The table on Structural alignment software contains a lot of information, so alternating rows have different colors. This formatting has been around since 2007, so I'm assuming it has community consensus. No doubt there are other examples of tables with alternating row colors. However, the current method of alternating rows using a bgcolor row parameter makes it extremely difficult to add a row in the middle of the table, since all later rows must be recolored.

Recoloring seems like a good task for a bot. After major edits, the bot would

1. Sort the table according to some column (eg 'Name' or 'Year' for the above table)
2. Reset the bgcolor property to maintain the alternating color property

It might also be nice to modify the javascript that handles sortable tables so that it maintains the alternating colors after the rows are resorted by the user.

Is any of this functionality provided by existing bots or scripts?

--Quantum7 21:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

If only there was a way to define a table header so it would automatically alternate row colors, instead of having to do it at the row level.... GoingBatty (talk) 22:59, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Thinking more about this, it seems like it should be a javascript-based solution rather than a bot. Something like we add 'alternating' as a CSS class to the table. Then a javascript hook gets triggered during page load and after sorting operations which recolors all the constituent rows. I'm not sure what the procedure is for getting javascript on wikipedia (presumably there's some sort of security audit), but I might be willing to take a stab at this. --Quantum7 18:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, we could do this entirely in CSS, if it comes to that. Just do table.alternating tr:nth-of-type(2n){ background-color:<color>; } . Writ Keeper (t + c) 19:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I tested this out using User:Quantum7/common.css on User:Quantum7/sandbox#Alternating-color sortable tables and it works great. Interacts well with 'sortable', no side effects that I could see. People with old browsers would see tables with default non-alternating coloring, but that seems fine to me. The question is, where would be the appropriate place to add this style? It needs to be in the page header, rather than as a style property. It's not used on many pages, so I'm not sure it should be in MediaWiki:Common.css. Is there a mechanism for adding article-specific stylesheets? --Quantum7 20:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so, but I don't know of any reason not to put it in the sitewide CSS file. The only question about that is, instead of adding it to common.css, should we add it to each of the skin.css pages separately, so that we can have a different color for each skin. I don't know whether a single color would fit well with all the different skins? Writ Keeper (t + c) 20:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

That's a good idea. The only reason not to put it in the global skins would be to reduce bloat, since currently I don't know many pages that would use zebra striping. --Quantum7 21:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Since this discussion has definitely diverged from the original Bot topic, perhaps it would be better to continue it on MediaWiki talk:Common.css#New style for tables with alternating row colors --Quantum7 21:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

See User talk:Drmies#The best way to check all of the articles by an editor. I would like a table with all of the articles created by User:Kavdiaravish with empty cells labelled "Copyvio", "Grammar", "accuracy", "spam", and "Other". Is anyone able to do that? Ryan Vesey 14:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

This should be useful: http://toolserver.org/~dcoetzee/contributionsurveyor/survey.php?user=Kavdiaravish You can get it as wikicode and create a subpage so people can cross off articles once they are checked. SmartSE (talk) 14:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Is this what you're looking for, Ryan? Writ Keeper (t + c) 14:59, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Do note, though that my table is only the articles created by the user; IIRC, Dcoetzee's tool returns all the articles edited by a user. Writ Keeper (t + c) 15:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you both of you, I'm going with the table Writ made for now. It's probably 10 times more simple to use the toolserver information and just cross them out, but I want to create a record of sorts. Ryan Vesey 00:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Per my comment at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Shouldn't dead link be an in-line template, like citation needed? there any possible way someone here could design a bot that searches archive sites (like the waybackmachine or WebCite and any others if they exist) any time {{Dead link}} is used and see if there are any archived copies, then organize that into a table for humans to look through and possibly update? Ryan Vesey 00:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, I could probably take this on, if you don't mind waiting a week or so (I'm coding another task.)? --ceradon ^talk_contribs 17:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

If it is possible, I would like a bot that can sort out refs into {{cite book}}, {{cite news}}, or {{cite web}}. If it is possible, of course....It's really tiring to clean up refs manually.--Seonookim (What I've done so far) (I'm busy here) (Tell me your requests) 06:43, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

If you're asking if a bot can convert URLs into citation templates with all the fields populated properly, then the answer is not really. You can ask for User:RjwilmsiBot to run against your favorite articles, try invoking User:Citation bot, or use WP:REFLINKS as alternatives for manually creating citation parameters.

If that's not what you're asking, please let us know. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 18:57, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Please make your sig more easily readable and fix the mystery-meat navigation in it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:39, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

We have a large number of stub articles about diplomats. (I found at least 2,000 of them before I stopped counting.) The structure of categories can be seen at Category:Diplomat stubs. Most of these stubs are only self-referenced (if at all) from government lists and publications (e.g. Category:Canadian diplomat stubs). They clearly don't meet the notability standard of WP:DIPLOMAT.

Obviously it would be impractical to put notability notices (or indeed prod) these articles individually. Would it be possible to run a script to distinguish the articles that are not properly referenced and put notability notices on them? (I would of course contact any relevant projects before any bot run.)

Has anyone done anything similar to this before? Would anyone feel able to help with it? Thanks and regards. --Kleinzach 13:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

A bot could check if an article (1) has no external links and (2) doesn't have reference tags, and tag it as such, but I don't know how the community would feel about a bot adding {{notability}} to articles if it isn't supervised. Perhaps {{BLP sources}}? --ikseevon^(T)(E) 14:46, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I have an open mind on this. I've never come across such a huge cache of non-notable articles before. Putting {{BLP sources}} on them is perhaps kicking the problem into the long grass? Unfortunately there don't seem to be any related projects except the country ones, so involving 'the community' is difficult. My impression is that these articles are being added systematically. For example List of Canadian diplomats shows that some editor(s) have been working through the red links alphabetically. --Kleinzach 15:47, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think a bot could reasonably distinguish which ones should be tagged and which ones shouldn't. However, we'd be in a completely different situation if you were to list the pages that should be tagged; I know it's more work, but this is a subjective thing that can't really be automated. I'd suggest that you create a list of all possible candidates (just copy/paste the contents of the category) into userspace, and then quickly open each one and look at it; you could then remove pages from your list if you think they shouldn't be tagged. When you've completed this, a bot will have an easy time tagging all of the pages that are linked on your userspace page; an edit summary such as "Tagging per request [link to this request]; contact Kleinzach for input". Nyttend (talk) 19:52, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds practical. I could prepare batches of 100 or 200 articles at a time. Nyttend, are you are a bot owner? Could you work with me on this? Kleinzach 03:17, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

What Nyttend suggested is a smart and probably the easier solution. I would have no problem filing a BRFA for this, could you prepare atleast one batch first though so I [and BAG members] can have some examples of what we are dealing with? :) -- Cheers, Riley 03:23, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I have prepared a batch of 74 articles at User:Kleinzach/Dips. --Kleinzach 13:30, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

One last thing, at the top of the list I will need you to also put which template you want placed on the pages (please do that for this first batch too) so that way I will be able to tell whether you want the listed pages to have either the {{Notability}} tag or a {{Proposed deletion}} tag. Sound good? -- Cheers, Riley 16:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Right, I've done that. I've put {{Proposed deletion}} as I think all the articles listed would be straightforward prods if i were doing this by hand. Kleinzach 16:48, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• BRFA filed here. -- Cheers, Riley 17:18, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
• "Unfortunately there don't seem to be any related projects except the country ones" Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations would seem the obvious one, along with WP:BIO.Le Deluge (talk) 20:49, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I have notified Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations. Kleinzach 02:57, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Repeating the request that I made in the final section of Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 51. Basically, I'm asking for a bot that would:

• Looks at every instance of {{Infobox NRHP}}.
• Whenever it finds the | built = parameter, followed by a four-digit number, it encases the number in {{Start date}}.
• Whenever it doesn't find the parameter, or when it finds the parameter empty or followed by something other than a four-digit number, it does nothing.

Here is a human doing exactly what I'm hoping the bot will do. The previous request got bogged down when someone kept objecting to the idea of the template in the first place, despite the fact that it has widespread support. Nyttend (talk) 19:05, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

[ec x2] We've already had a successful RfC for this specific task, in more permutations, across a wider number of infoboxes than the one mentioned here (and, before that, bot approvals). Further this request will not add a single microformat to Wikipedia; it will make dates in the existing microformats machine-readable, as explained in that RfC. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy;

(begin section that was hatted with label "People trying to require the bot to pass BRFA before it exists.)

