Wikipedia:Bot requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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).

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


Tag with Template:R from unnecessary disambiguation[edit]

The task is rather simple. Find all pages with Foobar (barfoo). If they redirect to Foobar, tag those with {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}. This should be case-sensitive (e.g. Foobar (barfoo)FOOBAR should be left alone).

Could probably be done with AWB to add/streamline other redirect tags if they exist. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

How would you find these pages? Via a database dump and regular expressions I assume? --TheSandDoctor Talk 07:24, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
@TheSandDoctor: via a dump scan yes. Or some kind of 'intitle' search. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:08, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
@TheSandDoctor: any updates on this? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:20, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
@Headbomb: No, sorry. I had forgotten about this. You are only anticipating pages like your Footer example above, right? What I mean is: Joe (some text) redirecting to Joe would be tagged with {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}? Or am I getting this completely wrong/missing something? --TheSandDoctor Talk 20:33, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean by my Footer example, but basically if you have Foobar (whatever)Foobar, then tag Foobar (whatever) with {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}. Nothing else. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:26, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
@Headbomb: That would've been autocorrect being sneaky. Foobar is what I meant (did it again writing this) and that does clarify it for me. I will work on this tonight or tomorrow. --TheSandDoctor Talk 00:13, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: any updates on this? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:24, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor:? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:58, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Or anyone else at this point, really. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:45, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Few issues. Some of these won't be disambiguation; for example, a lot of songs are commonly referred to in the style Name Not Actually Sung (Name everyone calls it) in track listings, and it'd be fairly reasonable to include the track listing version of the title as a redirect, even when it's not that. It's not impossible for our redirect convention to occasionally get valid alternative names for something. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.4% of all FPs 19:56, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── @Headbomb: what exactly are you looking for? Do you just want someone to do a database scan, or do you want a bot to fix this? It sounds like there might be context issues with a task list this per Adam Cuerden. Kadane (talk) 00:53, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

@Kadane: I want a bot to tag Foobar (whatever) with {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} when Foobar (whatever) redirects to Foobar. I don't see much context-bot stuff here, although those would get discovered during trial if there are any. If so, "whatever" could be limited to a 'sureshot' disambiguator like \(.*(album|song|journal|magazine|publisher)\) and the like. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:02, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
@Headbomb: I will look into this later this week if someone else hasn't picked it up. Kadane (talk) 05:45, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

@Headbomb: I couldn't sleep tonight and ran a database query to find all redirects that end with parenthesis. I have a question about how the bot would handle a few cases.

  1. "C" Is for (Please Insert Sophomoric Genitalia Reference HERE) -> "C" Is for (Please Insert Sophomoric Genitalia Reference Here)
  2. Babbacombe Lee (album) -> "Babbacombe" Lee
  3. 0N (disambiguation) -> 0N (Which contains a {{R from disambiguation}})

I am assuming the bot would skip the page if any {{R from ...}} templates were present? Should the bot ignore any characters such as ", ★, or *? If a page ends in (disambiguation) should it be tagged with {{R from disambiguation}} or {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}? Once I have a better idea of the criteria I will put together a script to estimate the number of articles that will be edited. Kadane (talk) 08:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

1) Shouldn't be tagged, 2) Should be tagged with {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}, if bot logic can handle that 3) Should tagged with {{R to disambiguation page}}. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:47, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

@Headbomb: - Okay, from my understanding there are two cases. Foobar (^disambiguation) -> Foobar and Foobar (disambiguation) -> Foobar. {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} should be added to the ^disambiguation cases, and {{R to disambiguation page}} to the disambiguation cases (if the template is missing). In that case there are 207 pages that need the template {{R to disambiguation page}} and there are 55,824 pages that need {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}. If my understanding sounds correct I am ready to go to BRFA. Looking forward to your reply. Kadane (talk) 05:34, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

P.S. Should pages that match this criteria that also have {{R from incomplete disambiguation}} be ignored or tagged as well? Example Zoom (song), Zoom (album), Zoom (TV series), Zoom (film), Zoom (2016 film), Zoom (TV channel). Kadane (talk) 06:56, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean by Foobar (^disambiguation) -> Foobar and Foobar (disambiguation) -> Foobar. Skip those with {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:59, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
@Headbomb: - I am using ^ as not. So (^disambiguation) means that the page doesn't end in (disambiguation). Foo (actor) would fall under ^disambiguation, where as Foo (disambiguation) would fall under the disambiguation case. User:KadaneBot/Sandbox has a list of 1000 pages the bot would change, as well as the template the bot would add. Kadane (talk) 07:22, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

BRFA filed @Headbomb: Kadane (talk) 16:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Bot to improve names of media sources in references[edit]

Many references on Wikipedia point to large media organizations such as the New York Times. However, the names are often abbreviated, not italicized, and/or missing wikilinks to the media organization. I'd like to propose a bot that could go to an article like this one and automatically replace "NY Times" with "New York Times". Other large media organizations (e.g. BBC, Washington Post, and so on) could fairly easily be added, I imagine. - Sdkb (talk) 04:43, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

  • I would be wary of WP:CONTEXTBOT. For instance, NYT can refer to a supplement of the Helsingin Sanomat#Format (in addition to the New York Times), and maybe is the main use of Finland-related pages. TigraanClick here to contact me 13:40, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
    • @Tigraan:That's a good point. I think it'd be fairly easy to work around that sort of issue, though — before having any bot make any change to a reference, have it check that the URL goes to the expected website. So in the case of the New York Times, if a reference with "NYT" didn't also contain the URL nytimes.com, it wouldn't make the replacement. There might still be some limitations, but given that the bot is already operating only within the limited domain of a specific field of the citation template, I think there's a fairly low risk that it'd make errors. - Sdkb (talk) 10:52, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I should add that part of the reason I think this is important is that, in addition to just standardizing content, it'd allow people to more easily check whether a source used in a reference is likely to be reliable. - Sdkb (talk) 22:01, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
@Sdkb: This is significantly harder than it seems, as most bots are. Wikipedia is one giant exception - the long tail of unexpected gotchas is very long, particular on formatting issues. Another problem is agencies (AP, UPI, Reuters). Often times the NYT is running an agency story. The cite should use NYT in the |work= and the agency in the |agency= but often the agency ends up in the |work= field, so the bot couldn't blindly make changes without some considerable room for error. I have a sense of what needs to be done: extract every cite on Enwiki with a |url= containing nytimes.com, extract every |work= from those and create a unique list, manually remove from the list anything that shouldn't belong like Reuters etc.., then the bot keys off that list before making live changes, it knows what is safe to change (anything in the list). It's just a hell of a job in terms of time and resources considering all the sites to be processed and manual checks involved. See also Wikipedia:Bots/Dictionary#Cosmetic_edit "the term cosmetic edit is often used to encompass all edits of such little value that the community deems them to not be worth making in bulk" .. this is probably a borderline case, though I have no opinion which side of the border it falls other people might during the BRFA. -- GreenC 16:53, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
@GreenC: Thanks for the thought you're putting into considering this idea; I appreciate it. One way the bot could work to avoid that issue is to not key off of URLs, but rather off of the abbreviations. As in, it'd be triggered by the "NYT" in either the work or agency field, and then use the URL just as a confirmation to double check. That way, errors users have made in the citation fields would remain, but at least the format would be improved and no new errors would be introduced. - Sdkb (talk) 08:17, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Right that's basically what I was saying also. But to get all the possible abbreviations requires scanning the system because the variety of abbreviations is unknowable ahead of time. Unless pick a few that might be common, but it would miss a lot. -- GreenC 14:54, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Well, for NYT at the least, citations with a |url=https://www.nytimes.com/... could be safely assumed to be referring to the New York Times. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:20, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm not too worried about comprehensiveness for now; I'd mainly just like to see the bot get off the ground and able to handle the two or three most common abbreviation for maybe half a dozen really big newspapers. From there, I imagine, a framework will be in place that'd then allow the bot to expand to other papers or abbreviations over time. - Sdkb (talk) 07:01, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Conversation here seems to have died down. Is there anything I can do to move the proposal forward? - Sdkb (talk) 21:42, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
I am not against this idea totally but the bot would have to be a very good one for this to be a net positive and not end up creating more work. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:18, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
@Sdkb: you could build a list of unambiguous cases. E.g. |work/journal/magazine/newspaper/website=NYT combined with |url=https://www.nytimes.com/.... Short of that, it's too much of a WP:CONTEXTBOT. I'll also point out that NY Times isn't exactly obscure/ambiguous either.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Okay, here's an initial list:

