Wikipedia:Bot requests

For the policy on bot requirements, see WP:BOTREQUIRE.

This is a page for requesting tasks to be done by bots per the bot policy. This is an appropriate place to put ideas for uncontroversial bot tasks, to get early feedback on ideas for bot tasks (controversial or not), and to seek bot operators for bot tasks. Consensus-building discussions requiring large community input (such as request for comments) should normally be held at WP:VPPROP or other relevant pages (such as a WikiProject's talk page).

You can check the "Commonly Requested Bots" box above to see if a suitable bot already exists for the task you have in mind. If you have a question about a particular bot, contact the bot operator directly via their talk page or the bot's talk page. If a bot is acting improperly, follow the guidance outlined in WP:BOTISSUE. For broader issues and general discussion about bots, see the bot noticeboard.

Before making a request, please see the list of frequently denied bots, either because they are too complicated to program, or do not have consensus from the Wikipedia community. If you are requesting that a template (such as a WikiProject banner) is added to all pages in a particular category, please be careful to check the category tree for any unwanted subcategories. It is best to give a complete list of categories that should be worked through individually, rather than one category to be analyzed recursively (see example difference).

Alternatives to bot requests

• WP:AWBREQ, for simple tasks that involve a handful of articles and/or only needs to be done once (e.g. adding a category to a few articles).
• WP:URLREQ, for tasks involving changing or updating URLs to prevent link rot (specialized bots deal with this).
• WP:USURPREQ, for reporting a domain be usurped eg. |url-status=usurped
• WP:SQLREQ, for tasks which might be solved with an SQL query (e.g. compiling a list of articles according to certain criteria).
• WP:TEMPREQ, to request a new template written in wiki code or Lua.
• WP:SCRIPTREQ, to request a new user script. Many useful scripts already exist, see Wikipedia:User scripts/List.
• WP:CITEBOTREQ, to request a new feature for WP:Citation bot, a user-initiated bot that fixes citations.

Note to bot operators: The {{BOTREQ}} template can be used to give common responses, and make it easier to keep track of the task's current status. If you complete a request, note that you did with {{BOTREQ|done}}, and archive the request after a few days (WP:1CA is useful here).

---

Please add your bot requests to the bottom of this page.
Make a new request

#	Bot request	Status	💬	👥	🙋 Last editor	🕒 (UTC)	🤖 Last botop editor	🕒 (UTC)
1	QIDs in Infobox person/Wikidata	BRFA filed	11	4	Tom.Reding	2024-10-06 14:23	Tom.Reding	2024-10-06 14:23
2	"Was" in TV articles		7	5	Bunnypranav	2024-11-26 13:08	Bunnypranav	2024-11-26 13:08
3	Films by director	done	9	4	Usernamekiran	2024-10-03 13:30	Usernamekiran	2024-10-03 13:30
4	altering certain tags on protected pages?		10	5	Primefac	2024-10-20 14:47	Primefac	2024-10-20 14:47
5	Request for Bot to Remove ARWU_NU Parameter from Articles Using Infobox US University Ranking Template		4	2	Primefac	2024-10-13 12:50	Primefac	2024-10-13 12:50
6	Removal of two external link templates per TfD result		6	4	Primefac	2024-10-14 13:48	Primefac	2024-10-14 13:48
7	Replace merged WikiProject template with parent project + parameter	Done	7	3	Primefac	2024-10-21 10:04	Primefac	2024-10-21 10:04
8	Bot Request to Add Vezina Trophy Winners Navbox to Relevant Player Pages		3	3	Primefac	2024-10-19 12:23	Primefac	2024-10-19 12:23
9	Replace standalone BLP templates	Done	7	3	MSGJ	2024-10-30 19:37	Tom.Reding	2024-10-29 16:04
10	Assess set index and WikiProject Lists based on category as lists		19	5	Mrfoogles	2024-11-06 16:17	Tom.Reding	2024-11-02 15:53
11	Request for WP:SCRIPTREQ		1	1	StefanSurrealsSummon	2024-11-08 18:27
12	LLM summary for laypersons to talk pages of overly technical articles?		10	7	Legoktm	2024-11-12 17:50	Legoktm	2024-11-12 17:50
13	Redirects with curly apostrophes		6	5	Pppery	2024-11-11 17:30	Primefac	2024-11-11 16:52
14	Bot for replacing/archiving 13,000 dead citations for New Zealand charts		3	2	Muhandes	2024-11-14 22:49	Muhandes	2024-11-14 22:49
15	Basketball biography infobox request		7	2	Dissident93	2024-11-18 21:04	Primefac	2024-11-17 20:44
16	Meanings of minor-planet names		1	1	Absolutiva	2024-11-18 16:20
17	Reference examination bot		4	3	Wiki king 100000	2024-11-25 17:00	Usernamekiran	2024-11-20 13:02
18	Replacing FastilyBot	BRFA filed	23	8	Primefac	2024-11-23 14:08	Primefac	2024-11-23 14:08
19	Deletion of navboxes at Category:Basketball Olympic squad navigational boxes by competition	Working	4	4	Geardona	2024-11-20 23:48	Qwerfjkl	2024-11-20 17:32
20	Tagging Category:Cinema of Belgium	BRFA filed	17	4	Bunnypranav	2024-11-26 12:59	Bunnypranav	2024-11-26 12:59
21	Bulk remove "link will display the full calendar" from articles about calendar years		3	3	Qwerfjkl	2024-11-30 11:08	Qwerfjkl	2024-11-30 11:08

Legend
In the last hour
In the last day
In the last week
In the last month
More than one month
Manual settings
When exceptions occur, please check the setting first.

