Wikipedia:Bot requests

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

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

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

Alternatives to bot requests

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

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

Name hatnotesEdit

  • Hey everyone, I was busy in the last few days adding some custem names hatnotes. I then got the idea why not let a bot add those hatnotes instead of a human? However, the problem here is that some name hatnotes like the Philippine, the Indonesian, the Icelandic or the Chinese do have multiple naming customs within their country. Is it possible to let a bot adding name hatnotes in simpler naming customs like Dutch, Eastern Slavic, Germanic, Japanese, Burmese, Malay, Mongolian, Renaissance Florentine, Okinawan, Portuguese, Slavic, Spanish (including the Basque, Galician and Catalan) and Turkic names? Those countries or people should have normally one style of naming customs. Hopefully this'll be done easily. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:09, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
    CPA-5, hatnotes should be for disambiguation, not explanatory notes on naming conventions; I hate the fact that we still do so so widely. To give a tweaked version of an old comment I made:
    WP:HAT states in its first paragraph that "their purpose is to help readers locate a different article if the one they are at is not the one they're looking for". Despite that, the use of hatnotes for surname clarification does go way back to the 2000s. The basic argument against it is that putting it in a hatnote, the very first thing readers see after the title, is positioning way too prominent for what is basically trivia.
    Concerns over this issue have been brought up at the village pump at least twice — in 2011 here, and last year by me here — and both times there was interest in making a change. I introduced {{efn Chinese name}} and a few similar templates, with discussion here and here, and I hope they'll become increasingly widely adopted and eventually the old style deprecated. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 23:39, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
A complication is that, for many of these pages, the surname occupying the base name is nowhere near being a primary topic. I suspect that the vast majority of readers reaching Schoenberg, Braun or Wills have no interest in the surname, and that most of their incoming links were intended for other articles. (I've fixed several thousand such errors this summer.) We should really address that issue before claiming that Schoenberg is a {{German name}}, when 90% of uses intend the composer. Certes (talk) 09:55, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Article History template scriptEdit

Hi all, I was wondering if anyone was interested in developing a script for talk pages to automatically role templates like DYK, GA and PR into an {{ArticleHistory}} format? I occasionally Wikignome, and it occurs to me such a script would likely be very useful for myself and many other editors, by automating a fairly time consuming manual process. The benefits will be more readable and organised talk pages, as well as a more comprehensive history for some articles. What a noble goal! --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:44, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I posted at village pump earlier and didn't get any responses, so I assume such a script doesn't exist, therefore I thought I'd ask here :). --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:44, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

The MilHistBot has this capability. It normally does so when articles are promoted to A-class or FAC. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:37, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
@Hawkeye7 that's great! Is there a way to get it as a user script? --Tom (LT) (talk) 04:50, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Unfortunately, it would have to be rewritten. As far as I know, scripts have to be written in JavaScript. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:06, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
I have worte codes that may parse {{Article History}}. You may use the codes to modify {{Article History}}, and the codes are in JavaScript. But I think the request can execute automatically? --Kanashimi (talk) 11:37, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Kanashimi! I don't understand the second half of what you have said though. How will the script happen automatically? (Is it possible that I can choose for it to execute, like with most scripts via a button added to the "More" menu?) --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:52, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
For example, we may using a bot to merge DYK, GA and PR mark into {{Article History}}. But I don't know if there is a such mark... --Kanashimi (talk) 08:47, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
I see Kanashimi. But how can I do that using a script that I can initiate? --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:53, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Are there some sample edits for DYK, GA and PR, so we can know more clearly what to do? --Kanashimi (talk) 01:08, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
EG @Kanashimi see Talk:FC_Bayern_Munich. Merge the "Old peer review" template into the "Article history" section. If there are separate DYK and GA templates, do the same thing.--Tom (LT) (talk) 00:34, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Second example is Talk:Sonic the Hedgehog - would merge the GA and PR templates into a single "Article history" template. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:36, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
@Tom (LT): Thank you. I think it is possible using a bot to combine {{Old peer review}} into {{Article History}}. But I wonder if we really desiring a bot to do this. Also @KingSkyLord: please give some comments, thank you. --Kanashimi (talk) 12:25, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
@Kanashimi: A bot which automatically changes the {{Article history}} gets my full support! KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 13:07, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
It is a requirement for FAC, and the FACBot does so. It is trickier than the GA and DYK merges though, due to different formats of peer review used over time, and page moves. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:16, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks all. Just wondering if at least a user script could be developed (or a bot if there is community consensus!)--Tom (LT) (talk) 23:55, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
@Tom (LT): Since we could do this automatically, I think it will be better not to bother humans. @Hawkeye7: I see some pages transcluding {{Old peer review}}. Will FACBot clean them in the future? --Kanashimi (talk) 22:04, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
No, not unless they become featured articles. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:57, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7 could FACBot or MilHist bot be customised to run on new good articles or peer reviews every so often? --Tom (LT) (talk) 04:42, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

To merge the article history? Sure. That is doable. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:56, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
This is EnterpriseyBot task 7, but I haven't run it in a while. I could set it back up, though. Enterprisey (talk!) 02:14, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Either is OK! Options are each sweep going through all articles in Category:Old requests for peer review, or simply going through recent peer reviews (they are always placed in categories titled in the pattern Category:June 2020 peer reviews. A full sweep will be needed at least once. I will leave how you assess WP:GA to you, and also whether you want to do the same for WP:DYK and so on. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:47, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
@Hawkeye7 and Enterprisey - would it be possible to activate one of your bots bot on those pages? --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:59, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Working on it. It seems the Python code I wrote is sort of disgusting, so I'm translating it to Rust, which might take a few more days. Enterprisey (talk!) 08:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Great, thanks! It pleases me to know beautiful code will be used. --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:53, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Tom (LT), looking good. I'll have it run daily. Enterprisey (talk!) 10:47, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Enterprisey. I'll keep an eye on the change log of your bot for the next few days to see how it goes. Will you be running it through all Category:Old requests for peer review to start off with? --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:27, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
It doesn't support the peer review templates yet. It might be a bit tricky to implement that. For example, on Talk:Isaac Asimov, there are two peer reviews, one finished and one not started. The dates of both would have to be auto-detected from the page history, which is probably doable but would be a pain. I will, however, implement {{Old XfD multi}}, and that, combined with ITN, OTD, and DYK, should cover most cases pretty well. Enterprisey (talk!) 06:34, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Ok I see. What information do you need? Is it the revision date only, or do you also definitely need a revision ID too? Also... regarding the current bot - apart from improving your bot's code, will it be running in new areas (Such as ITN, OTD, DYK, GA)? --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:03, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
The article history template requires a date, and I don't think it requires a revision ID. It's just that I would have to dig through the history looking for an edit that removes the peer review template... ah, I'm clearly just making excuses because that would be trickier to write  . For your other question, currently it only supports ITN, OTD, DYK, and XfD. {{GA}} shouldn't be too hard. Enterprisey (talk!) 09:05, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
If you did expand it to GA, I think that would be a good think to help tidy up those talk pages too. At some future date I'll request a bot to insert the dates into the peer reviews. Then I'll ping you and your bot can churn through the 20,000 or so review-related talk pages to clean them up.--Tom (LT) (talk) 02:01, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject redirectsEdit

A common mistake is to type "Wikiproject" instead of "WikiProject" to get to pages like Template:WikiProject Physics or Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics. So a bot that would automatically create those would be really useful.

