Archive 60

←

Archive 63

Archive 64

Archive 65

Archive 66

Archive 67

→

Archive 70

one pattern i see a lot more often and which inho may warrant a bot fix is a citation template followed by a language icon template. such language template could easily and more efficiently combined using the |language= parameter within the citation template. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 04:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

@Ohconfucius: BattyBot's task 31 removes the language icon templates from citation templates. I run this about once a month. I have submitted a Reflinks bug report, but I'm not aware of any fixes yet. GoingBatty (talk) 23:22, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

GB: i'm glad you thought of that one. the other, which i was referring to, is where the language icon is within the <ref></ref> tags and placed specifically after (not within) the {{citation}} template. Perhaps you could submit a bot task to catch those? -- Ohc ^¡digame! 05:51, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

@Ohconfucius: Oops! You're referring to edits to change {{xx icon}} to |language=xx like this one. It's easy to change, but not easy to check to see if the template already has a |language= parameter, and then determine what to do (e.g. this edit). GoingBatty (talk) 16:16, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

•  Question: This seems like a rather easy task to do. @GoingBatty: Have you been working on this or is this still up for grabs? Also I believe WP:COSMETICBOT applies here.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 22:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

@C678: This is up for grabs - I look forward to seeing how someone with better programming skills than I would check to see if the template already contains [undefined] Error: {{Lang}}: no text (help). This would change a reference from:

• Before: {{cite journal|title=Title|journal=Journal}} {{sv icon}} "Title". Journal. (in Swedish)
• After: {{cite journal|title=Title|journal=Journal|language=sv}} "Title". Journal (in Swedish).

One could argue that this would change the presentation and the COinS metadata, so WP:COSMETICBOT may not apply. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 02:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Monkbot task 6 also does a variety of {{xx icon}} fixes around cs1|2 templates and when appropriate modifies |title= to |script-title=. The content of |language= is not part of the citation metadata.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 02:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

What does that mean necessarily for this request?—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 14:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand your question. Was it directed to me?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes it was. I'm asking if your bot is already doing this task or if there is a need to still create one.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 15:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

A more-or-less complete description of what Monkbot task 6 does is here. Examples of task 6 edits are currently at the top of Special:Contributions/Monkbot. Perhaps those links can better answer your question.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:49, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Well in that case, N Not done. Monkbot already does the job.—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 16:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Can someone program a bot that compiles a chronological list of all articles that have been exhibited on the main page as DYK hooks under the jurisdiction of a given wiki project and posts the list as a subpage of the wikiproject's page? All the bot has to do to source the list is see which article talk pages contain both the DYK template and the template denoting it as under the purview of the wikiproject the list is being compiled for. Abyssal (talk) 01:02, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

User:JL-Bot/Project content already does that, and more - Evad37 [talk] 01:11, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

N Not done per Evad37 (talk · contribs)—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 15:39, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I noticed that there are many categories on Wikipedia with names that are identical on Wikimedia Commons, such as Category:Political parties by continent. Nonetheless, these pages haven't been automatically linked. Can we obtain a list of identically-named categories without these links? Jarble (talk) 04:48, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps this isn't the right place to request this feature. Can we send this request to the developers of Wikidata so that they can implement it? Jarble (talk)

Wikidata would be the place, yes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:15, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Deferred to Wikidata.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 15:35, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Following the RFC consensus that this template should not be used on articles that aren't linked directly to the template, please can a bot go through and remove this from approx. 17,000 articles that include the template. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:18, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I've got this. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:45, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:57, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Done. bd2412 T 03:58, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I'm looking for a bot that will add links to pages that already exist. So for instance "The rain in Spain falls mainly on the plains" does anyone know of one? --Stuartbman (talk) 09:45, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Stuartbman, I don't think any bot does that. Also, a question: in your example sentence, how would the bot avoid linking rain, falls, and plains? This proposal in general somewhat opposes WP:BUILD, and it might confuse readers. APerson (talk!) 13:45, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

@Stuartbman: Have you tried Find link? GoingBatty (talk) 15:08, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks @GoingBatty:@APerson:. This is actually for a separate wiki with a smaller number of pages, I will check Find link though which I might be able to modify, thanks! --Stuartbman (talk) 17:20, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Not a good task for a bot.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 20:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

There can be many shared ip notices on talk pages as seen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:165.72.200.11&oldid=672279975
This can be confusing, looks bad. Only one is needed at the bottom. TheMagikCow (talk) 14:36, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I've set up automated archiving for that page. Perhaps a bot could do so for others? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Redundant We already have archiving bots that do a great job of archiving.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 20:17, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Please could somebody either count, or better, provide a list (with a count) of articles using {{Infobox company}} and {{Coord}}? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:04, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Here is a Quarry query and a wikitable of the results. --Bamyers99 (talk) 19:58, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

@Bamyers99: Thank you. I'd not seen Quarry before, so that's a bonus. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:47, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Y Done It looks the needed info has already been compiled.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 20:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Is there any way to automatically revive the links for all the Athletic Bilbao football players? The club's website keeps changing configuration, so it frequently crashes down. Right now, current (which now have already been revived by a fellow WP user) and past players combined, we have 236 articles, it would be a pity to lose that link because it's quite comprehensive and in English (or it has an English version available, better said).

Attentively --84.90.219.128 (talk) 20:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Is there a simple mapping between the old URL & the new one? May be you could give an example that could be followed? If this happens regularly then a template may be the answer so that the URL can be modified centrally and all articles using it changed appropriately (assuming that the player part remains the same between changes). Keith D (talk) 21:16, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes sir, please see Eneko Bóveda before and after (here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eneko_B%C3%B3veda&diff=671009484&oldid=669542171). --84.90.219.128 (talk) 23:53, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "which now have already been revived by a fellow WP user". Please clarify whether any links currently need to be fixed. All links I examined were already working correctly before your post. Are you requesting something to protect against future changes to the url's? That is impossible in general without knowing how the url's might change, and different websites do all sorts of different things to their url's. The example changed http://www.athletic-club.net/web/main.asp?a=1&b=1&c=1&d=0&jokalaria=842&idi=2 to http://www.athletic-club.eus/en/players/842/eboveda.html. "842" was in the old url but not "eboveda" so there is no simple mapping like Keith D asked about. Creating a template like {{Athletic Bilbao profile}} with content like [http://www.athletic-club.eus/en/players/{{{1|}}}/{{{2|}}}.html {{{title|Athletic Bilbao profile}}}] and currently calling it with two parameters like {{Athletic Bilbao profile|842|eboveda}} will create protection if a potential future url can be derived from "842" and "eboveda". Then a single template edit could immediately fix all uses of the template. If only "842" had been in the url before like the example change then a bot could have been coded to scan the 26 index pages at http://www.athletic-club.eus/en/careers.html and discover which name goes with which number. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:17, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I now see on searching http://www.athletic-club.net/web/main.asp?a=1&b=1&c=1&d=0&jokalaria= at Special:LinkSearch that around 260 url's need an update. I'm not a bot coder but a bot could do it by scanning http://www.athletic-club.eus/en/careers.html as suggested. I have created {{Athletic Bilbao profile}}. It's not documented yet and may add or modify named parameters later today but for unnamed parameters, {{Athletic Bilbao profile|842|eboveda}} produces:

• Bot requests/Archive 65 at Athletic Bilbao

PrimeHunter (talk) 15:53, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Doing... I will try to do this with a large set of AWB find and replace rules instead of a bot. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:32, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help, sorry for the delay because I have only read the follow-up to my query now. By "which now have already been revived by a fellow WP user", I meant the link had been fixed only in the current players of this club (please see the Athletic Bilbao WP article, then "Current squad", to see who they are), but the old players (dead, retired, with other teams) were not working. My intention was never to seek protection against future changes to the URLs, that's not feasible of course, and this link in particular has changed configuration several times, we'll just have to configure as they do.

