Wikipedia:Bot requests

For the policy on bot requirements, see WP:BOTREQUIRE.

This is a page for requesting tasks to be done by bots per the bot policy. This is an appropriate place to put ideas for uncontroversial bot tasks, to get early feedback on ideas for bot tasks (controversial or not), and to seek bot operators for bot tasks. Consensus-building discussions requiring large community input (such as request for comments) should normally be held at WP:VPPROP or other relevant pages (such as a WikiProject's talk page).

You can check the "Commonly Requested Bots" box above to see if a suitable bot already exists for the task you have in mind. If you have a question about a particular bot, contact the bot operator directly via their talk page or the bot's talk page. If a bot is acting improperly, follow the guidance outlined in WP:BOTISSUE. For broader issues and general discussion about bots, see the bot noticeboard.

Before making a request, please see the list of frequently denied bots, either because they are too complicated to program, or do not have consensus from the Wikipedia community. If you are requesting that a template (such as a WikiProject banner) is added to all pages in a particular category, please be careful to check the category tree for any unwanted subcategories. It is best to give a complete list of categories that should be worked through individually, rather than one category to be analyzed recursively (see example difference).

Alternatives to bot requests

• WP:AWBREQ, for simple tasks that involve a handful of articles and/or only needs to be done once (e.g. adding a category to a few articles).
• WP:URLREQ, for tasks involving changing or updating URLs to prevent link rot (specialized bots deal with this).
• WP:SQLREQ, for tasks which might be solved with an SQL query (e.g. compiling a list of articles according to certain criteria).
• WP:TEMPREQ, to request a new template written in wiki code or Lua.
• WP:SCRIPTREQ, to request a new user script. Many useful scripts already exist, see Wikipedia:User scripts/List.
• WP:CITEBOTREQ, to request a new feature for WP:Citation bot, a user-initiated bot that fixes citations.

Note to bot operators: The {{BOTREQ}} template can be used to give common responses, and make it easier to keep track of the task's current status. If you complete a request, note that you did with {{BOTREQ|done}}, and archive the request after a few days (WP:1CA is useful here).

---

Please add your bot requests to the bottom of this page.
Make a new request

Bot for creating name redirects

I very often come across situations like the one I just did at Vanessa C. Tyson, where the middle name (Catherine) is given right in bold at the start of the article but the redirect from Vanessa Catherine Tyson has not been created. Sometimes there are other variations of this situation, such as if the redirect from Vanessa Tyson hadn't been created, or if the page was located at "Vanessa Tyson" but the redirect from "Vanessa C. Tyson" wasn't created. I don't expect a bot to be able to fix all of these, as in some cases there could be disambiguation concerns, but for many many situations, it should be possible for the bot to determine that only one notable person has a name and create redirects accordingly. Could we do that, and have it tag with {{r from short name}} and {{r from long name}} as needed? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:31, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm just wondering: Why isn't there a semi-auto, human-in-the-loop system for tasks that might be sensitive to context and false positives like this? Having the bot find all the needed changes and apply them with approval would still save a ton of work from having humans do all the changes manually. Intralexical (talk) 12:28, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

We have WP:AWB and WP:JWB. They can accept or create a page list and suggest methodical changes to each page on the list. For example, I recently used JWB to change links to the ambiguous term Qu'Appelle. For the 90% about Regina—Qu'Appelle I just clicked Save; for the few exceptions I typed a better link in manually. Certes (talk) 12:45, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

I think data quality is a big concern here. It's well documented that middle names, birthdates, etc will often get added to biographies with no sourcing (or unacceptable sourcing) and persist for a very long time. A lot of them will turn out to be completely bogus, too! On the other hand, I think the idea of automatic name redirects for biographies with middle names has some potential. For example, if Vanessa C. Tyson didn't exist, there was no disambig at Vanessa Tyson, and no other articles were titled "Vanessa * Tyson", it would be helpful to make the redirect (or at least flag it for creation). jp×g 22:54, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

That is how the Order of the Companions of OR Tambo in Gold became awarded to Joseph Sepp Bellend Blatter.[1] Thincat (talk) 20:20, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Quasi-arbitrary break

So with some generous help from Cryptic at the query request page, we now have a list of articles of people located at titles with a middle initial, but for whom there is no redirect from the title without an initial and for whom no one else shares their first and last name. See sample of results at this list. I'm struggling to find a way to go through that list to create the redirects with AWB, though—I'd need to start from the list of redlinks without the initial to create them, and doing that loses the information on what the middle initial is. So I'm thinking this might have to be done some other way. Would anyone who can code be interested in taking this up? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:41, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

@Sdkb: I think I could do this. Here's my understanding of what should happen while iterating over some list of pages:

• Do some sanity checks (possibly):
  • Check that the title can be parsed as "[first] [initial]. [last]"
  • Check that "[first] [last]" does not exist (especially if some time has passed since generation of the list)
  • Perhaps check the defaultsort:
    • If it's of the form "[last], [first] [initial]", proceed
    • If it's of the form "[last], [first] [initial].", remove the period and proceed
    • If it's different, log it and don't create the redirect
    • If there is none, either proceed or just log it (to be determined based on how many of these should have redirects)
• If everything is fine, create a new redirect to that page, preferably with pre-determined rcat(s)

Does this seem correct? Tol (talk | contribs) @ 01:52, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

@Tol, yes, that sounds good! For rcats, I think {{R from short name}} is presumably the one (or maybe {{R from alternative name}}). {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:11, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

@Sdkb: Alright; I'll work on it! I don't know if the redirects should have defaultsorts — I know redirects should have them if they are from a person's name to a page that includes or is related to that person, but I don't know about redirects from a different name (in this case, without the initial). And if there was a defaultsort, would it include the initial? Tol (talk | contribs) @ 19:26, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm not overly familiar with defaultsorts. My understanding is that it's best when they are complete as possible, e.g. "Smith, Jane Quincy" rather than just "Smith, Jane Q.". This would help in the rare circumstance that multiple articles have the same "Smith, Jane Q..." defaultsort. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:31, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, but that makes it even more complicated. I don't think defaultsorts would be needed, because they wouldn't be redirects to a related topic (person to related topic) but rather alternative names, and so probably shouldn't be categorised. I don't know if sort order is needed in rcat categories. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 19:50, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Yep, doing the basics for defaultsort should be plenty good enough. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:09, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Bot to fix indents

This is probably going to be quite challenging, but putting out the idea nevertheless – it would be great to have a bot that corrects indent characters used in talk page discussions. For example,

Comment. – Editor A
::Comment. – Editor B

^this would make the bot comes along and remove the extra indent (:: --> :)

*Comment – Editor A
::Comment. – Editor B

^this would make the bot come along and replace :: with :**: to comply with MOS:INDENTMIX.