I object to an involved party (one supporting the bot run) hatting this and hiding the objections to the bot run. There is a certain mad technical logic to saying a BRFA must be started, but the objections to the bot run in general are relevant and should not be hidden. --doncram 18:30, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

This should go through the BRFA process, to ensure that it does have community support. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:18, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

How can we go through BRFA when we don't have a bot yet? What I mean is that there's widespread support for using this template and emitting this microformat; I wasn't making a statement about what bot-savvy editors have said or thought. Nyttend (talk) 19:47, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

The process is to identify a bot operator who is willing to run this task, and then file a BRFA for it. The BRFA is the place where the community consensus can be documented (the way to do that is to have discussions elsewhere that demonstrate broad support for the bot task). Microformats have been a contentious issue, and it would not be prudent for a bot operator to insert them into thousands of articles without a formal bot request. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:51, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

And...a formal bot request is what I'm making. This microformat has gotten consensus from the metadata and microformat perspective; nobody who's been involved with the process will question having a human doing all of these edits. The only reason we need a BRFA is to ensure that the bot will behave properly, since we've already followed the BRFA's instructions to "seek consensus for the task in the appropriate forums". The person to talk to is Pigsonthewing, and I've asked him to come here to provide the links to prove that this has consensus. Nyttend (talk) 20:07, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Can you provide links to relevant discussions where consensus for this task has been achieved? Werieth (talk) 20:13, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

For the procedure to make a formal bot request, see WP:BRFA. This page is just for informal "hey, can someone do this" requests, not for formal bot approval. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

We know. Both of us have made lots of requests in the past, and all of the ones I've made started here and were then approved after the request was made. Nyttend (talk) 20:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

[ec x2] We've already had a successful RfC for this specific task, in more permutations, across a wider number of infoboxes than the one mentioned here (and, before that, bot approvals). Further this request will not add a single microformat to Wikipedia; it will make dates in the existing microformats machine-readable, as explained in that RfC. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:16, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I am looking for is a specific BRFA for the task, not just for an RFC. The BRFA would lay out exactly the changes to be made, the scope of articles to make them on, etc., and is required by the bot policy. I have looked at several previous discussions and I see that some of them are in favor of microformats and some are not, which is why I think this is something that needs to be addressed more clearly than it could be on this page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're not going to get a BRFA until someone writes a bot. It's impossible for a bot to be approved before it exists. Nyttend (talk) 20:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

(end passage that was hatted; now unhatted)

• I'm coding a bot to do this task. -- Cheers, Riley 01:38, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
• BRFA filed here. -- Cheers, Riley 03:17, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Your trial edits look great. When the full task is done, would you be willing to look at the other infoboxes mentioned in the RfC? The task is a little more complex (dates with days and months; DMY and MDY formats, etc.), but I'd be happy to work with you to analyse it and break it down into manageable chunks. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:37, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
    • I would be glad to look at the other infoboxes once this task is done. :) -- Cheers, Riley 17:18, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose, and Request a bot to undo any of this done so far. Per the previous discussion, it was pointed out by me that the idea of using the NRHP infobox's "built" date field is flawed. For one reason, the "built" in an NRHP infobox for a church article is not the founding date of the church, which usually/often is earlier. For another, the NRHP infobox field is often incorrect as a built date. It is present in many articles because it is interpreted by an off-wiki support page that generates NRHP infoboxes, incorrectly assuming that a "date of significance" must be a built date. That is sometimes incorrect.

This new BOT request appears to be in BAD FAITH, being railroaded through by selectively asking a previous supporter of the bot or two to comment, and not informing commenters (me) at the previous discussion.

Seriously, if a bot has been running already, its work should be undone now. --doncram 18:02, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

You should comment on the BRFA, since the BAG members may not also check for comments here. This applies both to people who support the request and those that don't, of course. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:05, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, yes, commenting at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/RileyBot 9. --doncram

I've already addressed Doncram's comments at the BRFA, but his accusations here of bad faith are without merit; and his concerns, which appear to be about the data already infoboxes rather then the bot task proposed, were addressed the last time round. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:50, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

a) Without merit? You selectively requested Nyttend participate/open this bot request, and you did not inform others, including me.

b) Serious question: do you, Pigsonthewing, seriously not care that the bot run would introduce incorrect information, for the cases of churches, schools, libraries, other items where there is an NRHP infobox present about one of such entities' buildings, when the start date of the entity is different? Seriously, do you care about accuracy of the start date? --doncram 18:59, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I've answered your rhetoric at BRFA; I don't intend to have the same conversation in two places. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Task:

Scan images in File namespace looking for missing descriptions or authorship, and leave appropriate talk page notes.

Reason for request:

The category into which {{Missing description}} categorises currently has over 2000 files in it. Whilst I've been attempting to reduce this manually, I feel that a bot which notified uploaders automatically, giving advice, would aid this task, by encouraging them to add the information which make the images useful.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:45, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Has this been brought up/discussed at any relevant talk pages? —Theopolisme (talk) 03:51, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Which would you suggest? It was raised on IRC, and I was told to put the request here Sfan00 IMG (talk) 07:26, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

It's fairly uncontroversial. I could write a bot to do that.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 18:34, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I have some time today so I can easily put something together, Cyberpower--in fact, I haven't done much "recent changes patrolling"-esque stuff, so this would be an interesting experience. But I think a few specifics need to be worked out first; namely, what message to deliver! Since you have the most experience with this sort of thing, Sfan00, would you mind creating a draft template that includes some of your best advice and such? Cheers, —Theopolisme (talk) 14:41, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Aha, what about {{Add-desc-I}}? —Theopolisme (talk) 14:44, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Yep.Essentialy the bot is doing what I'd been doing manually, in a less haphazzard manner. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:03, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Don't you go stealing my requests from me Theo. :p—cyberpower _Online^{Happy Easter} 23:51, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

•  Doing...--Cyberpower | My Talk 13:12, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

• Wait, stop! I already wrote a python script to do this...in testing now...again, stop! —Theopolisme (talk) 23:11, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

  Then go ahead and file a BRFA! :pCyber^P(talk) 23:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

BRFA filed here. —Theopolisme (talk) 00:53, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

have a look at the discussion here: http://wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Disambiguation_pages_task_force#Interwikilinks_set_by_a_bot In my opinion it should work, since the rules are quite clear--Biggerj1 (talk) 07:17, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

As discussed most recently at Over-precise coordinates – things of the past?, {{Coord}} should have values no more precise than 6 decimal places. We have some instance with as many as ten. A bot could usefully truncate any such values at the 6th decimal place. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:46, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

This seems like a good idea. There was a similar bot-assist effort targeting French communes in January 2012. Note that many overprecise coordinates reach {{Coord}} indirectly, by way of templates such as {{Infobox settlement}}. Also, coordinates in dms format probably should not provide more than 2 decimal places (in the seconds). —Stepheng3 (talk) 21:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed that we also need to deal with such coordinates in infoboxes; and DMS format. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:18, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Hath no bot's creator here a BRFA for us? —Stepheng3 (talk) 15:08, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

If there's still demand, I can probably take up this request. I'll need a little time because I'm still developing a new bot framework, but this weekend is looking good. If the request is still valid, then you can basically consider it: Coding.... --ikseevon^(T)(E) 05:27, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! —Stepheng3 (talk) 15:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Should be filing the BRFA tomorrow. --ikseevon^(T)(E) 23:42, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

• Perhaps I'm misreading it, but I didn't see consensus arise from that discussion that showed coordinates should be no more precise than 6 decimal places. I don't think it is necessary for coordinates to have more than 6 decimal places because of the 4 inch accuracy; however, unless there's something I'm missing, having a bot truncate them all would be a waste of edits. Ryan Vesey 23:59, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps the requester can post the discussion to a larger discussion board. Though I did some investigating myself and would like to add that the Wikiproject does have a guideline against being overly-precise, and it's highlighted on all of the infoboxes that use coordinates. In any case, I can do something more along the lines of 8+/9+/10+ decimals. --ikseevon^(T)(E) 01:37, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

(And as an aside, I think it's silly to call the edits a "waste" in any circumstance. It's not as if there's a finite amount of edits on Wikipedia.) --ikseevon^(T)(E) 01:37, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Which larger discussion board, and why is that needed? A number of editors truncate over-long coordinates to six digits (or fewer) on sight. I've yet to see that cause a complaint. All our relevant documentation (MoS, template documentation) cautions against using greater (and inherently false) precision. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:28, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

• BRFA filed. --Alan^(T)(E) 19:17, 3 April 2013 (UTC) (I've been indecisive on my signature. This is ikseevon. Haha.)

Can you help me with sending an invitation to all WikiProject Kentucky members? Category:WikiProject_Kentucky_members info is at Wikipedia_talk:Meetup/Kentucky#2013 Thank you! Randolph.hollingsworth (talk) 22:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

User:EdwardsBot can do this for you. See the user page for instructions. Cheers, —Theopolisme (talk) 23:01, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I need a notification message sent out to the members of the Food & Drink WikiProject asking them to participate in a discussion to update the Projects main page. The list is here

Thank you very much for your help! --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 06:07, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Try User:EdwardsBot. Legoktm (talk) 06:10, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Bot task: Automate the addition of listas params in WP:BIO articles,per the guidelines on the category. Scope: Article in category show only. Operational Frequency: Inital One shot to clear backlog, and then at community determined interval.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:21, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Can you expand on what per the guidelines on the category means? Werieth (talk) 16:48, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

He means that the instructions needed to code the bot can be found on the category. -- Cheers, Riley 16:51, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I was hoping for more details on exactly what he wants the bot to do, vague request like this can lead to miscommunications and drama if things are not explicit. Werieth (talk) 16:55, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Would it be reasonable to copy the value from the article's {{DEFAULTSORT}} template into the |listas= parameter? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 17:16, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Luckily, the operator of User:ListasBot left a detailed description of how the bot works on the bot's userpage. The bots source code can be found at User:ListasBot/Source. -- Cheers, Riley 17:27, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Not this again * facepalm * this was brought up some time before and I wrote some code (which I should still have), but people were opposing automation of the task.  Hazard-SJ  ✈  04:54, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah, well that may explain why other bots already approved for this aren't running. Does this rise to the level to be included in Wikipedia:Bots/Frequently denied bots? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 17:44, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