Russia district maps

Replace image_map with {{Russia district OSM map}} for all the articles on this list, as in this diff. The maps are already displayed in the articles, but currently this is achieved through a long switch function on {{Infobox Russian district}}; transcluding the template directly would be more efficient.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 11:58, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

@Underlying lk: should be pretty similar to the German maps, right? --DannyS712 (talk) 22:31, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes pretty much. In fact, the German template is based on this one.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 13:26, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

@Underlying lk: I can do this. I have a few BRFAs currently open, but once some finish I'll file one for this task --DannyS712 (talk) 04:20, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

@DannyS712: any progress on this?--eh bien mon prince (talk) 19:51, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

@Underlying lk: Will do this weekend, sorry --DannyS712 (talk) 19:52, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

@DannyS712: any updates on this and the Germany template? If you're too busy at the moment, perhaps someone else can take over.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 03:46, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

@Underlying lk: Sorry, I've been sick and really busy IRL. I'll do both next week --DannyS712 (talk) 07:08, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

@DannyS712: Any news?--eh bien mon prince (talk) 16:35, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

@Underlying lk: I'm waiting until the german one is done, and I see you've responded on that, so it should be soon. --DannyS712 (talk) 16:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

navbox wikitable → wikitable

if you compare the fan polls section on mobile vs. non-mobile you will see that the table is missing in mobile. this is because the table is using "navbox wikitable" for the class. nothing with class navbox appears on mobile :( in this particular case, the navbox class is basically superfluous. it would be amazing if we could change all the pages using navbox wikitable to use just wikitable instead to avoid empty sections on mobile. there are probably more, but this is a start. Frietjes (talk) 16:00, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, a thing that is different is

vs

wikitable

Month	Winner	Other candidates
June	Bob	Others

So it's not just a matter of blindly removing "navbox", which makes it very likely to be a WP:CONTEXTBOT, so an WP:AWB run is likely best over a bot. Could be wrong though. Maybe every instance is easily replaceable (with e.g. centering styles instead). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:26, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

in that case, just restrict the changes to places where it's followed by "width:100%" or "margin:[0-9]em auto". Frietjes (talk) 14:19, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

New election article name format

Since earlier this year, a new naming convention for articles on elections, referendums, etc, has been established. Very many articles link to election articles, and after the page moves, very many articles are now linking to what are now redirects. This of course works fine, but I assume it's less economic on the servers when it's done in that scale, because it means one extra access.

Another thing is that the "What links here" function only displays (indented) the first 500 – or so it seems – of those articles linking to the redirects. In many cases, there are thousands of articles linking to the redirect, and thus all of these do not show. Fixing links in templates is one thing, but links that are placed in articles need to be fixed too.

All these links cannot be fixed automatically, because it may cause awkward wording and/or punctuation, but one thing that actually can be fixed is piped links, because editing those doesn't change wording or punctuation. So I'm suggesting the following changes to be done be a suitable edit bot:

• from the previos naming convention [[United Kingdom general election, nnnn| to the new one [[nnnn United Kingdom general election|, where nnnn = year of election (or month and year of election).

Note the pipe sign.

It's preferable if the bot can edit all occurrences in the same article, regardless of year, in a single edit.

This can of course be applied to other types of elections after this initial batch.

HandsomeFella (talk) 09:43, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

@HandsomeFella: I'd be happy to do this, but is there consensus for such edits? See WP:NOTBROKEN --DannyS712 (talk) 09:51, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm aware of WP:NOTBROKEN, but usually redirects do not have 500+ incoming links, resulting in most of them being "out of sight".

Where do you suggest I can get more input on this?

HandsomeFella (talk) 12:11, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

You can ask for input on the relevant WikiProject for elections. Side comment on WP:NOTBROKEN, none of the bullet points listed there is actually relevant to this scenario, where one pipped link is being replaced with another, where the former is from an older style. --Gonnym (talk) 11:15, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I think the more-interesting item is WP:DWAP. --Izno (talk) 12:28, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is regularly asking for donations. Also, as I said above, that is not the big problem, rather a bonus. The problem is that only 500 articles linking to a redirect are visible, despite there being thousands more.

HandsomeFella (talk) 12:48, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

If you go need to see all links to the redirect, then go to the redirected page and you can view the "What links here" from there. (e.g. Special:WhatLinksHere/United_Kingdom_general_election,_2010) Spike 'em (talk) 13:46, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I know that of course. But 1) that's a little backwards, and 2) people might not know that only 500 entries are shown. In fact, I didn't realize that myself until recently, when I counted the articles listed. I found that exactly 500 were too even a number to be a co-incidence. You can't expect people – readers, not necessarily editors – know that. I bet far from all editors know that.

HandsomeFella (talk) 14:47, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

You seem to be making a BOTREQ to deal with (possible) shortcomings in other areas of WP. If you think the display of "What links here" is wrong / confusing then you should take that up with whoever maintains that. Spike 'em (talk) 10:35, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

On a related point, is running a BOT to fix MOS:NOPIPE failures appropriate? Using the 2010 UK election as an example again, I've found some occurrences of [[United Kingdom general election, 2010|2010 United Kingdom general election]] and [[United Kingdom general election, 2010|2010 UK general election]] which I think are valid to fix? Spike 'em (talk) 12:55, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

At least the first one should be uncontroversial. HandsomeFella (talk) 21:34, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

But MOS:NOPIPE is talking about distinct sub-topics that are redirected to a parent article, as a way of potentially demonstrating that an article on the sub-topic is needed. There's no way we would ever want to have distinct articles about United Kingdom general election, 2010 and 2010 United Kingdom general election; one should always be a redirect. Nyttend (talk) 19:51, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Ah, there may be a point I missed in MOS:NOPIPE, as it does mention using a redirected term directly rather than a piped link. What is happening here is that a piped link of the form [[redirect|target]] which seems to go against the similarly named WP:NOPIPE, which says to keep links as short as possible. Spike 'em (talk) 09:27, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Birth date and age