Sdkb (talk) 03:54, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Changing New York Times to The New York Times would be great. I have seen people going through AWB runs doing it, but seems like a waste of human time. Kees08 (Talk) 23:32, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

@Kees08: Thanks; I added in those cases. - Sdkb (talk) 01:19, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Not really sure changing Foobar to The Foobar is desired in many cases. WP:CITEVAR will certainly apply to a few of those. For NYT/NY Times, WaPo/Wa Po, WSJ, LA Times/L.A. Times, are those guaranteed to a refer to a version of these journals that were actually called by the full name? Meaning that was there as some point in the LA Times's history were "LA Times" or some such was featured on the masthead of the publication, in either print or webform? If so, that's a bad bot task. If yes, then there's likely no issue with it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:54, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
For the "the" publications, it's part of their name, so referring to just "Foobar" is incorrect usage. (It's admittedly a nitpicky correction, but one we may as well make while we're in the process of making what I'd consider more important improvements, namely adding the wikilinks to help readers more easily verify the reliability of a source.) Regarding the question of whether any of those publications ever used the abbreviated name as a formal name for something, I'd doubt it, as it'd be very confusing, but I'm not fully sure how to check that by Googling. - Sdkb (talk) 21:04, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
The omission of 'the' is a legitimate stylistic variation. And even if 'N.Y. Times' never appeared on the masthead, the expansion of abbreviations (e.g. N.Y. Times / L.A. Times) could also be a legitimate stylistic variation. The acronyms (e.g. NYT/WSJ) are much safer to expand though. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:41, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
It is a change I have had to do many times since it is brought up in reviews (FAC usually I think). It would be nice if we could find parameters to make it possible. Going by the article, since December 1, 1896, it has been referred to as The New York Times. The ranges are:
  • September 18, 1851–September 13, 1857 New-York Daily Times
  • September 14, 1857–November 30, 1896 The New-York Times
  • December 1, 1896–current The New York Times
New York Times has never been the title of the newspaper, and we could use date ranges to verify we do not hit the edge cases of pre-December 1, 1896 The New York Times articles. There is The New York Times International Edition, but it seems like it has a different base-URL than nytimes.com. I can go through the effort to verify the names of the other publications throughout the years, but do you agree with my assessment of The New York Times? Kees08 (Talk) 01:51, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Is anyone interested in this? I still think it would save myself a lot of editing time. Headbomb did you have further thoughts? Kees08 (Talk) 16:21, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@Kees08: I definitely still am, but I'm not sure how to move the proposal forward from here. - Sdkb (talk) 21:45, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

MOS:ACCESS#Text / MOS:FONTSIZE compliance[edit]

Hi. MOS:ACCESS#Text / MOS:FONTSIZE are clear. We are to "avoid using smaller font sizes in elements that already use a smaller font size, such as infoboxes, navboxes and reference sections." However, many infoboxes use {{small}} or the html code, especially around degrees earned (here's one example I corrected yesterday). I used AWB to remove small font from many U.S. politician infoboxes of presidents, senators, and governors, but there are so many more articles that have them. Here's an example for a TV station. I've noticed many movies and TV shows have small text in the infobox as well. Since I cannot calculate how many articles violate this particular rule of MOS, I would like someone to automate a bot to remove small text from infoboxes of all kinds. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:04, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

At least on my screen, your edit had no effect, because as far as I know, there is some sort of CSS style that limits infobox font size to a minimum of 85%. I am pretty sure I just saw that described the other day, but my searches for it have turned up nothing. Maybe someone like TheDJ would know.
If I am correct, that means that edits to remove small templates and tags from infoboxes would be cosmetic edits, which are generally frowned upon. However, there are a heck of a lot of unclosed <small>...</small> tags within infoboxes, along with small tags wrapping multiple lines, both of which cause Linter errors, so it may be possible to get a bot approved to remove tags as long as fixing Linter errors is in the bot's scope. I welcome corrections on the four things I got wrong in these four sentences. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:58, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
It's not "cosmetic". It's an accessibility issue. In this version, the BS, MS, and JD in the infobox are smaller than 85%. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:47, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
FWIW, Firefox's Inspector tells me that "BS" in that version is exactly 85%. – Jonesey95 (talk) 10:29, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Odd. That was not the assessment of User:Dreamy Jazz. [1] – Muboshgu (talk) 20:42, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Fascinating. I just looked at the two revisions of Brian Bosma in Chrome while not logged in, and I definitely see a size difference in the "BS" and "JD" characters. So these would not be cosmetic edits after all, at least for some viewers using some browsers. (I have struck some of my previous comments.) – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:59, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
P.S. I found the reference to the small template sizing text at 85% at Template:Small. It looks like I may have misinterpreted that note. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:42, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

