This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 45 | ← | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | Archive 53 | → | Archive 55 |
KeyArena is a multi-use entertainment arean in Seattle, WA (sports, concerts, events, etc). Proper spelling is one word, like KeyArena. Incorrect spelling uses two words, Key Arena. Request is for links ala Key Arena to be replaced with links ala KeyArena.
There are no similarly named arenas which require special handling logic or disambiguation.
Confirmation of correct one-word format can be seen throughout the arena's official site, http://www.keyarena.com
I started to hand fix the fewer than 100 links, but this would be nice for ongoing corrections as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Key_Arena&limit=500 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.216.228.112 ( talk) 06:33, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Could we please have a bot that will deal with Special:LinkSearch/*.holocaustdenialontrial.org. The links are all dead, actually point at twitter so fall foul of Wikipedia:External links and Wikipedia:Citing sources anyway, and I would challenge their validity in the first place. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:26, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
{{
dead link}}
(I have approval for that) or did you want to remove them altogether?
Legoktm (
talk) 21:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Could someone put together a bot or two to clerk WP:AIV? Both User:HBC AIV helperbot5 and User:HBC AIV helperbot7 appear to have died (see the "Help with AIV bot(s)" section of WP:AN), and JamesR, who runs them, doesn't appear to be around very often. Both bots use the same GFDL source code, which can be found at User:HBC AIV helperbot/source, so you won't need to write anything new. Nyttend ( talk) 23:55, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
The Super Bowl is the premiere, annual championship game of the National Football League. Proper reference is as two words, like Super Bowl, and never as one word (either as Superbowl or SuperBowl).
Request is for both Superbowl and SuperBowl to be replaced with Super Bowl moving forward.
There are no non-football uses of the one-word format which would require special handling logic or disambiguation.
Confirmation of the two-word format as standard can be seen throughout the NFL's site as redirected from http://www.superbowl.com
Current instances can be seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Superbowl&limit=500 and http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/SuperBowl&limit=500 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.216.228.112 ( talk) 00:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
The links to Myspacetv.com are at a minimum deadlinks as the articles no longer exist at the respective urls. I would feel that we should be looking strongly at removing these links as they struggle for both Wikipedia:External links and Wikipedia:Citing sources, if others don't feel as strongly, then can we please just {{ dead link}} them. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Ok, so we're spoiled having the bots help out at CfD : )
I went to help out closing at RfD, and discovered that there is no "working" page to handle retargeting redirects (Whatlinkshere).
So I copied CFD/W, and reworked it for RfD.
Any chance it's possible for a bot to regularly take care of this?
And of course, I'm happy to discuss this to see if we can work out whatever details. - jc37 09:34, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Hasn't it been decided before that bots can't handle redirects on a fully automated basis? Can you give me some specific examples of what you think a bot might be able to do? In your description above, you talk about disambiguation, which is definitely not something that a fully automatic bot can handle. Can you come up with a set of sample entries that might go on an RFD working page so I can get an idea of what you think can be automated? -- Cyde Weys 17:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
The division by zero hiccup has left a lot of pages in Category:ParserFunction errors through the use of Template:Convert. The error category is only removed by a null edit. It would be nice if a bot could null-edit all 1,581 members. -- Tim Landscheidt ( talk) 03:35, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Could someone take care of this request (note the list is inside a collapsed section)? there is no response from the last bot-op who did this for me. thank you. Frietjes ( talk) 18:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
I've been using cites for a while, including the |URL=
parameter. Often, the URL would not dsiplay correctly. I thought this was due to the URL length. However, it turns out that if URLs in citation template parameters contain certain know characters they will display and link incorrectly. See
Template:Citation#URL. If it possible to create a bot to find URLs in citation template parameters that contain those certain characters and post a notice on the URL poster's user page to let them know of a URL issue and how to fix it (similar to how
User:DPL bot notifies users of linking to a DAB page? It would be even better if the bot could do the
percent-encoding fix itself. An example of manually percent-encoding is
here. Thanks. --
Uzma Gamal (
talk) 13:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Could you please move this category to this one? Many thanks. Cheveri ( talk) 10:29, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Done Magioladitis ( talk) 14:09, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi all. I've just finished the last of 1,050 articles on butterflies and moths on Wiki-cy as you can see here. This list contains a list of all Welsh and Latin (or Scientific) names. Can someone please make a redirect from Latin to Welsh?
Secondly, and at the same time, we need to add a link to where the database came from. This reference should do the trick:
<ref>{{Dyf gwe |url=http://llennatur.com/ |teitl=Gwefan Llën Natur |awdur= Duncan Brown, Twm Elias ac eraill |dyddiad= |gwaith= |cyhoeddwr= |dyddiadcyrchiad=06 Rhagfyr 2012 |iaith=}}</ref>
placed immediately after the first reference. Many thanks; diolch yn fawr. - Llywelyn2000 ( talk) 23:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
As a followup to the closed move discussion at Talk:List of Bengali films of 2012#Requested_move, a further 850 such pages should be renamed, as listed at User:BrownHairedGirl/Film lists for renaming. (Note that this is a followup to a bot request I made in October, where I was advised to open an RM discussion on the proposal.)
Please note that:
If these are issues which a bot cannot handle, please notify me so that I can remove any such entries from the list before the bot starts work.
Thanks! -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 03:35, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
I realise that I'm asking a lot (!) but I have faith that the Welsh Wiki have friends in high places! This request (my last for a while) is for the copying of existing English langauge Infoboxes (Infobox UK place) from en to cy. I suggest that we try one county first: Ceredigion. There's a list of settlements on this page. The corresponding Welsh article is here. We have done this manually for maybe 25 articles. Not all articles have these Infoboxes.
We have redirected the English wording to the corresponding Welsh language articles. All will be manually checked. A Welsh Barnstar will be issued on all 3 requests as thanks! - Llywelyn2000 ( talk) 07:18, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Does anyone know of any way of adding all Talk: pages that are in both Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of mountains and Category:WikiProject British and Irish hills to a new category I created, Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of mountains in the British Isles. I was thinking AWB, but I am unsure on how to implement it and going through the whole category by hand is taking far too long. I appreciate that this could probably be done with a bot, but I would prefer to be able to do it manually as I anticipate doing lots of similar categorisation in this area. Thanks-- Gilderien Chat| List of good deeds 20:33, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
I would like a bot that creates related links from normal articles to orphaned articles, quickly and easily, with an auto shut-off if it gets haywire.
Superwikiwalrus ( talk) 01:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Could a bot be created (or does one exist) that could go into an article, copy the **NAME** from {{DEFAULTSORT:**NAME**}}, then go to the article's talk page and paste it with "|listas=**NAME**" in the WikiProject Biography template? This could help to reduce the number of articles in Category:Biography articles without listas parameter. It wouldn't work for articles without a defaultsort, but many of the articles do have it above the categories. Del♉sion23 (talk) 19:26, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
My bot was coded to do that as the primary method (with other fallback options). Do you have any possible suggestions of how to minimi[sz]e errors from this method automatically?You can't copy DEFAULTSORT into listas because of the high rate of errors DEFAULTSORT contains.
listas
. Do you think it would be okay if I got approval to just use these, is there's no easy way to overcome the DEFAULTSORT problem?
Hazard-SJ
✈ 04:11, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
{{
Lifetime}}
should always be substituted.Could someone please make a bot that could update the vital article pages (e.g. WP:Vital articles and WP:Vital articles/Expanded/Physical sciences)? It would save us humans a lot of tedious work on updating these pages, and would make sure that they are always up to date. StringTheory11 ( t • c) 19:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Additional error detection has been added to the {{ Coord}} coordinates template. This has identified a problem with a number of articles where an infoboxe has the coordinates specified twice.
The solution is this: For pages in
Category:Pages with malformed coordinate tags, if there is an infobox where |latitude=
,|longitude=
and |coordinates=
all have content, delete (or perhaps comment out) the |coordinates=
, as in
this example.
Can someone run a bot or AWB script to fix examples in the category, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:30, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
As per here, it appears that this proposal is likely to pass, pending the approval of a closing admin. To implement this, we shall need to move Simple Wiki to the top of the languages for every article on wikipedia (or atleast the most visited ones in the beginning). I think a bot shall be able to implement it best. TheOriginalSoni ( talk) 11:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
This should not be done by bot. It should be done by filing a request in the Mediawiki Bugzilla to have Mediawiki automatically put Simple Wikipedia at the top for us when each page is rendered. Otherwise, there will be a needless permanent maintenance issue to have to keep resorting the language links. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 13:08, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
The real template is Template:Infobox settlement and has 304251 transclusions according to the official counter.
