Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:06, 28 December 2023

New to bots on Wikipedia? Read these primers!

Approval process – How these discussions work
Overview/Policy – What bots are/What they can (or can't) do
Dictionary – Explains bot-related jargon

To run a bot on the English Wikipedia, you must first get it approved. Follow the instructions below to add a request. If you are not familiar with programming consider asking someone else to run a bot for you.

Instructions for bot operators

I

Before applying for approval

Read the bot policy, and check the list of frequently denied bot requests.
If your task could be controversial (e.g. most bots making non-maintenance edits to articles and most bots posting messages on user talk pages), seek consensus for the task. Common places to start include WP:Village pump (proposals) and the talk pages of the relevant policies, guidelines, templates, and/or WikiProjects. Link to this discussion in your request for approval.
You will need to create an account for your bot if you haven't already done so. Click here when logged in to create the account, linking it to yours. (If you do not create the bot account while logged in, it is likely to be blocked as a possible sockpuppet or unauthorised bot until you verify ownership)
Create a userpage for your bot, linking to your userpage (this is commonly done using the {{bot}} template) and describing its functions. You may also include an 'emergency shutoff button'.

II

Filing the application

easy-brfa.js can be used for quickly filing BRFAs. It checks for a bunch of filing mistakes automatically! It's recommended for experienced bot operators, but the script can be used by anyone.

Enter your bot's user name in the box below and click the button. If this is a request for an additional task, put a task number as well (e.g. BotName 2).
Complete the questions on the resulting page and save it.

Your request must now be added to the correct section of the main approvals page: Click here and add {{BRFA}} to the top of the list, directly below the comment line.
- For a first request: use {{BRFA|bot name||Open}}
- For an additional task request: use {{BRFA|bot name|task number|Open}}

III

During the approvals process

During the process, an approvals group member may approve a trial for your bot (typically after allowing time for community input), and AnomieBOT will move the request to this section.
Run the bot for the specified number of edits/time period, then add {{Bot trial complete}} to the request page. It helps if you also link to the bot's contributions, and comment on any errors that may have occurred.
AnomieBOT will move the request to the 'trial complete' section by moving the {{BRFA}} template that applies to your bot
If you feel that your request is being overlooked (no BAG attention for ~1 week) you can add {{BAG assistance needed}} to the page. However, please do not use it after every comment!
At any time during the approvals process, you may withdraw your request by adding {{BotWithdrawn}} to your bot's approval page.

IV

After the approvals process

After the trial edits have been reviewed and enough time has passed for any more discussion, a BAG member will approve or deny the request appropriately.
- For approved requests: The request will be listed here. If necessary, a bureaucrat will flag the bot within a couple of days and you can then run the task fully (it's best to wait for the flag, to avoid cluttering recent changes). If the bot already has a flag, or is to run without one, you may start the task when ready.
- For denied/expired/withdrawn requests: The request will be listed at the bottom of the main BRFA page in the relevant section.

Bot Name	Status	Created	Last editor	Date/Time	Last BAG editor	Date/Time
Dušan Kreheľ (bot) VIII (T\|C\|B\|F)	Open	2024-04-07, 05:50:30	Dušan Kreheľ	2024-04-07, 05:56:34	Never edited by BAG	n/a
Dušan Kreheľ (bot) VII (T\|C\|B\|F)	Open	2024-02-16, 09:24:40	Dušan Kreheľ	2024-03-10, 11:40:20	ProcrastinatingReader	2024-02-20, 13:13:05
BattyBot 81 (T\|C\|B\|F)	On hold	2024-02-07, 14:12:49	ProcrastinatingReader	2024-02-15, 12:09:35	ProcrastinatingReader	2024-02-15, 12:09:35
DannyS712 bot III 74 (T\|C\|B\|F)	In trial	2024-05-09, 00:02:12	DannyS712	2024-05-09, 16:13:34	ProcrastinatingReader	2024-05-09, 10:58:36
SDZeroBot 13 (T\|C\|B\|F)	In trial	2024-03-10, 20:00:57	Sohom Datta	2024-04-07, 15:55:57	Primefac	2024-03-10, 20:57:26
StradBot 2 (T\|C\|B\|F)	In trial	2024-02-17, 03:20:39	SD0001	2024-02-17, 05:58:51	SD0001	2024-02-17, 05:58:51
PearBOT 14 (T\|C\|B\|F)	In trial: User response needed!	2023-12-28, 20:06:39	Primefac	2024-02-18, 20:11:21	Primefac	2024-02-18, 20:11:21
CapsuleBot 2 (T\|C\|B\|F)	Extended trial	2023-06-14, 00:14:29	Capsulecap	2024-01-20, 02:36:30	Primefac	2024-01-15, 07:40:39
AussieBot 1 (T\|C\|B\|F)	Extended trial: User response needed!	2023-03-22, 01:57:36	Hawkeye7	2024-02-18, 23:33:13	Primefac	2024-02-18, 20:10:45
DoggoBot 10 (T\|C\|B\|F)	In trial	2023-03-02, 02:55:00	Frostly	2024-02-21, 22:41:18	Primefac	2024-01-15, 07:40:49
Numberguy6Bot (T\|C\|B\|F)	Trial complete	2024-04-21, 15:48:04	Numberguy6	2024-05-11, 16:27:13	Primefac	2024-05-03, 11:33:25
BsoykaBot 3 (T\|C\|B\|F)	Trial complete	2024-03-23, 02:53:45	Dicklyon	2024-05-14, 21:35:01	Primefac	2024-04-22, 09:48:51
CopyPatrolBot (T\|C\|B\|F)	Trial complete	2024-02-19, 02:42:32	JJMC89	2024-05-09, 01:55:55	Primefac	2024-04-30, 12:00:11
PrimeBOT 39 (T\|C\|B\|F)	On hold	2023-05-11, 12:48:50	Primefac	2023-09-22, 10:51:59	Headbomb	2023-07-02, 17:38:58

Current requests for approval

PearBOT 14

Operator: Trialpears (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 20:06, Thursday, December 28, 2023 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic

Programming language(s): Pywikibot

Source code available: Dictionary generator, Box adder, Continuous editing and Huge dictionary

Function overview: Adds {{Other TfDs}} boxes with links to all previous TfD discussions concerning a nominated template.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion#Automatically listing old discussions

Edit period(s): Checks the daily TfD subpage once an hour for new discussions, actually edits a few times a week. Also a large one time addition for all past discussion.

Estimated number of pages affected: Maybe 2000-2500 when applying boxes to discussions retroactively (one time only). When in continuous use maybe a dozen a week.

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): Yes

Function details: The bot consists of 3 parts. One script that goes through all Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log subpages and scrapes what templates were discussed (linked in {{Tfd links}}), the result and the link to the discussion. This information is added to a 14 MB python dictionary. Relists are ignored. Part two goes through all the same pages and adds an {{Other TfDs}} box if one of the templates has been discussed some other time (either previously or later) as determined by the dictionary. There are up to ~3000 discussions out of ~56,000 that could get such a box, but the real number will be less due to identical mass noms and templates nominated more than twice being double counted. The third script would check the TfD subpage of the day for new discussions each hour and adds them to the dictionary. If any discussion needs a box it adds one there and updates previous discussions to include a link to the new one. This script isn't written yet, but will mostly consist of parts from the other two scripts. These user pages have a small number of successful test edits: 1, 2, and 3.

Discussion

Linking older discussions from new ones is fine, but I don't think modifying older discussions to link to the newer ones is a good idea – the archive headers say to not modify the closed discussion. – SD0001 (talk) 20:59, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SD0001 On AfD the corresponding feature uses Special:Prefixindex. This results in links to future discussions being automatically added. This is useful and in no way alters the contents of the discussion. I believe we should do the same here. Trialpears (talk) 21:08, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with SD0001 on this matter; past discussions do not necessarily need to have a link to further-past discussions as all discussions in question are already closed; in other words I see no tangible benefit (though as I stated in the BOTREQ I think this is a good idea going forward). Primefac (talk) 08:22, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand why not? Retroactive is not the sort of task that I would see as actively worth doing, but if someone wants to do it then more power to them. "Please do not modify it" on closed discussions has never been an absolute rule. I would have the template clearly state it was added retroactively, but the addition is IMO useful and causes little harm. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:02, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's also two different sets of code, but I see your point. Primefac (talk) 19:00, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial. Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. I want this to be run in two separate batches. One batch will be "50 edits or 14 days, whichever comes first" and will only deal with new nominations. The second batch will be 25 edits to historical log pages to see proof of concept. Ideally if you could run them that way so the contributions are easier to split, that would be great. Feel free to start with the second batch first since it's not time-dependent. Primefac (talk) 19:00, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A user has requested the attention of the operator. Once the operator has seen this message and replied, please deactivate this tag. (user notified) Any updates? Primefac (talk) 20:11, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard. The result of the discussion was

Request Expired.

LemonadeBot 2

Operator: LemonSlushie (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 08:30, Thursday, December 28, 2023 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic

Programming language(s): Javascript

Source code available:

Function overview:

Backlog tagging Files for Upload

Replying to users requesting free files and autoconfirmed users about how their file may be better suited elsewhere.

(Optional) Asking users to add a template where one would be needed to complete the file upload request.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):Wikipedia talk:Files for upload#Thoughts on a Robot Clerk?

Edit period(s): As Required

Estimated number of pages affected: 1

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No

Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): No

Function details:

Applying a {{backlog}} template to the page when there are more than 4-5 requests without a hold, that are less than 7 days old.
Informing autoconfirmed users who make a request on this page that they are free to upload their files themselves, but not changing the status of the request in case more help is needed.
(Optional) Informing registered users who make a request on FFU, who have a request with a free content license, that they may upload their own image, as long as the license is correct, to Commons. (Likely using {{ffu|commons}})
(Optional) Informing users of the robot clerk comment for tasks 2 and 3 on the requestor's talk page.
(Optional) Adding a request for a {{Non-free use rationale}} if none is provided for a request that has a non-free license in their request. This would require Task 4.
No Bot flag needed.

Discussion

@LemonSlushie: Hello. Thanks for taking up the task. A few questions: 1) under "edit periods", you said "as required". As this is an automatic task, wouldn't it be better to run the task on pre-determined regular intervals? 2) where would the bot run from? I mean, from your local computer, or a server? 3) I am not much familiar with WP:FFU, but: in case there is a request without a hold, and if that request has comments from some other user, then how would the bot determine which user made the request? 4) from the request, how would the bot determine the license of the file? especially in case it is worded differently by the requester? Also, this task/bot should have a bot flag. —usernamekiran (talk) 03:07, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am concerned that alerting registered users to upload free files cannot be accurate. Many requestors (hell, the majority of requests for "free" files) put "cc-by-sa 3.0" and then a fair use rationale template right below, or something similar. Some examples:
- Wikipedia:Files for upload#Labor Day original soundtrack
- Wikipedia:Files for upload/December 2023#Boater's List Logo for Use on Boater's List Article
- Wikipedia:Files for upload/December 2023#Assassin's Creed Nexus VR cover Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 13:27, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A user has requested the attention of the operator. Once the operator has seen this message and replied, please deactivate this tag. (user notified) Some questions have been asked, would be helpful to get answers. Primefac (talk) 13:02, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Request Expired. No response after more than a fortnight. Primefac (talk) 09:37, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard.