───────────────────────── @Jonesey95 and Muboshgu: Hello. Although the 85% font-size is defined, the computed value of the font-size is below 11.9px (it is 10.4667px). This is because font-size percentages work based on the parent container, not the document (see 1 under percentages). In this case the infobox has already decreased the font-size to 88% of the document, the font-size computed from the {{small}} tag will be 74.8% smaller than the rest of the document (0.88 * 0.85 = 0.748). This is the case in Firefox, Chrome, Edge (10.4px), Opera and Internet Explorer. This behaviour is the standard and so will be experienced in all browsers. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 10:46, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, here's a demo of what happens when percentages get enclosed by other percentages: Text Text Text Text Text . That goes to five levels, each being 95% of the enclosing element. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:42, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
That is helpful. I discovered that I have set my Firefox preferences to prevent the font size from going below 11 pt, which enforces MOS for me. But in Chrome, which I have left unconfigured, that text gets smaller. By all means, let's remove instances of <small>...</small> and {{small}} (and its size-reducing siblings) from infoboxes, both in Template space and in article space. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:31, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes, let's. Thanks for that clarification Jonesey95. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:46, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
I have been using AWB to help with this issue too. <small> and </small> cam be removed with a simple find and replace but the template is better dealt with using Regex. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:08, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Is there a category and/or method of easily listing these questionable pages? Primefac (talk) 15:44, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
I think that Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Small hiding links and redirects but showing transclusions might find what you want but not in a convenient list or category. When I was doing it in AWB I was just loading from the birth year categories. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:58, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Auto-archive IP warnings[edit]

I imagine it's fairly confusing for IP users to have to scroll through lots of old warnings from previous users of their IP before getting to their actual message. We have Template:Old IP warnings top (and its partner), but it's rarely used—thoughts on writing a bot to automatically apply it to everything more than a yearish ago? Gaelan 💬✏️ 16:21, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Technically feasible and is a good idea, IMO. Needs wider community input beyond BOTREQ. -- GreenC 17:09, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Brought it to WP:VPR. Gaelan 💬✏️ 19:50, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
@Gaelan: FYI it was archived a while back to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 156#Auto-archive old IP warnings --DannyS712 (talk) 05:39, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

It seems like there is community support to implement this from the discussions. Should be open another discussion to iron out the implementation details? If there is consensus to do this task with a bot, I am willing to do it. Kadane (talk) 05:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Remove living-yes, etc from talkpage of articles listed at Wikipedia:Database reports/Potential biographies of dead people (3)[edit]

Hi bot people. I was wondering whether it might be appropriate/worthwhile/a good idea to get a bot to remove "living=yes", "living=y", "blp=yes", "blp=y", etc from the talkpages of the articles listed at Wikipedia:Database reports/Potential biographies of dead people (3). I recognize that automating such a process might result in a few errors, but I think that would be a reasonable tradeoff compared to how tedious it would be for humans to check and update all 968 articles in the list one by one. (And hopefully, for those few(?) articles where an error does occur, someone watching the article will fix it). I spot-checked a random sample of articles in the list, and for every one I checked, it would have been appropriate to remove the "living=yes", etc from the talkpage, i.e. the article had a sourced date of death. To minimize potential errors, I would suggest the bot skips any articles which cover multiple people, e.g. ones with "and" or "&" in the title and Dionne quintuplets, Clarke brothers, etc. Thoughts? DH85868993 (talk) 12:53, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

That last might not be easy to bot-automate. Though, if instead of a bot we get a script, it would be possible to quickly deal with any multiples before running it. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.4% of all FPs 13:03, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
@DH85868993 and Adam Cuerden:
I think this should be easy, but just to clarify:
  1. Get all of the pages linked to from the report ([2], with a bit of regex magic)
  2. Remove titles containing "and" or "&"
  3. Convert to talk pages
  4. Edit each talk page to set "living=yes" etc to "living=no" etc
--DannyS712 (talk) 07:56, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
@DannyS712: Yes, that sounds right, with the exception that the following articles should also be removed from the list: Dionne quintuplets, June and Jennifer Gibbons, Podgórski sisters and Bacon Brothers (gangsters). DH85868993 (talk) 21:23, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
@DH85868993: take a look: User:DannyS712 test/dead.js will print to your console an array of all of the pages to edit (don't try this on other pages, it'll probably break) and User:DannyS712 test/isdead.js lets you, on a specific page, change the blp parameters. I think the only thing remaining is to file a BRFA to be able and combine them. What do you think? --DannyS712 (talk) 00:21, 24 February 2019 (UTC) ping fixed --DannyS712 (talk) 00:22, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
@DannyS712: When I click on the "dead blp" tab, I get a message "Line: 21 Error: 'get_page' is undefined" but that could be user error on my part (I'm not very experienced with javascript). I'm using IE11 on Win7 in case that matters. DH85868993 (talk) 00:57, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
@DH85868993: as far as I can tell its on your end; the get_page function is defined at User:DannyS712 test/page.js, which is imported. --DannyS712 (talk) 01:27, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
@DannyS712: If it works for you, that's good enough for me (I had a look at the script and it looked OK). Feel free to go ahead and file the BRFA. DH85868993 (talk) 01:46, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
@DH85868993: BRFA filed --DannyS712 (talk) 02:11, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 02:14, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Taxa[edit]

Bot to create entry in the (english) Wikipedia Category: Plants described in (year)[edit]

Data to be taken from Wikidata to give the the year of publication of a taxon and create "Category:Taxa described in ()" within the(English) wikipedia taxon entry, if a wikipedia enty has been created. MargaretRDonald (talk) 22:55, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

@MargaretRDonald: why? is there any support for such mass-creation? --DannyS712 (talk) 06:04, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
@DannyS712: Currently we have "Category:Taxa named by x" when a user links to the category, he/she gets a ridiculously uninformative list, which fails to include many of the plants cuthored by x for which there are wikipedia articles. If there were some automatic creation of the category for a plant article, then the only reason that a plant would be missing from the list of taxa authored would be that there was no wikipedia article. As it stands, the category:Taxa named by x is ludicrously unhelpful. See for example, Category:Taxa named by Ferdinand von Mueller. (I put this up here in the hope that others might consider the issue and perhaps do something about it. MargaretRDonald (talk) 06:13, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
@MargaretRDonald: Is this part of the request below? --DannyS712 (talk) 06:16, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi @DannyS712: They are related, but slightly different. It is always clear who named the taxon (the final author). It is somewhat less clear the year in which it was described: with some wikipedia editors choosing the year of first the first publication, while others consider that the person(s) who gave the current name should get the year of publication too, in that, they have perfected (refined) the description. Thus, in Decaisnina hollrungii (K.Schum.) Barlow, the year in which the plant is described has been given as that of the publication by [[K.Schum.}, but there is no doubt that the taxon was named by Barlow. (I am not sure what the wikipedia consensus is on this!!) MargaretRDonald (talk) 06:38, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Bot to create category "Category:Taxa described by ()"[edit]

The bot would use the wikidata taxon entry to find the auhor of a taxon, and then use it again to find the corresponding author article to find the appropriate author category. (This will not always work - but will work in large number of cases. Thus, the English article for "Edward Rudge" corresponds to the category:"Category:Taxa named by Edward Rudge", and the simple strategy outlined here would work for Edward Rudge, Stephen Hopper and .... The category created would be an entry in the article. MargaretRDonald (talk) 23:08, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

