View source for Wiki143:Bot requests

{{Short description|Page for bot requests}}
{{pp-move-indef}}
<!-- {{Backlog}}-->
{{/Header}}
{{bots|deny=Qwerfjkl (bot)}}
<!-- Lowercase Sigma bot is needed to make OneClickArchiver work, since that doesn't work with ClueBot. ClueBot is needed to archive done requests with {{BOTREQ|done}}, since the Sigma bot doesn't support this.

Tragic that two archiving bots are needed... -->
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archive = Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive %(counter)d
|algo=old(90d)
|counter = 87
|maxarchivesize = 300K
|minthreadsleft = 0
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|archiveheader = {{Aan}}
}}
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
|archiveprefix=Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive
|archivenow=<nowiki>{{archive now}},{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}</nowiki>
|age=1440
|header={{aan}}
|maxarchsize=300000
|minkeepthreads=0
|numberstart=74
|format= %%i
}}
<!--

  PLEASE ADD YOUR REQUEST TO THE **BOTTOM** OF THIS PAGE

-->

== Clerk Requested Moves/Technical ==

Has been previously discussed [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requested_moves/Archive_35#Bot_to_clerk_RM/TR here], I just don't have the time right now to learn PWB again and then make the bot, so if someone could do it here instead that would be nice, it essentially should periodically check to see if requests have been complete and then remove them, and if a request has been contested and inactive for 72h+ it should remove it and then message the requestor with instructions on how to file a requested move on the article talk. Feel free to ping if you have any more questions regarding it, thanks :) [[User:Zippybonzo|Zippybonzo]] &#124; [[User talk:Zippybonzo|<small>talk</small>]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/Zippybonzo|<small>contribs</small>]] (they/them) 19:40, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
:{{BOTREQ|coding}} {{Re|Zippybonzo}} do you have any ideas on how the message to users when their request is contested should be worded? [[User: Tenshi Hinanawi|Tenshi!]] ([[User talk: Tenshi Hinanawi|Talk page]]) 00:23, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
::Not entirely sure, but I'd say something along the lines of this, although maybe a little friendlier and less confusing:
::Hello {user},
::Your recent request at [[WP:RMTR|Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical]] has been contested by {contestor}. There has been no activity in that discussion for the last 72 hours, and as such I have automatically removed it from the requests page. If you'd like the page to be moved, consider following the instructions at [[Wikipedia:Requested moves]] to encourage more participation in a move discussion.
::Thanks, {bot sig} [[User:Zippybonzo|Zippybonzo]] &#124; [[User talk:Zippybonzo|<small>talk</small>]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/Zippybonzo|<small>contribs</small>]] (they/them) 18:54, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
::{{re|Tenshi Hinanawi}} thank you for picking this up. If you want something simpler (for example, without the contestor's name), I can point you to [[Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Archive 36#c-Rotideypoc41352-20241025211100-Zippybonzo-20241025080600|my previous suggestion]]. Cheers, [[User:Rotideypoc41352|Rotideypoc41352]] ([[User talk:Rotideypoc41352|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contribs/Rotideypoc41352|contribs]]) 04:25, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
:::I've made the notification template at [[User:TenshiBot/RMTR contested notification]], if you have any further suggestions please do tell. Otherwise, if my testing goes well, I'll file a BRFA tomorrow.<span id="Tenshi_Hinanawi:1745105369993:WikipediaFTTCLNBot_requests" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;[[User: Tenshi Hinanawi|Tenshi!]] ([[User talk: Tenshi Hinanawi|Talk page]]) 23:29, 19 April 2025 (UTC)</span>
::::{{BOTREQ|brfa|TenshiBot}}<span id="Tenshi_Hinanawi:1745188090094:WikipediaFTTCLNBot_requests" class="FTTCmt">—&nbsp;[[User: Tenshi Hinanawi|Tenshi!]] ([[User talk: Tenshi Hinanawi|Talk page]]) 22:28, 20 April 2025 (UTC)</span>
:::::{{BOTREQ|done}} [[User: Tenshi Hinanawi|Tenshi!]] ([[User talk: Tenshi Hinanawi|Talk page]]) 15:52, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
Because the original bot discussion happened a while ago, I've notified [[Wikipedia talk:Requested moves#Update on bot to clerk RM/TR|Wikipedia talk:Requested moves]] of this discussion. [[User:Rotideypoc41352|Rotideypoc41352]] ([[User talk:Rotideypoc41352|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contribs/Rotideypoc41352|contribs]]) 03:33, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

== Sync stale sandboxes ==

A bot should overwrite "Template:X/sandbox" with the content of "Template:X" if either of the following are true:

# The most recent edit to the live template is newer than the most recent edit to the sandbox
# or neither the live template nor the sandbox have been edited in a year.