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard. The result of the discussion was

Request Expired.

VulpesBot 2

Operator: Dr vulpes (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 06:06, Thursday, December 21, 2023 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic

Programming language(s): AWB

Source code available: AWB

Function overview: Fix links with two brackets to external source. WP:CHECKWIKI Error #86 (External link with two brackets)

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PkbwcgsBot 9

Edit period(s): Daily

Estimated number of pages affected: 100 to 200 a week (according to previous WP:BRFA)

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): Yes

Function details: With PkbwcgsBot not being online since 2020 my goal is to pick up this task. This is admittedly a minor task with a low number of pages popping up each week. I felt it was better to offset this to the bot to run at least once a week instead of just doing it on my personal account and clogging up my edit history.

The bot will use AWB to fix error 86 (External link with two brackets). The bot is going to remove the double brackets around the link and apply general fixes.

Discussion

I am of two minds here. On the one hand this is taking over an already-approved bot task. On the other hand, the error count for #86 is currently 17, indicating that this might not be as "big" of an issue as it was three years ago. I'm not necessarily opposed to sending this to trial, but if it's only going to be making a handful of edits every once in a while it seems like it's more useful to do manually or with an AWB-specific account (if "clogging my edit history" is really that much of a concern). Primefac (talk) 08:27, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac yeah that makes sense, I only submitted this because the previous bot owner hasn't run it in ages. Would it be more appropriate to change this BRFA to once a month/quarter and from automatic to supervised? Dr vulpes (Talk) 09:32, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the bot hadn't run in a while and the numbers are that low, that's why I'm thinking this might not be a task that needs a bot any more. If this is currently done manually or semi-manually (i.e. with AWB) by other editors (i.e. there is regularly a number of pages that needed fixing) and they are indicating they do not wish to do this any more, then it's more likely we can "revive" this task. Primefac (talk) 14:08, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the goal of Dr vulpes is to take over more CheckWiki errors and is just starting with this one, then (in my non-BAG opinion), the current low number isn't that big of an issue, as its still better for a bot to waste its time than editors with these simple fixes. Gonnym (talk) 17:13, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, especially if this does turn into a CW-fixing bot.

Approved for trial (25 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Primefac (talk) 08:13, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A user has requested the attention of the operator. Once the operator has seen this message and replied, please deactivate this tag. (user notified) are you ready to trial? — xaosflux ^Talk 03:20, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request Expired. due to inactivity. Please open a new BRFA if you still want to continue the task. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:01, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard.

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard. The result of the discussion was

Request Expired.

PearBOT II 13

Operator: Trialpears (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 16:05, Monday, December 18, 2023 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic

Programming language(s): AWB

Source code available:

Function overview: Remove unknown parameters from infoboxes that are either empty or have specific values with consensus for removal

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): User talk:OpalYosutebito#Category:Pages using infobox organization with motto or pledge

Edit period(s): On demand

Estimated number of pages affected: Thousands

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): Yes

Function details: This is intended for Category:Pages using infobox film with unknown parameters and Category:Pages using infobox organization with motto or pledge in paricular where there are thousands of empty border and image_size parameters clogging up the category. The rest is for keeping my options open so I can do similar work in other unknown parameter categories.

Discussion

Comment This is a really neat idea that I wish I had thought of. Have you thought of any other ways to expand this task into areas that might have higher need? It's ok if you haven't I was just interested in hearing about how you found out about this problem and if you're thinking about any next steps. Dr vulpes (Talk) 07:01, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I find that I cannot outright deny this request because I have been involved in discussions related to this in the past. I am extremely opposed to tasks where the only point is to remove empty parameter values, and I honestly think that this functionality in Module:Check for unknown parameters should be removed. While this does throw pages into a maintenance category, somewhat alleviating the COSMETICBOT issue, simply setting |ignoreblanks=1 does exactly the same thing, saving potentially thousands of edits. Primefac (talk) 08:30, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, there really isn't any visual difference between filled out unsupported parameters and unfilled ones. They both don't change the display. Any rational for removing filled out parameters is just as valid for the unfilled ones. As an anecdotal, since clearing out 5 or so years ago a large amount of unfilled parameters in Infobox television, the amount of unsupported and strange filled out parameters has dropped almost to zero. Gonnym (talk) 17:18, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a separate thought to the above - the above two categories mentioned have (at the moment) a grand total of 2 pages in them, indicating in this particular instance the "blank parameter" issue has been solved. Primefac (talk) 08:32, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As a third thought, my bot already does non-blank invalid-parameter removal. Primefac (talk) 08:32, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request Expired. Botop is basically inactive, with no traction on this by anyone (BAG or otherwise) since the new year. Primefac (talk) 07:34, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard.

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard. The result of the discussion was

Request Expired.

BattyBot 78

Operator: GoingBatty (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 04:20, Sunday, November 12, 2023 (UTC)

Function overview: Remove url-access info from citation with dead URL

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): AutoWikiBrowser

Source code available: AWB

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 91#Subscriptions and archived URLs – recommendation for added guidance, Template:Cite_web#Access indicators for url-holding parameters

Edit period(s): One time run per domain

Estimated number of pages affected: 1,827 for higbeam.com

Namespace(s): Mainspace

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

Function details: For citation templates with dead domains (e.g. www.higbeam.com), remove the |url-access= parameter (e.g. this edit) and/or {{subscription required}} template (e.g. this edit). Will also run AWB's general fixes. GoingBatty (talk) 04:20, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

There was discussion of this at Help talk:Citation Style 1, and this does appear to be the correct thing to do; the parameters are useless/confusing when the domain to which they pertain is dead. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 17:18, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenC: Am I reading your comment here right in that you and other editors would object to this task? I don't have very strong feelings about this, but I can see value in indicating an archived URL requires a subscription; even if said subscription is no longer available, the full content remains unaccessible at the archive URL. — The Earwig (talk) 05:27, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, during discussions 3 or 4 editors objected. There were actually two threads, the first was Help_talk:Citation_Style_1#Subscription_and_via,_when_link_is_dead. The more we know about the original source the better it is to verify. If the source was subscription, it can be assumed the archive version won't have the full (or any) content which makes it a higher-value target for editors doing verification work. Particularly in the future, when AI can help with verification. -- GreenC 22:10, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think it's helpful information as well. Easier to know when the source was accessed in the past. I don't think it should be removed at least. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:24, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PARAKANYAA: This bot task would NOT remove the |access-date= parameter which contains the value to know when the source was accessed in the past. This task is to remove the |access-date= parameter and/or {{subscription required}} only in those cases where there no longer is a registration/subscription option to view the source. GoingBatty (talk) 00:55, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To me this sounds like it requires more discussion. Primefac (talk) 12:56, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On hold. Formally putting this on hold until the above gets replies and/or traction can be indicated. Primefac (talk) 08:33, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request Expired. as no further comments here. Feel free to reopen (or create a new BRFA) if a discussion elsewhere indicates general agreement for this. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:08, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard.

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard. The result of the discussion was

Approved.

The Sky Bot

Operator: Robertsky (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 00:48, Sunday, November 12, 2023 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic

Programming language(s): AutoWikiBrowser

Source code available: AWB

Function overview: Replace {{ct}} with {{UCI team code}}

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Template_talk:UCI_team_code#Requested_move_30_October_2023

Edit period(s): one time run

Estimated number of pages affected: 11,500

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): No

Function details: Making use of regex {{ct\|(.*?)}} to replace transclusions of {{ct}} with {{UCI team code}} in the article namespace, in preparation of usurpation of {{ct}} redirect for {{Contentious topics}}.

Going by the linkcount tool, there are currently 11,400+ articles to be worked on, and 200-300 non-article namespace pages to look at. This bot will primarily work on the article namespace as the usage of the {{ct}} template is pretty much direct there, whilst the non-article namespaces will be worked on either manually or semi-automated manner in case of surprises.

As for the result of the regex application to find and replace the template, I have worked on some of the pages which can be seen at Special:Contributions/RobertskySemi.

If this passes, I would like to request for AWB perms for the bot account as well. Can it be granted through here, or I will have to request at the AWB perms board? – robertsky (talk) 07:32, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Hmm. This will make old revisions very annoying to read on 11,500 articles for the benefit of creating a short redirect for {{Contentious topics}}, which is a disambiguation template and not even something we'd ever use directly? I admit I'm not a big fan of this. — The Earwig (talk) 06:26, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@The Earwig, I think this should be part of the post-closure discussion at Template_talk:UCI_team_code#Requested_move_30_October_2023 at the very least. Courtesy ping to @Awesome Aasim, who's the OP of the abovementioned move discussion that leads to this request. – robertsky (talk) 17:55, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with Earwig. Template:Contentious topics is a placeholder template as well. I'd be suspicious that the benefits of having that at {{ct}} outweigh the negatives of breaking old page revisions. I know we'd generally give up support for old page revisions where this materially improves our ability to present or deliver content (eg appropriate TfDs), but there's definitely a weighing of pros/cons that needs to be done. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:33, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to disagree. It might break old page revisions in the short term, which will be a little annoying for anyone viewing an old ID, but in the long term it will become less confusing. We could also have the Ct page read this:

<includeonly>{{UCI team code}}</includeonly><noinclude>[disambiguation stuff]</noinclude> Awesome Aasim 16:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. There seems to be a disparity where two different templates are using the same prefix, so that should be fixed. Primefac (talk) 08:36, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac

Trial complete. I have done 50 edits with User:The Sky Bot account via AWB, you can see the list of 50 edits at Special:Contributions/The Sky Bot (the account has only 50 edits). I have pulled out contributions at random for your quick checks: Special:Diff/1194306495, Special:Diff/1194306189, Special:Diff/1194306249, Special:Diff/1194306142, Special:Diff/1194306338, and Special:Diff/1194306172. – robertsky (talk) 08:58, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Robertsky You can simply use TemplateBotTrialComplete in your reply to switch its status from 'in trial' to 'trial complete.' – DreamRimmer (talk) 07:56, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DreamRimmer: thanks for the tip! – robertsky (talk) 15:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Approved. Primefac (talk) 12:59, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard.

Bots in a trial period

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard. The result of the discussion was

Approved.

Qwerfjkl (bot) 25

Operator: Qwerfjkl (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 16:37, Monday, October 9, 2023 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic

Programming language(s): Python

Source code available: pywikibot

Function overview: Resend MassMessages at WP:VPM.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 85#Forward VPM MassMessages to a new MassMessage list

Edit period(s): continious

Estimated number of pages affected: Depends on how many users and themselves to the list and how frequently messages are posted at VPM.

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No

Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): Yes

Function details: Major WMF announcements go to WP:VPM because it's listed at m:Distribution list/Global message delivery. Users cannot subscribe there because it's for noticeboards. The bot would repost any MassMessages from VPM to a new MassMessage list. Example: Special:Diff/1179359075.