This should be restricted to comments being posted from now on and not be done for historical discussions. – SD0001 (talk) 16:13, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Two things. First, I think you mean *:. Second, I feel like this would have huge context issues; we would have to find pretty much all of the expected exceptions (such as multiple replies to a single comment with varying indents). That being said, I suppose it could work. Primefac (talk) 16:19, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

This seems too context-dependent. Sometimes, a block of text, like a reflist, or a block of code, or a template with div tags in it, will have to be zero-indented in order to avoid display or syntax problems. Those things should not be indented. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:41, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Sometimes things like this you can try it, see what breaks and add exceptions (skip if contains div tags) until it runs clean-enough. Maybe there are too many exceptions or maybe just a dozen or two. Hard to say without trying it. -- GreenC 15:40, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, when I wrote out my initial reply I tried to find exceptions for potentially accurate-but-would-trigger-the-bot syntax but actually ended up finding none (which is why it's not in my reply above), so "try it and see" might be a good way to proceed. Primefac (talk) 15:56, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

You mentioned the scenario of multiple replies to a single comment with varying indents. How would a bot handle that? The bot wouldn't be able to determine which comment is being replied to right? Winston (talk) 21:42, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Well...

:Comment 1
::Reply to line 1 (2)
:::Reply to line 2 (3)
::::Reply to line 3 (4)
::Reply to line 1 (5)
:::Reply to line 5 (6)

I think as long as the bot looks for increasing (and not decreasing) indents, it should be fine. That being said, if there was a reply to line 4 after line 6 (with the correct indents) along the lines of

:::::Reply to line 4 (7)

That would be a GIGO issue that mis-indents the replies and potentially causes problems. Can't fix that though. Primefac (talk) 22:12, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• HERE is an example diff of a bot that removes gaps between indented lines, enforces consistent indentation style, and removes extra indentation, assuming indents consist only of colons and asterisks. A gap is a sequence of whitespace lines sandwiched between two indented lines. Each line's indent style is modified to match the previous line's indent style, going from beginning to end. If INDENT_LEVEL(line 2) > INDENT_LEVEL(line 1) + 1, the contiguous block of indented lines beginning with line 2 which have indent level >= INDENT_LEVEL(line 2) is shifted to the left by INDENT_LEVEL(line 2)-INDENT_LEVEL(line 1)+1. I think this is the best a naive bot can do. Note that some of the stuff in this diff is just for demonstration and is essentially garbage in, garbage out. Is this about right? Winston (talk) 02:02, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

  @Notsniwiast Yes that looks quite promising. At the top I'm not sure if we should change *Simple example 2 to :Simple example 2 (Doesn't seem required per MOS:INDENTMIX – though I could be mistaken here). In general, I think it would be better to have a conservative bot that fixes only what's necessary rather than re-format everything. – SD0001 (talk) 15:25, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

  The reason is that *Simple example 2 is considered to be part of the same list as ::Hello, since only blank lines separate the two lines. The bot first removes the blank lines, then enforces consistent indentation style which results in *Simple example 2 becoming :Simple example 2. Then ::Hello is changed to :Hello.

  Relevant links regarding gaps MOS/Lists#List styles, MOS:INDENTMIX, MOS:INDENTGAP, MOS:LISTGAP.

  But there are choices to be made regarding which intervening blank lines to remove. I see two behaviors here that can be configured:

  1. Whether to remove intervening blank lines if there is more than one intervening blank line.
  2. Whether to remove intervening blank lines preceding a line with INDENT_LEVEL 1. This is because a line with INDENT_LEVEL 1 with a preceding blank line is treated by MediaWiki as a new list, which may or may not be the intended behavior of the editor. If there is just a single blank line then it looks like part of the previous list. If there is more than one blank line then there is extra spacing and it looks separated from the previous list. Thus 1. and 2. are related.

  The diff I gave in my preceding comment uses a TRUE, TRUE configuration, i.e. both 1. and 2. are removed since it just naively removes intervening blank lines between any two indented lines. However, now that I think about it a FALSE, TRUE configuration might be better, i.e. only remove single blank line gaps, ignore multiline blank line gaps. Let me give example diffs for each configuration:

  TRUE TRUE, TRUE FALSE, FALSE TRUE, FALSE FALSE

  For each diff, it helps to open the original in one tab and the new version in a second tab and switch back and forth to see what changed visually.

  Winston (talk) 22:57, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

  Agreed that a FALSE, TRUE configuration would be better. Multiple blank lines suggest the user intentionally wanted whitespace to be visible (for whatever reason), so maybe we shouldn't remove that. Not sure about the 2nd though. – SD0001 (talk) 14:30, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• As a developer of a tool that has to go through all kinds of complex markup to detect where comments start and end, I would eagerly support this. But knowing how widespread this incorrect markup (talking about the second example now) is, I'm not sure it would be acceptable. Open any huge talk page that has RfCs, like Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) or Talk:Donald Trump, — you will see a lot of markup like this:

  * Comment. [signature]

:: Reply. [signature]I'm a afraid the bot would be overwhelmed with work, and this could be irritating for users. It's easier for most people who edit wikitext, not use a tool like CD or DT, to type a known number of : instead of repeating the previous indentation.

Also note that this markup would break:

*: {|
| Text.

|}

While this would not:

:: {|
| Text.

|}

Jack who built the house (talk) 11:26, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• That's an interesting edge case.
  For the busier talk page, maybe the bot could be set to make at most 1 edit per 12 hours (say). But I've seen enough instances of people manually making indentation fixes in others' posts – sometimes even complaining about it in the discussion itself – that I think it would help to have these done automatically. That being said, @Notsniwiast could you make a pass of your code on some of these big talk pages so that we can see the extent of changes it brings about? – SD0001 (talk) 14:31, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

  @SD0001 Here's a few. WP:BOTREQ, Village Pump Technical, Village Pump Policy, Help Desk, Teahouse, Village Pump Proposals Winston (talk) 23:35, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

  @Notsniwiast Thanks, there's a bug in the fixes around <pre> tags in this discussion (first diff). Pre tags are notorious (syntaxhighlight tag doesn't cause the same issue) for breaking the apparent layout (as seen from wikitext). – SD0001 (talk) 07:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

  I'm not sure it's really a bug, since the list was broken by putting a new line character (the one before the pre tag) without starting a new indented line. If the newlines before the pre tag are deleted (which I will now do), the formatting looks more correct. However, if it's common to start pre tags on a new line in discussions, then I can build in this edge case. Winston (talk) 08:17, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

  Just kidding... apparently deleting the newlines only looks right in the preview. Don't know much about html. Winston (talk) 08:22, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