@GoingBatty, I think it definitely wouldn't be a bad idea. Will add now, feel free to revert if you so choose. —Theopolisme (talk) 21:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

What's the status on this request? Last I heard, Beta was going through Anomie's list but the old discussion was archived due to inactivity. Axem Titanium (talk) 14:44, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

_{User:Anomie notified. —Theopolisme (talk) 22:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC)}

Still waiting for Beta to finish running his archiver. Anomie⚔ 23:35, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I have a massive number of redirects for a bot to create. Bellow is a list (from Former counties, cities, and towns of Virginia) of former Virginia counties and partial list of cities and towns, now part of West Virginia. The list has been modified so that it links to X, Virginia instead of X, West Virginia

Could a bot turn these "X, Virginia" redlinks into redirects targeting ""X, West Virginia". Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 00:48, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

List of lost counties

Listed alphabetically, the 50 counties of Virginia lost to the formation of West Virginia were:

List of lost cities and towns

Also lost to Virginia with the formation of West Virginia were many cities and towns. A partial listing of these (there were many more) is:

Were you looking to extend a bot to do additional cities you haven't listed here? I've handled the ones you've listed by hand, because it only took a couple minutes, I type fast. I assume you're only listing towns that were in existence at the time of separation. --j⚛e decker^talk 01:18, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

The list is from Former counties, cities, and towns of Virginia. It's supposed to only list towns that were in existence at the time of separation, and the article only has a partial listing. If you know of any others, add them to the article's list. I wasn't asking for a bot to do any that aren't on the list (I can't imagine how a bot would be capable of doing that), but if anyone knows of a way for a bot to do that, sure go ahead. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 03:25, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I didn't see a way either immediately, but I figured I'd ask if I'd missed something, because, well, I often do.  :) Thanks! --j⚛e decker^talk 18:46, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm looking for a bot to perform a one-off task of adding parameters to the {{WikiProject Australia}} talk page banner for the new WikiProject Australian Roads.

• The parameters to be added are |road=yes and |road-importance= , pending the implementation of an edit protected request [1]
• The relevant talk pages are those of articles in Category:Roads in Australia and its subcategories
• The following template redirects may have been used: {{WPAUS}} {{WPAUSTRALIA}} {{WPAustralia}} {{WP Australia}}
• A similar task request was approved in 2007 [2], but the operator of that bot hasn't been around since 2009

Thanks, Evad37 (talk) 02:57, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

•  Coding... I can take this on. Please ping me on my talk page when the edit protected is complete, and then I can file the relevant request for approval. —Theopolisme (talk) 03:06, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi! I moved the article "Aereo-plain" to "Aereo-Plain" a few minutes ago (see http://www.allmusic.com/album/aereo-plain-mw0000595951 and other sources in the article). There are many articles that link to the old title (see ns0 list). May someone rectify the wikilinks? Thank you. --Pequod76 (talk-ita.esp.eng) 22:16, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm on it! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:46, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Can't this just be fixed with a redirect? --Alan^(T)(E) 22:48, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

That would be the obvious solution... —Theopolisme (talk) 00:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I replaced all instances of it, since nothing was linked "correctly," and replacing it helped to remove some issues on the pages and templates. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:06, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Alan, when you move an article, you start a redirect. But you must correct the articles: it is not just a research issue. In some cases the redirect is acceptable. In this case it's a plain error. Bye. :) --Pequod76 (talk-ita.esp.eng) 12:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a lot of disambiguation pages, and some of them have the {{disambig}} template placed above the contents. Some entries ends with periods "." Can someone build a bot to fix both of these error? Thank you. BTW do imform me if you are creating the bot. Hz. tiang 04:45, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

This sounds more like an AutoWikiBrowser kind of fix than for a bot to do...perhaps consult an AWB bot owner, though, and they could request to add this functionality into their bot...? —Theopolisme (talk) 11:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I can perform this task as soon as someone makes the list for me. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

The site lease on this site has run out, so I'd like a bot to go through, locate all the uses of chartarchive.org as a source on the Wiki, change the links to chartstats.com (which is still live) where the target is obvious, and place all the rest in Category:Pages with dead links to chartarchive.org for a human to sort through them. Thank you.--Launchballer 14:29, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

What does this post on the homepage of chartstats.com mean?

The official charts company has requested that I remove all chart data. They claim that I am in breach of their database copyright by publishing any chart based on UK single sales. Thank to everyone for your support over the years, I have had loads of messages from people over the years who have found the site invaluable and I am very sorry to let down the people that rely on my data.

I did try to explain to the Official Charts Company that I was offering a service that was not available anywhere else and that it was a non-commercial service but my pleas fell on deaf ears. I hope that in the long term the Official Charts Company will realise that my innovations have not detracted from their potential earnings but in fact have encourage people with an interest in the charts. Perhaps they will one day offer some of the features that I have been providing here but I wouldn't hold your breath! Thanks again to all those who have supported the site and helped out. Matt

Cheers, —Theopolisme (talk) 21:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I can take this one on. Copyright issues are a priority to fix. And don't you dare take this one theo. ;)—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 00:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

_{If you insist...} —Theopolisme (talk) 01:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

•  Doing...—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 18:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Nobody, nobody, should ever be linking directly to these unlicensed sites. Citations to these articles should be replaced http://www.theofficialcharts.com/artist/_/{{urlencode:{{{artist}}}|PATH}}, just as {{singlechart}} does. As noted above, the OCC is being aggressive, and all unlicensed chart sites are being removed.—Kww(talk) 22:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I also note that chartstats.com redirects back to chartarchives.org. I will be implemeting Kww's recommendation.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 22:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I would like for a bot to tag all article within the [[Category:Reggaeton]] with the project banner {{WikiProject Latin music|class=|importance=|reggaeton=yes}}. Thanks! — DivaKnockouts 20:53, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

 Coding... —Theopolisme (talk) 21:42, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

BRFA filed. —Theopolisme (talk) 01:56, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Pages have all been tagged - all you need to do is expand Wikipedia:WikiProject Latin music/Reggaeton, which the task force parameter links to. —Theopolisme (talk) 19:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello everyone, there's a pretty simple task. Some time ago someone (probably a bot) added plenty of chart records to many artist articles. The problem is, instead of creating our very own article about the most prominent Polish hits chart (Lista Przebojów Programu Trzeciego), the man behind the bot added links to the Polish wiki article (:pl:Lista Przebojów Programu Trzeciego). Misia Furtak#Charts is a prime example. Since I recently created the Lista Przebojów Programu Trzeciego (our counterpart of pl:Lista Przebojów Programu Trzeciego), is there a chance anyone would be willing to help by correcting the links so that they pointed to English wiki rather than Polish?

Also, while we're at it, how about linking the new article when it's mentioned? It's in hundreds of places, too tedious to add the links by hand.

In easier words:

IS: [[:pl:Lista Przebojów Programu Trzeciego|LP3]]

SHOULD BE: [[Lista Przebojów Programu Trzeciego|LP3]]

IS: Lista Przebojów Programu Trzeciego

SHOULD BE: [[Lista Przebojów Programu Trzeciego]]

IS: Lista Przebojów Trójki

SHOULD BE: [[Lista Przebojów Programu Trzeciego|Lista Przebojów Trójki]]

Thanks in advance. //Halibutt 11:12, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• I wouldn't support adding new links for reasons such as overlinking, but I don't see a major problem with fixing the links.  Hazard-SJ  ✈  23:34, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
  •  Done - According to Google there weren't that many instances, so I reviewed them manually and fixed those that needed fixes. GoingBatty (talk) 03:02, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Thank you :) //Halibutt 01:24, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia of Perm Krai, which is used as a source in a number of articles (such as, for example, Okhansky District), recently changed its main URL from http://enc.permkultura.ru to http://enc.permculture.ru. The remainders of the URLs were unchanged. If someone could run a bot replacing all instances of "permkultura.ru" with "permculture.ru", it would be greatly appreciated.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 10, 2013; 16:15 (UTC)

My bot is approved for this task and I will run it when I get home from work. :) -- Cheers, Riley 16:17, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Great, thanks! Much appreciated!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 10, 2013; 16:24 (UTC)

 Done two days ago. :) -- Cheers, Riley 02:32, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Is there an existing bot or other gadget that cleans up spaces between periods and ref tags, and between consecutive ref tags? I am reviewing Climate change and gender and the main author has mistakenly placed spaces around every ref. I can fix it manually but was hoping some automated solution exists. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:48, 14 April 2013 (UTC)`

 Done with AWB. -- John of Reading (talk) 20:55, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:59, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok! Are you lot up for this task? It may be able to be done by a bot but actual humans will need to finish them off. There is a need to create a set of articles for Category:Protected areas by year of establishment. I have created two so far. See List of protected areas established in 2012 and List of protected areas established in 2013. There are two variables: the year and the contents of the category. The year is easy but can a bot pull the contents out of a category and bung them in a wikitable?

Here is a template to work from:

{{Year nav topic3|XXXX|protected areas established}}

This is a list of [[protected area]]s established in XXXX.

