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.

Over the years, I have come into situations where someone will slap a merge tag on an article, and then not follow through with adding a merge tag to the other article, if they even decide to mention why they want to merge the two pages at all. These tags can often remain up for years until they are removed, so I was wondering if there was a way to program a bot to remove these sorts of things, as I suspect a sizable chunk of merge request taggings are just that. This may be near impossible to do, but it would be worth looking into, if possible. Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 17:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

@ Kevin: I'm sure someone with better bot skills than I have could code this, but is there consensus to do this? You request does not seem to be in line with the instructions at Template:Merge#When to remove, and I don't see any discussion at Template talk:Merge. Thanks! GoingBatty ( talk) 22:06, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll go leave a note over there, but I suspect that it would not be all that uncontroversial. Either way, thanks for letting me know, and if anyone wants to start coding a bot just in case, feel free to do so. Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 22:27, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Merge bot manages the merge tags. I might look into modifying that to add reciprocal tags, where only one of the articles is tagged. It may also be possible to mark those where there is no discussion. But the ongoing problems with this project area are an overabundance of drive-by merge-taggers who make low-priority WP:summary style merge requests, when there is nothing inherently wrong or broken about having separate detailed-subtopic articles, albeit stubs, drive-by managers who don't actually work on merges themselves but think they can fix the process, and a dearth of editors who actually work on merges. Bot requests come and go in this area; few are actually implemented. The last battle I was fighting was to stop editors from creating tags to request that section 5 of article "A" get merged into section 7 of article "B", and such silliness. Wbm1058 ( talk) 15:14, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I've noticed those ones as well, especially as they make for some interesting discussions. I wonder if there would also be a way to auto-close ones like that that have not had a comment in a few months, which would lessen the burden even more. It does stink no matter what way you look at it, as we almost need a tag to tell people to stop abusing the template. Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 17:47, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I would find it controversial to remove the tags. However, adding matching tags to the "other article" I would not find controversial. I've driveby-tagged an article here or there myself, and also worked on a merge request here or there myself. It's just another backlog. -- Izno ( talk) 19:02, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

What if we were to remove instances where there are tags on both articles, but no discussion? Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 17:58, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

That only indicates that there is no discussion. You can't conclude from the lack of discussion what the consensus is regarding the merge request, and I see no reason why we should remove the backlog simply to remove the backlog. -- Izno ( talk) 18:16, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

How is a bot supposed to know that there's no discussion? What if a discussion is started with a heading like aren't these the same thing or do we really need two articles. A human can figure out that those are likely merge discussions, but a bot can't. Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 14:42, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

It would be fairly easy to see if the word "merge" or other key words are on the talk page, but if you cue other words you could help fix that issue. However, there will be the element of human error, so that could be worked into the equation. Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 00:03, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Oiyarbepsy, I've often noticed "orphaned" merge tags, and they're virtually always on low-traffic pages — on higher-traffic pages, they're much more likely to get discussion or undiscussed action. The bot could examine the talk page history and see if any edits have been made since the day when the merge tag was added to the article; if nobody's made a single edit to the talk page since the tag was placed, there's no discussion. Of course, this will miss a lot of pages where unrelated edits have been made to the talk page, but it's the only solid way I can imagine to avoid false negatives. Perhaps the bot could also have a vocabulary (e.g. "merge") that it looks for, and if none of the vocabulary words appear in edits made since the day the tag was placed, it could log the article for human review. If nobody's done anything or discussed anything, there's no consensus available for a human to evaluate. If you wait a long time, e.g. a year after the merge tag was placed, you're not going to risk detagging an article too soon. Nyttend ( talk) 18:46, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Your suggestions seem reasonable, but I wouldn't want anything having to do with a bot understanding human language, but the history check seems good. Of course, you need some specifics before you ask someone to make a bot. Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 04:59, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

What's wrong with having the bot attempt to understand human language? WP:CONTEXBOT talks about bots making consequential edits, stuff that (if the bot makes a mistake) will be a good bit of a problem. Nobody suffers if a userspace list has a few extra entries. I'm proposing that the vocabulary be used only for list-compilation; the history-check will be the only criterion that the bot uses when determining whether to edit the article. Nyttend ( talk) 01:55, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

For some reason, loads of our articles cite The Minor Planet Bulletin as Bulletin of the Minor Planets Section of the Association of Lunar and Planetary Observers, which is sometimes used as a subtitle to The Minor Planet Bulletin (see example). The title of the publication itself is, however, The Minor Planet Bulletin, and that's how the journal should be cited. So if someone could do a simple search/replace for