Cheers again --84.90.219.128 (talk) 18:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I have fixed all mainspace links starting with http://www.athletic-club.net/web/main.asp?a=1&b=1&c=1&d=0&jokalaria=. In a single case I couldn't find a new link and used the Internet Archive.[1] I have used {{Athletic Bilbao profile}} on around 200 articles (including some where the url was already fixed) so hopefully the fixes will be easier next time. List of Athletic Bilbao players had a lot of formatted references so I only changed url's there.[2] There are still many articles with broken url's with other paths at http://www.athletic-club.net. I expect to look at that later today. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Y Done by PrimeHunter (talk · contribs)—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 20:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Please could some compile a list (or lists, one er space) of talk pages (in all spaces), over a size of say 80Kb, where there is no sub-page titled "/Archive*"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:28, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

How about all talk pages that aren't an archive page, over 80Kb? whether or not there is an archive, those pages are still likely to need some help. It could probably be done with a database query. We pretty much have it at Wikipedia:Database reports/Long pages. ^Avic_ennasis @ 21:41, 18 Av 5775 / 21:41, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Try a query on quarry:. Alakzi (talk) 00:00, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

N Not done per Avicennasis (talk · contribs)—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 20:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I need a bot on my account — Preceding unsigned comment added by Udo Princewill Samuel (talk • contribs) 06:42, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

If you're asking for a bot flag to be placed on your account, it won't happen, because only bot accounts get flags. APerson (talk!) 19:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

N Not done—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 20:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Would it be possible, please for someone to produce a table showing all the user pages/ user talk pages (no more than 59 in all) that transclude {{Useronline}}, and the date of last edit of those pages? If it also includes the date of the last edit by the editor in whose user-space the page is, that would be even better. Please feel free to dump the results in my user space. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:12, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Done. Alakzi (talk) 13:44, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

It would be helpful to have a bot that compiled a numerical result showing how many articles on any given Wikipedia edition lack references. While quality assessment is very difficult, such an analysis would give a rough 'verifiability index' of individual editions (and a possibility for comparisons between editions).

I assume a simple string search for <ref or reference tags in each article would suffice. If found, the article can be added to the number of referenced articles and the bot can skip to the next one. If it reaches the end of the article and no reference tag is found, the 'unreferenced' count is increased. The end result would just have to be the two resulting sums, which constitute the ratio of referenced vs. unreferenced articles.

I realize there is a certain error margin due to several factors, e.g. malformed references, but that would probably even out, as such errors would be equally distributed between editions.

There's no need for the bot to make any markup, it would just be for statistical QA.

If such a bot already exists or easily can be modified for the task, please advice. Thank you! Asav | Talk 18:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, the trick will be to get a transclusion count of the {{Reflist}} template. The current number is 3,410,088. Then, subtract it from the number of articles (currently 4,717,510). The downsides of this method are:

• Jarry1250's tool counts all transclusion, AFAIK, even the non-mainspace ones.
• All articles with {{Reflist}} might not have references.
• Articles might have malformed references.

--QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 18:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, the article might use <references /> instead. Then there are the articles with neither, but which are still fully-referenced - such as Actuary. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:22, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Actuary does have a {{Reflist}}. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 04:41, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

It shouldn't have done. It looks like it was added in error by PoeticVerse (talk · contribs) as the wrong fix for this edit, which had used <ref>...</ref> (contrary to WP:CITEVAR and WP:PAREN). Following this edit, the {{reflist}} should definitely have been removed; so I've now done that. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:50, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your responses so far, but the bot has to be edition agnostic, so so looking for '<references>', '{{Reflist}}' or '{{references}}' tags won't work; as the Norwegian edition uses '{{Referanser}}' and the French '{{références}}', for example. The bot needs to tackle localized editions as well, hence my suggestion that it count occurences of articles containing '<ref'. (This probably won't work for non-Latin alphabets, but it's better than nothing.) Malformed references and related errors are not a major problem; they'll even out in statistical terms, given the huge numbers we're talking about. Asav | Talk 20:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't read the "any Wikipedia edition" part. We can run the templatecount.py script through a global bot on each wiki. And we can just change it to the localized template each time on a new wiki. All sensibly referenced articles have the {{Reflist}} template, so I believe we'll get almost accurate numbers. In fact, most articles with inline citations will have the template. We can change it to transclusions in article namespace, so the python script should work fine. I'm fine with running the script but someone has to help me migrate it to the Labs cluster. And I'm going away on 21st. So, I would rather do it before that. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 04:41, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

And some wikis still use the deprecated {{Ref}} which can be tackled by the script. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 04:46, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I may be a bit slow here, but when you say 'All sensibly referenced articles have the {{Reflist}} template,' do you mean the localized or the translated versions (such as {{Referanser}} and {{références}}) as well? Also, quite a few articles still use the deprecated <references> tag. Would that bot work on those too, or will it have to be adjusted for national/localized editions?

Would python templatecount.py -count {{Referanser}} <references> do the job on the Norwegian edition, for example? Asav | Talk 19:17, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm bumping this, since QEDK is on a wikibreak. Asav | Talk 10:06, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it should. The problem is however, templatecount.py (with -count) doesn't count the articles but the number of transclusions so if your mentioned "keywords" occur twice, thrice or more, it counts that number and not the number of articles it has checked. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 12:22, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! What about articles that use parameters within the {{Referanser}}< tag, such as {{Referanser|2}} (for two column layout). Would each possible parameter have to be listed, or is there some sort of a wildcard function? Asav | Talk 19:10, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Instead of -count, do not enter any arguments at all, just set it in the article namespace. Btw, this script would take days to output the number on a very large wiki. Anyway, the code for {{Referanser}} would be templatecount.py -namespace:0 referanser. I have no idea if this script supports redirects or parameters. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 16:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Needs wider discussion.

I think this would be hugely controversial and difficult, but if it can happen it could change WikiPedia forever. I think we need to get concencus--88.104.132.1 (talk) 17:42, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I have code for this, if I can find it. Which editions of Wikipedia would you be interested in? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:19, 16 July 2015 (UTC).

Asav All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC).

•  Question: Why would this need to be run globally, or are there multiple uses on the English Wikipedia. I have a might have good idea on how to approach this, but I would also like to know if this is still needed.—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 22:08, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
• N Not done No response.—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 15:11, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia,

In making a small script in python to be used with an alias on linux machines. It would be a super easy way to view content from wikipedia.

It simply grabs the extract from a page of your choice. In checking it's functionality, I've noticed not all pages have an extract. Is there a tool to be made or already made to make sure all pages have an extract?

-Ben — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:47:4102:1FEC:2C11:67D6:6917:BB7E (talk) 01:07, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Idea is not well explained.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 20:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Would it be possible to put together a list of the templates in the sub-categories (as deep as they go) of Category:Navigational boxes by topic along with their transclusion counts? This would be helpful in finding over-transcluded navboxes that are being used in articles that are not listed in the navbox, as per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. I'm not sure if a bot is best for this task or if an existing tool would work better. ~ Rob^Talk 13:33, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

You might find this useful. Alakzi (talk) 14:05, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I looked into it, but it's not really feasible to use that to check every navbox we have in the wiki. There's thousands. ~ Rob^Talk 14:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, you (or anybody) could query the tool with a bot. Alakzi (talk) 14:09, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. That's well beyond my technical expertise, which consists of using AWB and about nothing else. Anybody interested in taking a stab at that? ~ Rob^Talk 20:08, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

There are 93,095 templates in that category, recursively. I tried a couple different approaches, but haven't found a functional/accurate way to count transclusions yet. The problem is in finding formatting that works for every template. Wrapping them in a ' causes problems (e.g. {{'Allo 'Allo!}}) but a " isn't much better ({{"Crocodile" Dundee}}), and so on. I'll take another few shots at it a little later and see if something sticks. ^Avic_ennasis @ 09:52, 10 Elul 5775 / 09:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a stab at it! ~ Rob^Talk 11:40, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: So that I understand the request, you're asking "For each template in Category:Navigational boxes by topic (and all subcategories thereof), calculalate the number of pages that transclude said template, and put onto wikipedia a list of the template name and the transclusion amount". Is this correct? This could be easily done with pywikibot and gluing portions of category.py (listify) to templatecount.py. Is there a consensus discussion for this request? Is this a one off process or is this going to be repeated several times? Hasteur (talk) 12:17, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