This should only be the base pages, not the subpages like Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Quality Control. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:51, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

There was a deliberate action some time long ago to remove WikiProject template redirects to make it easier to maintain them. I am not entirely certain that part of this request would have consensus. --Izno (talk) 17:05, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
The redirects that people got rid of were those that were very weird/non-standard ("WikiProject Phys"). This would be a systematic creation for very common typos very often made by newbies. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:10, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
I'd be opposed to this template redirect creation as I find it useless (and template redirects always have a hidden downside later on). The templates are used exactly once per page. It's ok if it takes you 2 seconds more to type in the correct "P". --Gonnym (talk) 17:20, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
The point is newbies don't know that and make that mistake often. WP:CHEAP applies here. There is no downside to those redirects, and many upsides. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:21, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Newbies, and others, should be directed to User:Evad37/rater if you find them having problems with these templates. --Izno (talk) 18:00, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Newbies at AFC should not be directed to scripts. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:11, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Newbies at AFC should also not be directed to add rubbish to talk pages.
Using a bot to create redirects for variant capitalisation will not help much when a given miscapitalisation is rarely used a second time. Look through the history of Wikipedia:Database reports/Broken WikiProject templates beginning at this revision to see the sheer variety that the newbies come up with. The last column of the report tells you how many instances existed at the time that the report ran: it's rarely above 1. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:42, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
So? That's where WP:CHEAP applies. This doesn't fix every "mistake" someone can make, but it fixes a good bunch of them. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:12, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
A good solution to the common-mistake-by-newbies problem would be to provide a javascript-based form for them to add project tags. This can be done via mw:Snippets/Load JS and CSS by URL so that they don't have to install any script on their end. SD0001 (talk) 14:08, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Like Headbomb, and RedRose said; newbies, let them be at AfC or anywhere, should not be directed to scripts. Regarding wikiproject redirects, and shortcuts; they tend to be (just a little) headache. I had discussed a similar issue regarding wikiproject shortcuts on Primefac's talkpage a few weeks ago. For example, {{WPCannabis}} is not recognised by AWB/JWB as a wikiproject. Same goes for {{Uk-crime}}. If a new, or experienced editor is creating a new article, and looking for talkpge banners, they can copy-paste from somewhere, or at least would be able to see it somewhere. Repeating/copying it is not a difficult thing. While I have strong opinions on shortcuts, I am flexible with case-sensitive redirects. —usernamekiran (talk) 13:43, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Adding to the chorus above, I strongly agree that this is worthwhile. We should prioritize beginner-friendliness; the stuff for advanced users can and will all be figured out in due time, but there's no way to fix after the fact when a new user gets frustrated trying to tag a talk page and just gives up. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 20:08, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject Curling template changesEdit

Hello! I originally posted this on WP:AWBREQ, but a bot makes more sense. Currently, articles about curlers use various combinations of {{Sports links}}, {{WCT}}, {{WCF}}, {{CurlingZone}}, and other templates for external links, but they can all be simplified to just {{Sports links}}, which would standardize our templates moving forward. Could a bot check all pages that use {{WCF}}, {{WCT}}, and {{CurlingZone}}; remove those templates in the external links section (but not other article sections), along with {{SR/Olympics profile}}, {{IOC profile}}, {{COC profile}}, {{USOPC profile}}, {{Olympedia}}, and {{Olympic Channel}} (all of which are redundant with {{Sports links}}); and then add {{Sports links}} if it's not already there? Thanks! Allthegoldmedals (talk) 11:59, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Allthegoldmedals, could you give example(s) of what sort of changes would be performed, either here or by diff link? Helps me to better visualise the complexity of the task. Primefac (talk) 15:26, 20 August 2020 (UTC) (please do not ping on reply)
Here are a few: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. As far as I can tell, most should be like the first two. Allthegoldmedals (talk) 16:52, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Sports links recommended use provides suboptimal HTML. Since it generates list items, it really shouldn't be preceded by a list bullet. Just as a note. --Izno (talk) 16:44, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
@Izno: Could you expand on this? As far as I can tell if {{Sports links}} isn't preceded by a list bullet then the first link isn't bulleted, though the proceeding links are. A202985 (talk) 18:49, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
I will try, but I can't guarantee it is the case as I said (code review on mobile is hard). I'm simply deeply suspicious that what is happening is that there is an empty list item being generated due to the implementation of sports links because a template cannot get out of a list item that has started outside the template, so far as I know. Templates should generally strive not to do that. --Izno (talk) 21:19, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Despite the fact that sports links has a minor HTML issue (which can be fixed on the template side), we at WikiProject Curling have discussed and decided that we'd still like to carry out this template change, because many of the external link templates currently point to dead links, which is a more pressing issue. I'd like to follow up about this bot request? Allthegoldmedals (talk) 22:41, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Bot for updating U.S. college admissions statisticsEdit

For many years, U.S. college articles were using manually updated tables like this to represent admissions statistics. Following a WikiProject Higher Education discussion, we've begun replacing them with {{Infobox U.S. college admissions}}, which uses data available from the Common Data Set (and I think also IPEDS) for everything (except the optional historical test score parameters). Symbols for historical data are chosen automatically using the new {{Fluctuation formatter}} I created.

Would anyone be interested in starting work on a bot that could gather the data and use it to update the templates automatically every year? Given the number of colleges in the U.S., doing so will save likely hundreds of hours of editor work per year. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 20:06, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Would it not make more sense to have a template or module to store all of the data, call it from the templates, and only have to update on page per year? A bot could still be used to import and format it, but it would save a lot of edits; what are there, something like 500 universities in the US? Primefac (talk) 20:21, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Primefac, that could certainly be an approach, since yeah, there's more like 2000 institutions. The centralized data storage approach isn't working that well for college colors, but it could perhaps be done better or done at Wikidata rather than here. I'll mostly leave those sorts of decisions to whoever wants to actually do the coding, so long as the system they set up is reasonably robust and durable. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 23:28, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
If it's being updated by a bot I don't really see an issue with it being unable to format its updates as a Lua table. The proposal at that link also kinda misses the point imo, people can always suggest updates on the talk if they can't edit the module, and even if they make a TPER with the new data (& sources, if applicable), I don't think TEs would mind adding it into the module's /data, so knowledge of Lua isn't really required. It sounds like people just aren't submitting updates? As for this thing, if statistics are to be updated by bot, people would only need to amend if the Common Data Set values were wrong, somehow. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:14, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Opt-in service to notify discussion of past AfDs when an article is renominatedEdit

Participation at AfD often requires considerable research and debate to find consensus. It's therefore understandable that people get frustrated when, sometime after it's closed, the article is renominated without them knowing. Given how few participants many AfDs have, it sometimes happens that a well attended AfD is overturned by a much smaller group. But even when that doesn't happen, the second (or subsequent) nomination loses out on the efforts of those who researched before.