About 762 articles which use {{Infobox person}} or equivalents contain wikitext such as |birth_date=1 May 1970 (age 49). (Search) Some ages are wrong; others may become wrong on the subject's next birthday. Would it be a good idea for a bot to convert this to |birth_date={{Birth date and age|1970|05|01}}, both as a one-off run and on a regular basis for new occurrences? It may also be useful to produce an error report of alleged dates that the bot can't decipher. Ideally, the code should be flexible enough to add similar tasks later. For example, we might want to extend it to {{Infobox software}} with |released={{Start date and age|...}}, though I think that particular case would catch only Adobe Flash Player. Certes (talk) 01:10, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

@Certes:  Doing... with AWB, at least to test it out DannyS712 (talk) 01:27, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

@Certes: done a few hundred, but the remaining ones are in a different format DannyS712 (talk) 01:57, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

DannyS712, nice work! We're down to 430 search results. If you could tweak your AWB patterns a bit, you could probably catch quite a few more. I'm seeing the following common formats:

"22 August 1988(age 30)" (no space); "1961 (age 57-58)" (year only; use {{Birth year and age}}); "February 8, 1962 (aged 56)" (note MDY format and "aged" instead of "age"); "July 30, 1948<br> (age 70)" (br tag; some are closed with a slash). If you were able to fix these, I suspect that we'd be left with about 50 to clean up manually. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:27, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Danny and Jonesey. I did a similar exercise with JWB a few years ago, so these cases have accumulated since then at about one per day. I was wondering whether it's worth doing with a bot on a regular basis. I also remember finding a few with "aged", br tags and similar clutter. There are also various date formats to parse, but I hope there's a standard library function for that somewhere. Certes (talk) 09:25, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

@Certes: I'll do the rest of this batch in the next week, and for next time probably file a brfa DannyS712 (talk) 15:22, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

@Certes and DannyS712: Thank you for your work on this. I see it too frequently. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:53, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

There's also a few with Age rather than age (search) -- WOSlinker (talk) 22:22, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

May as well not restrict the search to infobox person. (search) -- WOSlinker (talk) 13:25, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Take over part of User:RonBot

User:Ronhjones has disappeared a while back, and the bot hasn't run since. If someone could takeover Ronbot 10, that would be great. The code is available at User:RonBot/10/Source1, User:RonBot/10/Source2, and User:RonBot/10/Source3. I believe only the last two are relevant however.

The main idea is that the bot sorts and detects unnecessary/duplicates entries in WP:CITEWATCH/SETUP and WP:JCW/EXCLUDE. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:23, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

• @Headbomb: Just leaving a note for myself if anything, but I will look into taking this over later this afternoon. Code is already there so should be rather simple for TSB to take over - possibly filing this afternoon. —TheSandDoctor ^Talk 21:16, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: the code might be in need of minor updates, see this (stuff happening after March 8) and this. But it would still be useful as is if you don't have time to do an update. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:21, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Events unplanned came up. Planning to do this this coming week Headbomb. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:57, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

No rush. It's a convenient task, but not a critical one. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:17, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: any update on this? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:22, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the prod. Filed, Headbomb. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:08, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Bot to notify draft authors of possible G13 deletion

Hey folks, is anyone interested in putting together a bot to message draft authors whose drafts will soon be eligible for G13? IME there are a good number of editors who create drafts, forget about them, but decide they want them when reminded. I'm speculating that automatic reminders (e.g. 1 week before G13-eligibility) would help cut down the number of unnecessary WP:REFUND/G13 requests. -FASTILY 08:39, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I assume this is to take over HasteurBot's task? Primefac (talk) 15:20, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, partially. HasteurBot's task was wider in scope, in that it also nominated drafts for deletion. I'm just interested in the notifications bit. -FASTILY 20:58, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

AnomieBOT for converting WikiProjects to taskforces of WP:MOLBIO

Similar to request Wikipedia:Bot_requests/Archive_22#Change_from_WikiProject_Neurology_to_task_force

Hi there. I'm converting WP:MCB, WP:GEN, WP:BIOP, WP:COMBIO, WP:CELLSIG, and WP:WikiProject_RNA into taskforces of a centralised WP:WikiProject Molecular Biology (see this discussion, and page move requests); however, all of the articles under these projects now need to have their talk page banners replaced with a different one that classifies it under a task force of WP:MOLBIO. Is it possible to edit the banners for all the pages under the relevant categories to have their talk page banners replaced from {{WikiProject XYZ|class=|importance=}} to {{WikiProject Molecular Biology|class=|importance=|XYZ=yes}}, keeping the classes and importance as the existing class already existing on the talk page and merging into a single template where a page is tagged with the templates of multiple taskforces of WP:WikiProject Molecular Biology?

• Category:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology articles
• Category:WikiProject Genetics articles
• Category:Computational Biology articles by importance‎
• Category:Computational Biology articles by quality
• Category:WikiProject Biophysics articles
• Category:WikiProject Cell signaling articles

Thank you in in advance for any assistance! T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 11:42, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Evo, yes, it should be possible. All that is required is to convert each of the "old" banners into wrappers for the "new" banner, and then add {{subst only|auto=yes}} to the documentation. Primefac (talk) 11:51, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

@Primefac: Brilliant! Let me know if there's any additional info you'd need from me. There's also a comment here about setting up WP 1.0 bot for a {{WikiProject Molecular Biology}} template that I might need some help with. Thanks again, T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 12:49, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

@Primefac: I also just noticed that there should also be a |Metabolism-pathways=yes parameter imported over from some articles tagged with the {{WPMCB}} template. I hope that doesn't complicate the bot function too much. Thanks again! T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 11:19, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Shouldn't be an issue as long as the code is added before the wrapper is subst. Primefac (talk) 15:42, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

