Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tim1357 (talk | contribs) at 04:05, 8 February 2012 (→"Abandoned articles"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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	Bulk remove "link will display the full calendar" from articles about calendar years	Y Done	7	5	Primefac	2025-01-14 12:43	Primefac	2025-01-14 12:43
5	Province over-capitalization		10	3	Dicklyon	2025-01-01 07:12	Primefac	2024-12-11 22:00
6	Tagging Category:Cinema of Israel	Done	15	2	LDW5432	2025-01-07 20:00	DreamRimmer	2025-01-07 10:27
7	Bot to simplify "ref name" content	Request withdrawn	16	8	BD2412	2025-01-10 04:27	Anomie	2025-01-04 15:10
8	Lowercasing the word "romanized"		10	3	Primefac	2025-01-14 09:38	Primefac	2025-01-14 09:38

Project tagging bot

The people who have tagged articles in WP:CHIBOTCATS with {{WikiProject Chicago}} have mostly gone inactive, except for one admin who no longer tags. Are there any bots that tag by category? If not we need a new one.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:47, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I just got approval for one. What are you trying to do? Do you just want to tag as WPChicago or was that just an Example? --Kumioko (talk) 14:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes we need all the new articles in the cats listed at WP:CHIBOTCATS (but not their subcats) tagged with {{WikiProject Chicago}}. Auto rating unrated pages would be good. I.e., if a majority of other tags have a class=x, then fill that class in for Chicago.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:06, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I have a request sitting with DodoBot - User_talk:DodoBot/Requests#WP:UKROADS - if you'd like to steal that one away and do it, I'd be much obliged. All details there, but you could come back to me - if you feel like doing it - should you need to know more. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok. I am currently going through some for WPUS and Oklahoma asked for a couple hundred too so after that I'll start working with these unless someone grabs them first. IN the Chicago one may I suggest also adding WikiProject Illinois if its not there already. --Kumioko (talk) 18:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for UKRoads. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Just so you know, my bot, Hazard-Bot, is approved for such tasks.  Hazard-SJ  ㋡  23:47, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

If you'd like to steal UK Roads, I'm sure no-one would object. I'd just be fascinated to see it done ;) --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Please do Hazard. Got another 65000 in the que before I can do it. --Kumioko (talk) 00:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I started, but not sure if I will do them all at once. I'll finish at a later time if so.  Hazard-SJ  ㋡  00:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

So is Chicago in somebody's queue now?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:30, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Hazard-SJ (talk · contribs), can you handle this for me?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:17, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you watching here? I will ping your page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:08, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I should be able to help with it in the next few days. Got a couple others in the hopper at the moment. --Kumioko (talk) 04:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry about the delay. I've started the UKROADS more than once and left it to run, but it seems an error prevented it from continuing. I believe I should make a page for these kinds of requests so it is easier to follow? I will continue working on UKROADS. If Chicago isn't done when I'm done, I'll attempt it too.  Hazard-SJ  ㋡  06:12, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Any estimate on when you will be done with UKROADS?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. I did some more, but I was having some problems, hence this. I'll get back to it ASAP, hopefully. As for Chicago, that would be a longer hold.  Hazard-SJ  ㋡  03:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I can probably do some on Chicago but I'm not sure my bot is authorized yet to do that type of task. I can do WikiProject Banner replacement but I think I need to request a separate one for tagging new articles to a project. Its a pretty straightforward request with plenty of precadent though so it should be pretty quick. --Kumioko (talk) 04:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Chicago tagging task

I submitted a BRFA to allow my bot to do this type of task but before I get started I got a couple questions about this one.

