{{Infobox NFLretired}} should be replaced with {{Infobox NFLactive}}. I could do it myself but I don't know exactly which fields should be renamed, etc. Can someone do it or hint me how to do it?

Instructions say: This template is being retired per discussion here

Instead, please use {{Infobox NFLactive}} setting the |final_team= & |final_year= fields appropriately; and leaving the |current_team= field blank.

-- Magioladitis (talk) 11:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Based on my edit here to one such article, it appears that all that needs to be done is add the "debutteam" and "finalteam" parameters. However, some of the others may need other parameter changes. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Right now there's a heated discussion at WP:AN over a user involved in WP:NFCC; the whole case is unimportant for here, but a key idea that fell out so far was that when pages are moved without leaving behind redirects, all non-free images are "broken" per NFCC#10c until the rationale for that image are fixed. If the mover doesn't do this themselves, usually no one does it.

The idea behind a bot here would be to identify page moves w/o redirects, whether those pages include NFCC images (as determined by the licenses on the page), and then replace the old article name with the new one in the image rationale. (This may either be a link, or may be the "article" field in a limited number of templates). This would remove many of the problems with #10c enforcement.

(One could argue this bot could be expanded to handle any page move and any links anywhere on WP to that new page, but right now, this is a much smaller and important focus). --MASEM (t) 20:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

While working with WPUS I have recently found a ton of Usernames that have been inactive for long periods of time, some for years. I would like to recommend a bot that would tag the inactive User pages with an inactive tag if the account hasn't made an edit in a year, maybe even 6 months. Although I have a bot account pending I do not know how to do something like this so I thought I would just submit it here. Plus I thought this would be a good place to solicite comments on the merits of the task itself. --Kumioko (talk) 12:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Some retired users have requested not to edit their userpages. Some usernames are doppelgänger accounts and don't need to be tagged. I am unsure how a bot would detect these and other cases? Without being too critical, what is the purpose of this? If you want a certain list (such as, WPUS members) to be updated marking inactive users, it doesn't really need to also tag every user's page. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Well there are a couple reasons.

1. For one it would help with project memberships thats true. For example when I just sent out invites I sent it out to 2600ish users and that was after I spent a day and a half filtering out all the inactive users. Even then I was left with a lot (more than half) that haven't done 1 edit in months. Which is fine cause you never know when their going to come back. But if they haven't edited in a couple years then its not very likley.
2. This would also help when you go to a users page to leave a comment about an image or article they edited/submitted. If they haven't edited since 2006, then its unlikely they are going to respond and I wouldn't need to spend a lot of time waiting if there was a template that says this user is likely inactive and hasn't edited since September 4, 2006. I would in fact add that to the justification if I were submitted the article or image for deletion.
3. It would be helpful in the cases of admins who have gone away. I know that it has been much debated about wether to revoke a persons admin powers if they are inactive but this would help to identify those as well.
4. It should also put them into an inactive (there is a separate one for retired) user category so that when we run bots (like the newsletters and others) or if we are doing a variety of other things we could filter against that first to reduce wasted time and edits putting messages on the pages of users who aren't here anymore.
5. This could also identify potential vandalism or compromised accounts. If an account that has been inactive for 3 years all of a sudden started editing again it could be a compromised account and might warrant a double check. It could be that the person just felt like editing again, but maybe not.

There are probably other reasons as well but thats all I can think of at the moment. I'm not exactly sure either. I think there is a field in the database for last edit/last edit date or something to that effect but I cannot remember. --Kumioko (talk) 14:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Those are all fine reasons, but they didn't actually address the question of how the bot is to identify these accounts and gracefully ignore those it shouldn't tag (user who opted out, who retired and asked not to edit, doppelgänger, blocked sockpuppets, renames, old bot/awb accounts, etc.)? I have no problem with (in fact, I endorse) a bot that would compile a list of inactive users/manage existing lists. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure either. Like I said I think there is a field in the database that says when a user last edited but Im not 100% sure. I seem to remember someone (I think it was MZM but not sure) mention it before. The blocked, doppelganger/sock puppet and retired accounts (if they have the retired banners) already are marked and have been placed in categories as appropriate so they wouldn't need it. I was just talking about the ones who just stopped editing one day and never came back. In fact thats sort of the precedent for this cause we already do it for editors who "Retired" or "Semi-retired" why not "Inactive since X". --Kumioko (talk) 14:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• I don't think this would find consensus, nor do I think it's a particularly good idea: no need to edit countless userpages (perhaps despite their owners' wishes) for little tangible benefit (let sleeping dogs lie). Now, a bot that could comb WikiProject member lists (at the request of the project) and mark users as inactive on the list, I could get behind (and I know WP:VG had want for such a bot at one point). –xeno^talk 14:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, and that doesn't surprise me in the least and in fact thats one of the reasons I wanted to pose the question here. Identifying the inactive users in a project as you suggest would be a lot easier if they were tagged already but in theory if the last edit field was in the database if coule be done using that and then some regex to find the name and place a - User inactive since X (or something) after it. Just to clarify this INactive user thing isn't meant to be a badge of shame its just to let folks know (and bots too) that this person hasn't been around for a while and they may not get a reply. --Kumioko (talk) 14:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately there's no MAGICWORD for last edit as present (see T16384 for why). As noted there, a bot can make an API call to determine last edit and mark inactive on the project member list if appropriate. –xeno^talk 14:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I knew there was no magic word but I do think that there is a way to do it from a database field through the toolserver or something. Its just not something that can easily be done with AWB which is sorta what it says in the bug report. --Kumioko (talk) 14:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:AWB/FR =) Would be an awesome feature for users sending newsletters or project invites. –xeno^talk 14:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe, there are a couple of bots, like Messagedeliverybot that already exist that I think are better but it could be a good addition to AWB. IMO AWB is better suited for making formatting changes and typos. When I sent out the 2600+ invites for the WPUS project I used the more append feature to appeand the meesage to the bottom of the users talk page. --Kumioko (talk) 15:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Some time ago I wrote useractivity, a one off tool to learn the user table. I never did find a good algorithm to identify inactive users. If I were to write it again today, I'd add WikiDashboad graphs [Now implemented] and provide a checkbox to move entries to an active section. — Dispenser 15:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow thats really cool thanks and that will help me a lot actually. Thanks. --Kumioko (talk) 15:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Just a quick comment, I would think a Database report would be ideal for something like this. –MuZemike 01:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I would like a bot that goes through articles that relate to buses and transport and checking everything.

RcsprinterBot 12:01, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Firstly per WP:USERNAME, please create your main account, without "Bot" in the username. Secondly, you must be an established editor to be approved for bot operation. Finally, what exact tasks does "checking everything" entail? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I need a bot that can delete all of its inclusions and delete this template once and for All! Please help? --Hinata talk 21:03, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I am on it already. I am just taking precautions not to remove it from sections. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Why? We can make a bot that does 10 edits a minute and be done in a couple of hours. --Hinata talk 21:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Because {{Expand section}} isnt being deleted and in the past {{Expand}} was used in sections too. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I am almost done anyway. User_talk:Yobot/Archive_2#Expand_tag_cleanup. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Check Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Holding_cell#To_review for more instructions how to remove the template. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

This version of Electrophysiology contains one of the rare good uses of Expand and we should it like that. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that this has been suggested before. Jarry1250 has a tool on Toolserver that checks for image existence, so why not have a bot that automatically deletes the {{req-photo}} template on article talk pages (if there isn't a parameter for a specific type of image) if an image already exists in the article? It would definitely clear up the backlog. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 04:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Automatically deleting the template is not practical. A bot can only tell if an image is present or not, it cannot tell if the image meets the photo request. As an example, an article on a location may have a map (which is also an image), but not a picture. PhotoCatBot did check for these cases and would add the talk page to Category:Articles which may no longer need images. It hasn't run in awhile though. -- JLaTondre (talk) 11:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

That's why I said that it would only do it for req-photo templates with parameters. If it's just requiring a photo, then it can be deleted if there is already an image in the article. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 02:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

No, it cannot. As I said, not every image is a photo so you cannot make that assumption. In addition to maps, there are flag icons, charts, and other things that show up in articles that are highly problematic for a bot to distinguish. If you read PhotoCatBot's talk page, you will find several discussions about false positives and objections to the bot simply tagging the talk page with the above category in those cases. Had a bot actually removed the photo request, the outcry would have been worse. -- JLaTondre (talk) 22:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

1_E+sq._km_m² is on most wanted pages as frequently linked. Probably the result of inappropriate use of {{Infobox Indian jurisdiction}} and similar templates. In the case of {{Infobox Indian jurisdiction}} The following change needs to be made:

• area_magnitude= sq. km | needs to be area_magnitude= 8 |

As per this diff I don't know if the problem affects other templates. Taemyr (talk) 11:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Some comments and questions:

• 16,173 transclusions,
• manual is very unclear of what should be the values there,
• if the number is standard why we have it in as parameter at first place and don't change the code instead?
• is this one of the infoboxes that can be replaced by Infobox settlement?

I am willing to do it but I would like some clarification on this first. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 12:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I would just kill the parameter in the infobox. The entire "area magnitude" linking is somewhat superfluous. However, I would also strongly support having a bot go through all these transclusions and performing other clean ups on the box. They are frequently edited by novice editors who do all kinds of wonky stuff. One of the biggest problems is that they have the pipes at the end of the line, rather than the beginning (see here), and editors try to put the info after the pipe, rather than after the equal sign. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Does this help? I still think we should clean up the articles, but at least this should fix the red links. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

So, tell me what I can do. :) -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure thee links are useful. And that template has a horrendous number of ifexists already, in this case maybe (if the links are kept) simply {{#if:{{{area_magnitude|}}} would do the job well enough? Rich Farmbrough, 02:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC).