@Primefac: Sorry to bother, I've been trying to work out how to do that site-wide subst to replace all the {{WikiProject Biophysics}} with {{WikiProject Molecular Biology|taskforce=biophysics}}, but I'm not managing to get the syntax right. See test wrapper template in my sandbox, that I've transcluded into the main sandbox as a test doesn't substitute the template as expected. Could you give an example for one of them that I can reproduce? Does it not require a bot to do it? Thanks! T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 06:14, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I think you're overthinking this. When I converted {{WikiProject A1 Grand Prix}} into a wrapper for {{WikiProject Motorsport}} I used the following:

<includeonly>{{WikiProject Motorsport |class={{{class|}}} |importance={{{importance|}}} |a1grandprix-taskforce=yes |category={{{category|}}}}}</includeonly><noinclude>This template is deprecated, please use {{t|WikiProject Motorsport}} using {{para|a1grandprix-taskforce|yes}}.</noinclude>

So if you want to change {{WikiProject Biophysics}} you would use {{WikiProject Molecular Biology|importance={{{importance|}}}|biophysics=yes}}. Adding a {{subst only|auto=yes}} on the template itself would then get it subst'd by the bot. Primefac (talk) 18:49, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Civil parish bot

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am requesting to have a bot to create missing civil parishes in England, see User:Crouch, Swale/Bot tasks/Civil parishes (current) for the complete instructions/ideas and User:Crouch, Swale/Civil parishes for many of the missing CPs. The reasons in response to the common objections to bot created articles are in the "Process" section. I would at minimum include location and number of people in the parish but many other suggestions are there (and in particular the "Other ideas" section). As noted however Nomis does combine smaller parishes into larger ones and thus would likely be unsuitable therefore City Population would be better but it instead simply doesn't have data at all for small parishes (example) therefore either they could be left out or created without the population data (and I add the most recent data from Vision of Britain). I notified Wikipedia talk:WikiProject England#Bot created articles, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography#Bot created articles and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scotland#Bot created articles and although there was a question it was over listed buildings not parishes.

I intend to have the articles created at something like 6 a day (so its a manageable amount) that (especially if required) I can check manually (and possibly improve them). This would mean that it would take about 5 months for this to be done. I don't know enough about how to code a bot but I can give my instructions to a bot operator.

I intend to have this started in about a month because I currently have a page move/page creation ban and that would make creating DAB pages and name fixes more difficult but even if my appeal fails I still intend to go ahead with this. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

page creation ban You probably should not be requesting a page creation bot then. --Izno (talk) 19:31, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

That's not a problem for pages created by someone else as a result of consensus, see [1] (SilkTork was one of the users who participated in the previous appeal anyway). In any case its quite possible that that restriction will be removed anyway. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:34, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

This would basically be WP:PROXYING. Wait for your appeal to be up and then come back. Even so, you will probably need to have a consensus reached at e.g. WP:VPPRO for a bot to create any articles. --Izno (talk) 20:00, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

The point is to get consensus before this and that even if I can't manually create articles then this remains an option. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:23, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

The example at User:Crouch, Swale/Bot tasks/Civil parishes (current) looks very much like a stub; if all of the proposed articles will be similar in structure and content, then WP:FDB#Bots to create massive lists of stubs applies. Otherwise, WP:MASSCREATION. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:06, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

The 2nd half of WP:FDB#Bots to create massive lists of stubs says "exceptions do exist, provided the database contains high-quality/reliable data, that individual entries are considered notable, and that the amount of stubs created can be reasonably reviewed by human editors. If you think your idea qualifies, run it by a WikiProject first" I believe that both of those points have been met and WP:MASSCREATION says "Any large-scale automated or semi-automated content page creation task must be approved at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval" which this discussion is the start of but it also says "While no specific definition of "large-scale" was decided, a suggestion of "anything more than 25 or 50" was not opposed" and "Alternatives to simply creating mass quantities of content pages include creating the pages in small batches" in this case creating 6 a day batches clearly falls bellow this. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:32, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

None of the project pages you listed above have consensus that this is a good idea. This does look like you are trying to circumvent your article creation restrictions, as 6 articles per day is a lot more than 1 per week. Spike 'em (talk) 08:32, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

None of the projects have concerns about CPs (after more than 2 weeks). And I have discussed this with one of the users who participated in the previous appeal who said "I'm quite happy for Crouch, Swale to present their ideas to others such as Begoon and Iridescent." and the fact that I have disclosed it here is likely to mean that its not proxying, had I not mentioned that it could have been. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:39, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

There seems to be 1 (one) supportive comment across the 3 projects, and even that expresses concerns: I think the idea is good in principle. It might need a fair amount of tidying up though. I'd expect more than this to show consensus that it is a good idea. Spike 'em (talk) 09:28, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

But no opposers (to the CP proposal) and WP:MASSCREATION says "While no specific definition of "large-scale" was decided, a suggestion of "anything more than 25 or 50" was not opposed" and "Alternatives to simply creating mass quantities of content pages include creating the pages in small batches or creating the content pages as subpages of a relevant WikiProject to be individually moved to public facing space after each has been reviewed by human editors". Also while I get the impression that the 1 article a week was to try to get me to create longer articles etc instead of many short ones the main reason for "1 article a week" seemed to be to prevent me from clogging up AFC. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:53, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

An alternative (that I pointed out to SilkTork) if this fails is to have the bot create them in draftspace. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:32, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments such as I'm very worried that it sounds like the desired "endgame" of this editor appears to be the rapid creation of about 1,000 articles in a narrow topic area and there is the possibility that you are just biding your time in order to unleash hundreds of civil parish stubs on Wikipedia which will need to be examined by someone to check if they are worthwhile in your last ARCA appeal seem to have plenty of merit. WP:FDB#Bots to create massive lists of stubs also states If you think your idea qualifies, run it by a WikiProject first (...) to gain consensus for the idea; lack of replies is not consensus. Spike 'em (talk) 20:53, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Creating around 725 articles over the time frame of 5/6 months isn't that rapid and as noted the part of MASSCREATION generally applies to 25-50 pages a time and not smaller batches (6 at a time) even if we assume that the lack of replies doesn't constitute consensus. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:12, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

MASSCREATION says nothing about a daily limit, so I'd take it as meaning 25 to 50 total pages; 725 is clearly bigger than this.

