Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

→

Archive 45

Can you combinate 'what links here' and categories. Specifically for the category 'Association football clubs' and the pages which linked to 'File:Flag of the Netherlands.svg' I hope so!? 77.168.97.100 (talk) 16:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:AWB should be able to do what you're looking for. §hep^Talk 17:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Recently moved the documentation page of the user warning block templates from Template:Blocksnotice/inner to Template:uw-block/doc, the documentation page of the new metatemplate. Could a bot or AWBer assist the User Warnings Project by replacing {{Blocksnotice}} transclusions with {{Documentation|Template:uw-block/doc}}? Thanks. --Bsherr (talk) 15:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I could edit every page but Template:Uw-uhblock and Template:Uw-spamublock. §hep^Talk 19:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Stepshep. I've requested edits to the remaining two (so they should be done in a couple months...). --Bsherr (talk) 01:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully now done. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how common this is, but I've found at least two references that were broken recently because www.thecnj.co.uk has apparently been abandoned for www.thecnj.com without any redirects being put in place. You might want to check a few to make sure, but I think the rest of the path is the same, just the TLD has changed. Le Deluge (talk) 10:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, i check more pages, but i don't know if this will be disabled either. The main page redirects to http://www.camdennewjournal.com/ which now conaitns the title of news articles in the url (http://www.camdennewjournal.com/news/2010/sep/are-we-ready-first-%E2%80%98superchief%E2%80%99). There isn't any way now to find these old articles from the root page. So i would propose the change e.g. http://www.thecnj.co.uk/islington/2008/101008/inews101008_06.html to http://www.thecnj.com/islington/2008/101008/inews101008_06.html?headline=Drummer-who-dreamed-of-rock-fame-killed-in-street-fall .

The headline parameter is not used by this site. But in the future the archive may be completely moved to camdennewjournal.com. Knowing the title make is possible to use the search to find it again.

Is there any support for adding the headline? I could run this job at night. Merlissimo 12:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

There's two problems here - first fixing Wikipedia by converting 120 .co.uk links to .com, and secondly since their IT department obviously doesn't have much clue, trying to futureproof those links plus another 40 that are already at thecnj.com. Adding the title as an URL parameter would be better than nothing and relatively easy, better would be to put the title in the |title= parameter of a {{cite}} template. Another way of futureproofing would be just to submit all the URLs (once converted to .com format!) to an archiving service. Le Deluge (talk) 11:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Changing weblinks to cite template is another job. I replaced 93 links on 77 pages. Three misspelled ones by myself, all other by bot:

ja-0: 1 Page; nl-0: 1 Page; zh-0: 1 Page; ru-0: 1 Page; hu-0: 1 Page; fr-0: 1 Page; ca-0: 1 Page; bg-0: 1 Page; da-0: 1 Page; de-0: 1 Page; ar-0: 1 Page; he-0: 1 Page; en-0: 64 Pages;

Merlissimo 09:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

According to the 30 July 2010 dump, there are 523 journals which have (journal), and 1386 magazines which have (magazine) in the title. I'm excluding those which have since been deleted, or redirected.

It would be great if someone could code a bot which would look through the |journal= and |work= parameters of citation templates and check for the [[Foobar]] which have a [[Foobar (journal/magazine)]] counterpart, and make the replacement [[Foobar]] → [[Foobar (journal/magazine)|Foobar]]. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 09:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Have you tried asking Citation bot (talk · contribs) to do this? It seems the logical candidate, since it already parses the citation templates in other ways. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

While this would be a good general fix to implement in Citation Bot, I'm more interested at a some kind of AWB run that would systematically fix these now. Citation Bot has a more or less random editing pattern, and is blocked every second day, so it would take quite a while for it to make these simple fixes. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

This is probably right up my street. I'll have a look in the next few days. Rjwilmsi 13:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't see a bot that fits this need on Wikipedia:Bots/Status. Maybe I'm missing something?

When I protect an article, it would be nice to have a bot come along, examine the type of protection, and automatically place an appropriate tag in the article (like {{pp-semi}} for semi-protection), and remove it when protection expires. The bot could insert templates if, say, a half hour has passed since protection with no template added.

This seems to be trivial maintenance drudge work better suited for a bot than a human. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

FYI I think Twinkle can automatically add these things for you. Wikipedia:Bots/Status is fairly incomplete, but I don't think there's a bot that adds them right now. There is one that removes them, if I recall correctly. –xeno^talk 18:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I've eschewed automated tools for years, so it didn't occur to me that one of them may do this. The Twinkle documentation doesn't mention it. The few administrator tools that were suggested to me for my vector.js don't work particularly well (easyblock has never worked for me), at least on this computer. I see your monobook.js is quite detailed. I'll steal a few things from it, if you don't mind. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the documentation is a little sparse. See [1]. As far as my monobook - please, be my guest =) –xeno^talk 19:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Note that a bot to add {{pp-protected}} would have to be an adminbot (or would have to do an {{editprotected}} every time it needed to add one). Anomie⚔ 19:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

For fully-protected articles, yes. –xeno^talk 19:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Is it possible to have a bot add the {{old prod full}} template to the talk pages of articles when the article is either PRODed, has its PROD seconded, or (most importantly) has its PROD removed? This would be helpful to document a failed PROD, to make it easier to avoid PRODding an article that has already been PRODded in violation of WP:PROD. TJRC (talk) 20:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Could someone help remove the links from the "known for"-coloumn on Wikipedia:WikiProject Norway/NBL. It only consists of Norwegian words that does not need links. Rettetast (talk) 14:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Y Done Anomie⚔ 15:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 15:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, can you remove links from "written by" as well? It serves no purpose, and is just a remnant from when the page was lifted from no:wiki. Geschichte (talk) 16:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The recent problem regarding the mass copyright violations in articles (ref) highlighted CorenSearchBot to me. Knowing also of TinEye, I've thought of a potential new bot. So;

• ImageVioBot: A bot that will review recent image uploads and scan the net looking for similar or identical images IFF the image is not tagged with a non-free license tag. If possible violations are found, tag them as such which will categorize them, and notify the uploader of the problem.

So far as I'm aware, there is no bot that does this. I review a LOT of images, and I haven't come across such activity before. I do run into a lot of images that are blatantly stolen from the Web somewhere. But, the humans here do not catch all of them or even a significant fraction, I'm sure. I realize that such coding will be quite hard. A bot that can do that will require code that can compare images. Not easy. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

There is a bot at Commons that did/does this. In the past, I've seen it do stupid things like tag the image because TinEye returned the use of the image on Wikipedia. There are also some users there who I've seen do incredibly stupid things like tag a 5-year-old image (i.e. it's quite likely the image was copied from us).