That is my request, yes. There is not a consensus discussion, but no edits are being made to the mainspace or any existing page, so I doubt it's necessary. A one-time run is all that would be needed. The reason behind this request is to identify navboxes that are over-transcluded and do not comply with the guideline at WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. ~ Rob^Talk 12:22, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Unicode is killer on this, but... You are looking for something like User:Avicennasis/reports/navboxes/01, right? That has the first 500 templates, skipping the first 8 or so problem children. I can try and scale this up (500 to a page is like, 186 pages, so maybe 1000? higher?) No promises, but I might have something for it. ^Avic_ennasis @ 08:57, 11 Elul 5775 / 08:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that looks good. You could probably get all the navboxes I'd be interested in looking at on one page, actually. Anything with less than 100 transclusions isn't over-transcluded enough to bother with. Would you be able to filter it out so only those with 100+ transclusions make it onto the report? ~ Rob^Talk 09:37, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok, it's slow-going, but - the first 9508 templates have been scanned, and User:Avicennasis/reports/navboxes/01 has been updated to the fist 100 templates with more than 100 transclusions. More to come, as the script processes, obviously. ^Avic_ennasis @ 08:10, 12 Elul 5775 / 08:10, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Next 100 are done at User:Avicennasis/reports/navboxes/02 ^Avic_ennasis @ 19:13, 12 Elul 5775 / 19:13, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Avicennasis is Doing.... Thanks for taking on this task! ~ Rob^Talk 19:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

03, 04, and 05 posted. 72,087 more to go. ^Avic_ennasis @ 10:05, 13 Elul 5775 / 10:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

There are a lot of non-navbox templates in those lists, for example {{1940s-Hindi-film-stub}} and {{ALeague MV}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

That's the result of poor categorization. For instance, {{1940s-Hindi-film-stub}} is in Category:Indian cinema templates which is itself in Category:Film country navigational boxes. ~ Rob^Talk 17:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

06, 07, 08, 09, 10, and 11 posted. I've modified the code so it will (hopefully) move faster. ^Avic_ennasis @ 11:32, 14 Elul 5775 / 11:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

 Done Everything is up merged to 500 per page. Reports 1-7 are listed at User:Avicennasis/reports/navboxes. Feel free to move/edit/whatever with the pages as needed. ^Avic_ennasis @ 07:44, 15 Elul 5775 / 07:44, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Symbol was officially announced on 15 July 2010. However as of date Rs. is still being used on numerous articles on Wikipedia. The job of bot will be pretty simple. Just replace Rs. with the symbol. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo 07:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Revised Summary

Bot criteria Replace Rs. with Rupee symbol, Where

1. Talk Page is tagged with WP India
2. Ignore Citation
3. Ignore Quotation
4. Ignore pages containing names of other countries using Rs.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Capankajsmilyo (talk • contribs)

Discussion

This is more complex than that, because more than one country uses rupees and only India uses ₹; other countries use ₨. Any replacement should also use {{currency}}, where {{currency|50|INR}} gives ₹50. I'm not sure this is a bot-suitable task, as it's hard to determine accurately which currency is being referred to in any given circumstance. Relentlessly (talk) 09:17, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, "Rs" is often used in citations, where it appears as "Rs" in a source's title (and also within URLs). Changing the title of a source so that it does not match the title of the original is a bad idea, and changing a URL breaks the URL. I have seen editors do both, hence my posting here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Firstly I was talking about Rs. Not Rs, and we can target WP India pages. This way other country's currencies won't be touched. Keeping Rs. as INR is wrong after 2010 -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo 15:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Can you come up with a list of pages that would be targeted? I imagine it would be quite a lot, and so this made need wider discussion. ~ Rob^Talk 15:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

pages are many that's why we need a bot. Otherwise it could have been done manually. Full list of pages is available on WP India page. If you think wider discussion is required, let's go for it. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo 16:17, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

There are a list of all pages covered by the project at WP:INDIA, but not a list of pages that use "Rs". ~ Rob^Talk 19:06, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

This can be done in phased manner starting with WP India pages. Other pages can be targeted later. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo 19:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

You'll need to do a better job of listing articles for which it is OK to make this change, or a better set of conditions that a bot or script could match. For example, Kelambakkam is part of WP:INDIA, and it contains "Rs.", but that "Rs." should not be changed, because it is in the |title= parameter of a citation, and that "Rs." appears in the original title of the cited source.

Maybe it would also help for you to explain the difference in meaning and usage between "Rs." and "Rs". Many articles about India and sources cited in those articles use "Rs" as an abbreviation. To my eye, "Rs." and "Rs" appear to be interchangeable, a matter of style, rather than indicating a difference in meaning. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:58, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I won't tag it as such because maybe someone more experienced than I will come up with a method, but it appears unlikely to me that we can automate the decision that "Rs." stands for the Indian rupee rather than the Pakistani or other rupees. We can't assume that all pages related to India or even a certain subtopic of India do not contain any information about surrounding nations, and without such an assumption, I doubt we can clearly define what articles to target for this change. That doesn't even mention direct quotes and citations, which pose additional issues as mentioned above. This is likely not a good task for a bot. ~ Rob^Talk 21:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• We have a problem here. For me, these symbols, what ever they are, are rendering as boxes here. That begs to ask the question as to how many other people have this problem.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 21:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Indian rupee sign. U+20B9. square box on my XP machine but renders properly on my win7 machine.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

It's failing to render on my Windows 10 machine.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 22:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

See Template talk:Indian Rupee for details on the Unicode/image issue. It's been ongoing for a while. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:14, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

OK let's resolve it one by one. Since there's a huge quantum of articles we can define certain conditions to make the bot target very specific pages. For eg.

1. WP India pages
2. Rs. Not Rs
3. Ignore content in citation
4. Ignore pages that contain words like Pakistani or Pakistan

We can define certain other conditions as well to make the bot more practical and useful. We need a bot to convert Rs. to symbol, the criteria on which it will work is what we can discuss and bring a consensus on.-- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo 22:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Also: ignore anything in a quotation. Also, the fourth criterion above is not something that can be programmed into a bot; it's not specific enough. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:14, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

If the symbol was introduced in 2010, then surely we shouldn't use it when referring to payments or values from before then? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:34, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Since its officially adopted as new currency symbol, it should be used for all the times including those prior to 2010. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo 10:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

This would need a wider discussion, definitely. I would object to this bot task on the basis that many older computers/browsers do not currently support the unicode being used here. Replacing Rs. with what appears to be a box to many people is not desirable. ~ Rob^Talk 10:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I suppose that ₹ doesn't appear to anyone as a box. If its so, please comment below-- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo 17:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• This shouldn't be a bot task, in addition to the other issues from above, there's also a stylistic preference and it should be treated at an article level, sort of like citation styles. It's the same for other currencies including Yen/¥ or USD/US$/$. Add to that the fact that there's still not uniform support for the unicode character. —SpacemanSpiff 18:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Denied. per the above. Mdann52 (talk) 15:49, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

A bot to replace jain texts and jain Scriptures with Jain Agamas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Capankajsmilyo (talk • contribs) 06:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Impossible. This task sounds infeasible.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 16:57, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

A bot to add infobox on pages with biography tag and vice versa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Capankajsmilyo (talk • contribs) 06:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Impossible It is impossible to have a bot select the appropriate infobox for all articles and populate it with the correct data. This is a task that needs human input and is far too complex for a bot. ~ Rob^Talk 16:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Can a bot be set up to go through Another Believer (talk · contribs) postings to talk pages about "Wiki Loves Pride" (on June 3 and June 2)? All the announcements (such as this one [3]) are missing dated signatures, and are thus going to break the archival bots on all these WikiProject talk pages that automatically archive discussions based on a date timestamp. Missing the timestamp, these will not be archived, so will continue to advertise the event well after it is over, becoming useless congestion on the talk pages. -- 70.51.202.183 (talk) 04:19, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

per discussions at VPM there is support for having these signed. Can someone implement a bot to go through and sign these? -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 08:18, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I doubt this task is worth the use of a bot. The individual WikiProjects can manually archive these notices using One Click Archiver as they come across them. I don't see this as a request that is worth the trouble of creating a bot and going through the approval process when the solution takes a couple of seconds from a member of each of these projects. ~ Rob^Talk 16:40, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

N Not done per Rob. The outcome is not worth the effort to code this one time bot. If you really need this, ask Slakr to see if you can enlist SineBot to do this.—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 02:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

On 31 July (that's next Friday!) the top level domain .an (used for the Netherlands Antilles, until their dissolution in 2010) will be terminated, which will result in a significant number of dead links. Most (but not all) domain owners moved to the corresponding Curacao domain (.cw), while keeping the .an page in tact. I'd like a bot to:

• convert all .an links to .cw
• if possible, check if these .cw domains give a result (any result) and if not: make a list for manual checking....
• if possible, check if the link on the .an is the exact copy of the link to the .cw site (and make a list of non-conforming links)

Would that be doable or am I making a very complicated request? L.tak (talk) 22:04, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

@L.tak: There are 157 (well 156, I fixed one) links listed here. Easy enough to fix the project ones manually? (note there are many dead links which will need an archival copy search.)