Plastikspork already modified the template and we have 0 red links. -- Magioladitis (talk) 02:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Since WildBot hasn't made an edit since September 21, 2010 and no longer updates it's talk page templates for disambiguation and section links I would like to see another bot go around and delete the following templates from the talk-pages: {{User:WildBot/m01}}, {{User:WildBot/m04}}, each of these templates has more than 5000 transclusions, and are in many/most cases outdated. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 18:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

See also WP:Bot requests/Archive 39#Removing obsolete Wildbot tags. I asked Magioladitis recently, but I think the task lacks sufficient motivation. It should be easy to automated, something like: wget http...wildbot.txt; python replace.py -file:wildbot.txt -regex "\{\{(User:WildBot/m01|User:WildBot/msg)\|([^{}]|\{\{User:WildBot/[^{}]*\}\})*\}\}\n?" "" (untested) added to cron. — Dispenser 21:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Although I have concerns about deleting the template if the problem hasn't been fixed. If the bot is no longer running I don't think we should keep the tags. Is anyone going to take over the chores that Wilbot was performing? --Kumioko (talk) 21:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

What exactly is to be done? Remove the tag from the daily generated list or all pages? I would prefer the first option because some people maybe still using the tag to identify and fix things. Btw, I am running on the list every 3-4 days. I can do it every days if you think is necessary. -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea what the difference is, but since literally every instance that I've seen of late with one of these tags was no longer an issue, as someone else had already fixed it, I would go for delete all. Looks like Yobot has removed a bunch of them already last night. I would off course prefer that another bot take over Wildbot's tasks and adds/updates/removes these tags, but since every tag I've come across is false, in that the issue has been fixed before, its presence is pointless and even a little annoying. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 10:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Is there a bot or would it be possible to create one, for On This Day and DYK's to be updated automatically by a bot for Portal:United States (and potentially others)? Currently these 2 sections must be manually updated but I would like to make these 2 section of Portal:United States as user friendly and maintenance free as possible. Any ideas? --Kumioko (talk) 19:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Check out User:JL-Bot/Project content. Not sure if OTD is covered, but i'm sure JLaTondre would add it if its missing and you ask him. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Great thanks. --Kumioko (talk) 19:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Anyone is interested in programming a bot to insert {{commons}} or {{commonscat}} templates in articles when needed using interwiki? An example, adding gallery link from Spanish article.

The bot can use the "External links" section or adding the template at the bottom of the article just before the categories. Is there any infobox adding links to Commons? We need to excluded those cases. Thanks. emijrp (talk) 20:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

If there is any, which I doubt, then we should fix the template first. Hidden templates and categories inside infoboxes isn't the best thing in the world. -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if this is a very bot-friendly task. It seems like a lot of human intervention would be required. How would you program a bot to reliably figure out that Saint Catalina's Castle is linked to commons:Category:Castle of Santa Catalina, Jaén? SnottyWong ^confer 19:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Using the Spanish interwiki, you can fetch the Commons gallery link in the "Enlaces externos" section. emijrp (talk) 16:59, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Is there a bot that can remove or comment out redlink files? Such as the one that was here? There is currently a database report with over 16,000 pages with this condition. I assume Pywikipediabot with the delinker.py script would be able to do it (similar to CommonsDelinker). ^Avic_ennasis @ 01:53, 20 Shevat 5771 / 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Where's the database report? SnottyWong ^speak 02:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Database reports/Articles containing red-linked files. ^Avic_ennasis @ 02:18, 20 Shevat 5771 / 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Science has recently released "The Science Hall of Fame" which ranks scientists in terms of impact (as measured through the number of times their names are present in books which can be found in Google Books. It seems to me that Wikipedia could greatly benefit from a comparison with this list. So what I have in mind is basically a bot that fetched the information found in this table, then checks Wikipedia and builds a report of the status of these articles. Something like

Name	Born	Died	milliDarwins	Name	Born	Died	Rating
Bertrand Russell	1872	1970	1500	Bertrand Russell	1872	1970	B
Charles Darwin	1809	1882	1000	Charles Darwin	1809	1882	FA
Albert Einstein	1879	1955	878	Albert Einstein	1879	1956	A
Sir Fake Name	1900	1950	50	Sir Fake Name	—	—	NA

When our data matches that of Science, use {{yes|YYYY}}, otherwise {{no|YYYY}}. I purposefully misreported Einstein's death year just to illustrate what I meant. The bot results would be uploaded and updated daily/weekly/whateverly at something like Wikipedia:Comparison of Wikipedia articles with Science "Science Hall of Fame". This would allow us to track quality of high-impact scientists and other science-related people, as well as find gaps in our coverage. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The difficulty here is that there is no easy way for a bot to grab the birth and death dates from an article. Not all articles use an infobox, the ones with infoboxes don't all use the same one, some specify the day/month/year while others only the year, some have categories like Category:1942 births and some don't, some may not even have birth and death dates listed at all, some may only mention the birth/death dates in the lead (e.g. "René Jules Dubos (February 20, 1901 – February 20, 1982) was a French microbiologist"), etc. etc. etc. There are hundreds of ways that birth/death dates are specified on articles, and programming a bot to intelligently deal with all of those different standards would be quite difficult. Probably more difficult than it's worth in this case. SnottyWong ^{spill the beans} 22:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm more concerned with the ratings and whether we have articles for them. Dates are just extra stuff. If the dates are the trouble, just use the categories Category:1872 births/Category:1970 deaths, and report missing categories with {{no|—}}. This way some categorization work can happen. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Like it. We're missing so many scientists on wikipedia, it would be nice to see a list of major scientists without articles. --Kleopatra (talk) 04:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll see if I can work something up. SnottyWong ^chat 22:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

About the issue of years of birth/death, we could take the information from the {{Persondata}} template, if nothing else. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I got a bot to generate a table like the one you suggested above. The problem is that there are upwards of 5000 entries in the SHOF list. So, even when pared down to the bare minimum, the wikitext for the table is over 400k. Every time I try to post it I get an HTTP error... hrm. Not sure how to proceed. Arbitrarily splitting up the list on separate pages would probably work but doesn't seem like it would be useful. SnottyWong ^spout 18:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Split the list in chunks of 500 and transclude them into a master list? Something like

{|class="wikitable sortable"
|-
{{/01}}
|-
{{/02}}
|-
{{/03}}
|-
{{/04}}
|-
{{/05}}
|-
{{/06}}
|-
...
|-
|}

Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I'll give that a try. I think I'm going to run it again because it seems there was a bug with getting some information from the articles, so it didn't pull birth/death dates or article ratings from many articles where that information was available. I'll also add have it look for {{Persondata}} tags as suggested above. It takes awhile to get through 5000+ articles, so I'll probably be able to post something tomorrow at the earliest.

YDone. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Science and academia/Science Hall of Fame. Due to size limitations (described here), the list had to be split into 3 pages. If you know of a way to get around that restriction, let me know. Also, I can generate alternate versions of the list relatively quickly now, so let me know if any updates/changes are required. SnottyWong ^communicate 19:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks great! Minor tweaks would included empty "Died" fields as compiled by Science should be explicited "N/A" or "—" (in green). Hyphens should be emdashes. Good call on using the {{Unassessed-Class}} rather than {{NA-Class}}. If there's anything more to tweak, I don't see it at the moment. Many thanks. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I think I've found a way to get the list into two or perhaps even one page. I was able to successfully get 3000 entries on one page, so if I can get the other 2600 or so on another page I may be able to transclude the whole thing onto the first page. We'll see how it goes. I'll add the dashes to the empty "Died" fields in the process. SnottyWong ^babble 23:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, emdashes added and the list is down to 2 pages. I don't think there's going to be any practical way to get it down to 1 page. SnottyWong ^express 00:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

As stated here old files might have to be scanned for file description pages without any license template. I assume this would be feasible since such files are not in the Category:Wikipedia files by copyright status category tree. --Leyo 17:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia:Database reports/File description pages containing no templates good enough for you? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

cough --Chris 09:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

There must be more than these. Why did the bot not tag File:Cross-linking DA.png, File:DAstepgrowthpolymer.png or File:Disulfidebridge.png (all uploaded in 2009; license added now)?

Wikipedia:Database reports/File description pages containing no templates is not sufficient, because files containing Template:Information but no license templates are not listed. --Leyo 09:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I am waiting for a reply. I know that the tagging works well for the newly uploaded files (example). I am however worried about old files without any license tag. --Leyo 08:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Requesting/suggesting a bot be made that checks the number of times an article has had an IP address or new user reverted, and if it is a large number then making a list of the article and the number of reverts for someone to look over. Also if any new editor or IP address is blocked do to vandalism, can a bot check to see if any of their contributions haven't been reverted yet? Add that to a list for people to check up on. When I revert someone, I always click to see their contributions and see what other articles they have vandalized as well. Not everyone does that though. If its too much of a load to scan through all articles at times, perhaps a tool approved users can run at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. See long term problems that keep emerging, instead of just the most recent events. Dream Focus 05:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if the new article alert bot thing would work in this format—it has useful XfD monitoring things that this WikiProject can check on but that doesn't need to be in this bulletin template. Would it be possible to have a bot auto-update this template, or would customizing the AAlertBot output work? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 15:54, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi,
I am a member of the typo team, but due to school and prior commitments, I do not have much time to spend on WP. I would like to request a bot to assist me with spelling and grammar corrections. Paperfork ♠ 13:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

You should better look at WP:AWB. Automated bots for typo correction are ultimately against bot policy. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:27, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, never mind. Thanks anyway. Paperfork ♠ 03:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Not a good task for a bot. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 09:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

It would be nice if there was a bot to automatically add project tags to the talk pages of appropriate articles. Is there such a bot already in existence? WikiManOne (talk) 22:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

See Category:WikiProject tagging bots. You can request Xenobot Mk V to help you. — Ganeshk (talk) 00:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! WikiManOne (talk) 04:02, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Deferred Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 09:15, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The webmasters at http://www.parliament.uk appear to have decided against permanent URLs, breaking a widely used link to http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/briefings/snpc-04731.pdf

The document is now at http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons/lib/research/briefings/snpc-04731.pdf

I can't recall where the tool is to count such links, but I know that I have added dozens of them.

Would any bot owner be kind enough to update the link? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I could easily throw something up in PHP with wikibot.classes if there is consensus. ^Noom _talk 16:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

BRFA filed Noom _talk ^contribs 15:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Y Done Bot updated 124 of 126 pages, 2 skipped here and BRFA. Noom _talk ^contribs 22:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Since User:WildBot has not been working for awhile and User:Josh Parris is no longer active can another bot be used to cleanup the tags that have been left on the talk pages? – Allen4names 03:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you aware of a page that records which tags of wildbot have become obsolete? WilBot was giving warning for editors, so I don't think we should remove all tags en-masse. Yobot is cleaning tags using the pages I linked to you, every 3 or 4 days. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

No, I was not aware of that page. I do think that all the WildBot tags in the article talk space should be cleaned up unless WildBot is reactivated or replaced. Will Yobot do this? BTW, When I followed the link I got the following error message at the end of the file "ERROR 1317 (70100) at line 16: Query execution was interrupted". – Allen4names 17:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I had mistakenly used /* SLOW OK */ instead of /* SLOW_OK */ and the query was killed during high replication. I have taken the liberty of updating WildBot's pages and template to reflect the inactive status. — Dispenser 22:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Why would you need one? Just have a bot check the article, and if the disambig link has been cleaned up, remove the WildBot tag. bd2412 T 23:58, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Page seems broken to me today. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:58, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd figured you'd download the original source file and open that in AWB. Anyway, I've removed the CSV autodetect which was screwing it up and make some small improvements. — Dispenser 03:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Would it be possible for a bot to replace all instances of {{oscoor}} with {{gbmappingsmall}}? Mjroots (talk) 22:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Is there consensus for this change? --Admrboltz (talk) 02:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The main changes would be:

1. {{oscoor|TQ518027|TQ 518 027}} → {{gbmappingsmall|TQ 518 027}} - example
2. {{oscoor|SX148971|OS grid reference SX 148 971}} → {{gbmapping|SX 148 971}} - example
3. {{oscoor|SU552175_region:GB_scale:100000|Map sources}} → {{oscoor gbx|SU552175}} - example
4. osgridref = {{oscoor|TF464882|TF 464 882}} → osgraw = TF 464 882 - example

The scope of the edits can be judged from this list of all the pages involved. I shall wait a few days to see if any objections are raised on this page. Additionally, change number 4 involves a change to a template so I shall also watch template talk:infobox church. But it has already received a favourable comment.