@MargaretRDonald: why? is there any support for such mass-creation? Also, what do you mean by the category created would be an entry in the article, and do you want "described by" or "named by"? --DannyS712 (talk) 06:05, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
@DannyS712: 1. See my answer to your preceding question. 2. There are two categories related to authorship and publication: (i) Category:Plants described in (year), and (ii) Category:Taxa named by (author). You can see how they are used in (for example) Velleia paradoxa. For my money I am not sure that I would really want to know what plants were described in 1810, but I would certainly like, when clicking on Category:Taxa named by Robert Brown, to be getting a complete list of wikipedia articles for which this is true. (Hope this explains why I think it important) MargaretRDonald (talk) 06:26, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
@MargaretRDonald: So basically, add "Plants described in ___" and "Taxa named by ___" to all currently existing taxa pages if they are missing? --DannyS712 (talk) 06:35, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes. That would be great. That is, "Category:Plants described in ___" and "Category:Taxa named by ___" to the end of the taxon page.. MargaretRDonald (talk) 06:39, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
@MargaretRDonald: is this at all related to the |authority parameter in {{Speciesbox}} and its ilk? That would make this a lot simpler... --DannyS712 (talk) 06:51, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
@DannyS712: For the author, yes. It is the parameter |authority in {{Speciesbox}}. The year is not. It is found associated with the basionym in Wikidata entry (an entry which is often missing from wikidata, but if it exists that would be the safest place to take it from). Most articles show the author of the basionym (the name in the brackets), bur have no taxonomy section and even when they do it is unstructured text... So probably the year of the description is in the too-hard basket. (But as I indicated, I find the year category somewhat less important..) MargaretRDonald (talk) 07:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

And if we were to do this the result would be that we would get, e.g., a list of accepted taxa named by John Lindley, and not a whole ragtag list of plants where the assigning of the initial genus is now considered incorrect. In achieving that we could be a far better resource than IPNI. MargaretRDonald (talk) 06:57, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

@MargaretRDonald: I don't think that wikipedia is going to be a better resource than IPNI for this field - ~maybe~ wikispecies? In any event, this task is beyond my abilities, but hopefully my questions have made it clearer to others what you are requesting. --DannyS712 (talk) 07:06, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
@DannyS712: Probably not a better resource, but an extremely useful resource should it list only accepted names. (IPNI lists everything for an author and it then can require checking every name in say tropicos or Plants of the world to find which of them are accepted, a considerable task.) MargaretRDonald (talk) 07:14, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
@MargaretRDonald: yeah, but a bot shouldn't tag those without the same or comparable sources... --DannyS712 (talk) 07:35, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
(Not sure what you are trying to say here..) MargaretRDonald (talk) 07:42, 1 March 2019 (UTC) (In any case my comment on lists of accepted species was little more than a throw-away comment.) I just find it frustrating that "Category:Taxa named by Robert Brown" is not remotely within cooee of being so. And if the parameter authority in the species box were to be used it might just come within cooee of being so. MargaretRDonald (talk) 07:42, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm saying that unless the reliable sources are there, we shouldn't be adding the category, especially not with a bot --DannyS712 (talk) 07:45, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
There are many reliable sources, which usually agree, but like all things requiring man-power, they can be out of sync and people in disagreement. I think it would be better if we used wikidata (with whatever its errors) to populate these categories. The result would be better than the entirely misleading stuff we have now where almost none of the taxa named by a person show up because of the failure by humans to populate the categories. MargaretRDonald (talk) 15:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Detect Hijacked journals[edit]

Stop Predatory Journals maintains a list of hijacked journals. Could someone search wikipedia for the presence of hijacked URLs and produce a daily/weekly/whateverly report? Maybe have a WP:WCW task for it too? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:09, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

This is a good idea. Made a script to scrape the site and search WP, it found three domains in 11 articles. -- GreenC 16:50, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Extended content

https://scholarlyoa.com/other-pages/hijacked-journals/u[edit]

http://www.bnas.org/[edit]

  • Emma Yhnell <snippet>wins BSA Award Lecture | News | The British Neuroscience Association". www.bna.org.uk. Retrieved 2018-10-11. Video of Emma Yhnell speaking on public engagement</snippet>
  • Catherine Abbott <snippet>Neuroscience Day 2018 | Events | The British Neuroscience Association". www.bna.org.uk. Retrieved 2018-04-15. "Funding Panel membership | NC3Rs". www.nc3rs</snippet>
  • Irene Tracey <snippet>Winners 2018 Announced! | News | The British Neuroscience Association". www.bna.org.uk. Retrieved 2019-01-04. Tracey, Irene; Farrar, John T.; Okell, Thomas</snippet>
  • John H. Coote <snippet>"Professor John Coote | News | The British Neuroscience Association". www.bna.org.uk. British Neuroscience Association. Retrieved 4 December 2017. "John</snippet>

http://acjournal.in/journal-of-renewable-natural-resources-bhutan[edit]

@Headbomb: can post the report on a regular basis if there is a page. Script takes less than 20 seconds to complete so not expensive on resources. -- GreenC 17:02, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

@GreenC:, just a note, bnas.org/ ≠ bnas.org.uk/. Likewise, acjournal.in ≠ acjournal.org. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:03, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
They were found with CirrusSearch (Elasticsearch) it got some close matches. -- GreenC 17:27, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
@GreenC: [3] is a better link than the above one for hijacked journals. It's pretty much the same as the old link, but this one is updated. In particular, there's an additional journal (Arctic, at the very bottom of the page).
There's a few place a report like that could be generated. Category talk:Hijacked journals seems as good a place as any. I'd suggest creating a section and just overwriting it every day (if there's a change). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:46, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
How about WP:Hijacked journals / WP:HIJACKJOURNAL (an essay or how-to) that can define the meaning, describe the problem for wikipedia, link to external sites, and link to the bot-generated list as a sub-page. Nothing complicate but a central place for discussion and info that can be linked to from other pages. -- GreenC 18:08, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
If we have a dedicated page, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Hijacked journals seems to be the natural place to me. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:13, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't want to mess with creating a sub-page in a Guideline document and the needed top-hat navigations etc. You can if you want let me know. -- GreenC 17:08, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Broken ref tag report bot[edit]

A bot that reports broken ref tags to a user, so he/she can fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkwolfz (talkcontribs) 04:48, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

@Darkwolfz: Can you give a few examples? (I know they exist, but I haven't analyzed in depth why they appear broken). Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 04:55, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Sure DannyS712 For example if an article have a <ref> and the editors maybe used source editor, and that cause a backspace or enter in ref tag, which will make it broken, or editors giving wrong parameters, for example I found a article today where they entered url correct, but Instead of giving website name, they added url. So if there's a bot which can detect broken ref tags or hyperlinks, and report it to me, I can fix them. Darkwolfz (talk) 05:02, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

@Darkwolfz: What I meant was can you link to a few articles so I know what to scan for? --DannyS712 (talk) 05:10, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Or couldn't you just look through the pages in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting and Category:Pages with broken reference names? --DannyS712 (talk) 05:12, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

DannyS712 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formby_Hall In it's recent history, I fixed an error like that, and maybe we should scan for source that are in red color between <ref>...</ref> or a missing opening <ref> or closing </ref>, also reference title missing ones.