Anyone willing to make a bot that would look for "nomination)" in the title (or some other method of determining renominations) and, based on an opt-in list, notify past participants (if they want)? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:11, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Not to ask the dumb question, but if one is concerned enough about the topic, could they not just watchlist the page? Primefac (talk) 12:50, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Well, I recently wiped my watchlist, but even before that I had about 20k pages on it. It's easy to miss a renomination if there's no notification. Especially if it's a topic I'm only marginally interested in. Participation in an AfD isn't necessarily interest in watching the article or being "concerned enough about the topic"; it's about the effort and the process. I've spent a good amount of time digging up sources (or trying and failing to do so) on topics I'm not super interested in, because that's just what AfD needs sometimes. If the same exact discussion is going to happen again, there's a good argument, I think, for not losing that effort (or not replicating it, or not risking a redo where nobody puts in that effort). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:11, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough. Primefac (talk) 15:16, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
I could probably do this soon, if nobody beats me to it. TheTVExpert (talk) 19:05, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Great! — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:25, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Just to clarify, in case it's unclear, when I say "opt-in" I intended that to mean opt-in for the service, and not on the level of the individual AfD. i.e. "I want this in general" rather than "if this specific article is renominated, I want to be notified". — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:25, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Tangentially related: WP:Bots/Requests for approval/SDZeroBot 6. – SD0001 (talk) 21:22, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Yobot wikiproject tagging requestEdit

This is a formal request to recruit @Yobot: to tag talk pages under WikiProject Phoenicia. Please tag the pages under Category:Phoenicia; no auto-rating. Thanks ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 13:34, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Yobot has not edited since 2018. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:12, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
I seem to recall User:AnomieBOT performs this task. Primefac (talk) 15:59, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
@Elie plus: In any case, you need to supply an explicit list of categories to process - unless you only want the 20 pages presently in Category:Phoenicia to be tagged, those can be done as an AWB job. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:34, 1 September 2020 (UTC)


I come across way too many article talks, like Talk:Jennifer Lawrence, where the {{Archives}} causes that ugly overlap. It happens whenever the template isn't at the bottom of the list of talk banners (view source to see what I mean). To fix, we'd need a continuous bot to make sure this template keeps getting moved to the bottom of talk page banners. I don't think a CSS fix is really possible for this, and a JS fix would not be preferable to just having a bot maintain talk pages. I've made a discussion on the talk last week, see Redrose's response there for useful info as well (perhaps a broader bot for that purpose should be considered). It reminds me that another issue we see is DS templates constantly in the wrong order, it's advised by the template itself, and WP:TALKORDER, to have them below the talk header. Yet they seem to be scattered randomly. We commonly have random whitespace in talk page banners, too, thus random newlines. Really a bot to clean all this up would be a good idea, and enforce order (except when opted-out, I suppose). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:04, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

You'll have to see Special:PermaLink/973120366 for the version PR refers to, since I went ahead and removed the {{archives}} (there's already a {{talk header}} so it makes it redundant). Primefac (talk) 22:19, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
@ProcrastinatingReader: I was just thinking about this the other day. WP:Talk page layout gives a fairly consistent indication of what the order for talk page banners should be, but they regularly end up more random. It'd be very nice to have a bot fixing that, and over time as people get used to a certain order, it could make the maze of talk banners easier to navigate.
Programming will be a fairly big task, though. You'd have to go through every talk page banner available and assign it an order. You'd also probably want to automate things like when to introduce collapsing of WikiProjects or {{banner holder}}. And we'd need to discuss what should happen when someone creates and adds a new banner that isn't part of the queue, or how to handle custom notice banners. I could also see complaints that if the bot operates too frequently, it's just making edits without a strong purpose. All those obstacles are possible to overcome, however, and I think if we did it'd make talk pages a lot nicer. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 20:00, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Bot for fixing italicizations of movie/newspaper/etc. namesEdit

This might be something that'd more have to be done with AWB (in which case I'd appreciate advice on how), but to lay it out: I fairly often come across instances of e.g. Star Trek: The Next Generation that are not italicized. I can think of very few instances where this wikitext would show up, including the link, but we would not want to italicize. Would it be possible to get a bot to go around and identify instances of missing italicizations and fix them? (Italicization obviously isn't the most pressing issue facing the 'pedia, but since it is visible to readers, I don't think WP:COSMETICBOT applies.) {{u|Sdkb}}talk 21:10, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I can think of very few instances where this wikitext would show up are there any? If so, might not be a good task for bot, as it wouldn't be able to differentiate here. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:47, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
ProcrastinatingReader, giving this some more thought, the only instance outside of citations that I can think of is within a block of italicized text, in which case double italicization=no italicization. It also occurs to me that this goes beyond just titles to include any page at all that has an italic title but is linked to from another page not using italics. What would be the best way to address this? Should we set up a maintenance category and hand it over to the typo team or something? {{u|Sdkb}}talk 03:42, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Newspaper titles often show up in citation templates which dislike italics. Certes (talk) 17:02, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Certes, are bots able to ignore content within citations? {{u|Sdkb}}talk 01:57, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm sure a bot could easily be programmed to do that. WP:OABOT#Resources mentions a bot which uses that technique for a different purpose, and the functionality may even come out of the box with mwparserfromhell. However, the few bots I've written have been trivial read-only hacks, so an expert may be more helpful. Certes (talk) 11:00, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Move editnotices when underlying page is movedEdit

Usually editors moving pages don't move the editnotice attached to it. Either they forget, or aren't admin/TE so they don't do it (or both). {{Editnotice/notice}} categorises such cases into Category:Editnotices whose targets are redirects (which I've been updating for a while) but it often takes months for the job queue to go over transclusions and add moved pages into this cat (see this on VPT), which makes it hard to even do this manually. I'm thinking a bot would (a) be able to do this sooner and get around that issue and (b) actually just do the move automatically, suppressing the redirect. One way would be to listen to Special:Log/move and check if a editnotice for page exists, this could be done continuously. Another is to regularly loop over all transclusions of {{Editnotice}} (or [[Special:PrefixIndex/Template:Editnotices/) daily and do the moves. There's <20k so this is feasible, I think, but this would leave a period of up to 24 hours (ideally, the editnotice shouldn't just be disappearing for a day, especially when they're ones required for DS etc). Thoughts on these options, or other alternative methods? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:41, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

  BRFA filed ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:39, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Done by ProcBot's task 4. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:16, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Rcat templates specifying printworthynessEdit

A lot of rcat templates specify the printworthyness of redirects through the |printworthy= parameter of {{Redirect template}}. All of these have, in their documentation, a notice asking editors to also add {{R printworthy}} or {{R unprintworthy}} (as appropriate) to redirects categorised by the template, if in the mainspace. However, very few editors actually take notice of this instruction, so how about a bot to do this instead?

The bot would be implemented (I hypothesise; I've never actually done this myself) by running through Category:Printworthy redirects and Category:Unprintworthy redirects, checking if each page includes {{R printworthy}} or {{R unprintworthy}}, and adding the relevant template if the answer is no (within an {{Rcatshell}} if there is one).