There are several special cases so I shall probably implement it as a tool to assist hand editing rather than as a bot. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Now implemented as a tool. See template talk:oscoor. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

After several years of using the "unranked taxon" parameters in the {{taxobox}}, someone's pointed out that a few parameters are inconsistent with the rest of the taxobox. I've spent the last few hours resolving this issue, and I've got a bit left to go before I'm done, but there's one gargantuan mountain standing in my way-- about 26K articles that all (thankfully) share exactly the same problem.

All the articles appearing in the automatically updated Category:Taxoboxes employing both unranked_familia and superfamilia need to have the text unranked_familia replaced with unranked_superfamilia. The text appears only once on each of these pages, so a search-and-replace with no second pass should suffice. There are currently 25,892 pages catalogued under this category. Once this category is emptied out, the task should be terminated.

I appreciate any help you can offer! Thanks! Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

This would be very easy to do in several frameworks. Could it work with pywiki with python replace.py -cat:Taxoboxes_employing_both_unranked_familia_and_superfamilia "unranked_familia" "unranked_superfamilia"?Smallman12q (talk) 00:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I can help with this task. So, there is no other logic, just replace unranked_familia with unranked_superfamilia in all cases in that category? Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

No strings attached, that's all it is. I appreciate it! Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I just remembered there may be a second parameter needing changed, |unranked_familia_authority= would need changed to |unranked_superfamilia_authority=. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, will do that as well. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 06:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks in advance! Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment These are in a category: Taxoboxes which can be fixed by being automated. Is this correct, then, that this fix would be repaired by automation? Then, is it necessary to run a bot 26,000X for a cosmetic change that will soon be superseded? These are not broken taxoboxes. The reader can read them. I don't think bots are supposed to be used for cosmetic changes. I disagree with running a bot to make a change that will, in the future, allow for ease of automating. --Kleopatra (talk) 14:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Can we have more information about this "soon be superseded" claim? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I think there's a slight misunderstanding here. When categorizing that category, I placed it into Category:Taxobox cleanup as it's a taxobox style issue, but also placed it into the now-removed category you just mentioned. Automating the taxoboxes certainly wasn't the only means for doing this, but the category served as a means to categorize it as potential work for those looking for buggy taxoboxes in the Category:Automatic taxobox cleanup. The operating word was can. A human automating them would be ideal, but by no means do I expect anyone, even a bot to roll out automated taxoboxes on 26K articles. The only other solution is far less controversial if even that-- to replace the hidden ranking by simply adding super in one or two places-- a change that will have zero effect on the appearance/functionality of the taxoboxes, but once completed, will allow for the final revision needing made to {{taxobox/core}} in order to normalize the functionality of unranked taxa. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Bot policy does not appear to allow for bot edits that are essentially null edits. I would be surprised if this obtained approval. "Cosmetic changes should only be applied when there is a substantial change to make at the same time." Bot edits also, like editing protected templates, require community consensus. Please link to the consensus discussion and the RfBA for this task. Thanks. --Kleopatra (talk) 05:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I've not launched a bot. This is a formal request for a bot to carry out a series of noncontroversial edits. The bot owner has already launched the bot a good several thousand edits ago. It's not a null edit, either. And it's definitely not cosmetic; it's functional. Without this task, the last step of this normalization of the unranked taxa will cause superfamily-level unranked taxa to appear as daughters of the families. This is cleanup of poor coding, not definitely not cosmetic. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Then where is the bot authorization for the task? Or is that, like your non-consensus edits to fully protected templates, something you're not required to have also?

This is why wikipedia loses editors. The polices aren't real. They're badger tools for some to use against others. And they're nothing to another entire group: administrators like you for whom policies don't apply. Fully protected? Doesn't matter. Bot authorization? Doesn't matter, it's just doing 27,000 unauthorized bot edits.

Apparently, though, I do have to follow policy simply because I'm not an administrator and can't use my administrative powers to do whatever I want.

Have it your way. I simply can't edit under these conditions where the rules are not the rules except for when it's convenient for you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kleopatra (talk • contribs) 06:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

1) If this bot task is getting opposition, the edits are by definition controversial. 2) A clearer explanation of exactly what the task is supposed to accomplish would be helpful. The vague description makes it sound like the goal might be obtainable with careful template programming instead of editing 27,000 articles. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 18:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and the edits have stopped, now that I am aware of the objections. I think we should wait for the RFC to conclude, and if there is consensus, an official bot request can be filed. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

You made over 1000 edits over many hours after I made my first objection. --Kleopatra (talk) 14:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe this is a misunderstanding, responded at AN/I. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I posted my comment[1] at 07:54, 31 January 2011 with this edit summary: "whoa! 26,000 bot cosmetic changes to prep for a future not-yet-approved automation? no!" (See comment above, this thread.) You stopped making the edits at 17:07, 1 February 2011.[2] So, you're right, there is a misunderstanding, and I apologize for it. You made only about 975 edits from my whoa! post to your stopping your editing. Again, I apologize for misrepresenting the fact as "over 1000 edits" when it was under 1000 edits. --Kleopatra (talk) 01:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Plastikspork didn't mean it that way. -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

You think it was just indented wrong? Could be; seemed like a strange off-target comment. --Kleopatra (talk) 01:56, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I replied in AN/I too. Maybe you would like to take a look. [3]. -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:59, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

What about creating another bot that automatically archives urls at WebCite and adds the archive links to articles? I am aware of User:WebCiteBOT, but

• that bot seems to have not been running since April 2010 (see Special:Contributions/WebCiteBOT)
• that bot has built up a long backlog (see Why is the BOT so far behind?)

I consider WP:LINKROT to be a major threat to Wikipedia, that asks for a response, thus I hereby request an efficiently working bot for that purpose. Regards. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 16:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

This probably need to be reiterated elsewhere. Checklinks is both a bot and tool when scanning selected web pages it proactively archives them using WebCite. When using as a tool, it semi-automatically repair broken links using both WebCite and the Wayback Machine and if only a single repair is needed try clicking "(info)" next to the link. — Dispenser 22:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Where could I request such a bot? Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 07:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

you can post to tools:~betacommand/webcite.html and I can take a look at it, with a script im working on. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 11:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I have no specific page to archive right now. But thanks for the link, I will add it to my userpage for future use. I will try it as soon as I have something new to archive and compare with the archive interface of WebCite. Thanks. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 12:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

This category has an enormous backlog, and I think the clearing of the backlog could benefit from bot assistance. Would it be possible to code a bot to output possible coordinates (found by a bot search on google maps) into a list, and then have people go through the list to check these and manually add them to articles? The bot might also consider what the province is based on categories to do an even smarter search. (This might have to be worked out on a country-by-country basis.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I might be able to help out with this (not committing to anything yet, if anyone else wants to have a go, feel free). I have a comment and a question though: My comment is that a cursory glance through the category reveals a whole lot of articles where a google map search isn't going to do much good (e.g. articles for events like historic battles, other articles that have no business being in the category like American Orthodox Catholic Church, etc.) We may be able to get some info for some of these articles, but my gut feeling is that the percentage of success will be fairly low. My question (and this is for the more experienced bot people) is whether a task like this one (which will be a one-time task that results in no edits to article space) requires approval to run, or if one can just run it without approval and dump the results into the bot's userspace. SnottyWong ^communicate 21:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Google is evil and you cannot use a bot to search it, (violation of their ToS). ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 21:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

What they don't know won't hurt em... You could either search it slowly (once every 30 seconds or so), or you might be able to use their API depending on how easy it is to get a key from them. SnottyWong ^chat 21:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Two things, they dont give out API keys any longer, and BAG cannot approve a bot that violates the ToS of a third party website. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 21:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Argh. Is an approval necessary for this type of bot which doesn't edit article space? SnottyWong ^speak 21:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

From WP:BOTPOL#Approval: "any bot or automated editing process that affects only the operators', or their own, user and talk pages (or subpages thereof), and which are not otherwise disruptive, may be run without prior approval." If you need article text you'll want to use a database dump, though. Anomie⚔ 21:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I think that in this instance, an unsophisticated bot would only be using article titles, not content. SnottyWong ^converse 23:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Delta, you don't need an API key for this function. You can search their location database using this url: http://maps.google.com/maps/api/geocode/json?address=LOCATION&sensor=false. I have code written for this function that you can see here. Its pretty crappy looking, but it works. I'm going to try and contact google and see if we can get an exception to their TOS. Tim1357 ^talk 21:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

That's a pretty good link. I don't see any other use for such a link besides automated access, so I don't understand why they'd make that link accessible to the public but then say you can't use it... SnottyWong ^spout 21:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, its supposed to be used with google maps, and only google maps. But I'm currently talking with someone from the foundation to see what we can do. Tim1357 ^talk 21:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, so here we are: Currently there is a discussion with google to get a full export of the GeoCode data. If that's the case, we can find applicable coordinates for some of the articles with missing coordinates, and bypass the GeoCode API altogether. Tim1357 ^talk 21:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe there is a way to use a TIGER dump or some other such source to get coordinates out. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 22:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion at first we can use our source (Wikipedia)instead of Google after that we can switch to Google search. my idea is we can develop bot that can works like inter wiki it seachs all of interwikis and comparing coordinations if they are the same changes that languges that they have incorrect cordination or thay havent any cordination.it is so easier to use google search after that we can switch to google search.Reza1615 (talk) 18:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)reza1615

