→renaming subcategories of Category:Provinces of Saudi Arabia: Instructing user on how to secure a consensus for the change |
|||
Line 262: | Line 262: | ||
:{{U|Ladsgroup}} I assume you have a consensus discussion in hand to support this change? [[User:Hasteur|Hasteur]] ([[User talk:Hasteur|talk]]) 22:09, 7 February 2014 (UTC) |
:{{U|Ladsgroup}} I assume you have a consensus discussion in hand to support this change? [[User:Hasteur|Hasteur]] ([[User talk:Hasteur|talk]]) 22:09, 7 February 2014 (UTC) |
||
::{{U|Hasteur}} all of the articles has been renamed per this source http://www.statoids.com/usa.html It's not okay to have the article named "Region Foo" and the category "province Foo" <code style="background:yellow">:)</code>[[user:Ladsgroup|Ladsgroup]]<sup>[[User talk:Ladsgroup|بحث]] </sup> 22:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC) |
::{{U|Hasteur}} all of the articles has been renamed per this source http://www.statoids.com/usa.html It's not okay to have the article named "Region Foo" and the category "province Foo" <code style="background:yellow">:)</code>[[user:Ladsgroup|Ladsgroup]]<sup>[[User talk:Ladsgroup|بحث]] </sup> 22:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC) |
||
:::{{U|Ladsgroup}} Where has this renaming of category occured here on wikipedia? ''Categories for discussion (Cfd) is where deletion, merging, and '''renaming of categories''' (pages in the Category namespace) are discussed.''. Before this proceeds any further we need a consensus to implement such a change rather than a qustionably reliable individual website. Please propose your change and see if there is consensus to make a change before a bot makes the change. [[User:Hasteur|Hasteur]] ([[User talk:Hasteur|talk]]) 22:19, 7 February 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:19, 7 February 2014
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: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 (v·t·) |
---|
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7e/Redwikiheart-12M.png/130px-Redwikiheart-12M.png)
Many, many thanks for implementation of my idea creation User:ReferenceBot > Take a look at Archive New REFBot request.
DPL bot, BracketBot and ReferenceBot are the best inventions of Wikipedia. It's time for a new Bot. We need the
See Category:Articles with missing files. Cleaned today at 9:00, at 13:00 there were 43 new entries. 10 per hour.
If there is a Bot like DPL bot & BracketBot exists (sending a message after about 10 minutes), 90% of work to clean up the category would be saved.
Excuse my bad English. --Frze > talk 13:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC) @930913: Many, many thanks @John of Reading: @StarryGrandma: @Nyttend: @Benzband: @TheJJJunk: @Jonesey95:
There are:
- typos
- insert of nonexisting images
- insert of external webpageaddresses
User:ImageRemovalBot does not detect such errors. --Frze > talk 08:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
See [1] User contributions For KylieTastic 1/1/2014-4/1/2014 - There are at least >300 edits to clean up this category, 100 edits per day. Not necessary. --Frze > talk 16:14, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi, from my experience clearing up many of the last 11K problems in this category, and some of the new ones popping up since cleared, I would categorise the main issues as
- Images deleted from commons for copyright/no licence, fair use claims used on commons
- For come reason the CommonsDelinker does not work on all files: not sure if this is by design, or if it doesn't cope with underscored file, or files in templates. It also only removes one copy per page
- Maybe a new bot could notice a new red-link file and post to the users page that added the reference (not sure if that is a findable thing)
- I think a problem is people don't go to commons as much and don't set email alerts up so don't realise the file was deleted
- Can we assume the user name is the same locally as on commons?
- Note in the last 11K hundreds if not thousands were logos removed from commons for cpy vio
- People trying to hot-link - File:http or Image:http is an easy catch for a bot
- People using local paths (I assume they think it will auto upload) - bot should look for \ as not valid ever
- Invalid names - often with no file extension, or invalid ones
- People changing spelling, capitalisation, dates, other formatting, - to —, etc (often with tools or the various help scripts - so very likely to self fix if told)
- People changing the link text deliberately thinking it will actually rename the actual file
- People using the name of the local file-name on their PC rather than the name they entered when uploading on commons (they apparently have trouble finding them)
- Formatting issues - like instead of File:filename.svg|220px|Caption they put File:caption|failename or put File:File:
- Incorrect use of templates (they all differ): Some can have need no File:/Image:, Some must have File:/Image:, Some need full square-bracketed formatting i.e. add nothing
- People reverting CommonsDelinker - I guess usually because they don't understand from the message that the file has actually gone and think a revert will work
- Adding a template like an info box with a filename, then uploading the file. Causes hidden category flag to be left
- You just have to do an edit to clear. So if the bot finds no missing file it could just do an edit (would save a dozen issues a day that one)
- Plain old vandalism
- Lastly, a new edit not touching files showing up an old missing image
For many issues if a bot posted to the users page like BracketBot that they had caused a file issue - it would help a lot.