If someone wants to take on this task, do make sure you don't make these same errors. Anomie⚔ 16:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• Well, the age issue is addressed by having it look only at new uploads. The issue of using TinEye's results and not identifying that it's results are from Wikipedia seems pretty easy. That said, I've seen TinEye end up doing circular references through third party sites back to here (where they've taken our content there, and TinEye finds it there). Perhaps have it ignore known mirrors as valid TinEye results. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• Note that per their FAQ TinEye only allows 100 searches per day unless you start paying for it. I'm not sure how they enforce it or if they'd be willing to work with you to set a higher limit to allow for Wikipedia work, but the limit's what stopped me from looking into this one further myself. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:ELEMENTS categorizes all likely articles for isotopes. However, this lead to some IP editors to convert them into very poor stubs, which doesn't give much more information that the various list of isotopes. We can't reach them (IPs are dynamic), and they don't update the talk page banner when they unredirect a page. Which means the WP:ELEMENTS editors need to spend considerable ammounts of time undoing several redirects, updating banners etc... As a way to prevent this, and encourage the IP to make more meaningful contributions, we would like to place this notice at the top of every redirect found in the subcategories of Category:Isotopes.

<!--
 Before converting the Elementname-XXX redirect into an article,
 please consider creating a section entitled Elementname-XXX
 in the [[Isotopes of elementname]] article instead.

 See [[Isotopes of hydrogen]] for an example.
-->

See WT:WikiProject Elements#Isotope stub genocide and bot notice to prevent the situation? for discussion/consensus on this. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 07:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Coding... I'll get coding and file a BRFA later today or tomorrow. - EdoDodo ^talk 08:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

BRFA filed - EdoDodo ^talk 10:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Can a bot move these approved files to Commons? This is a one-time job that has never been finished since the botop was indef'd a while back. It should be non-controversial; the images already went through approval by trusted users. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Template:Infobox festival has been merged into Template:Infobox recurring event about a month ago, breaking image markup (see e.g. the markup "[[File:" and "|150px]]" in Stratford Shakespeare Festival). Unmerging will probably break the transclusions that have been fixed in the meantime. Could a bot fix this? As far as I can see, changing image = [[File:<IMAGENAME>|<SIZE>]] and image = [[Image:<IMAGENAME>|<SIZE>]] to image = <IMAGENAME> | imagesize = <SIZE> should do it, but there might be other problems I'm not aware of. Thanks --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 08:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

178 transclusions. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

That was quick, thanks! --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 14:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe I got them all, there is still the "festival_name" parameter in some of them. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I've been thinking of ways to give book creators and maintainers some feedback about what they could do to improve in the book. WildBot already checks for structural errors (such as duplicate articles, redirects, etc...) but the content of the books themselves is unreviewed. So it would be great if there was a bot, similar to User:WolterBot which does (did) the cleanup listings for WikiProjects and cleanup-assisting tools like WildBot which crawls articles for disambiguation pages and broken links. In a nutshell, the bot would crawl articles, look for problem and place a daily report on the book's talk page. Something like the following:

This would be immensely helpful to editors who want to improve books and the book's topic. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:09, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

It would also tremendously help with the creation of a "Featured Books" process. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

CleanupListingBot could do some of this albeit, not daily, but monthly. Smallman12q (talk) 22:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Would weekly be a possibility if a daily run is too resources-intensive? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

It's certainly a possibility to do it on daily runs with month old indexes...but I'm still waiting for a response to Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/CleanupListingBot. I'd also like to point out how its disconcerting and discouraging that such a requested bot as WolterBot takes a bureaucratically long to get looked at *.* .Smallman12q (talk) 02:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I thought you didn't use dumps, but used categories when the bot ran? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

-It doesn't use dumps, it uses the API. It creates its own "index" in the form of a long xml file...this way it doesn't need to load some 3000 categories(~70 categories * 12 months each * 4 years).Smallman12q (talk) 00:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, so how resource intensive would it be for fresh indexes (daily/weekly basis) for a daily/weekly run on books? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

It wouldn't be intensive...A wikiproject with 5k articles takes about 2-8 seconds...so a wikibook could be run under a second. I'm busy in rl, though I plan to start the cleanuplistingbot running next week, and then adding this in there. I'm thinking about converting the project to php to run on the toolserver...will have to see how much time I have.Smallman12q (talk) 13:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

A Featured book process would be extremely redundant. We have WP:FT already, after all, which are basically books before books. ResMar 21:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Well that's a debate for elsewhere, but books have additional consideration beyond being made mostly of featured articles. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 10:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to make this request official, as opposed to discussing it offwiki. If someone, preferably Shirik (talk · contribs), could create a bot that will subst the uw-templates, for tracking purposes, as well as helping User:KingpinBot get rid of errors, that'd be great. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 00:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Ive got some old python code sitting around that does this..... ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 01:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Follow up going by Category:Wikipedia substituted templates there are 7950 transclusions, that does not include redirects either. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 22:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

BRFA filed Anomie⚔ 20:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I have a BRFA to subst these already. Will put it on my (currently stopped) queue. Rich Farmbrough, 19:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC).

I was wondering, if there is some way to utilize {{ArticleHistory}}, or some other such tool, in order to compile a statistical list of articles that went through AFD, which later went on to become GA and/or FA? Thank you so much for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 15:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Note: Templatetiger would be useful to anyone looking to utilizes {{ArticleHistory}} data. — Dispenser 16:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the WP:Article Rescue Squadron was looking into such a list, but I don't know if anything became of it. Flatscan (talk) 04:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Well? Can someone look into implementing this? :) -- Cirt (talk) 07:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

See also User_talk:Gimmetoo#Query_on_AFD_statistics. -- Cirt (talk) 17:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Any word or thoughts on what to do about this? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The operator seems to have gone off-wiki again almost as soon as he came back. See this, and the bot isn't creating anything on wiki either. It's clear we need either another operator or another bot. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I sent ThaddeusB an email a couple weeks ago and haven't heard anything. I'm seriously considering learning PERL in order to get something running here. -      Hydroxonium (talk) 06:46, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