Template:Infobox Settlement is a redirect to Template:Infobox settlement. The problem is that very likely all articles having Template:Infobox Settlement (the redirect) are not included in the counting, since they are given separately by the counter:
Task is:
NVanMinh ( talk) 03:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I now did 500 by hand. Left are 24414. So far, most of the affected articles are U.S. articles. One "bot" involved CapitalBot - great he converted from Infobox City to Infobox Settlement. Since the box is now at Infobox settlement it would be nice to have this changed. NVanMinh ( talk) 06:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Here is a fixed tool. You can choose whether or not to include redirects, and it will even warn you when you are viewing the transclusions for a template that is a redirect. There, problem solved. No need to make 30k edits. -- Chris 06:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
No one in this conversation has realized that the initial premise is incorrect? When a template redirect is transcluded, the templatelinks table includes both the redirect and the target so that when the target is edited those pages transcluding it via the redirect can be properly updated. So if you add the transclusions of Template:Infobox Settlement to those for Template:Infobox settlement, you're counting them double. The correct number of transclusions is, in fact, around 304443. Anomie ⚔ 02:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
According to the counter made by Chris there are 335392 transclusions of Template:Infobox settlement. Is it possible to obtain some statistics for the field settlement_type? Most common fillings are:
but there may even be two links, or one link and some wording outside the link. Maybe disregard this, and only give the values
NVanMinh ( talk) 07:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
It would be nice to analyse the data and detect inconsistency. Apart from the field settlement_type one can perform other analysis. If the type field contains a country specific link, one could also check whether subdivisions are filled correctly, e.g. if the type link goes to U.S. country, then there should always be a value for a U.S. state. And the state should be the same for all settlement that list this county in their subdivision listing. So this here, would only be a basic check. NVanMinh ( talk) 21:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Greetings.
Looking for a bot owner to help classify articles in Category:Meteorites and its sub-categories.
I've gone into a lot of detail below for my own peace of mind; most of this will be self evident to the experienced.
The task...
Having made many edits to these articles over the past few days with virtualy no response I suspect no one is interested in discussing this uncontroversial request. None the less I've added pointers to it (or am about to) at Category talk:Meteorites and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geology. -Arb. ( talk) 00:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Pointer also at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy for good measure. -Arb. ( talk) 00:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
That's good news.
As you are still coding would you kindly accommodate a small requirement creep to step 1.1 (per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Geology/Meteorites):
Many thanks. -Arb. ( talk) 01:32, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
{{
Coord missing}} has several parameters for categorization. Would meteorites be considered astronomical objects to be placed in
Category:Astronomical objects articles needing coordinates even if they've landed? —
Wolfgang42 (
talk) 20:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Requirement creep 2 if it's not too late:
By way of explanation, this is the first task force I've worked the detail for; I'm learning plenty as we go along. Many thanks for your understanding. -Arb. ( talk) 12:54, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Good to see the first test run a couple of days ago Wolfgang42. Look forward to more after the Christmas break.
-Arb. (
talk) 13:03, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Per Talk page conversation Magioladitis. We need a bot.to correct coding on existing articles that contain the Template:Handbook of Texas. The handbook changed its URLs. User Magioladitis has changed the template so it works with all new uses. But we need to run a bot to correct how existing templates were coded in the template section "id="
Therefore, we need a bot that makes these changes to the coding on "id=":
There are possibly hundreds or thousands of Texas articles affected. Please let me know if you need additional explanation. — Maile ( talk) 15:16, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Would it be possible to use a bot to update occurences of two online references occuring in about 250 articles?
Back in October, the Royal Australian Navy decided to overhaul its website, breaking almost every single one of the 2,000-odd external links here. While most would be impossible to update via bot (due to weird and wonderful changes in the URL naming conventions and alterations to or removals of content during the update), there are two addresses ( http://www.navy.gov.au/w/images/Units_entitlement_list.pdf and http://www.navy.gov.au/Navy_Marks_109th_Birthday_With_Historic_Changes_To_Battle_Honours) removed from the site that are linked around 250 times each, which I think could be mass-updated by a bot to include the link to the Archive.org Wayback Machine version.
What the bot would have to do is take the articles containing the url(s), add the relevant archiveurl and archivedate parameters to the citation, and update the accessdate parameter. Not knowing bots at all, would it would be easier to insert/adjust these parameters, or strip out the entire citation template and replace it with a new one? Full format is below.
Any assistance or thoughts appreciated. Thanks in advance. -- saberwyn 03:52, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
But i had the idea that if we had an bot that checked users using Check User and added the Ip to a database by ip and if it has 2 users conflicting then will add the sock-puppet tag to all users with that ip (Other then the first account). Being a semi programmer i know that the only real problem is the database. IanMurrayWeb ( talk) 03:56, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
We have 8 list of Scottish Peaks on Wiki-cy which contain individual peaks: names and co-ordinates. The other 7 lists can be found here. My request is for a map to be placed in the Infobox ("Mynydd2"). All that I require is for someone to just add these two lines as the last lines of the infobox:
| lledred = 56.454 | hydred = -3.991
replacing the XY, of course with the corresponding / correct co-ordinates. Then, the map appears.
Sounds easy! Is it? - Llywelyn2000 ( talk) 00:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
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.
A number of articles include the comment:
<!-- please do not add an infobox, per [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music#Biographical_infoboxes]]-->
Not only is this against the spirit of Wikipedia, but it is explicitly contrary to the outcomes of this RfC. Can someone with a bot remove all instances, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:47, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Requested at IRC -wikipedia to add: tools:~betacommand/reports/db_scanner.log which is the results of a running dump scan . Dru of Id ( talk) 15:53, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Please additionally note that the script continues to run, but the 363 fugure figure (insert- may or...) may not update.
Dru of Id (
talk) 17:16, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
See: Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Biographical infoboxes. Hyacinth ( talk) 03:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Note: The comments are now being discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Wikiproject notes in articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi everyone. I realize there already is a bot, DoboBot, used for this upon request, but how about a bot that will automatically assess talk pages with the banners of WikiProjects based on the article or page's subject, links, or such. This is useful because it helps WikiProject statistics maintain their accuracy, and I notice that there are a number of articles without assessments from relevant WikiProjects. This is different that the DodoBot because it will add assessments without a request, and most will not bother requesting banners be placed and it will save some time, although I am not sure how it will effect each other. I'd be more than happy to work on this type of bot myself, but would like the opinion of others as well, and, of course, am just thinking out loud. Thanks, and happy holidays! TBr and ley ( what's up) 02:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
I am preparing the research within wikigroups. I need a list of WikiProjects, would it be possible to send me (you can use e-mail) a list of pages (would be nice one pagename per line) which starts at Wikipedia:WikiProject~ ? I will sort out subpages manually, or if you can remove them would be nice. I guess each pagename which has / is not needed.-- Juandev ( talk) 18:00, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
We're discussing adding project tagging to Twinkle, where the issue of non-standard banner templates has arisen. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
It happened a few times that I found a wikipedia page in a language with links to others that weren't consistent. Let say the English version of the page has German, French and Polish. It happens that the French version of the page only has German and English.
My bot idea is to automatically add the link to the Polish version in the French version.
I wonder if such a bot already exists or not and if the numerous interwiki bots already do this or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asimoviv ( talk • contribs) 05:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
It would be great if a bot could do this.
For every article about a state route in Pennsylvania:
King Jakob C 17:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
I have been doing this for a while, being a little OCD, but I realize that a bot would be much better at this job then I would do. This is definitely for the bot programmer who likes a challenge.
I am trying to italicize the titles of the various ships and ship classes titles found on this site. The titles of ships are weird. Their prefixes are not italicized, while the name of the ship/class is in italicizes. Take for example USS Enterprise. I have been making some of these changes like this one [1].
Here are some of the complications:
The main ship categories that have not been italicized are the ship classes. Category:Ship classes but their are many ships within the vast number of categories of the Category:Ships category in itself is not complete. Thanks for your help. Oldag07 ( talk) 15:19, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
We need to generate a list of common redlinks linked from Ethiopia-related articles. Is it possible for a bot to do this? The articles could be found in a number of ways:
There are probably even more ways of identifying the articles. But if possible we need the bot to dump the list of redlinks into a page: allredlinks. If the list is too long, perhaps break it down by alphabet like: A-G redlinks or A redlinks, B redlinks, C redlinks. Then also we would like a list of the top 100 most common redlinks.
I don't know if this is possible or feasible. However, it would greatly improve our project's goal of expanding Wikipedia's coverage of Ethiopia. Thanks from ( WP:ETH) አቤል ዳዊት (Janweh) ( talk) 06:49, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
A bot has subst'ed a TfD notice onto about 3000 talk pages - example edit, list of affected pages. The TfD discussion is now closed, so the notice is no longer relevant. Is this something a bot could/should clean up? -- John of Reading ( talk) 09:12, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Template:Rayment should have the parameter external links=1 when used as an external link. I have often seen people forget that parameter, and that causes two error messages appear that should only appear when used as a source. Werieth ( talk) 21:48, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
previous comments where archived, I am un-archiving as this is not resolved. Werieth ( talk) 19:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I just wanted to mention that Xeno bot refers WikiProject Tagging requests to Dodobot and Dodobot has.'t edited in over a year. Someone might want to go and update those pages so that folks won't continue to try and get them to work!. Kumioko ( talk) 18:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello, WP:JAZZ would like to have a 'bot add the {{ WikiProject Jazz}} banner to jazz-related pages that aren't already tagged. We had already left a request at User talk:DodoBot/Requests#WP:JAZZ (with more details concerning inheritance; auto-tagging stubs etc.). However, that account does not seem to be very active (which I did not notice at the time I filed the request). (I later left a request for User:MuZebot, before I noticed an older message indicating that MuZemike would be on administrative hiatus.)
