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

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

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

Alternatives to bot requests

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

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

#	Bot request	Status	💬	👥	🙋 Last editor	🕒 (UTC)	🤖 Last botop editor	🕒 (UTC)
1	Date ranges for noticeboard archives		6	5	Wikiwerner	2024-02-24 12:50	Primefac	2023-11-12 08:10
2	Bot to automatically revert date change vandalism		16	6	Pppery	2024-04-03 19:25	Primefac	2024-02-06 13:49
3	ID pages needing infoboxes		21	5	J04n	2024-02-24 18:33	GoingBatty	2024-02-06 18:37
4	Fixing broken links to talk page discussions		12	4	Kanashimi	2024-02-26 06:22	Usernamekiran	2024-02-18 21:54
5	Notifying AfC acceptors an article gets AfDed		3	3	Novem Linguae	2024-02-22 06:27	DreamRimmer	2024-02-22 06:18
6	Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Teahouse § Bot inoperable		1	1	Rotideypoc41352	2024-02-23 02:11
7	To add categories based on article's listing in a third page		8	3	Wikiwerner	2024-03-16 17:40	GoingBatty	2024-03-01 08:10
8	Toolforge tool/bot to send email notifications		1	1	Primefac	2024-03-04 12:12	Primefac	2024-03-04 12:12
9	Implementing the outcome of Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#Follow-up RfC on TV season article titles	BRFA filed	17	8	M2k~dewiki	2024-03-31 12:13	Primefac	2024-03-27 12:55
10	Bot to mass-undo edits & pagemoves		3	2	A smart kitten	2024-03-07 15:36
11	Auto-WP:NAVNOREDIRECT	Not a good task for a bot.	9	5	Certes	2024-03-31 20:56	Primefac	2024-03-13 18:37
12	Bot to add uncategorized tag to untagged uncategorized pages	Y Done	3	3	GoingBatty	2024-03-23 03:43	GoingBatty	2024-03-23 03:43
13	Mass changes needed for retirement of Drug Information Portal		6	4	WhatamIdoing	2024-03-13 17:40
14	NFL Draft move downcasing cleanup	BRFA filed	22	4	Bsoyka	2024-03-23 02:55	Primefac	2024-03-18 10:12
15	Bot to clean up wikiproject templates		8	2	Cocobb8	2024-03-24 15:05	GoingBatty	2024-03-23 19:12
16	Update WP: maintaince pages		1	1	OrdinaryGiraffe	2024-03-21 23:43
17	IMDB Bot		1	1	BabbaQ	2024-03-29 13:27
18	Automatic NOGALLERY keyword for categories containing non-free files (again)		8	4	Usernamekiran	2024-04-13 02:17	Usernamekiran	2024-04-13 02:17
19	Automatically replace superscripts with sup and sub tags		5	3	Qwerfjkl	2024-04-06 19:54	Qwerfjkl	2024-04-06 19:54
20	Green Bay Packers draft picks (1936–1969) & Green Bay Packers draft picks (1970–present)		1	1	Gonzo fan2007	2024-04-03 16:14
21	UTF-8 debugging		4	2	Qwerfjkl	2024-04-07 20:55	Qwerfjkl	2024-04-07 20:55
22	Long-dash URL		1	1	GreenC	2024-04-08 22:16
23	Can we have an AIV feed a bot posts on IRC?		5	2	Usernamekiran	2024-04-15 11:27	Usernamekiran	2024-04-15 11:27
24	Bot to sync talk page redirects with their corresponding page		4	3	Certes	2024-04-16 08:15	Usernamekiran	2024-04-16 02:26

This seems uncontroversial.

It would be pretty cool if some kind bot could go through the pre-current (should never change) archives of the boards listed in the dramaboard archivebox series, extract the earliest and latest timestamps, truncate them to dates, and use those dates to annotate the links somehow. Inactive archives at time of writing are:

• 355 at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archives
• 1140 at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchives
• 474 at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchives
• 323 at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive

User story: I was recently trying to find an archived conversation from a few months ago, and the best tools I had available were a scattershot "tap an archive number, wait for the entire page to load, check top and bottom timestamps" and "search archives for exact string matched date". Improved navigability gained from annotating the archive links with date ranges should save people time.

Implementation ideas: The quickest implementation would just be a plaintext date range edited onto the archive list pages linked above. A further step could be to add a |date-span= (or similar) to {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}} which, if present, would display the date range of comments posted at the top of the page itself, so the information is available both on the archive page and the index of archives. The most elegant, stupid, and expensive implementation would be to add {{shortdesc}} to all the archives, set the |1= to the date range, and convert the indices to use {{annotated link}}.