Bulletin of the Minor Planets(:|,) Section of the Association of Lunar and Planetary Observers → The Minor Planet Bulletin

on the following pages

That would be much appreciated. I started doing it, but with ~230 articles to go through, this is much more suited for a bot. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:20, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I'll ping Praemonitus ( talk · contribs) here since they seem to be the one citing The Minor Planet Bulletin under its not-quite-alternate name. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:22, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Seriously? I just used the name from the source. This issue isn't worth any amount of effort. Praemonitus ( talk) 17:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

It's the subtitle of the journal. No one calls it the Bulletin of the Minor Planets Section of the Association of Lunar and Planetary Observers. It's like referring to Astrophysical Journal as [An International Review of Spectroscopy and Astronomical Physics]. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:06, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I can take care of this; it's pretty straight-forward. Coding...   ~  Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf)  23:23, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Doing... the task as requested.   ~  Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf)  23:55, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Y Done.   ~  Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf)  01:11, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Question: Before even starting, I see cases of |journal=The Minor Planet Bulletin, Bulletin of the Minor Planets Section of the Association of Lunar and Planetary Observers, as on 10000 Myriostos. Is it desired to truncate these to |journal=The Minor Planet Bulletin or leave them as-is? FWIW, I prefer the shorter version, both aesthetically and procedurally as the actual title.   ~  Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf)  23:55, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, truncate those to The Minor Planet Bulletin. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:16, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Y Done: 219 pages changed in total, with separate edit summaries for the original request and the exceptions; the remainder didn't need changing.   ~  Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf)  01:11, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

There's a new dump out. Going to scan for those instances and list the new ones. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:53, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

It missed the following four 1919 Clemence, 2001 Einstein, 3873 Roddy, 4674 Pauling. I'll take care of them myself. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

The following should have the following replacement made

1. Bulletin of the Minor Planets(:|,) Section of the Association of Lunar and Planetary Observers → The Minor Planet Bulletin
2. Bulletin of the Minor Planets → The Minor Planet Bulletin
3. \s*\|publisher\s*=\s*Section of the Association of Lunar and Planetary Observers → Nothing

@ Headbomb: My apologies about the premature archiving. ~ Rob ^Talk 21:34, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

On it.   ~  Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf)  21:48, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Y Done: 297/300 changes made ( 114 Kassandra, 1164 Kobolda, & 9950 ESA were fixed in the 1st round). I also found 3787 Aivazovskij, 36 Atalante, & 1253 Frisia (not listed above in either round), so I fixed them as well.   ~  Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf)  00:07, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Alright, should be good for archiving now. We'll see whatever's left over in the next dump, but I suspect this covered most of them. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:32, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Going through Category:Minor planets with some more generalized rules I'm finding a few more exceptions (most recently |publisher=Minor Planets Section of the Association of Lunar and Planetary Observers). I'll post the list of changes here when I'm done, so that all these related changes are in 1 thread, for future reference.   ~  Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf)  00:55, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Found 22 more below, which were all slight variations of 2nd round's requests 1–3:

Y Done. Fixed these as well. An exception or two might crop out here and there, but very likely not in a number that would require more bot work.   ~  Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf)  03:50, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

As of now, I have also permanently switched the journal-parameter from "Bulletin of the Minor Planets" to "The Minor Planet Bulletin" and removed the obsolete publisher-parameter. I'll retroactively amend my edits back to May 1st. Thank you all for your efforts. Rfassbind – talk 07:24, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

What would everyone think of a bot that auto-cleaned up the comments left behind by new articles created with the article wizard? For reference, I'm referring to these. -- Nathan2055 ^{talk - contribs} 04:25, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

@ Nathan2055: Seems a bit like WP:COSMETICBOT, however, if it isn't, I'd be glad to do it. -- Cheers, Ril ey 06:06, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

@ Nathan2055: I have find and replace rules set up in AWB to remove these when I'm making other visible changes to an article. GoingBatty ( talk) 15:07, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

@ Riley Huntley: Yeah, it shouldn't be too difficult. I was even considering coding it myself. I just figured that since it was borderline WP:COSMETICBOT I should ask here first. -- Nathan2055 ^{talk - contribs} 18:31, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Should go in AWB gen-fixes. All the best: Rich  Farmbrough, 22:22, 19 March 2016 (UTC).