You do realize that the Checklinks tool takes care of dead link repair and part of it has already been implanted into a bot? — Dispenser 13:46, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the editor meant a bot for automatic sending of newly added urls to WebCite (that is, before the links are dead). —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Yup does that too, but it's only enabled for PDFs for Featured/Good or top/high-importance articles. — Dispenser 15:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't realize Checklinks was also a bot. Thanks for the update, Dispenser. And thanks very much for Checklinks, I use it all the time. It's one of my favorite tools. Thanks much. -      Hydroxonium (talk) 13:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Some months ago the Prosopography of Anglo-Saxon England (PASE) launched a major update and cosmetic overhaul of its database. Our articles on Anglo-Saxon people (kings, ealdormen, bishops, etc.) frequently include external links to one or several entries in this database, but unfortunately the URLs have gone obsolete and it would require an inordinate amount of work to correct them all by hand. For instance, the current URL http://www.pase.ac.uk/jsp/DisplayPerson.jsp?personKey=10106 supersedes http://www.pase.ac.uk/pase/apps/persons/CreatePersonFrames.jsp?personKey=10106. Would it be possible for a bot to change every occurrence of [...]pase/apps/persons/CreatePersonFrames[...] to [...]jsp/DisplayPerson[...] so that the external links direct to the correct URL? The changes on PASE may have affected other URLs as well, but I would have to check. Cavila (talk) 14:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I did find a couple of bots which may be up for the job of fixing broken links, such as User:Ocobot, User:DeadLinkBOT and perhaps User:Polbot. Any recommendations? Some of them haven't been operated for months. Cavila (talk) 14:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Deadlinkbot is inactive since a while. Bots are linked at Wikipedia:Dead external links#See also, but mine is the only one which works globally and has flag on 70 other wikimedia projects for this job.

http://www.pase.ac.uk/pase/apps/persons/CreatePersonFrames.jsp is used 462 times on 16 wikipedias. Merlissimo 21:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! That saves us editors working on these articles a shedload of trouble ! Cavila (talk) 07:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Y Done no-0: 11 Pages; es-0: 11 Pages; hu-0: 7 Pages; fr-0: 7 Pages; de-0: 5 Pages; ru-0: 4 Pages; pt-0: 2 Pages; it-0: 1 Page; cs-0: 2 Pages; br-0: 1 Page; sv-0: 1 Page; ca-0: 1 Page; bg-0: 1 Page; nl-0: 1 Page; pl-0: 1 Page; en-0: 367 Pages;

Two errors

• Cynered: http://www.pase.ac.uk/pase/apps/persons/CreatePersonFrames.jsp?personKey=14070 -> http://www.pase.ac.uk/jsp/DisplayPerson.jsp?personKey=14070 (500)
• Hræthhun: http://www.pase.ac.uk/pase/apps/persons/CreatePersonFrames.jsp?personKey=3665 -> http://www.pase.ac.uk/jsp/DisplayPerson.jsp?personKey=3665 (500)

Please correct these both manually. Merlissimo 10:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Done! I hope that the PASE team haven't changed around too much in terms of assigning entries to different numbers, but if they have, we'll have to resort to manual fixes anyway. Thanks. 11:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Bevor running this job i checked 30 random links if their link text fit to the content of the new url. All these were ok. I think these two links never worked. That's also my experience from other jobs. Merlissimo 11:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

If you have any let me know . Articles that need to be expanded that is.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Grace603 (talk • contribs) 2010-09-29T18:12:44

I'm afraid that you're in the wrong venue for your question, though I don't know of any central forum elsewhere. I'll post something on your talk page. Cavila (talk) 07:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Is there a bot that can fix or delete Amazon.com links that provide revenue for Amazon associates? Typically, a valid amazon.com link will look like http://http://www.amazon.com/some_title_string/dp/optional_code. If there is a question mark in the URL, especially if followed by "tag=" or "creative" in the URL, it's likely a URL that benefits an Amazon associate.

For example, a link to The Phantom Tollbooth would look like this: http://www.amazon.com/Phantom-Tollbooth-Norton-Juster/dp/0394815009

An Amazon associate link to the same book looks like this: www.amazon.com/gp/product/0394815009?ie=UTF8&tag=associate_name-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creativeASIN=0394815009 where 'associate_name-20' is the name of the associate followed by '-20'. Buying a book through that link bestows a financial benefit to the associate. I couldn't put 'http:' in front of that URL because it's blacklisted, but many URLs of that form already exist.

I just went through the first 40,000 links on Special:LinkSearch, manually deleting or modifying the links to remove the associate. Basically I just scanned for the existence of 'tag=' in the URL. I don't know how many Amazon links Wikipedia has, but it looks like an endless job more suitable to a bot.

The problem is, not all of them are the same. Some are used as references in articles, and in all cases I found, it was valid to delete the amazon link completely. Some are sources for images, and for those it's best to truncate the URL to eliminate the stuff after the '?' symbol. Some are external links, in which case I either deleted them as linkspam or truncated the URL. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

BRFA filed Peter Karlsen (talk) 03:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

It would be great if a bot operator could add

{{Squad maintenance|update source=<!--provide URL here-->}}

to the remaining squad templates (in the noinclude part) in Category:Football squad by nation templates. This issue was discussed in the WikiProject Football. Thank you. --Leyo 17:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

See this sample edit in order to know what I am talking about. There are currently 935 squad templates without this template, i.e. too many to do it manually. --Leyo 15:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm looking for someone, that could make bot-command (for python) or module for AWB with purpose of removing double/same links in article; bot should leave first link and any such links in templates (specially in infoboxes). Ex: in article there are these links: sword, swords, sword-maker; bot should recognize same destination and remove last 2 links. Is this possible? Regards, --Klemen Kocjancic (talk) 05:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

{{BLP IMDB-only refimprove}} (~1,500 transclusions) has been deprecated and should be replaced with {{BLP IMDB refimprove}}; see talk page. The basic replacement should be of: {{BLP IMDB-only refimprove}} with {{BLP IMDB refimprove|only=yes}}. Note, please that all or almost all uses of the template also have a date parameter. 1,500 transclusions is a bit much to do with AWB (even at ~15–20 edits per minute), so would someone be willing to do this task with a bot? Thank you, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I can do that. Yobot has approval for template updates/modifications. I'll start it in some hours. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thank you, that would be great! -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems like the changes would be trivial and insignificant. –xeno^talk 18:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Why not just convert it into a meta template? –xeno^talk 18:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Simplicity, I suppose, though to be honest I hadn't considered that option. Replacement would serve one additional purpose: anyone who watchlisted the page would be reminded of the issue. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Eh... I suppose. –xeno^talk 18:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I edit-conflicted with your most recent edit, so I've removed those parts of my comment which no longer apply. I guess I do see your point to some degree, so perhaps another task could be added to the run, e.g., checking for external links other than IMDb and Wikimedia projects and changing the template if there are such links (e.g., Barbara Turner (actress))? Of course, I don't know whether this is something that Yobot is programmed to do. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Anything to increase the utility of the edits would be ideal. –xeno^talk 19:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Deprecating templates was always trivial and it's done for a long long time. Trivial doesn't imply insignificant. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:41, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

