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:08, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: If you simply replace the from page with {{Category redirect|Shinigami anime and manga}} for example, a bot will come and take care of it. Rich Farmbrough, 18:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Adding authorlink to citations

I've just created an article about George T. Noszlopy. We have lots of other articles which cite his work does anyone have tool that will add |authorlink=George T. Noszlopy (and similar for other cases) to the relevant citation templates? To complicate matters, some cite him as George Thomas Noszlopy - it may be possible to use ISBNs to identify relevant instances. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:20, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a very bad job for a bot. Authorlinks are pretty annoying, and there's certainly no consensus to systematically add them. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Really? I've never seen complaints about them. Oh well, never mind. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:31, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Many people (myself included) think that if an author really is important enough to have a link, then he should be mentioned (and linked) in the main text rather than in citations. This is not the only viewpoint, but when there's many ways to do one thing, it's usually a bad idea to have a bot enforce one side over the other. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's a more fundamental problem that the authorlink parameter is clumsy at best. This is perhaps a better place to invoke the usefulness of {{Authority control}} or whatever title we wish to give it. Rich Farmbrough, 18:04, 24 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
A fully automated bot is out of the question because, in general, there is no way for a bot to know if an author named in a citation is the same person who is the subject of a Wikipedia article. Obviously a mere name match between a Wikipedia biography article and the author name in a citation is no proof they are the same person. So the bot would have to parse the biography article to see if the work in question is listed in the biography. But there is no standard way of formatting the author's bibliography within the biography, so there is no way to do this parsing. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:01, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and no, that's why libraries have "authority control". If a library (say LoC) says that "Barnaby Sludge" is by "Marles Wickens" (342687683) and our article on Marles Wickens has {{Normdaten|342687683}} then it is a sound link target for thje author of that work. Rich Farmbrough, 01:27, 25 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
OK, the bot would have to do a good deal more than most bots do. First, it would have to find the author's Wikipedia article, which is hit-or-miss because of the various ways of writing a name. Then it would have to find the citation for the work within the author's biography, which again could be hit-or-miss, because the citation in the two different Wikipedia articles might not share a common identifier; in the case of ISBN it might be that the biography cites a hardcover and the other article cites a paperback. And finally the citation in the biography would have to have the {{Normdaten|342687683}} template. So it would be quite a bit more involved than the usual bot.
It doesn't help that the documentation for {{Normdaten|342687683}} is bloody awful. Jc3s5h (talk) 01:57, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are basically right, except that the citation would need to be chased to a library database. This stuff is all bubbling at the back of my mind as part of a huge ontolgy bot, so nothing like this is imminent from my quarter, but... don't rule it out altogether. Rich Farmbrough, 23:27, 26 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Fixing broken translation requests

(Reviving an old request that was never coded...) I have created templates like {{Expand Spanish}} from the master templates {{Expand language}} and {{Expand language (non-Latin script)}}. These templates are used to mark articles needing translation from other Wikipedias. Right now the articlename parameter is optional, and I would like it to stay this way (makes it easier for editors to apply these tags). The bot I am after would find {{Expand XXX}} templates without an articlename, look for the interwiki link at the bottom of the article, and append this articlename to the template. For example, on the article The Colossus (painting), {{Expand Spanish|topic=culture|date=March 2009}} would be changed to {{Expand Spanish|El coloso|topic=culture|date=March 2009}}. Ideally, this bot would run regularly, so editors wouldn't have to worry about specifying the article title. If there is no interwiki link, or more than one, the bot could notify the person who tagged the article, so they could fix the problem. Note: right now the {{Expand language}} templates automatically create links to foreign-language articles based on the en.wiki article title. This is an imperfect solution to the problem, and I would like to discontinue this, making all the templates behave like {{Expand language (non-Latin script)}}. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:44, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BRFA filed Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 49. Excludes user notification. Rich Farmbrough, 01:33, 25 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Great, thanks so much!! Once this gets going and all the target links are set and being maintained, I'll recode the template so that it isn't guessing the target based on the English-language title. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is running merrily. It should be self maintaining once I make the category mainstream instead of one-off. Incidentally there will be some in the "needs fixing" cat at some time, since I found half a dozen stubs which all pointed to the same page on es:. Rich Farmbrough, 00:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

utvi.com -> yourmoneysite.com

On the face of it this should be a simple substitution - Indian financial media company did a deal with Bloomberg under which their old website www.utvi.com mapped to www.yourmoneysite.com with pathnames intact. However old material seems to have been lost in the deal, eg you don't get a 404 or anything when you convert this utvi.com link to yourmoneysite.com it just doesn't give you the article. That one isn't on archive.org either. I'm swamped at the moment, would someone mind having a look around to see how widespread this problem is? FlagSteward (talk) 14:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are 4 links, including this page, and the one you copied it from (note the target page has comments, just no article).