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:25, 27 July 2015 (UTC).

 Question: I think this can be done manually. Is this still needed? Cyberbot II can also link dead sources to archives when tagged dead.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 20:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

N Not done Cyberbot II now adds archives to dead links, as noted above. That takes care of the immediate issue of verifiability. As for the issue of updating with new live URLs, the assumption that all .an domains converted to .cw (rather than someone else snatching the .cw domain) is a fairly strong one. Given the mistakes that would result when the assumption failed and the relatively low number of URLs to check (146 as of now), this portion of the task is not a good task for a bot. ~ Rob^Talk 03:21, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

There are a lot of articles on Wikipedia containing blogs as sources. The job of the bot will be to tag specific sections containing such unreliable sources with appropriate tag. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 18:11, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

That would require a list of such unreliable sources, which would be huge. A lesser concern would also be otherwise-unreliable sources that are actually reliable in a specific context. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:17, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

not a list, we would use specific words like 'blog' etc. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 18:21, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Sometimes blogs are acceptable sources. ϢereSpielChequers 18:31, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• Impossible This is an impossible task for a bot.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 20:34, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Last year, a dft_category parameter was added to {{Infobox GB station}}. However, still only a minority of railway station articles are using it, although there have been Wikipedia categories for them for much longer.

I am therefore requesting a bot to go through these articles (categories A–C2 have been done manually, and so only D, E, F1 and F2 still need to be done). The action to be performed on each is to add | dft_category = [category] to the infobox, and remove the manually-added category (since the infobox automagically adds the article to the relevant category, and having it there manually as well would create a risk of the two becoming out of sync).

I can see that there are cases that would need to be considered:

• pages where the parameter has already been added (in which case the bot shouldn't do anything, except possibly remove the redundant manually-added category if there is one)
• stations that are in more than one category (in which case the bot should flag them for human attention)
• redirects and other similar templates (Infobox London station)
• nested templates that may be present (though if the new parameter is added right at the beginning of the template transclusion this shouldn't be an issue).

— Smjg (talk) 17:28, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I am not fun of categories added via templates/infoboxes in pages. This causes inconsistencies between pages having an infobox and those how don't. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

That would be WP:TEMPLATECAT. But there are no articles without an infobox for which one of these categories is applicable: every station that has been assigned by the Department for Transport to one of their categories (A, B, C1, C2, D, E, F1, F2) has a Wikipedia article; and every one of those articles has either {{infobox London station}} {{infobox GB station}} or its redirect {{infobox UK station}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Note also that the comment in WP:TEMPLATECAT is merely a recommendation, not a policy. Moreover, the reasons for it don't seem to be applicable here - once this work is complete, these categories will be populated almost entirely through these templates, thereby making it easier to restructure. Maybe there are still drawbacks to this approach, but I think it is a lesser evil than having to maintain the DfT category in two places in parallel (the infobox and the article categories) and the consequential likelihood of somebody inadvertently updating one but not the other. — Smjg (talk) 14:04, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

It's been nearly 2 months now. Anybody? — Smjg (talk) 17:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Smjg, I can see why you'd want to do this and it wouldn't be tricky to do. But there are some tricky edge-cases that suggest it's not as simple as you suggest. For instance, United Kingdom railway station categories says that St Pancras railway station is in two categories. I see how the template handles this, but how would the bot know what to do? Relentlessly (talk) 18:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Relentlessly, I already began to explain this. When the bot stumbles upon an unusual case such as this, it would not alter the article, but flag it for human attention in some way. — Smjg (talk) 22:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

This has been waiting 5 months now. The backlog is getting worse. I'd probably try and implement it myself if I had more time to look into the necessary processes (acquiring or developing suitable tools, implementing the bot, getting approval, whatever else) and carry them out. Can anybody hazard a guess at:

• what has happened to all the long-time bot authors?
• what we can do to recruit new bot authors to replace the ones that have disappeared?

— Smjg (talk) 16:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

•  Question: Can I have an example edit on what the bot is supposed to do, for clarification? Also, I assume this will be a one-time bot?—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 22:11, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
• This can be handled with AWB for the simplest cases, getting rid of edge cases using filtering of categories. I could possibly take a look at this, but I'm hesitant to use a bot for this without clear consensus that it's worth ignoring all rules on WP:TEMPLATECAT. ~ Rob^Talk 22:40, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Doing... Since this is a one-time bot, it shouldn't take too long to create, and push through BRFA.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 17:22, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

BRFA filed—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 23:27, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Y Done—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 01:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Please could someone do this:

1. For every page or category beginning with a cardinal number (e.g. 17th-, 21st-) century; or articles prefixed "List of..." matching that pattern:
2. Create a redirect from the equivalent title, with no dash
3. Create a redirect from the equivalent title, using words
4. Create a redirect from the equivalent title, using words, with no dash

For example, for the existing Category:20th-century war artists, I just created:

• Category:20th century war artists
• Category:Twentieth-century war artists
• Category:Twentieth century war artists

Other examples matching the above pattern would include:

• 20th-century music
• List of 20th-century religious leaders

This might usefully be added to a list of monthly cleanup tasks, for new articles and categories matching the above pattern. Note the overlap with #Redirects to lists, from the things they are lists of, above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:35, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: What redirect template(s) do you want included on these new redirects? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 19:45, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: I suppose {{Redirect from alternative spelling}} would be best, but I have no strong feelings on the matter. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:59, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

This request doesn't seem to match with Wikipedia:Categories for discussion#Redirecting categories, unless they each "frequently have articles assigned to them accidentally, or are otherwise re-created over and over." But there's no evidence of that presented here. Anomie⚔ 11:58, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

As I read it, the CFD thing you quote is in a different context: it's saying "We delete most categories, but if it's a likely mistake, we redirect it instead of deleting it". I don't see it as being at all relevant to the idea of creating the likely mistakes in the first place. Nyttend (talk) 23:41, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Except it doesn't say "unless it's a likely mistake" at all. It says "unless people keep actually making the mistake". Anomie⚔ 00:56, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

"Likely" is demonstrated by the fact that people make it, but again, the context is that of deletion versus redirecting, where the category already exists; it doesn't address the request being made here. Nyttend (talk) 01:55, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I for one keep making this "mistake", when using HotCat. The redirects will help me and other editors to find the categories we need to apply. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Can anyone help, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Anyone? User:Anomie, did you read the above exchange? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I read it. Didn't change my opinion. HotCat has various other shortcomings too, e.g. people adding maintenance categories directly instead of using the appropriate templates. Anomie⚔ 23:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

• Needs wider discussion. We are talking about mass creating redirects. This to me needs a wider discussion.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 21:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

  N Not done No discussion.—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 18:28, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

The bot would monitor recent changes and look for people adding username mentions to existing posts but not not changing the timestamp. It would then ping the new mention user, giving them a diff of where their username was added in an ineffective ping attempt. Opt-out capable for both the mentioner and the mentioned. –xeno^talk 10:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

It's a great idea, and would be better if I could make use of echo to the message delivery. Since I can't the fact that mentioning users with a bot opens up to mass spamming. So I'm going to have to say that this Needs wider discussion..—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 20:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

