Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 68#Template clean up

Perhaps someone's running a bot that already does this, but I thought I'd bring it up anyway, in case nobody was.

When text precedes a header, the header doesn't work, and the coding appears as normal text; run a Ctrl+F search for the equals sign at [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=679303123]. Fixing it is easy, because you just have to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=691842806 add a couple of new lines]. If this isn't already being done, could someone's wikisyntax-fixing bot be given this as an additional task? Nyttend (talk) 15:31, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

: I would try asking at WT:CHECKWIKI, they love that sort of thing, and would probably even generate monthly reports with offending articles. Frietjes (talk) 00:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

::{{ping|Nyttend}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/checkwiki/cgi-bin/checkwiki.cgi?project=enwiki&view=only&id=105 Checkwiki #105] should be for that. So I assume, this can be marked as {{tlc|BOTREQ|done}}. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 16:41, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

{{archivetop}}

Can a bot fix this complete chaos? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.170.48.181 (talk) 20:48, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

:{{botreq|notdone}}. See this thread – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

{{archivebottom}}

{{Clear}}

Hi. Could someone help generate a list/table like this, using this data? User:Plastikspork used to do it, but unfortunately he doesn't seems to be online lately... Also, could you tell me if there is a way to find which articles use a particular parameter (on my own)? Thanks, Rehman 14:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

:{{BOTREQ|doing}}{{Already done}} APerson (talk!) 01:01, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

::APerson, I hope it's not too late to inform you, but Plastikspork just came back online and did the table. Thank you so much for helping. Rehman 14:40, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

:::No problem. APerson (talk!) 16:14, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

Hi all. If you didn't know, we have a substantial donation of accounts to WP:Newspapers.com as part of the Wikipedia Library partnership program. As part of the recent expansion of access to 300 accounts, our contact noted that they can no longer track referral traffic from Wikipedia, because of the change earlier in the year for all Wikipedia readers to be on Https (Https only communicates referrals to https not http). We would like help changing http to https links for Newspapers.com, for several reason:

1. From the start, the have been one of our most used partners by volunteers, and they are very much willing to expand our editor access to include more editors as demand; we want to keep currying this good will.
2. In part this demand from editors, is in response to their Open Access "Clipping" function ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Newspapers.com#Citation_and_Open_Access read more]), which allows our editors to pull their sources out from behind the paywall on Newspapers.com. This particular case study has been part of our business case for other partners creating more open access options (for example WP:Newspaperarchive.com created the exact same feature as part of the development of our partnership, and we are using it to propose other reader-favorable access negotiations with other partners). Having good metrics for this case study from both the Wikipedia side and from the Newspapers.com analytics side, which includes referrer information, helps us make the argument to other publishers/databases
3. Https links are more secure for our readers that do click through to their project (even though Newspapers.com plans to redirect any traffic from Wikiepdia to a https url, that redirect loses the referral information, which effects 1 and 2, and temporarily routes readers through a insecure server).

Could someone run a bot that substitutes http with https when it precedes newspapers.com? Our contact assures me that none of the link should break. A tool/bot that can substitute http to https link like this might be useful for a number of different TWL and WP:GLAM partnerships in the future: part of the business case for most partnerships is increased traffic, and many of our historical allies will be converting to https in the near future, if they haven't already (for example, JSTOR plans to). Thanks much from the Wikipedia Library team, Astinson (WMF) (talk) 15:15, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

:{{ping|Bender235}} --Izno (talk) 15:46, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

:(Thanks Izno for pinging.) This is somewhat related to my request above. I will include http://www.newspapers.com/ → https://www.newspapers.com/ in my AWB settings, but I think this could be done more efficiently by a bot. Because with Google Books links, I also [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muslim_conquest_of_Persia&diff=prev&oldid=686413448 remove the link clutter] on the fly, but this doesn't seem necessary for newspaper.com, or does it? --bender235 (talk) 16:16, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