1. Can I remove the red linked categories from the above page so it doesn't conflict?
   • Yes.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
2. Does the project support all types of content classes (i.e. Category, template redirect, etc.)? If not which ones does it support.
   • Not really sure.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
3. Are you just looking for me to add the Chicago banner or do you want me to do assessment as well? If you do want me to do some assessment what projects do you want me to inherit the class from? --Kumioko (talk) 17:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
   • In the past I believe we inherited by majority. Can you do that? Just make sure not to automatically do subcategories.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. I have to admit I don't know how to inherit by majority. I'm afraid that programming is above my level. What do you mean by not to automatically do subcategories? --Kumioko (talk) 17:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The list at WP:CHIBOTCATS includes the categories that are associated with WP:CHICAGO. Some of the subcategories of those categories include things that are far afield from the project. I will wait for Hazard-SJ (talk · contribs).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

No problem. --Kumioko (talk) 04:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Me sees.  Hazard-SJ  ㋡  07:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

What is the latest?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Any update?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

How about a Me dos?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I could help eventually but my bot is still awaiting the authorization to tag an article and even then it will be a bit limited. It can easily add the chicago banner but doing the assessments is a bit of a different story. As I mentioned above it can inherit the class from another project but my programmer skillz aren't enough to look for what class is most used. I usually just pick another project (usually one I have some faith in the class being correct like MILHIST, USRoads, NRHP and a few others) run through that and then pick the next one. Once I have gone through the more trustworthy ones then I can use the less reliable ones (like Biography for example). --Kumioko (talk) 20:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I am waiting for some reply from Hazard-SJ (talk · contribs). I am under the impression that he may be able to do more of what I want.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Deprecated {{pron-en}}

Deprecated template {{pron-en}} is no longer used in mainspace. However, there are still ca. 350 transclusions in portal space. Could you convert these to {{IPA-en}}, which is still supported? The conversion is simple: if there is only one parameter, add 'pronounced' to the beginning and a pipe at the end:

{{pron-en|ABC}} → pronounced {{IPA-en|ABC|}}

(The pipe prevents the default behaviour of IPA-en.)

If there is a 2nd parameter, double the pipe between them:

{{pron-en|ABC|En-ABC.ogg}} → pronounced {{IPA-en|ABC||En-ABC.ogg}}

If you could drop me a line if/when this is done, I'll clean up any remainders and mark the template as deprecated.

Thanks! — kwami (talk) 22:16, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks fairly easy and non-controversial. I'll probably do this in a semi-automated fashion very shortly. — madman 00:27, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Yeah, these were all converted in main space months ago. I've cleaned up everything else apart from user space, talk, and archives. — kwami (talk) 02:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

 On hold – My apologies for taking so long to find this out, but I actually don't have access to my bot account at the moment until my toolserver account is restored, and I'm not comfortable making semi-automated edits under my primary account. Can another bot operator pick this up? (If not, I should get the account restored within a couple days.) — madman 03:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

It seems pretty straightforward I can probably do it with mine if its ok with everyone. --Kumioko (talk) 03:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok I did a few edits and got a couple comments so I have a followup question.

Should I be changing these templates on Archived talk pages or should I skip those? --Kumioko (talk) 14:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I won't speak for the original requester, but generally changing archived talk pages is frowned upon unless it contributes to the archive's quality (e.g. changing WP:AN/I links to the relevant archive, &c.) I can't say without looking at context, but it appears the original request was only for the portal namespace and it'd probably be best to restrict it to that without more community input in a BRFA or the like. — madman 15:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. I'll start with that and go from there. Just FYI for all there are a lot of transclusions on User and User talk pages as well. --Kumioko (talk) 16:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, I now have access to my bot account, so if Kwamikagami needs anything more than that or if you need any help, I'm now available. — madman 13:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

That would be great. I stopped his bot because it wasn't overriding the default behavior of the new template per the above. (I didn't revert the edits he did make, however. There were 43 of them.) — kwami (talk) 03:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

changing mid vowels in {{IPA-sh}}

Also, I received a request some time ago to convert our IPA key for Serbocroatian to use the letters e and o instead of ɛ and ɔ, which would match our phonology article (they are also more accessible to readers). The transclusions are inconsistent; maybe half follow the key, half the phonology article. We'd need to convert all instances of ɛ and ɔ in transclusions of the {{IPA-sh}} template to e and o, and also to get rid of the up & down tacks under any of those four letters (or any other letters). (The tacks are these: in case it's easier for you to clip & paste.)

AWB at least has a hard time with diacritics, so you may need to convert e and o plus circumflex or caron to hard-coded ê ô ě ǒ.