The list of relevant categories is located at Wikipedia:WikiProject Jazz/Categories, but please note that there are actually three lists of categories at that page; they each need to be tagged slightly differently:
{{WikiProject Jazz}}
to the articles (or rather, the talk pages) within the
/General sub-listingTo the best of my knowledge, /Categories represents all applicable categories and sub-categories (I deliberately omitted those that are outside the project's scope), so you should not need to worry about sub-category depth or "false positives".
FYI in 2010, we had
Xenobot Mk V perform (essentially) the same request. (See
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jazz/Archives/2010 1#Adding WikiProject banner). It also added {{WikiProjectBannerShell}}
if and when it was able to do so.
I think we do not want to inherit importance=, only inherit class=.
I have an additional request, but I am not sure whether it's technically possible, and furthermore I'm not sure whether we have consensus (see
unanswered comments). I'd be interested in having the 'bot add needs-infobox=yes if the article does not have an {{Infobox foo}} template; or if {{WikiProject Jazz}} can inherit this setting from another WikiProject banner, or it can inherit this setting if the talk page already has {{Infobox requested}}
.
Let me know if I can clarify anything, either leave me a message here or at WT:JAZZ.
Thanks and Happy New Year, Gyrofrog (talk) 15:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
I can do it. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 10:30, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
I finished the songs, I almost finished albums but a rerun is needed in this case. Now I am doing the general ones. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 01:34, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Background. There's a reason why incremental archives exist: for Talk pages of articles like Talk:Barack Obama that generate so much content in a single month that it would be impractical to archive in month-year format. However, there are other talk pages that don't generate so much content in a single month but that were archived in incremental archives when they should have been archived in month-year format.
Proposition. I need a bot that can rearchive from incremental archives to month-year format. We have to do this manually today (see [2] followed by [3]) or through a special key requested to Misza to operate on MiszaBot. Unfortunately this key has to generated every single time for each rearchive needed. We need a bot capable of doing this without the key restrictions.
— Ahnoneemoos ( talk) 02:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind if I post here a request for
mw:: we need someone running a bot to automatically (and if possible regularly) update {{
Extension}} infoboxes with the hook data now available on
Extension Matrix/Hooks (
background): for each line of the page, each item in the square brackets should be added as hook1=, hook2= etc. replacing any previous parameter.
If someone is willing to do this and doesn't have bot flag, I'll take care of the paperwork myself to get it approved (processes are quicker on mediawiki.org). A first test run could probably be performed also without flag, however. Thanks! --
Nemo 08:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to run the following idea by you folks for a new bot in the UAA process. This is a bot that would run on four pages: WP:UAA (the main noticeboard), WP:UAA/BOT (the DeltaQuadBot noticeboard), WP:UAA/HP (the noticeboard's holding pen), and CAT:UAA (the noticeboard's category). Currently we have a number of other bots working these pages, including ones that automatically remove any accounts that are blocked.
But an enduring issue that we deal with on all four pages is having to manage a significant number of usernames that have gone stale, and for every one of them we must manually do the work to move or remove them. i.e, we must manually move old reports from the main/bot pages to the holding pen, manually remove stale accounts from the holding pen completely, and manually remove stale accounts from the UAA category.
For this reason, I am asking if it is possible and if there are any people willing to code a bot that would automatically manage this issue. The bot would do the following three tasks:
This would in theory take care of a huge workload for the people who work in this area. Note that the 24 hour and seven day timeframes are a reflection of the timeframes admins and others currently tend to use. If this were to be implemented, we'd likely want to get a more formal consensus on those times.
*Note that a potential issue with task #1 is the bot moving reports that have not yet even been closed by an admin. For this reason we may want to set a third condition that (c) someone has commented on the report with Template:UAA. But I also see a potential risk with this task that the bot will move declined reports that don't need to be in holding pen at all, or that it will move specific reports that require more time on the main pages for comments/discussion. Therefore we might want to scrap this task unless there is a workable way to do it.
Of course, this would not eliminate all issues with stale reports and some would occasionally have to be taken care of manually, but I think there is some potential here to make the UAA process more efficient. Thoughts? Possible? Issues? Anyone interested in coding? NTox · talk 18:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
The Coren manual search bot [ here] does not appear to be working. There are several unprocessed requests and the last one appears to have run on 3 August 2012. Blue Riband► 04:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
The wikilinks from findarticles.com/ Special:Linksearch/*.findarticles.com used to lead somewhere, now they are now just a redirect to a search website. I think that it is time to delete the lot of them. They may or may not have been useful at the time, they are not currently useful, and they are worse than linkrot now. Time to remove them. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Please could the {{ PrimateTalk}} template be replaced with {{ WikiProject Primates}} leaving all additional information such as importance and class intact. {{ PrimateTalk}} currently redirects to {{ WikiProject Primates}}. Many thanks, Jack ( talk) 11:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Could a bot replace {{ History of Western Sahara}} with {{ Western Sahara conflict}} throughout Wikipedia. The vast majorty of pages that transcend the first one should transcend the second instead. I just moved {{ Western Sahara conflict}} to it's current title from {{ History of Western Sahara}}, and created the beginnings of an real History of Western Sahara template at the old title. Emmette Hernandez Coleman ( talk) 18:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Would it be possible for a bot to read the recent changes and pick out edits that involved the removal of an image from an article and, subject to conditions below note on the talk page of the removed file the article(s) from which it was removed (with a link to the edit that removed it and/or a copy of the edit summary)?
The conditions would be:
See Wikipedia talk:Files for deletion for some background, but at this stage this is just a request from bot programmers about feasibility. Do not worry about specifics, I'm interested in the concept and generalities, details can come later if the idea gets that far. I have not sought to determine if there is consensus for such a bot as this would be pointless if it is not realistically doable. Thryduulf ( talk) 00:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi everyone,
Sorry if this is in the wrong place, but I thought it would be the most appropriate. Would it be possible for someone to write a piece of code that could run whois checks en masse? I have a major CU investigation I'm working on and do not want to hand run several screens of IPs through whois manually. Also, in this case I would need the script when it is done, because I can't give out the data I have. I would have written this myself, but I simply don't have the time right now. Would anyone be willing to do this? -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 21:34, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Could anyone tag a bunch of redirects - currently on RfD, but untagged? - Nabla ( talk) 02:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
I came across this edit today, whose author unintentionally changed non-latin characters in interwiki links to question marks ("?"). I believe a bot that loop through all wiki pages at a certain interval can inspect interwiki links that were accidentally changed to question marks, and have them reverted. I have programming experience and am willing to contribute if other people believe this idea is worth implementing. Gene91 ( talk) 16:18, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
As of about a month ago, Banglapedia's site no longer works as they lost their access. There are over 2,000 articles using it [5] so archiveurls will need to be added for the lot of them. Wizardman 20:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
There are about 100 pages - mainly biographies - which use the nonsense term "
Dunedin/Northern Otago"(a redirect to "Otago Region") to refer to New Zealand's
Otago Region. The term "Northern Otago" is never used within New Zealand (the term "North Otago" is used, but for a different geographical entity), and certainly there is no entity which uses an oblique to separate Dunedin's name from that of another entity. Could someone please run a bot to replace [[Dunedin/Northern Otago]] with [[Otago Region|Otago]] on these articles? Thanks -
Grutness...
wha? 23:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Could a bot op look at Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy#All_blocks_other_than_for_unambiguous_threats.2C_spam.2C_vandalism_and_sockpuppetry_must_be_reported_for_community_scrutiny_on_WP:AN_somewhere and see if it is feasible. Basically, the bot would update on an hourly basis from Special:Log/block for blocks that do not include a block summary from a pre-defined list of block summaries. MBisanz talk 00:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
User:CrimsonBot was substituting a template that was not setup correct, which some errors. These edits need to be reversed. All edit summaries of these edits say: "Replacing multiple templates per this discussion." should be reverted. The error on this template should be fixed shortly. Thanks CrimsonBlue ( talk) 07:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to request a bots help in changing 1000+ external links on PGA Tour golfer pages. The PGA Tour recently redesigned their web site and broke the links used by the template {{ PGATour player}}. I've updated the template but all the ID's used must be changed. I've created a list of the affected pages and the fix required and placed it at User:Tewapack/Sandbox5. The bot would need to go to the "External links" section of each page and replace, e.g., {{PGATour player|02/23/71}} with {{PGATour player|22371}}. I'd also appreciated a report of any failed changes. Thanks. Tewapack ( talk) 21:59, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Could a bot be run to apply {{ Start date}} to pages using {{ Infobox NRHP}}? I'm envisioning the bot editing every page whose infobox has a single year in the template's |built= parameter to envelop the year in the template, similar to what was done in this diff. According to its documentation, the purpose of the template is to improve microformatting without affecting the appearance of the article. From my experience with this template, I believe that a substantial majority of the template's 40,000 transclusions will have a single date in this parameter, although some will have multiple years or a range of years, and a few will have a blank parameter or no parameter at all. In these cases, nothing should be done. Nyttend ( talk) 23:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
|built=
is a 4 digit number, encase it in {{
start date}}
? I can file a request for that in a few days.