I've seen several times edit requests being made on top of a stale sandbox, and I have to painstakingly rebase them before deploying. Probably year-old tests aren't important (and they will still be in the page history if they are) and if a change is made without sandboxing it should clearly be synced over. [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 20:26, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:If no one takes this up in the next few days, I will file a BRFA. – [[User:DreamRimmer|<span style="color:black" class="skin-invert">'''DreamRimmer'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:DreamRimmer|'''talk''']])</small> 05:42, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
::My only small-ish concern and this isn't a deal breaker, but I would be happy if this could be addressed with the bot. Some templates are simple enough that the one-line documentation is used in the template itself and not in a /doc page. On those pages, the categories are also used on the template page itself. Sandbox pages should not be categorized. If possible, wrap the categories (in both live and sandbox) in a {{tlx|Sandbox other}} block. [[User:Gonnym|Gonnym]] ([[User talk:Gonnym|talk]]) 09:23, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
:The #1 condition is problematic for a template like {{t|rint}} where there are often multiple sandbox edits to add new lines, but while those are pending it is often the case that the main template is the most recent of the two to be edited; make the "either" into a "both" and it should eliminate that problem. I'd also be okay with dropping the time to 6 months or even less. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 14:53, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
:: I disagree with "both" - just as often someone sandboxes something that turns out to not get done for one reason for another and it should be reset for the next user eventually. Maybe add "and the talk page doesn't have an active edit request" to #1, although the {{t|rint}} workflow is broken anyway when that happens as it puts an unwanted burden on template editors to do the rebasing when that burden should instead of on edit requestors. [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 15:48, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
:::So, what are the final conditions? – [[User:DreamRimmer|<span style="color:#48045e">'''Dream'''Rimmer</span>]] [[User talk:DreamRimmer|<span style="color:#48045e;">&#9670;</span>]] 02:55, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
:::Or we could just exclude [[Template:rint|rint]] for now. I'm happy to take this up and file a BFRA. [[User:GalStar|GalStar]] ([[User talk:GalStar|talk]]) 01:27, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
: Yesterday I came across a case where a sandbox has been being used by the non-sandbox version of [[Special:PermaLink/1285030559|a template]] for several months. A syncing bot should check for situations like that before overwriting the sandbox. [[User:Anomie|Anomie]][[User talk:Anomie|⚔]] 15:00, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

== Outdent bot ==

I have noticed an issue in talk pages where there is too much indenting to be able to read the conversation. 

This is particularly more important for pages that are considered more "controversial" (i.e [[Talk:Multiplicity (subculture)#Iatrogenesis_(2)|this talk page]] at [[Talk:Multiplicity (subculture)#c-Kate_the_mochii-20230701165200-Kuia34-20230701163700|this comment]])

I tried to do this manually, however, that turned out to be far too overwhelming for my brain to handle. 

=== The Actual Request ===
A bot should automatically scan for x (configurable) or more indentations and dedent, scan, and re-indent replying comments to suit at least decently sized monitors.

The bot would also possibly need to reorder comments based on where they don't interfere with the dedent task. [[User:ShowierData9978|Showier]] &#91;[[User:Showier2|on alt]]] ([[User talk:ShowierData9978|talk]])  19:41, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
:I would be very surprised if an unattended bot would be able to perform this task without errors. Humans insert too many combinations of : and *, often in invalid sequences, for a bot to get changes right every time.
:
:One question: What is the extent of this problem? Does it occur on 10 pages, 10,000 pages, more, or somewhere in between? – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 20:03, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
::I have no idea what the extent of the issue is, but I can go and make a rough count with a database download within a couple of days.
::The bot could probably ignore cases where a tree includes the invalid combinations of * and :'s. Because it is a policy to include indents, it's probably fine to assume any combination of : and *'s before the text is expected to be indentation (<code>/^([:\*]{10})(.+)$/gm</code>). [[User:ShowierData9978|Showier]] &#91;[[User:Showier2|on alt]]] ([[User talk:ShowierData9978|talk]])  20:19, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
:::FWIW, 15 colons of indenting takes up 275 pixels of width on my screen, which is one-third of the content width even if I narrow my browser window to 1,125 pixels, a pretty narrow window on modern devices. That leaves the indented text perfectly readable. So anything that we reformat, assuming we got consensus to do so, would have to exceed that amount of indenting; maybe 20 colons is the right number to aim at. I did a search [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=insource%3A%2F%3A%3A%3A%3A%3A%3A%3A%3A%3A%3A%3A%3A%3A%3A%3A%3A%3A%3A%3A%2F+insource%3A%2F%5C%28UTC%5C%29%2F+insource%3A%2FUser%2F&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns1=1&ns3=1&ns4=1&ns5=1&ns7=1&ns9=1&ns11=1&ns13=1&ns15=1&ns101=1&ns119=1&ns126=1&ns127=1&ns711=1&ns829=1 for 20 colons in discussion pages], which times out but which yields under 1,000 pages each time. A better search is welcome.
::::To give an idea for my screen, on wide (as I do not have access to styles currently), it takes up 100% and is actually overflowing after around 2 words on a line. (14 lines of text for the comment I linked) [[User:ShowierData9978|Showier]] &#91;[[User:Showier2|on alt]]] ([[User talk:ShowierData9978|talk]])  20:34, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
::::FWIW that comment is also entirely gone on mobile Waterfox (Galaxy A14 5g) [[User:ShowierData9978|Showier]] &#91;[[User:Showier2|on alt]]] ([[User talk:ShowierData9978|talk]])  20:50, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
::I can't download the DB dump in a reasonable amount of time. [[User:ShowierData9978|ShowierData9978]] ([[User talk:ShowierData9978|talk]]) 22:54, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
:Just noting that we had an indent bot a few years ago and <s>it never made it past the trial phase - there were just too many issues and novel situations that couldn't be accounted for. I would be hesitant (to speak with my BAG hat on) to approve a bot for this sort of task again.</s> [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 13:45, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
::Do you mean {{u|IndentBot}}? I believe it was approved.<span id="Qwerfjkl:1745679376505:WikipediaFTTCLNBot_requests" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;[[User:Qwerfjkl|<span style="background:#1d9ffc; color:white; padding:5px; box-shadow:darkgray 2px 2px 2px;">Qwerfjkl</span>]][[User talk:Qwerfjkl|<span style="background:#79c0f2;color:white; padding:2px; box-shadow:darkgray 2px 2px 2px;">talk</span>]] 14:56, 26 April 2025 (UTC)</span>
:::... by yourself, apparently.<span id="Qwerfjkl:1745679562426:WikipediaFTTCLNBot_requests" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;[[User:Qwerfjkl|<span style="background:#1d9ffc; color:white; padding:5px; box-shadow:darkgray 2px 2px 2px;">Qwerfjkl</span>]][[User talk:Qwerfjkl|<span style="background:#79c0f2;color:white; padding:2px; box-shadow:darkgray 2px 2px 2px;">talk</span>]] 14:59, 26 April 2025 (UTC)</span>
::::That's what I get for trying to remember instead of just looking! It had a loooooong trial period though. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 15:31, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
::I tried looking for it but I couldn't -Showier on mobile [[Special:Contributions/47.220.165.238|47.220.165.238]] ([[User talk:47.220.165.238|talk]]) 16:36, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