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
! Name
! Country
! data-sort-type="numeric" |Area (ha)
|-
| [[Category entry 1]] ||  || 
|-
| [[Category entry 2]] ||  || 
.
.
.
|-
| [[Category entry n]] ||  || 
|}

==See also==
*[[XXXX in the environment]]

[[Category:Protected areas established in XXXX| ]]

"XXXX" is the year and "Category entry 1" through to "Category entry n" are the entries in the category for that year. The country and area entries will be done manually. There are 134 article needed at this stage.

It is good practice to have a list as well as a category per WP:CLT. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:32, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

 Coding... like a ninja. —Theopolisme (talk) 00:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Coding like a ninja to produce a set of articles without a single citation? Such a task should never be approved, so I would direct your efforts to something useful instead.—Kww(talk) 00:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Huh, then why does List of symphonies with names exist (as the first example in WP:CLT)? Take another peek at the guideline. :) —Theopolisme (talk) 00:52, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

It shouldn't. Blue links are not sources, and lists need to be sourced. I'll fight any request for approval.—Kww(talk) 01:02, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

There is no need for a reference if the articles included in the list are sourced - or at least that was my interpretation. Filing request now—continue this there? —Theopolisme (talk) 01:07, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

BRFA filed here. —Theopolisme (talk) 01:09, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

WOW! You are on to it! If only things happened that quickly at WP:BACKLOG! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Have a read of WP:CITE. Citations are only needed if info could be challenged. Since the lists are very much factual and the articles are (should be) sourced there is no need for sourcing. BTW, I am all for a robust encyclopedia by using refs. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:13, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Could someone write a bot to do links e.g. "Sir John Smith" (Sir [[John Smith]]) to Sir John Smith ([[John Smith|Sir John Smith]]</ref>) and similarly "Dame [[Joan Smith]]" (<nowiki>Dame [[Joan Smith]]) to Dame Joan Smith ([[Joan Smith|Dame Joan Smith]]). The Sir/Dame part is part of one's name, not a title like Mr or Dr. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Could you please provide a list of the names of the Sirs and Dames in question? (e.g. Paul McCartney?) Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 21:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is actually a good thing to be changing. It's not how I usually see Wikipedia render it (nor the way I would write it) and I'm not sure the proposed distinction as to a "part of the name" is meaningful here. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:07, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, in this case I believe I must agree with Andrew, as far as my typical method for writing it goes. Has past precedent been established anywhere? —Theopolisme (talk) 00:20, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm completely sure it's a good thing; you seem to be misunderstanding. The reason it should be done is (1) it's more accurate - yes accuracy is relevant (2) it looks much better (3) it's better to be consistent across the wiki. The names of the knights and dames are variables that could be anything. Barney the barney barney (talk) 08:52, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I understand; I just disagree that it's a good thing :-). We have a fairly well-established (in my experience, & with the odd exception of baronets) practice to write Sir John Smith rather than Sir John Smith (ie, we already have #3, more or less); what you're asking here is for us to change the standard format to fit your preference (#2). Absent a broad consensus to make this scale of change, I don't think it's a good idea to set a bot on it just yet...

As to #1, I think this is a fairly arbitrary distinction; whether the "Sir" is "really" part of the name or not is the sort of thing we can debate for months, but I don't think it would automatically lead to changing the way we write links! Andrew Gray (talk) 16:35, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm trying to get all of the articles in the WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome assessed. What I want to do is rate articles with a certain name (say for example: Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 243 through 287), with a certain importance (say "low"). Is there a bot that would be able to do this? (I was thinking maybe TinucherianBot) Bahnheckl (talk) 21:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

See this discussion for more info. Bahnheckl (talk) 07:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I can write a bot to do this if you'd like; all I need is a list of the base page names and their ranges. —Theopolisme (talk) 10:53, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

That would be great. If at all possible, I would like the bot to assess with "low importance" the articles that:

1. Are in WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome.

2. Currently missing importance rating.

3. Whose names:

3.1 begin with one of the following: "Papyrus Oxyrhynchus", "Milecastle", "Legio " (that's with a space), "Classis " (id.), "Cohors ", "Battle of ", "Lex ", "Arch of", "Pons "/"Pont "/"Ponte ", "Siege of " and "Aqua ";

or

3.2 contain: "bridge"/"Bridge" "fort"/"Fort" "villa"/"Villa" or "(mythology)" (as standalone words..).

4. It would be nice if the articles in this selection that exceed 10.000 pgviews/month would be rated "Mid", but this is optional. (I don't think there are any such articles in the set)

Thanks in advance! Bahnheckl (talk) 09:20, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Coding... —Theopolisme (talk) 01:56, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

BRFA filed. —Theopolisme (talk) 02:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

The bot is currently in the process of tagging the pages in question. —Theopolisme (talk) 19:50, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Bahnheckl (talk) 22:20, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

By the way, I noticed the "Lex " articles didn't get sorted. Glanced over your code and saw the 'Classical_greece_and_rome' template missing from the selection. Could you look into this? Bahnheckl (talk) 09:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Nice catch -- for some reason I didn't notice that redirect. Implemented, and the bot will rerun momentarily with the fix. —Theopolisme (talk) 10:09, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I do not mean to sound hasty, but is it correct that the bot hasn't run yet? Bahnheckl (talk) 13:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The bot was scheduled to run about 15 minutes ago, at 15:30 UTC, which it did. —Theopolisme (talk) 15:47, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

And it worked like a charm! Would you perhaps be interested in auto-assessing some more of these articles based on their categories? Bahnheckl (talk) 13:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Sure! Just send me the specifics. —Theopolisme (talk) 12:38, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I think it has been taken care of, but thanks again anyway! Bahnheckl (talk) 22:27, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Standard operating procedure for TFA selection is that the article is given move protection (if it doesn't have it already) from when it is selected until the time it comes off the main page. Sometimes when scheduling TFAs I forget to do this. Sometimes I set the expiry time by mistake to be midnight at the start of its main page appearance, rather than midnight at the end of the day. It occurred to me that this is a relative simple and uncontroversial task for an adminbot to do. Is there a bot operator who'd be interesed in this? Bencherlite^Talk 15:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Should be pretty easy to code, and I think I can find a willing admin to run it for me ;-). Questions: move protection should be set to sysop? And to make sure, the protection should expire as soon as it is off the main page? Legoktm (talk) 15:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and yes. If the article is already move-protected up to and including its 24 hours on the main page, no change to be made; if it is move-protected but the protection will expire before TFA day, extend move protection to the end of its appearance as TFA; if it is not move-protected at all, set move=sysop to expire at 00:00UTC following its appearance on the main page. In no case should any changes be made to any editing protection - some TFAs will have semi-protection in place more-or-less permanently. As I'm sure you've worked out, the bot can discover the articles it needs to protect by looking for new daily TFA blurbs, as per Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/UcuchaBot 4. You might be able to borrow some code from Ucucha, I suppose. Thanks. Bencherlite^Talk 16:41, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Great, Coding.... Legoktm (talk) 17:56, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

If you end up not doing this, let me know. Anomie⚔ 12:41, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

There's also WP:RFA.... Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:44, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello, fellow Wikipedians!

While editing various redirects, I've come to notice the near-ubiquity of redirects to sections on Wikipedia—and that, unfortunately, a significantly large portion of these redirects do not include the template for redirects to sections of pages that adds them to the appropriate category. A bot with the function of automatically adding this template would be extremely beneficial, productive, and relatively simple in code. All such a bot would need to do in order to carry out this function is to recognize a page as a redirect to a section (if it includes "#REDIRECT [[…#…]]"), then if so, determine whether it already includes the {{R to section}} template, etc., and if not, simply add the tag accordingly. I would really appreciate if a bot could be created to suit this function, or at least if the function could be added to the task of an existing bot.

☺ Thanks;

—JPaest {Discuss→} 03:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

•  Coding... -- Cheers, Riley 03:35, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Riley.

I can't wait for the bot to be up and running—it will make things so much easier for those forgetting to place the template in redirects, and having to add them manually is painfully annoying. And by the way, the bot should ignore any text between consecutive "<nowiki>" and "</nowiki>" tags; failing to do this seems to cause quite a bit of trouble for other bots.