  @SD0001 I've fixed <pre> tag edge case by not treating a newline character which immediately precedes a <pre> tag as a line delimiter. Are there any other tags that should be treated similarly? If so, I can just do the same for all tags. Winston (talk) 08:49, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

  No I think, but @Jack who built the house can confirm. – SD0001 (talk) 08:56, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

  The problem here is not limited to <pre>...</pre> tags and even tags as such. There is a lot of markup in templates that doesn't stand being moved to a new line, like tables (navboxes, for example, or quotation templates). People can also use <syntaxhighlight>...</syntaxhighlight> like this, despite it is OK with newlines inside of it. <gallery>...</gallery> is sometimes used this way too. I believe doing the same for all tags and templates would be the safest solution here. Jack who built the house (talk) 09:38, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

  Yeah I was thinking we might as well do the same for all tags and templates just to be safe, even though I'm not knowledgeable enough to know what exactly might break. I've modified the bot so that newline characters immediately preceding a tag or template are not used as line delimiters. Winston (talk) 10:18, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• I have added '#' as an indentation character as well. Originally was only using checking asterisks and colons. Winston (talk) 11:00, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

  From the 2nd diff (VPT), I think this shows a bug. Indentation of the final comment is changed from **: (which doesn't show a bullet) to :** (which shows a bullet). So shouldn't it have been :*: ? – SD0001 (talk) 11:47, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

  Hmm, I think I will modify the algorithm a little. Note that some conversions from bullet points to non-bullet points and vice versa are inevitable (since we shouldn't be alternating back and forth), but I think I can make the algo a bit smarter. Winston (talk) 22:55, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

  @SD0001 New diffs: WP:BOTREQ, Village Pump Technical, Village Pump Policy, Village Pump Proposals, Teahouse, Talk:Donald Trump.

  Note that the specific comment you pointed out is still showing a bullet point. This is because Graham87's comment, which is the first comment in the reply chain to Jonesey95's comment, uses a bullet point. To have a consistent indentation style, Izno's comment about a scriptlet must also begin with a bullet point.

  More specifically, the indent style fixing algorithm is now as follows. We iterate over the lines from beginning to end. Let Line A and Line B be consecutive lines. If lvl(Line B) > lvl(Line A), then the first lvl(Line A) characters of Line B are replaced with the first lvl(Line A) characters of Line A. If lvl(Line B) <= lvl(Line A), then the indentation characters of Line B are replaced with the indentation characters of the closest previous line with the same indentation level.

  Ultimately, if we are to enforce consistent indentation style, some comments will inevitably be changed to use or not use a bullet point, e.g. in a comment chain with alternating : and *. Winston (talk) 00:50, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

  The Teahouse diff incorrectly 'fixed' a comment:

I just thought of a fourth case - you might want a list. Lists can be numbered, bulleted, or (in your case) unbulleted. This is done using colons, depending on the indentation you want, as (see code or there are details at WP:PLAINLIST):

::This is line 1.

:::::This is line 2.
:::::This is line 3.

If I didn't answer your question, please ask .... --Gronk Oz (talk) 06:17, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

 ― Qwerfjkltalk 19:51, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

(I've messed up the formatting but you get the idea.) ― Qwerfjkltalk 19:53, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

In this case there's not much we can do, since the bot cannot tell when an editor has intentionally over-indented. In this instance at least, the "fix" still looks ok. Winston (talk) 22:33, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• @SD0001: What do ya think, should I file a BRFA? Winston (talk) 07:35, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

  I'm not SD, but I think the only way to find more of the border cases will be to get some trials in. Primefac (talk) 07:38, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

  Just filed a BRFA. Winston (talk) 03:36, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Bot to handle unsigned comments

For a long time this task was handled by SineBot, which has been down for 2 months. Negative effects of this have been visible throughout discussion namespaces. The operator Slakr has not made any edits since last October. There is no indication that SineBot will be operational soon. Is someone else willing to take over this task? ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 15:27, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

That bot/function is awesome. -- GreenC 15:35, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

I thought I was having to do more unsigned edits than usual lately... seconding the desire to either get in touch with Slakr or take over the bot's functionality. Primefac (talk) 15:37, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Too bad that code for the task is not open source. At some point I think User:Ritchie333 was working on an open-source python implementation. – SD0001 (talk) 15:55, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the bot should be open source, otherwise this will happen. I have some work in progress code at User:Ritchie333/arcsinebot.py, however it's currently log only and has bugs. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:36, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

I'd be willing to write a task for this. I'll put together some code. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 00:10, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

@Tol: That's great. Feel free to use whatever code in my prototype you think is helpful. I think we need something running ASAP and is well-tested and is open source. I'm not an rms fanboy, but I do think closed-source bots are entirely incompatible with a free encyclopaedia. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:29, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Thanks! I've got a basic implementation; I'm currently testing it and will file a BRFA shortly. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 21:15, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm now working on a better diff, and also bundling API calls when checking user pages for preferences. I should have a BRFA by the end of the week. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 20:40, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

SinBot's Changelog gives some idea of issues that came up during development. Looks like a lot of edge cases. -- GreenC 14:59, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Has anyone tried emailing Slakr to see if they'd be willing to open the source at this point if they've lost interest in maintaining the bot? --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:57, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I'll be happy to nudge them via email another time (I see you've already emailed Slackr). 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 23:29, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Slakr was editing today, I saw his name on the Deletion log and I noticed because he's not one of the regular admins who patrol CSDs and XfDs. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I have already run a sign bot on 6 wiki projects for years. I would be honored if I could transplant these codes to English Wikipedia as a backup of SineBot. Kanashimi (talk) 03:41, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

That might be another useful option. As mentioned in SineBot's BRFA(s), having more tools ready is always good in case something like this happens again. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 18:56, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

That would be easier (and more well tested) than making my own bot from scratch! I would certainly appreciate if you could do that. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 20:44, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Weird... it thought it was still running but wasn't editing, so it never notified me to restart it. I've restarted it. Sorry for the absence; life's been a bit more chaotic than usual. --slakr^\ talk / 21:19, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

No problem; thank you! Tol (talk | contribs) @ 22:07, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks slakr! It's good to hear from you. — The Earwig (talk) 00:51, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@Slakr: For continuity and redundancy, would you consider publishing the source code for this task? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:54, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