While doing the task I am removing deprecated parameters from Infobox actor and doing general fixes which probably result in adding Persondata in most cases. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

(EC) Maybe if it was still deprecating but now it's a meta template it's more on the side of changing template redirects which don't normally get done unless there is other edits to the page that need to be done. Peachey88 ^{(T · C)} 07:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I would like to be able to remove |only= if they are non-IMDB references too. I 'll try to see if I can do that. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done Task finished. In most of the cases other edits were done too (Mainly added Persondata). -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much! -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 16:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Category:Illinois maps contains nearly 1,100 free maps (all or almost all of them created by one user: Kranar drogin) which are no longer used (superceded by new maps located at Commons) and should be moved to Commons. The maps in question are located in the subcategories of Category:Illinois maps, with the exception of Category:Maps of Chicago, Illinois and Category:Illinois city locator maps.

I haven't checked all ~1,100, but all appear to follow the same naming convention (Foo Township (County).PNG) and all are licensed GFDL and CC-by-SA 3.0. In addition, each map is categorized by county (e.g. Category:Maps of Bond County, Illinois) and those categories exist on Commons (e.g. commons:Category:Maps of Bond County, Illinois). In other words, a program that can successfully copy one of the maps to Commons can copy all of them.

Would anyone be able/willing to do this task with a bot (for steps, see the guide on moving images to Commons)? I have informed Kranar drogin and WikiProject Illinois of this request. Thank you, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

If they're no longer in use, shouldn't they just be deleted? –xeno^talk 19:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily. They are unused, but they are also different in appearance from their replacements (compare File:Burgess Township Bond.PNG and commons:File:Map highlighting Burgess Township, Bond County, Illinois.svg). My (admittedly somewhat limited) experience with deletion on Commons left me with the impression that Commons is much more tolerant than Wikipedia of images which are unused but could potentially be used.

The Commons deletion policy does indicate that files that "add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject, especially if they are of poor or mediocre quality" may be deleted, but that criterion is quite subjective. I've asked at the Commons village pump for some input by Commons editors. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

If thy want 'em - by all means. But I did the same and the ones that have been used as replacements have much more detail. It just seems unlikely that someone would fine a future use for the simpler ones, so best to ask before we dump them on 'em. –xeno^talk 20:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense: let's wait to see what the general feeling of Commons editors is and then we can decide how to proceed. Thanks, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. There have been only two comments at Commons so far, and neither one appears to convey a desire for the images. Perhaps they should just be deleted. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 16:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, the thread was archived with no additional comments, despite my request at Commons talk:Deletion policy. I have initiated a (trial) deletion nomination at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 October 13#File:Granville Township Putnam.PNG. If there is consensus to delete, I will write the follow-up nomination of the remaining files and request a bot to tag the files—that will, however, be a separate bot request. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 16:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Editor review has been without User:DustyBot for a long time now, so I was wondering if it was possible to revive the bot. DustyBot used to archive completed editor reviews, but ever since it quit this has been done manually. I have posted messages to the operator and sent emails, but I've not received any reply. Would anyone happen to have access to the bot or code, or would a new one have to be created? Netalarm^talk 04:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Coding... I'll take a look. Anomie⚔ 13:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. Should the 30 days be measured from when the review subpage was created or from when it was first transcluded on Wikipedia:Editor review as DustyBot did? Or should I have the bot add any new reviews onto Wikipedia:Editor review if they're not there already, which would make the question moot? Also, should {{User:DustyBot/Archive settings}} be kept, or is it not really useful? Anomie⚔ 15:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I think if it's not too much, the bot should transclude the reports so the process can become even simpler. Regarding the archive settings, I think we can just get the bot to archive requests after 30 days when a review as been received, so the settings won't be necessary. Netalarm^talk 03:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

This isn't so much as a request for a bot but for a request to help me make a bot. I've never tried before, so I don't want to do it on my own. This would be a bot that does redirects en-masse. For example, the task I'm thinking of involves creating redirects to articles about New General Catalogue items. A common mis-abbreviation of NGC is NCG, and there are a few redirects that compensate for this. For example, NCG 1260 redirects to NGC 1260. What I'm proposing is that a bot create such redirects if the article is over a certain number of kilobytes. Of course, some NGC #### articles are redirects themselves, which would pose an issue, but could a bot compile a list of pages named "NGC ####" or "NGC ###" that lists page size and whether or not they are a redirect? Hope what I'm trying to get across makes sense; I'm willing to clarify if it doesn't. --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 00:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

When specific discussions are archived, their section links no longer point to discussion. On the average talkpage, this doesn't really affect many people, but if the page in question is a high-visibility one (i.e., WP:ANI), it can get annoying to have to search through the archives to find a thread. I was thinking that after it archives a section, a bot could go through Special:WhatLinksHere for the sections and change those links to point to the correct archive? --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 20:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Is there an existing bot that will put templates on the talk pages of wikiproject articles? I would like to start sorting categories of algae articles, and get a list of these articles by assessment level to start improving the most important low quality articles, something I've been working on, on and off, for a while on wikipedia. However, due to taxonomy issues, tagging the articles is not as simple as directing the bot to tag all articles in the category algae and its subcategories.

Does there already exist a bot tasked with tagging article talk pages with project banners where I could request this work? Thanks, --184.99.172.218 (talk) 21:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

See Category:WikiProject tagging bots. –xeno^talk 14:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Xeno. Are there categorizing bots, also? Most of the algae articles are categorized in their lowest level category and in a number of categories to which the category belongs. This works with higher level groups, but not with all. Is there a bot that handles this? I'll see if I can search from cats in tagging bots category, though, also. --184.99.172.218 (talk) 05:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

It's possible for bots to remove categories, if there is a well-delineated set of instructions. It would need to be agreed upon by the relevant WikiProject(s). –xeno^talk 14:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there will have to be a well-delineated set of instructions, because the algae are complexly messed up category-wise. How do I get the bot? The algae project is not too active, but I will post at a group of related projects and link to a discussion on plants or algae to get input.

It would be not be bot-directed recategorization, but human directed and the bot just doing the work. However, once the higher levels are sorted, the bot can replace the high level categories with more specific lower level categories based on the taxobox, I hope. It's impossible now to clean up the algae articles overall because of the extensive overcategorization in high level categories and missing subcategories on appropriate articles.