Any thoughts? WT79 (speak to me | editing patterns | what I been doing) 17:13, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Not to ask the really dumb question, as I'm not heavily involved in that project, but if an "r from..." template includes the option to mark a redirect as unprintworthy, why do you then need another template to do the same thing? Primefac (talk) 22:20, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
I think it's meant as a visual thing, as the other templates only add categories. Fair point though. WT79 (speak to me | editing patterns | what I been doing) 07:01, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
After a bit further thinking, I think the reason is as follows: {{Redirect template}}'s |printworthy= parameter adds the pages to Category:Printworthy redirects, if they are in the main namepace. However, {{R printworthy}} / {{R unprintworthy}} are the standard Rcat templates to use to mark redirects as printworthy / unprintworthy; these are used separately to other templates on the redirect. They may be used other rcats which specify printworthyness, so isn't just part of {{Redirect template}}, which is only supposed to be used as a meta-template. If their functionality was merged into {{Redirect template}}, and {{R printworthy}} and {{R unprintworthy}} replaced with '{{Redirect template|printworthy=<!--yes or no as appropriate-->}}', a reverse problem would be caused as {{R printworthy}}/{{R unprintworthy}} would need to be removed from pages where printworthiness is already specified, to avoid duplication. WT79 (speak to me | editing patterns | what I been doing) 14:23, 14 September 2020 (UTC) (edited 16:16, 12 October 2020 (UTC))

A bot that can copy articles from non-diffusing subcategories into the appropriate parent categories.Edit

I was going to copy all films from the American television films category into the American films category (using Cat-a-lot), because the template on the American films category specifically tells editors to do this. However, an administrator objected because he did not want his watchlist to be full of hundreds of minor edits. He then requested that I get a bot to transfer articles from non-diffusing subcategories into the appropriate parent categories. I have taken into account the fact that such a bot may transfer categories that were inappropriately placed, though. Is this still an acceptable proposal? Scorpions13256 (talk) 20:31, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

@Scorpions13256: Just to clarify, is this a request for all items in the sub-cats of American films, or just American television films? Mdann52 (talk) 21:57, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry that I was unclear. This was my first bot request. I was initially talking about all non-diffusing subcategories in general. however, I now think that the best move would be just to transfer all films from American television films to American films. My other proposal seems a bit drastic now that I think of it. What do you think? Scorpions13256 (talk) 23:26, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  Doing... - Yep probably something that needs to be looked at wider to gain consensus, as that's potentially millions of changes. I'll try and get a BRFA together in a few days to do a one time run to get them moved - given this potentially thousands of changes, I think that would be best. Mdann52 (talk) 08:49, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

adding "nobots", and "category:wikipedians who opt out of message delivery" to indef blocked usersEdit

I have seen many users who have been blocked indefinitely for various reasons (socking, disruptive editing, CIR, and what not), but they receive many newsletters, and other notifications. Currently, there is User:Yapperbot/Pruner to remove inactive users from lists (WikiProject membership, FRS, etc), notifying the removed users appropriately. I am not sure what is the extent of this task. Would it be feasible to spend resources on creating a bot task to add {{nobots}}, and "category:wikipedians who opt out of message delivery" on the talkpages of users who have been blocked indefinitely, and do not have {{unblock}} on talkpage for more than 30 days? That way, resources can be conserved by avoiding new bot messages being posted, and later being archived. In case the user returns after a while, or after standard offer, they can simply remove the "nobots", and the category. Opinions are welcome. Regards, —usernamekiran (talk) 13:22, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, I created a custom module, which did the edit(s) successfully: special:diff/978555212. I tested the module under different scenarios, and I also tested on a few (talk)pages from Category:Indefinitely blocked Wikipedians. I couldnt find any errors, as it is fairly a basic task. I didn't save these edits, just previewed. —usernamekiran (talk) 16:30, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Bot that automatically fixes spacing after periodsEdit

Scrolling through Wikipedia:Typo Team/moss/E, I noticed that a majority of typos marked are incorrect spacing after periods.As an example, I would like to name the typo I just made between "periods" and "as". Now, to qualify for correction, the words would have to:

  • Not be in links i.e:
  • Not be in the same string, without a space, as "www", "http", "com", "org", etc.
  • Not be part of a reference.
  • Be a correct word in the language. (A metric for this could be having a page on Wiktionary.) "Periods" and "as" would meet this condition
  • And have been on an article longer than a certain time period (in the case that someone misspells a link).

Interested to hear what you think. Opalzukor (talk) 16:11, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Since both "i" and "e" have entries at Wiktionary, your use of "i.e" above would presumably be (incorrectly) modified by such a bot. I think that a supervised bot task of this sort might be possible with considerable effort and a lot more conditions to avoid false positives, but an unsupervised bot is unlikely to be possible. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:37, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
WT:AutoWikiBrowser/Typos also works in this area. It already fixes many types of wrong punctuation but may be able to help further. Certes (talk) 17:42, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
A dedicated AWB user could have a field day fixing specific patterns, like "(letter).The", which currently has more than 5,000 hits in article space (including false positives in URLs and similar things that should not be fixed). Someone looking for and fixing common patterns like this could take a considerable load off of the Typo Team. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:45, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Jonesey95, wow, that is a field day in waiting indeed! {{u|Sdkb}}talk 18:04, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Bot that marks redirects with R to/from diacriticsEdit

This task should be relatively simple. Find all cases of redirects like

and mark them with {{R to diacritics}}

Then find all cases of redirects like

and mark them with {{R from diacritics}}

Obviously pages that are already tagged should be skipped. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:45, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

If the redirect already has similar templates, such as {{R move}}, then these and the new template should go within a new or existing {{Redirect category shell}}. Certes (talk) 07:55, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Bot to fix broken peer review linksEdit

Hi all, there are about 650 articles which were previously peer reviewed. However, because of article moves, the links to the reviews are now broken. Category:Pages using Template:Old peer review with broken archive link. See for example Talk:Battle of the Catalaunian Plains. I'm seeking bot help repairing the 650 links. Essentially, the bot will need to go through each article in that category, determine what the name of the article was when the peer review was closed, and then update the template {{Old peer review}} on the current article talk page by adding |reviewedname=the old name. Extra useful if the date can be found and inserted too (|date=date the review was closed). --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:25, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

  Coding... This is definitely doable. I will begin to start making it. I think this could be extended to other broken links like this one. BJackJS talk 17:43, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
@Tom (LT) Still in progress but   BRFA filed. I expect the bot to be done by the end of the week. BJackJS talk 19:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Great, thanks! --Tom (LT) (talk) 20:53, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Fixing broken shortcuts to sectionsEdit

When someone changes a section name, there's no indication that someone else somewhere on Wikipedia might have created a link to that section that will be broken by the name change. I occasionally come across instances of such broken anchor links. Is there any bot patrolling for this and changing links (or, if that would be disruptive in some cases, adding an {{anchor}} to the destination page)? If not, I'd think we'd want to set that up. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 05:53, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Exactly what I was thinking of a few days back. We don't even have the automation to get a list of broken section redirects, let alone to fix them. We have no fewer than 730,000 redirects pointing to sections, in the mainspace alone. The only way AFAIK to check accurately if such a redirect is valid is to look at the rendered HTML of the target page and see if it has an element with the given ID. But the API allows for parsing only one page in a single call, which means we would have to make 730,000 API calls, and repeat the process every month or so??
A best-effort way would be look at the wikitexts of the target pages (this the API allows us to fetch for 500 pages at a time) and guess if the redirect would be valid by checking the section names and {{anchor}} tags. Even then we need 730,000 / 500 = 1460 API calls, but that's reasonable I guess. – SD0001 (talk) 10:10, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
It might take fewer calls if we group the redirects by target page, so Foo#bar and Foo#baz can be handled together. But how do we fix them once we have a list? We could add anchors for old versions of headings, at the considerable cost of retrieving multiple old versions, but I expect too many of those 730,000 redirects would need manual attention. Adding anchors automatically after future changes might be more useful. Certes (talk) 10:44, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
There is/was a bot that handles this, yes. I don't remember which. --Izno (talk) 14:25, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Hmm, interesting. It should probably be linked from WP:ANCHOR if it's identified. And if it used to exist but has stopped working, then it's part of the larger problem of quiet bot retirements, which I know some editors are tired of hearing about but which really needs to emphasized until it's addressed. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 14:47, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Are you sure? Just a few days back, I fixed a broken section redirect that had been broken for 4 years. – SD0001 (talk) 20:10, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Oh boy, we do have Wikipedia:Database reports/Broken section anchors. – SD0001 (talk) 20:16, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Also found Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BrokenAnchorBot and Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SteveBot 5. Neither of these have been active anytime in the recent past. Both needed to be run manually (not fully automatic). – SD0001 (talk) 20:25, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Hmm, 2010 and 2011. Could either of those be mined for code/techniques that we could use to get this running again? And while it'd be better to have something manual than nothing, I think ideally we should set up a bot that runs automatically and throws up a prominent error message if it ever stops functioning, since this is an issue that needs persistent work. Courtesy pinging Steven Crossin who is still active (as of last month). {{u|Sdkb}}talk 21:36, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
It seems a challenge to me. I am trying to code this task... --Kanashimi (talk) 09:34, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
This sounds like a bot-assisted semi-automated process like DisamAssist or AWB. It may be worth mentioning in the manual that links are occasionally intended for a different article, as here: [[C#major]] usually means C-sharp major, etc. Certes (talk) 11:18, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
@Sdkb, SD0001, Certes, Izno, and Steven Crossin:   BRFA filed --Kanashimi (talk) 10:45, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorting on Wikipedia:Translators availableEdit