N Not done No discussion.—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 15:20, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Any help is appreciated with diffusing Category:Userboxes, which was tagged as a container cat, possibly with operations such as considering moving pages in the 'User' namespace to the Category:Userbox user templates subcategory. --Slivicon (talk) 09:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't see why Category:Userboxes was tagged as a container cat to begin with. Barring any reasoning that still applies, the best option is to simply remove the container tag. ^Avic_ennasis @ 23:58, 24 Av 5775 / 23:58, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

@Avicennasis: I've removed the container with this edit and linked to here in the edit summary. If it is reverted, hopefully the editor will explain here. Slivicon (talk) 15:01, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Container aside, though, I think it would still be helpful for maintenance to diffuse the category where possible, if there are ways bots could help. Slivicon (talk) 15:03, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

 Question: Diffuse it in what way?—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 20:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

N Not done No response.—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 15:20, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi all, I am currently looking to clean up a series of confusing and unnecessary redirects created for non-notable hockey players. We've already grabbed the low hanging fruit (Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 1#NHL team draft pick redirects), but many of these spurious redirects will also fall into a series of articles that numbers about 4000+ pages. Impossible to do by hand. What I would like to request is a list of all redirects pointing to any article in Category:National Hockey League team seasons and it's children, and any article in Category:Ice hockey trophies and awards and it's children. Either as a CSV or as a list in a table on a user subpage. (this may be huge, incidentally.) I will then review and deal with the redirects I believe should be deleted or modified myself. Thanks! Resolute 13:24, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Do you need the target of the redirects, too? Or just the redirects? And I assume this is for redirects in mainspace to articles in mainspace, so we can exclude templates and the like, correct? ^Avic_ennasis @ 15:32, 17 Elul 5775 / 15:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

The target too, please. And yes, just for redirects into mainspace. Template, Wikipedia, etc. namespaces are out of scope for this request. Thanks! Resolute 17:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done at User:Resolute/botreq. ^Avic_ennasis @ 20:21, 17 Elul 5775 / 20:21, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

That is actually shorter than I feared, excellent! And I can see some other junk that should be cleaned up too. Thanks for the quick list! Resolute 20:51, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

A bot that removes super category from articles. I mean that article has a category a and b. Category b is a subcategory of a. Then it should remove a from categories of that article. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo 13:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

• Needs wider discussion.. Mass decategorization of articles will need consensus.—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 15:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
• The bot shouldn't remove category a if category a contains {{All included}}, such as Category:American films. GoingBatty (talk) 16:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • This bot is for article pages whereas {{All included}} is only for category pages. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo 18:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
    • I think you misunderstand. If {{All included}} is located on a category's page, the category should not be removed from an article even if the article belongs to a subcategory. A bot designed to do this would have to check each category it removes to verify the category doesn't have {{All included}} on it. ~ Rob^Talk 19:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
      • I'm not able to get it. Does all include add the category on article or article in category? If first thing is valid than does it appear on the article edit page? Cos this bot will only edit the article content available on edit page. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo 19:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
        • {{All included}} is for information and doesn't add any categories by itself. There are cases where we do want an article to appear in a category even if it also appears in one or more of its subcategories. {{All included}} is used to document some of these cases. For example, Category:Bridges in New York City contains {{allincluded|bridges in New York City|bridges}} which produces: This means that it's OK for 145th Street Bridge to be in both Category:Bridges in New York City and it's subcategory Category:Bridges in Manhattan. See more at Wikipedia:Categorization#Non-diffusing subcategories, and see Wikipedia:Categorization#Eponymous categories for another situation where we want an article to appear in both a category and subcategory. The suggested bot run would make a huge number of category removals against guidelines, and I don't think it's realistic to code a bot to determine when to remove these categories. At best, a bot could produce a long list for human review, but in order to be useful the bot would need to check several things to reduce the number of false positives. It may be difficult to make the bot clever enough for editors to find it worth the time to review the produced list. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
          • It would be feasible to get a list of all categories that transclude {{All included}} and use that as a blacklist of categories not to remove. Alternatively, a continuous run bot could have a whitelist of categories that should not be present if an article is in a subcategory, which editors could add to. I'm just pointing out that there are ways to do this, but this discussion shouldn't continue further here. If someone wishes to pursue this bot, it needs a discussion at the village pump, most likely. ~ Rob^Talk 22:04, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
• N Not done No further discussion regarding the consensus of such a bot, has taken place.—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 03:01, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
  • A more appropriate and limited version of this request is made a few sections up, for anyone who may wish to seek consensus on something a bit more feasible. ~ Rob^Talk 03:20, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

suggestion is as stated in the section header. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 21:47, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

@Capankajsmilyo: Could you please help to explain how this wouldn't fall under WP:COSMETICBOT? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 22:25, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

references is the old tag and reflist is the new one. Shouldn't there be consistency on WP? Also, with reflist we can use multi column layout, which I doubt references can do. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 22:29, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Needs wider discussion.. Functionally the same for tons of pages. We don't have a bot that goes around bypassing template redirects just to make everything consistent - and we don't need one. If you really, really wanted this, you'd need consensus from the wider community. ^Avic_ennasis @ 23:00, 22 Elul 5775 / 23:00, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

They aren't "old" and "new", but rather one is using the other (in this case, {{reflist}} uses <references>). --Izno (talk) 02:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Personally I use reflist, but I know an editor who uses the other format and who has strong views as to why it is better. @RexxS: ϢereSpielChequers 11:12, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

There is no consensus to replace with the tag. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:58, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Can you please explain how is references tag better than reflist? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 05:20, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I am just saying this page is for requesting a bot to perform a task that already has consensus and not to form consensus. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:15, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

< references/> is on all wikis, {{reflist}} is a template that is not on all wikis. So they aren't exactly the same, and people translating from English to other languages are better off if we stick to < references/>. If we accept that a significant use of the English Wikipedia is as the source for translations into other languages then that is a reason for preferring < references/>, (personally I still use reflist out of long ingrained habit, but I do now know the reason why < references/> is a better tag and I should use it instead. ϢereSpielChequers 11:59, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

N Not done per above. ^Avic_ennasis @ 22:18, 29 Elul 5775 / 22:18, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

It'd be nice if a bot automatically moved Template:Expand Japanese tags incorrectly placed on the talk page to the article page.  – czar 06:51, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

 Done as a one-time run. I think a better fix would be to change the template to only work on articles, and make it provide a warning when used outside mainspace. ^Avic_ennasis @ 18:44, 25 Elul 5775 / 18:44, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Illinois (album) was moved to Illinois (Sufjan Stevens album), to disambiguate from the newer article Illinois (Brett Eldredge album). Please fix the links to Illinois (album) to point them to Illinois (Sufjan Stevens album). Then I can redirect Illinois (album) to Illinois (disambiguation)#Media and entertainment. Jujutacular (talk) 00:28, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

@Jujutacular:  Doing... manually, since some of the links might need to go to Eldredge's album. GoingBatty (talk) 00:48, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

@Jujutacular:  Done, including links in Template, File, Portal, and Wikipedia space. GoingBatty (talk) 01:31, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

@Jujutacular: I also changed the redirect. Since you're an admin, maybe you could move Template:Editnotices/Page/Illinois (album). GoingBatty (talk) 01:36, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Done, thank you for catching that. Jujutacular (talk) 02:01, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

@Jujutacular: Could you also delete the redirect Template:Editnotices/Page/Illinois (album)? The redirect Illinois (album) doesn't need an edit notice. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:41, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Done. Jujutacular (talk) 14:12, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

As of June 4, 2015 The LiederNet Archive has migrated from http://www.recmusic.org/lieder/ to http://www.lieder.net/lieder/ – Up till now they maintain "soft" redirects for each of their previous pages, but as there are quite a few links to this website in Wikipedia, could a bot assist in replacing the string "www.recmusic.org/lieder" by "www.lieder.net/lieder" wherever the former string appears in wikicode text on the site? Examples:

• http://www.recmusic.org/lieder/get_text.html?TextId=14436 → http://www.lieder.net/lieder/get_text.html?TextId=14436 (this link is for example used here: Ode to Joy#External links)
• www.recmusic.org/lieder → www.lieder.net/lieder