Getting rid of the tie bars would also be nice, since they're distracting and not used in the key (they're found on t and d: t͡ d͡ ), and a lot of the articles use v (or v̞) for ʋ. — kwami (talk) 07:15, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

There are some other inconsistencies, but they're not so numerous, so I can take care of them. — kwami (talk) 06:30, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I can fulfill the original request; it's non-controversial and an example of what's normally done when a template is deprecated. Can you link me to more consensus (the request, discussion, etc.) on changing the IPA within the template? Also, I'm not using AWB, so I don't anticipate problems with diacritics, though I will have to read up on normalization and such to run this if the changes have consensus. Thanks, — madman 16:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Here,Wikipedia_talk:IPA_for_Serbo-Croatian#Mid_or_open-mid.3F but there's very little comment. A remark that e and o are more accessible, and what are used in our phonology article. — kwami (talk) 07:00, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Forgive me, I don't know much about IPA, but I don't think the proposed changes would only affect Serbo-Croatian articles and thus the scope of the discussion's a little narrow... if it's all right with you, I'd like to proceed by just processing the templates according to your initial request, just changing the name and how the parameters are passed. If you actually want content changes, I think that would be something we'd have to discuss in a BRFA or at the Village Pump, because I'm not completely sure they'd be non-controversial. I can give you a list of pron-en templates with whatever characters you'd like, though, so you or the appropriate WikiProjects could review them. — madman 22:03, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have opened a 2nd request. The Serbo-Croatian change has nothing to do with pron-en, and it does affect only Serbo-Croatian. — kwami (talk) 13:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot about this briefly. Coding... — madman 02:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Y Done – — madman 03:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I've informed the last remaining user of that template. — kwami (talk) 08:51, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Add 'FideID' parameter to chess infobox

Hello all!

Due to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Chess#Automatic updated FIDE rating in infobox (by bot) there are some changes in how the FIDE rating is handeled in Template:Infobox chess biography now and thus it would be very useful if a bot could give some assist here. There are about 1000 pages out there using that template.

The task would be to look at all those pages (assuming they are chess player articles) and search the template:fide extract the value there, add it to the Template:Infobox chess biography as parameter 'FideID' and remove the ranking number from parameter 'rating'. So for example consider Anatoly Karpov:

We have

{{fide|id=4100026}}

there, so extract '4100026' and check the ranking (in chess infobox)

|rating = 2617 <br /><small>(No. 177 on the July 2011 FIDE ratings list)</small>

to be >= 2400 then change it to

|rating =  <br /><small>(No. 177 on the July 2011 FIDE ratings list)</small>

and add

|FideID = 4100026

to the infobox. In order to finish remove the

{{fide|id=4100026}}

template. If this template was not present or the ranking < 2400 do nothing to the article.

One question open is if in the end the template:fide has to be removed from the page also, but I will work on answering this. And there might be a minimal ranking (e.g. 2400) needed also.

If some bot operator is intressted in solving this task that would be very appreciated. Thanks in advance and greetings --DrTrigon (talk) 11:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

No-one liking this one? ;)) Greetings --DrTrigon (talk) 16:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Text modified in order to be up-to-date. Is there a issue with this request in general, or just everybody beeing busy at the moment? Thanks and greetings --DrTrigon (talk) 13:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Would this be a continuous or one-time task? — madman 01:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Just a one-time task in order to switch to the new system (which uses another bot - DrTrigonBot - to automatically update the data and so on - but this is implemented already). Greetings --DrTrigon (talk) 10:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I may look at doing this this weekend. Why should the number in the ranking parameter be removed? (And the linebreak kept?) — madman 19:57, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The number in the ranking parameter should be removed because of when using 'FideID' the ranking number from Template:Elo rating are used (for more info look at Template:Infobox chess biography). The linebreak is still there to give the final user full control over the appearance of the output, since I do not know if every infobox uses a linebreak at that point, thus remove the number only and keep the rest (and linebreak is no number... ;) Thanks a lot for your time and effort! Greetings --DrTrigon (talk) 22:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to be conducting training for the next few days so I may not be able to code this for a bit, but be assured I haven't forgotten about it. :) — madman 15:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the info - looking forward to hear from you... Greetings --DrTrigon (talk) 11:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Bots for clean up on WikiProject Texas