==Discussion at [[:Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Help maintaining the bot that indexes old articles|Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion §&nbsp;Help maintaining the bot that indexes old articles]]==
[[File:Symbol watching blue lashes high contrast.svg|25px|link=|alt=]]&nbsp;You are invited to join the discussion at [[:Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Help maintaining the bot that indexes old articles|Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion §&nbsp;Help maintaining the bot that indexes old articles]].  –[[User:Novem Linguae|<span style="color:blue">'''Novem Linguae'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])</small> 08:59, 27 April 2025 (UTC)<!-- [[Template:Please see]] -->

== Bot that bypasses news aggregator URLs in references? ==

I'd imagine this has been asked before, but I could not find such information in the archives of this page:

Do we have a bot that works to bypass URLs to news aggregators (www.msn.com, www.yahoo.com, etc.) to change the URL to directly link to the article on the respective publication's site? (I'd imagine we don't, since it would probably be a rather complicated task that cannot be done with AWB, but thought I'd ask ... since I just did this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Milwaukee_Mitchell_International_Airport&diff=1289964867&oldid=1289964721 edit], and I'd imagine there are more URLs like that which need to be fixed.) [[User:Steel1943|<span style="color:#AF601A;">'''''Steel1943'''''</span>]] ([[User talk:Steel1943|talk]]) 00:00, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:I would support such a bot, because I have come across similiar references several times in the past, which I had to fix manually or left as it is. <span class="nowrap">&#8212;'''[[User:CX Zoom|CX Zoom]]'''[he/him]</span> <sup class="nowrap">([[User talk:CX Zoom|let's talk]] • {[[Special:Contributions/CX Zoom|C]]•[[User:CX Zoom/X|X]]})</sup> 11:35, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
::Good idea in theory, could be quite difficult in practice, given the bot would need to scrape the aggregator site to get the original URL, check it is the same article, and then link it - and that sort of automated activity is almost certainly against the MSN T&Cs, to use that example above - and their website is a nightmare for scraping anyway! It's not going to be one for AWB either, as there's no obvious pattern to the URLs.
::I may attempt to have a bit more of a look at this on Friday, but I can't see any easy way to automate this, especially as a lot of these are suffering very badly from linkrot. May be a manual process to fix unfortunately. [[User:Mdann52|Mdann52]] ([[User talk:Mdann52|talk]]) 20:23, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
:Is there consensus to do so? As a reader, I would be fine with, for example, a link to the Yahoo News copy of a paywalled Washington Post article, provided the {{tl|cite news}} has <code><nowiki>|via = </nowiki></code> filled in. [[User:Rotideypoc41352|Rotideypoc41352]] ([[User talk:Rotideypoc41352|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contribs/Rotideypoc41352|contribs]]) 05:42, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
::{{Ping|Rotideypoc41352}} If we don't have a guideline for this somewhere, I'd be surprised. To me, it's just common sense, such as removing the unnecessary 10000 characters Google puts in a URL to track internet traffic when someone clicks on a link to a page in their search results. But, I do understand your stance: It's better to be able to view a reference than to not be able to view it at all. (Makes me wonder though if news aggregators archive their own version of the articles they display, especially in the event the article disappears from the initial site; it's a thought/question I do not know the answer to.) [[User:Steel1943|<span style="color:#AF601A;">'''''Steel1943'''''</span>]] ([[User talk:Steel1943|talk]]) 22:59, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Steel1943}} MSN News do not archive the articles - and generally I think should be bypassed. There's a lot of dead link.... Yahoo does arhive a lot of "newwire" type articles, so I'm less worried about those. So far, it's not looking good as there's no easy way to resovle the original URL from the MSN page though. [[User:Mdann52|Mdann52]] ([[User talk:Mdann52|talk]]) 17:04, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
:::Thanks for responding to my question, {{u|Steel1943}}! The following is less a firm view and more thinking out loud. My tentative opinion is that the proposed bot task is, at the very least, complicated from a policy perspective:
:::* the existence of the proposed bot would imply all or almost all citations of news aggregators should be replaced with links to the direct sources, in a way that does not [usually] require a human to make some sort of judgment—making the task a good candidate for automation
:::* I have yet to find a policy that uses such a strong recommendation. Even [[WP:USEORIGINALSOURCE]]'s {{tq|Direct links to the original source should be preferred over the aggregator's}}, is noticeably weaker than, for example, "Direct links...should replace the aggregator's".