Get some clear consensus that this is a good idea and your article creation rights sorted as you have been asked above. Spike 'em (talk) 16:28, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes it doesn't say anything about a daily limit but it does explicitly make reference to "smaller batches". If I am checking each "batch" every day (or so) then that doesn't violate the letter or spirit of that guideline. As far as I'm aware the guideline is to prevent hundreds of articles being created that might contain errors or not meet the notability guidelines. As I will be checking them I'll notice any errors and other editors will likely do so to. But yes getting clearer consensus for this and clarity of my restrictions would be helpful. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:50, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

"Smaller batches" is a way of having a better chance at getting support when things could potentially be contentious. It does not negate the need for prior consensus before creation, but it might make consensus easier to get. Going "I want to create 1000 articles tomorrow!" vs going "Hey, about about we have a bot create 10 articles as drafts as a subpage of WP:PLANTS, see what the feedback is on them, if they need more work, etc... so the next 10 are easier to handle, ... and then we'll see if we get to a point where we're comfortable having the remaining articles get created directly in article space" or similar.

Note the it might. People may decide this is too close to violating a page creation ban for comfort. Or maybe they'd be open to such a bot creating articles in the project space if someone other than you reviews the article before moving into mainspace. Or maybe people would be comfortable with the task as proposed. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:36, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Please note, this BOTREQ is mentioned on Crouch, Swale's restrictions appeal. Spike 'em (talk) 08:52, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Gave a reply on behalf of BAG there. Other BAG members are free to chime in. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:56, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

• @Headbomb: I have now produced a more in depth instruction list (and simplified it for now) at User:Crouch, Swale/Bot tasks/Civil parishes (current)/Simple and produced an overview at User:Crouch, Swale/CP overview. I understand that its probably not clear to you so please to ask questions where needed. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:22, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Things don't need to be clear to me, they need to be clear to the community / the bot coder. It's clear this idea is too premature for a BRFA, although someone may wish to work with you and figure out what it is you want to do exactly. But right now, whatever bot coder would want to take the task would not even know where to begin to look for the information, or what the template for those articles would be. For example, the first line can be broken down to something like PARISH is a civil parish in the DISTRICT district, in the county of COUNTY, England. The bot coder would need to know where to get PARISH, DISTRICT and COUNTY from. Then every sentence needs to be broken down like that, as well as every element of the infobox. Figure that out first, then your idea might get some traction. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:37, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
    • @Headbomb: I have added the suggested code to User:Crouch, Swale/Bot tasks/Civil parishes (current)/Coded (unfortunatelly it breaks the infobox but it shows you what is variable) but the footnotes at User:Crouch, Swale/Bot tasks/Civil parishes (current)/Simple explain what the variable content is and the sections below clarify it further. One thing is, can the bot look at the area and at the City Population and work out the centre point or do we need to use the coordinates from the OS? That is to say can the bot work out the centre point for the "Rattlesden" entry and add coordinates from it. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:02, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
      • I'm pretty sure not all parishes are located 15 miles northwest of X, and that not all parishes have 59 features. And most importantly, you're not telling where the bot would get any of that information. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:16, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
        • @Headbomb: thanks I've fixed that. The distance as explained is the coordinates for the county town to the coordinates for the parish. The question is can the bot produce coordinates from the centre point of the parish (from City Population), if it can't then the coordinates from the OS can be used, either way the coordinates of the parish will be the location for the purpose of distance. And the number of listed buildings comes from the British Listed Buildings website. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:40, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Offhand I don't think articles are needed for every civil parish. For one thing, civil parishes might better be covered in list-articles, with only significant ones ever broken out separately. I noticed mention of this discussion by Crouch, Swale at User talk:Multichill, where Crouch Swale asserts that Multichill ran a bot for Scottish listed buildings, but it appears that was a bot to make lists of Scottish listed buildings instead. I am not a frequent reader or editor here, but I resent the fact that this editor is forcing this discussion here. This discussion appears to be a violation of a topic ban, and I think this should be closed, and the infraction should be reported centrally (not sure where, but should this be brought to ARBCOM?) --Doncram (talk) 23:06, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Civil parishes are legally recognized places for the purpose of WP:GEOLAND so should be expected to have articles. If anything the lists of listed buildings could be covered in the parish articles but the convention does seem to be that separate lists can be created. The bot request was discussed at ARCA anyway where it was pointed out that my existing restrictions don't need to be removed to allow the bot request. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:36, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I do not agree with assertion that parishes are uniformly notable; most would in fact be disputed. There have been numerous AFDs ending "delete" about parishes and/or church+parish combo articles.