WikiProject Texas on its main page has a link for Clean Up listing by category. Therein, Orphaned Articles has a count of 377 articles. There are also almost 2,000 Texas articles that need coordinates. Can anyone run bots that can do either of these tasks? Maile66 (talk) 12:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I can't do much about these 2 tasks but I'll take a run through the texas article list with AWB and see what I can fix with that. That may fix some of the orphan article tags and some of the other problems. I can also add some of the short descriptions to the Persondata which I had planned to do for WPUS anyway. --Kumioko (talk) 15:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Any help you can provide is appreciated. The total cleanup list on the Texas project is 14,954 articles needing attention. Some are genuine issues, such as the Orphan and Coordinates issues. As mentioned elsewhere, one or more persons have been somewhat over zealous with bot tagging. Texas has almost 8.000 Stubs, and someone sent out a bot to tag the Stubs as having insufficient references - overkill. Some of the tag multitudes are critiques of writing style (prose), spacing and paragraph breaks, which seems superficial to me. A lot of work to be done on Texas just to find out what are the genuine problems. So, thanks for whatever you can do. Maile66 (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree, to say a stub is unreferenced is one thing but to say it needs expanded, refimprove or a variety of others is inferred in the status of the article and needs not be duplicated in the article with an ugly tag again. --Kumioko (talk) 19:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Not necessarily "unreferenced" in the case of the Stubs. Some had one or two references, and only a very brief paragraph of text. Those, too, were tagged as "insufficient references". And it's only going to get worse, because dove-tailing that, one or more editors and projects have been using bots to create those one-line Stubs for their particular projects. A Catch 22 of sorts, which will go on forever and ever, into the next century.Maile66 (talk) 20:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah using a bot to create a stub is fine but I agree we shouldn't be covering stubs with needless tags. --Kumioko (talk) 20:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I've run BattyBot against all articles in Category:Orphaned articles to remove orphan templates on non-orphaned articles. You may want to use Find link to try to de-orphan some of those articles. Good luck! GoingBatty (talk) 17:48, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, thanks for your help. Maile66 (talk) 18:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Going Batty, that Find Link tool is really cool. Thanks for showing it to me. Maile66 (talk) 01:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

My pleasure! GoingBatty (talk) 01:22, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Scan My Book

Are there any bots that could scan my book for any errors? Allen (talk) 02:54, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Just for clarification, what kind of errors? ~Feedintm 23:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Any kind of formatting errors, spelling, link accuracy, etc.

Allen (talk) 23:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there are any bots like that. What you list will have unavoidable false positives, so no approved bot is doing it. For your examples, most modern browsers support spell checking, you can install User:Anomie/linkclassifier to see common link issues, and User:Cacycle/wikEd could solve some formatting issues, or at least make them more obvious. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

 Doing... - I'll run the articles through AWB's general fixes and typo checking. GoingBatty (talk) 01:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done --GoingBatty (talk) 22:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Duplicated parameters

I encountered problem with Template:infobox UK place - there are multiple articles where code of infobox is

|static_image =

|static_image_caption=

(...)

|static_image = ]

|static_image_caption= <small>Ashbocking church</small>

from Ashbocking&oldid=473854671

typical fix is it possible for somebody to mass fix this problem? Bulwersator (talk) 11:31, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

PS It may be good idea to scan entire wikipedia for more general problem - template used with two or more parameters with the same name Bulwersator (talk) 11:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be pretty easy as long as both are the same or if one is empty and the other is populated. It might be a little tricky though if there are 2 different images. --Kumioko (talk) 12:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, bot should fix obvious (last of parameters is not empty, previous duplicates are empty) and report more complex Bulwersator (talk) 12:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I just did a little checking and noticed something else. The following fields in the template pertain to images:

1. |static_image=
2. |static_image_name=
3. |static_image_width=
4. |static_image_caption=
5. |static_image_alt=

But then theres also

1. |static_image_2=
2. |static_image_2_name=
3. |static_image_2_width=
4. |static_image_2_caption=
5. |static_image_2_alt=

I recommend if we are going to be there and deleting stuff anyway we should probably delete the extra parameters for static image 2 if blank also. --Kumioko (talk) 13:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Bot needed to make a list

Needed: A bot to make a list of articles on Category:Minor Planets that look like this one, 25001 Pacheco, in the following ways.

