Wikipedia:Bot requests
| Commonly Requested Bots |  |
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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: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).
| Legend |
|---|
|
|
|
|
|
| Manual settings |
| When exceptions occur, please check the setting first. |
| Bot-related archives |
|---|
A auto-message bot for AfC reviews?
editHi all. I don't know if this has been proposed before or could be added to a existing bot. I am suggesting a bot to let AfC reviewers know - via talk page - that it has been more than 72 hours since they marked a submission as "Review in Progress". If this is technically feasible, it would only have maximum 5 pages every few days.
Currently, there is one example, Draft:Avimukteshwaranand Saraswati, marked as under review on the 26 of April by AlphaBetaGamma. I got the original idea from @Robert McClenon. Best, CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 01:32, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you, User:CF-501 Falcon. Our concern is drafts that have been tagged as In Review by a reviewer who then forgot that he had tagged them. (I am referring to the reviewer in the masculine gender because when I become aware of the situation, I am referring to myself.) Another suggestion has been made that the bot could also untag the draft so that it is available for another reviewer, in case the first reviewer has gone on vacation. That is all right if the reviewer simply forgot, because then the first reviewer can go back and review the draft again. So it is simply a matter of noticing that the draft has been in review for 72 hours for a status that is supposed to take 24 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:44, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
Coding... About untagging the drafts marked as being reviewed, I think there should be some time given to the reviewer after the notification, for example after the notification on the reviewer's talk page at 72 hours, to only remove it after 96 hours (4 days afterwards). Does this seem reasonable? Tenshi! (Talk page) 14:13, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
- @Tenshi Hinanawi, Thank you! I think the additional 24 hour hold, while a great idea, may lengthen the overall time a little too much. It may be better to leave a notification at 48 hours then untag it at 72. @Robert McClenon, What do you think? CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 14:44, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
- User:CF-501 Falcon - The exact number of days or hours doesn't matter much to me. In thinking about situations in which this has come up with my reviews, I think that 48 hours is fine, because that means that I have forgotten that I started the review. The exact number is less important than the existence of the robotic check, so 48 and 72 hours is fine. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:19, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
- Sounds Great! CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 19:30, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
BRFA filed Tenshi! (Talk page) 21:38, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
- Sounds Great! CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 19:30, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
- User:CF-501 Falcon - The exact number of days or hours doesn't matter much to me. In thinking about situations in which this has come up with my reviews, I think that 48 hours is fine, because that means that I have forgotten that I started the review. The exact number is less important than the existence of the robotic check, so 48 and 72 hours is fine. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:19, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
- @Tenshi Hinanawi, Thank you! I think the additional 24 hour hold, while a great idea, may lengthen the overall time a little too much. It may be better to leave a notification at 48 hours then untag it at 72. @Robert McClenon, What do you think? CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 14:44, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you, User:CF-501 Falcon. Our concern is drafts that have been tagged as In Review by a reviewer who then forgot that he had tagged them. (I am referring to the reviewer in the masculine gender because when I become aware of the situation, I am referring to myself.) Another suggestion has been made that the bot could also untag the draft so that it is available for another reviewer, in case the first reviewer has gone on vacation. That is all right if the reviewer simply forgot, because then the first reviewer can go back and review the draft again. So it is simply a matter of noticing that the draft has been in review for 72 hours for a status that is supposed to take 24 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:44, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
- @CF-501 Falcon, Robert McClenon, and Tenshi Hinanawi: Just to make the point that will be made at a BRFA... Can a discussion be started over at WT:WPAFC about this, if it hasn't already? Mdann52 (talk) 17:02, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation#Drafts_Marked_as_Being_Reviewed_but_Forgotten, and you may resume the discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:04, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
Non breaking spaces in lists of minor planets
editGood morning, I've just inserted non breaking spaces before "km" in some lists of minor planets. 87.21.146.58 (talk) 05:47, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
Not a good task for a bot. inserting the non-breaking spaces solely is WP:COSMETICBOT. This can be done with other tasks, or with other non-cosmetic WP:AWB edits. —usernamekiran (talk) 17:16, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