Tx! --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:20, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken: First, are you 100% positive nothing else has changed in any of the links on their site? i.e. Is it possible they changed other pieces of their URLs at the same time as the domain name change? We wouldn't want to accidentally break links when the soft redirects currently work. Also, consensus to perform such edits is probably needed, especially given WP:COSMETICBOT. ~ Rob^Talk 19:30, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

1. Yes I'm positively sure, they didn't change anything else. They have over tenthousand pages, of course I didn't check all of them. For the ones I changed here they all work; I also tested for other types than the most frequent "get_text.html?TextId=..." type:
   • ComposerId: http://www.recmusic.org/lieder/get_settings.html?ComposerId=2520 → http://www.lieder.net/lieder/get_settings.html?ComposerId=2520 Y
   • SongCycleId: http://www.recmusic.org/lieder/assemble_texts.html?SongCycleId=7772 → http://www.lieder.net/lieder/assemble_texts.html?SongCycleId=7772 Y
   • Internal search engine results: http://www.recmusic.org/lieder/find_titles.html?pat=Sehnsucht → http://www.lieder.net/lieder/find_titles.html?pat=Sehnsucht Y
2. No it's not COSMETICBOT, e.g. the 5th link at Sehnsucht#External links leads to the "soft redirect page", but clicking on the link on that page goes to the LiederNet main page (and not the page with the collection of "Sehnsucht" songtexts) – after changing the URL (see last example above) everything works fine again. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:00, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I misunderstood what you meant by soft redirect. If these links aren't going to the pages that were formerly located at them, then yes, COSMETICBOT does not apply. This likely doesn't need specific consensus then; it's routine maintenance. ~ Rob^Talk 20:08, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Tx, just posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#LiederNet website migration, but that's OK then. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:13, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

BRFA filed Thine Antique Pen (talk) 21:18, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• That would be Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/TAP Bot 6 afaics, I replied to the comment after trial. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:27, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Y Done Thine Antique Pen (talk) 15:49, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 August 21#Template:NNDB, Template:NNDB with 1,165 transclusions needs to be orphaned. Most of the time it's used as an external link, but some of its transclusions are contained within references. I suggest that the latter group be left to humans to deal with. Alakzi (talk) 16:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Doing... as soon as I can find an admin to undelete the darn thing. ~ Rob^Talk 19:24, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't know who's been orphaning it, but it's only got 560 transclusions now. Alakzi (talk) 21:43, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

False alarm. It's just that about half were Template:Nndb transclusions, a redirect which was deleted and restored later. Alakzi (talk) 16:20, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

@Alakzi: N Not done as a bot. It appears someone really did orphan those using that redirect, possibly after the deletion and before the restoration when they were just red-linked templates. Since there are only a tad over 500 of these left and human attention required on the ones in reference tags, this isn't worth the BRFA. I'll handle it some time this week with regular AWB. If it's not done by Friday, message me on my talk page. ~ Rob^Talk 05:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Back in the 2000s, I went on a rampage of blanking or deleting thousands of old IP talk pages because the messages on them were stale. A consensus of the community later developed that these pages should generally be templated, so that the record of the IP activity remains visible in the edit history. Last month I went back and templated all of the pages I had previously deleted or blanked for deletion, in order to restore their edit history accordingly. For the time being, these show up as pages templated to indicate in edit history, but with no underlying edit history visible to most editors. I am now in the much slower process of restoring those edit histories. Is it possible for a bot to restore the edit histories for this set of 2,585 pages? Cheers! bd2412 T 17:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

That would require an adminbot, and since I missed the passing point in my RfA by a hair, I am unable to do it for you. That aside, this Needs wider discussion.. While consensus exists to preserve talk pages, I don't see consensus to restore the deleted ones.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 20:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

The latter point is moot. I boldly deleted them (or marked them for deletion), and I have boldly restored them. bd2412 T 21:27, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

If we do need wider discussion let's do that first, but otherwise I'm happy to pick this one up. Seems fairly easy to implement — MusikAnimal ^talk 21:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I have noted this as an update to the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 139#Question about IP talk pages. Cheers! bd2412 T 01:49, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Cool, this is ready to go when you are. See the test on testwiki — MusikAnimal ^talk 04:37, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Err... I guess I should open an BFRA first :) Let me know when it's time for that — MusikAnimal ^talk 04:38, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

BRFA filed — MusikAnimal ^talk 04:29, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Y Done by MusikAnimal (talk · contribs)—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 17:39, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, templates should only be transcluded onto articles which are linked from the template. Currently {{Ballet}} is transcluded on 1400+ articles. Please could a bot remove from all other articles. We had a similar situation recently with #Template:Aviation lists. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:48, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Doing... Simple to do with AWB, and not something that I think needs specific consensus given that it's a minor change and existing guidelines support it. As soon as my existing BRFA is approved, I'll file one for this. ~ Rob^Talk 10:50, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

BRFA filed ~ Rob^Talk 13:13, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

 Done @Robsinden: There are still 40 pages that violate WP:BIDIRECTIONAL but do not have any ballet-related categories (or, rather, categories in the recursive tree of Category:Ballet). These require human attention to properly categorize before removing the navbox. If you'd like, you're welcome to do it. Otherwise, I recommend posting to WT:BALLET. ~ Rob^Talk 11:24, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Great, thanks for your assistance, I'll take a look. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:26, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello. I would like to make a request now for a "Music bot", to help expand the list at Wikipedia:Sound/list. This list is very helpful for finding music at Wikimedia Commons for insertion into Wikipedia articles. This bot would:

• Look at Wikipedia:Sound/list/A and see all the ogg, flac, and midi files listed there.
• Then, the bot would look at the list of notable composers at List of composers by name and observe which composers have surnames that begin with the letter "A".
• Then, the bot would go to Commons:Category:Composers and look inside (recursively) all of the subcats named exactly like those names having surnames beginning with the letter "A".
• Finally, the bot will make a list of ogg, flac, and midi files that are NOT already listed within Wikipedia:Sound/list/A, but that ARE inside those subcats at Commons.

Of course, the bot could perform this task for any letter of the alphabet other than "A", or even for a combination of letters like "Ba" (as in Bach). This bot would be very useful for identifying music that is sitting around at Commons needing to be inserted into Wikipedia articles. Thanks very much. Incidentally, please note that I have already done this tedious task for the letter "A" by hand, but the rest of the alphabet needs to be done too, and AWB is not enough to do the job.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:27, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I posted this request a couple weeks ago, and just want to reiterate that I'm still very interested in it. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:37, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: Is there a WikiProject from which we get more support for something like this? I am interested, but sounds like considerable work unless we can show it will be worthwhile. Full disclosure, my desire to help with this project is somewhat attributed to the name of my bot =P — MusikAnimal ^talk 04:26, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi User:MusikAnimal, the pertinent wiki project and task force are Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Free music taskforce. Thanks for your interest in this, I hope you can help.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:33, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

This could indeed be useful. Graham87 05:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: So your bot will only edit the Wikipedia:Sound/list subpages? Less than a dozen? It's not a mass edit, it's only a temporary read activity. Perhaps you'd better generate your 12 pages and paste them with your ordinary account, wouldn't you? I think a bot flag is not required. Am I wrong? Ftiercel (talk) 05:37, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi User:Ftiercel, it would not be necessary for the bot to edit the Wikipedia:Sound/list subpages (although doing so is possible). Instead of editing a subpage, the bot could simply provide a list of ogg & flac & midi files for a subpage, and then a human (like me) could edit the subpage. It will probably be useful to split up the sub-pages as they get too big, and that seems like it could be a human task too. I'm not very familiar with bots and bot terminology, so I don't know what it means to paste pages with my ordinary account, and I don't know what a bot flag is.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Coding... — MusikAnimal ^talk 03:36, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Good to know, thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:35, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