Anyway though: Anyway though the first step is getting the date ranges. Maybe this is already in a report somewhere? Folly Mox (talk) 18:30, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Folly Mox, I suspect you'd need consensus to go through with this. Perhaps trying asking at those noticeboards first? — Qwerfjkltalk 19:06, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh right I tacked on all those expanded scope ideas in the process of making the edit. Folly Mox (talk) 20:22, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting, an Index of some variety would probably be easier than going through the thousands of archives and amending them. Primefac (talk) 08:10, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. A user script could be useful for displaying date ranges without the need for edits. — Frostly (talk) 10:04, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The lists mentioned are generated by Template:Archive list. Could we change it's module to show the date ranges? Wikiwerner (talk) 12:50, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I want to create a bot that automatically reverts obvious date change vandalism. For example:

"James H. (born 26 December 2002)"

And then a vandal comes and changes it to:

"James H. (born 29 December 2002)"

And the goal of the bot is to revert these changes as accurately as possible. And here's how it's gonna work:

A bot sees that someone changed the birth date. The bot looks up the name of the person on wikidata. If the person appears on wikidata, The bot searches for his birth date on his wikidata page. And if the birth date written on wikidata is different than the date the vandal changed it to, the bot automatically revert these changes. I hope this bot can be coded for me. It seems like a great idea for a bot. 93.173.38.154 (talk) 11:28, 5 February 2024 (UTC) Very minor formatting changes made for readability. Primefac (talk) 12:58, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This might require a discussion to get consensus rather than being an automatic "do now". I would check that the Wikidata matches the old date, rather than just differing from the new one. Bear in mind that Wikidata also has vandalism and good-faith errors, so (with all due respect to the IP proposer) we might want the bot to revert non-autoconfirmed editors only. Certes (talk) 12:07, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This might be something that an edit filter could be able to accomplish, just disallowing changes like that. Geardona (talk to me?) 12:27, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Minor changes to numbers are depressingly common. I have been combating a mobile IP from Italy for over 6 months, who modifies incorrectly the heights of buildings, in 100s and 1000s of articles. Might be game or competition. I agree watching birth/death date changes is a good idea. I have some ideas how to do this, but it gets involved, it's not easy. -- GreenC 15:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Not sure if this is possible even remotely, but a bot to unaccept any change like these, pushing them onto pending changes, even if the page is not protected as such, just for new/unregistered users, might solve the immediate problem of false info presented to readers. Geardona (talk to me?) 15:26, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I like the gist of the proposal but not the substance. If we're going to revert number vandalism (and I would say everything from DOB to height/weight to number of albums sold, etc) it should just be done, without checking WD (which might be wrong or nonexistent anyway). If a number is being changed without a reference, it's likely to be vandalism. Basically ClueBot NG but specifically for numbers. It would need broader consensus to get implemented, though (regardless of how the bot is set up). Primefac (talk) 12:58, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I would say that this seems more possible with a edit filter, so it should be proposed there (edit filter talk page). Then see what they think. Geardona (talk to me?) 13:11, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That would certainly catch a lot of petty vandalism, such as changing the lead of 123 to begin "420 is..", but it might have many false positives. For example, good-faith editors regularly update sporting records for players and teams after each match, without waiting for some newspaper to mention that Smith has now played 42 matches rather than 41. Certes (talk) 13:34, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Potentially limiting it to just dates in the past (1 year +) would alleviate false positives? Maybe also limiting it to large number changes, would stop good faith false positives. Geardona (talk to me?) 13:38, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, don't take my suggestion as what must be, just throwing out an idea that I feel is better than trusting WD. Whether edit filter or bot, I suspect that the reverts would be limited to IPs and non-AC users. Primefac (talk) 13:49, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Potentially even having it set to revoke AC status would really solve the problem, AC is not that hard to get. Geardona (talk to me?) 13:53, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That's an interesting idea but I don't think we have a precedent for a "Robocop" bot which removes permissions and it would need at least an RfC. Getting AC for the first time is easy, but we would need to think about how affected editors would recover AC - permission request? Certes (talk) 14:05, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  To my knowledge some of the high-power filters can revoke AC. Geardona (talk to me?) 14:07, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  From Wikipedia:EFBASICS "The strongest setting is disallow. In this case, the edit is rejected, and the user will see a customizable message. A link is provided for reporting false positives. It is also possible to have a user's autoconfirmed status revoked if a user trips the filter." Geardona (talk to me?) 17:23, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This is indeed technically possible. It's also technically possible for an abuse filter to block someone entirely. We've chosen (for good reason IMO) not to use those options. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Identify pages with Template:WikiProject Albums in their talk page but not Template:Infobox album on their main page and add |needs-infobox=yes to them. Please and thank you, J04n(talk page) 15:24, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question, what about disambiguation or redirect pages, do they require the infobox? Would this be a 1 time run or a ongoing thing, if it is 1 time I could try to figure out some AWB or JWB regex to get this partly done. (given the pages a bot would be more efficient in my opinion)  Thanks Geardona (talk to me?) 15:37, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick response,disambiguation or redirect pages don't need them, if they can be filtered out all the better. I suppose continuous is better, not sure of the logistics. J04n(talk page) 16:07, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a bot programer myself, but it seems possible, (405683 pages) would need to be checked, and thats way too many for 1 or 2 people to check manually in any reasonable time (even with AWB). Geardona (talk to me?) 17:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Geardona, J04n, according to my PetScan query, 29,831 results. I could run my bot on these pages. — Qwerfjkltalk 17:59, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the results though, seems there are quite a few false positives. — Qwerfjkltalk 18:01, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Less amazing, how did it fail? Geardona (talk to me?) 18:02, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Geardona, because whilst they are in WikiProject Albums, quite a few of the articles likely don't need an infobox e.g. Grammy Award for Best Comedy Album. — Qwerfjkltalk 18:04, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Im not sure how to filter those out, Wikipedia:CONTEXTBOT is rearing its ugly head. Might need to be done manually, at least the list is a tiny bit shorter. Geardona (talk to me?) 18:06, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those seem to be redirects. — Qwerfjkltalk 18:02, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see a "redirects yes/no" setting, would that fix it or am I missing something? Geardona (talk to me?) 18:04, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing, I thought that something like this would exist, maybe post a notice with the albums project talk page, wait a day or 2 and then start. (Not sure if a BRFA would be needed here?) Geardona (talk to me?) 18:01, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the majority seem to be false positives. Can redirects be filtered out? J04n(talk page) 18:04, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