For when it's not working, I'd advise people to use User:Anomie/unsignedhelper, which is perhaps one of my most useful scripts. Sdrqaz (talk) 00:08, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Sdrqaz Tried it and have to say that is super cool, and fun. Look forward to finding unsigned comments (not yet caught by SineBot which is pretty fleet). -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by GreenC (talk • contribs) 18:22, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Contribution Project

hello i am currently running a Project, which counts User's Contributions on daily basis, The Project works on several wikis such as (ckbwiki, SimpleWiki, ksWiki, ArWiki, jawiki) it works by checks User's Contributions and comparing it to previous Contribution, Ranking Top User's Accordingly, if a user is less active than before The Comparison will change to Red otherwise Green, it also Shows User Rights along with their contributions,

i need someone's Help, to make a bot Specially for the Project, cuz i am doing it Manually by myself and it takes so much time and energy, Can anyone help me to make a script for, i really appreciate it. —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 19:48, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

We have Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits which is updated by User:BernsteinBot; is this not what you're looking for? Primefac (talk) 17:57, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@Primefac that's right but still i want to install my own script because i need to run it on other projects too, it really helps me alot if someone lends me a hand with coding Besides my project a little bit different than above. —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 11:53, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

See if MZMcBride will share the bot's code? Primefac (talk) 12:01, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@Primefac Thank you alot. —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 19:20, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Primefac and Sakura emad. Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/Configuration is the bot's source code for this report. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:36, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Categorising redirects

Hi, I presume this has been requested previously, but is there any reason why a bot couldn't categorise redirects? I think at least {{R to diacritic}}/{{R from diacritic}} could be done, maybe {{R to section}} and {{R to anchor}}. Some more can also probably be used, but I can't think of them. ― Qwerfjkltalk 22:01, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Quite a few redirect templates could be added, preferably within {{Rcat shell}}. Others are tempting but probably best left to humans, e.g. deciding between {{R from other capitalisation}} and {{R from miscapitalisation}}. This does sound like a perennial request but I can't find previous discussions. WP:WikiProject Redirect may be more helpful. Certes (talk) 00:29, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@Qwerfjkl: AWB's general fixes include a Redirect tagger which could be run as a bot. If you could point to a conversation where there in consensus to run it as a bot, I'd submit the BRFA. GoingBatty (talk) 15:27, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't recall such a conversation happening, but Paine Ellsworth is always my go-to person for institutional knowledge about redirect categorisation. Off the top of my head, I don't have any problem with a bot doing some categorisation - {{R to section}}, the diacritic ones and to/from ligature being examples of where human judgement is not really required. {{R from alternative language}} may be possible where the term is used inside an e.g. {{lang-de}} template at the target. {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} could also be done where the redirect ends with a term in parenthesis and targets a page that is identically named other than that parenthetical (e.g. "Foo (bar)" → "Foo"). There may be others too, but that's the sort of thing that would be best left to a second discussion if there is consensus for the general principle here. Thryduulf (talk) 12:26, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Thryduulf, for the ping. There is uncertainty regarding the use of bots to categorize redirects; however, I think it's a really grand idea! When I think of the enormity of the task to find and sort each and every redirect that already exists, as well as all the new redirects that are made everyday by editors who are unfamiliar with categorization and so leave it to someone else, the task really screams for bot involvement. Since I've never been involved with bot usage, and my experience only includes limited AWB usage, I really don't have the words to ask for a new bot or an existing bot to handle such a complicated task. Is there a bot that can sense diacritics? That could be either a "from" or "to" situation. Can a bot sense a redirect to a section? I honestly don't know the answer. I would hope the answer is "yes", because I don't know how much longer I'll be around to help with redirect categorization, which has been my pet project since even before I first registered. Yes, a bot would be a dream come true. I'm just not sure there's a bot that can do the job correctly. P.I. Ellsworth&numsp;- ed. ^put'r there 13:09, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

This seems like a good area for a bot. Howevever, there's one relevant issue that I can think of. A regular editor can move a page over a redirect only if that redirect has no more than a single edit in its history. This means that if all redirects out there got edited now (for rcats or for something else), then regular editors won't be able to perform moves over these redirects. This will incur some maintenance costs (more work for WP:RMT, more cleanup after cut-and-paste moves) and I really have no idea if they'll be outweighed by the benefits of having more thorough redirect categorisation. I imagine there should ultimately be a technical fix for the problem (like excluding bot edits from counting, and that's independently desirable because of the bots that fix double redirect). Regardless, that will obviously not be an issue for redirects that aren't suitable as article titles and so would never get moved over. – Uanfala (talk) 00:12, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Ideally, we should be allowed to move page A over page B with any number of revisions if all revisions of B are redirects to A, whether produced by bot or human, but that might require awkward software changes. Bonus points for allowing revisions of B which are redirects to C, where C also redirects to A, though that might be gamed. Certes (talk) 00:24, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Unused Templates reports

This is now my fourth time trying to get the necessary feedback. This is a request I made on the talk page of the Database reports page, and on Request a query, but it hasn't been answered anywhere. It is part of the overall proposal discussion I have started on the WikiProject Templates talk page to create an Unused Templates Task Force to deal with the backlog of unused templates.

I've requested four reports per the original discussion and I'm going to relist them here:

I would like the report to run for at least two months as the task force is currently in an idea stage. When the reports are going to expire, if possible I would like to be notified of when it will happen. I need four reports from the Unused Templates database:

1) All unused templates that are not stubs or redirects.

2) All stub templates listed as unused. According to one of the users on the talk page discussion, there are either exactly or about 1,000 stub templates.

3) All redirects listed as unused. According to one of the users on the talk page discussion, there are either exactly or about 69,000 redirects.

4) Templates that were created and/or edited in the last year and the present year. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:53, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@WikiCleanerMan: Is Wikipedia:Database reports/Unused templates what you're looking for? Tol (talk | contribs) @ 04:14, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

That report could be a starting point for working on the above requests, but it contains too much noise to be useful. See this discussion for details; it led to this request. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:32, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Zackmann08 before he retired started doing some work at User:Zackmann08/unused templates and related sub-pages, removing various pages from the "unused" criteria. Maybe that can help. Gonnym (talk) 12:39, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Gonnym, the pages by Zackmann is a start, but it's not really speific to what I need, but I'll definitely use those pages. Tol, techinally yes, but my request is looking for separate individual reports that includes the templates I need, but outside the main unused templates database report(s). --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:25, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Another thing to point out is that Tim.landscheidt also has similar subpages of unused templates. MZMcBride, your bot, User:BernsteinBot, created those reports. Do you think the reports I'm looking for can be created? --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:57, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi WikiCleanerMan and Jonesey95. Thank you both for your efforts in cleaning out unused templates. I took a look at Wikipedia:Database reports/Unused templates/Configuration and I remembered that we basically already tried to accommodate all of these requests previously. We sort non-redirects first, then redirects, then stubs within the report. We also include metadata about each unused template, including last edit date and number of unique authors. I'm not really sure what else is needed here currently. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:45, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

MZMcBride, we want broken up reports from the main database report. Each individual one for unused templates, then redirects, then the stub templates. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:27, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to as the potentially dumb question, but if they're already sorted into those values, why do they need to explicitly be split into separate tables? Primefac (talk) 11:56, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