- Inserting non-breaking spaces would technically not be WP:COSMETICBOT, as it does make a difference to the rendering of the page if the browser would otherwise break the line between the number and the unit. MOS:NBSP specifically calls for non-breaking spaces in this case. That doesn't mean a bot is a good idea or not though. Anomie⚔ 00:03, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
- @Anomie: yes, that is a good point. should I remove the template? I think I already have a code that might work for this task. —usernamekiran (talk) 23:09, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
- Eh... if you look at Category:Lists of minor planets by number, there might be about 827 pages but most will probably already be properly formatted, and the IP already got a dozen of 'em. Primefac (talk) 23:19, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
- This won't make any rendering differences. They're no way a short string like "1.1 km" would ever break in a table cell unless you zoom in or out beyond reason. 23:58, 6 July 2025 (UTC) Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:58, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
- Or you're on a mobile device. I went to List of minor planets: 300001–301000, hit Ctrl+Shift+M to activate Firefox's responsive design mode, and sure enough, short strings like "2.5 km" wrapped in the table. Then I did it again in a private browsing window and tried it on en.m.wikipedia.org to check the default skins. Anomie⚔ 11:17, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- This won't make any rendering differences. They're no way a short string like "1.1 km" would ever break in a table cell unless you zoom in or out beyond reason. 23:58, 6 July 2025 (UTC) Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:58, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
- Eh... if you look at Category:Lists of minor planets by number, there might be about 827 pages but most will probably already be properly formatted, and the IP already got a dozen of 'em. Primefac (talk) 23:19, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
- @Anomie: yes, that is a good point. should I remove the template? I think I already have a code that might work for this task. —usernamekiran (talk) 23:09, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
- Inserting non-breaking spaces would technically not be WP:COSMETICBOT, as it does make a difference to the rendering of the page if the browser would otherwise break the line between the number and the unit. MOS:NBSP specifically calls for non-breaking spaces in this case. That doesn't mean a bot is a good idea or not though. Anomie⚔ 00:03, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
Redirects related to those nominated at RfD
editPer the initial discussion at Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion#Avoided double redirects of nominated redirects I believe there is consensus for an ongoing bot task that does the following:
- Looks at each redirect nominated at RfD
- Determines whether there are any other redirects, in any namespace, that meet one or more of the following criteria:
- Are marked as an avoided-double redirect of a nominated redirect
- Are redirects to the nominated redirect
- Redirect to the same target as the nominated redirect and
- Differ only in the presence or absence of diacritics, and/or
- Differ only in case
- If the bot finds any redirects that match and which are not currently nominated at RfD, then it should post a message in the discussion along the lines of:
- The bot should not take any actions other than leaving the note, the goal is simply to make human editors aware that these redirects exist.
I don't know how frequently the bot should run, but it should probably wait at least 15 minutes after a nomination before checking or editing so as not to get into edit conflicts or complications as discussions of multiple redirects are often nominated individually and then the discussions manually combined. Thryduulf (talk) 13:11, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
- There is a strong consensus; if there are no objections in the next day or so, I'll file a BRFA. In the meantime I'll code up the bot. GalStar (talk) 17:56, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
- I've just thought of a third case to check for: differences only in hyphenation/dashes. Thryduulf (talk) 21:38, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
- Actually that's generalisable to differences only in punctuation. Thryduulf (talk) Thryduulf (talk) 03:40, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- @GalStar is there any update on this? Thryduulf (talk) 20:01, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
- I'm still working on it. I'm still getting some of the underlying tooling working, but I should be done soon. GalStar (talk) 16:40, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you. Thryduulf (talk) 16:50, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
- If anyone is wondering, I'm currently porting my code to toolforge, so it can run continuously, and without the unreliability of my home network. This is taking longer than I expected however. GalStar (talk) 17:17, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you. Thryduulf (talk) 16:50, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
- BRFA filed GalStar (talk) (contribs) 20:56, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
- I'm still working on it. I'm still getting some of the underlying tooling working, but I should be done soon. GalStar (talk) 16:40, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
- I've just thought of a third case to check for: differences only in hyphenation/dashes. Thryduulf (talk) 21:38, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
Rename/update old signatures we had made with our new username
editAfter a user changes their username to a new one, their old signatures they had on an article talk page and other communication page shows their old username instead of their new one.