:::* My wild guess is that [[WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT]] has some influence over the choice of wording in USEORIGINALSOURCE. I do not know if this is an unreasonable reading of SAYWHERE: if, using my previous comment's example, I have read only the Yahoo News link but not the original WaPo (e.g. due to not having enough resources or time to pass the paywall), SAYWHERE says I should cite the Yahoo link. Now, of course, you could verify that the original WaPo article supports the enwiki article text and change my citation to the original WaPo article, but the need for a human to verify the enwiki article text accurately reflects the contents of the original news article renders the task ill-suited for automation.
:::* I would not argue very strenuously against anyone who says my interpretation of SAYWHERE is nullified by its {{tq|So long as you are confident that you read a true and accurate copy}} clause. Simultaneously, I do not know how often we can assume an aggregator's link is a {{tq|true and accurate copy}} of the original, which may have been corrected after the aggregator posted their copy.
:::Again, I have no strong opinions; just wanted to write out my thoughts. Thanks again, [[User:Rotideypoc41352|Rotideypoc41352]] ([[User talk:Rotideypoc41352|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contribs/Rotideypoc41352|contribs]]) 04:18, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

== A auto-message bot for AfC reviews? ==

Hi 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 [[Wikipedia:Articles for creation|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 [[User talk:Robert McClenon/Archive 52#Pending review|original idea]] from @[[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]]. Best, [[User:CF-501 Falcon|'''''CF-501''''' Falcon]] ([[User talk:CF-501 Falcon|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/CF-501_Falcon|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.  [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 19:44, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
:::{{BOTREQ|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? [[User: Tenshi Hinanawi|Tenshi!]] ([[User talk: Tenshi Hinanawi|Talk page]]) 14:13, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
::::@[[User:Tenshi Hinanawi|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. @[[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]], What do you think? [[User:CF-501 Falcon|'''''CF-501''''' Falcon]] ([[User talk:CF-501 Falcon|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/CF-501_Falcon|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.  [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 17:19, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::Sounds Great! [[User:CF-501 Falcon|'''''CF-501''''' Falcon]] ([[User talk:CF-501 Falcon|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/CF-501_Falcon|contribs]]) 19:30, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::{{BOTREQ|brfa|TenshiBot 2}} [[User: Tenshi Hinanawi|Tenshi!]] ([[User talk: Tenshi Hinanawi|Talk page]]) 21:38, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
:{{ping|CF-501 Falcon|Robert McClenon| 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? [[User:Mdann52|Mdann52]] ([[User talk: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.  [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 18:04, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

== Templates falsely claiming to have collapsible option ==

I have answered a few help questions like [[Wikipedia:Help desk#Navigation template is not collapsed]] ([[Special:PermanentLink/1290677849#Navigation template is not collapsed|permanent link]]). [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=hastemplate%3A%22collapsible+option%22+-intitle%3Adoc+-insource%3A%2F%5C%7B%5C%7B%5C%7Bstate%2F&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns10=1 This] search currently gives 12559 templates which appear to falsely claim to support a state parameter. See [[Template:Navbox#Setup parameters]] for what it's supposed to do. My search may have false positives. I haven't examined the results carefully. The normal fix is to add <code><nowiki>|state = {{{state|}}}</nowiki></code> to the template code but {{tl|collapsible option}} can also be removed from the documentation which may be on a doc page. Some templates like {{tl|Joban Line}} do set <code>state</code> but to a fixed value. Will somebody look more carefully at it than me? state parameters aren't used a lot in calls but 10000+ possibly false documentations is a lot. [[User:PrimeHunter|PrimeHunter]] ([[User talk:PrimeHunter|talk]]) 11:13, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:Usages with {{tl|Navbox documentation}} should not be removed but use {{para|stateless|yes}}. Related, but the previous task that added {{tl|Navbox documentation}} should continue to run and add that to the navbox that are missing it. [[User:Gonnym|Gonnym]] ([[User talk:Gonnym|talk]]) 11:45, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