To navigate easier so we don't get confused with what is unused stub templates, redirects, and just regular templates. Since regular templates make up the first two and a part of third database reports. And regular unused templates are up to number 12205. Thus, what we are looking for could be on one database page or two. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

If you already know the first redirect (which to me looks green anyway), then you already know which values you're looking for (since they're "everything before that template"). If you know the first two pages (and a bit) of the dbase report are exactly what you're looking for, why does it need to be split? Primefac (talk) 20:08, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

So we don't have a database report that includes all unused, redirects, and stubs as part of the same report. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:17, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Jonesey has created a subpage dealing with just the non-stub and non-redirect templates. Really it now stands at 6,800 templates. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 03:15, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

This request can be closed thanks to Jonesey95 who was able to create the filtered report I was looking for. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:56, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Talk Pages Missing Project Banners

I've noticed that sometimes some articles, categories, and templates have no related WikiProject banners for the subject of the related articles, categories, and templates talk pages. If possible, I would like a bot that can create essentially a database report of all articles, categories, and templates talk pages that don't have the project banners. As part of the report, it can list all uncreated talk pages to differentiate. This would save me and other editors a lot of time in helping organize relevant pages for their respective projects. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:47, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

One category that the bot could go ahead and tag are the disambiguation pages. Some of those pages don't even have the talk page created. — DaxServer (talk to me) 20:51, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject Disambiguation has decided not to create talk pages simply to carry its banner. We only add the banner if the page already exists, whether to carry other projects' banners or for other reasons. Certes (talk) 21:03, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

That's interesting. I've been wondering why many of those pages lack the talk page, when there are bots and AWB gen fixes running. — DaxServer (talk to me) 21:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

The dab talk template is often used when the page would otherwise become blank. For example, perhaps Foo was moved to Foo (novel) because someone created Foo (album) and there is no longer a primary topic. The move leaves behind a redirect Foo → Foo (novel), which we edit into a dab called Foo listing both articles. The move also leaves behind an unwanted redirect Talk:Foo → Talk:Foo (novel), which we edit into a project banner placeholder. Certes (talk) 00:35, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@DaxServer: Doing... - I haven't run BattyBot 34 to tag disambiguation existing pages since May, so I'll run it now for you. GoingBatty (talk) 01:31, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@DaxServer:  Done - added {{WikiProject Disambiguation}} to 432 existing talk pages. GoingBatty (talk) 05:03, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, Certes, and the run, GoingBatty! — DaxServer (talk to me) 08:36, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I forgot to add if the report also includes empty categories, then it should differentiate that by listing those categories as empty on a separate list or section. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:41, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

A related idea I have is that a bot like this can create suggestions for talk pages of articles, categories, and templates for certain project banners that may be missing from the talk page. I've noticed throughout Wikipedia where the relevant project banner isn't there until I add it. Can save a lot of time with a list to improve and help improve the WikiProjects objectives. It should also include taskforces of the overall project as it is hard to sometimes know what taskforces are part of the project. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:10, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@WikiCleanerMan: What criteria would the bot use to make suggestions? Could you please give some examples? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 20:36, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

GoingBatty, not sure of the criteria, but there are these WikiProject taggig bots that would add the banners on the talk page for the related projects. Most are inactive at this point. If a bot can add or in my request suggest projects and task forces in a database report, then I don't think it would be all that different. Although, they were designed for a specific project like WikiProject Germany, Film, etc... --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:10, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

There is a regular Empty Category list that gets issued daily until Bernstein Bot got hiccups recently. It's not a long list as Empty Categories are regularly tagged and deleted unless they fit one of the few exceptions (disambiguation categories, redirect categories, categories that are part of a CFD discussion, maintenance categories, etc.). I'm not sure of the connection you are making between WikiProject banners and empty categories. Unless there is a major category restructuring going on or a sockpuppet has gone on a category-creation rampage, categories typically become empty when the articles, templates and other categories that they contained are deleted which happens on an irregular basis, depending on AFD, TFD and CFD decisions.

A recent exception to this predictability is that over the summer UnitedStatesian and I went through defunct WikiProjects and had hundreds of empty assessment categories deleted but this action focused on categories that had been created and abandoned over the past 15 years...it's unlikely there will be a need for an action like this to happen again for a long, long time as WikiProject activity has declined since about 2012. I don't see other big projects like this on the horizon. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:28, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

The connection is that usually empty categories don't have project banners on their talk pages. Sometimes these categories are newer and yet to have any articles in them. The users who create such newer and empty categories are probably not aware of WikiProject banners and thus don't place them on the talk page. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:40, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Bot notifications when Template:GetMop is published on a user talk page

I would like a bot to notify users listed at Wikipedia:Administrators without tools/Endorsers whenever a user talk page is published with {{subst:GetMop}} in place. This is to give an opportunity, to those who have signed the page, to endorse the original posting with their own encouragement. Past usage of this template has shown that secondary endorsements increase the likelihood of positive results. If the bot could run this task once a day, the objective can be afhieved (twice a day would be better). Thank you for considering this request. Best regards.--John Cline (talk) 00:47, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

@John Cline: I could do this. That page looks like a redlink — is it going to be created later? Tol (talk | contribs) @ 02:01, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Tol. Yes, in fact I was in the process of creating it now. And then I am going to post it to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2021 review/Brainstorming#Discussion (An underused ready-resource) to invite others to sign the page. Let me know if you need anything from me to help get this up and running. Thanks again. --John Cline (talk) 02:23, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

@John Cline: Alright; I should have a working implementation over the weekend. Just so you know, it will look for any links to userspace (not just in the list in the section). Tol (talk | contribs) @ 04:54, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. Quite often users allow this to be archived and at times they will add it to their user page in an barnstar Hall of Fame or some such. I wouldn't want this to promt the bot to post messages. That's why I hope it will know when the template has been substituted because that only happens durring the initial posting. --John Cline (talk) 05:10, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I believe Tol means that any user talk page links on Wikipedia:Administrators without tools/Endorsers will get the notification. So don't create a second list of "Users who definitely don't want a notification"! I think that's a perfectly good solution, this is a definite opt-in method. Tol, do you need a notification template for the talk page notifications? Worm^TT(talk) 08:53, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure that you are correct. It makes sense to me now. Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 09:37, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

@Worm That Turned: Yes, you are correct. A notification template would be helpful. Thank you! Tol (talk | contribs) @ 17:56, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