Could a bot be made to help update a user's old username signatures to their new username?
Would be wonderful if so! Thank you 4vryng (talk) 15:44, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
- No, we don't update signatures after a username change. Renamers generally leave a redirect when renaming a user so that links in signatures across all discussions where the user has participated continue to work. – DreamRimmer ■ 16:29, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
- Not a good task for a bot. this is by design. If a post-rename request requires to update the user's signature on say 5,000 pages — then redirect is better than a bot updating these pages which might include closed discussion, and archive pages. A simple redirect is the wisest choice. In other cases, there is WP:clean start, and WP:vanishing. —usernamekiran (talk) 17:10, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
Date Formatting Bot for references
editIs there any way a permanent bot could be coded to format dates in references, so the formatting is consistent within each article? It's just in my contests a lot of time is spent having to prompt editors to use one style and them chasing things up. I think a bot should be operating making date formats consistent in articles so nobody needs to worry. I personally prefer a 8 July 2025 format than 2025-07-08 but obviously we would need some consensus if it was to mean the whole website. For now, a bot which reads the most common used format within each article and is able to convert the others to make them consistent? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:09, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
- Not a good task for a bot. This seems unnecessary (and cosmetic) given that CS1 and CS2 citation templates already automatically convert YYYY-MM-DD dates to the format specified in the article. For example, see this draft I'm working on; in the source, I use YYYY-MM-DD dates in the citations, but they are rendered in MDY format because of the
{{Use mdy dates}}tag at the top of the wikicode. Bsoyka (t • c • g) 22:26, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
Create Bot
editHello, I need make a bot to do better and precisely editing but I am not familiar by making it, Who can help me its making process completely by detail or at least my account https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:July2806 from a simpler editor account change to a bot for better management affairs. July2806 (talk) 11:10, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
Not related to a bot task request. @July2806: Hey! This page is intended for requesting that someone automate a specific task on Wikipedia, not for learning how to do so. Additionally, bots are approved to work on very specifically defined tasks, not just general editing, which it sounds like you're referring to. (See some of the other topics on this page for some examples of what bots can do.) I'd also recommend getting more familiar with Wikipedia and our policies before considering automating any tasks around here, especially because gaining more experience might help you find good things for a bot to help with. Bsoyka (t • c • g) 15:59, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
WikiProject Nova Scotia importance tags
editThrough Template:WikiProject Canada, WikiProject Nova Scotia has its own importance parameter defined as ns-importance. This was done so that articles could be better sorted by their relevance to the province specifically as opposed to Canada as a whole. Now that I have curated the articles accordingly, there is approximately 5,000 articles remaining to be tagged as ns-importance=low (see User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Nova Scotia). I was told a bot would be the best way to do this. Thanks, MediaKyle (talk) 23:08, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
- Coding... Tenshi! (Talk page) 11:20, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
- BRFA filed Tenshi! (Talk page) 01:48, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
Doing... Tenshi! (Talk page) 17:08, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
Removing Template:Now Commons from files tagged with Template:Keep local
editHi, I would like to request a bot to take on the task of removing the {{Now Commons}} from pages tagged with {{Keep local}}. Files tagged with the latter are not eligible for deletion in accordance with WP:CSD#F8 and should not be tagged as such. I usually take care of these manually, but there are currently over 100 files tagged as such in Category:Wikipedia files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons as of unknown date, which is too large of a burden. This task was previously handled by FastilyBot (see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/FastilyBot 15), but has never been picked up after the operator's departure. ✗plicit 00:38, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
- @CanonNi plans to do this with Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/CanonNiBot 1, but they have not been active lately and are not responding to questions on the BRFA. I can take this on if they do not reply within a few days. – DreamRimmer ■ 01:24, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
- We're still a few days off from the task expiring mainly due to a lack of feedback/input from the botop, but if there's still radio silence by next weekend that's what will happen. Primefac (talk) 15:06, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
- Here's a Petscan. It's currently empty. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 00:08, 25 July 2025 (UTC).