A bot would be useful on Wikipedia:Translators available for the sorting the lists of users, in each section, by the date of last edit (descending). I'd suggest running the task monthly. – SD0001 (talk) 12:19, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

  Coding... Taking a shot at this. —{Canucklehead} FKA Cryptic Canadian 01:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
  Still doing... Had to step away from this over the weekend, still need to figure out a few things before a BRFA. —{Canucklehead} 00:17, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Replacing invalid values in currency templatesEdit

A recent change to the MediaWiki software has started assigning a tracking category, Category:Pages with non-numeric formatnum arguments, to pages that contain invalid input to formatnum, which is supposed to be given only numeric input. I have edited a few templates to get the article count down from about 150,000 to the current 31,000, but there are some instances of errors within articles that need to be corrected.

One of the errors is invalid input to currency templates, including {{US$}}, {{CAD}}, and other templates in Category:Currency templates. The invalid input often looks like {{US$|75 million}}, which should be written {{US$|75}}{{nbsp}}million. Here's a sample fix.

This search shows some of the 500+ articles that have invalid text in {{US$}}. The "insource" regex in the search shows the most common construction of the invalid text, and creating a regex to fix the affected articles should be easy. The tricky part is doing the same fix for about 50 templates and their redirects.

Is there anyone here who would be willing to work with me to fix these errors? I can create a list of probable articles and templates that are involved (although I don't know how to create a list of all of the possible redirects). I estimate that the affected article count is between 1,000 and 3,000. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:29, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Do we know what is behind this change? It would help both existing and future uses if {{formatnum:CAD 1234 squillion}} produced "CAD 1,234 squillion" and, in practice, it does. If the parser function is being changed to remove this useful feature, we might be better off writing a template to reimplement the current behaviour of formatnum: and changing {{US$}} etc. to use that template, rather than editing thousands of articles. Certes (talk) 17:46, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
This MW help page explains that sending non-numeric values to formatnum can produce "unreliable output". It looks like the MW developers have deprecated and started tracking this non-numeric input (see T237467 and T263592) as of sometime in the last week, so we either need to fix existing uses or write a new template. It would be great to have a new template that does what formatnum does; if you start developing such a template (it should have a better name than the poorly chosen "formatnum"), ping me and I'll help with QA. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:19, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
@Jonesey95: I've knocked something together in my sandbox (actual code in sandbox2). It almost works with a single #invoke:String|replace, but unfortunately the formatnum: executes before its argument gets replaced, so it formats the placeholder ("%1") rather than the actual number. Unless someone has a clever fix, we need to jump through some hoops with three String calls (or write some Lua). I've not assumed a name for the new template. {{Formatnum}} is currently a dummy "use a colon instead" warning but could be hijacked. Certes (talk) 19:41, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Clean up introduction sample pagesEdit

Related discussions:

A change back in June to the introduction shown to new users has resulted in new pages being created as subpages of Draft:Sample page when users complete the introduction without logging in (see Special:PrefixIndex/Draft:Sample_page). These are essentially individualized sandboxes, and should be routinely deleted - they're test pages by definition so WP:G2 applies, and they often contain material that qualifies for deletion under other speedy criteria. Can someone code an adminbot that will look for these subpages and delete them, maybe if they have not been edited in a few days? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:45, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for creating the botreq here. As the main editor who set up the sample page system, I endorse this request. Hopefully it should be pretty easy to code, since there are no subpages of Draft:Sample page other than the random numbered ones, all of which should be deleted after a period of inactivity. We have a fairly long standard period for most drafts (6 months), but I have no issue with the period here being much shorter (after all, this is only applying to IP editors; editors who have logged in create their sample page in their userspace). Please feel free to ping me if there are any questions about the system. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 21:23, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Well, there are only 9 currently. So could just delete by hand for now, periodically. A bot could be made to G2 delete inactive 8 digit subpages of that name, but at this rate seems like more effort than it's worth, and we'd also need an admin volunteer to run it. Also, some editors could use it as a draft page for writing an actual article. A bot wouldn't be able to differentiate. So maybe best to just rely on the regular G13 system? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:16, 12 October 2020 (UTC)


Is there a bot that adds the {{DEFAULTSORT}} magic word to articles that need it but don't have it? I have a list of over 1k television "List of episodes" articles that don't have DEFAULTSORT. Cheers. -- /Alex/21 09:52, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Do those articles share some template such as an infobox which could apply the DEFAULTSORT word? Certes (talk) 10:35, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
"List of episodes" articles don't use infoboxes, no. -- /Alex/21 11:26, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Please give an example of one of the articles which lack a defaultsort, and also suggest a sortkey that would be desirable for that article. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:16, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
List of Star Trek: Enterprise episodes, "Star Trek: Enterprise episodes, List of". -- /Alex/21 03:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
The page already has
[[Category:Star Trek: Enterprise episodes| ]]
[[Category:Star Trek episode lists|Enterprise episodes]]
[[Category:Lists of American science fiction television series episodes|Star Trek: Enterprise]]
each with a different sortkey. Only one of them - Lists of American science fiction television series episodes - would benefit from having the sortkey "Star Trek: Enterprise episodes, List of", so I don't see how making that the defaultsort would be an improvement. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:52, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

There are three main cases to consider:

  • For categories consisting entirely of lists:
    • "List of" should be either omitted or moved to the end of each sortkey. The (purely cosmetic) effect should be to alphabetically distribute the list titles according to the first letter of the third word (instead of grouping them all under "L" for "List") when viewing the category. This should never actually affect their sort order.
  • For all other categories (containing both lists and non-lists):
    • A single list whose scope exactly matches that of the category should have a whitespace sortkey so it appears before "0–9" and "A" even.
    • Any other list article should remain sorted under "L" for "List of".

Note that the lists and categories in question might not use identical phrasing for some strange "local consensus" reason, so determining which case applies probably wouldn't be a good bot task. ―cobaltcigs 08:28, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Tagging empty categories with Template:Db-c1 after some elapsed timeEdit

‹See TfM›

Already a bot task for this, though it is currently disabled. Primefac (talk) 19:18, 11 October 2020 (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.