As a disputed topic area, this is entirely inappropriate for a bot. --Doncram (talk) 21:29, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

@Doncram: civil parishes (that is to say those that are census areas) similar to French communes as opposed to ecclesiastical parishes (and grouped parishes) don't seem to have been disputed, what AFDs are you referring to? The only one that I can think of is Raydon that was closed early with unanimous consensus to keep (although Raydon is a village to). Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:22, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Automatically Update IUCN Statuses

Good afternoon, Does anyone have a program that can carry out the menial task of updating IUCN statuses? All of these can be retrieved from the IUCN's website, and finding the information is easy, just tedious. Of course this program would have to fetch some external information, such as the current version and the species ID number, but one of these are things that require too much expertise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AidenD (talk • contribs) 01:46, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

@AidenD: I looked into this and will say up front it is not easy. There is an IUCN API which is helpful. If we use African elephant as an example, how does one find the IUCN record? The API requires the name field to be set to loxodonta africana but this exact name/string does not exist in the Wikipedia article so that is not a reliable method. The API also accepts an IUCN taxon number (12392 for elephant) and these IUCN numbers appear to be sporadically populated in Enwiki and Wikidata. So the correct way is populate Wikidata with IUCN taxon IDs for the target species (all those with a Wikidata record). Then populate Wikidata with the IUCN status ("NT", etc) and reference URLs. Then create template(s) that are added to Speciesbox taking the IUCN ID as the argument which then display the status and reference pulled from Wikidata. The hardest part is creating a list of IUCN taxon numbers (12392) matched to the appropriate Wikidata number (Q185038). Once that list is available everything else becomes possible. -- GreenC 13:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

"loxodonta africana" is actually African bush elephant (not that I knew that before looking for it). --Gonnym (talk) 17:20, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

ID matching seems like a job for Mix n Match (Wikidata:Q28054658) which is a tool on Wikidata. I agree that status should be added to Wikidata if anywhere after IDs are matched. In the scenario above, I do not see utility in the template requiring the foreign ID on Wikipedia. Speciesbox would just grab the associated data from Wikidata. A local template might take the Wikidata item and retrieve the species classification, but that would be for the case of a non-infobox invocation, which I do not believe is the primary need here. --Izno (talk) 17:16, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

A bot to update and maintain Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles

Hello,

WikiProject Missing encyclopedia articles maintenance has been very inactive with several categories not getting updated. I am currently working on updating the Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/List of US Newspapers area, but there are several other areas that have not been touched in years. If you take a look at the lists of missing articles, you see that there are blue links and areas that are not updated. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Progress is also rarely updated.

I propose a bot that could update all of these missing article lists. Most of the areas are sorted by state and updated 50 different sections per category is a ton of work. A bot will keep the project more fresh. In addition, the Progress page I linked above could also be updated.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles is losing people and we need a way to jumpstart the project.

Thank you AmericanAir88^(talk) 16:57, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

@AmericanAir88: I could probably do this (A slightly similar task at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DannyS712 bot 18) but what specifically are you looking for in terms of edits? Can you link to some diffs? --DannyS712 (talk) 17:51, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

@DannyS712: Thank you very much. Here are some edits:

• [2] Me updating the Maryland section of missing newspapers by deleting blue links
• [3] Me updating the grand total of missing newspapers after updating the Maryland section.
• [4] Me updating the statistics list. AmericanAir88^(talk) 18:11, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

  @AmericanAir88: Okay. The first edit you linked too should be fairly easy to automate, and I'll submit a BRFA ideally in the next few hours. The 2nd could be automated to use a module, eg the conversion I made in Special:Diff/891799155. I can try to make/find one for you if you want, or I can try to code that too. The last part is the hardest - would it still be helpful to only do part 1 (or only 1 and 2)? --DannyS712 (talk) 18:19, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

@DannyS712: Any help would be great. Thank you. AmericanAir88^(talk) 18:40, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

One of the issues here is to avoid false positives. Simply having a blue link does not mean there is an article about the subject. It could be a redirect, or a different subject with the same name. If it is a redirect, the topic may or may not be sufficiently well covered. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 10:55, 28 June 2019 (UTC).

thanks for the note, already accounted for (also filtering out disambiguation pages, just in case) --DannyS712 (talk) 20:18, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

"Validation of the new Hipparcos reduction"

This publication is cited in some 2600 Wikipedia articles but the individual citations are of uneven quality. A template holding the citation exists, {{R:Van Leeuwen 2007 Validation of the new Hipparcos reduction}} (possibly badly categorized at the moment), and could be substituted for the bit between the <ref> tags in the aforementioned 2600+ articles. (Or could Wikidata be leveraged instead?). Urhixidur (talk) 19:55, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Templated citations kinda suck for a bunch of reasons. Good to have it as a guide, but include the full citation in the wikitext. IMO -- GreenC 20:03, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Make it a subst: template that a bot would regularly use to fix new occurrences? Urhixidur (talk) 20:07, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

See this discussion for why the Hipparcos reduction does not have a template. Cross-posting a notice of this discussion at WT:AST might be appropriate. Primefac (talk) 12:24, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

How about substituting {{cite Q|Q28315126}} for it? Urhixidur (talk) 21:12, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

{{cite Q}} is a blight that should not be used anywhere on Wikipedia. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:46, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

replace bad apostrophe

I frequently come across an accent mark used as an apostrophe and it drives me bonkers. The ´ accent does have uses in linguistics articles but it should never be used as an apostrophe. I'm guessing it comes from copy-pasting.

Unfortunately the Wikipedia Search tool does not work to find it and general search on Google also doesn't work (´s site:en.wikipedia.org). Would it be possible to create a bot that is sensitive this character, and eradicates this when it's used as a possessive or contraction? I also see it with an extra space. For example:

• King´s → to King's
• King´ s → to King's

This isn't just a cosmetic thing. The ´ is not a real apostrophe and screenreaders probably won't read it that way. Thanks. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:51, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Seems very much of a WP:CONTEXTBOT Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:59, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

The following search will find them: [5] -- WOSlinker (talk) 11:52, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Depending on the language and libraries used, it also should be possible to semantically check that the word preceding the ´ is a noun —Wingedserif (talk) 23:38, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Bot to remove school mapframe **at a later date**

There is some code that I found that can add a map to the schools infobox:

| module        = {{Infobox mapframe
| stroke-color = #C60C30
| stroke-width  = 3
| marker        = school
| marker-color = #1F2F57
| zoom          = 13}}
}}

I liked what this code could do, so I started adding it to some school infoboxes. User:Steven (Editor) told me that there were plans to replace this code with a built-in functionality in the infobox for schools itself so the code would be unnecessary. He stated that he would like for me to hold off on adding the code so there would be fewer instances of this to remove once the code is installed. I do not know when the installation of the built-in function is expected to occur.