• I will be sure to code that in, thanks. -- Cheers, Riley 05:09, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• BRFA filed here. Could you please take a look at Wikipedia:Namespace and tell me what namespaces the bot should edit in? -- Cheers, Riley 22:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

To me, it seems that the bot will be useful in all of the following namespaces:

• Main namespace (of course)
• Wikipedia namespace
• Talk namespace
• Help namespace
• User namespace
• User talk namespace
• Project namespace
• Portal namespace

And possibly (at least somewhat) useful in:

• Template namespace
• Category namespace
• Wikipedia talk

The last three namespaces may not contain many redirect pages—much less redirects to sections—although, still, the few they do have are likely to be missing the necessary template. I do not have very much experience with namespaces outside of the main, Wikipedia, template, category, user, and user talk namespaces, however, and this question may be better suited for another user. Nonetheless, I hope this helps.     —JPaest {Discuss→} 21:44, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I extracted

SELECT /*SLOW OK */ page_title  FROM page  JOIN langlinks ON page_id = ll_from WHERE
 page_namespace = 0 AND page_is_redirect = 1 GROUP BY page_title ORDER BY count(ll_from) DESC;

here is the result .list of pages which are redirect in en.wikipedia and they have interwiki or item in wikidata and most of the cause interwiki conflict in wikidata. they are more that 12K pages! Yamaha5 (talk) 20:52, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Wow! By a first glance, that's a lot, but I'm running a script to verify and it seems not all of them have Wikidata items. Also, I believe this request should have been placed on the Wikidata bot request page (well ... I assumed the intention, since you didn't actually state a request :P), since the edits would be made to the Wikidata items. I'll, however, run a script through your list to clean up the problem.  Hazard-SJ  ✈  02:03, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

please also run this code for fa.wiki or share the code. we can run it in local wikis.Yamaha5 (talk) 11:48, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'll actually write up the code (I just ran it from IDLE before :P) and run it from either Toolserver or Labs so it can be finished up more quickly.  Hazard-SJ  ✈  03:45, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

There is no problem with redirects having interwiki links. Sometimes they have to. If one language has articles A and B, but a second language just has one article on B with a redirect from A to B, then we need a langlink on that redirect to match the different languages. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:29, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

But with wikidata it doesn't work and it is not supported thereYamaha5 (talk) 15:11, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

This is an absolutely prime example of what I have been saying for the last 2 years that CBM and some others refuse to listen too. That is there are occassions where redirects are bad and we should be using direct links! With that said I actually somewhat agree with CBM here. If article A is a redirect here but in 15 other wiki's its an actual article then we should still have the interewiki link to show that the page exists if not the article. If this is a problem for Wikidata that it doesn't recognize redirects then that is a problem that needs to be fixed with Wikidata. Stripping the interwiki links out of the redirects isn't the answer. Its just changing a problem Wiki wikidata into someone else's problem. We should not be doing that! 138.162.8.58 (talk) 16:25, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Kumioko, stop socking. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:03, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I am blocked for scolding Behind My Ken because you and your fellow admins didn't and I made one edit generally agreeing with your point. Don't be a dick and don't hate me because I got tired of waiting for admins to get off their ass and do something about BMK and his childish shit! Kumioko 108.28.162.254 (talk) 23:19, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

If wikidata does not support putting interwikis on redirects, that is a bug that should be filed with them. It is normal practice, and the introduction of wikidata did not include a change to that practice. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:03, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

There should be a bot that deletes rejected AFC's in Category:Declined AfC submissions that do not have any edits in over a year. There are like 60 or 70 thousand pages that meet the criteria for G13. G13 is a relatively new speedy deletion criterion that applies to rejected AfCs that have not been edited in over a year. See WP:GCSD. It should also put some sort of message on the creator's page similar to or just {{Db-afc-notice}} that notifies them about it, how to request undeletion, etc. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 03:55, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Bot.3F Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 05:03, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I could code a bot to detect and tag them, but many people are against bot deletions.  Hazard-SJ  ✈  04:02, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I thought about that, but I don't think the admins would appreciate a sudden 70,000 page backlog at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. Maybe an RfC should be raised. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 04:11, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Somebody is doing it but is waiting for the RfC to close. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 17:29, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Could a bot replace the WikiProject banner {{WikiProject Latin America|music=yes}} on every article within Category:WikiProject Latin American music articles with {{WikiProject Latin music}} as WP:Latin music is not longer a taskforce of WP:Latin america? Thanks! — DivaKnockouts 01:23, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Coding... -- Cheers, Riley 01:25, 24 April 2013 (UTC) Sorry, my schedule just got busier and it would be unfair for you to have to wait a few days for me to code the task so I am going to leave this request to someone else. -- Cheers, Riley 02:52, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

It is quite alright :) — DivaKnockouts 13:01, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi DivaKnockouts - I believe the banner parameter is |music=yes. For example, Talk:Bolero contains:

{{WikiProject Latin America|class=start|importance=low|music=yes|music-importance=high}}.

Is the consensus to change this to to:

{{WikiProject Latin music|class=start|importance=high}}

or split it into two templates:

{{WikiProject Latin America|class=start|importance=low}}

{{WikiProject Latin music|class=start|importance=high}}

or something else? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 16:51, 24 April 2013 (UTC)\

To {{WikiProject Latin music|class=start|importance=high}}, as any articles that were tagged with the banner are now under WP:Latin music, having both templates would be redundant. — DivaKnockouts 17:49, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Is anyone doing this? I'm coding now, so tell me to stop if you've already started. —Theopolisme (talk) 14:47, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

BRFA filed. —Theopolisme (talk) 15:26, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Running now. Cheers, Theopolisme (talk) 11:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Can someone adjust all pages transcluding Rhytidocystidae to transclude Template:Rhytidocystidae instead? -- Toshio Yamaguchi 20:19, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Well. I just found there are more pages like this which maybe also should be changed. The same should also be done for {{Colpodellidae}} and {{Perkinsidae}}. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 20:23, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

None of the three have any transclusions: [3][4][5]. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

And the only content of the three pages is {{alveolata}} and Category:Apicomplexa. I'm not a biologist. Are you sure you know what you are doing? PrimeHunter (talk) 20:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Navboxes such as this one shouldn't be in main namespace, which is the reason why I moved the pages into the template namespace. Interestingly it seems to be irrelevant whether the mainspace page or the page in template namespace is transcluded, though I am a bit confused. I thought the default behavior of MediaWiki is to transclude from template namespace, so I am not quite sure why everything is working. Possibly nothing needs to be done here, but I might still be missing something. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 21:13, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Facepalm Actually transcluding a redirect automatically transcludes the target of the redirect, so that seems to be why everything is probably okay as is. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 21:20, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The redirect should probably be deleted, though interestingly redirects from main namespace to the template namespace seem to be exempt from WP:CSD#R2. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 21:36, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

They were not navboxes. They were pages transcluding a navbox: {{alveolata}} in all three cases. It's normal for mainspace pages to transclude a navbox. The unusual thing here is that the transclusion and a category was the only content of the mainspace pages. The mainspace pages were not transcluded anywhere so neither are the three identical template pages you have made with the moves. They seem pointless, and misnamed as template pages because their name is only a part of the navbox content and not a common name for the whole navbox. I think the most sensible would be to delete the three template pages and restore the three mainspace pages to the article redirects they were before today: [6][7][8]. It was User:DrMicro who earlier today changed the redirects to be transclusions of {{alveolata}}. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The recently added Category:Pages with URL errors tracks citations templates where the |url= parameter (or analogs such as |chapterurl=, |archiveurl=) does not contain a well-formed URL. In about half of the cases, this is because the "http://" is missing. In other words someone entered |url=www.google.com instead of the expected |url=http://www.google.com. The other cases tend to involve mistaken or strange uses, such as writing the title in the URL field, or one I saw earlier where someone wrote |url=Not available online. Only available in stores. The weird cases really need to be resolved by hand, but I figure a simple bot could take care of the cases that are just missing the "http://". If anyone is interested in working on it, I imagine such a bot could go through the pages in that category, find the URL parameters that don't presently work, test whether appending "http://" results in a functional URL, and if so make the appropriate correction. Dragons flight (talk) 22:51, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

How does the template handle https or protocol-relative links (//)? What about other protocols like nntp? Legoktm (talk) 22:55, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

The template considers https and protocol relative to be fine, so they won't be reported as an error. Actually, anything of the form abc: is currently assumed to be correct by the template, even though not all URI schemes are supported by Mediawiki, and some typos such as htp://www.google.com/ probably ought to be detected as errors but aren't at present. In terms of cleanup, such issues shouldn't really matter as long as the bot actually checks whether adding "http://" results in a working URL. Dragons flight (talk) 23:11, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

One of AWB's general fixes is to add http:// to start of www URL when missing. I'll submit a BFRA for that part. GoingBatty (talk) 23:20, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

BRFA filed here. GoingBatty (talk) 23:32, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Y Done - GoingBatty (talk) 22:14, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Although this is not the correct place, it reaches many contributors who are familiar with JS/Regex and thus might be interested: please add your comment at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Generating a JS library for cleanup scripts ;-) mabdul 22:45, 4 May 2013 (UTC))

Please check Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Feature_requests#Intro-missing and see a bot can do this task i.e. To add {{intro-missing}} to pages without intro. -- Magioladitis (talk) 05:57, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I suggest using {{lead missing}} instead to avoid the redirect. GoingBatty (talk) 22:18, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm currently generating a list of pages possibly missing lead sections. However, I believe there might be many false positives unless we skip based on some criteria. I was thinking of excluding lists and disambiguation pages? I'm going to leave a note in a village pump to get some more input.  Hazard-SJ  ✈  03:24, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Noted in the idea lab. Also, I can safely say that there are currently hundreds of results.  Hazard-SJ  ✈  03:39, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I just had an idea for how to reduce the formidable backlog at Category:Articles to be merged. It involves getting a bot to create lists of pages with merge templates, sorted by the WikiProject tags on the articles' talk pages. Each WikiProject would get a page with automatically updated merge listings that they could transclude onto their project page and that the members could put on their watchlists. Does such a bot already exist, and if not would someone be willing to write one? — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

This actually sounds like a good idea, I could try something out later.  Hazard-SJ  ✈  02:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The category is already included in User:Svick/WikiProject cleanup listing (e.g. http://toolserver.org/~svick/CleanupListing/CleanupListingByCat.php?project=The_Beatles ). GoingBatty (talk) 22:24, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I wasn't aware of that tool. It would be nice to break the list down and make each section transcludable somehow, but I suppose I can't be picky. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 01:39, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

So would the bot still be needed or is that sufficient?  Hazard-SJ  ✈  01:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Now that I know that some of the infrastructure is in place, not just for merge requests but for all sorts of cleanup categories, it has got me thinking. I think that the most useful service would be to have a bot that reads a template on a WikiProject subpage, and creates a dynamic list of pages tagged for different kinds of cleanup depending on the instructions in the template. (Like what JL-Bot does for recognised content.)