Discussion

Thanks for working on this, Qwerfjkl. Much appreciated. I think this could wind up being really helpful. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 16:40, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (50 edits or 30 days, whichever happens first). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. I think it would be a good idea to get this onto the Admin Newsletter and/or crosspost somewhere so that users know this is an option. Primefac (talk) 09:21, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@@L235, could you set up a MassMessage list for this? — Qwerfjkl talk 14:43, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Qwerfjkl: I've set one up at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Subscribe. Once you get the trial going, I'll put out a few announcements that this is available. Thank you! Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:06, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@L235, okay, thanks. I've started the trial now. i'm not entirely sure if the code actually works, so ping me if there's a message at VPM that doesn't get sent. — Qwerfjkl talk 14:00, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly the whole point of MassMessage was to remove bots from the message delivery process. Having users subscribe to WMF notifications seems like a reasonable use case, have you asked them to use a different delivery list in addition to the main one? Legoktm (talk) 03:18, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Legoktm: Hm, the thing is, I want every MassMessage posted to VPM, but there are quite a few different lists that include VPM in the list. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:52, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

{{Operator assistance needed}} It has been more than a month since the last post, is this trial still ongoing? Primefac (talk) 13:26, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Primefac, you can see from this that there haven't been any messages since the trial started. Not much I can do about that. — Qwerfjkl talk 16:24, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. Primefac (talk) 16:27, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Qwerfjkl: FYI, I noticed in passing that this MassMessage got posted to VPM yesterday (and this one a couple of hours ago), but Qwerfjkl (bot) doesn't seem to have sent them. Best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 20:30, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A smart kitten, just looked into this. Appears I didn't have Beautiful Soup installed. It should work now. — Qwerfjkl talk 16:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Qwerfjkl: FYI, this & this also don't appear to have been sent. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 01:10, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A smart kitten, I think I didn't properly fix the issue last time. I've confirmed that it's working now (at the cost of briefly breaking all of the tasks running on toolforge), so it should work next time. — Qwerfjkl talk 21:25, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac, @KevinL, Trial complete. This message on VPM was sent to my talk page. Apologies for the delays. — Qwerfjkl talk 15:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should the message placed on the user talk page not indicate from whence the message originated? I feel like that would lead to a lot of decentralised discussions if for example you were to reply at your talk page if there is potentially already a long thread of discussion at VPM. Primefac (talk) 21:04, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac, how should I indicate that? A link in the section header, or just below that, or at the bottom of the message? (Feel free to edit any of the VPM messages on my userpage to illustrate what you mean.) — Qwerfjkl talk 21:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I probably should have checked the diff itself, I didn't see that you included a permalink to the original discussion. I was mainly wanting to check that the recipient knew that it was coming via VPM rather than a "direct" mass message. Primefac (talk) 07:48, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac, that's an invisible comment though. — Qwerfjkl talk 16:48, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
True. Do you think it would be better as a visible one? In thinking about it more, I do suppose that a mass message is sent by a single person and not necessarily meant to be replied to in a central location, so I am becoming less concerned with indicating the message's origin (though I do still think the hidden comment is a good idea at minimum). Primefac (talk) 20:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The invisible comment is automatically generated by the MassMessage. I might add a note just below the header. — Qwerfjkl talk 21:17, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Primefac, would something like this be alright? — Qwerfjkl talk 17:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, that's fine. I think when I approve this I'll leave it open-ended to allow for changes to the hatnote to be made as-needed (i.e. if there's more feedback about how to word/link/show it). Primefac (talk) 17:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Approved. As discussed above, the important part is copying the original message itself. If the "copied from" hatnote needs modification or removal (or something else) then it can be handled without any modification of this task. Primefac (talk) 12:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard.

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard. The result of the discussion was

Approved.

SDZeroBot 12

Operator: SD0001 (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 12:37, Monday, October 23, 2023 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic

Programming language(s): TypeScript on Node.js

Source code available: GitHub

Function overview: Purges drafts so that Category:AfC G13 eligible soon submissions appears populated

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Archive_45#Bot_running_required_to_take_over_from_User:Joe's_Null_Bot, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/NovemBot_5

Edit period(s): Hourly

Estimated number of pages affected: 874 on first run, variable after that

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No

Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): Yes

Function details: ~~Simple bot that precisely figures out the pages needing a purge (see quarry:query/77493) and only purges them.~~

It's not clear if the existing AfC purge bot operated by User:ProcrastinatingReader works. As of writing there are 874 pages that should have been in Category:AfC_G13_eligible_soon_submissions but are not. Approach used by the existing bot is to try purge all pages in AfC categories which are too many in number so has caused issues. The approach followed here is more scalable, and also avoids triggering a re-purge if ProcBot has already been through them. Purge pages which are listed on User:SDZeroBot/Purge list.

Discussion

Notified AfC project at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation#New_purge_bot_BRFA. – SD0001 (talk) 12:56, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much about bots and how they operate but I will add to this discussion that SDZeroBot's list for expiring drafts (CSD G13) turns up a great deal more drafts and user page drafts than those that appear in Category:AfC G13 eligible soon submissions. I don't know why there is this discrepancy but SDZeroBot's list is much more complete. Because admins handling CSD G13s stay on top of their expiration dates, the AFC G13 category isn't as important as it used to be. Previously, regular editors would use this category to tag expiring drafts for speedy deletion but this practice doesn't happen as frequently as in years past. But still, if this category is going to exist, then it's best that it's up-to-date. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:35, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (30 days). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. I realise this has no tangible output, but I suppose that's kind of the point. As long as it's doing what it should be doing, and not what it shouldn't be doing, I have no issues with approving this at the end of the trial. Primefac (talk) 09:18, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

{{Operator assistance needed}} It has been more than a month since the last post, is this trial still ongoing? Primefac (talk) 13:26, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the code was written but the trial wasn't started. I came to know that the API supports a forcerecusivelinkupdate=1 param, which purges all pages transcluding {{AfC submission}} in one request. That makes the usefulness of this bot task rather questionable.
It might be better to have a more generic and user-controlled bot. I am thinking of having a bot task that listens to edits to User:SDZeroBot/Purge list and purges any pages that people put in it. The {{database report}} template can be used to feed any list instead of just quarry:query/77493.
The above can't be done with User:ProcBot/PurgeList as it doesn't support one-off purges (which from an implementation perspective is quite different from periodic purges). Even if it could be supported there, I'm seeing some scope here for a second purge bot given the generally troublesome nature of purge bots (they always seem to run into issues) – people can use one if the other doesn't work. Besides, I have quite a bit of the code written out ;)
@Primefac let me know if this is okay for trial with this revised functionality. – SD0001 (talk) 16:33, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, go for it. Primefac (talk) 16:36, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Started the trial – User:SDZeroBot/Purge list is now set up. – SD0001 (talk) 12:40, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. Seems to work as far as the API calls made by the bot are successful. Many pages still get listed on the Purge list again the next day, which indicates they didn't actually get purged, but I can't see anything wrong being done from my end. It seems to be a general MediaWiki issue with mass purges which as I recall @Wbm1058 faced as well with Bot1058. – SD0001 (talk) 17:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Purging was broken in MediaWiki from September until earlier this month, but has mostly been fixed, and should be completely fixed soon. See T351729 and T354460. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:40, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Approved. Primefac (talk) 16:37, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard.

CapsuleBot 2

Operator: Capsulecap (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 00:14, Wednesday, June 14, 2023 (UTC)

Function overview: This task checks the Top 25 Report page frequently to see if the current report has updated. If it was updated, then it will go through all pages in the new report and add or update the Template:Top 25 Report template on their talk pages.

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): Python

Source code available: No, but if necessary I can upload it

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Bot requests#Top 25 report

Edit period(s): Daily

Estimated number of pages affected: 25 pages/week

Namespace(s): Talk

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No

Function details: This task first checks the page Wikipedia:Top 25 Report to see if the transcluded link was modified. (This should mean that the report was updated.) If it has, then it uses the first revision of the transcluded page, which is always a basic list, to get a list of article talk pages to modify. It then goes through each talk page, updating the Template:Top 25 Report template if it exists and adding it if not. As for exclusion compliance, I have not added that feature in yet.

Discussion

The Top 25 report is updated weekly. Why does this task need to run twice a day? Primefac (talk) 09:08, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to ensure that the template is added quickly. I've changed it to daily, and if it should be longer then you can tell me. Capsulecap ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:24, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, some reports (including the one for last week) are finished late, and do not get added until later on. I wanted to ensure that the pages on the report get the template on their talk page. If the next report is done on time, then the maintainers of the report will replace the transclusion to the late report with the new one less than a week after the old report replaced the one before it. I agree that twice a day was a bit too excessive. Daily should be fine. Capsulecap ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:28, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Capsulecap is right about this. And task need to run twice a day.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:58, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Capsulecap: Hi. What would happen if the same article comes in top 25 report again, say with a gap of four months? —usernamekiran (talk) 17:21, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If that happens, then there will be no difference from if it was featured twice with more than a four month gap. There is nothing that says to do anything different for pages on T25 which are featured multiple times in a small timespan, and pages like Talk:ChatGPT feature multiple such examples. Capsulecap ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:56, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (1 days). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. I'm trying to wrap my head around what's this bot supposed to do exactly, so I'm going to approve it for a one-time run of 1 day. This should give me (and perhaps others) a better idea of what this is about. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:34, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Headbomb: Although I did a trial run, the bot made test edits with numerous errors. I have fixed the code causing these issues, and will (with permission) restart the trial when the next report comes in. Capsulecap ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:51, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Capsulecap: can you link to the results nonetheless? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:46, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See edits 4 through 29. Note that the newest three edits were a test run for a fix to something which happened in Talk:Elemental (2023 film), and that many incorrect edits were caused by other editors modifying talk pages to add the template before the test run was done. Although the bot will not add redundant templates assuming that nobody adds the top 25 placement before it, I am considering adding redundancy protection. One problem — the one on the page about the Titan submarine incident — was one I didn't think of, as the talk page was moved with the main page, causing the top 25 report template to be placed on a redirect instead of the actual talk page. This is a problem I am working on fixing, as I have noticed that "current events" pages that show up on the report often frequently get moved. The bot also ended up creating the page "Talk:Errible things in Russia, the North Atlantic and HBO have the most attention this week.", but I fixed the source issue and tagged the page for CSD. few of the edits are fine, and most would be fine if there was redundancy protection or if the top 25 templates didn't already have the week in there. One question, though — since the bot will run daily, and people wouldn't need to modify top 25 templates anymore — should I implement redundancy protection? Capsulecap ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:46, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Should I implement redundancy protection" I would say that's a good idea, regardless of how often it comes into play. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:52, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just finished implementing the redundancy protection along with the redirect traversal stuff. The bot should work just fine now. Do I have to redo the trial? Capsulecap ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:35, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. See 21 most recent contributions. Out of the 25 pages in the June 25th to July 1st edition, 21 pages were correctly edited, two pages (Talk:Money in the Bank (2023) and Talk:Titan submersible implosion) were not edited because of unexpected and likely erroneous formatting in the report's first revision (a space was in place of the usual tab after those two pages' titles), and two pages were not edited as they already had this week in their templates. For context on those two pages which didn't get the template on accident, the first revision of the report is always an imported set of tab delimited data — in this case, spaces were in place of tabs for the names of those two articles. The bot created two new talk pages on accident, which I quickly tagged for CSD. Capsulecap ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:48, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've come up with a solution to this problem and will be implementing and testing it soon. This is the last issue which I will have to fix. Capsulecap ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for extended trial (25 edits or 7 days). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. One week's worth, or 25 edits, whichever you need. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:16, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. See See 25 most recent contributions. This time, I verified that all edits the bot would make would be correct on a script that had editing commented out. They were all good edits, so I ran the full script. All 25 pages on the report had the template added or changed on their talk pages. Capsulecap ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:57, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Most seemed fine, but there was this that stood out.