Here, “exactly like 25001 Pacheco” means that articles consist of:

1. No more than the following text: "(Article title) is a main belt asteroid discovered on (date) by (name(s)) at (place)." No more text than that. It might have less. For example, it might not include the date, name, or place, but it no more.
2. The only section break will be “External links”.
3. The only external link is “*http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov.....JPL Small-Body Database…...”
4. It will also include this Template:Infobox planet, a planet infobox template.
5. Next, it will have an empty reflist.
6. There will probably be more, but nothing that would establish notablity and therefore matters. There may be a minor planets navigator and a minor planets footer; a “DEFAULTSORT”; several categories such as "Main Belt astroids", "Discoveries by (name)", and “Astronomical objects discovered in (Year); a "beltasteroid-stub" designation; and maybe a number of links to other language wikipedia articles, the same name in different alphabets. None of this matters, again, as these things to not establish notablity.

Basically, we need a bot to make a list of all these articles that are just like this example: 25001 Pacheco. We need this list in order to move on to the next step very carefully. Later, more bots may be needed, but we're taking this one careful doable step at a time. Chrisrus (talk) 06:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Looking at this. Anomie⚔ 19:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok. I expanded the request slightly to include pages with "an inner-belt asteroid", "an outer-belt asteroid", "a main-belt asteroid", "a Jupiter Trojan", and so on, to include "Its provisional designation was whatever.", and also considered any other empty sections to be unindicative of notability. The final list is at User:Anomie/Asteroid list.

Many of the remaining articles just contain an additional sentence along the lines of "It was named after Joe Bloggs", which may or may not barely scrape the bottom of the "notability" barrel for some few of them. Or further variations of the text, e.g. "(Article title) is an asteroid. It was discovered on (date). It was discovered by (name) at (place).". I've placed a second list at User:Anomie/Asteroid list 2 of all the number-named asteroids sorted by the size of the wikitext after the templates and some of the other junk are removed. Anomie⚔ 00:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Excellent. I hope that didn't take too much time out of your day. I'll start a new section to discuss the next step, but first: thank you for all your efforts thus far. I will now start a new section about the following step, below. 03:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a datasource to pull the information about minor planets? — Ganeshk (talk) 19:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Right now, we're not looking for information about the minor planets from off Misplaced Pages. We are just looking for a reliable list of articles that for sure don't have enough information to establish notablity within them as they stand, and therefore cannot meet WP:NASTRO. Chrisrus (talk) 20:01, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Got it. — Ganeshk (talk) 20:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Bot needed to tag the list

Needed: A bot to tag each article on User:Anomie/Asteroid list thusly"{{Notability|Astro}}". Chrisrus (talk) 03:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I was going to file a BRFA for this, but it looks like User:Avicennasis has already started this. Since this is a dated template, it would be better to add {{Notability|Astro|date=February 2012}}. GoingBatty (talk) 21:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Thought I had replied here, but I guess I just previewed and never saved.  Doing... _ennasis @ 02:22, 13 Shevat 5772 / 02:22, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done _ennasis @ 03:56, 15 Shevat 5772 / 03:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Bot needed to perform "good faith effort to establish notablity"

Needed: A bot to automate the "good faith effort to establish notablity" referred to in WP:NASTRO. For example, if I copy and paste into the Google Scholar search box, in quotes, the name of the first article on User:Anomie/Asteroid list, (196297) 2003 FA, it returns "no hits" from any of the WP:RSes that it searches. Not one. It is my hope that this will fulfill NASTRO's "good faith effort", but we may need to find the proper database that Ganeshk seemed to be referring to above. If not, it's at least a good start. At this point, however, my question to you is this: Is it possible, practicable, very difficult, or problematic to create a bot that will find out which if any of these do not return exactly zero results on a Google Scholar search? Chrisrus (talk) 03:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Bot to alphabetise WP:BADIMAGE

Would it be possible for a bot to keep the bad image list in alphabetical order of image title (ignoring the word "the")? It makes it easier to find image names if they are in alphabetical order, and this will stop human users having to worry about it. It Is Me Here 00:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

That would be trivial to code, but it would require an adminbot. →Στc. 02:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, not an expert with these things – is that bad? It Is Me Here 12:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

User:AWBCPBot already keeps the AWB checkpage alphabetical, among other things. I suppose I could get a rename for it and have it cover this as well. - Kingpin (talk) 14:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

It Is Me Here 15:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Quick text replacment

I'm not sure if I'm requesting this at the right place -- if not just point me to the proper channels. Template:Misplaced Pages books In short, I'd need to have all instances of "{{Misplaced Pages-Books|Mario titles}}" be replaced by "{{Misplaced Pages books|Mario franchise video games|Mario video games}}", to produce the box seen to the right.