@John Cline: I've finished writing the code. Is there a template (like Worm That Turned mentioned) that the bot could use? Tol (talk | contribs) @ 00:58, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your diligence in this regard, I really appreciate it. I haven't written the message yet, I will ensure it's ready for your review, and approval, no later than Monday. I'd be happy if Worm That Turned was willing to write it, he writes particularly well (in my opinion). I do have 1 question for you Tol: Would it be best for you for the notification template to be a separate, stand alone template, like {{GetMop notification}}, for example (perhaps for reasons like page protection)? Or would you be ok using switched output from {{GetMop}}, for example, {{GetMop|notice}} could be used. Or I could create a sub template at {{GetMop/Notice}}. Let me know what you think is best. Thank you again. Sincerely.--John Cline (talk) 01:36, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@John Cline: You're welcome! Personally, I think that a subpage would be best: it's related to Template:GetMop, but I think passing a parameter that would cause the template to do something completely different is suboptimal. Having an entirely separate template would also work. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 02:22, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Okay Tol, I've created {{GetMop/Notice}}, and worked up a message box and message that I am satisfied with. I tested the templat's substitution output and everything works fine It's ready for you to do what you do. I am looking forward to seeing it's working use. Best regards.--John Cline (talk) 13:57, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@John Cline: Alright, BRFA filed. I've also tidied up that template (and added a parameter so that the user(s) who have had Template:GetMop on their talk page can be listed inside the box). Is there a reason the message itself is includeonly? I think it would be easier to just display the template on the template page. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 18:09, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks again. I'll remove the includeonly tags, there's no compelling reason for them and it's more habit than anything else. I've convinced myself that, in some small way, it discourages drive by vandalism under the concept: if they don't see it, they don't mess with it. It may be an imaginary precaution with no foundation, but it has affected my habit. I appreciate any copyedits you gave or ever give, it's how I learn better ways. Have a good one and be well.--John Cline (talk) 19:54, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• Hello Tol. I looked at the BRFA filed, and I do have one concern. In Function details:, where It says: "It runs daily and checks if there have been any user talk pages added to Category:Administrators without tools since its last run. If there have been, it then sends notifications". My concern is that when the discussion archives, I wouldn't want the bot to recognize the archive as a new talk page being added. To be certain, it must only be "user talk pages where {{#ifeq: {{FULLPAGENAMEE}} | User_talk:{{ROOTPAGENAMEE}} |yes|no}} returns yes for the new user talk page being added. Another issue that may arise involves formating the user name and discussion links to append through parameter 1. Assuming the possibility of something standard, like: "John Cline (talk) at There is a mop reserved in your name", and because the section link will always be the same title, that format would be too long to keep the entry on one line for almost every username used. To preempt, I wanted to suggest possibly using the following format: "John Cline (talk) at this discussion" or something similar. Keeping the entry on one line is important because the centered text looks bad when only a few words fall off the end. See [[User:John Cline/sandbox|my sandbox for a visualization. Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 03:28, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

  @John Cline: If you have concerns, it's better to raise them at the BRFA itself. I had set up a filter to blacklist any pages with "/Archive" in them, and this caught all current instances of archives in the category. The link itself would currently be formatted as the username, linking to the discussion (like John Cline, which links to User talk:John Cline#There is a mop reserved in your name). Tol (talk | contribs) @ 03:57, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Bot for maintenance at WP:CR

Wikipedia:Closure requests wants the requests in chronological order and the {{Initiated}} with full timestamp instead of just dmy ([2] [3]). Some miss the initiated template [4]. Could a bot takeover for these tasks? — DaxServer (talk to me) 13:41, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

How often are people misreading the guidelines and thus necessitating the page be edited to conform to standard practice? If it's less than once a day, I think manual cleanup is perfectly acceptable. Primefac (talk) 14:28, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

It looks like it's not as often as I thought — DaxServer (talk) 08:19, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Grammar bot or spelling bot?

Wondering if there is a grammar bot or a spelling bot for clear mistakes? I can't seem to find one. Also WP:List of bots doesn't seem to show what the bots do. Thanks much, Facts707 (talk) 09:16, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Facts707: Both these points, regarding grammar and spelling, have been discussed at Wikipedia:Bot requests/Frequently denied bots#Bots to automatically spell-check articles. Regarding the list of bots, I will soon get back to you :) —usernamekiran (talk) sign the (guestbook) 09:23, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Agree on the list of bots, there should be more documentation added on what this list is supposed to include (e.g. not all bots?), and what each bot does. Maybe operator talk page links would also be nice :) . 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 15:37, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:AWB and WP:JWB also fix many spelling mistakes and a few grammatical errors as and when contributors edit a page for other reasons. They encourage a human to verify the change, to preserve genuine use such as foreign words, olde worlde spellinges and verbatim quotes of careless journalists. Certes (talk) 12:19, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• dummy edit. I am not being shown as a bot-op editor like I used to be in the table of contents above. —usernamekiran (talk) sign the (guestbook) 16:38, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

  dummy edit after updating the signature. —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 16:59, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• @Facts707: Wikipedia:Bots/Status seems to be the one you are looking for, but it needs to be updated. —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 05:48, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

  That page is manual so there's no way it can be updated without hours of effort (and it would be outdated soon after that). There's a bot-maintained WP:BAM but it's incomplete and needs listing of remaining bots. – SD0001 (talk) 07:16, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks everyone for the info and support! WP:SPELLBOT is a shortcut to Wikipedia:Bot requests/Frequently denied bots#Bots to automatically spell-check articles that @Usernamekiran: mentioned that explains why fully-automated such bots aren't a great idea. I added a hatnote there to WP:Typo Team – lots of help there. Will look at bot lists some more a bit later. Cheers, Facts707 (talk) 09:55, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Update: my hatnote to WP:Typo Team was reverted with the comment "that's not what this section is about". I will try WP:SPELLING or somewhere else to add that. It can be hard sometimes to find things in WP space – I try to add a redirect or a hatnote sometimes to make it a little bit easier for the next editor... Facts707 (talk) 10:13, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Bot to add Top 25 report and Annual report to talk pages

I think this would be helpful, as this is perennial. Thoughts? (Or is there a bot already?) — DaxServer (talk) 07:04, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

gbif bot

hi please creat a bot to creat species articles from gbif.org many species articles not in enwiki Amirh123 (talk) 14:35, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Amirh123! I'm already working an this idea, but there are some issues (for example, ensuring verifiability, and not having problems that someone has to clean up later). Mass stub creation is also on the list of frequently denied bots. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 15:56, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

GBIF aggregates data from many sources, not all of them reliable. GBIF has picked up misspellings that originated in Wikipedia. A bot generating articles with GBIF as the sole reference is not a good idea; multiple taxonomic databases should be consulted. Plantdrew (talk) 01:12, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

not just gbif irmng.org eol.org and many sources I think creat articles in wikidata items to Wikipedia has many source Amirh123 (talk) 17:53, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Migrate archive URLs from WebCite to the Wayback Machine

Per Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 184#Migrate archive URLs from WebCite to the Wayback Machine I would like to request the following bot/script task:

• Replace all archive links in citations/references that use WebCite with archive links using the Wayback Machine.