Svick's service is very useful (props to him for creating it), but it suffers from the drawbacks that the content is not transclude-able and not watchlist-able, which means regular project members are less likely to notice it. Svick also has to set up each project manually, which takes time and must be a pain for him to do. If the setting-up part could be done automatically it would benefit everyone, I think.

In addition, it would be really useful if the bot could highlight the new cleanup listings. If there are only a couple of new listings in any given update they could be listed in the edit summary so that editors can click through to them from their watchlists. New listings could also be bolded and/or a summary could be made of them at the top of the list. Maybe new listings could also be integrated with article alerts, as that already does something similar. I'm not sure how much of this is possible, practical, or desireable; I'm just throwing ideas around for now. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 08:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

The listings already can show just a specific category for a specific project, e.g. http://toolserver.org/~svick/CleanupListing/CleanupListingByCat.php?project=The_Beatles&category=Articles%20to%20be%20merged.

Yeah, having the listings on wiki has been already suggested to me several times, but I don't think I'll find the time to do that anytime soon. If someone wants to do that, the source code is available and I can also provide some help.

I do need to add each project manually, but it's just a matter of filling in a simple form. It usually takes me a while to respond to requests, but that's not because it's difficult. If there is someone who would want to help with that, I can give them access.

User<Svick>.Talk(); 14:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Query: Any way someone can help with the closing parts of WP:FPORTC for portals, that GimmeBot (talk · contribs) used to take care of? — Cirt (talk) 23:59, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I emailed the original operator to try to provoke a response. Theopolisme (talk) 11:05, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

In my days of editing articles, I often see long strings of empty sections on infoboxes. Because these are at the beginning of the page, and can often add thousands of chars to pageweight, they could be "dead weight" that could significantly increase page load time, especially on users with slower internet connections. I would like to "get my feet wet" on this, so if anyone is willing to collaborate on this with me, that would be wonderful. I have lots of HTML, CSS, and Java/Jscript/Jquery work, but less hard programming. I would like to participate in bot coding, so if anyone would be willing to "show me the ropes," I would love you forever. Thanks! TheOneSean | Talk to me 00:09, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Is there community consensus for this? In my mind, leaving blank fields in infoboxes tends to encourage contributions, not deter them--also, they don't increase page load time, since the MediaWiki parser doesn't print the blank lines in the template to the HTML output, IIRC. Theopolisme (talk) 00:05, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

This is the first time I brought it up. I was hoping to gauge consensus here. However, you make a good point about it encouraging contributions. I withdraw my request, however my request to "tag along" with a bot project still stands. Thanks, TheOneSean | Talk to me 01:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd be happy to collaborate with you at some point, and I'm sure plenty of other bot operators would as well; I have a github repository for my bot, Theo's Little Bot, which you're welcome to check out if you're interested in Python. There are a ton of different libraries for interfacing with Wikipedia, and numerous different ways of accomplishing the same task--have you read Wikipedia:Creating a bot? Theopolisme (talk) 01:37, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Schuylkill is a very hard word to spell; a quick search shows many, many misspellings (dropping the first L). Marine Corps Depot of Supplies, Schuykill Warehouse is probably one of the worst, but I'm pretty sure there is no legitimate word "schuykill." Throwing that out here... — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 01:13, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

You can request that this be added into AutoWikiBrowser's list of fixes; add a request for automated typo correction at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Typos. Theopolisme (talk) 00:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

 Added and  Doing... - GoingBatty (talk) 01:02, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

 Fixed as many as I could. GoingBatty (talk) 02:01, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Please can a bot remove all link to http://www.playerhistory.com/ (a defunct website) and http://soccerdatabase.eu/ (a mirror site which the owner of playerhistory is launching legal action against). This was recently discussed at ANI - Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Mass removal of references to soccerdatabase.eu website. GiantSnowman 18:21, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• See also MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#soccerdatabase.eu. GiantSnowman 18:26, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
• Coding... Theopolisme (talk) 21:53, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
• BRFA filed here Theopolisme (talk) 20:59, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

For images in Wikipedia:Database_reports/Unused_file_redirects where the image is transcluded into an Article space page, via redirect, it would be nice if there was a bot that updated the usages. Technically those with file-mover are supposed to do this cleanup, but having a bot which caught the modest number of links that slip by would be appreciated. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:49, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

That is kinda non-sequitur Wikipedia:Database_reports/Unused_file_redirects means that the redirects are not being used at all. Thus no cleanup is needed. I can see for the reverse, used file redirects to their targets. Werieth (talk) 20:41, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Which is what I actually meant! The report as well as listing recirect with 0, also lists those with 1 transclusion. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:48, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The above has suitably confused me...could someone clarify exactly what needs to be done? Theopolisme (talk) 21:51, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

For an item in File namespace which is a redirect, check if it is trnascluded as media in an article, and update the article usage of the media to the target of the redirect:) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:36, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Why does a file need to be referenced from its file name as opposed to a redirect to the file name? A redirect is typically just as fine. The F5 tagging bot misses orphaned non-free files which have redirects, so maybe it would be a good idea to get rid of redirects to non-free files, but there is no need to do anything with free files, and redirects to free files typically need to stay anyway, for other reasons. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:22, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Its just good house keeping. File redirects can still cause quite a bit of issues. Werieth (talk) 13:18, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I think that all of the various dog breed articles (there are several hundred) could use the {{Domestic dog}} template. Can somebody do that? Thanks. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:37, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

This seems a bit questionable to me. However, there are at least 576 such articles. If you could rack up some consensus, I wouldn't mind doing this.  Hazard-SJ  ✈  05:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Forgive me if this already exists somewhere, or has already been proposed, but here's an idea for a simple bot: For articles containing the archiveurl part of the cite web template, but not having the regular url part (which is required, else it generates an error), would it be possible for a bot to create a url tag by grabbing the archiveurl, stripping out the archive bit of that url, and then copying it into the url tag? like this:

• Archiveurl=http://web.archive.org/web/20101229115144/http://www.bcfc.com/page/MatchReport/0,,10412~32312,00.html
• Copy Archiveurl to url
• Remove "http://web.archive.org/web/20101229115144/" from url
• Save page

Seems like this would be a useful bot. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:18, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Indeed it does! Coding... now. Theopolisme (talk) 11:02, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

BRFA filed here. Theopolisme (talk) 22:46, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Due to the change of a certain website address, it would be desirable to replace all occurrences (888 in English Wikipedia alone, and also a smaller number in other Wiki projects too) of the string

http://id-team.org/apc/Apcbg-Web-New_files/

(initial segment of several cited sources URLs; the remainder of the relevant addresses is to stay as it is) by the string

http://apcbg.org/

I wonder if that could be done by a bot or otherwise automatically? Best, Apcbg (talk) 07:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

@Apcbg: - Sorry for not understanding, but could you please explain why this is desirable? It seems that the old links still work. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 23:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Dear GoingBatty, sorry for my belated response. Yes the old links still work, albeit partially and temporarily — with html entries replaced by redirects, image files featuring link update notices etc. So it would seem desirable to update the relevant WP external links. Best, Apcbg (talk) 12:36, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Mass url change

A user has made a request on my talkpage, to change all the urls "http://id-team.org/apc/Apcbg-Web-New_files/" to "http://apcbg.org/". I know I've seen bots do this before, anyone got some code and want to take up the task? --Chris 07:48, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• This request is already on this page, I believe. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
• #Advice request, above. Theopolisme (talk) 10:59, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
• Whoops, I should've checked first. Ah well, I was only a day off. --Chris 16:46, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I am looking for a bot to alphabetize the table rows in the List of Chicago 'L' stations and List of Metra stations articles. Both tables have a sort option, but by default, the rows are not in any type of organized order. I am looking to have them alphabetized by default so I can work on bringing the pages to FL status. –Dream out loud (talk) 01:33, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I can do this with some local scripting, no bot required. Coding... BMacZero (talk) 21:32, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Y Done BMacZero (talk) 22:50, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch! If I need this done again in the future, should I make a request here or elsewhere? –Dream out loud (talk) 00:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I guess if you do it on my talk page, I'll hear about it quicker and I can just apply the same code I've already written. BMacZero (talk) 03:38, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi! I also need help. My request is at the bottom. Wikipedia:Bot requests#Need to alphabetize rows.Thatpopularguy123 (talk) 08:09, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Need to alphabetize rows.