I'm not sure if such a bot already exists, but shouldn't there be an automated script that tags categories under C1 if they remain empty for an allotted time (i.e.: six hours)? ToThAc (talk) 22:04, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

ToThAc, some categories should not be deleted, even if empty. How would we avoid marking them for speedy deletion? Heart (talk) 06:23, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
We have {{Possibly empty category}} for categories like Lua templates with errors, which should be kept because it will be populated automatically and provide a useful warning next time we mess up a template. However, some empty categories without that tag may still be useful and should not be deleted without human consideration. Certes (talk) 10:15, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
@Certes: Shouldn't there be another template dealing with that situation as well? ToThAc (talk) 19:33, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
There probably is. The experts at WT:WikiProject Categories should be able to advise whether it is safe to delete empty categories which have none of a certain list of tags. Certes (talk) 23:36, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
QEDKbot used to do this. It ran to into troubled waters (actually, whole of Wikipedia talk:Bots/Requests for approval at the moment is discussion about QEDKbot!) and so its operator appears to disabled it for now. – SD0001 (talk) 19:53, 9 October 2020 (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.

Clearing the category "Wikipedia usernames with possible policy issues"Edit

Have a bot remove a user from the category Category:Wikipedia usernames with possible policy issues when they have been inactive for over one year or have been blocked indefinitely. Heart (talk) 03:15, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't work with that category, but would it make sense for a bot to move those pages to a corresponding "inactive user" category so that the usernames could still be tracked? – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:47, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Jonesey95, well, the notice explicitly states that users that haven't been active in a week can be removed. I think that rule is ludicrous and have extended it to a year to give time to change names, or to come back from a wikibreak. So I would see no need for the category, but it is up the user who creates the bot to decide this. Heart (talk) 06:21, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

DYK blurb filling botEdit

More or less the same thing as Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DYKHousekeepingBot, which Shubinator says they doesn't have time to revive. The idea is to crawl Category:Pages using DYK talk with a missing entry, find the missing DYK blurbs, and add |entry= to these article's {{DYK talk}} templates on their talk pages.

For instance, 1st Polish Light Cavalry Regiment of the Imperial Guard has the DYK blurb (found in Wikipedia:Recent additions/2009/April)

(note Polish 1st Light Cavalry Regiment of the Imperial Guard redirect to 1st Polish Light Cavalry Regiment of the Imperial Guard)

In this case, Talk:1st Polish Light Cavalry Regiment of the Imperial Guard should be updated with {{DYK talk|...|entry=... that [[light cavalry|light-cavalrymen]] of the '''[[Polish 1st Light Cavalry Regiment of the Imperial Guard]]''' saved [[Napoleon I of France|Napoleon]]'s life at least three times?}}

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:40, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

  Coding...  Majavah talk · edits 15:05, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
  BRFA filed!  Majavah talk · edits 15:31, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

A bot to move biographical articles with state-only disambiguators.Edit

We have numerous articles with titles like Thomas Williams (Alabama), using the state alone as a disambiguator. These are, as it turns out, disfavored because the person who is the subject of the article is not an example of an Alabama. However, it's a pain in the ass to dig them out and fix them manually. What I would ideally like is a bot to find all biographical articles with titles that are Person's name (State) and replace them with Person's name (State profession) (in the above case, it would be Thomas Williams (Alabama politician)), and then update all incoming links to that as well. I recognize that this can be tricky, because many people have multiple professions and it may require a human eye to choose the best disambiguator, but I think there are some broad categories that can be done automatically. For example (again, as with Thomas Williams (Alabama)), anyone who has served in the United States Congress can almost certainly be disambiguated with "politician" for their profession. Since many of the issues will be with members of Congress auto-generated at these titles in the first place, that should handle a good number of them. BD2412 T 03:03, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I did a quick data collection run. Got bored typing out each state name, so it's not complete, but still. See Quarry for results. It's complicated slightly by the fact that not all people are in Category:Living people (as they probably should be), just using the births cat to get around it, but it could miss usages if that isn't categorised either. Also worth noting only about 118 results popped up, so assuming the data for all states is ~ < 500, possibly much less. Might be easier to adjust by hand, in that case. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:10, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
ProcrastinatingReader, see here for a full list. Mr. Heart (talk) 17:23, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
You need to use underscores (_) instead of spaces.  Majavah talk · edits 17:31, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Majavah, updated. Mr. Heart (talk) 17:34, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
I found a few others here who evaded the Quarry query by not having been born. Certes (talk) 20:39, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Certes, unfortunately it's not foolproof. If I scrap the category check it will result in the output being mostly non-people (places, waterfalls, all that stuff). But looking at your list, Thomas M. Allen (Georgia) for example, none of the cats are really general people cats (eg births, deaths, etc). I suppose more cases could be caught by allowing "Year of birth missing" (ie just 'birth' and 'death'), but those are manual cats so also probably won't catch every case. Nevertheless, added that at this Quarry (should be done running in a few mins). Not sure if there's a better way to do it, but I don't think we could easily identify what is a bio without relevant cats. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:06, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Amended further to also check talk page for WikiProject Biographies. I think this is as close as we can get it. See new Quarry, if its execution ever finishes. If not, #49017 (with ~650 results) is the closest I've got. Given that the profession also needs to be determined, probably best to clean these by hand, rather than by bot. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:32, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
I believe there are some fairly large subsets for which profession can be determined by a bot. Anyone who served in the U.S. House or Senate, or as a state governor, can be at ([State] politician); anyone who served as a U.S. federal judge can be at ([State] judge). There may be cases where a more precise descriptor would also serve, but at least moving to these would be better than just the state. BD2412 T 21:36, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Alternately, drop a list of links on a project page and I'll do it by hand, probably around ten or twelve a day for sixty days. BD2412 T 21:40, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
BD2412 and others: Here's a table of linked articles generated from quarry 49017 above. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:51, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
I set PetScan loose on grandchildren of American politicians by party and state, but this task may not be limited to politicians. We can't even filter by eye: it's far from obvious that Amos Marsh (Vermont) is of interest but Charlotte Lake (California) isn't. If it helps, this list are all politicians, though some may also be notable for other reasons. I can't help thinking that a non-diffusing Category:Dead people would make many such tasks much easier. Certes (talk) 22:21, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
I've added descendent categories of American people by state by occupation and removed the ones we already know about to make a second list. The few people I found who were missed elsewhere are now divided into 15 politicians and 26 others. Certes (talk) 11:46, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Interstate 635 (Texas), Colorado River (Texas), Toyota Stadium (Texas), etc. are obviously not "examples of a Texas" either. Why are "state-only disambiguators" only "disfavored" for politicians' names? ―cobaltcigs 08:01, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:NCPDAB disambiguates with occupations etc.; WP:PLACEDAB with states etc. Colorado River (Texas river) and Toyota Stadium (Texas stadium) would violate WP:CONCISE. By contrast, adding the last word to John Doe (Texas politician) adds useful information, and might help the reader distinguish him from other John Does who aren't politicians. Adding the field of notability is not only for politicians, it's just that politicians are more likely to have omitted it and to need moving. Certes (talk) 11:03, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that adding extra words to those would be redundant and silly.
Also I specifically said "politicians" because multiple Americans with the same name and same non-political occupation are typically disambiguated by [[... (OCCUPATION born YEAR)]] (plus or minus a comma, and unless their birth years are unknown), because non-politicians tend not to be strongly associated with a particular state.
Meanwhile let's also look overseas and survey how we handle multiple politicians of the same name and same non-U.S. nationality. Surely these must exist. Feel free to prove me wrong, but I doubt any analogous constructs like [[... (Bavaria politician)]] and [[... (Baden-Württemberg politician)]] are used anywhere—because we assume readers know U.S. states but not German states. Falling back on the birth year is probably most common for them as well.
So maybe applying a consistent chain of rules to everybody, including U.S. politicians, would be better. This would have the side effect of avoiding the "this person is not an instance of his/her home state" complaint altogether—with the added bonus of not pretending our readers are silly enough to interpret it that way, as suggested above. Or if we don't want to do that, we can just stick to using as few words as possible.
In any case I'd rather see an RFC about this than a bot request. ―cobaltcigs 16:58, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Just a clarification, state-only disambiguators are not only disfavored for politicians' names, but for people generally. Politicians are just more likely to be associated with a particular state than are people of many other occupations. A given John Smith may be a politician, or even a a Vermont politician, but he isn't a Vermont. BD2412 T 21:03, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
We also have a small number of non-state place qualifiers, such as John E. Johnson (Brandon). I'm not sure how to catch those. Certes (talk) 17:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