== WP:TAG retargeted ==

Per [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 April 27#Wikipedia:TAGS|this RfD]], {{-r|WP:TAGS}} has been retargeted to [[Wikipedia:Tags]]. It was noted in the discussion that this is a long-standing shortcut and that [[WP:GAN]] reviews routinely link to [[WP:TAGS]]. It was suggested that a bot run could update the now incorrect incoming links to the old target, [[Wikipedia:File copyright tags]]. Thanks, [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 04:56, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

== Confirm sources for claims such as "cult film", "urban legend" ==

I'd like to automate the search for sources that support claims such as "cult film", "cult following" (for a film), and "urban legend". If the first source listed after the claim does not contain the same term, then I want the article link to be saved to a list for manual review. My intent is to remove unattributed claims from articles. There are at least several thousand articles which contain these claims.

Bot operation steps:

1. Search for articles that contain these terms.

2. For each article containing a term, find the closest sited source after the instance of the term.

3. Visit the source link.

4. Search for the term on the source web page.

5. If the term is found, move on to the next article.

6. If the term isn't found, add the article URL to a list for manual review.

7. Send me a link to the article list when the automated search is complete. [[User:Gamboler|Gamboler]] ([[User talk:Gamboler|talk]]) 14:48, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
:I'd be willing to code this if the community thinks it would be helpful. The only issue I can see is Step 7: that could result in a lot of unnecessary notifications if you decide you want to run this continuously. I think hosting the list from Step 6 in the bot's userspace, and watch listing it on your main account would be the best way to implement that because both you and others could subscribe and unsubscribe to those notifications as you see fit, without changing the code. Doing it that way may also qualify for the [[Wikipedia:BOTUSERSPACE|BOTUSERSPACE]] exemption, although the volume of edits may be too high in reality. [[User:JarJarInks|JarJarInks]]<sub>[[User_talk:JarJarInks|٩(◕_◕)۶]]</sub><sup>[[User:JarJarInks/Tone Indicators|Tones essay]]</sup> 17:19, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
::No response but I really think this qualifies for [[Wikipedia:BOTUSERSPACE|BOTUSERSPACE]] so I'm {{BOTREQ|coding}} [[User:JarJarInks|JarJarInks]]<sub>[[User_talk:JarJarInks|٩(◕_◕)۶]]</sub><sup>[[User:JarJarInks/Tone Indicators|Tones essay]]</sup> 18:01, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
:::This seems useful, any updates? [[User:GalStar|GalStar]] ([[User talk:GalStar|talk]]) 05:19, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
::::Are you aware of discussions on [[Talk:List of cult films]]?  There has been many ideas how to handle what qualifies as a cult film. IMO checking for "cult film" in a nearby source is not the best way to determine a cult film.<span id="GreenC:1749794801011:WikipediaFTTCLNBot_requests" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;[[User:GreenC|<span style="color: #006A4E;">'''Green'''</span>]][[User talk:GreenC|<span style="color: #093;">'''C'''</span>]] 06:06, 13 June 2025 (UTC)</span>
:::::I’ll take a look, and I agree that it may not be the deciding factor. But having a simple list of possible unsupported claims hosted in user space would still be a useful tool. (Written on mobile, apologies for any grammar issues) [[User:JarJarInks|JarJarInks]]<sub>[[User_talk:JarJarInks|٩(◕_◕)۶]]</sub><sup>[[User:JarJarInks/Tone Indicators|Tones essay]]</sup> 12:06, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

== DYK  ==

I have noticed that in older DYK talk templates the (Check views) link is dead since years back. Like here https://stats.grok.se/en/201309/Meral_Tasbas at [[Meral Tasbas]] talk page, this message has not changed for years. I would say that this goes for most articles that appeared in the DYK section before 2017. Is there a chance that a Bot could change this (Check views) link on all older DYK talk pages. Because in newer DYK articles the link work. [[User:BabbaQ|BabbaQ]] ([[User talk:BabbaQ|talk]]) 04:33, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
:That shouldn't require a bot to change anything, just someone to edit {{t|DYK talk}} to update the parenthetical (which unless I am misreading it has an "if date > X then show link" code). [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 23:39, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