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:59, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that and didn't pay much attention to it as it was merely cosmetic. Since that was considered problematic, I'll get to fixing that and keeping the collapse as the last edit. Capsulecap ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:57, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For testing you can revert to a prior state and unleash the bot on it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:17, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. See 22 most recent edits. Also see this test edit which the bot made in user talk space showing a similar condition to the page Talk:Deaths in 2023. If you would like, I can manually revert the edit on Talk:Deaths in 2023 which added the newest date and run the bot again to show you. Capsulecap ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:58, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well... the collapsed stuff is handled correctly, but now it's inconsistent the other way around. It should list the ranks when they're there, or omit them when they're not.

Or, probably a better idea, update old listings to list the ranks, e.g. [1]. You might need some discussion before though. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:18, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a good idea to retroactively add the rankings to the templates, but I'm not sure of where to obtain consensus for that, and it would either require a bot task or lots of manual work. The other way you listed is probably easier, but causes inconsistency between pages. Something else I thought of is a Lua module that automatically grabs the placements, but I'm not sure if such a thing is supported. Capsulecap ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:30, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What if it deleted what was there first, then re-added the template with all dates and ranks? In the same edit that is. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:46, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It could work, but I think I would have to submit a separate bot task for that. A separate (and much simpler) approach would be to add a "ranks" parameter that does nothing to the bot category. If set to yes, then the bot will add ranks when it updates the report. Otherwise or if unset, the bot will only add the date. This maintains consistency within talk pages, but not between talk pages; the latter would require consensus strongly towards either using ranks or not. Capsulecap ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:03, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for extended trial (25 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Indeed, consistency within talk pages is usually a lesser threshold to clear. I'm giving you trial for that (make sure to include a mix of both types of edits), but if you want to have that (should we always rank things) discussion first, you can also wait for consensus to emerge before trialing. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:11, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Capsulecap, are you still doing this? — Qwerfjkl talk 14:43, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am. Have taken a long break from editing but I never canceled this bot project. Capsulecap ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:44, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

{{Operator assistance needed}} It has been more than a month since the last post, is this trial still ongoing? Primefac (talk) 13:26, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. As I said a long time ago, I wasn't really maintaining activity onwiki or paying attention to this page. I've decided to come back to wikipedia at some point in the near future (within 1-2 months) but I can add the features to the project. Thanks for reaching out. Capsulecap ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac: I've added support for that ranks attribute, as is seen in the 5 most recent bot edits, all of which are to my test pages. I've also created support for converting preexisting top25 templates of the alternate form into regular form top 25s, and made it so top 25 report templates longer than 800 bytes are collapsed. I will test the bot once the report is switched to the current week, which should be on Saturday or Sunday. Capsulecap ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:34, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac: Status: Current run had too many problems to use as a final trial. Fixed 2 bugs here. Should be ready to be released any week now. Capsulecap ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac: Status: Apparently what I said above was wrong. The bot works fine on the average page but I forgot to put the ranks parameter on new templates. That has since been fixed. However, there are several larger problems that I discovered on this run — the bot broke another bot's template that was split over two lines (how rude of it!), and the entries in the report were changed from the first entry, necessitating me to delete templates from two talk pages. For some reason it also ignored the page Franz Beckenbauer in the first revision, but that shouldn't be a problem once I manage to switch over to using the newest revision with tables. Also created a list at User:CapsuleBot/Todo. Capsulecap ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:36, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard. The result of the discussion was

Request Expired.

SodiumBot

Operator: Sohom Datta (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 02:43, Tuesday, May 30, 2023 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: supervised

Programming language(s): NodeJS + mwn

Source code available: TBD (will publish in a dedicated subpage/on github)

Function overview: Adding Navboxes to pages corresponding to Indian villages

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Expected to be uncontroversial

Edit period(s): one time run

Estimated number of pages affected: ~3300 ++

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No (Will/Can respect any variation of {{nobots|deny=AWB}} if required)

Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): No

Function details:

- Finding all instances of articles inside of Category:Villages in India by district.

- Filtering articles that do not have a Navbox corresponding to their district. (The heuristics I used to get to the 3300 number is by checking if a template with the name of the district existed in the page)

- Adding appropriate navbox related to the district to which the village belongs.

Discussion

Could you please give an example or two of an edit the bot would be performing? (please do not ping on reply) Primefac (talk) 08:36, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Something similar to 1156232688 and 1156210338. Sohom (talk) 18:36, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sohom Datta: Could you please help me understand 1156232688? It appears Yermal is not included in {{Settlements in Udupi district}}. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 22:45, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GoingBatty Yermal does show up in Category:Villages in Udupi district and benefits from being linked to a bunch of other articles via the Navbox. That being said, I did not see that it was not linked in the Navbox, and it maybe we can expand the scope to add the article to the navbox as well ? Sohom (talk) 00:42, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sohom Datta: If it is appropriate to add the article to the navbox, then it is appropriate to add the navbox to the article, per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. GoingBatty (talk) 01:05, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, WP:BIDIRECTIONAL is important here. Anytime a navbox is added to an article, it should already be wikilinked in the navbox. It would be out of policy to add navboxes to articles that aren't in the navbox. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:44, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Primefac (talk) 09:37, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noting here, I'll be traveling till the end of June, will run the trial once I'm back. Sohom (talk) 02:57, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sohom Datta any update? — Qwerfjkl talk 17:48, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to have fallen off my radar, will run the trial in a bit Sohom (talk) 14:07, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sohom Datta: Have you had a chance to look at this? Anything we can do to assist? — The Earwig (talk) 05:35, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet I'm afraid :( Will take a look this weekend to see if I have time to implement it. Sohom (talk) 20:05, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A user has requested the attention of the operator. Once the operator has seen this message and replied, please deactivate this tag. (user notified) It has been more than a month since the last post, is this trial still ongoing? Primefac (talk) 13:26, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request Expired. No reply after a fortnight. Primefac (talk) 07:38, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard.

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard. The result of the discussion was

Request Expired.

RoccBot

Operator: Philroc (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 11:03, Thursday, May 4, 2023 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): Python

Source code available: [2]

Function overview: Update various Billboard chart articles to reflect current number-one songs and albums.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): Once per week

Estimated number of pages affected: 38

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): No

Function details: The bot will extract the title and artist of each chart's current number-one song/album from the official Billboard website, combine them into a wiki-friendly format and insert the final product into the "current number-one" statement found in the chart's corresponding article.

Discussion

Approved for trial (21 days). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. In other words, three full updates. Primefac (talk) 08:43, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Philroc: Looks like it's been a while, have you had a chance to start working on this? — The Earwig (talk) 06:53, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@The Earwig: Sorry, real life's been getting in the way. I should have some trial results ready before the new year. Philroc (talk) 07:38, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A user has requested the attention of the operator. Once the operator has seen this message and replied, please deactivate this tag. (user notified) It has been more than a month since the last post, is this trial still ongoing? Primefac (talk) 13:26, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request Expired. No reply after a fortnight. Primefac (talk) 07:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard.

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard. The result of the discussion was

Request Expired.

Credibility bot

Operator: Harej (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 22:38, Sunday, May 7, 2023 (UTC)

Function overview: Generates reports and alert lists for source usage. Initially for the Vaccine safety project but with plans to support future WikiProjects.

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): Python

Source code available: Under development on GitHub

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia talk:Vaccine safety#Ongoing overhaul of Wikipedia:Vaccine safety/Sources (note that this bot only edits in pages specifically relevant to the report and not really being edited by other people)

Edit period(s): Daily

Estimated number of pages affected: about 2 project pages per subscribed WikiProject

Namespace(s): Project

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): not applicable (bot only edits its own pages)

Function details:

Scans perennial sources tables such as Wikipedia:Vaccine safety/Perennial sources and uses of external links in articles, according to a pre-defined set of pages.
Prepares reports of frequent usage of unrecognized domains in articles, as well as usages of "flagged" domains in articles. "Flagged" means the article is known to be of poor or mixed reliability. There will be other reports in the future. Example: Wikipedia:Vaccine safety/Reports
Prepares alerts based on these reports. Alerts are summaries of new changes to the report, like a notification. Example: Wikipedia:Vaccine safety/Alerts

Harej (talk) 22:38, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

{{BAG assistance needed}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harej (talk • contribs) 00:10, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

non-bag comment: the task seems to be non disruptive, and helpful. I don't see any issues with giving it a trial, especially given Harej's credibility. —usernamekiran (talk) 22:51, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (50 edits or 28 days, whichever happens first). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Primefac (talk) 08:39, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Primefac, I am just now seeing this, can I restart the clock on the trial? Harej (talk) 17:48, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It hasn't started yet if you haven't started yet. Primefac (talk) 08:31, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Harej, any updates on this? — The Earwig (talk) 07:11, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A user has requested the attention of the operator. Once the operator has seen this message and replied, please deactivate this tag. (user notified) It has been more than a month since the last post, is this trial still ongoing? Primefac (talk) 13:26, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request Expired. No reply after a fortnight. Primefac (talk) 07:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard.

AussieBot 1

Operator: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 01:57, Wednesday, March 22, 2023 (UTC)

Function overview: Mark unassessed stub articles as stubs

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): C#

Source code available: Not yet

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 84#Stub assessments with ORES

Edit period(s): daily

Estimated number of pages affected: < 100 per day

Namespace(s): Talk

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

Function details: Go through Category:Unassessed articles (only deals with articles already tagged as belonging to a project). If an unassessed article is rated as a stub by ORES, tag the article as a stub. Example

Discussion

Note: This bot appears to have edited since this BRFA was filed. Bots may not edit outside their own or their operator's userspace unless approved or approved for trial. AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:10, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
^. Also, may potentially be a CONTEXTBOT; see Wikipedia:Stub: There is no set size at which an article stops being a stub. EpicPupper (talk) 23:04, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Bot run only affects unassessed articles rated as stubs by mw:ORES. The ORES ratings for stubs are very reliable (some false negatives – which wouldn't be touched under this proposal – but no false positives). Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:03, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Sounds reasonable as ORES is usually good for assessing stub articles as such. – SD0001 (talk) 11:41, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Y Bot run with 50 edits. No problems reported. Diffs: [3]. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:42, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Some behavior I found interesting is that the bot is reverting start-class classifications already assigned by a human editor, and overriding those with stub-class. [4] and [5] EggRoll97 ^(talk) 03:28, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This should not be happening. Frostly (talk) 03:58, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The question is: what should be happening? The article were flagged because some of the projects were not assessed. Should the Bot (1) assess the unassessed ones as stubs and ignore the assessed ones or (2) align the unassessed ones with the ones that are assessed? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:21, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per recent consensus assessments should be for an entire article, not per WikiProject. The bot should amend the template to use the article wide code. If several projects have different assessments for an article it should leave it alone. Frostly (talk) 05:03, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hawkeye7: Courtesy ping, I've manually fixed up the edits where the bot replaced an assessment by a human editor. 6 edits total to be fixed out of 52 total edits. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 07:16, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bot has been amended. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:51, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

{{BAG assistance needed}} This has been waiting for over 2 months since the end of the trial, and over 4 months since the creation of the request. Given the concerns expressed that the bot operator has since fixed, an extended trial may be a good idea here. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 05:19, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I have been very busy. Should I run the new Bot again with a few more edits? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:57, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for extended trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. – SD0001 (talk) 19:10, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:33, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

{{Operator assistance needed}} It has been more than a month since the last post, is this trial still ongoing? Primefac (talk) 13:26, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I wrote the bot using my C# API, and due to a necessary upgrade here, my dotnet environment got ahead of the one on the grid. I could neither build locally and run on the grid nor on build on the grid. (I could have run the trial locally but would not have been able to deploy to production.) There is currently a push to move bots onto Kubernetes containers, but there was no dotnet build pack available. The heroes on Toolforge have now provided one for dotnet, and I will be testing it when I return from vacation next week. If all goes well I will finally be able to deploy the bot and run the trial at last. See phab:T311466 for details. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:54, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A user has requested the attention of the operator. Once the operator has seen this message and replied, please deactivate this tag. (user notified) Primefac (talk) 20:10, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Work was done in January and some changes made on Toolforge. Will resume the trial run when I get a chance. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:33, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DoggoBot 10

Operator: EpicPupper (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 02:55, Thursday, March 2, 2023 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic

Programming language(s):

Source code available:

Function overview: Replace AMP links in citations

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): BOTREQ, Village Pump

Edit period(s): Weekly

Estimated number of pages affected: Unknown, estimated to be in the range of hundreds of thousands

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): Yes

Function details: Using the AmputatorBot API, replaces AMP links with canonical equivalents. This task runs on all pages with citation templates which have URL parameters (e.g. {{cite news}}, {{cite web}}, etc).