That interwiki-like bot sounds interesting. This might also be useful: I didn't know about geonames.org. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 18:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Might I gently point out that before anyone gets coding any bots, there is a WikiProject devoted to this stuff, and that it's probably best discussed with the experts over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates? (and they're already talking to Google) You can't do coords completely automagically (User:The Anomebot2 makes valiant efforts, and even he can be 100's of miles out) and no source is completely accurate - IME a lot of Google coords are a bit out, and can be waay out; Wikipedia tends to be either spot on or badly out, on average it's a bit worse than Google. Also worth noting that if Bing doesn't know where somewhere is, it assumes Wikipedia coords are correct, which isn't always a sensible assumption.... There's a scorecard of how geocoding is getting on, the guys on their project are making manful progress. The UK is now pretty much done for instance (for real, not just an artifact of the way that scorecard records things). Le Deluge (talk) 02:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• Google maps loves Wikipedia so much that it includes a Wikipedia option[4] (NO other organization in the entire world is listed to get such free advertising from Google). The Wikipedia option taps into Wikipedia article listed coordinates and displays a "W" at those coordinates. Mouse over/click on the "W" and you see the Wikipedia article. Google maps has area labels that might be used to obtain geo coordinates for large areas. For example, if you look at Google map with the Wikipedia option selected for the article Mariposa Grove, [5] you will see Google's "Mariposa Grove" map label and see the "W" up and to the right Google's "Mariposa Grove" map label. (Idealy, that "W" should appear closer to Google's "Mariposa Grove" map label, but that is a different issue). OK, here is the bot idea. Get the label name and the geo coordinates for that Google label from Google for each feature(? or what ever Google calls it) that Google has identified on its map. Use the bot to for the matching name Wikipedia article and, if it lacks coordinates, have the bot add it to a list (don't add it to the article) for someone to check. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I found [library for python http://py-googlemaps.sourceforge.net/] that can use google map coordinationReza1615 (talk) 14:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I am requesting that there is a bot created who clears the completed requests of Wikipedia:Requested_articles. For example, User:Jimbo Wales requests that the article Wikipedia be made, because it doesn't exist yet. Then I create that article, but do not delete the request at the project page. What I am requesting is a bot who automatically deletes the request of Wikipedia at that project page. I do not know whether or not a bot that does this already exists, but it could sure be helpful. Unfortunately, this could possibly also eliminate inspecific requests, such as one that already has a Wikipedia page but the requester is referring to something else. --114.250.35.13 (talk) 08:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC) :Strongly oppose-- humans are much more effective at creating stubs, and bots have failed numerous times in creating stubs within the WP:TOL WikiProject. If a branch of science with unique names for everything has issues, imagine the issues that would arise in other fields. Also, there is a very nice-sized article at Wikipedia and has been for a long time. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is not what the request is for. The bot would not be creating stubs, just noting that they were created. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 13:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

My apology! I shouldn't be allowed to edit Wikipedia so early in the morning! That proposal sounds much better.

1. Provisional support: Provided the bot only clears blue links that link to the subject without redirect, I support. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
2. Support Totally useful. Sometimes the requests sit around for ages, or they used to. If that is still the case this would be a useful maintenance bot. --Kleopatra (talk) 15:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
3. Weak oppose Doesn't need automation; it's easy enough to fix bluelinks manually once in a while. If the bluelinks sometimes sit in Requested Articles for a long time after article creation, they're obviously not causing problems. I actually like it when they stay around for awhile, since they sometimes need human review (or are just interesting to look at). Also, giving the occasional formatting errors in Requested Articles, it could be easy for the bot to clobber useful but malformed entries and surrounding entries by accident. This bot proposal seems like another example of a solution looking for a problem. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 18:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Request a bot which can detect when an article page is a dab page but the talk page associated with it is a redirect, and then fix it by replacing the talkpage redirect with the {{WikiProject Disambiguation}} template. If it could also tag the talk pages of all dab pages which are missing the template as well that would be even better :) Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 15:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Consensus for that? -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

There actually seems to be consensus against WikiProject tagging dab pages that have redlinked talk pages: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation/Archive 24#Talk page tagging. Changing a redirect to a project template seems reasonable, though - Ditto for pages already bluelinked - but you should try and get an affirmative consensus for that. –xeno^talk 16:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I initially asked at VPT if there was a bot that could fix the redirects. There were two replies, one pointing me here and the other saying that it should tag all the talk pages, so I came here. DuncanHill (talk) 16:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I would also prefer that it did all the pages. --Kumioko (talk) 16:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

This is a decision that needs to be made at the WikiProject talk page. They already had a previous consensus not to tag talk pages with their banner if the talk pages are red. –xeno^talk 16:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

How about just fixing the bad redirects? Is that too controversial? DuncanHill (talk) 16:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

No, that seems fine. Desirable, even. –xeno^talk 16:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I could do it. AWB has a skip if doesn't exist feature. I need to be sure that the project agrees. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Since we are on the topic. I suggest if the dab page includes red links then get rid of those too. People shouldn't be adding articles that don't yet exist to the DAB pages per the MOS but they do it all the time. --Kumioko (talk) 18:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Kumioko, redlinks in dab pages are perfectly fine, you will never get consensus to remove them with a bot. See Wikipedia:MOSDAB#Red links. On another topic, is this intended to be a one-time run, or something that should be run once per week or once per month? I'm not very familiar with AWB, but if this is more than a one-time thing, it might be better implemented using a more automated process. After all, there are almost 200,000 dab pages to check. Again, I'm not familiar with AWB, but my understanding is that it is something where each edit must be manually accepted by the user (please correct me if I'm wrong). Even if you could check a dab page on average every 5 seconds, it would take you over 11 days to finish the task (assuming you were working 24 hours a day). SnottyWong ^chat 18:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

AWB can scan the pages to check for redirects on its own (preparse) without human intervention, or a dump report can be requested to show how many dab pages have talk pages that are redirects. AWB can also be run in bot mode. –xeno^talk 18:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• I support having a bot fix all the redirecting talk pages. I also support bot tagging all redlinked disambig talk pages. I oppose very strongly any scheme for automated removal of red links. Some red links are for articles that we unquestionbly should have, but just have not made yet (for example, many names of people who served on U.S. state supreme courts). Perhaps we can generate a list of disambig pages containing red links, and go over the list manually. bd2412 T 23:55, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The SQL so no one actually have to write it is:

SELECT CONCAT("* [[Talk:", talk.page_title, "]]")
FROM page
JOIN categorylinks ON cl_from=page.page_id
JOIN page AS talk ON talk.page_title=page.page_title AND talk.page_namespace=1

WHERE page.page_namespace=0
AND page.page_is_redirect=0
/* in categories */
AND cl_to IN ("All_disambiguation_pages", "All_set_index_articles")
AND talk.page_is_redirect=1;

4607 rows in set (9.34 sec) if you're wondering. If you want redirects with tagged talk pages you can use catscan. — Dispenser 18:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Could someone please train a bot to make a one-time sweep for WP:WPVG? Basically, we are hoping that a bot will check all of the articles tagged with Template:WikiProject Video games, make note of all local images that are image-linked on those articles, and then tag the talk page of those articles with Template:WikiProject Video games. The template can automatically tell when it is on a file, and will place that image in a file category. Editors have done this manually for a while, but there are still a lot more to tag. This will help us maintain our images. We may want the bot to run again at some point, but I don't think we need one constantly sweeping. Thanks! ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 22:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I count roughly 3,500 pages in the "File talk" namespace that have the WPVG banner. So you want a bot to identify all of the articles that link to those 3,500 images, and tag their talk pages with a WPVG banner? How can you be sure that all of the articles that link to these images are actually articles on video games (or that otherwise would be appropriate for inclusion in WPVG)? SnottyWong ^communicate 22:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I thought this proposed it the other way around – go through VG articles and tag linked images (files) with the banner. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 23:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think Johnny is asking for a bot to tag all the images that are used in VG articles and aren't already tagged. –xeno^talk 23:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Ahh gotcha, I misread that. In that case, is it appropriate to assume that every image used on every video game article is appropriate for inclusion into WPVG? SnottyWong ^spout 23:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

For instance, just looking at some random articles, I find that Cybersex is part of WPVG, and the image File:Cybersex pic.JPG is part of that article. Should that image really be tagged with a WPVG banner? Some other random images I found that would be tagged: File:Nvidiaheadquarters.jpg, File:Nvidia logo.svg (from Nvidia), and File:Closed captioning symbol.svg, File:Closed Caption Demonstration Still-Felix.png, File:Cc3tout.jpg (from Closed captioning). Also, the majority of these images do not have a talk page at this point. Would it be appropriate for a bot to create potentially thousands of new talk pages solely to add a wikiproject banner to them? SnottyWong ^confabulate 23:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I'm not opposed to the idea, I just want to make sure it's fully thought out before it is implemented. SnottyWong ^comment 23:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I thought I responded already, but I think I had the same edit conflict as xeno above. The only thing that is vital to be avoided is that the bot must skip any image in a template, any image that is not image-linked in the text of the article. There are certainly images that will be tagged that shouldn't be, but as no other projects tag images in this way, and nobody looks at image talk pages anyway, I don't think anyone will mind besides us. And again, it should be local files. These will be either A:Non-free or B:moved to Commons. This tagging is useful to us because by the nature of our project, we have a TON of non-free files that need to be wrangled. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 01:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

At this time, there are 24363 locally-uploaded files used in WPVG articles: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. 3242 files are currently tagged for WPVG. I made no attempt to exclude images in templates or non-linked images, it's just the results of a query on all images used in the pages. Anomie⚔ 02:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so there could be 20,000 images to tag (though there may be significantly less due to template images). A one-time bot to tag specific these photos, any takers? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 22:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't have time today, but I could probably start the process to make this happen on Monday if no one else has done it before then. However, I'd want to be sure that there are no problems with a bot creating thousands of talk pages solely for the purpose of adding a wikiproject banner. Can anyone comment on that? SnottyWong ^confer 23:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

You may want to see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Bot policy about that. :) ^Avic_ennasis @ 18:05, 2 Adar I 5771 / 6 February 2011 (UTC)

As far as having community support, this was discussed at the main project page, and creating these talk pages for VG articles has been standard practice for some time (that's why there are so many already tagged, as mentioned above). ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 02:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Made a request at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Snotbot 2. SnottyWong ^squeal 18:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Category:Articles needing coordinates includes articles that need to have the relevant coordinates (latitude;longitude) added. Lewis Ainsworth House is listed in a subcategory of Category:Articles needing coordinates. In addition, Lewis Ainsworth House uses a template where an address location is listed. In particular, its {{Infobox nrhp}} lists "location = 414 E. Chapman Ave<br>[[Orange, California]]." Now, if you add 414 E. Chapman Ave, Orange, California to gpsvisualizer.com, you get 33.787698,-117.849617. So here's the bot idea: Have the bot search out all articles listed in Category:All articles needing coordinates that also use {{Infobox nrhp}} AND have the parameter "location =" filled in. The bot should then get the location info, pass the stree address information through a program such as gpsvisualizer.com to find their latitude and longitude. Then, take that latitude and longitude and add it to that article's {{Infobox nrhp}}. Then remove the article from Category:Articles needing coordinates. There might be other templates that use address locations that also are missing their geo coordinates. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The external link Brazilian Tourism Portal, present in about 700 articles, is broken. Even the "good" link [6] does not seem to be a good link to the articles (no useful info). Does anyone could create a bot to solve this problem? I think the best thing to do is just remove all links. Caiaffa (talk) 14:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I only found about 15 or so using that exact link, and about 40-50 using the domain (direct links to files broken). Noom _talk ^contribs 15:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

You are probably right, I used the "search button" and didn´t attempt to differences. Sorry for the inconvenience Caiaffa (talk) 17:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

does any one developed interwiki coordination bot that can check another wikis and like interwiki bot compare them and add or remove coordination template? also i found [library for python http://py-googlemaps.sourceforge.net/] that can use google map coordination Reza1615 (talk) 14:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey All, I was wondering if someone could do an assessment job on all the articles in Category:Unassessed Albemarle County articles via a bot. They would just need to match the assessments of the already exsisting templates. Like if WP:FOO is Class C with Low Importance, WP:ALVA (the WP link for the project connected to this category) would be the same. Could someone do this? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC) • Go Steelers!