I want to explore whether a bot can be used to remove the lines of code I posted here. If it can just automatically remove this, I can add the code without fear of having to remove it later once the built-in functionality is ready.

Thanks, WhisperToMe (talk) 20:48, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

@WhisperToMe: - how many, like dozens, hundreds, thousands? -- GreenC 23:22, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I put in the template in say (just an uneducated guess) around 30 or so articles before Steven said he had plans to make it redundant and that he wasn't sure whether I should put in any more unless he knew whether a bot could automatically remove the template. Another user later told us a bot could do it. 23:25, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it is trivial, I could do it in a 1-line bot :) But didn't want to edit thousands of pages would be a lot of watchlist churn, dozens or hundreds is fine. -- GreenC 23:29, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I assume when you say "a 1-line bot" you mean "I'll do it manually" because a bot run for 30 pages is rather unnecessary. Primefac (talk) 23:50, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

No a 1-line bot, faster than manually even for 30 pages. -- GreenC 01:54, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Basically this: awk -ilibrary '{fp=sys2var("wikiget -w " shquote($0); sub(/<re_pattern>/,"",fp); print fp > "file.txt"; print sys2var("wikiget -E " shquote($0) " -S " shquote("Remove redundant with internal code") " -P file.txt") }' page-list.txt just need to fill-in the regex pattern. For each article in page-list.txt, download the wikisource ("wikiget -w"), substitute the regex pattern with "" (sub()), and upload the result ("wikiget -E") with the edit summary (-S). -- GreenC 02:01, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough, was just thinking that an AWB run with the "remove parameter" module implemented would work easily enough. Primefac (talk) 10:42, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

The bot is mostly boilerplate it could apply to any search-replace, only the sub(/<re_pattern>/,"",fp) would change dependent on task. I've used AWB it's OK but mostly it is providing the page download and upload functionality. The action done to the page is more flexible in a script as you can add logic statements and do anything including checking URL headers etc.. that are not possible with AWB. So if you can do the page download and upload easily enough with a scripted bot, AWB becomes something of a limiting factor vs. a scripted bot which are easy to make (1 line of code mostly boilerplate). -- GreenC 16:12, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Bot to update economic statistics

I plan on making a bot that updates statistics at regular intervals. For example, by updating the latest GDP numbers or inflation numbers on the article Economy of the United States. Numbers will initially be retrieved from the Louis Fed's FRED API. Other sources of data could be added later.

I envision the typical flow will be:

1. Retrieve a list of all pages using the associated template.
2. Parse the pages and retrieve series identification and other relevant information from the templates. For example A191RL1Q225SBEA for quarterly US GDP from FRED.
3. Retrieve the latest series values through APIs.
4. Replace the old value with the latest value.

I started a similar project several years ago but never followed through. Please let me know if you have any thoughts or suggestions.--Bkwillwm (talk) 03:26, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

@Bkwillwm: My only thought is frequency of edits. If the GDP number was displayed via template, and the template pulled the number from a database (Wikidata, local template files, Wikicommons tabular data) then the bot is updating the database as frequently as desired without disturbing the article or making thousands of edits in mainspace. -- GreenC 20:03, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Clone of RonBot #11

User:RonBot and its creator User:Ronhjones have not been active since the first week of April this year, as others have noted at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive309#User:RonBot. When I posted about this at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard#User:RonBot_#11, xaosflux attempted to email User:Ronhjones, but found that the email had been disabled.
RonBot #11 searched declined AfC submissions for biographies of women, and added newly declined drafts to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Drafts once a week. I was able to use it to develop over a dozen declined drafts to acceptable articles about notable women, and other WiR members used it too. Without the bot, there has been no way of identifying drafts relevant to the Women in Red project for the last 3 months.
Would someone please be able to clone this bot, so that we can easily access declined drafts of women's biographies again?
The BRFA has the source code attached. Many thanks, RebeccaGreen (talk) 06:08, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Doing... Galobtter (pingó mió) 03:11, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

RebeccaGreen, BRFA filed Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:48, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Galobtter, thank you very much! RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:45, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Tag communists and communist organizations with Wikiproject Socialism

I would like to tag articles about communists and communist organizations with {{WikiProject Socialism}}. Whenever they do not contain the banner already, they should start with importance=low. I created a list of categories whose articles would be safe to tag: Wikipedia:WikiProject Socialism/Categories. Some categories are not linked (and not recursed into) because they may lead to unrelated articles. Thank you! --MarioGom (talk) 19:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Categories themselves could also be tagged too. Note that there are many redundant categories. If you deduplicate them, you'll be left with 1,097 categories. --MarioGom (talk) 19:51, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

This sounds like a job for @Anomie:'s WikiProject tagger. --Trialpears (talk) 16:39, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Redirects to garments

I wish someone with a bot could make a bulleted list of redirects related to garments, as described below, and place it at User:Iceblock/Garments.

• If Xxxx (clothing) exists, but Xxxx (garment) does not exist, then add both to the list.
• If Yyyy (garment) exists, but Yyyy (clothing) does not exist, then add both to the list.
• If Zzzz (clothing) redirects to another page than Zzzz (garment) does, then add both to the list.