Discussion

Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Primefac (talk) 10:27, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that I'm working on this but it may take some time. EpicPupper (talk) 23:01, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Been a bit busy IRL, but will get to this soon. Frostly (talk) 20:33, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

soon — Frostly (talk) 20:33, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

{{Operator assistance needed}} It has been more than a month since the last post, is this trial still ongoing? Primefac (talk) 13:26, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Primefac, my apologies, this flew off my radar. I'll work on setting up the bot on Toolforge this month and should have the results soon. — Frostly (talk) 06:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've made progress on uploading to Toolforge; just fixing a few bugs. — Frostly (talk) 03:36, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's been a few issues with the API that have been difficult to tackle; I think pivoting to self-hosting the API backend on Toolforge is a good solution (working on that this month). — Frostly (talk) 22:41, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bots that have completed the trial period

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard. The result of the discussion was

Approved.

DeadbeefBot 3

Operator: 0xDeadbeef (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 14:38, Sunday, October 22, 2023 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic

Programming language(s): Rust

Source code available: https://github.com/fee1-dead/deadbeefbot/tree/main/src

Function overview: Converts various talk page templates to {{Article history}}

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DeadbeefBot 2, User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch119#Article history

Edit period(s): Continuous

Estimated number of pages affected: >10,000

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): Yes

Function details: This task supersedes the previous one by enlarging the scope of its operations. This bot task can:

Create Article history templates on talk pages with a GA/FailedGA/FA/etc template where information about DYK/ITN/OTD/peer review/etc can be folded in together
Remove standalone DYK/ITN/OTD/peer review templates by adding the information into an existing {{Article history}} template.

I will be gradually implementing additional functionality supporting more information to be folded in as time goes. As always, I will do some supervised edits before letting it process everything when I add new things, so consider this as a pro forma about its enlarging scope. Here are some supervised edits that I have carried out to test some of the new behavior: [6] [7]

Discussion

Just a note - other approvals for same or similar tasks:

– SD0001 (talk) 04:38, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The OG bot that did this and was really good at it but went down and has not been properly replaced yet: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/GimmeBot 2. cc SandyGeorgia. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:37, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see this effort ongoing! Some questions and comments:

How will Deadbeefbot handle those many cases where the GA closer failed to add the oldid ? (It happens often.) Gimmetrow (Gimmebot} used to use an old Dr pda script which was able to look up the oldid based on the timestamp; it's not critical to have them if the closer didn't provide them, but just raising this for the sake of completeness.
Separately, maybe we can get someone to fix the GA template/script so that it won't allow a GA pass without providing an oldid. Not sure who to ask on this; Mike Christie?
The bot does try to add an oldid if the closer forgot. I just had a look through the last few passes and couldn't find a case where the closer didn't add an oldid, but as far as I recall it works correctly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:38, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible roll otd date and time into one line ? See Talk:Guy Fawkes Night for a sample of how long they can get.
I am unclear why DYK is numbered; is more than one allowed and has it ever happened?
Before a certain date, DYKs did not have nom pages (just raising this for completeness).
Would it be better to fully spell out the GA link? That is Talk:Articlename/GA1 rather than just /GA1 so that the link won't be lost when pages move ?
I am confused about the role of APersonbot ... are they still doing anything? MilHistBot is Hawkeye7, so still maintained, but not sure if APersonBot is still doing any articlehistory stuff.

Thanks again !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:34, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

it won't try to add it. I could try adding that functionality but it looks like Mike's bot already does that?
Yes, I've changed this.
Not sure about this, but made it so that the first dyk entry is always un-numbered.
The bot would not specify a nom page when folding it into article history.
Yeah, changed.
that task is inactive per User:EnterpriseyBot#Tasks.

0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 17:57, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (100 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. – SD0001 (talk) 07:42, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Will come back to this probably this weekend. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 11:59, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. - detailed analysis here. Some specific notes about the trial:

Old peer reviews are hard to handle. Whether it was reviewed in the end cannot be determined through the template. I've come up with a heuristic that if the PR page has 6 or more edits, then it is definitely reviewed. Otherwise the bot will just not handle the talk page entirely. Old PR also doesn't always include an oldid of the article and date when the old PR was completed. The bot currently will carry over oldid if specified, but won't error out if not. At start of the trial, the bot automatically determined the date of the closure of old PR based on the timestamp of the last edit at the PR page, but this can be inaccurate since MalnadachBot and others may have made edits after the closure, so I made it to reject handling a page if OldPR doesn't have a date set (in the future i might turn it back on explicitly ignoring MalnadachBot or any other edit made over a year since the PR page was created)
If I understand it correctly, demoted FAs don't regain GA status even if it passed GA before. The bot made an error with this, but I noticed and fixed the bug.
I'm not entirely sure if we should fold in any article that doesn't have FailedGA/GA/Article history already, but has multiple of OTD/DYK/ITN. An example can be found here.
Currently handling always puts Article history right before the WP banner shell. This works on most cases but some articles don't have the WP banner. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 17:26, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: ping, would be nice to hear your thoughts on some of the above :) 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 17:27, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not Sandy, but this looks really good. Yeah, old PRs are hard to handle, but tbh I don't think anyone really cares if it says reviewed/not reviewed. Rolling in OTD/DYK/ITN isn't necessary, but honestly there's nothing wrong with it. On your last point, I believe someone (probably User:Qwerfjkl (bot)?) is on a very long project to convert everything to WP banner shells, so that problem will probably be gone in the medium future. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure an article that once was promoted to GA, later becomes an FA, and then is demoted at FAR, reverts back to the GA status because that was never revoked, just superseded. Hog Farm _Talk 13:29, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: Hmm. Despite Warsaw Uprising (1794) being listed as GA, then promoted as FA, then delisted via FAR, there's nothing that suggests the article went back to a GA. No GA icon in the article, no GA status on the talk.. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 14:06, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is correct. An article which is promoted to FA loses its GA status permanently; it subsequently has to go through the GA status again. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:29, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why I thought otherwise was the case. Hog Farm _Talk 22:00, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{bag assistance needed}} trial has demonstrated bot can work. I will just be conservative in counting what articles can be successfully maintained by the bot. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 16:02, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Approved. Primefac (talk) 19:43, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard.

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard. The result of the discussion was

Approved.

Qwerfjkl (bot) 26

Operator: Qwerfjkl (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 18:03, Sunday, November 19, 2023 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic

Programming language(s): Python

Source code available: Pywikibot

Function overview: Implement WP:PIQA

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 85#Implement project-independent quality assessments, WP:PIQA

Edit period(s): one time run (with future runs if necessary)

Estimated number of pages affected: hard to estimate, very high number - most talk pages I would assume

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No

Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): Yes

Function details: From the bot request:

If there is a banner shell already on the page, then add |class= parameter and remove from project banners, e.g. [8]

If there is no banner shell, then add it and move class rating from project banners, e.g. [9]

If there are no assessments on page, then add empty |class= parameter to encourage editors to add a rating, e.g. [10]

If assessments of projects differ, then add the majority rating to the banner shell and leave any different assessments on those banners, e.g. [11]. These will be manually reviewed by human editors.

If assessments of projects differ, but there is no majority rating, then add banner shell with empty |class= parameter. These will be tracked and reviewed manually.

If the page has {{WikiProject biography}} with |living=yes or |blp=yes then add |blp=yes to {{WikiProject banner shell}}.

If any project banner has |listas= then move this to {{WikiProject banner shell}} and remove from project banners, e.g. [12]

For any of the projects which have opted out, the class parameter should not be changed or removed.

The bot will also replace redirects to wikiprojects with the actual template.

The bot will obey MOS:TALKORDER insofar as it is reasonable to do so (GIGO), including moving a pre-existing {{WikiProject banner shell}} (this can be changed if desirable).