A bot to optimize talk page archiving periodsEdit

I very often come across talk pages that are archiving either way too aggressively or (less frequently) not at all aggressively enough. Since the frequency of new talk page threads is something quantifiable, I'd think it'd be possible to use an algorithm to determine when this is happening and automatically adjust the archiving period. I envision that this would be only for mainspace talk pages, since non-mainspace pages have differing desires for how long old threads ought to stick around. Integrating with the current manual adjustment system would be tricky, but this could eventually save a bunch of editor effort and make talk pages function better. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 04:29, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree there's an issue with archive periods. Glaring issue imo, if one tries to solve this with a bot, is: how do you tell editors on local articles that they're setting the archive time wrong, and that the bot's value should be followed? Wouldn't it just result in edit warring with the bot? I mean, I remember EEng was once frogmarched off to ANI for changing 3 days to 7 days on an archive timer (or something along those lines). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:16, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
ProcrastinatingReader, yeah, that's definitely the challenge. I think the way to handle it would be to use a gradual introduction. So first introduce the option to set |age=auto at User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis and make it suggested/default, which handles the issue for new pages going forward. Then, once that's been established for a while, we could start considering mass switches for existing pages, but even then I'd assume we'd want to allow opting out. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 23:44, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
If you want support for |age=auto, that's really something to ask at User:ClueBot III, or whatever archiving bot you want to support this. But I don't see how or why existing archiving periods should be overriden by bots. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:55, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
  Not a good task for a bot. I agree with Headbomb, this is not something a bot should take care of, and definitely something that would require consensus to even implement in the first place. Primefac (talk) 14:44, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Related to this: a bot to keep automatic archival information templates such as {{archives}} or {{auto archiving notice}} in synch with actual bot parameters. That is, if we change |algo=old(60d) to |algo=old(90d) (this example uses User:Lowercase sigmabot III syntax) a bot could come in and change |age=60 to |age=90 of such a template, if present. CapnZapp (talk) 17:05, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Redundant template pairsEdit

The following pairs of cleanup templates:

should not be used on the same article; but often are.

We need a bot, please, to remove first template in each of the pairs named above.

The bot should not do this when the templates are section-specific (e.g. {{One source|section|date=October 2020}})

The bot should remove {{Multiple issues}}, where appropriate.

The bot needs to take into account common redirects (for example, {{More citations needed}} is often used via {{Refimprove}}; {{More footnotes needed}} as {{More footnotes}}, etc.).

This can be done as a one-off and then either run occasionally, or added to one of the regular clean-up tasks.

Other such pairs might be identified in future.

Prior discussion is here . Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:51, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Bot to purge/null edit pagesEdit

On certain pages, it would be useful to have a bot automatically do null edits after a certain period. I'm thinking placing something {{Bot purge}} like

{{Bot purge}}                  <!-- Purges every day (00:00:01 UTC)-->
{{Bot purge|12 hours}}         <!-- Purges every 12 hours (00:00:01 UTC; 12:00:01 UTC)-->
{{Bot purge|1 hour|mode=null}} <!-- Null edits every 1 hour (00:00:01 UTC; 01:00:01 UTC; 02:00:01 UTC...)-->
{{Bot purge|15 minutes}}       <!-- Purges every 15 minutes (00:00:01 UTC; 00:15:01 UTC; 00:30:01 UTC...)-->
{{Bot purge|UTC=20:00:00}}     <!-- Purges at 20:00:00 UTC every day-->

on a page, and then the bot taking its instructions from there. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:54, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