- Things I would haveit tell them:
- If your not sure how to fix and replaced a working image please revert your own edit (direct link would be helpful)
- You can't hot-link external images - See WP:HOTLINK
- All images must be uploaded - See WP:UPIMAGE
- If you upload a copyrighted image to commons, it will likely be deleted so don't bother just claiming 'own work' and hoping
- If its not copyright free but you want to use under fair use post locally not to commons
- If the image exists and your having trouble using see WP:IMAGES
- File names are case-sensitive (even the extension)
- Where to find the name of images they have uploaded (i.e. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:ListFiles/username , and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:ListFiles/username )
- If the image has existed but is not deleted, tell them when and where (locally or commons, date, reason)
- How to request an image is renamed
- Lastly where to ask for help (a list of options)
Hope that helps — Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 17:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- It should probably be MissingFilesBot as it can also be audio, video, etc as well as images even if the others are probably < 0.1% at the moment. KylieTastic (talk) 17:42, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank youvery,very much, Kylie Tastic! Such a lot of work! Renaming sounds better: MissingFilesBot compared to ImageRemovalBot. Best wishes --Frze > talk 19:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- I agree that it should be called "MissingFilesBot". I'm happy to help test it. I cleaned several hundred problems from Category:Articles with missing files and Category:Templates with missing files. Work continues in these areas.... - tucoxn\talk 02:26, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- Also, on 26 December 2013 I asked Siebrand, the editor who runs the CommonsDelinker bot on en:Wikipedia, why the bot didn't catch the file deletions. He hasn't responded to my queries. - tucoxn\talk 03:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- Tucoxn Siebrand is no longer the maintainer. User Bryan is the one to ask. CommonsDelinker was essentially abandoned, a call for help was sent out in November and I guess Bryan is the "lucky" one. CommonsDelinker has a problem that messes up 5-10 pages a day. In October, a month after I left a message, I was told to learn python and submit a patch. As I don't know python, I didn't submit a patch. Hopefully you'll have better luck now it is being maintained again. Bgwhite (talk) 06:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- @Bgwhite, I hope you're right. Bryan doesn't seem to be very active, at least on-wiki. Other than a combined total of 9 edits on meta and mediawiki, he hasn't made any on-wiki edits in 2013 (or 2014) -- see Brian's sulinfo. Thanks for your efforts... I'm glad there are others out there who are interested in solving this problem. - tucoxn\talk 08:49, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- Tucoxn, it would have helped if I didn't read an old page. Sigh. Nothing has been created at WMFLabs yet, so no visible progress of moving CommonsDelinker off of toolserver. Bgwhite (talk) 09:11, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- Here is the response from Siebrand. His opinion that there is "little to no development capacity for CommonsDelinker" paves the way for creation of MissingFilesBot to fill the gaps. - tucoxn\talk 00:25, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- This MediaWiki API Result might help a little. (not my work, though) - tucoxn\talk 02:50, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- An Abuse Filter similar to the one described at Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested/Archive 2#Image:http:.2F.2F could help with the instances of
[[file:http://...]]
. - tucoxn\talk 03:28, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- Tucoxn, it would have helped if I didn't read an old page. Sigh. Nothing has been created at WMFLabs yet, so no visible progress of moving CommonsDelinker off of toolserver. Bgwhite (talk) 09:11, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
@Frze, I think User:ImageRemovalBot only catches files that were deleted from en.wikipedia and not Commons. Also, it doesn't catch rectify all the files that were deleted from en.wikipedia: 1, 2, 3, and 4. Maybe Carnildo, who runs that bot, would like to comment. - tucoxn\talk 08:36, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- ImageRemovalBot doesn't touch Commons deletions partly because CommonsDelinker usually does a better job, and partly because Commons deletion discussions can have outcomes other than "delete the image" (eg. "replace image X with image Y").
- ImageRemovalBot does a once-a-week sweep for some types of invalid file links, such as File:http://... or File:C:/....