==Bot to Notify Users of Stale User Drafts==
This situation came to my attention at [[WP:MFD|MFD]].  Four incomplete placeholders in user space were nominated for deletion.  The nominator said that they had found them in the maintenance category [[:Category:Stale userspace drafts]].  I have taken a quick look at that maintenance category, and I think it is clear what is needed, which cannot be done by [[WP:MFD|MFD]] and cannot be done by humans looking at the pages.  There are 39,535 stale userspace drafts in that category.  Any human-based process is the wrong way to deal with the category, regardless of whether the category needs dealing with.  What is needed is a bot to walk through the category and determine which of the authors are in good standing, and notify those authors that they have stale drafts, and to produce a report listing the indeffed users who have drafts in that category, and how many drafts each indeffed user has. Some of the users have simply forgotten that they started work on those drafts, and notifying them will reduce the number of drafts in the category.  That is the first step.  I don't know whether there is a second step, but I think that a bot is needed to notify users that they have stale userspace drafts, and to report on stale userspace drafts by blocked users.  (A human can determine whether the drafts by blocked users qualify for [[WP:G5|G5]].)   [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 15:31, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
:I've made the userspace draft report [[User:TenshiBot/Stale userspace drafts by blocked users|here]], albeit I will ask whether a bot is necessary for the notifications. A MassMessage may be better suited to this if this is infrequent.<span id="Tenshi_Hinanawi:1748439202596:WikipediaFTTCLNBot_requests" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;[[User: Tenshi Hinanawi|Tenshi!]] ([[User talk: Tenshi Hinanawi|Talk page]]) 13:33, 28 May 2025 (UTC)</span>
::Thank you, [[User:Tenshi]].  Your list is not as long as I had expected, which means that fewer of the authors of stale drafts are blocked than I had expected.  That probably means that more of the authors are active or at least sporadic.  I think that creates more of a case why a bot should notify users that they have stale drafts in user space.  They might either update them or [[WP:G7|G7]] then.  [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 16:03, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
:::The simultaneous [[Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Stale Drafts in User Space|village pump discussion]] you started is not (currently) showing a consensus that deletion of these drafts is desirable, rather it's leaning in the opposite direction. Given this, I think you should gain consensus for a mass message or bot-delivered message about stale drafts before sending one. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 16:43, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
::::Discussion was archived [[Special:Diff/1295244463|a couple days ago]]. [[User: Tenshi Hinanawi|Tenshi!]] ([[User talk: Tenshi Hinanawi|Talk page]]) 22:48, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

== Removing fully completed daily RfD list pages from the main RfD page ==

When you close the last discussion open for a certain day at RfD, you need to manually remove the page transclusion from [[WP:RFD]] (example diff: [[Special:Diff/1292638726]]). In practice, this is often done by {{u|Jay}} mopping up after the rest of us who didn't notice that we closed the last one. It would be convenient to have a bot handle this instead.

[[User:DumbBOT]] currently creates each new subpage in the morning, but my understanding that the operator is not very active these days and probably not a good person to go to for new bot tasks. [[User:Rusalkii|<span style="color:#1C7E85"><b>Rusalkii</b></span>]] ([[User talk:Rusalkii|talk]]) 01:59, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:@[[User:Rusalkii|Rusalkii]] I am now working on this as task 2 for {{noping|VWF bot}}. [[User:Vanderwaalforces|Vanderwaalforces]] ([[User talk:Vanderwaalforces|talk]]) 11:58, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
:{{BOTREQ|brfa|VWF bot 2}}. [[User:Vanderwaalforces|Vanderwaalforces]] ([[User talk:Vanderwaalforces|talk]]) 16:17, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
:: Thank you! [[User:Rusalkii|<span style="color:#1C7E85"><b>Rusalkii</b></span>]] ([[User talk:Rusalkii|talk]]) 17:43, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
::Just out of personal curiosity, do you have the source code available publicly? I was considering doing this myself and am interested in looking at what the implementation ended up being. [[User:Rusalkii|<span style="color:#1C7E85"><b>Rusalkii</b></span>]] ([[User talk:Rusalkii|talk]]) 17:51, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
:Not opposing Vanderwaalforces's work, but even though Tizio (DumbBOT's operator) is not much active, Tizio and DumbBOT would have been a good choice for this task. —usernamekiran [[User talk:usernamekiran|(talk)]] 20:14, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
:: Or, if people want, we could have AnomieBOT do RFD like it does TFD, CFD, and FFD. [[User:Anomie|Anomie]][[User talk:Anomie|⚔]] 22:26, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
::: yes, that will centralise the tasks under one bot account. —usernamekiran [[User talk:usernamekiran|(talk)]] 08:01, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
:<small>...Jay isn't the only one who does that cleanup... [[User:Steel1943|<span style="color:#AF601A;">'''''Steel1943'''''</span>]] ([[User talk:Steel1943|talk]]) 17:52, 2 June 2025 (UTC)</small>

== Behavior change for {{tl|PresFoot}} ==
''(Moved from [[WP:AWBREQ]] due to quantity of pages, 18:41, 29 May 2025 (UTC))''

Hello! The other week I found a template with awkward usage and after [[User_talk:Jonesey95#Template_question|this discussion]] with fellow editor Jonesey95, about (primarily this presidential election results table set), I have a bot proposal for addressing this awkward template usage on the 2950 pages affected.