Do I need a special bot, or is there some bot capable of doing this now? I would like to know how I go about interacting with the bot, so I can tell other editors in the discussions whether I need to request a specific new bot or if there is an existing bot, and what that bot's limitations/capabilities are. Thanks for the help here.--184.99.172.218 (talk) 17:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

You might look into WP:AWB. It sounds like it's right up your alley. –xeno^talk 21:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

It looks useful for getting lists of articles that are in the categories, which can just be exported, though; but it is limited to a "few edits" per minute, and I can manually make enough edits per minute that I frequently get stopped for doing so. You really think this is the way to go for recategorizing hundreds of articles, maybe more, that need a number of categories removed from each? --184.99.172.218 (talk) 06:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes; AWB can be used to run a flagged bot. The task seems simply enough (adding/removing categories) that a new bot wouldn't need to be programmed when AWB has the functions built in. –xeno^talk 13:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

When an image is tagged with {{PD-old-70}} or {{PD-old-100}} on both English Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Commons, the Wikipedia templates are each practically identical to their Commons counterpart. However, when an image is just tagged with {{PD-old}}, it means 100 on Wikipedia but 70 on the Commons. Perhaps on Wikipedia this can be resolved, since it's probably a hassle for Commons users to replace 70-year with 100-year.

• Each image tagged with the {{PD-old}} transclusion should have the tag changed to {{PD-old-100}} on File namespaces.
• This is a low-frequency task (perhaps it only needs to be done at most every 24 hours), so maybe an existing bot can do this if creating a new bot account is too much trouble.

mechamind90 03:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

BRFA filed Peter Karlsen (talk) 04:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The data from the 2010 U.S. Census will start coming out in a few months. The work of updating thousands of articles will mostly likely require the work of bots. Some decisions will need to be made about how to proceed. I encourage any bot-writers who might be interested in this effort to join the discussion at WT:2010 US Census. thanks,   Will Beback  talk  21:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

How about a bot that would crawl Recent additions and bring up a list of DYKs under a single project banner. For example, if article "Foo" is an article under the span of "WikiProject Foobar", the bot would back check articles with '''[[ and ]]''' for matches with a requested project. This is highly useful for portal building (specifically, generating a list of DYKs for portals), and for WikiProject intrigue.

May work best as a static toolserver page that is updated once in a while, and to which you can request a specific project.

Any thoughts? ResMar 21:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I recently initiated a massive nomination over at WP:SFD and, rather than spend my night tagging hundreds upon hundreds of categories, would like to request a nice bot to do all this for me. All the categories need to be tagged with the following extremely complicated template: {{sfr-c|}}.
Well... Maybe it's not that complicated of a template, but it would be more worthwhile if a bot could do all the tagging rather than a human. — ξ^xplicit 02:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Can do this rather quickly with AWB if you want..? Just to confirm, the parameter is left empty, and the template is not substed? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 07:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking AWB would still be tedious to go through, but if you would rather do it that way, I suppose there's no problem with that. And yes, parameter left empty (just for laziness, it's not necessarily needed) and not substituted. — ξ^xplicit 07:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Well it would be more work to code and approve a bot. Although I was sure I had approved a bot at BRfA for this before, but maybe it was for CfD, rather than SfD, can't find it anyway.  Doing... - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 07:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done In some ways it was better running through them with AWB, because I could fix up a couple on other things at the same time :). Anyway, if this does go through, it might be worth getting a bot to help with the renaming, since that's more complex. If not then I might be able to lend a hand removing these tags later (unless you find an approved bot to do it of course). Best, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 08:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! If it does go through (it's looking pretty grim right now, though), Cydebot (talk · contribs) can create the new categories. The contents are populated by the stub templates, so another AWB sweep adjusting the category parameter in these templates would take care of that. — ξ^xplicit 08:12, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

A sortkey Players needs to be added for the categories which are in Category:Footballers in Brazil by club.--Александр Мотин (talk) 16:41, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

This request could be extended to all categories housed within the national subcats of Category:Association football players by club. However, as not all football clubs need an eponymous category, the bot should not add [[Category:Association football club name]] if the category does not already exist. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 16:50, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Right. Just a sortkey needs to be placed to the existing categories.--Александр Мотин (talk) 17:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if there's something somewhat like this already, but... I was just undoing User:Zimmbotkiller's edits (not close to done) and it's very tedious to undo all of those edits manually. I'd like a bot or a tool for undoing the edits of banned users' sockpuppets, where one could enter in a username and it would automatically undo all of the user's edits that it could, and tag any pages created for speedy deletion. Obviously special access would be required to operate the bot, but... It would be a big time-saver. Grandmasterka 02:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

/me has such a tool, for mass rollback. Ill see what I can do. As for new page creations Special:Nuke should do that. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 02:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Grandmasterka 03:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I would like a Wikipedia bot,thank youEagleKid (talk) 01:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Creating a bot --MZMcBride (talk) 03:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

You should also be aware that you do not appear to have enough experience with Wikipedia to be trusted as a bot operator at this time. Anomie⚔ 03:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

{{Archive box}} is deprecated in favour or {{Archives}}. So I would like to ask for someone do the following:

• If only parameters in Archive box are (some of): |auto=, |search=, |collapsible=, |collapsed= and |archivelist= just replace Archive box with Archives. (diff 1, diff 2)
• If Archive box has | (normally with 1 omitted) then replace Archive box with Archives by adding |auto=no (diff)

This should do almost all the cases.

For efficiency reasons I recommend that other edits are done in talk pages too. For example bypassing some wikiproject redirects. An AWB bot would be perfect for this job. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 09:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Archive box calls Archives as a meta template.... seems pointless to change it unless theres a very good reason? Peachey88 ^{(T · C)} 10:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Last discussion. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The manual of Archive box clearly says it's being deprecated. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the deprecated template. Either way, that doesn't mean you should deploy a bot to make trivial and insignificant edits to bypass the uses. –xeno^talk 13:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Add these rules:

• If we have "auto=long" then remove it
• If we have "editbox=yes" then remove it
• If we don't have "auto=no" then add it
• If we don't have "editbox=no" then add it

-- Magioladitis (talk) 11:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• This is a complete waste of time; bypassing the uses would be a huge waste of resources; archive box has many more uses than archives; and this should N not be done. Mag, you really need to stop this ongoing crusade against template redirects and wrapper templates. They do not need to be eliminated. –xeno^talk 12:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. The old template is less flexible. Check [6]. Archives it's much more dynamic in adding new archives. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps not everyone wants that. Perhaps not everyone wants to have to use parameters to disable auto-functionality. If you insist, go to TFD; do not file a bot request for a proposal that was already disputed at the talk page of the template. –xeno^talk 13:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