There should be between 100 and 150 articles with the template. Salvidrim! 03:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

 Doing... _ennasis @ 08:31, 13 Shevat 5772 / 08:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done _ennasis @ 09:18, 13 Shevat 5772 / 09:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Bot to create a list of NFCC#9 violations

Can someone make a bot that does the following:

1. scan all files in File: namespace not having a free license tag

2. for each file, check whether it is tagged with a template from Category:Non-free Misplaced Pages file copyright tags

2.1. if it is not, place a notice at Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions, then proceed with next file

2.2. if it is, check whether the file is transcluded outside of article space

2.2.1. if it is not, proceed with next file

2.2.2. if it is, report the name of the file and the name of the page where the file is transcluded to a separate page (for example a subpage in the bots userspace), then proceed with next file

This bot should run periodically and update the report continuously. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 10:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Regarding 2.1, is there any consensus that WP:MCQ wants to be flooded with bot reports? Regarding 2.2.2, doesn't DASHBot (talk · contribs) already remove those files from non-mainspace and report them at User:DASHBot/fairlog? Anomie⚔ 12:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Regarding 2.1, I don't think such a consensus exists, but I don't see what else could be done if a file without proof of having been released under a free license lacks such a template, other than possibly to let the bot tag it with the generic {{Non-free fair use in}}.

Regarding 2.2.2, first DASHBot seems to be relatively slow from what I saw and second Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval/DASHBot 5 says the bot generates its list to work through from the report at and that report seems to be dead now. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 12:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Also note that this would be of great interest to a WikiProject I proposed here, although that proposal unfortunately hasn't generated any responses yet. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 12:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

"Abandoned articles"

Is there a way that a bot can be created to look for articles that have, say, less than 30 edits in the past 3 years? The data could be used to maybe bring some musty old articles into the limelight to be fixed up, or find something that slipped through the cracks and should be AFD'ed. (Idea suggested by another, semi-retired user.) Ten Pound Hammer • 03:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it sounds good in theory but thats going to cover tens of thousands of articles. --Kumioko (talk) 03:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

What if the edit number is changed? Like, say, 40 in 4? Ten Pound Hammer • 03:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be better to look fro articles that haven't been edited in X amount of time. Maybe, start with 5 or 6 years and start working up. I have seen many many articles that haven't been touched in years. If we can factor out bots then there will be even more. I'm still not quite sure if its possible and definatly outside my skill level but I'm just trying to help provide input. --Kumioko (talk) 03:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Fewer than X edits in Y years might create a big list, but really, what's another backlog? The user who suggested this said, " this one isn't limited to a small band of users with the right bitall it really requires is people to go through it allpick out an article, work on it or if it's unsalvagable, go through the usual deletion channels". Also, "fewer than x edits in y years" would help weed out articles where the only edit in the past x years is by a bot. Ten Pound Hammer • 04:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I think either way theres going to be quite a lot of articles. I worry though that this would be a pillar for the deletionists to start submitting large groups of articles for deletion on the grounds they are "abandoned".--Kumioko (talk) 04:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

And how do you know that just as many editors won't see it as an opportunity to fix the articles up? No need to pull out the "deletionist" card. "Abandoned" by itself is not a reason to delete, so I think it's absurd that you think that. Ten Pound Hammer • 04:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Double-edged sword, but I think TPH's rationale and the intended use of this information is of overall benefit to WP. It is also without doubt that there will be worthy deletion candidates in such a population, as with many others. Having this additional data dimension crossed with perhaps a hit counter may create an exploitable list that allays those concerns. Having said that, you may be overstating the risk of mass deletions because they would have to be suitably grouped and solidly argued before any such mass deletions are likely to be approved by the community. --Ohconfucius 04:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The user has also suggested that maybe there should be some way to weight the results. Maybe break it down into chunks for something. Maybe also do a test run to see exactly how big the results would be anyway. (Also, this would be recurring, not just a one-timer.) Ten Pound Hammer • 04:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