There is a bot that already does this. It's pretty easy and the owner (xeno) is prompt and gets the job done in a reasonable timeframe. Click here to file a new request. Make sure you say "yes" under the section asking about default logic. Good luck, and ask questions if you don't understand the form. Tim1357 ^talk 23:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I think User:Anomie (who I asked first, on Sunday, at the beginning of the Super Bowl) is going to take care of it. She has a page up and everything. Thanks though. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

{{cite doi}} templates should have as an argument, the doi. Some of these templates were malformed, so need to be cleaned up.

The full list is

These template would need to be moved from {{cite doi/doi:foobar}} to {{cite doi/foobar}}. Then, the articles linking to {{cite doi/doi:foobar}} should have their {{cite doi}} template be updated from {{cite doi|doi:foobar}} to {{cite doi|foobar}}. When that's done, the {{cite doi/doi:foobar}} should be tagged as {{db-g6}} per uncontroversial maintenance, as it would be an unlikely and unused redirect. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. Many of these I had done before, but were subsequently recreated. Perhaps we could make {{cite doi}} strip off the "doi:" and/or flag these. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 06:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Doubtful, as this would require parser functions which I don't think have been enabled here. Regardless, many thanks for the quick job! Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 06:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking we could add a {{#ifeq:{{lc:{{str left| {{{1}}} |4 }} }} | doi: | [[Category:Cite doi requiring repair]] }} or something simlar to {{cite doi}}. But, if it doesn't happen that often, then it's probably not worth it. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 06:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

hello,

I need a bot which archives my user talk page each month (and don't ask me why each month). Thank you.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 15:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

See User:MiszaBot/Archive HowTo or User:ClueBot III#How to archive your page. Anomie⚔ 17:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Would a bot kindly update Portal:Tropical cyclones/Active tropical cyclones? --Perseus8235 17:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Links:

RSMC/TCWC

NHC, CPHC, JMA, IMD, MFR, BMG, BOM, FMS, Well

NMHSS

Met Office, JTWC, NWS Guam, PAGASA, CWB, HKO, CMA STI, KMA, TMD, VMD CMA

Other links

IRC, NDCC, GMDSS, APECDI, WX Trop, MT Archive, NRL imagery

Running Best Tracks

NRL RBT, NHC RBT.

I'd like for someone to go through Category:Cite doi templates / Category:Cite hdl templates / Category:Cite jstor templates / Category:Cite pmc templates / Category:Cite pmid templates and build tables akin to

Etc...

These tables could be hosted somewhere at WP:JOURNALS and maybe in parallel on the toolserver? These tables would immensely help with template cleanup/completion. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Several templates created by Citation bot have had their structure rot over time. Some of it was due to sloppy bot edits, others to human mistakes, and others to sloppy human editing. There's general a dislike for bot-edits which do not create actual changes in appearance, but these are all hosted in the template space, with very very few people watching them (aka, this would really not annoy a lot of people, and people likely to be watching these templates would also be the one to appreciate their tidying up). A "good" template should be formatted in this manner (aka in this order):

{{cite journal

 |last= |first= |authorlink=
 |last1= |first1= |author1link=        Remove empty parameters, if no author-related parameter remains, keep |last1= and |first1=
 |last2= |first2= |author2link=

...

 |author= |authorlink=
 |author1= |author1link=               Remove empty parameters, if no author-related parameter remains, add  |last1= and |first1=
 |author2= |author2link=

...

 |date=
 |year=                                Remove empty parameters, if no date-related parameter remains, add |year=
 |month=

...

 |title=                               Remove empty parameters, |title= should always be present
 |language=
 |transtitle=
 |url=
 |format=

...

 |journal=                             Remove |series= if empty; the others should always be present
 |series=
 |volume=
 |issue=
 |pages=

...

 |publisher=                           Remove empty parameters, also remove |location= if |publisher= is empty
 |location=

...
 |arxiv=                               Remove |asin=, |doi_brokendate=, |isbn=, |issn=, |lccn=, |jfm=, |oclc=,
 |asin=                                |ol=, |rfc=, |pmc-embargo-date=, and |id= ,if empty,
 |bibcode=
 |doi=                                 Add |arxiv=, |bibcode=, |doi=, |jstor=, |mr=, |osti= |pmc=, |pmid=,
 |doi_brokendate=                       |ssrn=, and |zbl= if missing
 |isbn=
 |issn=
 |jfm=
 |jstor=
 |lccn=
 |mr=
 |oclc=
 |ol=
 |osti=
 |pmc=
 |pmc-embargo-date=
 |pmid=
 |rfc=
 |ssrn=
 |zbl=
 |id=

...

 |accessdate=                          Remove empty parameters, except |accessdate= if |url= is present
 |archiveurl=
 |archivedate=
 |laysource=
 |laysummary=
 |laydate=

...

 |quote=                               Remove empty parameters
 |ref=
 |separator=
 |postscript=

...
<!--UNUSED DATA-->
                                       All other parameters should be moved here
}}

This would have two great benefits. If the templates are formatted consistently and legibly, newcomers would be much less intimidated by the structure of these templates, and both regular and newcomers will benefit from the improved readability. Compare [7] and [8] for instance. Plus, with the parameter pruning, you can immediately see what is missing, and what should be added instead of being mislead into finding a journal's publisher or wonder what a "separator" is or what the "series" refer to. This would in turn facilitate and encourage good citation completion/maintenance by humans. A daily run wouldn't be needed for this, but a one-time run over all citations combined with monthly runs would be so incredibly helpful here. Once we do {{cite journal}}, we could move on to the other templates ({{citation}}, {{cite book}}, etc...). I've notified Smith609 (who runs Citation bot) for feedback here. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a great plan! Citation bot now formats new cite doi templates in this general manner, but I don't think that it modifies existing parameter orders, for fear of upsetting editors. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 23:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

In articles it would be a problem as you often have 10-20 references formatted in a specific way. For instance {{cite book}}/{{cite conference}}/{{cite press}}/{{cite journal}} all have different parameters, and a global parameter ordering might have been imposed, instead of a local ordering (aka, {{cite journal}} are ordered one way, but {{cite press}} ordered in another way...). Watchlists get cluttered with edits which some feel are low-value, and will often disturb a conscious decision about how to present citation templates in the edit window. In the {{cite doi/...}} templates however, virtually no one watches them, and you can't "upset" an article's consistency.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

If the requested move discussion at Talk:New York City Subway succeeds, there will need to be a couple of hundred of page moves and several thousands of find/replace runs for "New York City Subway". The find/replace runs can be done automatically. If the bot ignores image/interwiki links (but not wikilinks), there shouldn't be any false positives. It's too much for assisted AWB to do, so can someone with a bot take on this task, assuming the discussion results in "move"? — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 16:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

 Discussion ongoing...
, on hold until/if consensus becomes clear, see [9].  Chzz  ►  14:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/navigation, which is transcluded on WP:FEED,

Could someone possibly make a bot which automatically adds links each month, as I did manually here?

If you need more info, give me a shout. Cheers!  Chzz  ►  14:10, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

How hard would it be for a bot to tag all pages listed at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Jagged 85/Cleanup1 etc. with a template? —Ruud 15:53, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Trivial. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 17:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Could they be tagged with {{Jagged 85 cleanup|subpage=Cleanup1a}}, where subpage is the cleanup list the article appears on? —Ruud 18:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi all,

I have the problem described in this post, but am not clear on how to apply a solution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Erik9bot_5

Like the Irish times, as mentioned in this post, my news website has changed its url. How do I update the 2,000+ links to my site in Wikipedia?

Apparently this fix was created by someone who has been banned so I can't ask him to explain. "This account is a sock puppet of John254 and has been blocked indefinitely."

Thanks much Michelle — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnicolosi (talk • contribs) 22:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Signed your comment. Could you also provide the link that needs replacing? Noom _talk ^contribs 23:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the help with the signature. Sorry, not quite used to this system. All urls in wikipedia that are seattlepi.nwsource.com need to be updated to seattlepi.com. Details on the background behind our url change are here if you're interested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle_Post-Intelligencer

Thanks much,

Michelle Mnicolosi (talk) 02:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I updated the section header here, just to get better attention. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

So, this is a request to update the links from "ireland.com" to "irishtimes.com"? I ran a check it appears there are not that many see here. Most aren't in articles. Should be doable by AWB without a bot, since one could skip user talk pages, etc. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 08:08, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind, you are asking for a different website. Is are you just asking for the domain name to be changed, or is it more complicated. A list of links can be generated using this. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 08:11, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

There's about 2,615 links to update. It just seems to need an update to the domain, the website is still in the same order. Currently the website automatically directs one to the new location, does it really need to be updated at the moment? Noom _talk ^contribs 14:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

BRFA filed Noom _talk ^contribs 21:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Can you assist WP:PINOY in changing www.t-macs.com/kiso/local/ (which is unofficial and a dead link) to http://www.census.gov.ph/census2000/index.html which is live and is the official 2000 Philippine Census by the National Statistics Office? Thanks.

See background here:

• Wikipedia_talk:Tambayan_Philippines/Archive21#2000_Philippines_Census_broken_link

The help desk referred me to you for assistance.--Lenticel ^(talk) 06:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Will post a BRFA to do a link replacement shortly. Noom _talk ^contribs 19:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

BRFA filed Noom _talk ^contribs 20:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks :) --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

At User talk:Citation bot#Withdrawn_papers it is noted that on occasion cited papers are updated or withdrawn. A maintenance bot or other tool could follow cited pubmed, doi, or other database identifiers to check for such, then (where appropriate) tag the citation for human attention, possibly amending the citation in the process (e.g. changing |title=Dewey Wins! to |title=Withdrawn:Dewey Wins! (or whatever the database indicates). Martin advises this is beyond Citationbot's scope, so it would need to be a different tool. Given that {{cite doi}} and its ilk bury information in subpages where it is rarely seen, these should get priority. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

One example of the above is doi:10.1002.2F14651858.CD000007 PMID 19588315 as seen at

• Prendiville, W. J.; Elbourne, D.; McDonald, S. J. (2000). Begley, Cecily M (ed.). "Active versus expectant management in the third stage of labour". The Cochrane Library (3): CD000007. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD000007. PMID 10908457.

and

• Prendiville, W. J.; Elbourne, D.; McDonald, S. J. (2009). Henderson, Sonja (ed.). "Active versus expectant management in the third stage of labour". Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) (3): CD000007. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD000007.pub2. PMID 19588315.