It would be useful to have a bot that patrolled articles on fringe theories, to stop any fringe links from being added and delete passages which give undue weight. This is because there is a problem with UFO articles at the moment, many are not written according to fringe guidelines. I need someone to help me with making this, I can't code, but I want to learn how to code bots. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 17:07, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

You should review Wikipedia:Spam blacklist to see if that method, or one of the "see also" methods, may help. -- Izno ( talk) 17:30, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I just want to clean up the articles, that's really the main purpose of the bot that I want to make. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 19:59, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I think you massively overestimate the capacity of bots if you think they can be used to determine whether or not text in articles amounts to undue weight. Right now your bot task specification amounts to "make the article nice", which falls woefully short of the sort of detail one would have to consider in order to deliver the sort of magic you seek. -- Tagishsimon (talk) 22:55, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to make two bots with diametrically opposed editing philosophies who spend hours arguing with each other at ANI. Someday, we will have this. bd2412 T 22:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

We could probably have this today but for WP:BAG, and that whole "requires consensus to run" aspect... -- Izno ( talk) 01:48, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

It's possible to make a database of fringe links, and tell the bot to delete a passage if over 90% of the links are fringe. Problem is, that would take a good amount of time to make. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 11:58, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Or find weasel words or something similar to identify POV. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 12:37, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

You can use Special:Search for that e.g. weasel word insource:"weasel word". -- Izno ( talk) 12:44, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

(Which happens to find a number of uses of the {{ weasel word}} template, so, go forth and edit.) -- Izno ( talk) 12:46, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Okay, but I don't know how to actually code the bot, because I can't code. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 13:09, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

You can't code, TPoD, but respectfully you cannot specify either. The spam blacklist is a perfectly good way of dealing with weasel links, were it primed with them. But as to "weasel words", you have to identify them at the outset, and then ideally know that you are finding them in a context in which they are weaselish, rather than, for instance, being used to refute fringe. And really, but for a few trivial cases, I defy you to put together a useful list of words and phrases which would come anywhere near being able to deal with the problem you seek to address. At best you'll create something which has such a high rate of false positive and negative decisions as to be of more hindrance than use. -- Tagishsimon (talk) 15:36, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Basically, Not a good task for a bot. ~ Rob ^Talk 05:51, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Do we have a bot that could update Wikipedia:Database reports/Long pages, say, monthly? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:36, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@ Pigsonthewing: manually updated list for now. -- Edgars2007 ( talk/ contribs) 07:27, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

@ Edgars2007: Useful thank you - though I'd still like regular, automated updates, if someone can kindly oblige. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:57, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

There are hundreds and hundreds (probably thousands) of articles about sport teams (expecially football) which are completely unreferenced, and, as most of articles about sport teams contains infos like establishment/disestablishment year, honours, staff people names etc., it's very important to have references in such type of articles. So, I propose to scan WP dump for articles about sport teams, without any external link in them, without <ref> tags, and probably without {{ Reflist}} tag and/or "References"/"Notes" section - thus list of pages to go through is formed - and then to go through them and to tag with {{ unreferenced}}. When running to do the job also it's necessary to parse source code and visual output of articles to ensure that there are no refs before tagging page. -- XXN, 18:15, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

@ XXN: Since you're requesting visual inspection before saving, you may want to post this request on Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks. GoingBatty ( talk) 23:52, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

A significant amount of the "Unreferenced BLP" articles are actually American sportspeople who actually have a reference in the infobox. All the best: Rich  Farmbrough, 03:43, 4 March 2016 (UTC).

Isn't that already covered by "When running to do the job also it's necessary to parse source code and visual output of articles to ensure that there are no refs before tagging page"?  —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:48, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

This sounds like a semi-automated task, not a bot task. ~ Rob ^Talk 12:17, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

The <tt>...</tt> element no longer even exists in HTML. Like <font>, it was a separation of style and content problem. While MediaWiki doesn't choke on it, we need to stop using it like it's valid, and replace it with something more appropriate.

• In most namespaces, it should be replaced by default with <span style="font-family: monospace;">...</span>. We can't be certain that code examples were the intended use, and in many cases they were not. For the cases that are, the span markup isn't the most perfect possible markup for such examples, but using the span tag isn't "wrong", where the code tag often would be, and if anyone wants to, they can replace the span later.
• In the template namespace, it should be replaced with <code>...</code>, as the tt dead-element is frequently used incorrectly to mark up code examples in template documentation. In the odd case that the actual output of a template uses the tt tag and is not for code (is there a template for representing telegram output? I doubt it, but it's possible), the special appearance of the code output compared to the span output will make it obvious that the template needs to be tweaked to use a monospaced span.