Here is the special page to see the list. Rich Farmbrough, 01:42, 25 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Bot to tag previously-deleted articles that were recreated.

Sometimes, although not often, articles are recreated after deletion. It would be nice if a bot could fetch the various deletion history of such pages, and tag the talk pages with the appropriate templates. For example, Trademarkia was previously deleted (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trademarkia). The talk page should thus be tagged with the relevant {{Old AfD multi}} et al. templates, and possibly a {{recreated on}} template too. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 07:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Funnily enough I've been thinking about this, wrt cats, where it seems to be much more of a problem (and unfortunately, the discussions do not sit on their own pages). I doubt I'll have time to look at this in the short term though. Rich Farmbrough, 04:37, 24 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
This may not be entirely suitable for bots, especially where people are involved. It isn't unheard of for multiple people to have the same name, and in these cases how would a bot identify that they were different people if the deleted article and the new creation had the same name? ϢereSpielChequers 06:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn't, nor should it. It is articles for deletion, not subjects - and the old-afd-multi will be potentially useful in any case. However adding a field (set) to Old-afd-multi (if there isn't one already ) to allow annotation by humans might be a good idea. Rich Farmbrough, 23:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Coding... This sounds like it could be interesting. So basically, for newly-created articles see if Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/{{FULLPAGENAME}} exists, and if so fill out {{old AfD multi}} on the article's talk page? Anomie⚔ 16:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A really good idea. I found one just a couple of days ago that needed that. Dougweller (talk) 11:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar cat cleaning up

Hi,
I have an AWB job for some person. I need following changes:

Any questions? Who can do this? This job includes ~1000-1200 pages, so a BFRA might be required. mabdul 13:39, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  1. the list is at User:Rich Farmbrough/Botreq temp. Rich Farmbrough, 04:46, 24 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
    1. I don't see the advantage of the transform. Categories should only be set by template if there's some benefit, here I see none.
    2. The change is specified for the National Merit barnstars, but the DEFAULTSORT for others would need to be specified too. Rich Farmbrough, 04:52, 24 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

I suppose you only want the National ones done, and that to avoid dual-listing? Rich Farmbrough, 04:53, 24 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Doing.. Rich Farmbrough, 05:08, 24 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Done. Something less than 200 templates. Rich Farmbrough, 05:24, 24 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

add ref section to language stubs

Could we add a ==References== section with {{reflist}} for all articles which have {{Infobox language}} and don't yet have one?

Nearly all of these articles are actually ref'd, but they're ref'd through a link in the info box and it doesn't show up in the text. What I'd like is for a bot to add a ref section, and also add some of the newer infobox parameters next to the old 'speakers' parameter, like so: 

|ethnicity = 
|speakers = 
|date = 
|ref =

(Assuming these don't already exist.)

If there is an 'extinct' parameter instead of 'speakers', then we'd want: 

|ethnicity = 
|extinct = 
|ref =

These parameters have all been around for a while, and any kinks have been worked out. The ethnicity parameter is to link to our article on the speakers of the language, if we have one. Date is for the census date of the number of speakers. Ref is for just that, and goes w the ref section. There's a code we can use to autogenenerate the ref we've already linked to; I hope to have the project get together, review the data to verify it's supported, and then add the code (e16) to the ref field if it is. But with 6,000 articles, it would be a lot easier if the parameters and ref section were already there. Also, since we tend to copy over the layout of old articles when we make a new one, once this is done, it should propagate through future articles.