BRFA filed — MusikAnimal ^talk 01:49, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Great, thanks MusikAnimal. Looks like it's been speedily approved. Am I allowed to run the bot? Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Yep, speedy approved as it's non-controversial and only edits in the userspace. However I filed the BFRA ahead of time knowing it usually takes a while, when in actuality I haven't finished coding the task :/ I would be done by now, but I got to thinking... all you want is the files on Commons of notable composers that aren't being used here on Wikipedia. That sounds better fit for a labs tool! So I've been working on that, and it's been going well. I'm a busy guy but you can expect to see something maybe some time next week. I'm still going to finish the bot task too, just as a one-time run, but moving forward you'll have a tool at your disposal to locate such files. Best — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:58, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, sounds great. Take your time. Within each sound list file, the music is listed kind of randomly, so please feel free to give us a button for organizing alphabetically by composer if that would be easy (e.g. Mendelssohn before Mozart). Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:14, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Y Done by MusikAnimal (talk · contribs)—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 17:38, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is something that needs to be done, but it feels like the right thing to do: We used to have a Wikiproject WP:SLR, which has become defunct as it served its stated purpose. I think this means that the template {{WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation}} should be removed from article talk pages. — Sebastian 22:56, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Only 162 transclusions]... this could be done by hand or with AWB without much trouble... I'd do it but I don't know the precedence for removing templates from defunct Wikiprojects. Kharkiv07 (T) 01:55, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

If there's no bot to do such things already, then I retract my request. Thank you for your kind offer of using AWB, but you don't have to do that. I have some experience with AWB, although it's been quite a while. — Sebastian 04:38, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

SebastianHelm, I have the impression that the Sri Lanka Reconciliation project was a rare and inspiring example of collaboration replacing wiki-warfare, and that you were a big part of it, IIRC. Don't remove the evidence! It is of historical relevance, especially because of it being a positive example, but also simply on the level of giving credit where due, like we try to permanently leave record of individual contributions (though sometimes edit history gets lost, too). The SRL group deserves credit. People do study wikipedia and the history matters, including what exactly happened at the pages where SRL came in to act differently. You're just being too humble and big-hearted in a too-modest way, now, and that would make it somewhat harder for the sociologists to trace what happened. Sincerely, --doncram 23:11, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, doncram for your nice message. I almost missed it because I didn't get a notification and had considered this discussion closed, but I'm glad I still had it on my watchlist. Yes, it was inspiring, both for others and for me. Your message gave me an idea; I'll just change the template to past tense. — Sebastian 07:44, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

• Shouldn't all those articles be moved/checked against Wikipedia:WikiProject Sri Lanka? Why not propose changing the reconciliation to a historical taskforce within Sri Lanka and maybe even keep it active? Then we can change Template:WikiProject Sri Lanka to incorporate it? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:31, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

  Hello Ricky, I'm sorry, I have no idea what you mean. What do you mean by "within Sri Lanka"? In the country? What do you mean by "the reconciliation" - WP:SLR? If so, I don't see the point: It has served it purpose, so I don't see what changing it would achieve. It's not like those are buildings that can be re-purposed like an Olympic Village. This doesn't sound like a bot request, so could you please explain it on my talk page, where it fits better? That way, I'm more likely to see it. — Sebastian 07:44, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

  • He means "within WikiProject Sri Lanka". ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:48, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

    • I meant within the WikiProject. Anything related to SLR is also related to the WikiProject but rather than deleting it, we can still call the articles related to SLR as related to a taskforce within WikiProject Sri Lanka. There could probably still be work to be done and rather than trying to re-create what's a part of SLR and what isn't, it's better to keep that information. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:55, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
      • As I wrote above, I found a solution, and I consider this bot request resolved. I am happy to discuss anything else on my talk page, but not here. — Sebastian 14:07, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Can someone make a list of which of the thousands of Template:cite isbn subpages are orphaned. Category:ISBN templates only shows 209 pages so if the bot could add the non-orphaned (or all I don't care) to that category, that would be a double fix. Template:cite isbn used to work (still does) by literally transulating a page from a subpage. However, a consensus formed to deprecate its use. While its use may have been deprecated, there's possibly dozens if not hundreds of orphaned pages and it seems like listing them by hand isn't favored. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:01, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Remark: Obviously, all subpages are orphan. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:03, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

It's probably a good idea to categorize all of these either in Category:ISBN templates or possibly in that category and a subcategory Category:Orphaned ISBN templates. Making this list of orphaned templates through categorization makes it easier to keep track of progress in deleting them, if that's the route that we go (and based on past consensus about this template, it should be). ~ Rob^Talk 07:07, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

• Not all of them. For example Template:Cite isbn/978007051800 is still being used in User:Nanite/statmech (an old draft). Attempts to manually substitute these get fought, attempts to bot orphan these get fought so I'd like to at least clear out the ones that got orphaned however they did. The problem is some are showing on old orphaned checklist pages so they won't be considered orphaned even though they technically are. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:12, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Not going there. Had enough for one day. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:43, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

some low hanging fruit? I could probably have AvicBot make a list and then filter those by transclusion count. We'll see. ^Avic_ennasis @ 08:35, 24 Elul 5775 / 08:35, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

• Update The new RFC here was closed so can someone create a bot that (a) deprecates all uses of template:cite isbn and (b) then lists all the subpages of cite ISBN for deletion (or deletes them)? There's thousands more than in the category. I've tried to manually list them here but between notifications and adding them, it's too complicated by hand. -- 23:59, 12 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricky81682 (talk • contribs)

Unless I miscounted, there's 923 subpages that use an ISBN number. Good news is, roughly 823 of them have no transclusions. And of the rest of them, Most have only a single transclusion. I'm not sure the easiest way to orphan those - substituting the template just seems to expand/break it. ^Avic_ennasis @ 04:42, 1 Tishrei 5776 / 04:42, 14 September 2015 (UTC) Easy enough to do once I figured out the call. ^Avic_ennasis @ 04:53, 1 Tishrei 5776 / 04:53, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Wanna just list all the orphaned ones in a single TFD first? Once those are deleted, that should cut down the workload afterwards. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:31, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

That was my thought process. Take everything here in one go, and work through the remaining stuff afterwards. ^Avic_ennasis @ 07:34, 3 Tishrei 5776 / 07:34, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

The cite isbn templates are already orphan. No deletion process has been decided. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:58, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I've started to probe through Category:Surnames and Category:Given names and I've noticed that there are a bunch of disambiguation pages in those categories. That is erroneous because disambiguation pages should be tagged with Category:Disambiguation pages with surname-holder lists, for example. I would like to sort that out, but going through almost 60,000 pages is impossible to do by hand. Therefore, I'd like to have a list of all pages in Category:Surnames and Category:Given names that either are disambiguations or are redirects to disambiguation pages. Once it's compiled, it'd be great if it could be posted in my userspace. Once I have that list, I'll go through it manually because there are a few different ways to solve the problem and I'd like to do general clean-up to them as well. Thanks! -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:51, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

@Tavix: Can you provide an example page that should not be in this category for reference? ~ Rob^Talk 05:00, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

One example is Albergati, with both surname and disambiguation templates. It is the first one of 499 reported by this catscan inquiry. That's not all that exist in both the categories (as many in surname category do not have that template) and that doesn't address redirects. But maybe it helps. To see the 499 results, scroll to bottom of the inquiry and hit "Do it!". Then after a minute or two, when it stops running, the results will be reported below the inquiry (you have to scroll down to see them). --doncram 00:00, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

@Tavix: You can do at least some of what you want directly, yourself. You can generate lists using wp:catscan3 at toolserver (although toolserver is intermittently out of order). See its "Manual" there, where I have included some examples. You can definitely find all disambiguation pages (which are all in a category) crossed with any other category, it is very well set up for that. And using its output I have been generating clickable "fix-lists" like the small one at wt:NYC#help needed on ambiguous links in NYC articles (for which the catscan search specifically excluded disambiguation pages, and looked for pages where the Talk page had Wikiproject NYC's template). Maybe you would want semi-customized output like that, i dunno. I don't see how you can find redirects to disambiguation pages, however, unless the redirects themselves have categories (some do, some do not). For example I created Ries (surname) redirect today, myself, it does not.