No consensus to do this. Come back if you manage to get consensus elsewhere, this is not the place to have that discussion. Anomie⚔ 13:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

OK. I didn't know that they were disagreements on this. I commended in template's talk page. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Copy pasted from Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Feature requests#Succession table

Previously, succession tables could be coded in a variety of ways. However, because of print versions, the way to write succession tables need to be more rigourous. Before something like this was fine:

{{start}}
{{s-bef|before=[[Gerhard Schröder]]}}
{{s-ttl|title=[[Chancellor of Germany (Federal Republic)|Chancellor of Germany]]|years=2005–present}}
{{s-inc}}
{{s-bef|before=[[George W. Bush]]}}
{{s-ttl|title=[[List of United States Republican Party presidential tickets|Republican Party presidential candidate]]
|years=[[United States presidential election, 2008|2008]]}}
{{s-inc|recent}}
|-
{{s-vac|last=[[Alfonso XIII of Spain|Alfonso XIII]]}}
{{s-ttl|title=[[List of Spanish monarchs|King of Spain]]|years=22 November 1975 – present}}
{{s-inc|heir=[[Felipe, Prince of Asturias|Crown Prince Felipe]]}}
{{s-new|Championship}}
{{s-ttl|title=[[World Alliance of Mixed Martial Arts#Current Champions|WAMMA Heavyweight Champion]]
|years=July 19, 2008 – present}}
{{s-inc|current}}
{{end}}

Now, this needs to be followed

{{s-start}}
{{s-bef|before=[[Gerhard Schröder]]}}
{{s-ttl|title=[[Chancellor of Germany (Federal Republic)|Chancellor of Germany]]|years=2005–present}}
{{s-inc}}
{{s-bef|before=[[George W. Bush]]}}
{{s-ttl|title=[[List of United States Republican Party presidential tickets|Republican Party presidential candidate]]
|years=[[United States presidential election, 2008|2008]]}}
{{s-inc|recent}}
{{s-break}}
{{s-vac|last=[[Alfonso XIII of Spain|Alfonso XIII]]}}
{{s-ttl|title=[[List of Spanish monarchs|King of Spain]]|years=22 November 1975 – present}}
{{s-inc|heir=[[Felipe, Prince of Asturias|Crown Prince Felipe]]}}
{{s-new|Championship}}
{{s-ttl|title=[[World Alliance of Mixed Martial Arts#Current Champions|WAMMA Heavyweight Champion]]
|years=July 19, 2008 – present}}
{{s-inc|current}}
{{s-end}}

That is:

1. {{start}} →{{s-start}}
2. {{start box}} →{{s-start}}
3. |- → {{s-break}}
4. {{end}} → {{s-end}}
5. {{end box}} → {{s-end}}

Fixes 1, 2, and 5 do not fix anything, but they could prevent lots of problem in the long run and should probably be made alongside other edits. However, fixes 3 & 4 are required so the print version displays as intended. Note that this should ONLY affect succession boxes. A good way to ensure that is to search for {{start}}/{{s-start}} and {{end}}/{{end box}}/{{s-end}}. Everything starting with the former AND ending with the latter can safely be considered the "succession box code".

BTW, I know some of these redirect to others, but that is part of the problem, or could become a problem in the future. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I've copy pasted this from the AWB page where it was suggested that it might be a good idea for a bot to do this. I happen to agree, so here I am. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of fungi has 1,000+ entries. http://mushroomobserver.org has tens of thousands of mushroom observations with CC-BY-SA photographs.

I would appreciate it if a bot could create a list of the observations with CC-BY-SA images (there are also some CC-BY-SA-NC ones) that match entries in the category that do not already have an image. Users would then be able to manually select and upload appropriate images with the http://raeky.com/MushInfo.php tool.  Sandstein  21:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the bot could just search all pages in Category:Fungi, because many may not have a "requested photograph" tag on the talk page.  Sandstein  21:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Each year since at least 1700 has a category for buildings constructed in that year, all of which are sub-subcategories of Category:Architecture by century; e.g. Category:1919 architecture contains articles about buildings erected in 1919. Many of these categories are too large to be helpful for navigation, and there's no need to track them all for policy reasons, unlike the subcategories of Category:Births by year and Category:Deaths by year that remain un-subdivided for BLP reasons. Therefore, I'd like to ask for a bot to help reduce the number of articles in these categories by creating and populating a "Category:[year] architecture in the United States" for each year.

Ideally, I'd like to see a bot create categories for 1776 and each year from then to the present (1776 being chosen to avoid debates over whether buildings constructed during the colonial period were built in the USA, since it didn't exist then), and then populate them by the following process:

1. Look at all articles in subcategories of Category:Buildings and structures in the United States
2. For each article in one of these categories, find whether it is in "Category:[year] architecture"
3. Remove that category and place it into "Category:[year] architecture in the United States"

I believe that this process should be essentially foolproof: I'm sure that there are non-building articles in some of these subcategories, but since we wouldn't expect anything except for buildings to be in a "[year] architecture" category, I can't imagine that we'd have many non-buildings being moved. Even smaller is the chance of non-US topics being included: we don't have many of them within any of the Buildings and structures subcategory, and most of the ones that are would be non-buildings such as Philippe Petit (Category:World Trade Center), which wouldn't be in the "[year] architecture" categories. It's been ages since I filed a bot request, so I might forget about this one; if you make a reply and need me to offer input, please leave me a talkback. Nyttend (talk) 18:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I've created decade categories for every decade from the 1900s to the 1970s (e.g. Category:1920s architecture in the United States), and I'm planning to create them for the 19th century and the 1770s through the 1790s. Could the bot be instructed to place the year categories within the decade categories? There weren't any US buildings in the non-geographic-specific 1980s, 1990s, or 2000s categories that couldn't be assigned to specific years, so I've not yet created US categories for those years. Nyttend (talk) 15:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

For an example of what I'd like to see, I created Category:1920 architecture in the United States and populated it with all of the members of Category:1920 architecture that were in the United States. It took over twenty minutes to complete a single year; you can see why I'm requesting a bot to deal with the other 230+ years. Nyttend (talk) 14:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

This really should be discussed at WP:CFD first. While the basic suggestion is fine, the issue is with the placement of articles in by year categories. Some articles are included by year of completion and some by year that construction began. In reality, this probably should be based on the year of the design since that is what the finished building represents. The current naming is ambiguous and that needs to be resolved before we do any mass moves of categories where the target might not be correct. So we really should get the articles into correct and consistent by year categories before we subdivide those categories. I suspect that if we choose to not use the year construction is completed, many of these articles would need the year category removed since the design year is not provided within the article. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

For the past 2 years, I have been running a bot that keeps tract of editors' counts for the WikiCup. It has been perennially broken, and that it still works somewhat is a miracle. I simply don't watch the WikiCup enough to be monitoring and checking that it is still working, thus, it would be great if someone could write a bot to take over my task. For more info, ask me or one of the directors. (Preferably one of the directors, I don't know what's going on with the WC anymore) (X! · talk)  · @905  ·  20:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I would be interested in doing this and will take it up at the TP. If I could get your code for that, just so I have a general idea of what it was doing, that would be great. -- DQ (t) (e) 16:45, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

It's on SoxBot's user page. (X! · talk)  · @869  ·  19:51, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Need a bot to move a lot of subpages.