::{{ping|Izno}} Thanks! {{Ping|Bender235}} I had considered doing it semi-automatically with AWB, but it such a simple conversion that a bot should do it. All the urls are one of two types of structure URIs, so there shouldn't be any clutter, since we have been giving very clear recommendations with the Newspapers.com donation, that they shouldn't be inconsistent. It would be great to have a bot (or a bot activated by a tool), that can help with these kinds of conversions, because I am sure there will be a myriad of requests in the next year or so from GLAMs, etc. Astinson (WMF) (talk) 18:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

:::{{Ping|Bender235}} Saw the first 4000 links changed, thanks for doing it with AWB! Is there any chance we can update the rest of them in the next week or two, if no-one picks it up with a bot? We would love to be able to keep capturing accurate metrics data to our Newspapers.com partner, sooner rather than later. Astinson (WMF) (talk) 16:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

::::Hm, I could try. --bender235 (talk) 16:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

:Related is m:Research:Wikimedia referrer policy. Legoktm (talk) 18:44, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

::{{Ping|Bender235}} Per Legoktm's link, I am going to ask for a pause in targeting Newspapers.com links (for a month or two, keep updating them when you come across them in other updates, but don't target the http:// links with AWB). We are going to look at Newspapers.com in the referrer metadata pilot.Astinson (WMF) (talk) 21:22, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Given a reference in the forms

"doi:10.[four digits]/*"

"http://www.doi.org/10.[four digits]/*" or

"www.doi.org/10.[four digits]/*",

the bot should insert the full reference into the article page and into Wikidata. It might be extended to add data to existing references that are, say, missing the date of publication.

See:

• Template:Cite_journal
• DOI official nomenclature
• Wikidata:Talk:Q737498

HLHJ (talk) 12:28, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

:See User_talk:Citation_bot/Archive_2#Replacement_citation_bot? and the immediately preceding section. --Izno (talk) 13:09, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

::That discussion does not appear to be leading to getting a bot to start working on the Cite Doi templates. Abductive (reasoning) 19:13, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

:::The bot in question preempts the need for doing so (were it turned on). Inserting {{tlp|cite journal|doi{{=}}value}} and then the bot fills in the other data is what the bot does (or did with {{tl|cite doi}}). --Izno (talk) 19:48, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

:::As for Wikidata, I'm not sure of your intentions, so you will need to clarify. Regardless, that bot would need to be approved at Wikidata, not here. --Izno (talk) 19:49, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

::::That sounds good, and would do half my request. I hope it's back soon.

::::Apologies for the lack of clarity. Wikidata has a data format for journal sources, but there is currently no way to create items from citation templates. See [https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Help_talk:Sources#References this discussion]. There are tools for doing it from a DOI; see [https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:WikiProject_Source_MetaData the tools section here]. It seemed to me that co-ordination between bots working on both might be helpful at avoiding duplicates, etc., but I take your point that separate bots might be easier. HLHJ (talk) 14:40, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

:::::There is consensus at WPMED to replace cite DOI with cite journal on medical articles. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:35, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

{{outdent}} For the record, we have an [http://reftag.appspot.com/doiweb.py user tool] that can be used to derive {{tl|Cite journal}} from DOIs. Having a bot that can autoexpand DOIs to full citations would be useful. Maybe one could reuse the {{tl|Cite doi}} template for it; the bot would convert it to a {{tl|Cite journal}}. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

:FYI, consensus was reached to deprecate the {{tl|cite doi}} templates.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Cite_doi&diff=689081528&oldid=687187072] Citation bot will no longer be creating those templates or inserting references to them into articles. Thus I don't think there's anything blocking the original request here. Kaldari (talk) 21:21, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

An adminbot should move protect all DYK subpages per Template talk:Did you know#How to move a nomination subpage to a new name. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:07, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

:Can't imagine that's worth the effort. Is this ever a problem? I'm sure there are occasional situations where moving is necessary; a blanket ban would be counterproductive. — Earwig ^talk 23:19, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

:Note that there's a WP:VPP discussion about whether this should happen going on right now. APerson (talk!) 23:01, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello. I recently split content from BAFTA Award for Best Film (which previously listed nominees for three different categories) to make BAFTA Award for Best British Film and BAFTA Award for Best Film Not in the English Language. But I've noticed that lots of articles are fixed to pipe straight to the "Best Film" article so they are now directed to the wrong place. See for example Ida (film) and the BAFTA link right at the end of the lead. It's happening like this on most relevant articles I've looked at (which is annoying because the redirects would have worked anyway).