— kwami (talk) 02:13, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like good sense. I have code to add references sections somewhere, I'll dig it out. Rich Farmbrough, 04:34, 24 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
There's a bot that comes around and cleans up after me when I forget to add the ref section. But I don't know if it would handle the info box. — kwami (talk) 04:57, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes SmackBot used to, and AnomineBOT does and another was recently BRFA'd. Rich Farmbrough, 05:25, 24 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks! This will be a big help in verifying that our minor language articles are up to date. — kwami (talk) 09:00, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BRFAs usbmitted. Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 48 Rich Farmbrough, 17:11, 24 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Could I request that, if any changes are made, the parameters be placed in that order? Ethnicity comes after speakers in quite a few articles, which becomes difficult to follow once other parameters intervene, but it's not important enough to change unless the article's being edited already. It also might be worth bypassing the caps rd while you're at it (Infobox Language → Infobox language). — kwami (talk) 20:00, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes new parameters will be in the order requested. I'll have a look at re-ordering existing cases. Certainly there are only 500 odd cases of IL left, this should make a significant step to eliminating them. Rich Farmbrough, 01:23, 25 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
OK this is coded, and tested manually. Headbomb claims that adding the references section is ugly, so there's a minor problem there. I do have the BRFA for automatically fixing the references error so it while it would take twice the edits, and put big red errors on the screen, if that makes the bureaucracy work, we can fix the fields, add the refs, then fix the error . Or something. Rich Farmbrough, 04:33, 25 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Well, I can work around that. Yeah, twice the edits is kinda silly, but whatever.
Meanwhile, these are parameters we should have: we should have a ref and date for the population figure, or it's essentially worthless. We should have a cross-link to the ethnographic article, if one exists. Most of the other params are either optional or already in nearly all of the articles (I suppose I should check again). — kwami (talk) 09:07, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While we're at it, we might as well add in states or region, if both are not present, as a minor change. While only one is required, it's convenient to have both available (it encourages better documentation than just listing the country), and it does no harm. — kwami (talk) 03:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bot for reporting fungal taxon redlinks

One of my main projects on Wikipedia is to create articles for all fungal taxa down to the level of genus. Over the past few years, I've made some pretty good progress; of the estimated 9000+ taxa from Kingdom to genus, I estimate we're at about 70%–90% coverage. I was wondering if a bot could be made that would help me finish my task. Basically, it would scan all taxon pages associated with WP:FUNGI (i.e., those with a taxobox), and prepare a list of all redlinks it finds that are not species. Would this be relatively easy to do? Sasata (talk) 17:06, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redlinks on those pages is a relatively easy list to construct (well, certainly doable anyway). Is it easy to narrow them down to the ones you want? - Jarry1250 [Deliberation needed] 20:32, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Links in the taxobox that do not contain a space" should be fairly good approximation, I think. Ucucha (talk) 20:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if that approach would include taxon authorities or not, but even if it did, that's ok as I plan to create articles for all notable authorities at some time anyway. If it's easy, it would be useful to specify how many times a redlink occurs; this would help me prioritize a work schedule for the redlink list, but it's not necessary if it's a hassle. Sasata (talk) 20:49, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This can be done with AWB I guess. Let me take a look. Rich Farmbrough, 21:47, 25 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
There's some 9200 Fungi pages, about 8800 in mainspace, and several hundred don't have taxoboxes (still running). I guess the redlink list will take about 30 mins, and then just a matter of filtering out those we want. Rich Farmbrough, 22:40, 25 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
User:Rich Farmbrough/mainly taxa - a fairly small list, 270 items. Rich Farmbrough, 00:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
This will be helpful. Looks like there's some links in there that didn't originate from taxoboxes, but I can skip over those easy enough. Thanks for taking the time to do this! Sasata (talk) 02:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure, would have been quicker but I was being trolled. Rich Farmbrough, 03:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Bot needed to convert links to a template

A website that is used on a number of articles relating to football/soccer has recently moved domains - from 'zerozerofootball.com' to 'footballzz.co.uk' but the rest of the URL remains the same i.e. from http://www.zerozerofootball.com/jogador.php?id=85 to http://www.footballzz.co.uk/jogador.php?id=85. I was intending to use AWB to change the domain, but after a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Bugger :( an editor has created {{Zerozero profile}}; so basically is it possible for a bot to convert all the old 'zerozerofootball.com' and the new 'footballzz.co.uk' to the template format? Thanks in advance, GiantSnowman 20:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can do this as a semi-automated task; looks like only 108 articles using the new domain and 156 articles using the old domain would be affected. Do you want the domain in non-profile links (other than jogador.php) changed too? That'd add about 1615 articles and at that point I'd file a BRFA (which is fine; I just don't want to approve that number of edits by hand). — madman 21:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The template is just for players i.e. those that use 'jogador.php' - however it would still be good to get a bot to convert all instances of 'zerozerofootball.com' to 'footballzz.co.uk' as the old website does not redirect so there are obviously a lot of dead links there. Thanks, GiantSnowman 10:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BRFA filed – Please feel free to contribute here as there are questions about the scope of the task. — madman 17:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much. GiantSnowman 17:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Doing... — madman 21:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bot to change a set of subpages to normal pages