LeadSongDog come howl! 16:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that this is desirable as proposed. Very often, withdrawn papers will be cited in articles precisely because they were withdrawn. If anything, something like

• Prendiville, W. J.; Elbourne, D.; McDonald, S. J.; Begley, C. M. (2000). "Active versus expectant management in the third stage of labour". Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (3). doi:10.1002/14651858.CD000007. (withdrawn)

or

• Prendiville, W. J.; Elbourne, D.; McDonald, S. J.; Begley, C. M. (2000). "Active versus expectant management in the third stage of labour". Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (3). doi:10.1002/14651858.CD000007. (superceded)

should be produced via a |status=withdrawn or |status=superceded in the {{cite xxx}}/{{citation}} templates. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

That visual presentation would be just fine. My chief concern was having something (well, anything) in the way of indication on WP that the source requires special attention, that it is not just another reliable source as might appear otherwise. It would be useful to have a category (hidden if necessary) to flag that. Category:articles with withdrawn sources would not be a strict subset of Category:articles in need of update. As Headbomb indicates, even after update there could be reasons to keep the citation of the withdrawn article. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I posted something similar a while ago, but i guess it was rather a daunting task, so I'm scaling it down a bit. Previously, I wanted a bot that creates report of all problems with the books ({{citation needed}} tags, {{POV}} tags ...), but that doesn't look like it'll happen. So, I'm scaling the request down to only report what assessment class the articles of a book are.

These reports would be done for all Category:Wikipedia books (community books), and updated daily. Of course, if someone feels like taking up the original request, that would also be peachy. WikiProject Wikipedia-Books has been notified of this request. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I read your other request to, and I agree with the previous comment about daily updates being too often. When the bot generates a report for a book, where should the report be posted? Noom _talk ^contribs 18:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

On the book's talk page. Daily updates might have been overkill for all the cleanup tags (mostly because I have idea how often these would change), but for the assessment classes I don't think it's too often, as reassessment are usually far and few between. If daily turns out to be too often, it shouldn't be a big deal to make it wait two/three/seven days between report updates.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it should be too hard to fulfil your first request. Run rates I would probably say as once per week for article assessments, indexing them for the next run to see if there was any change, but I'm not sure about how often to run a check on the articles contents. Noom _talk ^contribs 19:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Well that could be figured out during trial. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Coding... I'll get started then. Noom _talk ^contribs 00:01, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

However, on some article pages, there are multiple ratings for different wikiprojects. The book you gave me seems to use the V0.5 template, but the book I was testing the bot code on used different templates. Also, should a report be opt-in or opt-out? Noom _talk ^contribs 02:33, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

It should be exclusion-compliant (aka, responsive to {{Bots|deny=BOTNAME}}), but nothing special other than that. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

See User:NoomBot/BookTest for 3-4 examples of book reports. Going to set the bot to append a couple more reports to see if the formatting works for several of them. Also adding more 'problem' templates to detect. Noom _talk ^contribs 18:35, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

BRFA filed Noom _talk ^contribs 18:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Y Done Noom _talk ^contribs 18:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Olaf Davis retired last October, but he left the code behind so that anyone who knows how to run Python Bots could replicate what User:Botlaf did. I've just manually gone through the nearly 800 articles that contained the word pubic and fixed 23 that were typos or vandalism, some of which had been up for months. But it is very time consuming to do this manually without Botlaf, and pubic is only one of many reports that Botlaf used to run every week. Please could someone, ideally a Python writer, take over the Botlaf code? It only needs to run weekly. Thanks ϢereSpielChequers 13:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I will take a look into what the code looks like/requirements tonight. I love python so shouldn't be a problem. DQ.alt (t) (e) 19:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

At quick glance, I don't see any code, am I missing something or are you asking from scratch? DQ.alt (t) (e) 20:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Botlaf/source? –xeno^talk 20:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Someone trout me for being blind and trying to read during class :P -- DQ (t) (e) 22:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks DQ, looking forward to working with you on this. ϢereSpielChequers 01:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I've come to the realization that I can't maintain all my bots under my current workload, and as such, would like for some people to take over the task of WP:UAA helperbot. (BRFA: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SoxBot 23) It is a clone of HBC's bot, so it shouldn't be too hard to bring up. (X! · talk)  · @841  ·  19:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I was working a bit on a python one, but I gotta see where that one goes. (Per Tnxman307 a while back) -- DQ (t) (e) 03:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Already handled by Template:Editnotices/Namespace/Main. Rd232 ^talk 01:02, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Would it be possible to have a bot automatically add {{TFA-editnotice}} into the editnotice of today's featured article? I'm not quite sure how easy it would be for a bot to figure out what tomorrow's TFA is, but I suspect somebody can do it, and the template just needs adding once with the appropriate date specified (the template does the rest). Rd232 ^talk 02:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

To find any day's featured article, go to Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 26, 2024 (placing the date you're looking for), and find the bold link (either '''[[page name]]''' or '''''[[page name]]''''' in the page wiki code). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Cool. So can anyone add this little task to an existing bot? Rd232 ^talk 15:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Unless the editnotice subpage needs to be deleted when the notice is removed (does a blank editnotice subpage cause any problems?), User:AnomieBOT II would be the ideal bot for this. What timespan before 00:00 UTC should the notice be placed, and how long should it be left after the page's day before being removed? Should similar editnotices be placed for ITN, OTD, DYK, or other pages linked from the main page? Anomie⚔ 17:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Blank editnotices pose no problem (at least in my experience) so you should be OK. :) ^Avic_ennasis @ 03:04, 13 Adar I 5771 / 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Cool. The template takes care of the on/off timing, so the timespan is basically any time the day before (or possibly even earlier, if the queue is available). AFAIK blank editnotices aren't a problem. A minor adaptation of the template for ITN etc seems reasonable, but would need proposing in the appropriate locations; might be best to get it working for TFA first. Rd232 ^talk 06:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm. I see the template is placed automatically in Template:Editnotices/Namespace/Main (see?). Why is a bot needed? Anomie⚔ 23:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Ahaaa....... ha. Well good then. Perhaps someone would be interested in pursuing something similar for ITN etc, which doesn't currently have anything like that... Rd232 ^talk 01:02, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

There are strong feelings that generally, links should only be in the "see also" section if they aren't in the body of the article. (no, it isn't a guideline, there is certainly a lot of wiggle room in it)

Anyhow, has anyone built a bot that identifies and/or removes items that are redundant? It could note them at the top of the talk page (like how disambiguations are/were marked), it could remove them, it could add a category indicating duplicate items, it could put a comment or template next to duplicates, or it could actually remove them.

This seems well-suited to a bot because it's nontrivial for a human to scan the article for the duplicate links. tedder (talk) 21:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

It should be fairly easy to craft some regex logix for that I would think but I can't test it at the moment because my AWB is down. --Kumioko (talk) 01:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering if I could enlist the help of a bot to do some stub sorting for me for the Washington WikiProject. Each county has their own geographic location stub type (e.g. {{KingWA-geo-stub}} for Category:King County, Washington). Most articles use {{Washington-geo-stub}}. What I would like to do is for articles in Foo County, Washington and use {{Washington-geo-stub}} to change the stub type to {{FooWA-geo-stub}}. Any articles that are not located in either a) a county category or b) are in multiple countty categories should be left with the base template. There are currently 400 transclusions of the base template, and should be a fairly simple, and uncontroversial edit. --AdmrBoltz 05:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure if a page like this already exists, but I am guessing people here would be aware of it. I was thinking it would be pretty useful if every week or month a list of the top 500 or 1000 most viewed/accessed pages that are neither FA/FL/GA nor A/B-class articles in at least one project would be listed. This way those interested in directing attention to the most visited pages that are not in a decent shape yet. Only C-class, starts, stubs, lists, and unassesed pages that are not rated B-class or above in any project should be listed. Alternatively a top 500 for each of the bottom classes would be good also. Nergaal (talk) 07:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

The Manual of Style reads:

• The ordinal suffix (e.g., th) is not superscripted (23rd and 496th, not 23^rd and 496^th).

Moreover, dates should not have "th" on the them. Am I OK to think that AWB can be set to remove superscript from ordinals? -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

anything is possible with regular expressions, if your crazy enough to figure out the regex. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 20:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I mean: Are there any exceptions we have to be aware of? -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Quotations? Removing the 'th' could also cause problems with reference titles/URLS. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I had this already in mind. No quotes will be touched. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 20. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

A discussion is going on about disabling the "reviews" parameter of {{Infobox album}}, as consensus has it to move reviews to a separate section. There are hundreds of thousands of articles to have the infobox data moved to {{album ratings}}, and could takes years to do manually. Thus, it would be very much appreciated if a bot coder could take a look. Thanks, Adabow (talk · contribs) 03:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

All instances of http://www.pmars.imsg.com/ need changing to https://pmars.marad.dot.gov/ . The url path after .gov/ will not need changing. There are about 200 of these and they're all dead links. Thanks. Brad (talk) 13:58, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Disregard. I'm going at it with AWB. Brad (talk) 21:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Its always better to report those links changes here or on my talk page, so other wmf project can also participate. But you left some links on enwiki, too:

pl-0: 1 Page; ja-0: 2 Pages; commons-6: 2 Pages; en-0: 10 Pages;

Merlissimo 12:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Usually, when pages are moved, a redirect is left behind; this redirect clues in the interwiki bots that the page in English Wikipedia still exists, it's just been moved to a new name. However, categories are renamed by creating new categories and deleting the old ones. Should an interwiki bot then start handling the category in an other language Wikipedia, it would decide that we no longer have such a category, and remove the English interwiki (incorrectly!) from the other languages - see here for an example. I think the best solution is to have an interwiki bot look at all new categories (defined as having been created since the beginning of the previous run), and handle their interwiki as the interwiki bots always do - and that would include updating the English name on all the other Wikipedias' interwiki lists. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Many articles on settlements in the US contain boilerplate text (presumably bot-generated a long time ago) along the lines of:

There were xxx households out of which yy.y% had children under the age of 18 living with them, zz.z% were married couples living together

In several thousand of these articles, 'married couples' is in a piped link to marriage. This is clearly a worthless link - could a bot unlink these? To be precise, the articles to be covered are those in the intersection of (What links to: marriage) and Category:Populated places in the United States, and its subcategories). Colonies Chris (talk) 16:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Is there (or could somebody create) a bot that can go through the "Special:UnusedFiles" page and delete it all? Neocarleen (talk) 05:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Merely the fact that an image is currently unused isn't covered by any crietrion for speedy deletion. In fact, even fair use images can only be deleted due to being unused after being tagged for a week. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I oppose this completely. Just because the image is unused doesn't mean we need to delete it. --Kumioko (talk) 01:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

In general, the idea that a bot would delete anything is simply nuts; it opens the door to vandals. In the case of images they could delete them by removing them from articles. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to be an appropriate task for a bot. Noom _talk ^contribs 22:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

There are certain U1 and G7 articles that we could write a bot to delete because it could check that the tagger was the author etc. But this doesn't apply to unused files. Even if we did put a 7 day delay in the process so the bot only deleted ones that had been unused for a week we would still need to check that they had not been disused through vandalism. ϢereSpielChequers 17:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey, can you make me a bot that cleans up spam please?