Bots! Please help me alphabetize this page's table User:Thatpopularguy123/List of countries and territories according to the country name. That is my user sandbox-style sub-page. PLEASE DO NOT change any information even if it is incorrect. I just need that list to be alphabetized. Thatpopularguy123 (talk) 08:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Why not just click the Name header on the table? It'll alphabetize for you.—cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 13:14, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

What I want is it to be alphabetized by default. Thanks! :DThatpopularguy123 (talk) 14:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Should be easy enough. Likely won't need approval either.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 14:04, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Is there a bot for it? BMacZero used local scripting in Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 54#Alphabetize table rows, I'm waiting for him to answer. Do you have the same script?Thatpopularguy123 (talk) 14:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

http://codepad.org/Tp2uHxuE does most of it, though I can't see why a few are misplaced. If anybody wants to take a look and fix... :( 930913(Congratulate) 14:59, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

That's great! Thank you very much! The only ones misplaced are those without flag templates. Thank you very much! :-) Thatpopularguy123 (talk) 15:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Anyone willing to do this or try doing it? Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Feature_requests#Title_case_for_citations. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Request is for a text replacement function bot.

• Source category: Pages_with_empty_citations
• Namespace include: Article (main)
• Namespace exclude: Talk, Wikipedia, Wikipedia Talk
• Search string: "{{cite}}","{{citation}}"
• replace string: "{{citation needed}}"
• Currently affected pages:~700
• Bot frequency: One shot - followed by monthly sweep.

Thanks Sfan00 IMG (talk) 07:55, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• Coding... Theopolisme (talk) 21:27, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
• BRFA filed Theopolisme (talk) 22:04, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

of pagebreaking <br>s. I use syntax highlighter, and amateur formatting like that breaks the rest of the page because the highlighter thinks it's unfinished formatting. Any chance I could get a bot which automatically replaces <br> with <br/>?--Launchballer 08:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I see that mw:User:Remember the dot/Syntax highlighter#Known issues states "To maximize performance, the highlighter is not forgiving of sloppy syntax. For example ... use <br/> instead of <br>." Is the Syntax highlighter used so prominently that it's worth it to make these minor changes that don't impact how the article is presented to the user? GoingBatty (talk) 11:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I regard a prominently-used gadget as one which is featured in Special:Preferences.--Launchballer 11:26, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

For the purposes of a BRFA, this will be regarded as a WP:COSMETICBOT, so you will need a much wider consensus for this first. Because <br> is not an invalid MediaWiki syntax. It is a HTML5-style element of wikitext markup, and <br> is allowed in HTML5. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like the syntax highlighter needs to be fixed. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 18:18, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

+1 I agree with Van—seems like a trivial fix. Theopolisme (talk) 18:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Really trivial fix too. replace('<br ?>','<br/>',wikitext) in the JavaScript tool. Yeah it will convert any old format to the new one, but that is trivial as long as the user is making other edits. Werieth (talk) 19:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• Needs wider discussion.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 09:37, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree.  Hazard-SJ  ✈  20:58, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Any chance someone's bot can help out with the WP:FPORTC featured portal closing steps that used to be done by GimmeBot (talk · contribs)? — Cirt (talk) 22:45, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Could this be another bot takeover? ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 22:48, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Since migration to Lua, the system now emits an error message if it detects a link within a '|title='. Can we envisage a bot to remove these unnecessary links, please? -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 02:27, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

It does? I see no error with

{{cite web|title=[http://apple.com Apple]|url = http://google.com}}

Am I missing something? Theopolisme (talk) 13:45, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

{{cite web|title=[[Apple Inc.]]|url = http://google.com}} gives "[[Apple Inc.]]". {{cite web}}: URL–wikilink conflict (help)

I see the "Wikilink embedded in URL title" message in red when I view this page (but not when viewing the code). GoingBatty (talk) 15:34, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah, wikilinks! *headdesk* Theopolisme (talk) 15:36, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

{{trout}} ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 16:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Coding...  Hazard-SJ  ✈  20:55, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I was working on this too, and found some things to consider when fixing articles in Category:Pages with citations having wikilinks embedded in URL titles:

1. Some wikilinks are piped, and some are not
2. Some have additional text in the |title=
3. Some wikilinks are as a result of a template (e.g. this edit)
4. There are non-citation templates with wikilinks in the |title= that should not be changed (e.g. {{succession box}})

Hope this helps! — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoingBatty (talk • contribs)

OK, thanks for the tips. I'll be using a parser in order to reduce the errors as much as possible.  Hazard-SJ  ✈  22:17, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to take longer than planned, since I'm now planning to include more CS1 errors into the code for regular runs.  Hazard-SJ  ✈  22:29, 27 May 2013 (UTC) Implimenting as time progresses.  Hazard-SJ  ✈  04:03, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

BRFA filed: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Hazard-Bot 21  Hazard-SJ  ✈  01:34, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• @Hazard-SJ: Merci beaucoup! -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 03:43, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

  De rien!  Hazard-SJ  ✈  04:03, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

The work I'd like done by a bot would require an adminbot, but it should be done by a bot because it is a menial task. The task I have in mind is deleting PRODed pages after seven days. The bot would delete a page if all the criteria for deleting a PROD are met (template still up after 7 days, never PRODed before, never at AfD). It would require complicated programming, but I think we could do it. ChromaNebula (talk) 17:01, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Not a good idea, PRODs should still have human review. Werieth (talk) 20:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Weireth. A signficant PRODs end up being declined by the reviewing admin for one reason or another, and for the most part, not because of the criteria you mentioned, but often because the PROD reasoning is way out of step with policy and/or the article. Human review of PRODs guarantees that at least two people have put eyes on the article before it's deleted. --j⚛e decker^talk 20:55, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I see your points now. I just (originally) thought that a PROD-deleting bot would save admins' time, allowing them to spend that time on other, less menial admin jobs. ChromaNebula (talk) 18:11, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I certainly appreciate the thought! --j⚛e decker^talk 04:55, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• Not a good task for a bot.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 21:51, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

The image File:SDTrolley.png has been deleted as a copyright violation from Commons but is linked on over 50 pages. If a bot could remove all the links, I would appreciate it. –Dream out loud (talk) 23:43, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Must be done already: Special:WhatLinksHere/File:SDTrolley.png only shows this page. GoingBatty (talk) 00:01, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Werieth did it with AWB.  Hazard-SJ  ✈  00:01, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I just grabbed AWB and nuked the links. Werieth (talk) 00:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

For the record, I am working on a redlink script.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 03:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

@Cyberpower678: what do you mean by redlink script? Just a delinker? Or something more? Theopolisme (talk) 14:31, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

In general a delinker but it removes links entirely such as images and categories.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 14:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Sounds very useful. What would be great is some sort of web interface for controlling it as well (i.e., you grant access to trusted users and then they're able to access a web form to choose what to delink)...I'll be happy to collaborate on that if you'd like. Theopolisme (talk) 14:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

@Theopolisme:Thanks. That's great idea. I'll develop the bot first and then you can assist me with the control interface.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 18:08, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

@Cyberpower678: Just drop me a message on my talk page when you're ready. Theopolisme (talk) 18:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

You might want to see if you can adapt commons delinker. Werieth (talk) 14:49, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Looking into now... Theopolisme (talk) 15:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. If I had known AWB had that featur, I would have just done it myself. Now I know for the future. –Dream out loud (talk) 03:55, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Change

{{Infobox person|
name       = Auto Wiki Browser|
image      = AWB Banner2.png|occupation = Semi-automated Wikipedia editor|
}}

to

{{Infobox person
|name       = Auto Wiki Browser
|image      = AWB Banner2.png
|occupation = Semi-automated Wikipedia editor
}}

These types of changes will have no visible effect for readers, but I believe that they will make editing easier. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 22:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

| fix_version =

}}

I don't know if someone requested this before. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:45, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

These types of changes will have no visible effect for readers--this violates WP:COSMETICBOT, so we can't have a bot that only does this. Seems more like an AWB genfix. Theopolisme (talk) 14:02, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

If you choose to make an AWB feature request, be sure that you can provide a link to where consensus was reached that one format is preferable over another. GoingBatty (talk) 02:25, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

This task would not make it through a request for approval :/. Worth discussing somewhere else before requesting it to be added to awb :) ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 09:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks like a FR as already been filed here with a working solution it looks like. Werieth (talk) 20:12, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Is there a bot that can switch in-text links after a move when the old title is to be redirected elsewhere? In accordance with our guidelines on partially disambiguated titles, I moved Poison (band) to Poison (American band) and redirected Poison (band) to Poison (disambiguation). I spent numerous hours yesterday manually switching the corresponding links in the hundreds of articles so that there weren't more than a thousand links to the disambiguation page. There are plenty more articles that need to be moved in this manner with the old title redirecting to a disambiguation page. If there is already a bot that has this functionality, I would be grateful if someone would inform me of how to use it. If there is not already a bot that does this, any help in developing such a bot would be greatly appreciated. Neelix (talk) 17:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I would think that people would need to look at each article to determine whether the link to Poison (band) should be changed to Poison (American band) or Poison (German band). AutoWikiBrowser or WPCleaner are tools that can be used to help with this disambiguation. GoingBatty (talk) 00:03, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks like someone else took care of most of the articles - there was only one left for me to fix. GoingBatty (talk) 02:20, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

That was me; I've already taken care of all of the Poison (band) links specifically, but it took about six hours to complete because there were so many incoming links. The problem is that there are dozens more such moves that need to take place. For example, Kiss (band), Bush (band), etc. In these cases, it is excessively time-consuming as well as unnecessary to spend the time checking which is the correct band, because the links should be safely (and are already) assumed to already be correct. Neelix (talk) 15:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