I don't quite know what bots are capable of, but I'm hoping it's possible to fix this. I imagine the best way would be for a bot to search for any articles with: BAFTA Award for Best British Film, Best British Film, BAFTA Award for Best Film Not in the English Language, Best Film Not in the English Language, BAFTA Award for Best Foreign Film, Best Foreign Film. And then hopefully it could fix them by removing the piping? If it's at all possible that would be great because doing it manually will take ages. --Loeba (talk) 11:24, 10 December 2015 (UTC)#

:WP:AWB baby 166.170.47.209 (talk) 16:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

::I never entirely understood AWB but I've installed it, and after fiddling I think I could probably manage it. I've put in a request for full usage, let's see. --Loeba (talk) 17:48, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

::: This is too complicated for a bot. AWB works Set up a search for all links to BAFTA Award for Best Film and then have it do disambiguations for BAFTA Award for Best Film with the two others as options. You'll see every version and can work on it page by page to get rid of the piping. Contact me if you need help {{ping|Loeba}}. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:53, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I am asking that someone with the necessary skill looks at a BOT that can, if agreed, add the following;

• Link: AD to CE and BC to BCE.This would only need to be done once per article (maybe in the first instance of it occurring) a suitable article, for example, is History of timekeeping devices. It may also be required to wikilink AD / BC in the first place. If feasible the Bot should be able to reverse link (BCE to BC) the critical action is that AD is linked to CE and BD to BCE, whatever starting point is within the reviewed article.
• Why: AD and BC are based on a presumed date of a birth of deity and whilst whether it is factually correct is irrelevant, it has become the standard universal dating method. 1) Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, needs to inform that there is alternative terminology, and that within many educational establishments the measurement of time on this scale is taught through CE and BCE. Please see, for example one of many previous discussions at Talk:History_of_timekeeping_devices#WP:ERA. Whether the link is within the text of the article or separated out for whatever reason is another discussion, the importance is the one link between AD to CEand BC to BCE. Edmund Patrick – confer 08:44, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

::A bot performing an action like this would, at a minimum, need consensus via a widely advertised discussion. I suspect that you would not find it easy to achieve that, given the existing guideline. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:49, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

::: Thanks, I totally agree that a consensus would be needed, and this is just a small part of the conversation that needs to be had, but I disagree with your example of the existing guideline. What I am asking for is just a link that makes clear to the reader that BC = BCE and AD = CE. I am not asking for the dating style of any article to be changed, nor the manual of style, just for Wikipedia to do what an encyclopedia should do, inform! in this case by what is after all Wikipedia's strength a simple link. I will seek the next platform is raise this discussion, I would still like to know if it was feasible though? Thanks again Edmund Patrick – confer 09:24, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

::::Although not originally written as a rfc I have today linked it to technical and proposals. With Thanks Edmund Patrick – confer 10:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Apologies RFC now housed on my talk page,here as I felt that was more suitable space rather than this specific talk page. With Thanks Edmund Patrick – confer 10:33, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Can someone come up with a list of userspace pages generated using TWA, that are over 6 months old? These have names of the form "User:Example/TWA", "User:Example/TWA/Earth" and "User:Example/TWA/Teahouse", etc. 103.6.159.71 (talk) 19:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

:How about quarry:query/6047? – Giftpflanze 22:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

::{{re|Giftpflanze}} Thanks. Could you, or another user, get the list on-wiki? Just post it in the Sandbox. 103.6.159.76 (talk) 13:52, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

This may have been requested before but I couldn't find it searching (sorry if it has), but is there a bot that could automatically sort AfDs based on the page's current categories? Perhaps this is way too time intensive, but I figure it would save a lot of time if a bot could recognize the category a page has already been listed in, and then use that to sort it into the relevant AfD deletion sorting category. FuriouslySerene (talk) 18:56, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