^^— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.228.147.57 (talk • contribs) 02:07, February 25, 2011

As in vandalism? If so, ClueBot NG performs this task already (and is pretty damn good). Noom _talk ^contribs 16:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

National Census 2010 results[10] were published. We need infoboxes population, pop rank, density update for 1-st and 2-d level divisions. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 23:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

As discussed in these threads, Mobius Bot (talk · contribs) went berserk last year and its owner has disappeared. Can its functionality be replicated in a new bot, or incorporated into an existing bot? The source is at http://pastebin.com/i2ZYQBRD. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 14:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

It would help if you mentioned that this bot added the <reference /> to articles missing it (BRfA 3). A better implementation exists in pywikipedia (noreferences.py) and I believe AWB does this too. I'm unsure if Smackbot still runs AWB general fixes. — Dispenser 16:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems the only approved task for the bot was a one-time rename of some articles; the other two bot requests were eventually expired. Anomie⚔ 00:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the responses; marking resolved. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 02:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Per some discussion on the EN wiki mailing list about disability access, we have lots of images that need alt text so that blind people and anyone using a text reader can get an idea as to what our images are displaying. There was a suggestion on the mailing list from User:Martijn Hoekstra "Would an automated category Images without alt text be feasible?", alternatively I would have thought that a weekly regenerated list would do the job just as well. It would also make for a very good entry level task for newbies finding their feet. Can someone kind bot writer code it please? ϢereSpielChequers 14:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

For some reason, there are quite a number of people who create their own Wikipedia article. While this is not prohibited per se, it is still strongly discouraged. What most of these autobiographies have in common is an editor who created most (if not all) of the article's content but did not contribute anywhere else (I ran into a couple of those lately). So what I'm suggesting is a bot that scans Category:Living people for articles where more than, say, 90% of the content came from a single-purpose account, and flag them (maybe with {{COI}}, or something else, or add them to a separate list similar to User:AlexNewArtBot/COISearchResult). --bender235 (talk) 18:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The bot could make a list and propose likely COI cases. Or leave a talk page note at most. But tagging the actual article is a decision based on the context of the edits and many other factors, that bots aren't able to parse. SPA is not necessarily COI. 3 examples is hardly conclusive and would need much more convincing statistics for a BRFA. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 18:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

This would get you a long list of people whose first article happened to be a biography. So an awful lot of newbies would suddenly find themselves tagged as having a conflict of interest or put on a list of people who "likely" have done so. Doing this by bot would give you way too many false positives, and would bury existing genuine COI cases amongst incorrect bot tags. If you could find some way for the bot to only do this where a COI was highly likely/almost certain then this would be worthwhile. But the idea needs more work and a test that bots can follow to detect COI editing. ϢereSpielChequers 18:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why this would create too much false positives. Since this bot isn't supposed to scan recent changes, it would not catch people whose first article happened to be a biography, because they would've since contributed something else. And if not, they are SPAs, which means that wouldn't be a false positive.

I'd be fine with tagging the article's talk pages, with something like {{Connected contributor}}. --bender235 (talk) 19:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to look into making a database query for this... Tim1357 ^talk 20:13, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

SPA is still not necessarily COI, and assuming so is not a task for bot. But don't get me wrong -- I like the idea and it's worth doing, just not fully automatically. Let's see if Tim1357 cooks up some numbers. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 20:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I know SPA does not equal COI, but there is definitely some correlation, to say the least. There are more than half a million BLPs on Wikipedia, so it would be useful to have a bot scanning them for articles where SPAs contributed 90+% of the content. If those articles would be sorted out into some category or list, human editors could separate the wheat from the chaff. --bender235 (talk) 20:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I threw together a query to look for these patterns (see the query and limited output below). Is this what was requested? Tim1357 ^talk 05:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

SELECT editor_name, 
       article_title, 
       round(deltas), 
       ( ( edits_to_article / ( numberofedits + 0.0 ) ) * 100 ) AS 
       percent_of_all_edits_to_article, 
       edits_to_article                                         AS 
       user_edits_to_article, 
       all_edits                                                AS 
       user_editcount, 
       ( ( edits_to_article / ( all_edits + 0.0 ) ) * 100 )     AS 
       percent_of_user_edits 
FROM   (SELECT DISTINCT Concat(Concat(main.rev_page, '-'), main.rev_user) AS 
                               distinctify, 
                        main.rev_user_text                                AS 
                               editor_name, 
                        mainp.page_title                                  AS 
                               article_title, 
                        (SELECT COUNT(*) 
                         FROM   revision AS bla 
                         WHERE  bla.rev_page = mainp.page_id)             AS 
                               numberofedits, 
                        mainp.page_id                                     AS 
                        pageid, 
                        (SELECT SUM(IF(Isnull(prev.rev_len), NOW.rev_len, 
                                IF(NOW.rev_len > prev.rev_len, 
                                NOW.rev_len - prev.rev_len + 0.0, ( 
                                       -1.0 * ( 
                                prev.rev_len - NOW.rev_len ) )))) AS d 
                         FROM   revision AS NOW 
                                LEFT JOIN revision AS prev 
                                  ON prev.rev_id = NOW.rev_parent_id 
                                     AND prev.rev_id!=0 
                         WHERE  NOW.rev_user = main.rev_user 
                                AND main.rev_page = NOW.rev_page)         AS 
                        deltas, 
                        (SELECT COUNT(*) 
                         FROM   revision AS s 
                         WHERE  s.rev_user = main.rev_user 
                                AND s.rev_page = main.rev_page)           AS 
                               edits_to_article, 
                        user_editcount                                    AS 
                        all_edits 
        FROM   revision AS main 
               JOIN page AS mainp 
                 ON mainp.page_id = main.rev_page 
                    AND mainp.page_namespace = 0 
               JOIN categorylinks 
                 ON cl_from = mainp.page_id 
                    AND cl_to = 'Living_people' 
               JOIN USER 
                 ON main.rev_user = user_id 
               LEFT JOIN user_groups 
                 ON main.rev_user = ug_user 
                    AND ug_group IN ( 'sysop', 'bot' ) 
        WHERE  Isnull(ug_group) 
        LIMIT  5000) AS p 
ORDER  BY ( percent_of_all_edits_to_article + percent_of_user_edits ) DESC 
LIMIT  100;