J04n, I did so in my second query. Sorry if that was unclear. — Qwerfjkltalk 18:14, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very cool, I don't mind filtering out other false positives by hand. Thank you so much! J04n(talk page) 18:18, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@J04n: Is there consensus that all articles should have an infobox? When creating the BRFA, it would be good to link to that consensus (whether it's a conversation or an albums style guide). Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 18:37, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start a conversation, thanks J04n(talk page) 18:49, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I reached out to the project, another thought I had was maybe have the bot look for any infobox template not just album. This would further reduce false positives. J04n(talk page) 19:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than looking for the WikiProject template, you could work through yyyy albums, i.e. the subcategories of Albums by year. That might miss a few pages but should produce dramatically fewer false positives. Certes (talk) 22:21, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a great idea, appreciate folks putting thought into this. J04n(talk page) 00:39, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums#Bot to help identify album pages missing infoboxes, which generated pretty much no interest one way or the other. I would like to go on with this as a one-time sweep of pages in the subcategories of Albums by year that do not have an infobox, if redirects could be filtered out it would be a big help. Can this be done? Thanks! J04n(talk page) 18:33, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Links to talk page discussions often break when the discussions are archived by User:Lowercase sigmabot III. Could this bot be configured to replace the links (by linking to archived discussions) instead of breaking them? Jarble (talk) 18:58, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jarble, this is not the right place. Ask on the bot operator's talk page. — Qwerfjkltalk 14:02, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jarble: clubot III does this by default. See User:ClueBot III#Keeping linked. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:19, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Usernamekiran: Does ClueBot III repair links to discussions that were broken by other bots, including Lowercase sigmabot III? Jarble (talk) 21:40, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jarble: To keep it short, I don't think so. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:54, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

cewbot regularly fixes these types of link errors. If there are any that are not fixed, please let me know and I'll see what's wrong. Kanashimi (talk) 05:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kanashimi: I frequently find broken links to sections of talk pages that were archived. Does Cewbot replace these broken links with links to archived talk page discussions? Jarble (talk) 21:48, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's what a robot would do. If the robot misses something, you can give me an example and I'll see what's wrong. Kanashimi (talk) 22:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kanashimi: For example, I found several broken links to talk page sections on this page. Does this bot not repair broken links from archived discussions? Jarble (talk) 17:32, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jarble The bot works by checking all the links to a specific anchor. There are too many links on this page, can you point out the exact anchor? Thank you. Kanashimi (talk) 03:18, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kanashimi: One of the broken section anchors is at the beginning of this section, but there are probably several others. Jarble (talk) 03:39, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jarble This page will be processed by the bot when it processes all the pages linked to Talk:BTS (band). Kanashimi (talk) 06:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am wanting to propose the idea of creating a bot that notifies Articles for creation acceptors when an article they accept gets AfDed around 100 days within them accepting it via their talk page. GMH Melbourne (talk) 05:41, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a script called User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/WatchlistAFD.js that automatically adds the AfD pages of your AfC accepts and NPP curations to your watchlist for 6 months. It's really handy because then you can easily keep track of when things are AfD'd and adjust your reviewing accordingly. – DreamRimmer (talk) 06:18, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think my user script is broken. I should probably fix it one of these days. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:27, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Teahouse § Bot inoperable. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 02:11, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to add the Category:Banaras Hindu University alumni to all articles listed in List of Banaras Hindu University people. The bot should automatically update/add Category to any article added in the List. This List-Category linker can not only be used across WP:UNI but also other such relations where a list and category exist for same theme. Thank you, User4edits (talk) 04:36, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@User4edits: The first person in the article is "C. V. Raman, the Nobel Prize winner in Physics in 1930 and Bharat Ratna laureate..." The bot would have to check C. V. Raman and ignore the links to Nobel Prize and Bharat Ratna. Might be easier if all the lists in the article were in the same format (e.g. all tables or all with bullets). GoingBatty (talk) 04:43, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GoingBatty would it not be possible to filter only biographical articles? Re-formatting would be tedious for such large article, and will not make the bot a universal use. Thanks, User4edits (talk) 04:59, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@User4edits: It might be possible, but more challenging when you look at List of Harvard University people#Royalty and nobility where you would also have to filter out the biographical articles from the "Notability" column. GoingBatty (talk) 05:26, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GoingBatty That is an issue. However, we can counter this by providing users with two modes -- biographical filter, or columns (formatted lists as Harvard above). Thanks, User4edits (talk) 06:02, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@User4edits: Another issue that any potential bot owner (i.e. not me) will have to consider is that it won't be appropriate to add "Category:XXXX alumni" to an article if it already has a sub-category (e.g. Category:Harvard University people has 17 subcategories and numerous sub-subcategories). GoingBatty (talk) 08:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GoingBatty Yes, it will have to skip if any sub category of the main category is already listed. Although in the example you gave, I see Category:Harvard University alumni a sub cat of people. Thanks, User4edits (talk) 04:25, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The category at the start of this topic has no subcategories, so that is not an issue. AWB's list comparer yields 196 pages that are linked on the list, but are not in the category (plus 146 pages in the category that are not in the list). Filtering out biographical articles can be done by checking whether a category "... births" exists, or by a human. Wikiwerner (talk) 17:40, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a tool request about the recent "bots don't trigger email watchlist notifications" change to the backend at VPT (since it's not a botreq) but thought folks here might want to know. Primefac (talk) 12:12, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a rather big and somewhat complex job. Per the RfC, we need to move all articles on individual TV seasons from, e.g., Loki (season 2) titles to "Loki season 2" titles (get rid of the parens and add a DISPLAYTITLE template to maintain the italicization scheme; and add "| italic_title=no" to the television infobox to avoid a conflict). BD2412 T 01:00, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BD2412: thinking about this, but not actively working on it. Per the RfC, this is not a task for blanket removal of brackets as Hawaii Five-0 (2010 TV series, season 10) is supposed to become "Hawaii Five-0 (2010 TV series) season 10". Am I getting this correctly? —usernamekiran (talk) 04:05, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct. My thinking is that we hold those off to the end. BD2412 T 04:12, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently this will actually require retooling of the infobox first to avoid clashes, but once that is done, this can roll. BD2412 T 22:22, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