- When it looks like ImageRemovalBot failed to remove an image, it's usually because the image link was re-inserted later (eg. for the first example, ImageRemovalBot removed it on November 18, 2011, shortly after the image was deleted, and the image link was re-inserted on January 9, 2014), occasionally it's because the image was used in a way that ImageRemovalBot can't deal with (File:Onice.jpg was deleted before I wrote the current version of ImageRemovalBot's template-handling code), and sometimes it's for just plain unusual circumstances (eg. with File:West Boylston High School Lion.jpg, it's because the article was titled Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/West Boylston Middle/High School at the time the file was deleted, and ImageRemovalBot doesn't touch talkpages). --Carnildo (talk) 02:44, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
- Understanding that ImageRemovalBot doesn't touch files deleted from Commons, CommonsDelinker should handle those files. It does not. See the two edit histories for Ridgefield High School (Connecticut) and Ridgefield High School (Ridgefield, Washington). The files removed from those articles were deleted from Commons over a month ago. the CommonsDelinker bot should have handled that. Those are just two examples of many that CommonsDelinker misses on English Wikipedia. - tucoxn\talk 23:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- There is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested#File:http:// to have an abuse filter handle some of these ongoing problem edits (see 1 and 2 for recent examples). We're waiting for an edit filter manager or an administrator to respond or implement the requested change. - tucoxn\talk 01:09, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Coding... I've noticed no opposition to this idea but nobody else has taken the initiative to do it either. I'm collaborating with some other editors to get the coding worked out for en.wp. Considering comments from Bgwhite that "CommonsDelinker was essentially abandoned" and from Siebrand that there is "little to no development capacity for CommonsDelinker", I'm moving forward with a bot to take up the slack. Other projects have noticed the problems with CommonsDelinker and I plan to try to update their successful solution for use here. I'm looking forward to a successful collaborative process. More updates to come.... - tucoxn\talk 21:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
- I have offered to install a bot that removes image links from articles for images that are deleted on Commons. This can start testing phase at next weekend. --Krd (talk) 11:28, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
- Collaboration on this solution is still ongoing. - tucoxn\talk 23:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
BRFA filed: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Filedelinkerbot. - tucoxn\talk 09:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
BusterBot
My idea for a bot is one that fixes one specific part of grammar: an/a before a vowel/not before a vowel. For example:
- My bot finds a sentence that says, 'An dog is also known as a canine.' My bot would automatically change the 'an' to 'a'.
- My bot finds a sentence that says, 'A example of a animal is a dog.' My bot would automatically change the first two 'a's to 'an's, and keep the last 'a' the same.
I know this might be considered a Fully automatic spell-checking bots, which is not allowed according to the Frequently denied bots list, but I think this is much simpler and is less prone to mistakes.
Thoughts? -Newyorkadam (talk) 02:05, 24 January 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam
- It would seem useful to do it manually, to friendlily notify relevant contributors of their mistakes and other mistakes they make. --Gryllida 02:15, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
- I see your point, but there are tons of mistakes that go unnoticed. The bot could also automagically leave a note on the user's page who made the edit. -Newyorkadam (talk) 02:16, 24 January 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam
- I don't support clogging talk pages. Sorry. --Gryllida 02:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
- I see your point, but there are tons of mistakes that go unnoticed. The bot could also automagically leave a note on the user's page who made the edit. -Newyorkadam (talk) 02:16, 24 January 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam
- English is a gramatically messy language. You're going to get a lot of false positives, far too much for reasonable people. Second how soon after a problem is introduced does the bot go in and fix it/scold the user? How will you identify what pages to scan for the grammatical errors? There's ~4.5 Million pages in Article space. Even with a very distributed system, that's going to take a long time to scan each page and look for that individual grammatical fault. Doubly so if it's also fixing them. How are you planning on identifying which user introduced the grammatical error? How often is it that these types of things need to be changed? As a current bot Operator, this seems like a very bad idea. Hasteur (talk) 02:34, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
A bot that tried to edit in this way would inevitably result in false positives. Not to get all WP:BEANS, but using your example above, what if your bot encountered text like: "There are three types of animals: 'Type A animals', 'Type B animals', and 'Type C animals'." Your bot would be wrong to "fix" that sentence to read "...'Type An animals'....".
Or what about a sentence like "It is considered bad grammar to write 'a animal'." Your bot certainly shouldn't "fix" that sentence, but per your proposal, it would.