:A critical part of such a bot would obviously be some sort of list that links categories with the deletion sorting list they correspond to. I don't think generating such a list would be easy; given the diversity of topics that show up at AfD, quite a few categories would need to be on it. Detecting WikiProject banners for this purpose might be valuable, and this detection is already done by WP:AALERTS. Either way, it sounds like an interesting idea. APerson (talk!) 03:33, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

::Interesting. Perhaps the bot could learn from previous AfD sortings - there's a huge amount of data available potentially. Not being capable of coding such a bot myself, perhaps I'm asking too much. Thanks for the response! FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:11, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

::WP:AALERTS currently detects banner- and infobox-tagged pages and pages that fall into certain talk page and main page categories, as well as DELSORT lists. We have deliberately limited it to few of those, only 1 per type. This is mainly because each of those categories/templates has to be correlated with each of the processes (AfD/PROD/RfC/etc.) and this is a lot of requests and data. That said, a few years have passes and it's possible we might consider some sort of expansion to this. I would say there should be a separate bot to guess pages belonging to projects and perhaps a supervised mode where an editor can very quickly accept or reject these guesses. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 20:15, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I've noticed that a lot of articles on footballers do not have them in all the available categories. Would it be possible for a bot to run off a report identifying players who are listed as playing for a club in their infobox, but do not have the matching category (e.g. :Category:Manchester United F.C. players). Perhaps this could be done (as a test run) for players in :Category:English footballers.

If it's possible, the bot would know that certain clubs have been renamed (for example players listed as playing for Small Heath F.C. would be in :Category:Birmingham City F.C. players. I'm happy to provide a list of these if it helps. Cheers, Number 57 11:44, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi all, I wanted to put in a request for adding the template Template:Research help to batches of articles in WP:MILHIST articles and WP:WPMED articles with clear messaging. There is a consensus from many of the core community members at WikiProject Medicine and WikiProject Military History and I notified the village pump.

I need a bot to insert {{Tlx|Research help|Mil}} and {{Tlx|Research help|Med}} into batches of articles under the ==References==, ==Footnotes== or ==Works cited==. In both, we will do this in batches: starting with 100 articles, then 500, then 2000, then 5000, then more. Moreover, in Military history, the consensus is to pilot on WWI and WWII task force articles first. The edit summary, needs to point towards WP:Research help/Proposal, asking for feedback/discussion on the talk page.

Also, cc-ing bot operators that have helped The Wikipedia Library in the past {{ping|Cyberpower678}}. Would probably be able to implement this with AWB- its a insert-after activity. Astinson (WMF) (talk) 17:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

:Pinging a few more people who show interest/activity with similar projects here on Bot Requests: {{ping|Bender235|harej|Fayenatic london|BD2412|Magioladitis|Kharkiv07|Hazard-SJ}} Anyone interested? Astinson (WMF) (talk) 21:52, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

:: Sure, I can do this. I'll get the articles via {{tl|WikiProject Military history}} (well, since this has no category that tracks {{param|WWI}} and {{param|WWII}} usages, either I check each page for the params or I check for :Category:World War I and :Category:World War II) and {{tl|WikiProject Medicine}} transclusions, and do half the number of article edits for each WikiProject. Let me know if that sounds okay.  Hazard SJ  07:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

:::{{Ping|Hazard-SJ}} Brilliant! You are amazing!

:::For the milhist ones, couldn't you use: :Category:World War I task force articles and :Category:World War II task force articles? AWB allows conversion of talk pages to article pages.

:::Otherwise sounds good! Make sure that the link to the proposal is clear in the edit summaries. Also, as you update the different batches of articles, can you make sure you add a typestamped {{tl|done}} in the pilot stages marked at: Wikipedia:Research_help/Proposal#Project_steps. This will help us measure pageviews in the experimental conditions, etc. to figure out the if/when of the changes. Astinson (WMF) (talk) 16:57, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

:::: {{Ping|Astinson (WMF)}} Definitely, I was unaware of those categories. I'll also go head and use :Category:All WikiProject Medicine articles, while I'm at it.