add a DISPLAYTITLE template to maintain the italicization scheme; and add " I think all of this will eventually be handled on the infobox level, so we shouldn't need a multitude of DISPLAYTITLEs (and thus that parameter in the infobox). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:47, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the infobox sandbox version should be working with the new style. More testing by other editors is of course always appreciated. The display title and italic_title should not be needed to be edited by a bot. Other things mentioned in the follow-up still need bot work. Gonnym (talk) 13:17, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is technically two different tasks (first, move, second, cleanup). I'm happy to help out with the second half. Primefac (talk) 13:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the moves, the complete list of articles to be moved (original and new location) are listed at User:Alex 21/sandbox/NCTV. -- Alex_21 _TALK 00:49, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just bumping this, to see if any available editors with bots are willing to help out. Cheers. -- Alex_21 _TALK 09:17, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alex 21, I can take care of this. (The first part, moving the pages.) — Qwerfjkltalk 15:45, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Qwerfjkl Fantastic, thank you! The complete list of articles to be moved are at User:Alex 21/sandbox/NCTV; the former link is the current location, the latter link the location to move to (some of which are already redirects and will require overwriting). Let me know if you have any questions. -- Alex_21 _TALK 11:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I should have mentioned BRFA filed. — Qwerfjkltalk 16:57, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just so as I can hopefully get to the "part two" as quickly as possible after "part one" is done (unless someone else feels like tackling it), my list of things to update after the pages moves are:

• Add |italic_title=no to the infobox
• Update talk page archiving to point to the correct location

I seem to be reading from the above that the DISPLAYTITLE issue is being fixed on the backend in the infobox itself, yes? Is there anything else that needs updating? Primefac (talk) 12:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First trial is complete, for the record; extra eyes are always appreciated. Primefac (talk) 12:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No to your first bullet. The infobox handles italics (or at least should if I didn't mess up the code). Once the moves are done Template:Infobox television season/sandbox and Module:Infobox television season name/sandbox2 should be moved to live. Gonnym (talk) 14:16, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The main update that will need to occur after the page moves will be updating usages of {{Episode list/sublist}} (e.g. from {{Episode list/sublist|American Idol (season 1)}} to {{Episode list/sublist|American Idol season 1}}. This could be done through a bot or AWB, either works; the latter would need a find-and-replace with (\{\{Episode list\/sublist\|).+ to $1{{subst:BASEPAGENAME}} (regex enabled). This was a test edit of exactly that. -- Alex_21 _TALK 20:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, please also see

• d:Wikidata:Project_chat#(5000)_unconnected_television_season_articles_in_the_english_language_wikipedia_after_pages_have_been_moved
• https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata%3AProject_chat&diff=2115427226&oldid=2114990113

Thanks a lot! M2k~dewiki (talk) 12:13, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be (at least a rough) consensus at WP:BOTN#Rollback Proposal to mass-undo at least a set of the edits and pagemoves that were proposed for reversal. I originally said that I would be happy to submit a BRFA to do this myself, but I am no longer personally able to take on this task.