And that's leaving aside things like "a/an historic event", "a/an herb garden", "an honest man", "a unique problem", "an NHL goalie", and on and on.
Once you start really laying out what such a bot would actually do and the many mistakes it could make, you should be able to see why "Bots that attempt to fix spelling or grammar mistakes or apply templates such as {{weasel words}} in an unattended fashion are denied because it is currently beyond the capability of artificial intelligence technology to create such a bot that would not make mistakes."
You are certainly welcome to create an AWB or AutoEd script that fixes such problems, but you'll need to confirm each edit manually to ensure that it does not (i.e. you do not) create errors where there were none. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:40, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
- See User:Sun Creator/A to An#False positives for dozens of examples of false positives. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
- If you were to use AWB as Jonesey95 suggests, you wouldn't need to create your own script, as it already contains typo fixing rules including some to change "a" to "an" and vice versa where appropriate. GoingBatty (talk) 02:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- GoingBatty AWB's Typo fixing is not enabled for bot accounts. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:13, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- @Magioladitis: - Correct! Jonesey95 was suggesting that Newyorkadam use an AWB script manually, not in bot mode. My response was intended to state that, when using AWB manually, there are already typo fixing rules in AWB so a custom script would not be needed. GoingBatty (talk) 12:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- Srsly, as a former AWB dev and a BAG member, I'm prepared to shoot on sight any bot that attempts to do something like that without human manually approving every edit. And will not hesitate to withdraw AWB approval if I see someone doing the same stuff semi-automatically but not paying attention to changes being made. This is not a appropriate task for an machine. Max Semenik (talk) 20:43, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- @Magioladitis: - Correct! Jonesey95 was suggesting that Newyorkadam use an AWB script manually, not in bot mode. My response was intended to state that, when using AWB manually, there are already typo fixing rules in AWB so a custom script would not be needed. GoingBatty (talk) 12:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- GoingBatty AWB's Typo fixing is not enabled for bot accounts. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:13, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
DeLinkBot (or whatever you want to call it)
This bot would remove wikilinks to articles from other pages after the article in question is deleted. The idea is as follows: 1. Check the deletion log. 2. Type in the name of every article that has recently been deleted into the "What Links Here" search box. 3. Edit all those pages so that the links to the recently deleted article are removed. I am not an expert in understanding how bots work or are created, so I would like some input on whether this is feasible. Jinkinson talk to me 22:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- Not really a good idea. Removing redlinks reduces future expansion. I'd be very opposed to just removing any redlink by bot operation. Hasteur (talk) 00:20, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
- My biggest concern is the articles deleted per WP:TOOSOON/WP:CRYSTAL that come back as notable topics a few months to years later. Like movies or video games. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 00:24, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
- I agree, Hasteur; removing redlinks does reduce future expansion--except when the redlinks are created not to encourage people to create pages with those titles, but rather as a relic of a page it has already been determined (ideally through an AFD) should not be the subject of an article. Redlinks that have always been redlinks and were created with the goal of encouraging someone to create the article in question would not be removed by this bot. Jinkinson talk to me 19:23, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
In that case, what if this bot only removed wikilinks to pages that had been deleted as a result of an AFD discussion? I imagine that pages deleted after such discussions usually aren't deleted for copyright violations, nor for pages deleted simply because they are so badly written that they have no encyclopedic merit (both of which would probably be speedied). Jinkinson talk to me 23:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Making the formatting of {{cite X}}s within <ref>s tidy, consistent and more linewrap-friendly
Hello. I suspect this is an old chestnut, but, finding myself regularly reminded of it once again, here goes...
When editing, I find {{cite X}}s within <ref>s formatted in these kinds of ways...
{{cite book|pages=10–12|title=Islam: A Short History|author=Karen Armstrong|isbn=0-8129-6618-X|date=2000,2002}} {{cite book| pages=10–12| title=Islam: A Short History| author=Karen Armstrong| isbn=0-8129-6618-X| date=2000,2002}} {{cite book | pages = 10–12 | title = Islam: A Short History | author = Karen Armstrong | isbn = 0-8129-6618-X | date = 2000,2002 }} (etc)
– i.e. either without spacing before each parameter, or the pipe-character before the next parameter stuck to the end of the previous one, or with spaces either side of the pipe-character (and usually the same around equals-signs) – to be either less easy to read and/or more prone to undesirable linewrapping than this sort of approach:
{{cite book |pages=10–12 |title=Islam: A Short History |author=Karen Armstrong |isbn=0-8129-6618-X |date=2000,2002}}
...i.e. where there is a space preceding each pipe-character before the next parameter and no spaces either side of equals-signs, nor before the closing double curly-brackets. Might a bot (or, probably, bots) be tasked to work through <ref>s and format any/all {{cite X}}s they find in this sort of way, please..?