- Noting that Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/CanonNiBot 1 has expired. Tenshi! (Talk page) 15:18, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- Feel free to take this up, I have other tasks pending. The code is ready, so let me know if anyone wants it. – DreamRimmer ■ 15:27, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- I'll look at having AnomieBOT do it, and the other things from CanonNiBot 1 as well. Anomie⚔ 16:20, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- Feel free to take this up, I have other tasks pending. The code is ready, so let me know if anyone wants it. – DreamRimmer ■ 15:27, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
Bot to convert legacy Graph extension graphs into the new chart extension
editThere are graphs that say This graph was using the legacy Graph extension, which is no longer supported. It needs to be converted to the new Chart extension. Would it be possible for a bot to convert the legacy graphs to the new chart extension Isla🏳️⚧ 12:07, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
- There is already a bot, User:GraphBot, that is approved to port graphs into charts. – DreamRimmer ■ 12:22, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
Done GalStar (talk) (contribs) 05:59, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
Create and maintain a page that shows the top Wikipedia pages by views and edits
editI'd be interested in a few separate Wikipedia lists that are maintained by a bot once every 24 hours. I will go into detail on which each list should do.
- The first list should include the most viewed pages. While I understand that pages with the most viewed articles exist, I would like to see a bot-maintained list that includes pages not in mainspace. I would like to know what the top viewed pages are that are not articles but seems to be very limited information on this. If you go into the page information section of this page, the area of the page I'm focused on is Page views in the past 30 days. If someone can figure this out, that would be great.
- In the edit history section of the page, I would like to see the top articles by Total number of edits, Recent number of edits (within past 30 days), as well as Recent number of distinct authors. The information on this is very limited outside of article pages, but I would like to see a maintained list of this.
The reason why I would like a bot to analyze these things is because I would like to analyze not only article traffic, but also pages that are not articles like in Projectspace and the Talk pages so that when I make changes to Wikipedia, since it is built for readers and to a lesser extent, editors it would be good to see how traffic like on the Teahouse compares to other pages. Please ping me when done. Thank you. Interstellarity (talk) 21:16, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
- For #2, see WP:Database reports/Pages with the most revisions * Pppery * it has begun... 21:55, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, I was aware of that page, but I didn't think about that when making the request. I think we are good on the total number of edits, so no need to create a new bot for that. It's just the other stuff I'm asking about. Interstellarity (talk) 22:01, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
- You should be able to write a SQL query to do this without a bot. GalStar (talk) (contribs) 06:00, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
Bot to add missing hyphens to multiple article titles?
editFollowing on from the discussions at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Olympics#100_metre_vs_100-metre_vs_100_metres_vs_100m hundreds of swimming articles are missing the hyphen and per MOS:SUSPENDED, articles like Swimming at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Men's 200 metre butterfly should be at Swimming at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Men's 200-metre butterfly. Valenciano (talk) 02:39, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
- Despite MOS:SUSPENDED+1 (Suspend refers to the previous bullet point.) I'm not convinced this is a good idea. Firstly I'm not sure it's good style or that SUSPENDED+1 applies, while "100 metre breaststroke" is clearly a noun phrase the modifier can be taken as "breaststroke". Secondly common usage is without the hyphen - see ngrams. Thirdly, since thousands of article names, as well as categories and templates, not to mention section headers, tables and text would be affected I think a much wider discussion, and clearer consensus would be needed. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 06:59, 25 July 2025 (UTC).