@Darkwolfz: Did you see the categories I linked to above? --DannyS712 (talk) 05:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
@DannyS712: yes, but almost all of then have title errors, and if we could just find tag errors, it'd be great. As in Missing <ref> or </ref>
@Darkwolfz: what about Category:CS1 errors: external links? --DannyS712 (talk) 05:48, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes it helps a bit, but is it possible to find articles which doesn't belong to the category, as in a new error made by someone accidentally. And filter missing <ref> tags?

The article before you edited it (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Formby_Hall&oldid=871268351) was in the CS1 category - can you give an example of an article with the error you're thinking of that isn't in one of the above-mentioned categories? --DannyS712 (talk) 05:58, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
This may not be what the OP intended, but it would be very useful to have a category or report for broken Harvard-style references. For example, in The White Negro, the short reference "Manso 1985" does not link to a full citation. An individual editor can use User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js to make these references appear in red, but I do not know of a report or category that systematically lists articles where such errors are present. A set of reports, including individual reports for FAs and GAs, would be useful for ensuring that articles have verifiable references. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:46, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
@Jonesey95: I'll try to adapt the script you linked to --DannyS712 (talk) 06:08, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
It should be pretty easy, if there is a category (or list) of all pages using Harvard-style references, or an easy way to make one. Otherwise I would have to scan through all pages to find the ones with Harvard-style reference errors. --DannyS712 (talk) 06:14, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
You could start with something like this. – Jonesey95 (talk) 08:45, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
The {{sfn}} template isn't Harvard-style references, it's Shortened footnotes. Harvard-style references are parenthetical, as used on pages like Actuary. However, the two methods have a number of common features, primarily the separation of page number information from the long-form citation, with the association between the two being by means of a link formed from up to four surnames and a year. From my reading of the above, it is these links that need to be tested; and we have a script to do that, see User:Ucucha/HarvErrors. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:38, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
@Jonesey95: adapting it is a lot more complicated than I thought - I don't think I'll be able to do this. But, User:DannyS712 test/HarvErrors.js will give you an alert on every page that you visit that has these errors - don't know if you'll find that useful. --DannyS712 test (talk) 21:15, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

List of values used for Template:Tooltip[edit]

Could someone generate a list of values used for Template:Tooltip (the redirect, not Template:Abbr) in a table form, so it would be easier to see what needs to be converted to {{abbr}} per the result of this discussion? --Gonnym (talk) 14:20, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Doing... Dat GuyTalkContribs 15:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Gonnym I can't find what Kuznetsov-class aircraft carrier has that transcludes the template. Could you help me figure it out? Dat GuyTalkContribs 16:33, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
In addition, would you like me to also look if the articles that transclude the tooltip template also match the [Abbr/Abrrv/What is] templates? It seems like they're redirects. Also pinging @Amorymeltzer: fyi. Dat GuyTalkContribs 16:47, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Regarding your second question, no need. Only {{Tooltip}} was discussed as deprecated in that discussion. Regarding the first issue though. Wow. I've looked over that article multiple times and inside the templates used on that page and I can't seem to figure out where tooltip is used. Nothing seems to be using it. --Gonnym (talk) 17:06, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
It was Template:Ukrainian ships, I've removed the use. ~ Amory (utc) 17:13, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
@Amorymeltzer and Gonnym: Before I finish it, does User:DatGuy/sandbox look good? Dat GuyTalkContribs 18:01, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
I can't speak for Gonnym, but one thing I think would be helpful (at least, how I was planning on thinking about it) is to know which of these are within the same template or table. I imagine that'd be harder to handle, but ideally many of the uses in mainspace could be replaced by a wrapper template for Module:Sports table, so knowing what the common pairings would be helpful. ~ Amory (utc) 18:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
That looks good. Do you think it is possible to list only unique pairings and the number of times it appears? So for example, list only once the "Ref."/"Reference". If this is possible, it will help in deciding if this is something that can be done with AWB or a bot. It will also make reading the table easier. If it can't, the current table still helps a lot though. --Gonnym (talk) 21:31, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't believe that checking if it's inside a template/table is simple/worth the time, but I've made User:DatGuy/sandbox and User talk:DatGuy/sandbox. They will be updated with sandbox1 accordingly when article size exceeds limits. Dat GuyTalkContribs 23:45, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Since I see (at least) two different "GD" entries in User talk:DatGuy/sandbox, I'm assuming you managed to get unique pairings right? If that is true, could you also add the 2nd argument column to this table? This is very helpful btw. I've already identified a few thousand easy replacements. --Gonnym (talk) 23:56, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the duplicate entries are actually. I've attempted a fix. Dat GuyTalkContribs 23:59, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
@Gonnym and Amorymeltzer: Well, seems like it's being a bit of a pain in the ass due to article size limits. It has calculated 24000 uses. The pages are User talk:DatGuy/sandbox and User:DatGuy/sandbox(0-22). Dat GuyTalkContribs 09:44, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, it still has a lot of uses, but for example, just "Pts" alone has 10705 uses. Just reconfirming with you, are all "Pts" uses using the same second argument value? --Gonnym (talk) 09:47, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
No, they aren't. You could go through a few pages of the User: pages and look for it. Apologies. Dat GuyTalkContribs 09:48, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Haha indeed! I was surprised you were so confident. Still, it's helpful to have. I've got a lot on my plate at the moment, but if I get a chance in the next month or so, I'll try and work on finding the uses that are the same (e.g. all the headers with W/D/L, those with W/D/L/Pts, etc.). ~ Amory (utc) 11:34, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Categories for Discussion bot[edit]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion is looking for a new bot to process category deletions, mergers, and moves. User:Cydebot currently processes the main /Working page, but there is a growing list of issues that call out for a replacement bot:

  1. Cydebot's default is to create a category redirect in most (though, oddly, not all) cases of renaming or merging. This is helpful in some cases (e.g. Swaziland → Eswatini) but unhelpful or downright wrong in most others, and it promotes future miscategorization (see examples here). Quite simply, a bot should not be creating thousands of category redirects without either more specific parameters or direct human guidance. Currently, this is substantially adding to the workload of the few admins who close CfDs and contributing to backlogs.
  2. Cydebot unexpectedly stalls on certain large runs.
  3. Cydebot no longer process the /Large and /Retain subpages.
  4. The bot's operator is no longer very active (just 4 edits last year), and therefore unable to address these issues.