Let me know if there are any queries. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 18:44, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like this user changed his name? Kanashimi (talk) 14:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kanashimi: Yes, this user is now Renamed user g5s6n3yi8z7g08cs. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 15:36, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could we have a bot to automatically bypass redirects in navboxes? It would simplify part of the WP:POSTMOVE work that page movers have to perform. – Hilst [talk] 00:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not all redirects in navboxes should be bypassed. WP:NAVNOREDIRECT recommends bypassing redirects which are synonymous with the target but not those which are subtopics or other related topics on which a separate article might be written. In some cases, bypassing everything might create a navbox for Garage Band where all the entries are of the form [[Garage Band|Mike Singer]], [[Garage Band|Obscure Single]], etc. Certes (talk) 11:19, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not a good task for a bot. As indicated above, there are context issues. Primefac (talk) 18:37, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks. – Hilst [talk] 20:18, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hilst: One could generate a report of existing redirects on navboxes, whether or not filtered by redirects containing {{R from move}}. Then the results can be processed manually. A nice one is Template:Districts of Cambodia: all districts have been renamed from "... District" to "... district". Wikiwerner (talk) 19:49, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, R from moves should be safe. Districts of Cambodia is one template where a bot or other process to bypass redirects automatically would be helpful. There may be other categories/templates of redirect which can also be bypassed safely. Others such as R from misspelling look tempting but might be mislinks where a topic with no article has its title redirected to an unrelated topic with a similar spelling. Certes (talk) 20:53, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And those navboxes should go straight to WP:TFD for being pointless. Gonnym (talk) 19:17, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And now this bot would have been very useful as all television season articles with disambiguation have been moved. Most of which have navboxes. Gonnym (talk) 12:36, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would certainly welcome some sort of tool to bypass redirects in navboxes in a semi-automated way, perhaps by presenting a table of link targets which are redirects alongside the article title to which each redirect leads and a tickbox or similar to authorise bypassing. Certes (talk) 20:56, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could we have a bot to automatically add the Template:Uncategorized tag to untagged uncategorized pages? BlueberryIntoTheWild (talk) 06:29, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's been discussed previously at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Coordination#Reviewing backlog. – DreamRimmer (talk) 07:10, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueberryIntoTheWild: Y Done I already have BattyBot 55 to do this, and I last ran it on March 21. GoingBatty (talk) 03:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(I am contacting WP:BOTREQ at the suggestion of Andy Mabbett)

The National Library of Medicine's Drug Information Portal has been retired, with all information moved to the Library's PubChem database. I think all the links to the Drug Information Portal should be updated to the corresponding article in PubChem. I suspect that someone can set up a bot to do this, but I don't know how. Perhaps someone can point me to instructions to do this or turn this over to someone who already knows how? — HowardBGolden (talk) 20:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For example: Here's an example of a change I made manually:

Synopsis:

"druginfo" -> "pubchem/ncbi"

"drugportal/name" -> "compound"

"Drug Information Portal" -> "PubChem"

"charcoal" -> "Activated%20Charcoal#section=Drug-and-Medication-Information"

BEFORE

* {{cite web |title=Activated charcoal |url=https://druginfo.nlm.nih.gov/drugportal/name/charcoal |work=Drug Information Portal |publisher=U.S. National Library of Medicine}}

AFTER

* {{cite web |title=Activated charcoal |url=https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Activated%20Charcoal#section=Drug-and-Medication-Information |work=PubChem |publisher=U.S. National Library of Medicine}}

HowardBGolden (talk) 22:25, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HowardBGolden: Could WP:URLREQ do this more efficiently than a new bot? Certes (talk) 23:06, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a |Pubchem= parameter for {{Infobox drug}}, and presumably many/most of the affected articles have that infobox, so I don't think it should also be listed in WP:EL. And it's maybe even already populated with the correct entry, so in many cases this item should simply be removed altogether. That would certainly limit the scope of the pages needing actual attention. And in many of those cases, it probably merits an infobox update (and then nuking the EL) rathe than changing the EL. DMacks (talk) 02:08, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I asked WPMED for advice on whether they see a need to special-case around WP:EL vs infobox link. DMacks (talk) 15:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for this, and to DMacks for dealing with it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:40, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The report Wikipedia:Database reports/Linked miscapitalizations shows something over 20,000 links to over-capitalized redirects after the NFL Draft downcasing moves, and there are of course lots of other over-capitalizations in the text other than links. User:Bagumba has fixed a few thousand over the last few days, but I think it might be better to take his JWB setup and make a bot run of it. Someone with more experience with such things could tune up his regular expressions to be more precise and effective, I expect. See our discussion at User talk:Bagumba#JWB followups. Dicklyon (talk) 05:05, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At a high-level, some of the changes are to:

1. Replace links to all "XXXX NFL Draft" and "XXXX NFL/AFL Draft" redirects to the actual page title "XXXX NFL draft" or "XXXX NFL/AFL draft" (see Category:National_Football_League_draft)
2. If any of those links are also piped, changed the displayed text from "Draft" (when present) to "draft"
3. Change links to the redirects if referred by {{main}} or {{see also}}