Also, FYI, there's other fixing up needed regarding Surnames and Given names, and Set Index Articles vs. Disambiguation pages, discussed partway at wt:DPL (disambiguation pages with links project). I recognize your username from somewhere but I don't see you participating there. It has already been noted there that there are pages with both Surname and Disambiguation templates. See also incomplete discussion there regarding cleaning up animal common name pages, for which cleaning up would include using smarter template with switches. It would be great if you'd participate there, share more about what you want to do there, so perhaps some good stuff could be combined and done more efficiently. Or not, I wouldn't want to delay your good efforts, either. --doncram 23:39, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

@Doncram:, thanks for your help and all your advice. I'll have to check out that tool. I don't participate in WP:DPL, but I'll have to check out those conversations! -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:07, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:07, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

@Tavix: Just double checking before archiving, but this isn't needed anymore, correct? ~ Rob^Talk 04:23, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: Correct! -- Tavix ^(talk) 04:42, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Similar to Template:Cite isbn, can a bot orphan and deprecate the cite hdl subpages? At the start, a listing like User:Ricky81682/cite of the orphaned ones would be helpful. Thanks! -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:16, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

• Ricky81682 Can you direct me toward the consensus discussion for this? Thanks. ~ Rob^Talk 06:28, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
  • N Not done No response; may need wider discussion. ~ Rob^Talk 04:20, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi all. I've just started advertising a survey of UK editors about how to improve wikimeets, see e.g. [4]. I've just been pointed to Category:Wikipedians in the United Kingdom, where there are many thousands of user pages, so I've seriously underestimated the relevant community here. Would anyone be able to run a bot to post notices on the talk pages of users in this category, using the message I linked to above (also at User:Mike Peel/Wikimeet survey request), before the end of the survey on the 30th September? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:00, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

@Mike Peel: You're an admin. Why not use Special:MassMessage? — Earwig ^talk 19:50, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't know about that facility! I'll do that. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:52, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@Mike Peel: Altneratively, use WP:Geonotice. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:57, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: A geonotice is already running! :-) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:19, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• N Not done as alternatives have been suggested and taken up above. ~ Rob^Talk 04:19, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Can some bot replace the BDFutbol links to its templates? Template:BDFutbol/Template:BDFutbol manager? This edit is a representation of what should be done. BDFutbol hasn't changed his links since the creation of the website, so I think this will not be a problem after all. Thank you, MYS77 ^✉ 03:53, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• @MYS77: Could you comment on how this task interacts with WP:COSMETICBOT? This appears to be a cosmetic-only change. ~ Rob^Talk 04:18, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: My bad, it is a cosmetic change. Thank you, MYS77 ^✉ 04:44, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

N Not done @MYS77: Alright, not done as a dedicated bot run, then. Maybe you could talk to the AWB developers about including something like this in the general fixes that piggyback off non-cosemetic edits? ~ Rob^Talk 05:17, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: I'll think about it. Maybe I and other friends who work with the Spanish football pages will do it manually, but I'm not so sure about it right now. Thank you, MYS77 ^✉ 05:42, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

The article currently at Sprint (running) was formerly, until 2010, at Sprint (race). The latter remains a redirect to the running article, although the idea of a "sprint race" is no more aligned with the running article than it is with either Sprint (cycling) or Sprint car racing (the original purpose for the move). All incoming links (over 1000) refer to the running concept, but "sprint (race)" should be orphaned as ambiguous. Would it be possible to do a bot-run to amend all links to "sprint (race)" to "sprint (running)" instead? SFB 21:47, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

N All articles linking to "Sprint (race)" with piped links fall within the remit of WP:NOTBROKEN, since changing the link targets to "Sprint (running)" alters the wikitext of the article without changing the rendered output. For those few articles which render "Sprint (race)", I am changing the link targets using AWB. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:46, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Y Done, with a total of one article modified. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:58, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I think SFB wanted to change Sprint (race) to either a disambiguation page or a redirect to the existing disambiguation page Sprint. Maybe this should get consensus before a bot run is considered. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:14, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I read the original request the same as David. If there is intention to replace the redirect, that is another thing entirely. If that's the case, I'd advise Sillyfolkboy to look into WP:RFD. ~ Rob^Talk 02:54, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, the idea is to redirect to the disambiguation (given the ambiguity). I'll go the RFD route if that's the normal way to do this. SFB 19:31, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

@Sillyfolkboy: Normally, I'd say just redirect boldly, but if you want a bot run we'd need some form of consensus to change the links in the articles. ~ Rob^Talk 22:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

N Not done—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 14:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I see this all over Wikipedia, all the time, especially in the opening sentences of articles about (Jewish) Israeli people. The article will start "X person (born Y date) is an Israeli so-and-so ..."—with the word "Israeli" linking to the article Israeli Jews. This rather pervasive practice is at the very least WP:EASTEREGG linking and, in my opinion, frankly racist. It's as if white American people had their articles opening "X person (born Y date) is an American so-and-so ...", with a link to White American under the word "American". I have removed at least a couple dozen of these usages by hand as I've come across them over the last month or so, but since the number of them seems to be so high (and people with a certain agenda seem to re-add these links occasionally), I think a bot would be advisable to change the wikicode [[Israeli Jews|Israeli]] to just Israeli, without a link. I have no experience in these things so I am listing this here. Any assistance would be appreciated. Cheers, —  Cliftonian (talk)  09:49, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Needs wider discussion. Can you demonstrate consensus for this task? Because this would affect several articles on a very likely contentious issue. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply Headbomb. I have opened an RFC below. Hope you're well, —  Cliftonian (talk)  08:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Discussion moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Bot to remove WP:EASTEREGG (racist?) wikilinks to "Israeli Jews" under the word "Israeli". —  Cliftonian (talk)  18:44, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

We've had the discussion open there for a week, and I've just closed the RFC there (I apologise for holding it here originally). Consensus seems to me to be indecisive on whether to put no link, a link to the country Israel, or a link to Israelis, but everyone who commented seems to agree with my original point that linking "Israeli" to "Israeli Jews" is unacceptable. I'd therefore like to re-submit my request for a bot to help remove the links. If anyone could help I'd appreciate it very much. Cheers, —  Cliftonian (talk)  06:33, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

@Cliftonian: & @Jethro B: Do you need a bot for this, or is AWB good enough? Jethro B used the editsummary "wl per cat" for some of his edits so it seems he was only creating this link if the category category:Israeli Jews was present.

Here is a list of 766 articles that include that link:

The Quixotic Potato (talk) 17:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply and for compiling this list, Quixotic Potato. I'm sorry, but I don't know very much about AWB. I have listed myself for approval in any case. In your opinion, is it feasible to removal these hundreds of links with this tool? If so, do you think you can give me some basic instructions on what to do? It is probably best that we continue this conversation on my talk page so we don't clog up this bot requests page again as I did earlier. Thanks again and have a great weekend. Cheers, —  Cliftonian (talk)  18:35, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I've started working through this on AWB, but I'm looking at a list of over 2,000 and I'm not even down to the end of "A". A bot would be handy here if anyone could help. Thanks, —  Cliftonian (talk)  19:23, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Cliftonian, I'd be happy to give it a go if you can clarify precisely what needs doing. Is it going to each of these links above, checking for [[Israeli Jews|Israeli]] and replacing it with [[Israel]]i? Relentlessly (talk) 19:59, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Relentlessly. I've ploughed through quite a few and am now down to "M" with about 1,600 to go on the list. I've been removing the link altogether: have a look in my contributions. [[Israeli Jews|Israeli]] and replacing it with Israeli. If you could make something replicating this I would appreciate it very much. Thanks and have a great week. Cheers, —  Cliftonian (talk)  20:05, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Cliftonian, can you clarify exactly which articles I should look to fix? Is it pages linking to Israeli Jews? Relentlessly (talk) 20:07, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Relentlessly: yep. Anything with this [[Israeli Jews|Israeli]] construction. —  Cliftonian (talk)  20:08, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Cliftonian, by my reckoning there are just 365 articles containing that code. Is a bot necessary for this small number? Relentlessly (talk) 20:13, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Relentlessly: Oh. Well perhaps I'll just carry on as I am, then, with AWB. Thanks for the offer of help in any case. —  Cliftonian (talk)  20:56, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I think that's all of them. Wasn't as hard as I thought it'd be to do it with AWB—just took a couple hours. Thanks to all the above for helping and/or offering to help, issue is resolved now. Cheers. —  Cliftonian (talk)  21:48, 4 October 2015 (UTC)