Discussion

The bot does not handle duplicate wikiprojects. It will treat them as distinct. — Qwerfjkl talk 18:08, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Qwerfjkl: Hi. Is the source code publicly available (in your userspace or github)? With such a high number of pages effected, I think it should be. —usernamekiran (talk) 00:14, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Usernamekiran, it is publically avaliable on PAWS, here. I apologise if the code is messy. — Qwerfjkl talk 16:21, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a few live tests of this to ensure the code works, and I've fixed a few more bugs. These edits can be found here. — Qwerfjkl talk 19:17, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: for consensus supporting these changes please see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 198#Project-independent quality assessments and the various follow-up discussions on Template talk:WikiProject banner shell and its archives — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:03, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Qwerfjkl: Which namespaces would you include? Talk, category talk, draft talk, and file talk? GoingBatty (talk) 16:30, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Qwerfjkl: How does your code identify which templates are WikiProjects? Would it be beneficial to utilize User:Magioladitis/WikiProjects to convert redirects to {{WikiProject ...}} templates? GoingBatty (talk) 16:30, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- GoingBatty, I was planning on running it on all talk pages that could have WikiProjects i e the Talk, Category talk, Draft talk, File talk, Wikipedia talk, Help talk etc. namespaces).
  The code identifies which templates are redirects using the contents of Category:WikiProject banners without quality assessment, Category:WikiProject banners with quality assessment, Category:Inactive WikiProject banners.
  I haven't used User:Magioladitis/WikiProjects directly, instead I have just bypassed the redirects without regex (but it will still have the same effect).
  I have linked the code above which you can review. — Qwerfjkl talk 17:19, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  The template redirects are not listed in those categories. I think GoingBatty was asking how you can identify these redirects. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:32, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  MSGJ, by checking WhatLinksHere and filtering it out by redirects in namespace 10 (Template). — Qwerfjkl talk 14:21, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Okay thanks, that sounds reasonable — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:41, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that the module has been edited and now treats opt-out projects differently. It is no longer necessary to treat these banners differently, so I have struck point 8 above — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:37, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- MSGJ, I will update my code accordingly. — Qwerfjkl talk 15:12, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- MSGJ, okay, looking at this now, I assume this only holds if the opted-out WikiProject has a class that follows the standard quality assessments? That is to say, if the opted out WikiProject has a non-standard rating it still should be changed, is that right? — Qwerfjkl talk 10:51, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  If it has the same rating as the PIQA rating then it can be removed. If it has a different rating, then it should be retained. (This is the same as all other projects, except that it won't be tracked as a conflicting rating.) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:34, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  MSGJ, okay, I've updated the code. By the way, is there a list of all the standard quality assessments somehwere? I just realised I should make sure the unified class is on the standard scale. — Qwerfjkl talk 11:39, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  @Qwerfjkl: See Wikipedia:Content assessment. GoingBatty (talk) 14:56, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  GoingBatty, are there any class aliases I need to look out for? Currently the values I check for are 'fa', 'ga', 'a', 'b', 'c', 'start', 'stub', 'list', and 'fl'. — Qwerfjkl talk 16:01, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  @Qwerfjkl: I suggest upper case versions as well (e.g. "C", "Start"). GoingBatty (talk) 16:39, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  GoingBatty, I've already made sure it's case insensitive (and whitespace insensitive). — Qwerfjkl talk 16:41, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (100 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. In the interest of getting more eyes on this, please do not mark these as minor edits, and be sure to include a link to this page in the edit summary. Primefac (talk) 12:50, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Primefac, I am truly sorry, but I seem to have cocked this up. I did not realise that pywikibot saves edits as minor, and somehow the edit-limiting part of the code seems to have failed. You can see the edits here. There are 321 of them, including 100 before I realised I had set the bot to edit exactly one page (and for some reason the bot stopped at exactly 100 there). Again, I apologise for this mess. Martin, you may wish to look over the edits and see if there are any undesirable changes. I have checked a few of them.
Here are some mistakes I noticed:
- Talk:Mullah Omar - did not obey MOS:TALKORDER, happened again on Talk:Freddie Garrity
- Talk:HMS Chesterfield (1745) - did not bypass the redirect to {{WPMILHIST}}
- similar to above on Talk:Tisis bicolorella, this happened on quite a few pages
- Talk:Zaghloul - stripped the disambig class from a disambiguation page. This happens because it doesn't have a standard content assessment - not sure if this is desirable?
- Talk:Aaron Welles - it left the invisible comments behind when moving the WikiProjects. Not much I can do about this.
- Talk:Trapped (2007 TV series) - cosmetic edit
- Talk:Introduction to general relativity - moved {{Vital article}} into the WPBS. Is this desirable? On the bright side it applied MOS:TALKORDER correctly.
This was just from a sample of the edits.
I will fix these bugs soon. — Qwerfjkl talk 20:27, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not too bad at all.
- The main issue I see is the insertion of multiple new lines after the banner shell. This happened on many edits.
- Yes I saw one or two TALKORDER violations.
- The Disambig issue is something we are still discussing so it might be safer to keep them in for now.
- A couple of times, the edit was cosmetic because the bot removed the "1="
- User:Kanashimi is going to merge all the vital article templates, so doesn't really matter what happens to them now.
— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:11, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
MSGJ, regarding the multiple new lines issue, can you give a diff to clarify what you mean? For the Disambig issue, would you also suggest keeping other page type classes e.g. File class, Draft class, Category class? Currently I'm only running it on the main talkspace, but I assume it will also need to be run on other talkspaces.
I'll make sure the bot doesn't make any more cosmetic edits. — Qwerfjkl talk 21:31, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[13] No, Disambig is the only one causing an issue to detect — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:43, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the cosmetic issue, there isn't really an easy way to make sure the bot isn't making a cosmetic edit because it's doing so many different things. I'm not sure the added complexity would be worth it. — Qwerfjkl talk 12:42, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MSGJ, regarding the insertion of multiple new lines after the banner shell, I believe I know what you're referring to, but could you provide diff where this happened? — Qwerfjkl talk 12:20, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I already gave you the diff in the line above — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:26, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
MSGJ, sorry, my mistake. Anyway that's fixed now, and I believe I have now sorted out all of the bugs from the trial (most of them were more straightforward than I expected). — Qwerfjkl talk 14:35, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Great, perhaps a further trial would be approved — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:41, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac? — Qwerfjkl talk 12:03, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Approved for extended trial (100 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete.
Apologies, didn't realise this was out of trial and going needing to go back in. Primefac (talk) 14:16, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was mentioned to me that Cewbot 12 is basically running the same task, but with extra features. Do you see any reason that both tasks should be running concurrently? I've struck the extended trial for now until that gets answered. Primefac (talk) 18:29, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

┌───────────────────────────┘
Primefac, I believe the plan was for Cewbot to run on vital article talk pages and my bot would handle the rest. My code has already been tested in previous bot tasks (#19). I'm also unsure that Cewbot has exactly the same functionality has mine (but I'm on my tablet right now and the code is 2000 lines long, so I might have missed something). Specifically I don't think Cewbot obeys MOS:TALKORDER (though as I said, I'm not entirely sure about this).
That said, if you feel it is unnecessary to have both bots run I will defer to your judgement. — Qwerfjkl talk 21:44, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can run together, after all, these templates a lot. cewbot follows MOS:TALKORDER, just for reference. Kanashimi (talk) 23:15, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I've re-enabled the extended trial. Primefac (talk) 06:42, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Primefac,

Trial complete. See the latest edits here.
There were a few minor bugs (such as here where it added leading whitespace). The only non-cosmetic one that I could see was on Talk:Judicial Commission of Pakistan, where it didn't add the class because it treated a newline as a valid class. The only other bug was it not adding a blank |class= where the talk page already had a WikiProject banner shell but didn't have |class=.
I have fixed all of the bugs I found (described above). I also remembered not to make the edits minor this time. — Qwerfjkl talk 14:39, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a bot operator but I noticed a non-cosmetic bug on Talk:Apple A14. I think reading the bot logic it should have added an empty class parameter for human assessment right? It just removed the 1=. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:35, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PARAKANYAA, yes, I noticed that one. I've fixed the bug. — Qwerfjkl talk 18:41, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. Some minor issues:

Please use |class=GA instead of |class=Ga
On non-articles, there is no benefit in leaving the empty |class=
This removed an {{image requested}} template
[14] Can line breaks in the listas and the next | be removed?

— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:07, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MSGJ, can you clarify what you mean by the second one? All the talk pages are of articles. — Qwerfjkl talk 21:59, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No? Redirects and disambiguation pages are not articles. Example — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:14, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MSGJ, ah right, I see what you mean.
Regarding the {{image requested}} being removed, should it be kept in the WPBS or moved outside (and similarly for other non-WikiProject templates in the WPBS)? — Qwerfjkl talk 07:07, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Any non-project banners (i.e. not produced with Module:WikiProject banner) should be moved outside the banner shell ideally — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:28, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible for the bot to consolidate the banners into one line? At [15] whoever added the banners added them in a non-conventional way, so now we are left with stuff like

{{WikiProject Rowing
|importance=Low
}}

Not an issue if it can't, just a "could be nice" to fix while the bot is working. Gonnym (talk) 09:27, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gonnym, this is kind of a GIGO situation that probably isn't worth fixing (I don't think it would be trivial to do so). — Qwerfjkl talk 15:09, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I had a feeling. Anyways, good job on the rest! Gonnym (talk) 15:12, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that would be nice. However there are banners which use a lot of parameters (e.g. MilHist) that display on multiple lines (example below). I don't think it would be received well if these parameters were bunched up

{{WPMILHIST|class=Start
<!-- B-Class 5-criteria checklist -->
| B1 <!-- Referencing and citations --> = n
| B2 <!-- Coverage and accuracy --> = n
| B3 <!-- Structure --> = n
| B4 <!-- Grammar and style --> = y
| B5 <!-- Supporting materials --> = y
|Historiography-task-force=yes}}

— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:44, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kanashimi, sorry, didn't see that. My mistake. — Qwerfjkl talk 14:33, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's all right. I think we should be able to work together. Kanashimi (talk) 21:12, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The current version of the code is at https://public-paws.wmcloud.org/User:Qwerfjkl%20(bot)/PIQA.ipynb. — Qwerfjkl talk 12:47, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
MSGJ, I have now fixed all of those bugs. I have also updated the code to remove |class= from WikiProjects where it is empty, is this desirable? — Qwerfjkl talk 15:08, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Break

Will your bot make edits like this? Although it is cosmetic, I think it would be beneficial because it discourages editors from using the class parameter in individual banners — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:41, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MSGJ, yes. It will override whatever class value the old WPBS had, if it can find one on the majority of WikiProjects that is different to the WPBS' one. — Qwerfjkl talk 15:12, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your answer. In the example I gave, the WPBS already had class=start. I am asking if the redundant ones will be removed or if the bot will pass over this page? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:14, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do hope the bot will not be overriding the WPBS parameter in any event. That is for humans to review, if there is a conflict. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:15, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
MSGJ, to clarify:
Yes, the bot would remove the class parameters from the wikiprojects in that event.
The bot will override a pre-existing WPBS class if the one it finds is different from the one in the WPBS. (I assumed the one from the wikiprojects is more likely to be corrrect.) If this is undesirable I can change that.
— Qwerfjkl talk 17:19, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that should not happen. If there is a |class= in WPBS then that has already been set by a human editor. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:23, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
MSGJ, Okay, I've changed that. — Qwerfjkl talk 18:27, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Qwerfjkl: the |living= or |blp= parameter can now be migrated to the banner shell, or just removed if it is already there (example) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:27, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MSGJ, the bot already adds it to WPBS. Do you mean it should also be removed from WPBIO? — Qwerfjkl talk 18:35, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, I assume this now applies no matter what value it has? Currently it only looks for "y" or "yes". — Qwerfjkl talk 21:20, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Yes |blp=no would be useful on biographies I think. It doesn't actually do anything but we can use it to track missing uses — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:48, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  MSGJ, so what it would do is this:
  Remove |blp= or |living= from WPBIO.
  If WPBS has |blp=, stop there.
  Otherwise, if |blp=yes add that to the WPBS.
  If |blp=no and the article is a biography (which it will be because WPBIO is present) add that to the WPBS.
  If |blp= is anything else it will totally removed.
  It will always be removed from WPBIO.
  One other thing, what's the preferred class for disambiguation pages? I'm unsure which alias to use. — Qwerfjkl talk 22:26, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  @MSGJ & @Qwerfjkl: Please don't remove |blp= or |living= from WPBIO, as you will be adding articles to Category:Biography articles without living parameter. Also, |living= is an alias of |blp= in WPBS. GoingBatty (talk) 23:31, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  That shouldn't happen after my recent change GoingBatty — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:52, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  MSGJ, please can you confirm I've got it right above, and answer my question? — Qwerfjkl talk 22:24, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  
  That all looks good to me Qwerjkfl. I think we can use |blp= instead of |living=. Disambiguation pages will be automatically detected, so should not need a class in that case. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:11, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  MSGJ, ah, so we can now remove the class for dabs? Great.
  As |living= is an alias of |blp=, I assume I should treat it the same i.e. if WPBS has |living= I wouldn't add |blp= or change anything in the WPBS. — Qwerfjkl talk 10:45, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  I'm also slightly concerned in cases like:
  WPBIO has a different value from WPBS, so WPBIO's value will be removed, ignoring the conflicting values
  WPBIO has an unexpected value (not "y", "yes", "n" or "no"), which would be removed
  Just want to make sure I've got this right now so it doesn't cause issues later down the line. — Qwerfjkl talk 10:49, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  @MSGJ? — Qwerfjkl talk 08:33, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Not exactly sure what is best. I can set up a tracking category for these if you think it's needed? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:58, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  The method I use is to move it as is without conflict to avoid incorrect speculation. The tracking category can be added to WPBS. Kanashimi (talk) 23:41, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Yes, that works too. But can I suggest using |blp= rather than |living= (even though the latter is an alias of the former)? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:45, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