My understanding is that this essentially leads to the following presentation of the task:

Task to perform on WebCite links

Main citation link works	Wayback Machine archive exists	Task to perform
Yes	Yes	Replace WebCite archive link with Wayback Machine archive link
No	Yes	Replace WebCite link with Wayback Machine archive link
Yes	No	Submit original link to the Wayback Machine to create a new snapshot of it, replace WebCite archive link with Wayback Machine archive link
No	No	Submit WebCite link to the Wayback Machine to create a new snapshot of it, replace WebCite link with Wayback Machine link

One thing that needs to be taken into account in this task is the potential problem of content drift mentioned by User:GreenC at WP:VPR. I believe this may be an issue especially in the first two cases, i.e., Yes Yes and No Yes. I have to admit that I do not know if/how a bot/script could handle this. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 13:59, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

OK, I have a bot that can do this. And have done some in the past. And am approved for it. It's more complex and error prone than it seems. I would suggest waiting a little longer. There are discussions ongoing with the owners of WebCite. Ideally these captures will be copied over to another provider and redirects would make it seamless. It's all of Wikipedia 900+ projects and IABot database. In the mean time feel free to manually make changes but be careful about "No/No: Submit WebCite link to the Wayback Machine" this can create a snapshot completely different from what is expected. Also caution about "No/Yes: Replace WebCite link with Wayback Machine archive link" due to content drift. -- GreenC 15:31, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

"Empty sections" that are not empty

I sometimes find {{empty section}} tags in sections that are not empty, such as this one. Is there a bot that can replace these tags with {{expand section}}? Jarble (talk) 22:04, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't know if this search is the best one to find such sections, but it found only 5 such articles. A couple of them probably need to be marked with {{citation needed}} tags or otherwise cleaned up instead of just removing the tag or replacing it with a different tag. This looks like a good item for a human editor to inspect periodically. Maybe it could be added to the reports that are part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Check Wikipedia. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:18, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: I see that Data hierarchy isn't in your search results. Even if I tweak your search to include quotation marks, I don't think the search string will find line breaks.

@Jarble: I checked the October 1 database dump and found 450 articles with {{empty section}} tags in sections that are not empty.

Hope this helps! GoingBatty (talk) 02:01, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Yep, newlines are difficult to search for. Here's a better search that currently gives 548 results, including some false positives. That number is similar to what GoingBatty ended up with. I still think the articles need to be processed by humans. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:06, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: Looks better - thanks! It's not necessary to have {{empty section}} in "See also", "Notes", "References", and "External links" sections. I started on this, and can do more later. GoingBatty (talk) 04:59, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: I've knocked it down to 445 results.

@Jarble: I think a bot could remove true empty sections with headings of "Bibliography", "Further reading", "Notes", "See also", "External links". There are hundreds of such articles. GoingBatty (talk) 16:01, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

• gettina a feature in AWB would also be good for long term. —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 01:22, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: You can use the links at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser to make AWB feature requests in Phabricator (and first search to see if any such feature requests already exist). GoingBatty (talk) 02:25, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I searched for existing requests, it is not in the list. I will do that now. —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 14:45, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

• I've requested the feature for AWB.
  Tracked in Phabricator
  Task T294770
  
  —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 15:05, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

@Jarble, Jonesey95, and Usernamekiran: BRFA filed, and shared my suggestions at the AWB feature request. GoingBatty (talk) 00:43, 13 November 2021 (UTC) @Jarble, Jonesey95, and Usernamekiran: I posted at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Removing some empty sections via bot to determine if there is consensus for this work do be done by bot. GoingBatty (talk) 16:17, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Bot for tel: links bug

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T116525

There's a bug with Mobile Web + VisualEditor that causes certain formats of numbers in articles to erroneously have tel: links attached to it. See diffs [5][6] for examples. We have 1169 (hist · log) to log these, and there was a discussion to move it to warn at EFN, but the possibility of having a bot just fix them after the error is introduced seemed less bitey and less likely to cause good contributions to be abandoned -- see Wikipedia:Edit_filter_noticeboard#Moving_1169_to_warn. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:17, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 192#Pseudo-telephone numbers. I suspect an add-on to Safari but there may be multiple causes. Certes (talk) 16:28, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

And see also T116525. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:39, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Beware that another, subtly different effect may cause confusion here. MediaWiki renders the wikitext tel:123 (or even Tel:Aviv) as a hyperlink, even though I didn't add square brackets. Certes (talk) 23:40, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

What the heck? It looks like they are handled by mw:Manual:$wgUrlProtocols, possibly with no sanity checking, which is why the totally invalid http://foo and news:fornerds and mailto:foobar all generate links. Oof, who is running this circus? – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:24, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, $wgUrlProtocols is the sanity check. tel, http, news etc are being explicitly allowed. mw:Manual:$wgUrlProtocols#Advanced_modification notes The default protocols should all be safe to click on (no evil side effects), and removing a protocol from the list will cause URLs using those protocols to become unrecognized in many places throughout the software. In particular, removing 'http://' or other common protocols will probably break huge amounts of stuff. – SD0001 (talk) 08:57, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

BEIC urls

I ask if a bot can replace the old links "http://gutenberg.beic.it" with "https://gutenberg.beic.it" because "http" no longer works with that site. Thanks.--Spinoziano (BEIC) (talk) 10:12, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

@Spinoziano (BEIC):  Doing with AWB. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 15:56, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done Tol (talk | contribs) @ 16:11, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

"Notes sections" that are empty

Recently, only on two articles, there was a Notes section but no notes actually referenced within the article. It's really useless to have a notes section and not have any notes within the article. I've seen it on the Bombing of the Vatican and Mark Meadows articles. I removed the empty sections myself. A bot list can help reduce what articles have this issue. There's no point in having a notes section if there are no notes. Those two articles might have had notes prior to my edits, but became redundant as they were most likely removed or changed to an article or some other form of reference. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:13, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

@WikiCleanerMan: Agreed! I can submit a BRFA for this (and the {{empty section}} issue above) when my current BRFA is completed. GoingBatty (talk) 15:17, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@WikiCleanerMan: BRFA filed GoingBatty (talk) 00:43, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

@WikiCleanerMan: I posted at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Removing some empty sections via bot to determine if there is consensus for this work do be done by bot. GoingBatty (talk) 16:18, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Add authority control to lighthouse articles