Legoktm (
talk) 08:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
{{Start date|1901|11}}
. the third and final stage, full dates, is obviously more complex. A list of other affected templates is at
User:Pigsonthewing/to-do#Date conversions. Note that Dates before the year 1583 AD (or after 9999) should not be converted.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits 13:16, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I have a question and a concern. The question is, does the emitted start date represent the start date of the historic place, or the start date of the construction of the historic place? The concern is that some historic places will have been built when the Julian calendar was in use. It might not be possible to assign a "built" parameter for 13 days to matter, but in cases where that is possible, it would be incorrect to emit a Gregorian date when the input date is Julian. (Emitted dates are always considered to be Gregorian.) Jc3s5h ( talk) 23:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Oppose I've raised some concerns that are not addressed. One concern, for one example, that the built= field is especially confusing, could be mitigated by applying the new template to the added= and other fields at the same time. The person who wants to run the bot does not pick up on that, and I perceive wishes to run the bot exactly as proposed, only, dammit. On those terms, and without reasonable discussion and give-and-take perhaps, well, I think it is best not to allow this bot to run. -- do ncr am 02:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
|added=
field; that's not what it's for. As for calling for people to "attack [me] personally for gross ignorance" and to "ban me from this area altogether" over a single-letter typo...
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits 09:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Stop. Think. This is a standardised thing to enable other websites to understand Wikipedia without human guidance. Doncram, consensus has supported its use, so unless you want to file a new request to get that consensus overturned, it's not helpful to object to the concept. Do you have any objections to the concept of adding this template to these dates, and/or do you believe that a bot will be unable to do it? It sounds as if you're objecting to having these dates in the templates in the first place — this information is already there, and the bot won't affect the situation. Nyttend ( talk) 16:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
To reiterate, and with consideration of further discussion, I continue to oppose this bot suggestion, I think for good reasons. The several-times-mentioned previous "RFC: Deploying 'Start date' template in infoboxes", seems to be about the merit of using microformats with dates. There was no discussion and no endorsement within that proposal, for applying "startdate" specifically with any type of start date, and especially nothing about NRHP-listed properties, ships, historic districts, objects, other types of items that use the NRHP infobox. I don't know where "Start dates" are relevant in wikipedia, perhaps for articles about wars or other events that actually have known start and end dates. I don't think "startdate" and "enddate" have been defined for NRHP historic districts, or buildings, or other NRHP items.
If they were to be defined, I don't think any bot should be run based off the built= field, because the contents of that field are known to be sometimes erroneous, in existing articles and likely to be erroneous in new articles that include the common NRHP infobox generator's output. It would not be putting forth WikiProject NRHP's best work, to put it mildly, for this field to be emphasized and picked up in hypothetical uses of the microformatted date information, as if this is a useful or correct date for any purpose. I read the microformat and hcard and some other articles, and see no immediate use for anyone of this. I read the template:startdate and template:enddate pages and see no explanation there for what a "start date" is supposed to mean, or for an "end date". I don't see anything useful at all about anything here, and I think it is an especially bad time to run a bot through all the WikiProject NRHP articles that somehow elevates sometimes-incorrect information that is not useful information. The costs of the bot include all the edits and clogging up of watchlists and edit histories for no gain. The costs include increasing the difficulty of editing in NRHP pages, and in overcoming natural reluctance/unsureness of editors to correct bad information that is widely present. The costs include expanding the size and extending the load time of 40,000 articles.
I doubt whether the major advocate for running this bot is aware of running controversy over the use of NRIS built date in articles for historic districts vs. buildings and some other types of listings, where one editor has been, with some justification, systematically adding and subtracting categories that address whether a listing dates from a given year or not. The categorizing of buildings "completed" by a certain date accepted by this editor is often incorrect, keying off the infobox-reported built= field, in asserting that a given property was built in a given year, when in fact frequently that was the year a building's construction was started. The editor has been simply removing date related categories for the historic district items, where in fact it could be possible and useful for date categories to be defined. Maybe advocates of microformat start and end dates could get together with category advocates, and generate microformats using the somewhat-more-verified category fields, somehow.
The very same built= date, subject of category-focused confusions, is now targeted by this bot proposal to be used as start date, when sometimes the contents appearing probably are a completion date and sometimes are a start date. I honestly don't know what date is wanted by the bot-proponent ideally, nor do I think they are aware of the various options and complications for different types of NRHP items. Again, perhaps for the NRHP wikiproject, the most meaningful start and end dates are probably the dates of listing and delisting (if it has occurred) for a given property. Or to be the beginning and end dates of the period of historical significance for the listed property. Or to be start and end dates of construction. If start and enddate were to be defined in any given way, then surely the current contents of the built= field are not correct in some/many cases.
For the bot-advocate to assert that defects of the NRHP infobox generator and all other content issues are not a subject for this page, and that some RFCs not addressing NRHP items or not addressing any concept of what start and end are supposed to mean, that these RFCs are supposed to dictate what happens now, well, let me say the advocate should not have redirected discussion to here, away from the wt:NRHP page.
I don't think the NRHP wikiproject is ready or willing to take on the burden of getting "start" and/or "enddate" information correct for the use of the startdate and endate templates. I personally see no utility for any user whatsoever of Wikipedia, and I do not want to ask my fellow NRHP wikiproject editors to take this on. I far prefer for NRHP wikiproject focus to be put onto various, more important data quality issues.
Bottomline: No matter how "start" and "end" are to be defined, and assuming there were some value to someone for having this information in microformat, it would be far better to define a new startdate= field and an enddate= field in the NRHP infobox, and to allow NRHP editors to populate that field with information that is correct for whatever definition is chosen. And, then the wikimedia coding of the NRHP infobox can handle the application of startdate and enddate templates. If the advocate of microformatting wishes to advance that usage, please make a proposal at Template talk:infobox nrhp and give notice at wt:NRHP. There certainly is no value in running a bot, IMHO. -- do ncr am 05:15, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Start date for churches? There are many thousands of churches listed on the NRHP (see for example List of Presbyterian churches in the United States) and also a handful of historic business names, where the article title means both the church as congregation (or business as an ongoing concern) and one or several buildings that have been referred to as the same name. Should "start date" mean the frequently-known-and-reported founding date of the church or business in such cases? Or should it be the start or completion date for construction of just the NRHP-listed one of a church's buildings, perhaps preceded or followed by other buildings used by the church through its history, no matter whether the current church building is different and has longer association with the church? That is best considered by NRHP editors, elsewhere, if they were motivated to take on an initiative to create a meaningful startdate in their articles. I don't think the idea of startdate and enddate for NRHP articles has been adequately considered for a bot to be run now.
If the concern is that microformatting is somehow wonderful and imperative, and it is not about imposing a "start date" concept unnaturally, how about creating a new equivalent template "built-date" and applying that (best done within NRHP infobox coding, not by a bot)? That avoids the unnecessary, not-helpful question of what on earth a start-date is supposed to mean. I would not oppose that, despite current contents of built= field often being invalid. That would put appropriate pressure on NRHP editors to improve data quality, on a topic that they already do accept that it needs to be done. -- do ncr am 17:49, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Light stations, schools, Masonic lodges, churches, other wikiprojects and article types Some hundreds of NRHPs are light stations, many hundreds are schools, a few hundred are Masonic lodge buildings, several thousands are Christian churches, other items that also can have a founding date or prior constructed versions than the NRHP-listed structure(s) or objects. There is a WikiProject Lighthouses and a WikiProject Schools and a WikiProject Freemasonry and a WikiProject Christianity and other Wikiprojects that should probably have say, about what the meaning of "start date" should be for those various types of articles. The NRHP listing is secondary for most of these. For example there are many places named Masonic Lodge, where there is just one article for the local chapter/organization and for its building (or one of its historic buildings). To say start date for the lodge is the construction start or construction end date for its former building that happens to be NRHP-listed, while the lodge was founded earlier and perhaps has no continuing presence at that NRHP building, would probably not be right. Again I think there is not adequate understanding of the variety of articles touched by the NRHP project here, and hence not adequate understanding that "start date" is not ready to be bot-imposed now, IMHO. -- do ncr am 20:39, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Where are we with this, now? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Legoktm has indicated on his talk page that he's no longer available to undertake this task. Could we have another volunteer, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 45 | ← | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | Archive 53 | → | Archive 55 |
KeyArena is a multi-use entertainment arean in Seattle, WA (sports, concerts, events, etc). Proper spelling is one word, like KeyArena. Incorrect spelling uses two words, Key Arena. Request is for links ala Key Arena to be replaced with links ala KeyArena.