- Hey @Rich Farmbrough, thanks for weighing in on this. I think that argument you use for taking the modifier as "breaststroke" can be used for most situations of MOS:SUSPENDED+1, which means you would be arguing for repealing the guideline almost entirely. I'm not sure what you meant by "see ngrams", but in case you meant search the Google ngrams search, I did (here), and it seems the dash is common usage? I certainly would not be opposed to seeking further consensus. Where would be the best place to take it from here to let the community weigh in? IAWW (talk) 15:35, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
- It's complicated, I have a variety of results from Google, they are not consistent either on a style level or with themselves. If you take your example and select British English you only get the no-hyphen version. if you select American English you get "no ngrams to plot" - very odd.
- Your example shows a reversal in the last few years, but compared with 100 metres freestyle (no 100-metres freestyle found) here, the story changes.
- With yards it's different again here.
- 100 metres breaststroke
- I'd start an RFC at WP:Village pump (proposals), and leave messages at the appropriate project(s) and MoS talk page. I'm not sure if I have an opinion on what's better here, I think I might look at what the international swimming and athletic bodies do. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 21:35, 30 July 2025 (UTC).
- Rich Farmbrough thanks for the reply, which I've only just seen. The issue is that I feel that I'm going round the houses here. I first raised this at the help desk who advised me to head to the relevant Wikiproject and already did raise this at the most relevant Wikiproject (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Olympics#100_metre_vs_100-metre_vs_100_metres_vs_100m) who referred me here. Now I'm being passed somewhere else yet again. Sadly, leaving out the hyphen is one of the most common mistakes in English these days, up there with your/you're, it's/its, there/their/they're etc so I have absolutely no doubt that there are many links using it, but it's still wrong according to every style guide, including our own. I feel a little like I'm at an impasse here. Valenciano (talk) 12:27, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
- How I understand it, at least for the sport of athletics, is that the 400 metres hurdles is run on a 400-metre track. The '400 metres' distance is modified by 'hurdles', so '400 metres' ends in 's' and has no hyphen, whereas the 'track' is modified by '400-metre', so '400-metre' doesn't end in 's' and has a hyphen. By analogy, it would be: 200 metres butterfly in a 50-metre pool. Here it doesn't mean a specific type of butterfly stroke used over 200 metres (which would probably be a 200-metre butterfly), but a distance modified by the type of stroke used; at the same time, it does mean a specific type of pool (a 50-metre pool). Looking at the website of World Aquatics, they typically abbreviate the distance as '200m' which removes the question altogether; I couldn't find many examples of the longer form, there are a couple in this report, both '200 metres' and '200 metre' (no hyphen) are used here, but that's not much to go on. So taking all this into account, for swimming, I would use the form '200 metres butterfly' for the article titles. – Editør (talk) 14:50, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, I can see it's frustrating. It doesn't appear that anyone is whole-heartedly behind this idea so far, apart from you, you may wish to move on to something else. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 21:53, 11 August 2025 (UTC).
- @Rich Farmbrough by the way you accidentally removed a much of replies with your reply IAWW (talk) 22:04, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know. I get edit conflicts with myself from 3 seconds ago, but not from other users days ago! All the best: Rich Farmbrough 22:10, 11 August 2025 (UTC).
- Thanks for letting me know. I get edit conflicts with myself from 3 seconds ago, but not from other users days ago! All the best: Rich Farmbrough 22:10, 11 August 2025 (UTC).