Sardanaphalus (talk) 14:48, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
PS I forgot to add the following type of format to the list above:
{{cite book | pages = 10–12 | title = Islam: A Short History | author = Karen Armstrong | isbn = 0-8129-6618-X | date = 2000,2002 }}
...i.e. spaced out and across lines rather than as a string of parameters. Sardanaphalus (talk) 15:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose It might make a difference with positional parameters, but when named parameters are used (as is the case with all the
{{cite xxx}}
templates), the presence of whitespace before or after the parameter name or value has zero effect on the template's action. Similarly, when whitespace is present, the amount and type of whitespace (true spaces, tabs or newlines) also makes no difference. It's a long-standing agreement that bots should not be given tasks that do not cause any change in the rendered output. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:12, 31 January 2014 (UTC) - Oppose per Red, and there are some users who prefer the spaces when they insert the templates, and some users who are very attached to the new lines for each parameter. I personally agree with you that theres no need for the spacing, but others do not share that viewpoint. --AdmrBoltz 19:25, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
- Comment. Opinions vary on this particular formatting issue. Some people like it one way, others like it another way. I find it hard to imagine that, given that there is no effect on the rendered output, a bot would be approved to adjust cite templates in this way. I suspect that even if you wrote an AWB or AutoEd script to do this in a script-assisted manual way, you would run into some criticism on your Talk page. This might be a good time to embrace the wide diversity of editing viewpoints and find something else to work on. I might humbly suggest any of the articles in Category:Articles with incorrect citation syntax, which have actual cite template problems that cause rendering errors in articles. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:57, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, if AWB were used solely to do this and nothing else, WP:AWB#Rules of use item 4 would be violated. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
- Okay, sorry to disturb. I just thought that other folk, when editing around {{cite X}} templates etc, might find the chances of making typos, inserting unseen carriage-returns, handling sudden large linewraps, etc, etc worth reducing. If nothing else, simply making sure there's (at least) a space-character before each pipe-character would make a (surely good?) difference. Thanks, though, for your responses. Sardanaphalus (talk) 14:27, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Bot for adding articles to a new category
Is there a bot I can use to add articles to a newly created geographical/administrative category. For example, if I want to create Category:West Palatinate and add in all articles in German Wiki's de:Kategorie:Westpfalz, is there a bot I can use to do this quickly rather than laboriously doing every article manually? Clearly one snag is that not every article in the German Wiki category yet has an English Wiki equivalent... --Bermicourt (talk) 17:14, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
WikiProject tagging
At WP:CFD 2013 October 4, it was agreed to delete Category:Archives of American Art related once the talk pages of the articles had been tagged with {{WikiProject Smithsonian Institution|class=|importance=|listas=|SIART=yes|SIART-importance=}}
.
Please can some kind bot owner do this? If you ping me when it is completed I will then arrange for deletion of the category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:08, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- BrownHairedGirl I have a bot task that similarly tags for a specific medicine task force. I'll do the tagging and get back to you. Hasteur (talk) 22:36, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks, Hasteur. That's very kind of you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:39, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- BrownHairedGirl Ok, all the talk pages have the project banner, the article pages have been de-categorized, and one page that had the cateogry on the talk page has been straightened out. Delete the category at will. Hasteur (talk) 02:45, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- @Hasteur: you are an angel. Thank you! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- BrownHairedGirl Ok, all the talk pages have the project banner, the article pages have been de-categorized, and one page that had the cateogry on the talk page has been straightened out. Delete the category at will. Hasteur (talk) 02:45, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks, Hasteur. That's very kind of you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:39, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Can someone help with this request? Plastikspork seems to be busy with RL. In addition to that, could the bot generate a list of most used fields (after bot run) that are not longer supported by {{Infobox dam}}? (Mainly for manual action, if necessary.) Best regards, Rehman 15:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- Rehman So I understand (and help clarify) the request, you want a report of pages that use the X parameter in the form of "X into Y" broken down into sections for each parameter so that editors can go and adjust the parameters to support the new version of the template. If that's the case, I think I could write the script to service the request tonight. If not, then we need to go into requirements gathering/clarification. I'm treating this like software development, because that's my day job. Hasteur (talk) 19:22, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- Hasteur: Not exactly but close. (1.) First I/we need the bot to replace all the fields mentioned in one run (preferably). (2.) Once this is done, I need to make some changes to the template, to make sure it works after the bot run. (I could also make this change immediately before the bot run). (3.) Then after the run and template update, the bot should generate a list of parameters used by articles, that are no longer supported by the template. Thanks a lot for looking into this! Rehman 23:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- One option would be to use WP:AWB/RTP to replace the template parameters. GoingBatty (talk) 02:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
- Ok, I figured out how to use AWB to do this. I ran some changes through under my account. Seeing very few hickups, I'm filing for a BRFA so I can get HasteurBot added to the bot section of the AWB authorization. Hasteur (talk) 05:02, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. As you have already (partially) went on with the parameter update, I will proceed with updating the template asap (as the infoboxes in articles are mostly not functioning now). Best, Rehman 12:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
- Hi. If it's not too late, could you make a slight change with 3 params?