Currently {{tl|PresFoot}} is doing two tasks— closing tables as expected, but also behaving as the last row, which is not the expected standard. The expected standard template trio is that of the general "xHead (takes table style parameters)", "xRow (takes content parameters)", "xFoot (Just a closer)". With PresFoot currently doing both, it makes end of table changes (new last rows) somewhat bothersome since you would need to change the existing PresFoot to PresRow, and then add a new PresFoot. This is probably why a fifth of the existing cases of PresHead forgo using PresFoot and are closed by a regular table closer bracket. Also, in the edge cases of a table only have a single row of content, the current usage would require you'd have {{tl|PresHead}} followed by {{tl|PresFoot}}, with no {{tl|PresRow}} usage. The other issue with this current {{tl|PresFoot}} setup is if an editor who wasn't familiar with this unexpected behavior were to use these and did PresHead, PresRows, and closed it with an empty PresFoot, they'd get a table of content with an extra "null" row for 2020 (1 vote/ea. for a 33% spread (Rep/Dep/Third). [[East Bridgewater, Massachusetts|This is one example]]. A short overview of the usage cases can be seen in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Zinnober9/sandbox2&oldid=1291766679 my sandbox example here].

A Request for Comment was [[Template talk:United States presidential election results table footer|posted]] May 15th on the template set's talk pages (crossposted notices on PresHead/PresRow linking to the discussion on PresFoot's talk) and no objections have been stated since.

I do not expect any false positives coming with this proposal, and should be a one time run. There are [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=insource%3A%2F%5C%7B%5C%7B%5CPresFoot%5C%7D%5C%7D%2F&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1&ns1=1&ns2=1&ns3=1&ns4=1&ns5=1&ns6=1&ns7=1&ns8=1&ns9=1&ns10=1&ns11=1&ns12=1&ns13=1&ns14=1&ns15=1&ns100=1&ns101=1&ns118=1&ns119=1&ns126=1&ns127=1&ns710=1&ns711=1&ns828=1&ns829=1 three pages] (two articles [[Lawrence County, Ohio|1]], [[East Bridgewater, Massachusetts|2]]), and my [[User:Zinnober9/sandbox2|Sandbox2]]) using PresFoot in the expected no taken parameters way and shouldn't need changing.


'''Key Actions Requested:'''
;Before the two actions below,
*Change the contents of [[Template:United States presidential election results table footer]] to <code><nowiki>#REDIRECT [[Template:End]]</nowiki></code> (1 case; manual edit)
*Delete (as [[WP:T5|T5]]) [[Template:United States presidential election results table footer/doc]] (1 case; manual edit)

;For all articles transcluding {{tl|PresFoot}}
*IF {{tl|PresFoot}} is present, change all existing cases of Pres'''Foot'''(with parameters) to Pres'''Row'''(with parameters). ([https://linkcount.toolforge.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&page=Template%3AUnited+States+presidential+election+results+table+footer 2950 cases])
*ADD {{tl|PresFoot}} with no parameters to a new line after final {{tl|PresRow}}. (same articles)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richmond%2C_Virginia&diff=1292821393&oldid=1292542884 example of these changes]


;Additional Action Requested
*While doing these changes it makes sense to bring these tables' usage into compliance with [[WP:CHRONO]] (earliest to latest). All cases I've sampled of these PresTables were contrary to this standard. My hope is that this task can be combined with the above and still be a single edit per page.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richmond,_Virginia&diff=next&oldid=1292821393 example of Chrono change]


;If easy to check behind, add this, otherwise if complicated, ignore
*<span style="color:blue">It's in the realm of possibility that some articles that have a PresFoot are also followed by an unnecessary stray table closer, but I'm not expecting this with any frequency. I also suspect that checking for these in cases where it is a stray and not closing some other table would be a harder task with a fair chance of false positives, so I'm not requiring this extra check. If I am wrong and this is an easy thing to check for so there aren't stray table closers, great, please add. Otherwise a few stray table closers won't be harming anything.</span>

Thanks for considering, [[User:Zinnober9|Zinnober9]] ([[User talk:Zinnober9|talk]]) 02:49, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:I'll try to work on this. Will file a BRFA tomorrow. <span class="nowrap">&#8212;'''[[User:CX Zoom|CX Zoom]]'''[he/him]</span> <sup class="nowrap">([[User talk:CX Zoom|let's talk]] • {[[Special:Contributions/CX Zoom|C]]•[[User:CX Zoom/X|X]]})</sup> 22:55, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

== Rename all usages of Chart to TreeChart ==

As mentioned in [[Template talk:ChartDisplay#Parameter case]] it would be ideal to have the [[Template:ChartDisplay]] template be called [[Template:Chart]] rather than [[Template:ChartDisplay]]. However [[Template:Chart]] is being used as a redirect by ~900 pages to [[Template:Tree chart]]. As such it would be nice if all those pages could be modified to directly call [[Template:Tree chart]] so that [[Template:Chart]] can be usurped.

I'd be happy to hack something together to do this if someone doesn't already have something.