- @Rich Farmbrough by the way you accidentally removed a much of replies with your reply IAWW (talk) 22:04, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
- Rich Farmbrough thanks for the reply, which I've only just seen. The issue is that I feel that I'm going round the houses here. I first raised this at the help desk who advised me to head to the relevant Wikiproject and already did raise this at the most relevant Wikiproject (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Olympics#100_metre_vs_100-metre_vs_100_metres_vs_100m) who referred me here. Now I'm being passed somewhere else yet again. Sadly, leaving out the hyphen is one of the most common mistakes in English these days, up there with your/you're, it's/its, there/their/they're etc so I have absolutely no doubt that there are many links using it, but it's still wrong according to every style guide, including our own. I feel a little like I'm at an impasse here. Valenciano (talk) 12:27, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
- Hey @Rich Farmbrough, thanks for weighing in on this. I think that argument you use for taking the modifier as "breaststroke" can be used for most situations of MOS:SUSPENDED+1, which means you would be arguing for repealing the guideline almost entirely. I'm not sure what you meant by "see ngrams", but in case you meant search the Google ngrams search, I did (here), and it seems the dash is common usage? I certainly would not be opposed to seeking further consensus. Where would be the best place to take it from here to let the community weigh in? IAWW (talk) 15:35, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
- I agree in principle that we should follow our MOS there, but this needs to be well settled in discussion, and manual moves and edits accepted, before bringing it up as a bot request. Dicklyon (talk) 16:44, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
- And of course it's not just a few hundred swimming articles. Here are over 14,000 more to consider (not carefully pruned yet; about 50 have the hyphens already). Dicklyon (talk) 17:34, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
- In general, I'd prefer to shorten the titles using standard abbreviations, with space, not hyphen, (e.g. "100 m") per standards about how such things are done, and not just our MOS. Dicklyon (talk) 17:43, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
Culling categories to update lists
editThere is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball#Is anyone maintaining these "lists of MLB players"? regarding updating the Lists of Major League Baseball players with a bot rather than manually. Ideally, whenever a new article is created and added to a teams' players' category, a bot would add it to that team's list of players. First, there is not really a consensus to do so, just discussion at present. Second, would such an activity be possible for a bot? And third, are automated edits like this permitted in article space? Just looking for input here at this stage. Rgrds. --BX (talk) 19:59, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
- Perhaps the trickier part would be removing items inserted in error. It would certainly be possible, and if there was consensus to do it, then it would be permitted. In principle it could be a clean operation, but there are a lot of detailed decisions to be made. For example Boston Red Sox all-time roster has bolding for Hall of Famers and flags (possibly against guidelines) for non-US players. Anything like this would either need to be supported, not interfered with, or overwritten. There would have to be acceptance that the article name for the player would be the name used in the list, or some other way of determining that. There might be no entries for people who did not have an article. Nothing impossible to deal with, but it would need to be worked out. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 21:56, 30 July 2025 (UTC).
- Thanks for the feedback. I'll take this back to the Project in case a decision is made to move forward with the task. Rgrds. --BX (talk) 22:37, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for the feedback. I'll take this back to the Project in case a decision is made to move forward with the task. Rgrds. --BX (talk) 22:37, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
Album articles without track listings
editJust now I found The Truth About Christmas, an album article which somehow has no track listing. I would like to know if there is a way for a bot to find any other album articles without track listings as a means of adding them in. I imagine this could be done by finding articles that are both 1. in at least one category with the word "albums" in it, and 2. does not have a header with the word "track" in it. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:16, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
- Coding... It seems possible, but might take a bit to make a report. — Tenshi! (Talk page) 21:34, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
- Doing... Tenshi! (Talk page) 02:18, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
- Done Pages. There seems to be a few false positives because of variants in the track listing section (Track list, Tracklist, etc.) and some other issues. Tenshi! (Talk page) 13:10, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
- Cleaned up the false positives a bit, so it should be fine now. Tenshi! (Talk page) 14:57, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
Replace all description lists without prior description terms in article namespace with appopriate alternatives
editReplace Germany4 with Germany
editGo over Category:Album chart usages for Germany4 (10,061) and replace "Germany4" with "Germany". See Special:PermanentLink/1305490623#Germany and Germany4.