res_total_capacity
,res_active_capacity
,res_inactive_capacity
, to be,res_capacity_total
,res_capacity_active
,res_capacity_inactive
. The change is purely cosmetic, but since we're running the bot anyways, it would be nice. Thanks a lot! Rehman 14:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)- I'll add these rewrites to the AWB replacements when I get back home tonight, but have to wait for the BRFA request to be approved before we can really start cooking on this. Please feel free to poke the approval group member to make this happen quicker. Hasteur (talk) 14:26, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks! If you're running the bot when I'm not around, could you also move everything from {{Infobox dam/sandbox}} to {{Infobox dam}} for me please? That's the final version that needs to be up immediately after the bot run. As you very well would know, if that's not done on time, the infoboxes wont be displayed properly on all articles. Best regards, Rehman 11:52, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- I'll add these rewrites to the AWB replacements when I get back home tonight, but have to wait for the BRFA request to be approved before we can really start cooking on this. Please feel free to poke the approval group member to make this happen quicker. Hasteur (talk) 14:26, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
- Ok, I figured out how to use AWB to do this. I ran some changes through under my account. Seeing very few hickups, I'm filing for a BRFA so I can get HasteurBot added to the bot section of the AWB authorization. Hasteur (talk) 05:02, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
- One option would be to use WP:AWB/RTP to replace the template parameters. GoingBatty (talk) 02:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
- Hasteur: Not exactly but close. (1.) First I/we need the bot to replace all the fields mentioned in one run (preferably). (2.) Once this is done, I need to make some changes to the template, to make sure it works after the bot run. (I could also make this change immediately before the bot run). (3.) Then after the run and template update, the bot should generate a list of parameters used by articles, that are no longer supported by the template. Thanks a lot for looking into this! Rehman 23:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Deccan Chronicle
Hi, there is this website for the newspaper Deccan Chronicle that does not regularly maintain archives. Bcos of that, dead links are frequent. I therefore request that a bot regularly monitor DC references and automatically archive them on Internet archive/Webcite as soon as they are added. Do u know of any such bot, or can u create any such? Kailash29792 (talk) 2:38 pm, 25 January 2014, Saturday (11 days ago) (UTC+5.5)
mass URL renaming bot needed (Davis Cup Website Restructure)
Hello bot editors. I'm here from WikiProject Tennis where we encountered a new issue. Davis Cup has recently changed his official website URL access format - fortunately it was a systematic renaming rather then a full revamp. The code for a tennis match was as follows www.daviscup.com/en/results/tie/details.aspx?tieId= and the ID number, which became www.daviscup.com/en/draws-results/tie/details.aspx?tieId=. It affects 115 articles per Google. Can you please help us out? Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 18:07, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
- Lajbi I have a bit of AWB find/replace logic that appears to satisfy the requirements. On 1900 International Lawn Tennis Challenge, in the Result section, under the venue parameter, you want http://www.daviscup.com/en/results/tie/details.aspx?tieId=10003699 to be replaced with http://www.daviscup.com/en/draws-results/tie/details.aspx?tieId=10003699. Is this correct?