At a minimum, the new bot should process the main /Working page:

  • Deleting, merging, and renaming (i.e. moving) categories, as specified, with appropriate edit summaries.
  • Deleting the old category with an appropriate deletion summary.
  • In the case of renaming, removing the CfD notice from the renamed category.

Ideally, it would also do some or all of the following:

  • Process the /Large and /Retain subpages.
  • Accept manual input when a category redirect should be created—for example, by recognizing leading text when a redirect is wanted, such as * REDIRECT [[:Category:Foo]] to [[:Category:Bar]].
  • Recognize and update category code in transcluded templates. This would need to be discussed/tested to minimize errors and false positives.
  • Recognize and update incoming links to the old category. This would need to be discussed/tested to minimize errors and false positives.

Your assistance would earn the gratitude of some very tired and increasingly frustrated CfD'ers.

Thank you, -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@Black Falcon: I may be able to help - see my notes at the CfD talk page about a bot for tagging. A similar functionality would be to go through all of the pages in a category and recategorize them, or remove a category so it can be deleted. I'm really busy the next week, but I'm interested in working on this (though I would need someone else with a bit to operate it for the deletions, etc) --DannyS712 (talk) 20:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
ArmbrustBot is already approved for this (tasks 1 and 6); alerting the operator. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 04:27, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
ArmbrustBot requires operator input to run, and it cannot perform admin actions. — JJMC89(T·C) 05:02, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm willing to take this on. — JJMC89(T·C) 05:02, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
BRFA filed — JJMC89(T·C) 07:41, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:51, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

STALE Drafts[edit]

This long standing project Wikipedia:WikiProject_Abandoned_Drafts/Stale_drafts would benefit from a bot to do two things we now do manually on the 40 or so remaining numbered subpages. 1. Remove red links to deleted articles 2. Remove links to pages that are redirects (page has been moved to mainspace, draftspace, or redirected to an article). 3. Pages that are now completely blank or have a userspace page blanked template. Once one of these three cases occurs the project no longer cares about the name of the page or the link to it. If a bot could sweep through the pages daily or even weekly this would save a ton of time manually removing red links and checking and removing links that are redirects. Even unlinking pages would make manually removing them from the lists much faster. If this is not clear look at the hisoty of any of the numbersd list pages to see the process. Legacypac (talk) 01:35, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@Legacypac: I while ago I asked @Enterprisey about a script to help with that. Maybe we should wait and see if they have something already? --DannyS712 (talk) 01:45, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm no bot expert but I know the pain involved in doing something that seems like it could be automated, and it's on the back end too so we don't need to worry about watchlists and readers. Legacypac (talk) 01:48, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
@Legacypac: In that case, it should be pretty easy to adapt User:DannyS712 test/page.js and User:DannyS712 test/dead.js to use the api to check if pages exist, and if not remove them (just deals with red links). Then, if they do exist, check if they are redirects, etc, and remove based on that. I don't have much time this week though...
alternatively, you could try to fork User:The Transhumanist/RedlinksRemover.js, but IDK --DannyS712 (talk) 02:00, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
@Legacypac: BRFA filed --DannyS712 (talk) 07:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

BBC YourPaintings -> ArtUK[edit]

The BBC no longer host the "YourPaintings" project; some years ago, it became independent, as "ArtUK".

We still have a number of links to the former, often in citations. These need to be updated, as in this diff, please.

Note that the first URL does not follow the standard pattern, so each URL need to be checked for a 404 response bfore the change is made.

Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:35, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Andy Mabbett, the BBC URL automatically redirects. Example. Thus it would be easy to determine the new URL by looking at the page header redirect URL. The question is, do we make the change if the URL is otherwise working? Often we have not, when redirects occur within the same organization. But where it redirects across organizations, maybe there is a reason? -- GreenC 17:55, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Credits adapted from[edit]

Thousands of articles about music artists, albums and songs reference the source in the body text (example: OnePointFive). Such references belong in a <ref> block at the end of the page and not in the body text. Most of these references follow a common pattern, so I hope this kind of edit can be made by a bot.

I suggest making a bulk replacement from

==Track listing== Credits adapted from [[Tidal (service)|Tidal]].<ref name="Tidal">{{cite web|url=https://listen.tidal.com/album/93301143|title=ONEPOINTFIVE / Aminé on TIDAL|publisher=Tidal|accessdate=August 15, 2018}}</ref>

to

==Track listing<ref name="Tidal">{{cite web|url=https://listen.tidal.com/album/93301143|title=ONEPOINTFIVE / Aminé on TIDAL|publisher=Tidal|accessdate=August 15, 2018}}</ref>==

Difference sources: Tidal (service), “the album notes”, “the album sleeve”, “the album notes”, “the liner notes of XXX” Different heading names, including “Track listing”, “Personnel”, ”Credits and personnel”. Variants: “Credits adapted from XXX”, “All credits adapted from XXX”, “All personnel credits adapted XXX”

Does this sound feasible/sensible? --C960657 (talk) 17:14, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

References should not be located in section titles. Pretty sure there is a guideline about it, and not good for a couple reasons. The correct way is current, create a line that says "Source: [1]" or something. -- GreenC 17:43, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Citations should not be placed within, or on the same line as, section headings.WP:CITEFOOT — JJMC89(T·C) 03:38, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Also (from MOS:HEADINGS): Section headings should: ... Not contain links, especially where only part of a heading is linked. Unless you use pure plain-text parenthetical referencing, refs always generate a link. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:41, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
You are right. It could not find a guideline on how to place the reference, if it is the source of an entire section/table/list. "Source: [1]" is a good suggestion, perhaps even moved to the last line of the section.--C960657 (talk) 17:25, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Fix 'background' in sortable tables[edit]

See background (pardon the pun).

The idea is to change the css element background to background-color (and other similar attributes) in sortable tables (example). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:14, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

@Magioladitis: The checkwiki team could also get in on this. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:18, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
I would be sensitive here to whether there is another background style declared, as background is shorthand for a number of attributes. Otherwise seems like a good idea. --Izno (talk) 22:44, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Oppose as written. Changing background to background-style would break all existing uses, because background-style is not a defined property. See CSS Backgrounds and Borders Module Level 3 for examples of valid property names. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:03, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
@Redrose64:, amended. I meant background-color, not background-style. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:34, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Bot to generate list of editor's creations which have been tagged for improvements[edit]

This would be useful for New Page Patrol: it would save us sending multiple messages about an editor's creations (which can cause upset) and show clearly what the problem is and what articles have been identified as needing improvements. This has been requested more than once of me by an editor and I've had to find and list them manually. It would also benefit other editors - I would love to look over which of my creations have tags and improve them. This would give creators (if they want to) the chance to make improvements and bring down the backlogs. Is it feasible? Thanks for looking into this, Boleyn (talk) 08:43, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