There are no similarly named arenas which require special handling logic or disambiguation.
Confirmation of correct one-word format can be seen throughout the arena's official site, http://www.keyarena.com
I started to hand fix the fewer than 100 links, but this would be nice for ongoing corrections as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Key_Arena&limit=500 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.216.228.112 ( talk) 06:33, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Could we please have a bot that will deal with Special:LinkSearch/*.holocaustdenialontrial.org. The links are all dead, actually point at twitter so fall foul of Wikipedia:External links and Wikipedia:Citing sources anyway, and I would challenge their validity in the first place. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:26, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
{{
dead link}}
(I have approval for that) or did you want to remove them altogether?
Legoktm (
talk) 21:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Could someone put together a bot or two to clerk WP:AIV? Both User:HBC AIV helperbot5 and User:HBC AIV helperbot7 appear to have died (see the "Help with AIV bot(s)" section of WP:AN), and JamesR, who runs them, doesn't appear to be around very often. Both bots use the same GFDL source code, which can be found at User:HBC AIV helperbot/source, so you won't need to write anything new. Nyttend ( talk) 23:55, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
The Super Bowl is the premiere, annual championship game of the National Football League. Proper reference is as two words, like Super Bowl, and never as one word (either as Superbowl or SuperBowl).
Request is for both Superbowl and SuperBowl to be replaced with Super Bowl moving forward.
There are no non-football uses of the one-word format which would require special handling logic or disambiguation.
Confirmation of the two-word format as standard can be seen throughout the NFL's site as redirected from http://www.superbowl.com
Current instances can be seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Superbowl&limit=500 and http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/SuperBowl&limit=500 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.216.228.112 ( talk) 00:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
The links to Myspacetv.com are at a minimum deadlinks as the articles no longer exist at the respective urls. I would feel that we should be looking strongly at removing these links as they struggle for both Wikipedia:External links and Wikipedia:Citing sources, if others don't feel as strongly, then can we please just {{ dead link}} them. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Ok, so we're spoiled having the bots help out at CfD : )
I went to help out closing at RfD, and discovered that there is no "working" page to handle retargeting redirects (Whatlinkshere).
So I copied CFD/W, and reworked it for RfD.
Any chance it's possible for a bot to regularly take care of this?
And of course, I'm happy to discuss this to see if we can work out whatever details. - jc37 09:34, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Hasn't it been decided before that bots can't handle redirects on a fully automated basis? Can you give me some specific examples of what you think a bot might be able to do? In your description above, you talk about disambiguation, which is definitely not something that a fully automatic bot can handle. Can you come up with a set of sample entries that might go on an RFD working page so I can get an idea of what you think can be automated? -- Cyde Weys 17:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
The division by zero hiccup has left a lot of pages in Category:ParserFunction errors through the use of Template:Convert. The error category is only removed by a null edit. It would be nice if a bot could null-edit all 1,581 members. -- Tim Landscheidt ( talk) 03:35, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Could someone take care of this request (note the list is inside a collapsed section)? there is no response from the last bot-op who did this for me. thank you. Frietjes ( talk) 18:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
I've been using cites for a while, including the |URL=
parameter. Often, the URL would not dsiplay correctly. I thought this was due to the URL length. However, it turns out that if URLs in citation template parameters contain certain know characters they will display and link incorrectly. See
Template:Citation#URL. If it possible to create a bot to find URLs in citation template parameters that contain those certain characters and post a notice on the URL poster's user page to let them know of a URL issue and how to fix it (similar to how
User:DPL bot notifies users of linking to a DAB page? It would be even better if the bot could do the
percent-encoding fix itself. An example of manually percent-encoding is
here. Thanks. --
Uzma Gamal (
talk) 13:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Could you please move this category to this one? Many thanks. Cheveri ( talk) 10:29, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Done Magioladitis ( talk) 14:09, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi all. I've just finished the last of 1,050 articles on butterflies and moths on Wiki-cy as you can see here. This list contains a list of all Welsh and Latin (or Scientific) names. Can someone please make a redirect from Latin to Welsh?
Secondly, and at the same time, we need to add a link to where the database came from. This reference should do the trick:
<ref>{{Dyf gwe |url=http://llennatur.com/ |teitl=Gwefan Llën Natur |awdur= Duncan Brown, Twm Elias ac eraill |dyddiad= |gwaith= |cyhoeddwr= |dyddiadcyrchiad=06 Rhagfyr 2012 |iaith=}}</ref>
placed immediately after the first reference. Many thanks; diolch yn fawr. - Llywelyn2000 ( talk) 23:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
As a followup to the closed move discussion at Talk:List of Bengali films of 2012#Requested_move, a further 850 such pages should be renamed, as listed at User:BrownHairedGirl/Film lists for renaming. (Note that this is a followup to a bot request I made in October, where I was advised to open an RM discussion on the proposal.)
Please note that:
If these are issues which a bot cannot handle, please notify me so that I can remove any such entries from the list before the bot starts work.
Thanks! -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 03:35, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
I realise that I'm asking a lot (!) but I have faith that the Welsh Wiki have friends in high places! This request (my last for a while) is for the copying of existing English langauge Infoboxes (Infobox UK place) from en to cy. I suggest that we try one county first: Ceredigion. There's a list of settlements on this page. The corresponding Welsh article is here. We have done this manually for maybe 25 articles. Not all articles have these Infoboxes.
We have redirected the English wording to the corresponding Welsh language articles. All will be manually checked. A Welsh Barnstar will be issued on all 3 requests as thanks! - Llywelyn2000 ( talk) 07:18, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Does anyone know of any way of adding all Talk: pages that are in both Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of mountains and Category:WikiProject British and Irish hills to a new category I created, Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of mountains in the British Isles. I was thinking AWB, but I am unsure on how to implement it and going through the whole category by hand is taking far too long. I appreciate that this could probably be done with a bot, but I would prefer to be able to do it manually as I anticipate doing lots of similar categorisation in this area. Thanks-- Gilderien Chat| List of good deeds 20:33, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
I would like a bot that creates related links from normal articles to orphaned articles, quickly and easily, with an auto shut-off if it gets haywire.
Superwikiwalrus ( talk) 01:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Could a bot be created (or does one exist) that could go into an article, copy the **NAME** from {{DEFAULTSORT:**NAME**}}, then go to the article's talk page and paste it with "|listas=**NAME**" in the WikiProject Biography template? This could help to reduce the number of articles in Category:Biography articles without listas parameter. It wouldn't work for articles without a defaultsort, but many of the articles do have it above the categories. Del♉sion23 (talk) 19:26, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
My bot was coded to do that as the primary method (with other fallback options). Do you have any possible suggestions of how to minimi[sz]e errors from this method automatically?You can't copy DEFAULTSORT into listas because of the high rate of errors DEFAULTSORT contains.
listas
. Do you think it would be okay if I got approval to just use these, is there's no easy way to overcome the DEFAULTSORT problem?
Hazard-SJ
✈ 04:11, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
{{
Lifetime}}
should always be substituted.Could someone please make a bot that could update the vital article pages (e.g. WP:Vital articles and WP:Vital articles/Expanded/Physical sciences)? It would save us humans a lot of tedious work on updating these pages, and would make sure that they are always up to date. StringTheory11 ( t • c) 19:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Additional error detection has been added to the {{ Coord}} coordinates template. This has identified a problem with a number of articles where an infoboxe has the coordinates specified twice.
The solution is this: For pages in
Category:Pages with malformed coordinate tags, if there is an infobox where |latitude=
,|longitude=
and |coordinates=
all have content, delete (or perhaps comment out) the |coordinates=
, as in
this example.
Can someone run a bot or AWB script to fix examples in the category, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:30, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
As per here, it appears that this proposal is likely to pass, pending the approval of a closing admin. To implement this, we shall need to move Simple Wiki to the top of the languages for every article on wikipedia (or atleast the most visited ones in the beginning). I think a bot shall be able to implement it best. TheOriginalSoni ( talk) 11:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
This should not be done by bot. It should be done by filing a request in the Mediawiki Bugzilla to have Mediawiki automatically put Simple Wikipedia at the top for us when each page is rendered. Otherwise, there will be a needless permanent maintenance issue to have to keep resorting the language links. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 13:08, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
The real template is Template:Infobox settlement and has 304251 transclusions according to the official counter.