The relevant discussion to lowercase to "NFL draft" was at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Capitalization of NFL draft article titles.—Bagumba (talk) 05:29, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this would be a fun one to take on! I think it could be done really effectively by using mwparserfromhell to filter and edit wikilinks across these pages. If no one else wants to work on this and no existing bot task can handle it, count me in. Bsoyka (t • c • g) 13:40, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, should this task potentially be expanded to cover all the linked miscapitalizations at that database report? Bsoyka (t • c • g) 13:49, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially, though I'd go slow on the general case, as some of those have their own complications that might not be obvious at first. I'm glad to hear you have a decent parser, as that's clearly what's needed for best results. I look forward to seeing how you take this on. We're willing to help. Dicklyon (talk) 09:23, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This will likely not get approval as a bot task; "fixing" redirects is very, very rarely supported on a mass scale. You should know this already, Dicklyon, given that your insistence on doing so was what got you banned from using AWB in the first place. Primefac (talk) 09:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is totally not true! What got me banned was that I made a few mistakes while editing too fast; some false positives in contexts such as reference titles slipped by me. Nobody objected to what I was trying to do, as far as I recall, though some general discomfort with case fixes was likely an underlying motivation for them wanting to throttle me. Dicklyon (talk) 09:57, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac: This specific case has gone through an RFC, approving both the page titles and the general usage of the term "NFL draft" in text. Seems uncontroversial at this point for this case. —Bagumba (talk) 10:00, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I recognise that there was an RFC to change the article titles, but bots replacing redirects is usually seen to be a minor task that should be done in combination with other tasks, not done on its own (especially when considering piped links which would offer no visual change to the page). I can't deny a bot request that hasn't been filed, and you are welcome to do what you feel is necessary, I'm just telling you my initial opinion based on this request. Primefac (talk) 10:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. FWIW, 95+% of the links are not piped, so it generally would be making a visual change and not just be cosmetic. —Bagumba (talk) 10:20, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Primefac, if you'll review the RFC, you'll see that it was not just to change article titles. As for replacing piped redirects, yes it's a minor task, but an important one in making the maintenance report useful. It's not just cosmetic, as it affects that report. Prohibiting such fixes would make that report useless. I've been doing such fixes manually for many months now, thousands of edits, and have had zero pushback about fixing piped links to miscapitalized redirects. Dicklyon (talk) 10:26, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For reference see a recent run on JWB. Mostly (if not all) unpiped links i.e. non-cosmetic.—Bagumba (talk) 10:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right, most of these are not piped links. But we should also be fixing those that are, such 2000. Dicklyon (talk) 10:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bagumba, did you use any patterns that would have replaced piped links? If there's any significant pushback such as Primefac suggests, we could just not do that at all. It would still be huge progess, avoiding fixing piping through miscapitalized redirects, and we could use non-bot methods to decide what else to do. Dicklyon (talk) 11:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, almost every (all?) page that was edited had at least one link that was not piped. Later links might pipe just the year only, when it was obvious that the context was to a particular draft. Otherwise, it'd be pipes like [[2023 NFL Draft|2023 Draft]] or [[2023 NFL Draft|the Draft]], where "Draft" was still in the displayed text. —Bagumba (talk) 11:26, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From my understanding of the RfC, I do agree that it says "draft" should be lowercase across NFL-related articles, not just in the titles but in the content as well. I believe that with my intended method of parsing the wikicode itself with mwparserfromhell rather than simple regexes, everything can be taken care of, including piped links. (i.e. [[2024 NFL Draft|2024 Draft]] -> [[2024 NFL draft|2024 draft]]) If this is decided to be a good bot task, I'd love to take it on, but if not, I respect the consensus of the community. Bsoyka (t • c • g) 15:11, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probably it's best to avoid controversy by not doing edits where the only change is to piped links (e.g. [[2024 NFL Draft|2024]]); where other things are being fixed, these are worth fixing at the same time. I don't think this will leave many articles linking to the NFL Draft articles, as they pretty much all have the capitalized Draft in text, too, per Bagumba's experience. Dicklyon (talk) 07:03, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bsoyka: Are you an experienced bot operator, familiar with how to do the approval request and such? Can we get started on that? Dicklyon (talk) 07:08, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dicklyon: Somewhat, in that I've been through the process a couple of times and currently run a daily bot task (see User:BsoykaBot). I'll work on some code and get a BRFA going shortly. Bsoyka (t • c • g) 02:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Don't rely on the report at Wikipedia:Database reports/Linked miscapitalizations, since a user has untagged all the NFL Draft redirects as not "errors". See discussion at User talk:Hey man im josh#NFL Draft capitalization. @Hey man im josh:. Also, many were not yet tagged. Dicklyon (talk) 02:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I actually have a script working to generate a list of these "XXXX NFL Draft" redirects without that database report; in other words, my tentative bot code doesn't rely on the {{R from miscapitalization}} template, so no worries on my end. Bsoyka (t • c • g) 02:25, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My code appears to work, so... BRFA filed! Bsoyka (t • c • g) 02:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some relevant tasks include:

• Disabling the needs-infobox parameter if there is an infobox on the article
• Disabling the needs-image parameter if there is an image on the article

Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:14, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disabling the needs-infobox parameter[edit]

@Cocobb8: I haven't run BattyBot 70 since October to work on removing |needs-infobox= where it's no longer needed, so I'll start that up now. GoingBatty (talk) 03:38, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cocobb8: BattyBot 70 is in the process of removing the |needs-infobox= parameter from about 830 pages. GoingBatty (talk) 19:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:05, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disabling the needs-image parameter[edit]