• Portal:Children's and young adult literature --> Portal:Children's literature
  • Consensus among major contributors is at portal talk page

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 02:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Looking into it. THENEWMONO™ 03:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Keep us posted, -- Cirt (talk) 03:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:26, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!!! -- Cirt (talk) 06:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to ask that someone consider adding to a bot's tasks the searching for variants of a phrase:

• "could easily be considered"
• "can easily be considered"
• "can be considered"
• "could be considered"

... and any other passive voice variants that people can think of, and tagging them immediately after the phrase with the weasel word inline template "by whom". Said bot would have to make sure that the phrase was not inside quotation marks or an approved Wikipedia quote template. WCityMike 21:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

"Smith and Brown say that this can be considered the beginning of a new method of classification." This, for example, is a perfectly acceptable sentence. Grammar bots are frequently denied, as — without context — the bots cannot always make correct decisions. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 21:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, most of the problems go ahead and use the pronoun "it", so the use case could be lowered to "it could easily be considered", etc. -- still a problem. WCityMike 03:32, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

It could easily be considered that this is a classically editorial issue which requires context-sensitive human judgement to evaluate, not grammar-police bots (or editors acting the part.) Peter Karlsen (talk) 04:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

For instance, "weasel wording" may be required to accurately represent a source which is correspondingly vague. A bot would be incapable of understanding the source text, and determining whether the "weasel" correctly portrays its meaning. While human editors can perform this evaluation, the capability does them little good if they choose not to use it. Also, templates such as by whom are rather annoying - it's much better to actually fix an article than to simply add templates disparaging the present writing style. If it's absolutely necessary to critique the article's current form, this activity can be accommodated on the talk page. Peter Karlsen (talk) 05:04, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Not a good task for a bot. As noted above, it would be infeasible to account for all the possible false positives. As this is basically the same thing as the frequently-denied suggestion for a spell-checking bot, I've gone ahead and clarified WP:BOTPOL#Spell-checking and WP:BFDB#Fully automatic spell-checking bots to include grammar-checking or -tagging bots. If you want to do this with AWB or some other script you may, but be sure you are actually reviewing and understanding each proposed edit and not just making yourself into a "meat bot" by clicking "Ok" as fast as possible. Anomie⚔ 17:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

This work is usually done by User:Chrisbot The work is described at User_talk:ChrisDHDR#Chrisbot_-_railway_icons. I think the usually operator has retired. Can someone else operate the bot or do this work. Note someone has been doing manual fixes, so the work starts somewhere in the "B"s.

I can give the full details of the work if someone can operate the bot. Thanks.Sf5xeplus (talk) 12:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

At this point, the task would not benefit from full automation, because

1. Requests for BAG approval of bot tasks can take two or more weeks to process.
2. Previous manual fixes of the railway templates have been effectuated in such a way that there's no easy way to determine, in any given template, whether the icons have already been swapped.

However, I will be able to fix the templates using a semi-automated script, which permits the inspection of each railway map to determine whether a swap is necessary before an edit is saved. To assist myself in avoiding templates that I have already edited, even if they've been moved to different page titles in the interim, the invisible comment <!-- swapped CONTr and CONTl icons --> will be added to every template I inspect, whether I swapped the icons myself, or this was previously done by another editor. Peter Karlsen (talk) 22:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, one editor has already done the articles Template:aaaa to Template:Bristol_Harbour_Railway_RDT see [[7]] - I haven't been made aware of any other systematic manual fixes as yet.Sf5xeplus (talk) 22:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm done, assuming fixing the problem in the template namespace resolves the issue completely, with the exception of two persistently broken templates: Gospel Oak to Barking Line and London, Tilbury and Southend Railway. Peter Karlsen (talk) 02:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The invisible comments will be removed when Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/KarlsenBot 5 is approved, a task which can easily be fully automated, and isn't urgent. Peter Karlsen (talk) 02:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Each year since at least 1700 has a category for buildings constructed in that year, all of which are sub-subcategories of Category:Architecture by century; e.g. Category:1919 architecture contains articles about buildings erected in 1919. Many of these categories are too large to be helpful for navigation, and there's no need to track them all for policy reasons, unlike the subcategories of Category:Births by year and Category:Deaths by year that remain un-subdivided for BLP reasons. Therefore, I'd like to ask for a bot to help reduce the number of articles in these categories by creating and populating a "Category:[year] architecture in the United States" for each year.

Ideally, I'd like to see a bot create categories for 1776 and each year from then to the present (1776 being chosen to avoid debates over whether buildings constructed during the colonial period were built in the USA, since it didn't exist then), and then populate them by the following process:

1. Look at all articles in subcategories of Category:Buildings and structures in the United States
2. For each article in one of these categories, find whether it is in "Category:[year] architecture"
3. Remove that category and place it into "Category:[year] architecture in the United States"

I believe that this process should be essentially foolproof: I'm sure that there are non-building articles in some of these subcategories, but since we wouldn't expect anything except for buildings to be in a "[year] architecture" category, I can't imagine that we'd have many non-buildings being moved. Even smaller is the chance of non-US topics being included: we don't have many of them within any of the Buildings and structures subcategory, and most of the ones that are would be non-buildings such as Philippe Petit (Category:World Trade Center), which wouldn't be in the "[year] architecture" categories. It's been ages since I filed a bot request, so I might forget about this one; if you make a reply and need me to offer input, please leave me a talkback. Nyttend (talk) 18:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I've created decade categories for every decade from the 1900s to the 1970s (e.g. Category:1920s architecture in the United States), and I'm planning to create them for the 19th century and the 1770s through the 1790s. Could the bot be instructed to place the year categories within the decade categories? There weren't any US buildings in the non-geographic-specific 1980s, 1990s, or 2000s categories that couldn't be assigned to specific years, so I've not yet created US categories for those years. Nyttend (talk) 15:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