Template:Infobox Settlement is a redirect to Template:Infobox settlement. The problem is that very likely all articles having Template:Infobox Settlement (the redirect) are not included in the counting, since they are given separately by the counter:
Task is:
NVanMinh ( talk) 03:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I now did 500 by hand. Left are 24414. So far, most of the affected articles are U.S. articles. One "bot" involved CapitalBot - great he converted from Infobox City to Infobox Settlement. Since the box is now at Infobox settlement it would be nice to have this changed. NVanMinh ( talk) 06:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Here is a fixed tool. You can choose whether or not to include redirects, and it will even warn you when you are viewing the transclusions for a template that is a redirect. There, problem solved. No need to make 30k edits. -- Chris 06:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
No one in this conversation has realized that the initial premise is incorrect? When a template redirect is transcluded, the templatelinks table includes both the redirect and the target so that when the target is edited those pages transcluding it via the redirect can be properly updated. So if you add the transclusions of Template:Infobox Settlement to those for Template:Infobox settlement, you're counting them double. The correct number of transclusions is, in fact, around 304443. Anomie ⚔ 02:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
According to the counter made by Chris there are 335392 transclusions of Template:Infobox settlement. Is it possible to obtain some statistics for the field settlement_type? Most common fillings are:
but there may even be two links, or one link and some wording outside the link. Maybe disregard this, and only give the values
NVanMinh ( talk) 07:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
It would be nice to analyse the data and detect inconsistency. Apart from the field settlement_type one can perform other analysis. If the type field contains a country specific link, one could also check whether subdivisions are filled correctly, e.g. if the type link goes to U.S. country, then there should always be a value for a U.S. state. And the state should be the same for all settlement that list this county in their subdivision listing. So this here, would only be a basic check. NVanMinh ( talk) 21:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Greetings.
Looking for a bot owner to help classify articles in Category:Meteorites and its sub-categories.
I've gone into a lot of detail below for my own peace of mind; most of this will be self evident to the experienced.
The task...
Having made many edits to these articles over the past few days with virtualy no response I suspect no one is interested in discussing this uncontroversial request. None the less I've added pointers to it (or am about to) at Category talk:Meteorites and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geology. -Arb. ( talk) 00:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Pointer also at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy for good measure. -Arb. ( talk) 00:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
That's good news.
As you are still coding would you kindly accommodate a small requirement creep to step 1.1 (per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Geology/Meteorites):
Many thanks. -Arb. ( talk) 01:32, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
{{
Coord missing}} has several parameters for categorization. Would meteorites be considered astronomical objects to be placed in
Category:Astronomical objects articles needing coordinates even if they've landed? —
Wolfgang42 (
talk) 20:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Requirement creep 2 if it's not too late:
By way of explanation, this is the first task force I've worked the detail for; I'm learning plenty as we go along. Many thanks for your understanding. -Arb. ( talk) 12:54, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Good to see the first test run a couple of days ago Wolfgang42. Look forward to more after the Christmas break.
-Arb. (
talk) 13:03, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Per Talk page conversation Magioladitis. We need a bot.to correct coding on existing articles that contain the Template:Handbook of Texas. The handbook changed its URLs. User Magioladitis has changed the template so it works with all new uses. But we need to run a bot to correct how existing templates were coded in the template section "id="
Therefore, we need a bot that makes these changes to the coding on "id=":
There are possibly hundreds or thousands of Texas articles affected. Please let me know if you need additional explanation. — Maile ( talk) 15:16, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Would it be possible to use a bot to update occurences of two online references occuring in about 250 articles?
Back in October, the Royal Australian Navy decided to overhaul its website, breaking almost every single one of the 2,000-odd external links here. While most would be impossible to update via bot (due to weird and wonderful changes in the URL naming conventions and alterations to or removals of content during the update), there are two addresses ( http://www.navy.gov.au/w/images/Units_entitlement_list.pdf and http://www.navy.gov.au/Navy_Marks_109th_Birthday_With_Historic_Changes_To_Battle_Honours) removed from the site that are linked around 250 times each, which I think could be mass-updated by a bot to include the link to the Archive.org Wayback Machine version.
What the bot would have to do is take the articles containing the url(s), add the relevant archiveurl and archivedate parameters to the citation, and update the accessdate parameter. Not knowing bots at all, would it would be easier to insert/adjust these parameters, or strip out the entire citation template and replace it with a new one? Full format is below.
Any assistance or thoughts appreciated. Thanks in advance. -- saberwyn 03:52, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
But i had the idea that if we had an bot that checked users using Check User and added the Ip to a database by ip and if it has 2 users conflicting then will add the sock-puppet tag to all users with that ip (Other then the first account). Being a semi programmer i know that the only real problem is the database. IanMurrayWeb ( talk) 03:56, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
We have 8 list of Scottish Peaks on Wiki-cy which contain individual peaks: names and co-ordinates. The other 7 lists can be found here. My request is for a map to be placed in the Infobox ("Mynydd2"). All that I require is for someone to just add these two lines as the last lines of the infobox:
| lledred = 56.454 | hydred = -3.991
replacing the XY, of course with the corresponding / correct co-ordinates. Then, the map appears.
Sounds easy! Is it? - Llywelyn2000 ( talk) 00:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
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.
A number of articles include the comment:
<!-- please do not add an infobox, per [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music#Biographical_infoboxes]]-->
Not only is this against the spirit of Wikipedia, but it is explicitly contrary to the outcomes of this RfC. Can someone with a bot remove all instances, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:47, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Requested at IRC -wikipedia to add: tools:~betacommand/reports/db_scanner.log which is the results of a running dump scan . Dru of Id ( talk) 15:53, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Please additionally note that the script continues to run, but the 363 fugure figure (insert- may or...) may not update.
Dru of Id (
talk) 17:16, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
See: Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Biographical infoboxes. Hyacinth ( talk) 03:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Note: The comments are now being discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Wikiproject notes in articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi everyone. I realize there already is a bot, DoboBot, used for this upon request, but how about a bot that will automatically assess talk pages with the banners of WikiProjects based on the article or page's subject, links, or such. This is useful because it helps WikiProject statistics maintain their accuracy, and I notice that there are a number of articles without assessments from relevant WikiProjects. This is different that the DodoBot because it will add assessments without a request, and most will not bother requesting banners be placed and it will save some time, although I am not sure how it will effect each other. I'd be more than happy to work on this type of bot myself, but would like the opinion of others as well, and, of course, am just thinking out loud. Thanks, and happy holidays! TBr and ley ( what's up) 02:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
I am preparing the research within wikigroups. I need a list of WikiProjects, would it be possible to send me (you can use e-mail) a list of pages (would be nice one pagename per line) which starts at Wikipedia:WikiProject~ ? I will sort out subpages manually, or if you can remove them would be nice. I guess each pagename which has / is not needed.-- Juandev ( talk) 18:00, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
We're discussing adding project tagging to Twinkle, where the issue of non-standard banner templates has arisen. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
It happened a few times that I found a wikipedia page in a language with links to others that weren't consistent. Let say the English version of the page has German, French and Polish. It happens that the French version of the page only has German and English.
My bot idea is to automatically add the link to the Polish version in the French version.
I wonder if such a bot already exists or not and if the numerous interwiki bots already do this or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asimoviv ( talk • contribs) 05:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
It would be great if a bot could do this.
For every article about a state route in Pennsylvania:
King Jakob C 17:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
I have been doing this for a while, being a little OCD, but I realize that a bot would be much better at this job then I would do. This is definitely for the bot programmer who likes a challenge.
I am trying to italicize the titles of the various ships and ship classes titles found on this site. The titles of ships are weird. Their prefixes are not italicized, while the name of the ship/class is in italicizes. Take for example USS Enterprise. I have been making some of these changes like this one [1].
Here are some of the complications:
The main ship categories that have not been italicized are the ship classes. Category:Ship classes but their are many ships within the vast number of categories of the Category:Ships category in itself is not complete. Thanks for your help. Oldag07 ( talk) 15:19, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
We need to generate a list of common redlinks linked from Ethiopia-related articles. Is it possible for a bot to do this? The articles could be found in a number of ways:
There are probably even more ways of identifying the articles. But if possible we need the bot to dump the list of redlinks into a page: allredlinks. If the list is too long, perhaps break it down by alphabet like: A-G redlinks or A redlinks, B redlinks, C redlinks. Then also we would like a list of the top 100 most common redlinks.
I don't know if this is possible or feasible. However, it would greatly improve our project's goal of expanding Wikipedia's coverage of Ethiopia. Thanks from ( WP:ETH) አቤል ዳዊት (Janweh) ( talk) 06:49, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
A bot has subst'ed a TfD notice onto about 3000 talk pages - example edit, list of affected pages. The TfD discussion is now closed, so the notice is no longer relevant. Is this something a bot could/should clean up? -- John of Reading ( talk) 09:12, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Template:Rayment should have the parameter external links=1 when used as an external link. I have often seen people forget that parameter, and that causes two error messages appear that should only appear when used as a source. Werieth ( talk) 21:48, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
previous comments where archived, I am un-archiving as this is not resolved. Werieth ( talk) 19:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I just wanted to mention that Xeno bot refers WikiProject Tagging requests to Dodobot and Dodobot has.'t edited in over a year. Someone might want to go and update those pages so that folks won't continue to try and get them to work!. Kumioko ( talk) 18:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello, WP:JAZZ would like to have a 'bot add the {{ WikiProject Jazz}} banner to jazz-related pages that aren't already tagged. We had already left a request at User talk:DodoBot/Requests#WP:JAZZ (with more details concerning inheritance; auto-tagging stubs etc.). However, that account does not seem to be very active (which I did not notice at the time I filed the request). (I later left a request for User:MuZebot, before I noticed an older message indicating that MuZemike would be on administrative hiatus.)