┌──────────────────────────────┘
MSGJ, I've done that. It will not switch |living= over to |blp=, but it will prefer to use |blp= when adding it to the WPBS. — Qwerfjkl talk 17:47, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's great — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:49, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

E.g. search for Talk:Joshua Cooper (1732–1800) on https://public-paws.wmcloud.org/User:Qwerfjkl%20(bot)/PIQA.ipynb. — Qwerfjkl talk 17:55, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

{{BAG assistance needed}} I have just approved Cewbot 12, as it seems to have passed its trials with more aplomb than this task. I am looking for a second BAG opinion as I do not see a great need to approve both bots to do the same task, other than maybe the fact that the scope is essentially "every talk page with a banner shell". Primefac (talk) 13:36, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Primefac, I have now extensively tested this by doing dry runs (i.e. without editing). I am fairly confident there should be no more (significant) bugs. There may be some minor cosmetic ones / GIGO ones, but nothing that would really change anything. At https://public-paws.wmcloud.org/User:Qwerfjkl%20(bot)/PIQA.ipynb you can see a log of the most recent of these test (they are wiped every time I rerun the code). — Qwerfjkl talk 17:42, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it would be a good idea to have a second bot approved for this task, mainly because of the huge number of pages to be touched, sharing responsibility and avoiding reliance on one operator. I support the ramped deployment that Cewbot is using. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:43, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Primefac, given the recent change to {{BAG assistance needed}}, you might want to try it again. — Qwerfjkl talk 10:04, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had already cross-posted to BOTN so there wasn't much point. Primefac (talk) 14:23, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A error has come to light and I have reinstated point 8 of the function details. Sorry for any confusion but what I wrote earlier was not quite accurate. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:52, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MSGJ, I have restored the code for that. — Qwerfjkl talk 16:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Approved. I would ask that you start slowly (maybe batches of <1000 per day) at the outset just to make sure any lingering issues that weren't seen in the trials can be dealt with. Primefac (talk) 14:23, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard.

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard. The result of the discussion was

Approved.

BattyBot 79

Operator: GoingBatty (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 23:28, Friday, November 24, 2023 (UTC)

Function overview: Fix/remove unknown WikiProject parameters

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): AutoWikiBrowser

Source code available: AWB

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Subcategories of Category:WikiProject templates with unknown parameters

Edit period(s): Monthly

Estimated number of pages affected: 100,000

Namespace(s): Talk, Category talk, Draft talk, File talk, etc.

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

Function details: Fix WikiProject template parameters (e.g. impotance → importance, importancelow → importance=low) and remove unsupported WikiProject template parameters to remove pages from subcategories of Category:WikiProject templates with unknown parameters. Before removing any parameters, I will manually check the WikiProject template documentation and source code to confirm the parameter is not supported, and manually report any technical issues I discover (e.g., this conversation). This bot will not be able to fix every issue, but removing the low-hanging fruit should make it easier for editors to find those pages that need to be fixed manually. This bot task would also utilize User:Magioladitis/WikiProjects and AWB's general fixes. GoingBatty (talk) 23:28, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Just to confirm, you aren't simply removing invalid parameters, you're attempting to fix the most common/obvious errors so that manual cleanup is easier. Yes? Primefac (talk) 12:47, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac: Yes, and I plan to help with the manual cleanup. GoingBatty (talk) 15:41, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Primefac (talk) 14:07, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac:

Trial complete. See these 50 edits. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 03:50, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

{{BAG assistance needed}} GoingBatty (talk) 05:21, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Approved. Primefac (talk) 08:38, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard.

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard. The result of the discussion was

Approved.

ButlerBlogBot 3

Operator: Butlerblog (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 15:02, Thursday, November 9, 2023 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic

Programming language(s): AutoWikiBrowser

Source code available:

Function overview: Clears entries in the television project maintenance category Episode lists with unformatted story or teleplay credits

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): daily/weekly

Estimated number of pages affected: 10-15/week on average

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): No

Function details: The television maintenance category lists episode list articles in which articles use raw wikicode for italicizing Story and Teleplay credits. Using a series of regex patterns that have been already tested using manual AWB, the bot task converts the raw wikicode to use {{StoryTeleplay}}.

Discussion

Approved for trial (25 edits or 14 days). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. It looks like we won't have a ton of edits, so this is a small trial, but ideally we can test as much as possible. — The Earwig (talk) 06:20, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. We didn't get a ton of edits during the 14 day window. We could go longer if necessary. Here are the current edits: [16] I'll keep watching the maintenance category and run it accordingly. ButlerBlog (talk) 14:43, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Diff/1191901347 and Special:Diff/1191901323 do not make the proposed edits - can pages like this be skipped in the future? Primefac (talk) 08:41, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - I believe I had left the AWB genfixes turned on, otherwise, it would (should) skip. So I'll make sure skip if only genfixes is enabled. (I'll also review as to why it missed the edits it should have picked up) ButlerBlog (talk) 20:47, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Approved. Primefac (talk) 13:33, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard.

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard. The result of the discussion was

Approved.

Cewbot 12

Operator: Kanashimi (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 14:07, Sunday, December 3, 2023 (UTC)

Function overview: Implement WP:PIQA + Merge {{VA}} into {{WPBS}}.

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): wikiapi on GitHub

Source code available: 20200122.update vital articles.js on GitHub

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles#Break 2, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 May 17#Template:Vital article

Edit period(s): weekly

Estimated number of pages affected: Talk pages including WikiProject templates. (['Category:WikiProject banners without quality assessment', 'Category:WikiProject banners with quality assessment', 'Category:Inactive WikiProject banners'] - ['Category:WikiProjects using a non-standard quality scale'])

Namespace(s): Talk

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

Function details: This task is basically Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Qwerfjkl (bot) 26 plus the transfer of the {{Vital article}} and the handling of |activepol=, |blpo=, |listas= in {{WikiProject Biography}}. In the future it might be possible to discuss automatically removing |blp= after a person has passed away.

Discussion

There are some tests:

The goal of this task is to be the main operator for the additions described above, and to work with Qwerfjkl (bot) for the rest. Also, User:MSGJ, I'm a bit curious, since we've transferred all the important functionality of {{WikiProject Biography}} to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template, can we just remove {{WikiProject Biography}}, just like we do with {{Vital article}}? --Kanashimi (talk) 14:07, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WPBiography does quite a lot more than that. And I think this task is already complex enough, shall we focus on the matter at hand? May be a project for the future though. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:43, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note my support for this task, and confirm it fits within all recent discussions we have had on how to merge the {{vital article}} template. My thanks to Kanashimi for taking this on. One small note on 3 above: there was a clash in ratings - would it be better for a human editor to review cases like this, rather than overwrite one of the ratings? You could transfer the rating from {vital article} and leave the rating on the other template. That will automatically place the page in Category:Articles with conflicting quality ratings which is monitored. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:53, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea. I've fixed the code. [21] [22] Kanashimi (talk) 23:32, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All new test cases look good to me. #7 is not a vital article? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:12, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. #7 is from {{WikiProject Biography}}. I would like to be able to traverse all the WikiProject pages eventually, it would be nice to add Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BattyBot 79, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Qwerfjkl (bot) 24 and the like. Kanashimi (talk) 21:53, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some issues with recent edits:

[23] - did not add |vital=yes. Also it did not transfer the |listas= to the shell.
[24] - did not remove |class=start from other banners
[25] - can you remove |class=B from the banners which agree with the PIQA rating? (Keep the C-class for human review.)
[26] - did not add |vital=yes, did not transfer the |listas= value, did not remove class from conforming banners

Also, I know you are an experienced bot operator, but I believe you are supposed to wait for BAG to approve a trial before doing the trial? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:49, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. #1,2,4 are algorithmic problems and are fixed. As for #3, I have included it in practice. For the PIQA part, I'll wait for test approval. Kanashimi (talk) 13:47, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

{{bag assistance needed}} Please review and approve a trial, thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:26, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Primefac (talk) 12:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac @MSGJ

Trial complete. Please look at here. (Please search for "PIQA" and "Maintain vital articles") It seems that my design goal has been achieved. Please let me know if there is anything I can do to improve it, thank you. Kanashimi (talk) 14:15, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked every edit on the first page, and could not see any errors. Just one suggestion: shall we bypass any redirects to {{WikiProject banner shell}} at the same time? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:04, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, could you be a little more specific? Kanashimi (talk) 22:17, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

E.g. replace WikiProjectBannerShell with WikiProject banner shell — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:20, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a good idea. I'll fix it. [27] Kanashimi (talk) 22:32, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you could remove any duplicate listas value (example), but not that important — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:24, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed [28] Kanashimi (talk) 22:04, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can actually remove other attributes that overlap with WPBS. Is there a need for this? Kanashimi (talk) 22:31, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also I can do this: [29] --Kanashimi (talk) 05:46, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that kind of task is already approved for Qwerfjkl (bot) at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Qwerfjkl (bot) 19 — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:07, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. As far as I'm concerned, it looks like the task is ready to go? Kanashimi (talk) 22:07, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, all looks good to me. @Primefac what do you think? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:33, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just checking something with Qwerfjkl (bot) 24. Primefac (talk) 14:18, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will also clean Category:Pages using WikiProject banner shell with duplicate banner templates [30] --Kanashimi (talk) 03:48, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kanashimi: the |living= or |blp= parameter can now be migrated to the banner shell, or just removed if it is already there (example) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:19, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, at that time I was adjusting the code for duplicate templates. It's working now. [31] All these parameters will be moved from WPBIO to WPBS: 'living', 'blp', 'BLP', 'activepol', 'blpo', 'listas' (adjustable). Kanashimi (talk) 23:42, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac@MSGJ I was thinking that since there seems to be no problem now, maybe we could go ahead and approve the application? Kanashimi (talk) 06:04, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it would be great to get these tasks approved. @Primefac, what do you think? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:50, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(layperson comment) @Kanashimi, what will Cewbot do in the event that two identical WikiProject banners have conflicting parameters? Will it leave them in Category:Pages using WikiProject banner shell with duplicate banner templates for processing by a human (off the top of my head, this seems like it may be best)? This question came to my mind due to noticing that some articles had two {{GOCE}} templates that - when merging them - required parameters to be modified, however there may well be other examples I’m not aware of - hence the question. Best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 13:27, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the templates have conflicting parameter values, I'll leave it to manual processing. Kanashimi (talk) 13:29, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for confirming

‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 13:41, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Approved. Kanashimi, I would ask that you start slowly (maybe batches of <1000 per day) at the outset just to make sure any lingering issues that weren't seen in the trials can be dealt with. Primefac (talk) 13:34, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard.