For an example of what I'd like to see, I created Category:1920 architecture in the United States and populated it with all of the members of Category:1920 architecture that were in the United States. It took over twenty minutes to complete a single year; you can see why I'm requesting a bot to deal with the other 230+ years. Nyttend (talk) 14:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

All players in Category:Philadelphia Quakers players need to be moved into Category:Philadelphia Phillies players, as they are the same team. The deprecated category for the Philadelphia Blue Jays players was also emptied, and this is a preparatory step for the expansion of the Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster. Thanks. — KV5 • Talk • 12:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

We have three lists of administrators by activity status:

• Wikipedia:List of administrators/Active - 30 edits or more in the past two months
• Wikipedia:List of administrators/Semi-active - at least one edit, but less than 30 edits, in the past two months
• Wikipedia:List of administrators/Inactive - no edits in the past two months

Could a bot update these lists, or at least the first one, on an occasional basis using Special:ListUsers/sysop? If the lists are kept up-to-date, they could serve as a resource for users wanting to contact an active administrator. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't Rick Bot (talk · contribs) already do this? [8]. –xeno^talk 20:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

You're right, it does. :)

I checked the page history of the "/Active" list and, seeing that it hadn't been edited in a while, assumed that it wasn't being updated. Upon closer examination, I see that the sublists (A-F, G-O, P-Z) are actually being transcluded into the master list. Thanks, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 22:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

{{Expand}} is an ambox-based template specifically meant for article space; nevertheless, there are approximately 3500 transclusions in the talk namespace. I therefore request that a bot move all talkspace transclusions to the corresponding article. In addition, since {{Expand}} should not be used concurrently with stub templates, it might be an idea to simply remove it from any articles already tagged with a stub template. This request follows on from this discussion. PC78 (talk) 16:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

What if the article no longer needs expanded? How will the bot know? –xeno^talk 15:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

It wouldn't, but it doesn't need to. It wouldn't be adding tags, just moving them to the correct location. It's not our concern here if the tags are no longer required. PC78 (talk) 17:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I could do it using AWB. The benefit is that we can just remove it from all pages containing {{stub}} templates. (Expand isn't supposed to be to stub pages). -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Be my guest. :) PC78 (talk) 00:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Bump. Any progress here? PC78 (talk) 06:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I started it but I noticed most of the tags were added in 2007 and I think we ll should be useless by now. I think removing them completely would be wiser. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. If there are no talk page comments that elaborate on what needs exapanding, it's a pretty useless tag anyway. PC78 (talk) 07:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I removed all the tags from stubs so far. Most of the tagging seems that has been done blindly to me. I am removing everything from the talk pages and if some of the remaining 1,870 articles still need expanding, I bet someone will readd the tag in the correct place. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done Tenths of them were certainly outdated, placed in talk pages or redirects or disambiguation pages, etc. Removed all. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Could someone make a bot to fix the userpages that use the deleted userbox Template:User Religion Is Harmful with the moved userbox User:UBX/Religion Is Harmful? List of affected userpages: [9]. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 18:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Scott MacDonald should have done this before deleting the redirect. PC78 (talk) 18:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

All done. There were only about a hundred or so transclusions, so it was doable with AWB. PC78 (talk) 18:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Each year since at least 1700 has a category for buildings constructed in that year, all of which are sub-subcategories of Category:Architecture by century; e.g. Category:1919 architecture contains articles about buildings erected in 1919. Many of these categories are too large to be helpful for navigation, and there's no need to track them all for policy reasons, unlike the subcategories of Category:Births by year and Category:Deaths by year that remain un-subdivided for BLP reasons. Therefore, I'd like to ask for a bot to help reduce the number of articles in these categories by creating and populating a "Category:[year] architecture in the United States" for each year.

Ideally, I'd like to see a bot create categories for 1776 and each year from then to the present (1776 being chosen to avoid debates over whether buildings constructed during the colonial period were built in the USA, since it didn't exist then), and then populate them by the following process:

1. Look at all articles in subcategories of Category:Buildings and structures in the United States
2. For each article in one of these categories, find whether it is in "Category:[year] architecture"
3. Remove that category and place it into "Category:[year] architecture in the United States"

I believe that this process should be essentially foolproof: I'm sure that there are non-building articles in some of these subcategories, but since we wouldn't expect anything except for buildings to be in a "[year] architecture" category, I can't imagine that we'd have many non-buildings being moved. Even smaller is the chance of non-US topics being included: we don't have many of them within any of the Buildings and structures subcategory, and most of the ones that are would be non-buildings such as Philippe Petit (Category:World Trade Center), which wouldn't be in the "[year] architecture" categories. It's been ages since I filed a bot request, so I might forget about this one; if you make a reply and need me to offer input, please leave me a talkback. Nyttend (talk) 18:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I've created decade categories for every decade from the 1900s to the 1970s (e.g. Category:1920s architecture in the United States), and I'm planning to create them for the 19th century and the 1770s through the 1790s. Could the bot be instructed to place the year categories within the decade categories? There weren't any US buildings in the non-geographic-specific 1980s, 1990s, or 2000s categories that couldn't be assigned to specific years, so I've not yet created US categories for those years. Nyttend (talk) 15:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

For an example of what I'd like to see, I created Category:1920 architecture in the United States and populated it with all of the members of Category:1920 architecture that were in the United States. It took over twenty minutes to complete a single year; you can see why I'm requesting a bot to deal with the other 230+ years. Nyttend (talk) 14:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Adding a comment so that this doesn't get archived instantly. Nyttend (talk) 01:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• If you cant find anyone else, I can try to permission for this. Actual leg work is very easy. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 01:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Is there (or could somebody create) a bot that can goes through the "Special:UnusedImages" page and delete it all?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Neocarleen (talk • contribs)

For what purpose? There's no harm in keeping them around, there is an equal amount of space taken deleted or nondeleted. Some images can be added to articles that aren't used right now... (X! · talk)  · @167  ·  03:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Correct. We delete them? Keep. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• N Not done. –xeno^talk 12:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I've been using user:Botlaf for the last few months to identify probable typos and sneaky vandalism that has got past the Hugglers etc. But Olaf Davies who wrote and runs it is increasingly inactive, he's happy to have someone take on his source code (it uses Python), ideally it needs someone who can tweak the code and fix some anomalies. It's already an effective backstop for pubic and douchebag vandalism in mainspace, but with a few tweaks I think it could do far more. NB As I understand it Botlaf doesn't currently need a Bot flag, as it only makes edits in its own userspace. ϢereSpielChequers 16:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)