@Boleyn: Maybe ask at User talk:Community Tech bot? Currently, Wikipedia:Database reports/Editors eligible for Autopatrol privilege already tracks if a user's pages have been tagged, so they might be able to help (though the code is on github). That specific report is overseen by User:MusikAnimal (WMF), so pinging @MusikAnimal if they want to chime in. --DannyS712 (talk) 08:48, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestions, DannyS712. Boleyn (talk) 08:57, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
I think this is better fit for an external tool, rather than a bot. I have debated for some time adding this functionality to XTools. The problem is the relevant maintenance categories are different on every wiki. I suppose we can just make them configurable. I'll look into it!
In the meantime, quarry:query/34173 is an example query you could use to find such articles. Note that this does not encompass all maintenance categories, just the major ones. You can fork the query and tweak it as desired. Best, MusikAnimal talk 18:42, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Thaks, MusikAnimal, that's really helpful. Adamtt9, you may want to check this out, and thanks for raising the idea. Boleyn (talk) 08:28, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Population of Austrian municipalities[edit]

The Austrian metadata templates storing population figures were deleted with a consensus that they should be replaced by WikiData figures. I set up a new template for that, Template:Austria population Wikidata, and now it should be implemented (as in this diff) so that the updated figures can be displayed. Hopefully a bot can help with that.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 19:35, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi eh bien mon prince, would it be possible to make a WikiData query listing names of articles on enwiki that are ready to use the template? -- GreenC 20:09, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
@GreenC: This should work: query.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 20:28, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
eh bien mon prince very helpful thanks, about 2100 article. Does anyone else want to do this? I can, but will give it a day or two for anyone else. Probably best done with AWB search/replace. -- GreenC 16:28, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
@GreenC: I'm adding area figures to the template as well, so waiting a day might actually be for the best.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 16:35, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
The area import is complete. If possible, it would be nice to add area_footnotes as well, as all the figures have a source now.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 09:55, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

BRFA filed -- GreenC 14:42, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

OSM location map for German districts[edit]

A zoomable, labeled location map can be included in the articles about German districts by adding {{Germany district OSM map|parent_subdivision=QXXXX}} to the 'map' parameter of {{Infobox District DE}}, where QXXXX is the Wikidata ID of the German state the district belongs to. A live example of the template can be see in the Nordfriesland (district) article.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 08:24, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@Underlying lk: It should be doable, but please ensure that there is consensus to include such maps automatically. I'll note that, on my computer, the map didn't load at all until I opened it (i.e. it wasn't "embedded"), so there may be some opposition to this idea. Sorry, --DannyS712 (talk) 08:28, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
I applied similar maps to Austrian and Russian districts and they work well enough - maybe it's a matter of caching?--eh bien mon prince (talk) 00:37, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
@Underlying lk: now it works... thats odd. Either way, please see if there is consensus for this bot run --DannyS712 (talk) 00:40, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
I started a discussion on WikiProject Germany, let's see if it gets any feedback.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 00:44, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
@DannyS712: I can't get any replies from WP Germany, any suggestions on where I could seek consensus for the change?--eh bien mon prince (talk) 13:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
@Underlying lk: Not really, I'll try to work on this soon. Basically, if the template already has a map parameter, skip it, if it has a blank map parameter, add the template (use [4], [5], wikibase_item), and if it has no parameter, add both the parameter and the template, which is the tricky case. I'll let you know once I've filed a BRFA --DannyS712 (talk) 23:30, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
BRFA filed --DannyS712 (talk) 08:36, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
RFC might be overkill, not controversial similar maps in use and looks like a definite improvement. You could start an BRFA and then link to it from WikiProject Germany and give the BRFA some breathing time, not fast-track it, so editors have a chance to see it and comment like 30-45 days. Likewise the trial edit period will alert watchlists what is happening. -- GreenC 16:37, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Removal of former infobox parameter[edit]

{{infobox cricketer}} used to have a |deliveries= parameter which was removed in 2009. There are 7000ish pages using the parameter, which makes up the overwhelming majority of the unknown parameter tracking category. I made a start on clearing them off with AWB but figured it may be quicker to get a bot to do them. There is a list of possibly affected pages if that helps, and I did a regexp replace of \|\s*deliveries\s*=.*\n (with nothing) as part of some more targeted clean-ups. Could a bot please remove the rest? Spike 'em (talk) 14:42, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Infobox film category? Also I note that {{Infobox cricketer}} has |deliveries1=... |deliveries4= in them. This may not be a straightfoward removal (which could very well be against WP:COSMETICBOT on its own). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:56, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I c+p from the wrong place on another talk page, have amended the category above. The RegExp above has not picked up the deliveries1-4, but does find the unnumbered version. The page you link to says that changes that help with the "administration of the encyclopedia" are substantive, which may apply here. Spike 'em (talk) 15:41, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
@Spike 'em: So just to clarify, replace every instance of the deliveries parameter with a blank string? I can do it, and will file a BRFA in the next few days as long as Headbomb has no objection to the "cosmetic"-ness of this task (they haven't replied yet) --DannyS712 (talk) 16:03, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes. There are a mixture of values of the parameter out there, but the vast majority are |deliveries=balls so replacing those with blank string would leave few enough for me to do by hand. Spike 'em (talk) 16:13, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
@Spike 'em: Okay. I'll do this, pending any objection about the cosmetic aspect --DannyS712 (talk) 16:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
If it is filling up a tracking category it probably should be addressed one way or another manually or by bot, and easier by bot. BTW is the request to delete the entire key=value or only the value portion of the string? At first it sounded like it was to delete the whole key=value but now it sounds like only delete the value, and only when it is "balls". Just wanted to clarify for you DannyS712. -- GreenC 16:33, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
It would be tidier to do the whole thing (key=value), but removing just the "balls" seems to remove the page from the tracking category. The latter comment was because 95% of the values listed are balls, so I could do the rest by hand if that made it easier (and in fact I think the non-balls ones need some other intervention). Spike 'em (talk) 16:50, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
I am sometimes 5 and balls. --Izno (talk) 16:53, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Getting here late, but in response to the above: first, definitely remove the parameter and the value, not just the value. Second, if the link above does not help generate a list, you can just run through Category:Pages using infobox cricketer with unknown parameters. Third, technically it's not a cosmetic edit, because you'll be removing a hidden category (I know, it's pretty technical, but still). Removal of deprecated parameters is a pretty standard bot task. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:52, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
It's not cosmetic at all. Without this task being done it's almost impossible for anyone to find the significant errors in the infobox. I've been working through other errors flags by hand and there are so many utterly random errors being introduced - sometimes it's a space (autocorrect may be an issue), sometimes it's a capital letter introduced, other times it's just something utterly random. With nearly 7,000 errors being caused by the deliveries parameter it's much harder to work through and solve the other issues. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:14, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
@Spike 'em: BRFA filed --DannyS712 (talk) 07:23, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Spike 'em (talk) 08:11, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Renamed images -[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Database_reports/Unused_file_redirects

Contains a small number of images that were renamed, but where article links were not updated.