PrimeBOT 39

Operator: Primefac (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 12:48, Thursday, May 11, 2023 (UTC)

Function overview: Convert template use following update

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): AWB

Source code available: WP:AWB

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Templates § Request for a template

Edit period(s): OTR

Estimated number of pages affected:

Namespace(s): 783

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

Function details: {{Wikisource author}} recently was updated to allow for a |lang= parameter to link directly to non-English versions of wikisource for an author. A similar template, {{Wikisourcelang}}, links to a generic search on said language wiki for said author. This task will change {{Wikisourcelang|<lang>|otherstuff}} into a {{Wikisource author|lang=<lang>|otherstuff}} call.

Discussion

{{BAG assistance needed}} valid request not attended by any BAG members for almost two months. —usernamekiran (talk) 23:02, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Approved for trial (25 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete.

This seems pretty straightforward. Let's go to trial.

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:38, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. Edits. As a note, I did not run genfixes just to make the proposed change more obvious, but if this task does proceed I will be running genfixes alongside them.

Piotrus, I think this request is a little more convoluted than initially requested. Languages such as de do not use an "author" prefix (see e.g. Adolph Friedrich Johann Riedel and his corresponding page on de Wikisource), but I can't figure out which languages it holds to. I am not necessarily seeing a specific pattern between what languages do and do not. My thoughts are of two possibilities - run this task only for languages where the proposed change has the intended effect, or just scrap this BRFA and do these changes manually. Primefac (talk) 12:52, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac I think we can run it for some languages that we can determine now, it shouldn't be that hard as long as it is consistent for each language (ex. German never uses, Polish always uses it, etc.). We could create a list for all languages that wikisource exists on, or just run it for now for some editions that are the biggest (ex. the ones with interwikis here). I did some checks and it seems it's pretty consisten - just a wikisource naming convention. Note that depending on the language, the "author" prefix is different - Polish is "autor". Swedish is "Författare", etc. In the end, what we need to fix is not the outgoing links but the text on our side. Consider this case, similar to the German one you quote, where we improved the language or our template but messed the link: before, diff, after. Since the links work, can we just figure out the way to change the wording in the template but retain the same link as before? The older template was able to do it, somehow, seems we are introducing a new error somehow? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:48, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you wouldn't mind making a list of which languages use the Author (in whatever language) prefix, I can hard-code their use into the template so that there isn't any issue.

This wasn't a problem before because {{wikisource author}} only linked to to the English version so no translation or odd coding was necessary. As mentioned in the original discussion, {{wikisource lang}} just links to a general search (which does sometimes turn up the author page directly) and thus does not require the "Author:" prefix. Primefac (talk) 08:06, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On hold. Just for now, while we deal with actual template issues. Primefac (talk) 08:31, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac See talk, is this helpful? Those are most larger Wiki source projects, should be enough to get most of our stuff sorted out. We can take a look at what, if anything, is left after dealing with those languages? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:06, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should do, thanks for that. Going to keep this on hold for a bit longer, there's a TFD for merging all of these together and I might be able to enact these proposed changes during the merge process. Primefac (talk) 08:13, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac Just checking the status of this? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:54, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat stalled, been rather busy myself and it doesn't look like anyone has started work on the template merger. I think I might have cleared my on-wiki plate somewhat (touch wood) so I'll see about prioritising the merger. Primefac (talk) 10:51, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Approved requests

Bots that have been approved for operations after a successful BRFA will be listed here for informational purposes. No other approval action is required for these bots. Recently approved requests can be found here (edit), while old requests can be found in the archives.

Qwerfjkl (bot) (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 29) Approved 11:35, 3 May 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
ButlerBlogBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 4) Approved 11:35, 3 May 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
PrimeBOT (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 42) Approved 11:39, 1 April 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
PrimeBOT (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 43b) Approved 20:42, 31 March 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
PrimeBOT (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 44) Approved 20:26, 31 March 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
BattyBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 82) Approved 12:48, 30 March 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
Qwerfjkl (bot) (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 28) Approved 07:32, 29 March 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
Qwerfjkl (bot) (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 25) Approved 12:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
AnomieBOT (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 81) Approved 21:04, 10 March 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
FrostlySnowman (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 11) Approved 09:40, 17 February 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
AnomieBOT (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 82) Approved 19:58, 4 February 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
PrimeBOT (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 43) Approved 13:45, 4 February 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
SDZeroBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 12) Approved 16:43, 1 February 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
The Sky Bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Approved 13:02, 25 January 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
DeadbeefBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 3) Approved 19:46, 23 January 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
Qwerfjkl (bot) (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 26) Approved 14:24, 6 January 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
BsoykaBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 2) Approved 13:35, 1 January 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
ButlerBlogBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 3) Approved 13:35, 1 January 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
Cewbot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 12) Approved 13:38, 31 December 2023 (UTC) (bot has flag)
BattyBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 79) Approved 08:41, 31 December 2023 (UTC) (bot has flag)
KiranBOT (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 8) Approved 16:54, 28 December 2023 (UTC) (bot has flag)
BattyBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 80) Approved 14:13, 17 December 2023 (UTC) (bot has flag)
ButlerBlogBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 2) Approved 14:13, 17 December 2023 (UTC) (bot has flag)
Qwerfjkl (bot) (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 27) Approved 19:35, 14 December 2023 (UTC) (bot has flag)
BaranBOT (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Approved 13:06, 14 December 2023 (UTC) (bot has flag)
BattyBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 77) Approved 08:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC) (bot has flag)
Aidan9382-Bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 3) Approved 16:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC) (bot has flag)
StradBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Approved 18:25, 22 October 2023 (UTC) (bot has flag)
PonoRoboT (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Approved 09:58, 20 September 2023 (UTC) (bot has flag)
Qwerfjkl (bot) (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 23) Approved 09:53, 20 September 2023 (UTC) (bot has flag)

Denied requests

Bots that have been denied for operations will be listed here for informational purposes for at least 7 days before being archived. No other action is required for these bots. Older requests can be found in the Archive.

UrbanBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 2) Bot denied 14:23, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Aesthetic Bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 19:53, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Dušan Kreheľ (bot) (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: V) Bot denied 11:24, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

UrbanBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 12:43, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

pumi (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 11:46, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

DYKToolsAdminBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 11:39, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

KiranBOT (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 5) Bot denied 07:53, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

PuggleBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 12:03, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Dušan Kreheľ (bot) (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: IV) Bot denied 13:04, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

CapsuleBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 08:21, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

BsoykaBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 17:50, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Dušan Kreheľ (bot) (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: III) Bot denied 17:24, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Dneo bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 17:32, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

DoggoBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 6) Bot denied 08:30, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

BHGbot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 9) Bot denied 08:16, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Expired/withdrawn requests

These requests have either expired, as information required by the operator was not provided, or been withdrawn. These tasks are not authorized to run, but such lack of authorization does not necessarily follow from a finding as to merit. A bot that, having been approved for testing, was not tested by an editor, or one for which the results of testing were not posted, for example, would appear here. Bot requests should not be placed here if there is an active discussion ongoing above. Operators whose requests have expired may reactivate their requests at any time. The following list shows recent requests (if any) that have expired, listed here for informational purposes for at least 7 days before being archived. Older requests can be found in the respective archives: Expired, Withdrawn.

Qwerfjkl (bot) (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 24) Expired 18:31, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

FABLEBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Withdrawn by operator 16:10, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

William Avery Bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 5) Expired 10:08, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

CircularRedirectsBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Expired 08:51, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

TNTBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 5) Withdrawn by operator 10:15, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Qwerfjkl (bot) (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 18) Withdrawn by operator 03:26, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Qwerfjkl (bot) (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 14) Withdrawn by operator 12:22, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

PuggleBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 2) Withdrawn by operator 00:51, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

NovemBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 5) Withdrawn by operator 19:29, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

CenPop (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Expired 16:00, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

BareRefBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Expired 12:19, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

AssumptionBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Withdrawn by operator 22:28, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

DoggoBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 9) Expired 10:51, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Fluxbot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 8) Withdrawn by operator 14:02, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

ConservationStatusAndRangeMapBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Withdrawn by operator 16:06, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 =Current requests for approval=
 <!-- Add NEW entries at the TOP of this section, on a new line directly below this message. -->
+{{BRFA|PearBOT|14|Open}}
 {{BRFA|LemonadeBot |2|Open}}
 {{BRFA|VulpesBot|2|Open}}

v t e Wikipedia technical help
Get personal technical help at the Teahouse, help desk, village pump (technical), talk pages or IRC.
General technical help	Browser notes Bypass cache Keyboard shortcuts Editing CharInsert Edit conflict Edit toolbar Reverting How to create a page IRC Tutorial Mobile access Multilingual support Page history Page information Page name Help Printing Software notices Editnotice Special Characters Entering User access levels VisualEditor Help
Special page-related	Special page help AllPages Edit filter Emailing users Logging in Reset passwords Logs Moving a page History merging Non-admin and admin-only page moves Notifications/Echo FAQ Page Curation Page import Pending changes Random pages Recent changes Related changes Searching Linksearch Tags User contributions Watchlist What links here
Wikitext	Wikitext Cheatsheet Columns Line-break handling Lists Magic words For beginners Conditional expressions Switch parser function Time function Redirects Sections and TOCs Tables Introduction Basics Advanced table formatting Collapsing Conditional tables Sortable tables Using colours
Links and diffs	Links Interlanguage Interwiki Permanent Diffs Simplest diff guide Simple diff and link guide Complete diff and link guide Colon trick Link color Pipe trick URLs
Media files: images, videos and sounds	Media help Files Creation and usage Moving files to Commons Images Introduction to images Picture tutorial Preparing images for upload Uploading images Options to hide an image Extended image syntax SVG help Gallery tag Graphics tutorials Basic bitmap image editing How to improve image quality Graphics Lab resources Sound file markup Visual file markup
Other graphics	Family trees Graphs and charts How to create Barcharts To scale charts Math formulas Math symbols Musical scores Musical symbols Timeline EasyTimeline syntax WikiHiero syntax
Templates and Lua modules	Templates Advanced template coding Template documentation Template index Template limits Template sandbox and test cases Citation templates Lua help Lua project Resources To do Substitution Purge Job queue Transclusion Labeled section Costs and benefits Guide to Scribbling
Data structure	Namespaces Main/Article Category Draft File File description page Help Portal Project/Wikipedia Talk Archiving Simple Template User User page design MediaWiki Bug reports and feature requests TimedMediaHandler extension Module Special
HTML and CSS	Cascading Style Sheets HTML in wikitext Catalogue of CSS classes Common.js and common.css User CSS for monospaced coding font Classes in microformats Markup validation Span tags Useful styles
Customisation and tools	Preferences Gadgets Skins Citation tools Cleaning up vandalism tools Customizing watchlists Hide pages IRC Scripts User scripts Guide List Techniques User style Tools Alternative browsing Browser tools Editing tools Navigation shortcuts Optimum tool set Wikimedia Cloud Services Beta Features at MediaWiki
Automated editing	AfC helper script AntiVandal AutoWikiBrowser Bots Creating history HotCat Huggle Navigation popups RedWarn Twinkle Ultraviolet WPCleaner Inactive igloo STiki
See also: Category:Wikipedia how-to Category:Wikipedia information pages Further navigation at: Help pages Administrators Accessibility Accounts Bots Referencing Citation metadata Templates User scripts

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
Wikipedia Wikipedia_talk