- BAG I think this can be done as a regular editor, or do I need to get a BRFA for this and run it under the bot account? Hasteur (talk) 00:37, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- But the only item that needs to be changed for 700 articles is the word "results" to "draws-results" in http://www.daviscup.com/en/results/tie/. The tieId= will change for every article. Plus "http://www.daviscup.com/en/results/wg-play-offs.aspx?yr=2012" and "http://www.daviscup.com/en/results/world-group.aspx" have the same problem with "results" needing to be changed to "draws-results". Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:45, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- Fyunck(click) The difference in the 2 URLs I presented was the additon of the draws- between the en/ and the results/tie. I gave an example to verify that my understanding was the same as the requestors. I see you also want to add the search/replace of daviscup.com/en/results/wg-play-offs.aspx?yr= with daviscup.com/en/draws-results/wg-play-offs.aspx?yr= and daviscup.com/en/results/world-group.aspx with daviscup.com/en/draws-results/world-group.aspx. Is this correct? Hasteur (talk) 00:53, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- That would be correct sir. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:59, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- Fyunck(click) The difference in the 2 URLs I presented was the additon of the draws- between the en/ and the results/tie. I gave an example to verify that my understanding was the same as the requestors. I see you also want to add the search/replace of daviscup.com/en/results/wg-play-offs.aspx?yr= with daviscup.com/en/draws-results/wg-play-offs.aspx?yr= and daviscup.com/en/results/world-group.aspx with daviscup.com/en/draws-results/world-group.aspx. Is this correct? Hasteur (talk) 00:53, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- But the only item that needs to be changed for 700 articles is the word "results" to "draws-results" in http://www.daviscup.com/en/results/tie/. The tieId= will change for every article. Plus "http://www.daviscup.com/en/results/wg-play-offs.aspx?yr=2012" and "http://www.daviscup.com/en/results/world-group.aspx" have the same problem with "results" needing to be changed to "draws-results". Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:45, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- @Lajbi and Fyunck(click): This is the first test of the rule replacement, and it appears to work as expected. Hasteur (talk) 00:53, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
- Looks fine. Thank you very much. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 17:48, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Adminbot needed
Category:Wikipedia usernames with possible policy issues is severely backlogged, and one easy way to reduce the backlog is to follow the category's directions by removing users who haven't edited in more than a week. Would it be possible for a bot to produce a list of all pages in the category whose users haven't edited in more than a week? Such a list could be dumped in a page in my userspace for me to act on it; no need for the bot to do anything else. I'm asking for an adminbot because each user's deleted contributions should be checked as well as active contributions. Nyttend (talk) 22:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
- Tool Labs users have access to the archive table (everything except edit summaries and revision content), so it wouldn't actually need an adminbot. Mr.Z-man 15:25, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- User:Betacommand asked me to post this for them here over IRC. They created the report using the api http://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=userdailycontribs&user=Nyttend&daysago=7 and the results are at http://tools.wmflabs.org/betacommand-dev/reports/inactive_users.txt -Newyorkadam (talk) 17:40, 6 February 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam
scirus.com links need to be dead-headed
Would someone consider running a bot through the scirus.com links in the main ns and adding {{dead link}} to them. From the 20 that I check, all seem kaput. Might also be worth considering running it through articles for deletion, as there are whack of links there. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:40, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
- billinghurst I've forwarded your message on to DeadLinkBOT. If they don't get in contact with you in a week, send out a ping and I'll write a one off process for handling these Hasteur (talk) 15:00, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
renaming subcategories of Category:Provinces of Saudi Arabia
hello, the category Category:Provinces of Saudi Arabia and all of its subcategories need to be renamed (province --> region) can someone do that? :)
Ladsgroupبحث 22:01, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
- Ladsgroup I assume you have a consensus discussion in hand to support this change? Hasteur (talk) 22:09, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
- Hasteur all of the articles has been renamed per this source http://www.statoids.com/usa.html It's not okay to have the article named "Region Foo" and the category "province Foo"
:)
Ladsgroupبحث 22:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)- Ladsgroup Where has this renaming of category occured here on wikipedia? Categories for discussion (Cfd) is where deletion, merging, and renaming of categories (pages in the Category namespace) are discussed.. Before this proceeds any further we need a consensus to implement such a change rather than a qustionably reliable individual website. Please propose your change and see if there is consensus to make a change before a bot makes the change. Hasteur (talk) 22:19, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
- Hasteur all of the articles has been renamed per this source http://www.statoids.com/usa.html It's not okay to have the article named "Region Foo" and the category "province Foo"