I'm pretty sure some existing bot can do this but I don't remember which one. If you prefer, I'd be happy to reactivate my own muhbot as well. Muhandes (talk) 11:03, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
WikiProject Bot for Auto-Assessing Pre-Defined Article Lists
editWikiProjects (and individual users) often created tables or lists of articles and their associated article assessments. As an example, Wizardman created User:Wizardman/Packers-Browns Connection to track the assessment of a specific set of articles (User:Community Tech bot sort of does this for Popular Pages already based on articles within a specific WikiProject). However, these tables or lists, especially the larger they get, can become out-of-date. I'm wondering if there is an opportunity for a bot to automate this.
The idea would be that a user could create a page, either in their user space or the Wikipedia space, that would automatically get updated by the bot every 2 weeks to show revised assessments. This initial input could be one of two options: a specific category or a user-generated list. Either way, after the initial input, the bot would format the list into a table like Wizardman's and then automatically updated every two weeks (similar to Community Tech Bot's timing). Thoughts? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:02, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
- For the user generated list, should it use some existing page with a list (i.e. could be an existing page in the user's userspace) or something else? Tenshi! (Talk page) 17:06, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
- Tenshi Hinanawi, I struggled with that one. Obviously the easiest input would be an established category. But I can imagine, similar to the example above, that users would be interested in generating their own lists. Maybe a simple bulleted list could be the input, in addition to a category? I'm open to whatever makes most sense. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:45, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
- Is it possible to do this with {{database report}}? — Qwerfjkltalk 17:47, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
- Additionally, I think the output would be a simple table, like this:
| Article | Rating |
|---|---|
| Chet Adams | C |
| Chris Akins | Start |
| Jake Allen (American football) | Start |
| Joe Andruzzi | C |
| Roy Barker (American football) | Stub |
- The input for the bot to parse could just be a page that says:
- Thanks! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:49, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
- This could better be done by a completely separate website (sort of like how edit information is better displayed in xtools rather than in your own userpage). GalStar (talk) (contribs) 06:04, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
Finish merging Template:Infobox Canadian Football League biography
editTemplate:Infobox Canadian Football League biography and Template:Infobox gridiron football person (both are the exact same infobox) are being merged into Template:Infobox NFL biography per this discussion. NFL biography will then be renamed Template:Infobox gridiron football biography. Here is an example edit of me converting the basic parameters from a CFL infobox to an NFL infobox. I imagine a bot could do most of this. The only parameters that might require some advanced programming are the following:
- playing_years1 and playing_team1 (2, 3, 4, etc) in the CFL infobox will just become "teams" in the NFL infobox. See this edit for an example.
- The honors parameters in the CFL infobox like "CFLAllStar" will all be thrown under the "highlights" parameter as bulleted lists in the NFL infobox. Example edit.
I anticipate some more questions but that should be a basic enough explanation for now. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 18:32, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- I've been looking at doing this on and off for a while. I'll throw some tracking categories in there to see how crazy I need to get with the architecture of the code. Primefac (talk) 21:36, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- Some of this proposed process seems to be doing things in the wrong order. It would seem better to rename Template:Infobox NFL biography first (or at least make a redirect from Template:Infobox gridiron football biography for a future move-over-redirect), then do the other things, so that you don't wind up with an NFL-named template on CFL pages. Anomie⚔ 12:35, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- Redirect created. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 12:41, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
hhttps
editNeed change hhttps to https. Example. Mitte27 (talk) 11:37, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- Done Fixed 116 pages. – DreamRimmer ■ 14:01, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- (Requests like this are probably better suited to WP:AWBREQ, for future reference.) — Qwerfjkltalk 14:52, 25 August 2025 (UTC)