The list could for instance look like this:

• Xxxx (clothing) ↔ Xxxx (garment)
• Yyyy (garment) ↔ Yyyy (clothing)
• Zzzz (clothing) ≠ Zzzz (garment)

I know that redirects from (garment) not always should be created and targeted to the same title ending with (clothing), as pages ending with (clothing) might be brands and companies, but the bot does not need to check for this. Iceblock (talk) 18:52, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

@Iceblock: I've created User:Iceblock/Garments which I hope is what you need. Certes (talk) 10:23, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much for creating this! I first thought about redirects and creating new redirects, and I didn't think of the case when articles exists instead of redirects. If you have time, I would appreciate it if you could expand the list with all pages and not only redirects. I also ask if you could insert the source code of the query on the page so that another editor more easily can refresh the list some other time. Sorry for my late thanks. Iceblock (talk) 17:02, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I've added the articles. The only overlap is Bib and Thong, already identified from the redirect search. No Xxx has articles on both Xxx (clothing) and Xxx (garment). There isn't really any source code. I simply searched for clothing and garment and manipulated the results in a text editor. Certes (talk) 17:26, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you again! This is great! Iceblock (talk) 18:05, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Pages using deprecated image syntax

Hello. I was wondering if there was a bot that could go through the backlog of Category:Pages using deprecated image syntax. I have zero bot experience, and I would rather leave it to the experts :) I don't think this falls under any of the commonly requested bots either. Thanks! --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 17:29, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

There's roughly three types of pages in this category:

1. Images used without any additional metadata, like |image=[[File:Example.png|thumb]]. These can be easily fixed by removing the excess markup.
2. Images used with additional information, like |image=[[File:Example.png|thumb|175px|Logo for Example]]. This additional markup should not be removed automatically, but should instead be moved to the appropriate parameters in the template.
3. Pages where markup is used to do something more complicated, like displaying two images side-by-side. As far as I can tell, there isn't really anything to fix here.

The other problem is that the various infobox templates are not always consistent with their parameters. Module:Infobox supports upright scaling, but not all infoboxes have been updated with the correct parameter. Some infoboxes have multiple different image fields (image, logo, seal, flag), while others alias them together into one. The Type 1 pages could be fixed pretty easily, but the Type 2 ones may have more issues requiring testing and human review. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 18:44, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

@AntiCompositeNumber: Hmm. That's complex. Would it be useful to go through #1 only with a bot then #2 done manually? Also, why would #3 be there in the category if nothing needs to be fixed? --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:25, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

@MrLinkinPark333: Currently, Module:InfoboxImage basically says "If the image paramater starts with [[ and it isn't a thumbnail, then it's deprecated image syntax." (Thumbnails get put in their own category). As a first step, it might be a good idea to have the module categorize image parameters with multiple files differently. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 21:19, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Is this just a cosmetic change? If it is adding it as a default AWB fix may be a better way to fix this as that would couple it with more substantial edits. --Trialpears (talk) 19:50, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

@Trialpears: I'm just more interested in finding a way to take a chunk out of the backlog. If AWB is more suitable, feel free to point me that way :) --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:12, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Renaming over 300 links towards a political party

New Right	Jewish Home	Tkuma	Otzma Yehudit
style="background:Template:New Right (Israel)/meta/color;" |	style="background:Template:The Jewish Home/meta/color;" |	style="background:Template:Tkuma (political party)/meta/color;" |	style="background:Template:Otzma Yehudit/meta/color;" |
New Right	URWP
style="background:Template:New Right (Israel)/meta/color;" |	colspan=3 style="background:Template:Union of Right-Wing Parties/meta/color;" |
United Right
colspan=4 style="background:Template:Union of Right-Wing Parties/meta/color;" |

The issue was first raised here.

In Israel, political parties split and merge very rapidly. On 20 February, three parties fused together to create a list called "Union of the Right-Wing Parties" (URWP).

However, since there is no official name in English, but many shortenings in the international press, Wikipedians opted for "United Right (Israel)", which is how the article is called and the links as well.

Curse our luck: on 29 July the URWP decided to fuse with yet another party called "New Right", under the title... "United Right".

In the case of mergers, the practice is to have different articles.

So the party which is referred to as "United Right" by over 300 links bears the name of the party... in which it has merged.

We need a massive renaming of these 300+ links, and quite rapidly as new links in the coming days and weeks will likely refer to the correct "United Right".

Kahlores (talk) 16:23, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

This is a job for WP:AWB, not a bot. Number 57 17:31, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Splitters! --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:14, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

@Kahlores: to what target do the links to United Right (Israel) need to be changed? bd2412 T 00:56, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

It depends on the case; some of the them should redirect to Union of the Right-Wing Parties (URWP). For example, here: [6]. However, as you can see here: [7], only one link had to be changed to URWP (the national affiliation stayed the same.)

The "Pages that link to "United Right (Israel)" page [8] isn't entirely correct, though. For example, it states that United Right (Israel) is linked on the Eitan Cabel article, but there is no link for United Right there.

It's probably best to go through it manually. David O. Johnson (talk) 05:08, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

There is a link to the party on the {{Current MKs}} navbox, so anything that transcludes that will show on the list of links. If the navbox is amended then it will probably remove half the articles and make it easier to do the rest by hand. From what you say, whoever goes through the articles will need to know the context the link is being used in, so is not really a suitable bot / AWB job. Spike 'em (talk) 08:00, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I've done that, and it reduced the number of incoming links (from articles) to 11. Number 57 09:06, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

It seems like the problem has been solved. No articles link towards UR while talking about URWP. Thank you all. Kahlores (talk) 16:32, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Fixing incorrect footnote formatting

This is a bit of a cosmetic task, so perhaps it could be added when a bot is doing other work already rather than as a stand-alone operation. But I've seen lots of footnotes that violate MOS:REFPUNCT by having a space before the footnote or a by having punctuation after it. I can't immediately think of any exceptions to the rule, although there are probably some. Could a bot help with this? - Sdkb (talk) 20:21, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

This is already part of standard AWB typofixing, so they should be semi regularly fixed, but some help from the bots would always be welcome as well if it has high enough accuracy. --Trialpears (talk) 20:34, 2 August 2019 (UTC)