The list of minor planets has some 1900 subpages (including subpaged redirects) in the mainspace, which isn't allowed. See [4]. These are subpages per 100 minor planets, used as a kind of templates inside larger (per 1,000) regular pages (and with the text "This page is not meant to be viewed directly", which shouldn't appear on any mainspace pages...). Some years ago, I merged a fair number of them, but the process was very tedious and repetitive. To get rid of the rest, and considering the repetitiveness, perhaps a bot could do the other ones?

The current situation is that List of minor planets: 118001–119000 is composed of ten subpages, like List of minor planets/118101–118200. The wanted situation is what you get in e.g. List of minor planets: 200001–201000. Is this feasible? Fram (talk) 07:26, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes an no. Here are the issues:
  1. Your laudable effort to retain history leads to diffs like this.
  2. Sub-pages are more than just a "/" separator in a page name. There is associated functionality which can be turned on or off namespace by namespace. What mere editors do does not affect this.
  3. A simple tweak would make these into acceptable pages, replacing the "/" with a ": " would improve the naming.
  4. Merging is trivial and would not need a bot (190 AWB edits). Hist merge, and deleting the subpages would need admin rights.
  5. This would need consensus, ideally from WP:ASTRO who, one would imagine, had a good reason for doing it this way.
Rich Farmbrough, 11:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
1. Better hist merge solutions are always welcome.
2. ? And the meaning of this is? What functionality is lost between the pages retaining subpages, and those ones that have been merged?
3. No, these would still be unacceptable pages (though less so). They would still be used as subpages, but wouldn't purely technically be subpages. But if someone creates pages that shouldn't be seen in the mainspace, then he or she is doing things wrong. Random pages, page searches and so on will still get to these. One solution may be to combine this with your point 1 though, i.e. moving them (without redirect) to pages with a ":", and then merging them with a history pointer to the ":" pages which would then become redirects.
4. Merging is not that trivial, I did this and it is a lot of work, adding the appropriate subheaders, table layout, removing everything but the footers from the subpage. No idea how to do a copy-paste from ten to one pages in AWB either.
5. There is general consensus that subpages are not allowed in the mainspace. WP:ASTRO needed consensus to override this, not the other way around. Oh, and I had discussed this at the time at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Space/Archive 1#Lists of minor planets. Fram (talk) 12:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sub-pages have breadcrumbs. You cannot have a sub-page of an article. You can have an article which has the name that a sub-page would have. There's no reason to think that the merge is desirable, the discussion you referred to has no consensus to merge - i.e. only you thinking it is a good idea. Rich Farmbrough, 18:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Bot to date a template

I created Template:Stub redirect which places pages where the template is used on in a maintenance category, for example Category:Articles to be redirected from March 2012. It would be nice if a bot could date the template, so that the tagged page is placed in the correct category. Thus I have two questions:

1. Is there a bot that could perform the date tagging?

2. Could that bot also automatically create the corresponding maintenance category if it doesn't exist already?

Edit:
Perhaps the bot should also delete empty and obsolete categories. For example, if the bot had created Category:Articles to be redirected from January 2012 and that category would now be empty, the bot should delete the category in February. In other words, the bot would need to check the current number of articles in the category and and the current month. If the number of articles is zero and the current month is the month following the month of the category, the bot should automatically delete that category.

-- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 20:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This fits into the standard schema, and both Helpful Pixie Bot and AnomieBOT will take care of these items. Femto Bot will create the categories, and they will self-nom under CSD. Rich Farmbrough, 23:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

tag a large number of templates for tfd

I have nominated a large number of templates at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 March 30#Usprimary templates. could I get someone to have a bot (or AWB) tag them for me with {{tfd|{{subst:PAGENAME}}}} or {{tfd|Usprimary templates}}? the last TfD for these was rejected since the templates were not properly tagged (see here). they are all orphaned, so there shouldn't be a problem with having the tag transcluded onto other pages. Frietjes (talk) 21:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bot_requests&oldid=484760436"