@Neelix: - It appears that the "Partially disambiguated links" section of Wikipedia:Disambiguation has been added and removed twice in two weeks. I suggest we postpone this conversation until consensus is clear. GoingBatty (talk) 22:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Is there ongoing discussion about this? Theopolisme (talk) 23:22, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Partially disambiguated titles. GoingBatty (talk) 23:36, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Now that MediaWiki supports collapsible tables and thus we have no need for the collapsible tables we have right now in our js. I would like a bot to be run to change all instances of the former and now deprecated version of collapsible tables to be changed to the new version. TechFilmer - Feel free to drop a message. 14:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Could you give more details? What was the old table format and was is the new table format?—cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 17:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I do belive that the former format wast class="collapsible collapsed" which is now class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" and class="collapsible" is now class="mw-collapsible". The advantages are, a. no more need for javascript which means that it won't load after the pages is done loading, b. there is somewhat of animation now, making it look better, and c. is in herently built into MediaWiki. TechFilmer - Feel free to drop a message. 11:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Pretty straightforward.  Doing...—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 14:15, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Coding...—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 17:40, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

This is still done in Javascript using jquery and the change is more or less a cosmetic fix at the moment. It also has the added change of changing the words which appear in the "hide" link. --Izno (talk) 22:20, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. We are changing from a js powered table to an internally powered table.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 22:24, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Tables with mw-collapsible do seem slower to show/hide than those with collapsible, for example try it on the table in Seiji Ueda. -- WOSlinker (talk) 22:41, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

You are probably aware of Wikipedia's (relatively) new sister project, Wikivoyage. Most articles at Wikivoyage have a an analogue at Wikipedia - the Wikipedia article is an encyclopedic description of a place, while Wikivoyage provides a tourist guide. Interwikilinking between them seems the natural thing to do, guiding readers to the other wiki for more information and eager editors to provide appropriate content in the appropriate Wikispace. And, in fact that is what we (editors involved in Wikivoyage) are doing manually now.

I was wondering, however, if there is any rule governing performing those tasks using a bot. I know there are bots adding and maintaining interwikilinks between different language versions of Wikipedia, and I believe linking between Wikipedia and other projects, such as Wiktionary, Wikiquote and Commons is also handled by bots (I may be wrong here). What is the chance of having the rather menial task automated by a bot?

My idea is for the en.Wikivoyage editors to continue add interwiki links to en.Wikipedia to articles at Wikivoyage that are indeed relevant, and for the bot to then browse them and add a counterwikilink where there is none. The manual adding of the interwikilink on the Wikivoyage side allows editors to use sound judgement, e.g. not linking an article that is effectively empty or bears little relevance but the name.

Thank you in advance for your replies, PrinceGloria (talk) 19:26, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

PS. While Wikivoyage is "new" in terms of being a new project, the English language version alone features almost 28K articles already, as it was formed by porting content from Wikitravel. So the task at hand is not entirely trivial.

Exactly what kind of interwikilink? See here for a perhaps similar previous proposal at the village pump. Garion96 (talk) 19:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for replying and the link. I am certainly not thinking of something like proposed at the Village Pump, it would have been quite inappropriate. I am talking of the interwikilinks that are already regularly placed at the bottom of the articles where they belong, e.g. using Template:Sister project links. The tricky part would be for the bot to recognize and decide whether to amend the extant Template:Sister project links, use Template:Wikivoyage or combine extant templates into Template:Sister project links while adding a link to Wikivoyage. PrinceGloria (talk) 19:50, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

PS. For what I gather, the opposition to the proposal at the Village Pump was due to the inappropriateness of placing the link in a prominent space, and not interwikilinking in general, so I am hopeful.

I'm willing to try this out, but just to make sure, would it be OK if I just checked all the pages on Wikivoyage that has Wikipedia as a related site, then add here based on that? If so, it shouldn't be too much of a problem.  Hazard-SJ  ✈  00:12, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Hazard-SJ! IT might be due to it being very early in the morning here, but why would it not be OK? Isn't it what I inquired about in the first place? PrinceGloria (talk) 04:20, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome, and thanks for the clarification. Coding...  Hazard-SJ  ✈  04:55, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

BRFA filed.  Hazard-SJ  ✈  02:53, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

As discussed in Village Pump, I would like to request a bot to crop the alternative names listed in GND profiles (e.g., Maimonides), to add to the ALTERNATIVE NAMES parameter of {{Persondata}}. As of today, there are over 7,400 Wikipedia articles with GND identifiers. GND data is available in RDF/XML format. --bender235 (talk) 15:14, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Good idea to gather these names, but I wouldn't want to see them in persondata unless they're also added in the article body. At the machine level {{Authority control}} already has GND links. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

As a 'side comment', I think the 'optimal' way to do something like this would be to read the "400 fields" (Alternate Name Forms) from the merged VIAF records....this will ensure picking up things such as "アインシュタイン, アルバート", "البرت اينشتاين،", and "איינשטיין, אלברט,"...(these are all 'non-latin' versions of the name "Albert Einstein", as a random example). Revent (talk) 20:49, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Why would we need those in en.Wikipedia? Surely they belong in Wikidata? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:54, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

You are completely correct about that...I kinda thought it was clear from what I wrote that I was making a 'related point', not talking about 'how' to do it. Specifically, the 'examples' I cited were the ones I picked from the list on VIAF real quick that /aren't/ in the GND. Revent (talk) 23:55, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

This would probably be a 'one time run' thing, and I honestly don't know an 'non-tedious' way to figure out how many pages would be affected. It would be at least several hundred, from what I've 'seen'.

My request is simply this....a 'bot run' to add the text

{{WikiProject Lists|class=List|importance=Unknown}}

to the talk page of all 'non-redirect' articles that have a title beginning with the text "List of".

A similar thing would apply to articles of the type "(year) in (country)" but that 'working list' might be a bit harder to create, as a 'generic' match to it would probably include unwanted categories...

FWIW, if this is 'done' I'll probably be back with other, very similar requests (I've seen many examples of things like "People from" lists that should be be 'flagged' as WPBio, WPLists, blpo, etc., or "Bibliography of..." that should be assigned to WPBibliography. That would be a matter of finding 'simple' criteria for picking them out, though...some of the 'sets' would be small enough to make doing it with a bot kinda 'pointless' since they would also need other edits.

I've recently done 'large numbers' of edits to fix some of these, mostly by finding them in 'unassessed articles' categories. I'm actually doing it 'manually' and adding other wikiprojects (like 'geography' for all of the lists of places) but this 'particular' change seems like it would be an 'bot kind of task'. :) Revent (talk) 19:21, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• As a side note, I am technically unable to run AutoWikiBrowser myself, so if I ask for things that are more suited to 'not-bot uses' of AWB please be understanding. :) Revent (talk) 19:24, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• Doing...  Hazard-SJ  ✈  03:22, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Most missed articles -- often searched for, nonexistent articles -- has not been updated since a batch run in 2008. The German Wikipedia person, Melancholie (de:Benutzer:Melancholie) who did the batch run has not been active since 2009. Where would be a good place to ask for someone with expertise to do another run? It does not seem to fit the requirements of Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) since it is not a technical issue about Wikipedia. It is not a new proposal, and not a new idea. It is not about help using Wikipedia, and it is not a factual WP:Reference Desk question. I didn't find a WikiProject that looked promising. So I am asking for direction here. --Bejnar (talk) 22:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bot requests? I do not think we should discuss again whether this work is needed, just whether there is someone willing to do it.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello all. I have been tinkering with Module:Infobox, and it's almost ready to be deployed. However, before we can do this, we need to check all of the existing infoboxes to make sure that the |below= parameter appears below all of the data parameters. This is to deal with the case where a <references /> tag is passed through as a parameter to the template, and is positioned above the corresponding <ref></ref> tags. This is possible with the current Template:Infobox as the order is corrected in Template:Infobox itself before the references are parsed, but there does not seem to be a way of dealing with this in Lua. I have concocted an example at Template:Infobox/testcases#Reference lists in strange orders. See also Module talk:Navbox#Bugs, bugzilla:46566 and this edit for similar issues that occurred with Module:Navbox.

In the absence of any way to fix this in the Lua module, the only to do it seems to be to go through all of the templates that use {{infobox}} and move any |below= parameters that appear above the data parameters. I would do this myself, but there are about 2000 infobox templates, and it would take me too long and be too error-prone to check them all myself. Could some kind bot operator either compile a list of offending infoboxes for me to go through (shouldn't be too many of them, it will be finding them that takes the work), or get a bot to fix them automatically? All the best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:26, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh yes, and one more criterion - the |below= parameter would have to either contain a <references /> tag or a {{reflist}} template, or be passed through like |below = {{{below|}}}. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:36, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

There is a workaround for the Lua module: don't use pairs( frame.args ) (or the equivalent), or at least process the parameters in the "proper" order before doing so (see this edit to Module:Navbox). Anomie⚔ 10:28, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense. Thank you! I'll have a look at making that work with Module:Infobox. And for anyone who was considering making me a list, I've actually found a way to do this with AWB, so there's no need for it any more. I only found one infobox with the right (or wrong, I should say) combination of criteria. See this edit to {{Infobox climber}}. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC)