Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:45, 28 August 2013

Misplaced Pages programming Bots Extensions Gadgets User scripts List Ranking Requests Guide Other scripts Newsletter Tools

Overview Dictionary Bot policy Bot Approvals Group Guide Noticeboard Newsletter Bot Requests Requests for Approval Adminbots {{BAG Tools}} Creating a Bot List of bots Activity monitor Status report History Types

Commonly Requested Bots Frequently denied Anti-vandal Archiving Autoassessment Newsletter delivery Template substitution WikiProject tagging

• WP:BOTREQ
• WP:BOTR

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

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

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

Alternatives to bot requests

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

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

#	Bot request	Status	💬	👥	🙋 Last editor	🕒 (UTC)	🤖 Last botop editor	🕒 (UTC)
1	Basketball biography infobox request	Needs wider discussion.	8	3	NotAG on AWB	2025-01-04 14:52	Primefac	2024-11-17 20:44
2	Replacing FastilyBot	BRFA filed	30	11	Usernamekiran	2025-01-03 03:59	Usernamekiran	2025-01-03 03:59
3	Deletion of navboxes at Category:Basketball Olympic squad navigational boxes by competition	Working	5	5	MolecularPilot	2025-01-01 04:45	Qwerfjkl	2024-11-20 17:32
4	Province over-capitalization		10	3	Dicklyon	2025-01-01 07:12	Primefac	2024-12-11 22:00
5	Tagging Category:Cinema of Israel	Done	15	2	LDW5432	2025-01-07 20:00	DreamRimmer	2025-01-07 10:27
6	Bot to simplify "ref name" content	Request withdrawn	16	8	BD2412	2025-01-10 04:27	Anomie	2025-01-04 15:10
7	Lowercasing the word "romanized"		10	3	Primefac	2025-01-14 09:38	Primefac	2025-01-14 09:38
8	Serial commas in page titles		6	3	Qwerfjkl	2025-01-20 16:10	Qwerfjkl	2025-01-20 16:10
9	Bot to block proxy servers and VPNs automatically		5	4	DreamRimmer	2025-01-20 01:42	DreamRimmer	2025-01-20 01:42
10	Create redirects from human-curated list		7	4	Anomie	2025-01-22 12:38	Anomie	2025-01-22 12:38
11	IUCN Status Bot		1	1	AidenD	2025-01-21 04:44
12	Bot to track usage of AI images in articles		7	3	DreamRimmer	2025-01-23 11:35	DreamRimmer	2025-01-23 11:35

She's the One (song)

I recently changed title into She's the One (Bruce Springsteen song). Perhaps you can fix ambiguity? --George Ho (talk) 05:03, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Can you clarify?—cyberpower _Online 09:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I made some fixes to She's the One (disambiguation), and fixed a few links to She's the One and She's the One (song). X Factor (Romania season 2) is the only page that I see that still needs the ambiguity fixed. GoingBatty (talk) 01:05, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Fixed without needing bot. --Stryn (talk) 18:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Assessment drive bot

Hi people, I'm hoping someone could quickly slap a bot together to perform the tasks in Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Spirits/Assessment Drives/September 2013, that is check daily if there are newly assessed articles, tally those, and print them out in a table. Does anyone have laying something around, or can slap something together quickly? Cheers, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Well I certainly can't conjure up anything fast. Sorry. Someone else will have to do that.—cyberpower _Online 14:07, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Star Wars Holiday Special

Moved from The Star Wars Holiday Special per RM. --George Ho (talk) 01:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, what does this have to do with bots? — Earwig  01:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I meant, just changing links in articles that link to this article. Well, from redirect title to current title. --George Ho (talk) 01:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

You might want to check a few sections above about the Eagles album link fixing after a RM (Theo's Little Bot). Same effective task. Alternately an AWB user may be able to do that easily too. --MASEM (t) 01:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Pages containing "The Star Wars Holiday Special" are now changed to "Star Wars Holiday Special". --Stryn (talk) 07:34, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

list articles with duplicate fields in their language infobox

Since the parameters in the info boxes are inconsistently ordered, we sometimes end up with duplicated fields. This can cause editing problems. I'd like a list of all articles with duplicate parameters in transclusions of {{Infobox language}} and {{Infobox language family}}, with the parameters that are duplicated, even if the fields are blank. (A blank field will still override a filled one, and will also invite future additions that may not display properly). Since there's no actual changes of the articles by the bot, I hope this will be easy to approve. — kwami (talk) 23:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

It's at most 9000 pages to check (if checking for both templates consecutively), and at least 7900, so it'll take a while to complete when started. I'm willing, though I won't be able to start it immediately.  Hazard-SJ  ✈  04:05, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. No rush, and a couple years ago I did an AWB search for some of the more common problems, so hopefully there won't be a lot of hits.

I don't know what would be an easy way to do this, since there are an indefinite number of possible parameters. Perhaps one way would be to flag any parameters which aren't supported by the template; that would be useful info to have as well, though I didn't want to ask for too much in a bot request. — kwami (talk) 05:59, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The Best Is Yet to Come

Redirect page is The Best Is Yet to Come (song), with pages linking to the redirect. The target page is the very old song, so "(song)" should be dropped in linked articles. --George Ho (talk) 23:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Why? In general, WP:NOTBROKEN applies. If you're going to change the target of the redirect or have some other reason that WP:NOTBROKEN doesn't apply, you need to say so. Anomie⚔ 10:27, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

There is more than one song of the same name, so WP:NOTBROKEN wouldn't apply. --George Ho (talk) 16:24, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Template:Infobox soap character 2 cleanup

Template:Infobox soap character 2 should only be used for EastEnders characters where relationships play a strong role. Nowadays, the infobox has been ambushed to import unencyclopedic text in infoboxes. A bot (or a willing editor) should replace Template:Infobox soap character 2 with Template:Infobox soap character to all non-EastEnders characters. this can be done by simply removing the number 2. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree. Yes, since a lot of non-EastEnders characters are using that infobox.  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 14:09, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Discussion is active at Template_talk:Infobox_soap_character_2#Infobox_needs_to_be_replaced_in_many_many_cases. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

If that's the case, it should be renamed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:22, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Andy Mabbett check this. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:24, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

On reflection, I've nominated both templates for a merger discussion at TfD. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

That template is almost certainly not attributed exclusively to EastEnders articles. Very bold move to simply set a bot on any given number of articles. Please consider that many other editors have spent their time discussing what should be included in the infobox. It has been adapted for wide use. It has been discussed before and not only those at WP:EE were willing to use the template. And as for the unfounded accusation that it was "ambushed to import unencyclopedic text". Most have spent time eliminating as many clutter and in-universe parts of the template going.Rain the 1 20:36, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Correct, it's not only for EastEnders, it's for all. The documentation hadn't been updated since several templates were merged (nobody had noticed) a few years ago. Nothing has been ambushed and there is no unencyclopaedic text. But no, removing the "2" won't work because the two templates have very different parameters. –anemoneprojectors– 08:21, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Category:Pages using citations with accessdate and no URL

With new error checking, we currently have 45,000+ pages in Category:Pages using citations with accessdate and no URL. This is mostly due to citation templates that include |accessdate= but do not have |url=. --  Gadget850 19:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Do we want outright deletion or putting it into a comment or? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 19:29, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete. I have sampled the category and each has been a book or journal without a link. 'accessdate' has no meaning without a URL. --  Gadget850 20:09, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll have that added to Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval/Hazard-Bot 21.  Hazard-SJ  ✈  06:06, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Bot to tag articles only sourced to National Register Information System

Through many pages/months/years? of discussion at WT:NRHP and its archives, it has been decided that a bot is needed to tag any articles with only a single reference to the National Register Information System (NRIS) with the {{NRIS-only}} template, which encourages the addition of extra sources and puts the articles in cleanup categories, "Articles sourced only to the NRIS since MONTH YEAR". The shortcomings of NRIS are explained here.

To find articles that are only sourced to NRIS, a list of all the pages on which {{NRISref}} is transcluded could be a starting point. There may also be pages that link directly to older versions of the NRIS website, which would include the string "www.nr.nps.gov" somewhere in their content. From this giant list of articles, those with a single reference need to be picked off and tagged.

After its initial run, the project would like for the bot to continually check new articles and tag them if they are NRIS-only and prevent the removal of the NRIS-only template from existing articles unless a second source is added. Is this possible?--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 05:06, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Dudemanfellabra for raising this. The hopes and concerns for what a bot run could accomplish were under discussion at wt:NRHP#Moving forward. I guess it can be discussed here instead; there is a pointer now from there to here.

I don't agree that it "has been decided" that tagging, as proposed, should be done, and especially not with promises to repeatedly reimpose a tag, where editors make judgment that the tag is not helpful. It would clearly be helpful to identify the articles believed to have faults, say by listing them in a workpage.

If and when a tag is deemed helpful by a real consensus, the tag itself would need improvement, including to have a state-specific switch/indicator, to enable customization of links for state-specific sources, to enable state-specific categorizations.

Important concerns about some proposals include:

• the likely disruption caused by the posting of a negatively worded template in many NRHP articles, when the proposed message is alarmist and sometimes false. Note the current wording proposed is far more negative than, say, the {{One source}} template.
• no procedure for removal of template, or intentions to battle about it, when article editors have already done what could be done for an article. For example there are articles where multiple sources were in fact used, but are included as external links or have been removed by article-specific dispute, e.g. where one editor argues a source is a blog or too-blog-like to be included in a mainspace reference. That's a sourcing disagreement to be covered properly at the article's Talk page, and an incorrect tag message should not be re-inserted at the article itself by a bot or otherwise. Some provision for a hidden category or a list of articles not to be re-tagged needs to be set up, before tagging proceeds.
• the potential wp:BATTLEGROUND set up by the wishes by one or more to manually battle, or to have a bot run repeatedly impose, the insertion of a negative template into articles where it is arguably not helpful (for reasons above, or otherwise). Dudemanfellabra's request, here, clarifies that it is indeed his intention to carry on in that way, while he responded unhelpfully and not clearly answering, to a question on this at the previous discussion.

These are serious issues which should be resolved elsewhere, perhaps including ANI or arbitration or RFC/U, about personal attacks and so on included in the discussion.

However, if this bot were just to create a workpage, listing and linking to the articles, which would help to quantify the problem and allow for editors to address the targeted articles, and not to tag them in mainspace, I do support that.

To clarify or perhaps improve upon the bot request:

• Could the bot identify not just the NRIS-only-sourced articles, but also identify no-sourced or just-one-non-NRIS-source articles, and identify which they are. The bot could hopefully identify whether there is zero or just one inline reference in a given article, and where there is one, determine if that is an NRIS-only one by seeing if it starts with <ref name="nris"> or <ref name=nris>. That would correctly identify most NRIS-only ones, but there are other formats of references which actually really only refer to the same NRIS underlying source, but which are presented as references to NationalRegisterOfHistoricPlaces.com (a private website that is an NRIS mirror) or otherwise.
• Could the bot make a list organized by state, or make a separate list for each state, to be located at, say, Misplaced Pages:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/OneSourceList (or Misplaced Pages:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/OneSourceList/Alabama, Misplaced Pages:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/OneSourceList/Alaska, etc for state-specific ones). This would facilitate followup work by editors (who are mostly geographically focused).

--doncram 17:58, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Dudemanfellabra's bot request is the result of a discussion process (Misplaced Pages talk:NRHP#New articles should be sourced) that started about a month ago. Everyone who has participated in the discussion appears to support this bot request, except for Doncram. Doncram's request to inject several additional layers of complexity does not have support on the Wikiproject -- and in fact may be an attempt to derail Dudemanfellabra's request by making it so impossibly complex that it won't be implemented. Dudemanfellabra's request is a good idea, with broad support. Please consider it. --Orlady (talk) 18:25, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no complexity that I am able to observe. The language of the tag is in no way, different than, any other tag stating that an article requires work/attention. If the tag were to state, WOW this is terrible OR what a big bag of suck this is, etc etc, sure fine. It does not. I have volunteered to take a look at all NRHP in WV. I started with McDowell County, so far, its about right. BUT, if a bot were to add the potential for more data, lets do it. Very simple.Coal town guy (talk) 18:40, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with Orlady's characterization. The general discussion has included support for other alternatives, such as creating a cleanup category (which would not require any mainspace display). There was considerable support for that. The discussion also included vile language and personal attacks, and then most participants dropped out, relatedly. There is less-than-broad support for the specific proposal made here about tagging mainspace articles.

And, about the suggestion that my suggestion is an attempt to make something impossibly complex, is nonsense. It would be easy for a bot to make a worklist, this is done all the time. And should not be controversial. --doncram 18:41, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

If you disagree with Orlady, OR ANYONE ELSE, isnt there another avenue besides this bot request?Coal town guy (talk) 18:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages bots
• Misplaced Pages requests