@Cocobb8:Is there consensus somewhere to disable the |needs-image= parameter if there is an image on the article? I believe it's possible that an article needs another image or a better image even though it already has one. GoingBatty (talk) 03:38, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GoingBatty: Quoting from the image requested template: It is a residual indicator, not a general-purpose "no image present" indicator (for that, use {{improve images}}) Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:00, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cocobb8: Thank you for the link to the template {{Image requested}}. However, I don't see how that is related to the request to disable the |needs image= parameter (and presumably all its variations) from WikiProject templates. GoingBatty (talk) 19:08, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GoingBatty Yes my bad, I got mixed up. No idea if there is consensus for it or not, but I would assume that it is only set as "yes" if there no images at all. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A bot to make edits like this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ABacklog&diff=1214091029&oldid=1197405012. Also used at Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links#Current disambiguation collaborations. OrdinaryGiraffe (talk) 23:43, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to request that a bot add the IMDb template to all articles that needs it. If possible (actors bios, entertainers etc). It is a very useful template. BabbaQ (talk) 13:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll raise this again, since last time the discussion fizzled out, and was archived without formal action from a BAG member.

The issue is that files in categories are displayed by default, and this violates WP:NFCC#9 if there are non-free files in the category. They have to be tagged with __NOGALLERY__ if you want to disable display of non-free files in a category. This is an urgent issue, as categories without this tag thatt contain non-free files are everywhere, and because we take copyright very seriously it cannot wait for a human user to find the category and add the __NOGALLERY__ tag, which is why this task requires a bot. Every other routine task involving non-free files, such removing instances without a valid fair use tag, is already handled by a bot.

The previous discussion stalled after a user objected and suggested adding a new feature to MediaWiki to disable category galleries by default, which is less convenient due to requiring WMF action, and it would create the opposite problem: we would need a bot to enable gallery mode on categories that contain only free files. Even though most files hosted locally are non-free, there is no reason why a bot couldn't handle the task of adding necessary __NOGALLERY__ tags at the required scale. Only one other person contributed to the discussion, who objected the suggestion for a new MediaWiki feature because it would hinder navigation of categories specifically for free files, and nothing else happened after that. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:58, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:JJMC89 has a bot that works with non-free images and might be interested in looking at this task. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:26, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonesey95: Should I contact JJMC89 (talk · contribs) via their user talk page? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:28, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth a try. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:39, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware I've been pinged, but I don't have time to look into this right now. Someone else can take this up, or I'll circle back when I have the time. — JJMC89 (T·C) 17:38, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @LaundryPizza03: I think I/KiranBOT can do this. Can you provide an edit/diff? Then I can be sure whether I can do it. —usernamekiran (talk) 18:01, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Usernamekiran: The edits which add the NOGALLERY tag look like: [1]. I'm pretty confident that this category contains non-free files. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @LaundryPizza03: that means, first the bot would have to identify categories with non-free files. I am not sure how JJMC89's bot works, but I am guessing it works through recent changes patrolling. @JJMC89: Is the source code of relevant task public? —usernamekiran (talk) 02:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Having just learned that the preference for superscript and subscript usage is to use sup and sub tags rather than Unicode superscript and subscript characters, I generated a list of 3000 articles in AutoWikiBrowser and fixed around 1500 articles with Unicode superscripts via that method. As fixing all superscripts and subscripts on Wikipedia would take a while with that method, perhaps a bot could be tasked with replacing all such instances automatically? Reviewing the exceptions for when Unicode characters should be used, they seem relatively easy for a bot to avoid. Another such case for replacement would be № with No., though as I found at least one case where the character was used in a file name, any automated means of replacement would need to avoid replacing characters in file names. CoolieCoolster (talk) 10:07, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CoolieCoolster, my bot is approved for that task. There are currently 794 pages that need fixing. — Qwerfjkltalk 12:28, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that some errors there, like the one at 2023 IFK Norrköping season should not used either style and need to be converted to normal text. Gonnym (talk) 15:06, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I'm mistaken, it seems that your bot fixes cases of th and nd being used as superscripts when they shouldn't, rather than replacing Unicode superscripts and subscripts with tag-based superscripts and subscripts. For instance, I went ahead and fixed another 200 or so superscripts with AWB and your bot's number is still at 799. CoolieCoolster (talk) 01:16, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my mistake. — Qwerfjkltalk 19:54, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on bringing both of these lists to WP:FLC in the future. Unfortunately, the style of the tables is based on an older layout not typically used any more. Fixing each individual table (like 90 tables comprising like 1,500 different players) is going to be a time drain of repetitive editing. After working on a few, I wondered if someone would be able to automate these steps. The idea would be running an input of a table and receiving an updated table as an output. This wouldn't need to actually edit the article, it could just be placement of the tables in my user space for me to QA/QC and then update the table accordingly. As an example, the following table would be the input:

And the output would be this:

What steps would this entail? Well here are the main things:

• Adding {{Sortname}} to each person's name.
• Adding accessibility features (scope="row")
• Converting from the double-piped style on one line to the single-pipe with each piece of data on its own line
• Centering the data in columns 2 and 3

This would save me a ridiculous amount of time and energy. I know this isn't the typical "bot request", but it seemed the most appropriate venue for such a request. Note again that this request would not require any bot editing to the mainspace, it could just paste the tables to my user space for me to add in, QA/QC and make some smaller changes not easily automated. Thanks for any help! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After seeing the use of ’ in place of ' in the titles of several references, I noticed similar broken characters and determined that most of them are likely on this list. Further research indicated that the issue is known as Mojibake, with there being one prior bot request for the issue that appears to have been left unresolved.