As the editor TPH submitted this on behalf of, thought I might explain a little more about the request. A bot would run monthly to gather articles which could be considered abandoned and lists them so any editor can assess what to do with it such as expansion or deoprhan it to increase hitcounts and edits. Dependant on the sort of workload this exposes, there's always the consideration of article weighting so there can be priority based lists created instead of a singular list. The criteria is a loose one, around 20-40 edits for any article 3 years or older could count as abandoned and in need of editor attention but that can be tweaked if a basic sweep yields a high amount of articles (anywhere north of 50,000?) Now, I can see Kumioko figures it might be used nefariously for mass deletion which is a reasonable thought but unlikely as the articles still have to pass through AfD or PROD. It might also be an incentive for any found articles to be tagged with {{orphan}} so they can be categorised. I notice it could be a big undertaking but if it is, it's better we go find these articles and have them listed someplace where they can be easily found and worked on instead of languishing and making a big backlog bigger. I'm just spitballing here in terms of how big it might be as it's not really a simple one-shot task but yknow, a regular heavy lifting bot, not so sure if that sort of request gets picked up here or not. Any questions, throw them out there. baa! _radda 18:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like something best run on toolserver, this whole-of-database search isn't viable through the API. In fact, ask at Misplaced Pages talk:Database reports for this. Josh Parris 01:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this wasn't done earlier. Took me 5 minutes to write and 1 minute to run. The output (2.7 thousand results) is here. If you want me to run this regularly, or you want a different type of output message me. If I get hit by a bus or something, I included the code below. Hopefully thats what you wanted. :) Tim1357 03:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

SELECT Concat(Concat('# ]') AS t 
FROM   page 
WHERE  page_is_redirect = 0 
       AND page_namespace = 0 
       AND page_latest < (SELECT rev_id 
                          FROM   revision 
                          WHERE  rev_timestamp > Date_format(DATE_SUB(NOW(), 
                                                             INTERVAL 4 YEAR), 
                                                 '%Y%m%d%H%i%s') 
                          LIMIT  1) 
       AND NOT EXISTS (SELECT 1 
                       FROM   categorylinks 
                       WHERE  cl_to = 'Disambiguation_pages' 
                              AND cl_from = page_id);

I think you want

                        WHERE  cl_to = 'All_disambiguation_pages'

Josh Parris 03:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• I can't read code. Which intervals did you use? Ten Pound Hammer • 03:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I used 4 years. I re-ran the query to give a timestamp of last edit for each result. The results are here and the updated code is below.Tim1357 04:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I got to the end and figured that out, Josh Paris. Thanks anyways though. Tim1357 04:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

SELECT Concat(Concat('|]||') AS t, 
       TIMESTAMP((SELECT rev_timestamp 
                  FROM   revision 
                  WHERE  rev_id = page_latest))                     AS ts 
FROM   page 
WHERE  page_is_redirect = 0 
       AND page_namespace = 0 
       AND page_latest < (SELECT rev_id 
                          FROM   revision 
                          WHERE  rev_timestamp > Date_format(DATE_SUB(NOW(), 
                                                             INTERVAL 4 YEAR), 
                                                 '%Y%m%d%H%i%s') 
                          LIMIT  1) 
       AND NOT EXISTS (SELECT 1 
                       FROM   categorylinks 
                       WHERE  cl_to = 'All_article_disambiguation_pages' 
                              AND cl_from = page_id);

Red link syntax removal

Google Translation Project added thousands of articles into several Indian language wikipedias (Example Translated page of article on Northern Ireland) by translating popular English wikipedia articles using Human assisted translation during 2009-2011. The project was closed by Google without addressing the feedback of impacted language Wikipedians. A major problem is the existence of too many red links on such pages. A bot to clean up such pages would at least make the articles presentable for subsequent manual editing.--Arjunaraoc 01:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages bots
• Misplaced Pages requests