The list of relevant categories is located at Wikipedia:WikiProject Jazz/Categories, but please note that there are actually three lists of categories at that page; they each need to be tagged slightly differently:
{{WikiProject Jazz}}
to the articles (or rather, the talk pages) within the
/General sub-listingTo the best of my knowledge, /Categories represents all applicable categories and sub-categories (I deliberately omitted those that are outside the project's scope), so you should not need to worry about sub-category depth or "false positives".
FYI in 2010, we had
Xenobot Mk V perform (essentially) the same request. (See
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jazz/Archives/2010 1#Adding WikiProject banner). It also added {{WikiProjectBannerShell}}
if and when it was able to do so.
I think we do not want to inherit importance=, only inherit class=.
I have an additional request, but I am not sure whether it's technically possible, and furthermore I'm not sure whether we have consensus (see
unanswered comments). I'd be interested in having the 'bot add needs-infobox=yes if the article does not have an {{Infobox foo}} template; or if {{WikiProject Jazz}} can inherit this setting from another WikiProject banner, or it can inherit this setting if the talk page already has {{Infobox requested}}
.
Let me know if I can clarify anything, either leave me a message here or at WT:JAZZ.
Thanks and Happy New Year, Gyrofrog (talk) 15:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
I can do it. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 10:30, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
I finished the songs, I almost finished albums but a rerun is needed in this case. Now I am doing the general ones. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 01:34, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Background. There's a reason why incremental archives exist: for Talk pages of articles like Talk:Barack Obama that generate so much content in a single month that it would be impractical to archive in month-year format. However, there are other talk pages that don't generate so much content in a single month but that were archived in incremental archives when they should have been archived in month-year format.
Proposition. I need a bot that can rearchive from incremental archives to month-year format. We have to do this manually today (see [2] followed by [3]) or through a special key requested to Misza to operate on MiszaBot. Unfortunately this key has to generated every single time for each rearchive needed. We need a bot capable of doing this without the key restrictions.
— Ahnoneemoos ( talk) 02:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind if I post here a request for
mw:: we need someone running a bot to automatically (and if possible regularly) update {{
Extension}} infoboxes with the hook data now available on
Extension Matrix/Hooks (
background): for each line of the page, each item in the square brackets should be added as hook1=, hook2= etc. replacing any previous parameter.
If someone is willing to do this and doesn't have bot flag, I'll take care of the paperwork myself to get it approved (processes are quicker on mediawiki.org). A first test run could probably be performed also without flag, however. Thanks! --
Nemo 08:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to run the following idea by you folks for a new bot in the UAA process. This is a bot that would run on four pages: WP:UAA (the main noticeboard), WP:UAA/BOT (the DeltaQuadBot noticeboard), WP:UAA/HP (the noticeboard's holding pen), and CAT:UAA (the noticeboard's category). Currently we have a number of other bots working these pages, including ones that automatically remove any accounts that are blocked.
But an enduring issue that we deal with on all four pages is having to manage a significant number of usernames that have gone stale, and for every one of them we must manually do the work to move or remove them. i.e, we must manually move old reports from the main/bot pages to the holding pen, manually remove stale accounts from the holding pen completely, and manually remove stale accounts from the UAA category.
For this reason, I am asking if it is possible and if there are any people willing to code a bot that would automatically manage this issue. The bot would do the following three tasks:
This would in theory take care of a huge workload for the people who work in this area. Note that the 24 hour and seven day timeframes are a reflection of the timeframes admins and others currently tend to use. If this were to be implemented, we'd likely want to get a more formal consensus on those times.
*Note that a potential issue with task #1 is the bot moving reports that have not yet even been closed by an admin. For this reason we may want to set a third condition that (c) someone has commented on the report with Template:UAA. But I also see a potential risk with this task that the bot will move declined reports that don't need to be in holding pen at all, or that it will move specific reports that require more time on the main pages for comments/discussion. Therefore we might want to scrap this task unless there is a workable way to do it.
Of course, this would not eliminate all issues with stale reports and some would occasionally have to be taken care of manually, but I think there is some potential here to make the UAA process more efficient. Thoughts? Possible? Issues? Anyone interested in coding? NTox · talk 18:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
The Coren manual search bot [ here] does not appear to be working. There are several unprocessed requests and the last one appears to have run on 3 August 2012. Blue Riband► 04:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
The wikilinks from findarticles.com/ Special:Linksearch/*.findarticles.com used to lead somewhere, now they are now just a redirect to a search website. I think that it is time to delete the lot of them. They may or may not have been useful at the time, they are not currently useful, and they are worse than linkrot now. Time to remove them. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Please could the {{ PrimateTalk}} template be replaced with {{ WikiProject Primates}} leaving all additional information such as importance and class intact. {{ PrimateTalk}} currently redirects to {{ WikiProject Primates}}. Many thanks, Jack ( talk) 11:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Could a bot replace {{ History of Western Sahara}} with {{ Western Sahara conflict}} throughout Wikipedia. The vast majorty of pages that transcend the first one should transcend the second instead. I just moved {{ Western Sahara conflict}} to it's current title from {{ History of Western Sahara}}, and created the beginnings of an real History of Western Sahara template at the old title. Emmette Hernandez Coleman ( talk) 18:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Would it be possible for a bot to read the recent changes and pick out edits that involved the removal of an image from an article and, subject to conditions below note on the talk page of the removed file the article(s) from which it was removed (with a link to the edit that removed it and/or a copy of the edit summary)?
The conditions would be:
See Wikipedia talk:Files for deletion for some background, but at this stage this is just a request from bot programmers about feasibility. Do not worry about specifics, I'm interested in the concept and generalities, details can come later if the idea gets that far. I have not sought to determine if there is consensus for such a bot as this would be pointless if it is not realistically doable. Thryduulf ( talk) 00:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi everyone,
Sorry if this is in the wrong place, but I thought it would be the most appropriate. Would it be possible for someone to write a piece of code that could run whois checks en masse? I have a major CU investigation I'm working on and do not want to hand run several screens of IPs through whois manually. Also, in this case I would need the script when it is done, because I can't give out the data I have. I would have written this myself, but I simply don't have the time right now. Would anyone be willing to do this? -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 21:34, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Could anyone tag a bunch of redirects - currently on RfD, but untagged? - Nabla ( talk) 02:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
I came across this edit today, whose author unintentionally changed non-latin characters in interwiki links to question marks ("?"). I believe a bot that loop through all wiki pages at a certain interval can inspect interwiki links that were accidentally changed to question marks, and have them reverted. I have programming experience and am willing to contribute if other people believe this idea is worth implementing. Gene91 ( talk) 16:18, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
As of about a month ago, Banglapedia's site no longer works as they lost their access. There are over 2,000 articles using it [5] so archiveurls will need to be added for the lot of them. Wizardman 20:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
There are about 100 pages - mainly biographies - which use the nonsense term "
Dunedin/Northern Otago"(a redirect to "Otago Region") to refer to New Zealand's
Otago Region. The term "Northern Otago" is never used within New Zealand (the term "North Otago" is used, but for a different geographical entity), and certainly there is no entity which uses an oblique to separate Dunedin's name from that of another entity. Could someone please run a bot to replace [[Dunedin/Northern Otago]] with [[Otago Region|Otago]] on these articles? Thanks -
Grutness...
wha? 23:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Could a bot op look at Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy#All_blocks_other_than_for_unambiguous_threats.2C_spam.2C_vandalism_and_sockpuppetry_must_be_reported_for_community_scrutiny_on_WP:AN_somewhere and see if it is feasible. Basically, the bot would update on an hourly basis from Special:Log/block for blocks that do not include a block summary from a pre-defined list of block summaries. MBisanz talk 00:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
User:CrimsonBot was substituting a template that was not setup correct, which some errors. These edits need to be reversed. All edit summaries of these edits say: "Replacing multiple templates per this discussion." should be reverted. The error on this template should be fixed shortly. Thanks CrimsonBlue ( talk) 07:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to request a bots help in changing 1000+ external links on PGA Tour golfer pages. The PGA Tour recently redesigned their web site and broke the links used by the template {{ PGATour player}}. I've updated the template but all the ID's used must be changed. I've created a list of the affected pages and the fix required and placed it at User:Tewapack/Sandbox5. The bot would need to go to the "External links" section of each page and replace, e.g., {{PGATour player|02/23/71}} with {{PGATour player|22371}}. I'd also appreciated a report of any failed changes. Thanks. Tewapack ( talk) 21:59, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Could a bot be run to apply {{ Start date}} to pages using {{ Infobox NRHP}}? I'm envisioning the bot editing every page whose infobox has a single year in the template's |built= parameter to envelop the year in the template, similar to what was done in this diff. According to its documentation, the purpose of the template is to improve microformatting without affecting the appearance of the article. From my experience with this template, I believe that a substantial majority of the template's 40,000 transclusions will have a single date in this parameter, although some will have multiple years or a range of years, and a few will have a blank parameter or no parameter at all. In these cases, nothing should be done. Nyttend ( talk) 23:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
|built=
is a 4 digit number, encase it in {{
start date}}
? I can file a request for that in a few days.