:::: Questions:

::::# Should I simply skip if none of the three sections (references, footnotes, and works cited) are on the page?

::::#: Then there's Rivadavia-class battleship, and possibly others, with the template in an endnotes section, even though both a footnotes and a references section exists.

::::# If more than one of the sections exist, is there any specific way I should handle that?

::::# Where in the section should the template be placed (e.g. at the very top, at the very bottom, just before/after reflists if any, etc.)?

:::: Once I get these sorted out, I could proceed with the implementation of this task (P.S. I'm using Python, not AWB).  Hazard SJ  08:23, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

:::::{{ping|Hazard-SJ}} Thanks for the questions: the template should be between the {{tl|reflist}} or the (these might be more consistent than the section headers). You might use those as the insertion criteria, but you are going to need a filter that removes just plain "Notes" or named reference sections (so reflists that use "|group ="?)). Once inserted the templates should look like: Wikipedia:Research_help/Proposal#Proposed_design_for_links_on_article_pages. As for the multiple sections: it should be the main referenced footnote section used throughout the articles. In the first couple small batch insertions, if you take add it to all the articles that have only one possible sections and/or one version of {{tl|reflist}} and/or , and keep a log of the articles that don't get inserted, we can find where there are machine implementable rules for exceptions in the larger batches. However, this is a pilot: so as long as we know the number of articles added too, it doesn't matter if we skip a few (as long as we have a count/log those as well).

:::::For section titles, I did some research a few years back and the most frequent section headers were: "Footnotes", "References", and "Works cited". If you add "Endnotes" to that list: it should cover something like 80%+ of the articles. Thank you so much for the thorough examination, Astinson (WMF) (talk) 14:45, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

::::::{{ping|Astinson (WMF)}} Pings don't work unless you sign in the same edit. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 20:37, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

::::::{{ping|Hellknowz|Hazard-SJ}} That I didn't remember (I am sure I read that at some point) Astinson (WMF) (talk) 21:57, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

::::::: {{Ping|Astinson (WMF)}} The "Notes" section seems to be another section to include. With the sections we have so far, a quick partial dry run shows [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/?oldid=695309622 these pages] as pages that neither have {{tl|reflist}} not the references tag. I've looked through a few, and strangely Animal testing is on the list, so that's an issue with the parser I'm using (it strangely didn't detect all of the sections on that page, I'm trying to have that looked into). Also, please confirm that it's before the reflist (you said "between").  Hazard SJ  04:50, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

::::::::{{ping|Hazard-SJ}} "Notes" sections tend to be split between commentary notes and actual reference footnotes: so they are not always tied to the research process -- we don't want to be overapplying the template right now - I would rather miss some articles, than create mistakes at this point; if/when we move towards an RFC, we will probably suggest that it be substituted in {{tl|reflist}} templates, unless turned off, which should be a better solution than adding a separate template. Also, for right now, I think the other sections should be enough: I did a spot check on the list, and there are a number that have reference sections for example Adaptive_immune_system and Agent Orange, and I think you are missing articles that have a reflist w/ a variable (for example {{reflist|30em}}). You might want to look for the string {{reflist without the closing bracket, to make it more effective - that should capture both the | and }} which will follow. And for confirming location: yes, before the reflist template or references tag, after the section header (between the two) see the sample in the proposal). Thank you again! Its awesome to see this project moving forward, we are finding this page is incredibly useful in outreach, and have found a lot of teachers and librarians are excited about it :) Astinson (WMF) (talk) 15:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

::::::::: {{Ping|Astinson (WMF)}} Hopefully what I've implemented so far is okay. I won't check the Notes section as you said. I've made 4 tests in my userspace for you to see: Special:Diff/695426787, Special:Diff/695426845, Special:Diff/695426892 and Special:Diff/695426919. It should also work for {{tag|references|single}}. Let me know if there's any issue with that. Also, for the edit summaries, how does "Bot: Adding