As the character combinations in the chart are unlikely to occur by happenstance, their use of any given article likely corresponds to the characters on the chart. Assuming the chart I found isn't missing any commonly broken characters, the current number of articles with characters broken in this manner to be around 800. As periodically scanning for and correcting all of such occurrences would be repetitive, perhaps its a task a bot could handle? CoolieCoolster (talk) 07:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CoolieCoolster, if I search for ’, the first result links to https://www.thenews.com.pk/archive/print/269366-cm-doubles-baloch-students’-quota; https://www.thenews.com.pk/archive/print/269366-cm-doubles-baloch-students'-quota throws a soft 404. — Qwerfjkltalk 16:56, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of ’, I fixed all erroneous instances of it (about 400, mostly in reference titles) using AWB, with the remaining ones being in URLs like the one you found. There's also the remaining characters to fix, though I think ' is the most common one to be affected. It would be helpful if there were a means of having the process be entirely automated for the inevitable future fixes needed. CoolieCoolster (talk) 19:33, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CoolieCoolster, the problem is context (WP:CONTEXTBOT), which is why it can't be automated. — Qwerfjkltalk 20:55, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In 2018, during this Special:Diff/849981928/849983506, this error occurred:

https://www.encyclopedia.com/women/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/leonora-aragon-1405-1445

https://www.encyclopedia.com/women/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/leonora-aragon-1405–1445

The dash in 1405-1445 was changed from normal to long. This broke the URL. Since no archive exists for a broken URL, it was tagged dead and has been dead ever since: Special:Diff/886267655/916302781 (the fix-attempted=yes means the bot has given up looking for an archive replacement).

This is not the only instance -- humans, search-replace commands, AWB, scripts and bots -- change normal dashes to long dashes. In the process breaking URLs permanently. The fix is "easy": find URLs with long dashes (grep the external links database dump enwiki-20240401-externallinks.sql.gz at here), convert longs to short, verify the repaired URL works, commit the change. -- GreenC 22:16, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I used to have one but then the toolserver changed and somehow an account isn't easy to come by, now (I posted before, but nothing came of it)... ~Lofty abyss 03:09, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lofty: Hi. Do you have source code for it? Maybe I can do it. —usernamekiran (talk) 18:19, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lofty abyss: lol. I pinged a different user in previous edit. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:53, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was hoping this page could be where bots are started from scratch, possibly, but I used some years ago, and on searching there seems to be several possibilities: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:IRC_RC_Bot https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:MediaWiki-Recent_Changes-IRCBot https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/MediaWiki_Administrator%27s_Handbook/Countervandalism_IRC_Bots

It's also, generally, what the cvn bots do already there, except this would need to be a more specific page that is watched. ~Lofty abyss 20:16, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lofty abyss: your response reminded me, we have had this conversation before. I think User:Frostly was working on it. Maybe they have a partial code? —usernamekiran (talk) 11:27, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, as I said in Wikipedia talk:Redirect#Deprecation of redirecting the talk page of a mainspace redirect, sometimes the talk page of a redirect is itself a redirect, most commonly after a page move. The problem is that sometimes, like in Acts of God (book) (before I corrected it in [2], 10 years later), someone retargets the redirect but forgets to retarget the talk page redirect, so any editor that tries to discuss the redirect is sent to the wrong place. I think that a bot should exist that retargets the talk page redirect to the talk page of the new target. One more thing that needs to be taken into account is that because of WP:TALKCENT, the bot needs to make sure it doesn't make a double redirect.

Just to be clear, despite what I wrote in the thread linked above, I would be against the bot changing every talk page redirect with {{talk page of redirect}}. I can explain the reasons why if necessary. Nickps (talk) 23:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nickps: I am not sure what exactly you are asking. But if you want to change a major policy/guideline, or a longstanding norm, then it requires consensus through proper RfC. Until RfC is concluded, no changes should be made. —usernamekiran (talk) 02:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think my request requires a policy change. All I'm saying is that when the talk page of a redirect is itself a redirect, those two should point to the same place and a bot should be made to ensure that. In the example I provided, someone updated the mainspace redirect but not the talk page redirect. What happened then was that Acts of God (book) targeted Act of God (disambiguation) but Talk:Acts of God (book) targeted Talk:Acts of God (novel) which is obviously wrong. I don't think we need an RfC to tell us that. Nickps (talk) 02:34, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We already have at least one bot performing similar tasks. For example, Bot1058 makes edits such as this. (BFRA page) Wbm1058 may be able to provide more information. Certes (talk) 08:15, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]