Legoktm (
talk) 08:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
{{Start date|1901|11}}
. the third and final stage, full dates, is obviously more complex. A list of other affected templates is at
User:Pigsonthewing/to-do#Date conversions. Note that Dates before the year 1583 AD (or after 9999) should not be converted.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits 13:16, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I have a question and a concern. The question is, does the emitted start date represent the start date of the historic place, or the start date of the construction of the historic place? The concern is that some historic places will have been built when the Julian calendar was in use. It might not be possible to assign a "built" parameter for 13 days to matter, but in cases where that is possible, it would be incorrect to emit a Gregorian date when the input date is Julian. (Emitted dates are always considered to be Gregorian.) Jc3s5h ( talk) 23:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Oppose I've raised some concerns that are not addressed. One concern, for one example, that the built= field is especially confusing, could be mitigated by applying the new template to the added= and other fields at the same time. The person who wants to run the bot does not pick up on that, and I perceive wishes to run the bot exactly as proposed, only, dammit. On those terms, and without reasonable discussion and give-and-take perhaps, well, I think it is best not to allow this bot to run. -- do ncr am 02:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
|added=
field; that's not what it's for. As for calling for people to "attack [me] personally for gross ignorance" and to "ban me from this area altogether" over a single-letter typo...
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits 09:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Stop. Think. This is a standardised thing to enable other websites to understand Wikipedia without human guidance. Doncram, consensus has supported its use, so unless you want to file a new request to get that consensus overturned, it's not helpful to object to the concept. Do you have any objections to the concept of adding this template to these dates, and/or do you believe that a bot will be unable to do it? It sounds as if you're objecting to having these dates in the templates in the first place — this information is already there, and the bot won't affect the situation. Nyttend ( talk) 16:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
To reiterate, and with consideration of further discussion, I continue to oppose this bot suggestion, I think for good reasons. The several-times-mentioned previous "RFC: Deploying 'Start date' template in infoboxes", seems to be about the merit of using microformats with dates. There was no discussion and no endorsement within that proposal, for applying "startdate" specifically with any type of start date, and especially nothing about NRHP-listed properties, ships, historic districts, objects, other types of items that use the NRHP infobox. I don't know where "Start dates" are relevant in wikipedia, perhaps for articles about wars or other events that actually have known start and end dates. I don't think "startdate" and "enddate" have been defined for NRHP historic districts, or buildings, or other NRHP items.
If they were to be defined, I don't think any bot should be run based off the built= field, because the contents of that field are known to be sometimes erroneous, in existing articles and likely to be erroneous in new articles that include the common NRHP infobox generator's output. It would not be putting forth WikiProject NRHP's best work, to put it mildly, for this field to be emphasized and picked up in hypothetical uses of the microformatted date information, as if this is a useful or correct date for any purpose. I read the microformat and hcard and some other articles, and see no immediate use for anyone of this. I read the template:startdate and template:enddate pages and see no explanation there for what a "start date" is supposed to mean, or for an "end date". I don't see anything useful at all about anything here, and I think it is an especially bad time to run a bot through all the WikiProject NRHP articles that somehow elevates sometimes-incorrect information that is not useful information. The costs of the bot include all the edits and clogging up of watchlists and edit histories for no gain. The costs include increasing the difficulty of editing in NRHP pages, and in overcoming natural reluctance/unsureness of editors to correct bad information that is widely present. The costs include expanding the size and extending the load time of 40,000 articles.
I doubt whether the major advocate for running this bot is aware of running controversy over the use of NRIS built date in articles for historic districts vs. buildings and some other types of listings, where one editor has been, with some justification, systematically adding and subtracting categories that address whether a listing dates from a given year or not. The categorizing of buildings "completed" by a certain date accepted by this editor is often incorrect, keying off the infobox-reported built= field, in asserting that a given property was built in a given year, when in fact frequently that was the year a building's construction was started. The editor has been simply removing date related categories for the historic district items, where in fact it could be possible and useful for date categories to be defined. Maybe advocates of microformat start and end dates could get together with category advocates, and generate microformats using the somewhat-more-verified category fields, somehow.
The very same built= date, subject of category-focused confusions, is now targeted by this bot proposal to be used as start date, when sometimes the contents appearing probably are a completion date and sometimes are a start date. I honestly don't know what date is wanted by the bot-proponent ideally, nor do I think they are aware of the various options and complications for different types of NRHP items. Again, perhaps for the NRHP wikiproject, the most meaningful start and end dates are probably the dates of listing and delisting (if it has occurred) for a given property. Or to be the beginning and end dates of the period of historical significance for the listed property. Or to be start and end dates of construction. If start and enddate were to be defined in any given way, then surely the current contents of the built= field are not correct in some/many cases.
For the bot-advocate to assert that defects of the NRHP infobox generator and all other content issues are not a subject for this page, and that some RFCs not addressing NRHP items or not addressing any concept of what start and end are supposed to mean, that these RFCs are supposed to dictate what happens now, well, let me say the advocate should not have redirected discussion to here, away from the wt:NRHP page.
I don't think the NRHP wikiproject is ready or willing to take on the burden of getting "start" and/or "enddate" information correct for the use of the startdate and endate templates. I personally see no utility for any user whatsoever of Wikipedia, and I do not want to ask my fellow NRHP wikiproject editors to take this on. I far prefer for NRHP wikiproject focus to be put onto various, more important data quality issues.
Bottomline: No matter how "start" and "end" are to be defined, and assuming there were some value to someone for having this information in microformat, it would be far better to define a new startdate= field and an enddate= field in the NRHP infobox, and to allow NRHP editors to populate that field with information that is correct for whatever definition is chosen. And, then the wikimedia coding of the NRHP infobox can handle the application of startdate and enddate templates. If the advocate of microformatting wishes to advance that usage, please make a proposal at Template talk:infobox nrhp and give notice at wt:NRHP. There certainly is no value in running a bot, IMHO. -- do ncr am 05:15, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Start date for churches? There are many thousands of churches listed on the NRHP (see for example List of Presbyterian churches in the United States) and also a handful of historic business names, where the article title means both the church as congregation (or business as an ongoing concern) and one or several buildings that have been referred to as the same name. Should "start date" mean the frequently-known-and-reported founding date of the church or business in such cases? Or should it be the start or completion date for construction of just the NRHP-listed one of a church's buildings, perhaps preceded or followed by other buildings used by the church through its history, no matter whether the current church building is different and has longer association with the church? That is best considered by NRHP editors, elsewhere, if they were motivated to take on an initiative to create a meaningful startdate in their articles. I don't think the idea of startdate and enddate for NRHP articles has been adequately considered for a bot to be run now.
If the concern is that microformatting is somehow wonderful and imperative, and it is not about imposing a "start date" concept unnaturally, how about creating a new equivalent template "built-date" and applying that (best done within NRHP infobox coding, not by a bot)? That avoids the unnecessary, not-helpful question of what on earth a start-date is supposed to mean. I would not oppose that, despite current contents of built= field often being invalid. That would put appropriate pressure on NRHP editors to improve data quality, on a topic that they already do accept that it needs to be done. -- do ncr am 17:49, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Light stations, schools, Masonic lodges, churches, other wikiprojects and article types Some hundreds of NRHPs are light stations, many hundreds are schools, a few hundred are Masonic lodge buildings, several thousands are Christian churches, other items that also can have a founding date or prior constructed versions than the NRHP-listed structure(s) or objects. There is a WikiProject Lighthouses and a WikiProject Schools and a WikiProject Freemasonry and a WikiProject Christianity and other Wikiprojects that should probably have say, about what the meaning of "start date" should be for those various types of articles. The NRHP listing is secondary for most of these. For example there are many places named Masonic Lodge, where there is just one article for the local chapter/organization and for its building (or one of its historic buildings). To say start date for the lodge is the construction start or construction end date for its former building that happens to be NRHP-listed, while the lodge was founded earlier and perhaps has no continuing presence at that NRHP building, would probably not be right. Again I think there is not adequate understanding of the variety of articles touched by the NRHP project here, and hence not adequate understanding that "start date" is not ready to be bot-imposed now, IMHO. -- do ncr am 20:39, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Where are we with this, now? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Legoktm has indicated on his talk page that he's no longer available to undertake this task. Could we have another volunteer, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)