If we do this, let's not mix up the separate meanings of WP:PURGE and WP:NULLEDIT by giving the template or process the wrong name. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:20, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Btw, may be of interest, see Joe's Null Bot, which was slightly similar (but didn't use a template), but is not currently active. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:39, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Some portals include a display relevant to the day, week or month (selected anniversary, etc.) and could benefit from this functionality. A syntax such as cron's would be more flexible at the cost of being more cryptic. Purging would suffice for that usage; I don't think a null edit is needed. Certes (talk) 19:47, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm rather indifferent to the purge/null edit distinction in the name of the template, but null edits are more powerful/give the expected results in all cases, whereas purges don't. I suppose there could always be |mode=purge vs |mode=null for the cases where it matters. I know that for the usages I have in mind, purges are insufficient. Ultimately it doesn't really matter, as long we have a scalable user-friendly way to get bots to purge/null edit certain pages. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:28, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Updated the template doc (and above example) to have a |mode=purge by default, and a |mode=null override. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:32, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
This does sound like it'd be useful. If it requires the bot to make an actual edit, though, it'd make any page with it really annoying to watchlist. Is there any way to make the bot not show up on watchlists by default? {{u|Sdkb}}talk 22:01, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
@Sdkb: Null edits don't show in watchlists, since nothing is recorded (you can verify this by going in your watchlist, I just did a null edit on your talk page, you won't see it). They are basically hard purges, which will update backlinks (e.g. Special:WhatLinksHere) and categories, on top of everything a normal purge does. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:21, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
I also think this could be useful. We may want to think in advance about guidelines for where it can be deployed. We would not want it on a template with lots of transclusions, for example. Maybe limited to certain namespaces and transclusion limits, at least at the beginning? The bot and the template could be programmed to ignore usages outside of at least some of those limits. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:36, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Agree it should probably limited. I was thinking it should only apply on the page where {{Bot purge}} is actually used. So if you have it on e.g. User:AAlertBot/Status2, then only that page would get bot-purged, and not the pages that transclude User:AAlertBot/Status2. But I'm spitballing ideas here, it could be handy to have transclusions get purged too. Perhaps |scope=transclusions / |scope=this page? Limiting to metaspace (i.e. not articles, not mainspace talk) would also likely be a good initial limitation. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:54, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Re only that page would get bot-purged, and not the pages that transclude...: That is not how the job queue works, AFAIK. Pages that are null-edited get put in the job queue to have their transclusions null-edited as well (eventually). I think a purge runs only on the purged page, though, with no downstream effects. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:00, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Well the job queue can do what it wants. The point of the bot purges/null-edits would be to get ahead of the job queue on user-specified pages. If null-edits cause major downstream effects, they could be limited to pages with fewer than X transclusions, where X is a small enough number (100, 50, 25 or whatever the community feels is reasonable). Purges shouldn't cause any downstream effects though, since that only refreshes that one page. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:09, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
As noted above, Joe's Null Bot (talk · contribs) did this. It is no longer able to perform its design task. Although its operator, Joe Decker (talk · contribs), has not edited in six months, the bot had ceased to function well over a year earlier (possibly November 2018), for technical reasons - see the archives of WP:VPT. So if Joe's Null Bot can't do it, I don't see that another bot would be able to do it either. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:49, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
I believe the blocker was T210307 which was resolved. I don't know why the bot stopped after its resolution though, because you can definitely make null edits. With AWB, I use {{subst:void}} I believe, and that certainly works. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:11, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
See also LourdesBot. Certes (talk) 22:30, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
The problem was not the ability to make null edits; as I recall the difficulty was in sending forcelinkupdate requests through the API. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:15, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes, see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)/Archive_181#Sending_a_POST_to_the_API_to_purge which may be relevant (RR pointed this out to me when I ran into a similar issue trying to do this). Perhaps this only causes issues with certain types of purges (eg if you want to refresh cats), though. Null edits may still work. And I guess non-linkupdate purges, where that's appropriate. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:25, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I'd be happy to do something like this, but I feel we should probably have consensus somewhere first? --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:23, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
    • Null bots aren't problematic, and cause no issues anywhere. Don't really see what needs to be discussed. We had plenty of those bots before, e.g. User:Joe's Null Bot. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:34, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Pages are cached for very good reasons and giving people the ability to subvert caching would need even better reasons. What is the purpose of this proposal? What page would need purging more than once per day? Most BLP articles use an age template which gives an off-by-one error when the person's birthday comes around. We're not supposed to worry about performanace, but we're not supposed to fight it either, for example, by purging every BLP daily. Johnuniq (talk) 22:53, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
    • Re:"Very good reasons" Pages are cached to not overload servers when a change to a big template is made. An example of a page that would need to be purged more than once a day would be a page which is transcluded, which happened to be updated more than once a day. For example, User:AAlertBot/Status2 detects if the bot has crashed during its run, and is transcended on WP:AALERTS as well as on my user talk page (User talk:Headbomb). It depends on User:AAlertBot/Status, which is normally edited twice daily (around 8:00 UTC). Ideally, we'd want WP:AALERTS (and a few other pages) to be purged at around 8:30 AM, so that if the bot has crashed, an error message is shown on my userpage, notifying me of an issue with the bot, and at WP:AALERTS, also letting people know that the bot crashed.
      This one is an example of a pages that would need to be purged once daily. But there are many other pages that are updated more often, or less often. For example, a user that wants to have {{Vandalism information}} on his talk page, purged every hour. I also really don't see what this has to do with WP:BLPs. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:34, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
      • I'm just saying there are a lot of articles (mostly biographies, but also others) that use Module:Age templates and the point of caching would be eroded if anyone could stick a template on any page specifying that it be purged every day (let alone every 15 minutes). For special pages such as the one you mention, a purge bot might work from a configuration list that links to each page to be regularly purged, along with when-to-purge parameters. Purging user pages to show decorations would be very undesirable. Johnuniq (talk) 02:21, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
        • That wouldn't be the point of this bot. I mean in theory it could be used for something like purging an article every 21 seconds, but in practice things could be limited to a maximum frequency / specific namespaces. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:04, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
          • Not that I'm necessarily against a central list. It might very well be a better implementation. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:10, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
            • From a risk/reward standpoint I have to agree with John on this; if you can immediately come up with two or three scenarios of easy (even if unintentional) misuse, it might be better to have some form of centralized page from which to pull these more-heaviy-refreshed pages; I always wished Joe's Null bot would have something like that so one wasn't beholden to the timetable of the bot op. Primefac (talk) 10:16, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
              • I'm also happy to code up a centralised version of this. I guess two lists, a purge list and a null edit list (for when upstream changes / cat changes are desired)? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:37, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
                • I'd push for a third list, one that would trigger Null-bot-like edits of all pages transcluding a template (which from a TE perspective can sometimes be highly relevant). Primefac (talk) 11:01, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
                  • Although important, that sounds like an ad hoc task rather than a regular one. As well as daily etc., would it be useful to have a frequency of "purge/edit once, asap", with the bot either changing the frequency to "done (ignore)" or removing the list entry/template entirely after complying with the request? Certes (talk) 11:09, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
                    • I was thinking a "one and done" type list, wherein a user adds the transcluded template to the page, the bot runs through its transclusions, and then removes the template from the list; it wouldn't be any sort of every-day thing (hence the third list). Primefac (talk) 11:20, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
                  • YES, what Primefac said. It's very important in TfD to check if there pages still transcluding a template which is being deleted, and having these sometimes take over a month to update (actual situation) is very time consuming. --Gonnym (talk) 11:11, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Scheduling : When considering the trigger points, a fixed date would be a useful option. Public holidays in the United Kingdom#Dates in England, Northern Ireland and Wales needs a purge each new year as it includes, for each movable holiday, a calculation of the day on which it falls in the current year. Cabayi (talk) 12:24, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
    Hmm. I wonder what the best way to technically structure this is (haven't thought too deep about it yet). As far as I can see, there's four main technical requirements. 1. Support absolute dates (eg 1 January, every year). 2. Support regular dates (eg every 1 hour). 3. Need to keep it updating from a central list regularly on wiki as entries are added/removed/changed (without resetting long regular jobs). 4. Support lots of entries. In a cron-based approach, a couple of these become harder to do, so a continuous scheduler seems to work better, although still needs to support (3). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:37, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
    Actually, a cron-based approach fixes (3), although makes (4) a bit of a mess. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:39, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
    Okay, easier than originally figured. Got purguing/null edits down. As for the TfD usecase above, mw:API:Purge in theory with "forcerecursivelinkupdate" should do the same trick I'd think (& per mw:Manual:Purge#Null_edits). Found it was broken before when doing it via interface, will skim MediaWiki's source to see if API also suffers from same issue. If not, it does greatly simplify the "ad hoc" use case. Or I'll just file a BRFA so I can test it live, I guess.   BRFA filed ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:03, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Updating IMDb links in season articlesEdit

Hi, I'm looking to get a bot to update the Template:IMDb episodes links in TV season articles, by adding |season=x to the link template with x being the season number, so the link will directly point to that respective season on IMDb; when |season=x is not specified in the template, it just links to the most current season. I'm guessing the bot can just grab the season number from the article title? This would only need to be done for season articles; example, Fargo (season 4) while the IMDb links for Fargo (TV series) and List of Fargo episodes can remain unchanged. Thanks. Drovethrughosts (talk) 16:26, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

An example: {{Imdb episodes|2802850|Fargo}} would be changed to {{Imdb episodes|2802850|Fargo|season=4}}

  • If the bot is already suggested, it should fix these issues as well:
    • Convert plain text links like in Lost (season 1) from *List of [ ''Lost'' season 1 episodes] at the [[Internet Movie Database]] to * {{IMDb episodes|0411008|Lost|season=1}}.
    • Convert usages of incorrect series template {{IMDb title}} like in Twin Peaks (season 3) to use {{IMDb episodes}}.
    • {{ episodes}} which is used on the same pages would need probably the same fixes. --Gonnym (talk) 16:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)