+------------------------------+---------------------------------+---------------+---------------------------------+-----------------------+----------------+-----------------------+
| editor_name                  | article_title                   | round(deltas) | percent_of_all_edits_to_article | user_edits_to_article | user_editcount | percent_of_user_edits |
+------------------------------+---------------------------------+---------------+---------------------------------+-----------------------+----------------+-----------------------+
| Ruhe                         | Rushworth_Kidder                |          5905 |                         25.0000 |                     3 |              3 |              100.0000 |
| Lolamangha                   | Brittany_Tiplady                |          2414 |                          6.8182 |                     3 |              3 |              100.0000 |
| Evandrobaron                 | Paulo_Afonso_Evangelista_Vieira |            44 |                          6.2500 |                     1 |              1 |              100.0000 |
| Jerryhansen                  | Peter_Hyman                     |          1886 |                          5.8824 |                     2 |              2 |              100.0000 |
| Viktorbuehler                | Rolf_Dobelli                    |         39560 |                         33.3333 |                    21 |             29 |               72.4138 |
| Mrpuddles                    | Leslie_Cochran                  |         18117 |                          5.0147 |                    17 |             17 |              100.0000 |
| Alon.rozen@gmail.com         | Eric_Britton                    |          3492 |                          4.8780 |                     2 |              2 |              100.0000 |
| Zagatt                       | Barbara_Sukowa                  |          3327 |                          4.3956 |                     4 |              4 |              100.0000 |
| Mawjj                        | Carmen_Boullosa                 |          3793 |                          2.6316 |                     1 |              1 |              100.0000 |
| Habibrahbar                  | Massy_Tadjedin                  |           152 |                          2.6316 |                     1 |              1 |              100.0000 |
| Lem                          | Malcolm_Azania                  |          1841 |                          1.1236 |                     1 |              1 |              100.0000 |
| Preludes                     | Alexander_Beyer                 |          3248 |                          1.0000 |                     1 |              1 |              100.0000 |
| Pnut123                      | Paul_Carr_(writer)              |          1209 |                          0.7576 |                     1 |              1 |              100.0000 |
| KidRose                      | Tim_White_(wrestling)           |           604 |                          0.7042 |                     2 |              2 |              100.0000 |
| Ajmaher                      | David_Parnas                    |          1297 |                          0.5917 |                     1 |              1 |              100.0000 |
| Themadhatter                 | Tim_Sköld                      |          2523 |                          0.5747 |                     4 |              4 |              100.0000 |
| Danistheman                  | Doug_Dohring                    |            35 |                          0.5618 |                     1 |              1 |              100.0000 |
| Rogersdrums                  | Steve_Ferrone                   |           481 |                          0.5348 |                     1 |              1 |              100.0000 |
| LiangY                       | Keiko_Agena                     |           516 |                          0.3676 |                     1 |              1 |              100.0000 |
| Nignuk                       | Paul_Posluszny                  |          3506 |                          0.2475 |                     1 |              1 |              100.0000 |
| Jennifer B                   | Ashley_Hartman                  |         85669 |                         10.4651 |                    27 |             34 |               79.4118 |
| Zfeuer                       | Robert_Schwentke                |           971 |                          7.1429 |                     3 |              4 |               75.0000 |
| Aguecheek                    | Harald_Schmidt                  |         20679 |                          3.7234 |                     7 |              9 |               77.7778 |
| Alanhtripp                   | Alan_Tripp                      |          2328 |                          6.8966 |                     2 |              3 |               66.6667 |
| Lotzoflaughs                 | Shian-Li_Tsang                  |         82217 |                         63.3333 |                    76 |            759 |               10.0132 |
| Realmagic                    | Paul_W._Draper                  |          4377 |                          1.4815 |                     2 |              3 |               66.6667 |
| TommyBoy                     | Assad_Kotaite                   |         44212 |                         66.6667 |                    34 |          15552 |                0.2186 |
| Thivierr                     | Sally_Gifford                   |        105960 |                         64.5570 |                    51 |          22476 |                0.2269 |
| Stilltim                     | David_P._Buckson                |        568996 |                         63.1148 |                    77 |          21011 |                0.3665 |
| TommyBoy                     | Joseph_M._Watt                  |         33986 |                         61.7021 |                    29 |          15552 |                0.1865 |
| Badagnani                    | Matthias_Ziegler                |         33357 |                         61.3636 |                    27 |         136593 |                0.0198 |
| TommyBoy                     | Robert_E._Lavender              |         16471 |                         61.1111 |                    22 |          15552 |                0.1415 |
| DickClarkMises               | Robert_Higgs                    |        139999 |                         60.0000 |                    99 |           9655 |                1.0254 |
| Thivierr                     | Kim_Schraner                    |        282139 |                         60.2041 |                    59 |          22476 |                0.2625 |
| DickClarkMises               | Robert_P._Murphy                |        374104 |                         56.9231 |                   111 |           9655 |                1.1497 |
| Christine912                 | Sandra_Hess                     |         39694 |                          8.0292 |                    11 |             22 |               50.0000 |
| TommyBoy                     | Robert_Poydasheff               |         36757 |                         56.2500 |                    36 |          15552 |                0.2315 |
| TommyBoy                     | Tom_Colbert                     |         29282 |                         56.0000 |                    28 |          15552 |                0.1800 |
| Xiathorn                     | Sheetal_Sheth                   |          1475 |                          2.0270 |                     3 |              6 |               50.0000 |
| Lightning Striking a Viking! | Jessica_Cutler                  |          1488 |                          1.0526 |                     3 |              6 |               50.0000 |
| Gbrumfiel                    | Russel_L._Honoré               |          3150 |                          0.8403 |                     2 |              4 |               50.0000 |
| Adar                         | Christopher_John_Boyce          |           692 |                          0.7407 |                     1 |              2 |               50.0000 |
| Massgiorgini                 | Mass_Giorgini                   |          1534 |                          0.7353 |                     1 |              2 |               50.0000 |
| TommyBoy                     | Robert_E._Kramek                |         43670 |                         50.0000 |                    31 |          15552 |                0.1993 |
| TommyBoy                     | Joseph_Sinde_Warioba            |         40451 |                         49.2063 |                    31 |          15552 |                0.1993 |
| TommyBoy                     | Charles_Thone                   |         52003 |                         48.1013 |                    38 |          15552 |                0.2443 |
| TommyBoy                     | Yvonne_Kauger                   |         13906 |                         48.0000 |                    24 |          15552 |                0.1543 |
| Mckradio                     | Michael_C._Keith                |           393 |                         10.6383 |                     5 |             14 |               35.7143 |
| TommyBoy                     | Raymond_Ranjeva                 |         14022 |                         44.7368 |                    17 |          15552 |                0.1093 |
| Killerdark                   | Andrew_Kahr                     |         49988 |                         36.9048 |                    31 |            446 |                6.9507 |
| TommyBoy                     | Joseph_P._Teasdale              |         20888 |                         43.1373 |                    22 |          15552 |                0.1415 |
| TommyBoy                     | James_S._Gracey                 |         22007 |                         40.0000 |                    22 |          15552 |                0.1415 |
| Kaiobrien                    | Beat_Richner                    |         24183 |                         23.9437 |                    17 |            105 |               16.1905 |
| Darius Dhlomo                | Mohamed_Allalou                 |          6531 |                         40.0000 |                    14 |         162679 |                0.0086 |
| Throwingbolts                | Randy_Torres                    |          1273 |                          7.7922 |                     6 |             19 |               31.5789 |
| TommyBoy                     | Thomas_P._Salmon                |         25726 |                         39.1304 |                    27 |          15552 |                0.1736 |
| TommyBoy                     | George_Nigh                     |         89990 |                         38.6667 |                    58 |          15552 |                0.3729 |
| Gziegler                     | Catherine_Barclay               |           335 |                          5.5556 |                     1 |              3 |               33.3333 |
| ReidarM                      | Dominik_Burkhalter              |         11683 |                         36.8421 |                     7 |            375 |                1.8667 |
| Douglasshearer               | Guthrie_Govan                   |         10579 |                          0.9709 |                     3 |              8 |               37.5000 |
| DbA                          | Timothy_Crouse                  |          1672 |                          5.0000 |                     4 |             12 |               33.3333 |
| Lumos3                       | Stuart_Prebble                  |         10665 |                         37.5000 |                     9 |          21769 |                0.0413 |
| TommyBoy                     | David_Hall_(Oklahoma_governor)  |        145824 |                         36.1963 |                    59 |          15552 |                0.3794 |
| Dananderson                  | Susan_Golding                   |        100963 |                         35.3535 |                    35 |           2872 |                1.2187 |
| Phase1                       | Bertil_Wedin                    |         64312 |                         34.8837 |                    15 |            975 |                1.5385 |
| Gabe boldt                   | Wolfgang_Becker                 |           824 |                          2.7778 |                     1 |              3 |               33.3333 |
| Lainay                       | Koharu_Kusumi                   |           161 |                          0.3215 |                     1 |              3 |               33.3333 |
| Oddtoddnm                    | Howard_Morgan                   |         14819 |                         31.2500 |                    10 |            476 |                2.1008 |
| TommyBoy                     | Steven_W._Taylor                |         59973 |                         32.2581 |                    40 |          15552 |                0.2572 |
| TommyBoy                     | Robert_Harlan_Henry             |         19485 |                         31.2500 |                    20 |          15552 |                0.1286 |
| Jliberty                     | Jesse_Liberty                   |         79237 |                         23.8462 |                    31 |            415 |                7.4699 |
| Jacrosse                     | Eric_Garris                     |         64853 |                         28.9157 |                    24 |           1223 |                1.9624 |
| YUL89YYZ                     | Arthur_Mauro                    |          8579 |                         30.7692 |                     8 |          83262 |                0.0096 |
| TommyBoy                     | Pieter_Kooijmans                |         34059 |                         30.5263 |                    29 |          15552 |                0.1865 |
| Michiko                      | Michael_Marsh_(journalist)      |         14841 |                         21.6216 |                     8 |             91 |                8.7912 |
| Fys                          | Tag_Taylor                      |         12149 |                         29.4118 |                     5 |          14706 |                0.0340 |
| Snrub                        | Cathy_Wilcox                    |          1152 |                          4.3478 |                     1 |              4 |               25.0000 |
| Craig Currier                | Robert_Picardo                  |          1845 |                          0.4651 |                     2 |              7 |               28.5714 |
| Kegill                       | Britain_J._Williams             |         30275 |                         23.9130 |                    11 |            229 |                4.8035 |
| Jess Cully                   | Kathy_Leander                   |         27138 |                         28.2609 |                    13 |           4986 |                0.2607 |
| Phase1                       | Thomas_Thurman                  |         20641 |                         27.2727 |                    12 |            975 |                1.2308 |
| Jdcooper                     | William_Harjo_LoneFight         |         19055 |                         28.2609 |                    13 |           9998 |                0.1300 |
| Julianortega                 | Reika_Hashimoto                 |         94748 |                         25.9259 |                    35 |           1473 |                2.3761 |
| Gidonb                       | Christoph_Meili                 |         21434 |                         27.6190 |                    29 |          27653 |                0.1049 |
| DantheCowMan                 | Micah_Ortega                    |         15136 |                         27.2727 |                    12 |          11710 |                0.1025 |
| Loled                        | Jacques_Cheminade               |           775 |                          1.8519 |                     1 |              4 |               25.0000 |
| Jdcooper                     | Edward_Lone_Fight               |          3639 |                         26.6667 |                     4 |           9998 |                0.0400 |
| Rangerdude                   | Cragg_Hines                     |          3724 |                         26.3158 |                     5 |           3171 |                0.1577 |
| WillemJoker                  | Clive_Merrison                  |          1285 |                          1.2346 |                     1 |              4 |               25.0000 |
| CrevanReaver                 | Carol_Lin                       |           784 |                          0.5236 |                     1 |              4 |               25.0000 |
| Riсky Martin                | Pete_Rose,_Jr.                  |           705 |                          0.5051 |                     1 |              4 |               25.0000 |
| TommyBoy                     | Walter_Dale_Miller              |         19673 |                         25.0000 |                    19 |          15552 |                0.1222 |
| Ted Wilkes                   | Leonie_Frieda                   |         15114 |                         25.0000 |                     7 |          18934 |                0.0370 |
| TommyBoy                     | Ed_Schafer                      |        135806 |                         24.5370 |                    53 |          15552 |                0.3408 |
| Futuretvman                  | Irene_Ng                        |          1921 |                          4.8544 |                     5 |             25 |               20.0000 |
| Bronks                       | Lisbet_Palme                    |         10127 |                         23.6364 |                    13 |           9170 |                0.1418 |
| Jokestress                   | Chris_Brand                     |         15621 |                         22.9630 |                    31 |          28533 |                0.1086 |
| TommyBoy                     | William_Scranton                |        356381 |                         22.7723 |                    46 |          15552 |                0.2958 |

Wow, that's nice work. Thank you. The pattern, however, still needs some refinement, I think. Rushworth Kidder is a good example of a potential SPA-autobio, but it also shows that the SPA rarely contributed the majority of the edits. In most cases, I believe, the SPA enters his text, and then a bot comes along adds PERSONDATA, a user adds or removes categories, another bot might add an {{orphan}} or {{dead end}} tag, another user fixes some typos, and so on (here's a good example for such a case, autobio by Tmerhebi (talk · contribs)). So in the end, as seen in the example of Rushworth Kidder, SPA Ruhe (talk · contribs) only contributed 3 out of 12 edits, but basically all of the content. However, I'm not sure how to measure the latter.

Also, percent_of_user_edits can be misleading, because I've seen a couple of times that an SPA creates a bio and then adds that name to all kind of lists and other articles. They might have created the autobio with 2-3 edits, and then spent their next 10 edits spreading the Wikilink. So it might be better to measure something like percentage of contribution (that is all text a single editor contributed) to a single article. The typical COI-SPA would add like 1,000 or more bytes to a single article, and then 30-50 bytes to half a dozen lists, so in that case it would like "75% of user doe's contributions went to article John Doe". And again, I don't know if that can be programmed, either.

But overall this looks pretty nice. I found a lot of COI edits on that list, but some of them were acceptable (like [11]). That's were a human editor has to decide. --bender235 (talk) 11:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)