Although not essential, updating image links helps avoid conflicts with Commons, and of the 'wrong image' being displayed in articles.

Would it be possible for a BOT to do this kind of repetitive check, update, refresh cycle, until there are no image links to redirects in File: namespace from Articles or other important pages.? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:49, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

It is not proposed that a BOT flag file redirects for deletion, as these are sometimes retained for the benefit of external projects/sites that may be linking to the OLD name. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:49, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Would it be considered cosmetic to change the name of the redirect if there isn't a conflict with Commons? Is your request only to make those changes or to change every page linked in the Unused_file_redirects? Kadane (talk) 14:44, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
It would be cosmetic, but here I think the benefits (future proofing) would outweigh the drawbacks. A VP discussion would be needed though. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:43, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
@ShakespeareFan00: - Would you like to start a VP discussion on this request? Kadane (talk) 15:52, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
@Headbomb and Kadane:, FYI: ShakespeareFan00 is on an enforced WikiBreak. RhinosF1(chat)(status)(contribs) 22:24, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Template:PBB Controls[edit]

Hey, based on this TfD the template {{PBB Controls}} should be removed. It currently has 4395 transclusions, so a bit much for AWB. Could anyone help with a bot? Thanks. --Gonnym (talk) 08:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

@Gonnym: BRFA filed --DannyS712 (talk) 13:31, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Danny! --Gonnym (talk) 13:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

This is Y Done. BRFA has been approved Kadane (talk) 15:49, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

PBB Summary (and maybe PBB Further reading)[edit]

Hey, based on this TfD the template {{PBB Summary}} should be removed, and based on this extended discussion the removal should keep the |summary_text= text in the article. I'm not sure if |section_title= is used. Another editor is currently manually doing {{PBB Further reading}}, though a bot operation would be much more faster. If that is included also, then just remove the outer template code, leaving the actual citation templates in the article. Could anyone help with a bot? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gonnym (talkcontribs) 20:08, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

@Gonnym: see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DannyS712 bot 23 --DannyS712 (talk) 20:09, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
You are a fast one Danny, thanks for already looking into this! --Gonnym (talk) 20:11, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
@Gonnym: I was prompted by User talk:DannyS712#Your BRFA (22), or I would never have noticed --DannyS712 (talk) 20:12, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:APPLE Clerker[edit]

Hi, I might be able to have a bash myself but could someone help create code for a Python Bot that would get a list of users not on Wikipedia: WikiProject Apple Inc./Subscribe that are have edited the WP's articles at least 10 times in the last 90 days or has added our User Box to their userpage and add them to a mass message list at Wikipedia: WikiProject Apple Inc./To Welcome (this should be cleaned at each run) . It also should remove users who haven't Edited in the last 5 years from the first mailing list. The Bot should then create a mass message request's code to send out the newsletter and a welcome message to the lists for me to submit. I'd like to be able to run the bot myself. (Pinging User: Smuckola) Thanks, RhinosF1(chat)(status)(contribs) 20:32, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

@RhinosF1: - When you mean run it by yourself, do you mean that you want to be the bot operator or that you want to be able to trigger a run by editing a page? If you want to be the bot op: What is your experience level with Python? Would you be comfortable enough to fix any bugs that popped up with the bot in the future? Kadane (talk) 21:18, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Kadane, I'm pretty comfortable with Python and should be as to fix most bugs, I've just not done a large amount with the API system and would like the code. I'll then use that to learn the syntax and tweak things as Ive askways learnt by changing other code and teaching myself. I'd like to be able to run the bot by just pressing run on the python script when I need it doing. l intend to run it through User:RF1_Bot RhinosF1(chat)(status)(contribs) 21:25, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
RhinosF1 - Okay. What happens after a user is added to WP:WikiProject Apple Inc./To Welcome, receives a message, gets removed from the list, stops editing for 90 days, and then meets the criteria again? Does that user get re-added to the welcome list or ignored? Also what happens if a user unsubscribes, has never been sent a welcome message, and meets the criteria for the welcome message? Kadane (talk) 22:05, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Kadane, Good point, Would it be possible to have it save a list somewhere of users it has processed before? Not bothered whether it's on-wiki or locally. RhinosF1(chat)(status)(contribs) 22:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
@RhinosF1: Its possible, but the behavior would need to be well defined before development starts. Kadane (talk) 22:46, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Kadane, I'd preferably like any user it has added to a list (or removed) before to be added to a check page that it can consult. If possible, it should Scroll through the revision history of the mass message lists looking for anyone who has been on their before. RhinosF1(chat)(status)(contribs) 22:52, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
I think what you're looking for is basically already done: Wikipedia:WikiProject Directory/Description/WikiProject Apple Inc., if that seems reasonable to you. --Izno (talk) 00:01, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
That aside, your request looks like it will need community consensus. I was not happy to receive what was basically spam to my talk page recently based on a tenuous connection to the project. --Izno (talk) 00:03, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Agree with Izno. Once was enough. Any additional spamming should be done manually. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:26, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
@Kadane:, would it be possible to still take users that haven't edited in last 5 years from those lists and maybe use the link Izno gave me to pick 30 accounts to welcome. Still include the checkpage and the actually welcoming is done manually. Izno we've removed you from the list but I was planning on after any more than 3 newsletters including a confirmation that you wish to still receive messages. @Jonesey95: Any suggestions? RhinosF1(chat)(status)(contribs) 21:39, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Make Articles in Compliance with MOS:SURNAME[edit]

I've noticed that a lot of articles are not in compliance with MOS:SURNAME, especially in Category:Living people. I've manually changed a few pages, but as a programmer, I think this could be greatly automated. Any repeats of the full name, or the first name, beyond the title, first sentence, and infobox should not be allowed and replaced with the last name. I can help out in creating a bot that can accomplish this. InnovativeInventor (talk) 01:21, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Just bumped into this: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biography#Second_mention_of_forenames, so there should be detection of other people with the same last name. Additionally, this bot should intend to provide support for humans, not to automate the whole thing (as context is important). InnovativeInventor (talk) 03:57, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

@InnovativeInventor: Is this about the ordering of names in a category page, or about the use of names in the article prose? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:07, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
@Redrose64: This is about the reuse of names in the article prose and ensuring that the full name is only mentioned once (excluding ambiguous cases where the full name is necessary to clarify the subject of the sentence). InnovativeInventor (talk) 19:40, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't like this, and I'm calling WP:CONTEXTBOT on it. Consider somebody from Iceland, such as Katrín Jakobsdóttir - the top of the article has
Or somebody from a family with several notable members - have a look at Johann Ambrosius Bach (which is quite short) and consider how it would look if we used only surnames: After Bach's death, his two children, Bach and Bach, moved in with his eldest son, Bach. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:05, 21 March 2019 (UTC)