Please can someone add {{authority control}} to all articles in Category:All articles using infobox lighthouse. I think about half have already been done by User:Tom.Reding using AWB. We are planning to migrate the identifiers from the infobox to the authority control template. Thanks. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:53, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@MSGJ:  Doing with AWB. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 16:11, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks. Little suggestion for improvement. Cheers — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:19, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@MSGJ: I've made that change (only one newline before); thanks for letting me know! Tol (talk | contribs) @ 14:42, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

@Tol: are you still working on this because at the time of of writing there are still 400+ articles without the template. Thanks again — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:07, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I am. I'm busier than expected right now, but I should finish it today. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 15:08, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done Tol (talk | contribs) @ 15:57, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Challenge bot /CewBot

I would like to request that CewBot should add template for inclusion at talk pages of articles included in Challenges other than WPEUR10k for Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge, which is the only Challenge project with its own bot template today. For example today there is no template to add to the talk pages of articles included in Wikipedia:The 2500 Challenge (Nordic) which specifies this particular challenge project, I do think that if such a template was created and CewBot was given the task to add it to the talk pages of the articles included in the Nordic Challenge it would benefit the project.--BabbaQ (talk) 02:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

@BabbaQ: Hi there! Have you tried contacting Cewbot's operator, Kanashimi? Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 02:58, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, I will add 6 templates listed in User:Cewbot/log/20210902/configuration. All of them are in Category:Wikipedia article challenge templates. You may edit the configuration page to add more templates. Kanashimi (talk) 04:03, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Oh, do not bother on my account. I am not good at those kind of configurations. But thank you for showing me that list. Will take a look and see what I can do.BabbaQ (talk) 07:52, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Also refer to the report. Kanashimi (talk) 11:25, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done Kanashimi (talk) 07:42, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Upload WikiProject cleanup issue stats csv/tab data to Commons

CleanupWorklistBot is a treasure, generating cleanup work lists based on WikiProject topic across all maintenance categories. This makes it easy for WikiProjects to run maintenance cleanup drives except for the fact that CleanupWorklistBot's stats have to be manually imported on-wiki to visualize/incentivize progress. That problem could be solved if there was a bot that converted CWB's CSV data to .tab format and uploaded to Commons after it runs each week. The result would be compatible with {{Graph:Lines}} for display on-wiki (see similar example to the right). I reached out to CWB's maintainer but he was only interested in generating graphs within his external tool, not importing the data for on-wiki manipulation. Would someone be able or interested in helping with this? czar 06:18, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Fixing the references broken by the Phabricator bug (T296044)

There is currently a bug of the Phabricator which breaks the references of an article when the user edited it with the Visual Editor, cf. Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#VisualEditor_duplicating_named_citations. I think a bot should be patroling to try to fix those broken references, as I think otherwise some of those references broken by this bug may continue to exist in many articles. Veverve (talk) 01:47, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

What a mess. I'll have a look :) firefly ( t · c ) 10:36, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@Veverve BRFA filed :) firefly ( t · c ) 12:33, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Code replacement bot?

Is there any bot that replace old wikitext to new wikitext (e.g. Infobox species to Speciesbox)? Also, i want this bot to add image parameters and automatically add images from Commons to the speciesbox. Leomk (Don't shout here, Shout here!) 03:02, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

We don't generally run bots just to bypass template redirects per WP:COSMETICBOT, and add[ing] image parameters and automatically add[ing] images from Commons does not seem automatable because a bot cannot decide what the most appropriate image is. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:03, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Automatic TFA semi-protection trial

Being discussed elsewhere, see last wikilink to join discussion and/or offer assistance. Primefac (talk) 09:18, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

At this discussion, we've realized that the automatic TFA semi-protection trial that was approved by the community in this discussion closed two months ago has not yet taken place. Could anyone with an admin-bot help facilitate it? The BRFA will looks similar to this one. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:58, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I'll ping Anomie to this request seeing as their bot is the one handling PC (and thus the architecture is already there). Primefac (talk) 09:52, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Still not interested. But thanks for the ping. Anomie⚔ 12:46, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

My apologies for the unnecessary ping, clearly I did not know about that discussion. Primefac (talk) 13:52, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Could @Legoktm's TFA Protector Bot do this? It already move-protects upcoming TFAs, so I think it wouldn't be too hard to add semi-protection. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 23:15, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

We're already discussing this at Wikipedia_talk:Today's_featured_article#TFA_vandalism. Legoktm (talk) 23:28, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

US Census Bot needed

I think we need a census bot for the US census, to allow for automated updates every 10 years, for all the census designated places in the US that are also in Wikipedia. I have no idea how to go about making any of that happen, but it is definitely something to consider doing, and while we're at it, we can figure out how to use reliable external sources for other population data that is periodically revised by the authoritative source that a bot can then go about and update the data in WP. Hires an editor (talk) 02:23, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

@Hires an editor: I suggest only approving a bot for each census, since a lot could change in the 10 years between censuses. GoingBatty (talk) 02:31, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Adding a category to 1000 sub-modules of Module:Adjacent stations

There are around 1000 sub-modules of Module:Adjacent stations which aren't categorized and should be added to Category:Rail transport succession modules (inside the Sandbox other template so only the module itself will be in the category). Could someone help me with a bot? Gonnym (talk) 10:38, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Just to double-check, the category would go on the /doc of each sub-module, wrapped in <includeonly>...</includeonly> tags, yes? Primefac (talk) 10:46, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I thought /doc part was clear. And yes, they are surrounded by includeonly tags, but more specicially with the {{Sandbox other}} as well. See the result of the create doc at Module:Adjacent stations/Echigo. Gonnym (talk) 10:49, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, I totally misread your initial statement, asked a really dumb question, then realised my mistake and re-worded my reply in a subsequent edit. I can put through a BRFA. Primefac (talk) 10:53, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Happens to all of us :) and thanks! Gonnym (talk) 10:54, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Request to replace soft-redirected userbox created in template space with its new userbox

{{Proud USA}} is a userbox that was created in the wrong place and was moved a year ago, leaving a malformed userbox on 200+ user pages. Each of its 245 transclusions needs to be replaced with its replacement, User:Folksong/Userboxes/Proud American. A friendly editor with AWB privileges should be able to take care of this one pretty easily. Thanks in advance! – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:10, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

The same task needs to be performed for {{Userbox/POC}}, which has 32 transclusions; and {{User browser:Mozilla Firefox}}, with 286 transclusions; and {{CountriesVisited}}, with 80 transclusions. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:12, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Wouldn't WP:AWBREQ be a better place for this?
Anyway,  Doing. ― Qwerfjkltalk 20:48, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I'll finish this off tomorrow. (I've almost completely finished {{Proud USA}}, except for one edge case.) ― Qwerfjkltalk 21:23, 9 December 2021 (UTC)