Cheers, [[User:GalStar|GalStar]] ([[User talk:GalStar|talk]]) 00:06, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
:[[User:GalStar|GalStar]], wouldn't this need a TfD or RfD? Not sure which.<span id="Qwerfjkl:1749128353867:WikipediaFTTCLNBot_requests" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;[[User:Qwerfjkl|<span style="background:#1d9ffc; color:white; padding:5px; box-shadow:darkgray 2px 2px 2px;">Qwerfjkl</span>]][[User talk:Qwerfjkl|<span style="background:#79c0f2;color:white; padding:2px; box-shadow:darkgray 2px 2px 2px;">talk</span>]] 12:59, 5 June 2025 (UTC)</span>
::Probably RFD since {{-r|chart}} is ambiguous and should probably be dabbed (there is also {{t|Graph:Chart}}). [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 13:09, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
:::[[User:Primefac|Primefac]], done with [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 June 7#Template:Chart]]. Doesn't {{t|Graph:Chart}} no longer work?<span id="Qwerfjkl:1749378074611:WikipediaFTTCLNBot_requests" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;[[User:Qwerfjkl|<span style="background:#1d9ffc; color:white; padding:5px; box-shadow:darkgray 2px 2px 2px;">Qwerfjkl</span>]][[User talk:Qwerfjkl|<span style="background:#79c0f2;color:white; padding:2px; box-shadow:darkgray 2px 2px 2px;">talk</span>]] 10:21, 8 June 2025 (UTC)</span>
::::It doesn't, I'm just saying that there is a risk of ambiguity in there with a bunch of things having similar names. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 10:22, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::Even so, I think it would make more sense for {{t|Chart}} to cover the extension of the same name.<span id="Qwerfjkl:1749378241848:WikipediaFTTCLNBot_requests" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;[[User:Qwerfjkl|<span style="background:#1d9ffc; color:white; padding:5px; box-shadow:darkgray 2px 2px 2px;">Qwerfjkl</span>]][[User talk:Qwerfjkl|<span style="background:#79c0f2;color:white; padding:2px; box-shadow:darkgray 2px 2px 2px;">talk</span>]] 10:24, 8 June 2025 (UTC)</span>
:::::There is precedence, as the german wikipedia has [[:de:Template:Chart]]. [[User:GalStar|GalStar]] ([[User talk:GalStar|talk]]) 22:18, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

== Non breaking spaces in lists of minor planets ==

Good morning, I've just inserted non breaking spaces before "km" in some lists of minor planets. [[Special:Contributions/87.21.146.58|87.21.146.58]] ([[User talk:87.21.146.58|talk]]) 05:47, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

== Change "articles" to "pages" ==

We recently moved lots of categories like [[:Category:File-Class articles]] to [[:Category:File-Class pages]]. There are quite a few links to update, and a lot of these seem to be in [[Special:PrefixIndex/User:Audiodude|the userspace of Audiodude]]. It would be great if someone familiar with AWB or similar could edit these pages. An example edit is: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Audiodude/Tables/Project/Belfast-related&diff=prev&oldid=1294887757] Any non-article classes (Template, Category, Disambig, File, Redirect, Project, etc.) are changed from "articles" to "pages". Thanks &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]]&nbsp;·&nbsp;[[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 11:38, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
:I believe [[WP:CFDS]] is where category-renaming requests (and their cleanup) go, or are you talking about actually changing ''links'' (i.e. ''not'' <code>{{!((}}Category:...</code> uses)? [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 12:42, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
::[[User:Primefac|Primefac]], in the example edit it's changing template parameter values.<span id="Qwerfjkl:1750013642856:WikipediaFTTCLNBot_requests" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;[[User:Qwerfjkl|<span style="background:#1d9ffc; color:white; padding:5px; box-shadow:darkgray 2px 2px 2px;">Qwerfjkl</span>]][[User talk:Qwerfjkl|<span style="background:#79c0f2;color:white; padding:2px; box-shadow:darkgray 2px 2px 2px;">talk</span>]] 18:54, 15 June 2025 (UTC)</span>
:::Ah, yes, seem to have misread it. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 18:56, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

== Redirects related to those nominated at RfD ==

Per 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:
**'''Bot note:''' <nowiki>{{noredirect|Foo Smith}}</nowiki> <sup>([[Talk:Examples|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:WhatLinksHere/Examples|links]] '''·''' [[Special:PageHistory/Examples|history]] '''·''' [[toolforge:pageviews/?start=2025-05-18&end=2025-06-16&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=Examples|stats]])</sup> is an avoided double redirect of "Foo Jones"
**'''Bot note:''' <nowiki>{{noredirect|Foo smith}}</nowiki> <sup>([[Talk:Examples|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:WhatLinksHere/Examples|links]] '''·''' [[Special:PageHistory/Examples|history]] '''·''' [[toolforge:pageviews/?start=2025-05-18&end=2025-06-16&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=Examples|stats]])</sup> is a redirect to the same target as "Foo Smith"
: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. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:GalStar|GalStar]] ([[User talk:GalStar|talk]]) 17:56, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
::I've just thought of a third case to check for: differences only in hyphenation/dashes. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 21:38, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
:::Actually that's generalisable to differences only in punctuation. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 03:40, 18 June 2025 (UTC)