In special namespaces like Module and MediaWiki, uses of it should simply be identified and listed, not altered. It can safely be replaced in mainspace, Wikipedia, Portal, all talk namespaces, etc. (except where it's in nowiki or source xtags).

The bot could generate a list of templates that do not have names ending in /doc in which this substitution was performed, so they can be checked manually to ensure they don't need their ouput changed to use <span> (or <samp> or <kbd>). Or just listed and not changed, and slated for manual cleanup. I'll volunteer to do that part of the cleanup, either way.  —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  18:58, 19 February 2016 (UTC) Clarified.  —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:26, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

PS: I have no objection to it being added to AWB General Fixes instead, if people think that having humans do it incrementally would be better. As long as the cleanup begins one way or another.  —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  19:08, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

About 2.5k uses in mainspace and 99k everywhere else. Non-article non-talkspace is 24k uses. -- Izno ( talk) 19:10, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Keeping in mind WP:COSMETICBOT, I think a one time blast of corrections and a monthly schedule of correcting future insertions. I would also suggest that consensus for this be secured at one of the Village Pumps (Technical possibly). Hasteur ( talk) 20:23, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

It's not cosmetic. Valid and conformant code is a cross-browser compatibility, accessibility, and WP:REUSE issue. But the proposed schedule sounds fine to me, and would be an improvement over the current mess. The same or a similar bot/script should also fix <ref name=foo/> (with or without quotes around the value of name=) and <br/> and <br> (and the worse error "</br>") to use proper ... /> (i.e., space, then slash, then close-angle-bracket) syntax. Preferably it would quote the value of name= (MediaWiki doesn't choke on it, but any number of external XML parsing tools will). Another obvious fix of this sort is putting quotes around any [X|H]TML attribute values that are non-numeric, e.g. fixing class=classname to class="classname" (it's actually safest to quote all of them, since a numeric one could be changed to non-numeric at any time, just like any name=Johnson1999 could be changed to name=Johson 1999 by a later editor (and even MW will barf on that). The same sort of cleanup script could also perform dead-code cleanup in the form of converting any empty <element [attribute=value [...]]></element> to <element [attribute=value [...]] />. That last one would be arguably cosmetic and thus better done as an AWB general fix. A different kind of tool might also build up a list of pages with the same HTML id= value used two or more times on same page, for manual fixing. I've long wondered if whatever trick is used by navboxes to detect if another navbox is present and auto-collapse could also be used to catch this error, in templates that generate ids. Would also be nice to track down uses of <font>...</font> (which can be auto-converted to <span>...</span>, with some work) and <center>...</center> (which would require manual fixing). Oh, and <acronym>...</acronym> should in every case be changed to <abbr>...</abbr>; the former has been invalid for years, and they support the same attributes with the same output.  —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:26, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

On breaks: <br /> is actually only a work around for some legacy HTML parsers and is not strictly correct, though an XML parser won't choke on it (for those authors who want to serve XHTML). I doubt anything in this day and age which we support requires it. More generally, <br> is fine in Html 5, which we've been serving for years at this point. ( See StackOverflow.) So I would not approve of any change but </br> -> <br(|/| /)>. This should probably be a general fix or a CHECKWIKI fix if it isn't already.

I would support a bot to add quotation marks to any attributes, per this recent change, soon-live onwiki.

The general <element></element> -> <element/> has some issues on some legacy browsers for some attributes, related mostly to the "/" (and especially in block elements e.g. divs and paragraphs). I think these are the same legacy browsers as with the break problem.

I think the Javascript looks for the collapsible class, so you'd need to check whether "getElementByID" returns a list or a single element. Probably the latter, since an ID is supposed to be unique.

I would support replacement of font, center, and acronym, though it may be better just to template-ize them for legitimate uses and remove them for illegitimate. Probably a better task for AWB, if not AWB general fixes. -- Izno ( talk) 21:56, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Except <br /> is strictly correct; XML (including XHTML) requires the /. HTML5 does not require it, but it works fine in HTML5, and people reuse our code in more ways that we think they do, so it is best to give them the most portable code. The <br/> (no space) format, which is also valid XML, is what certain old browsers have a problem with. It is the exact same problem as <hr/> or any <element/> markup, without the space, in the same browsers. The <element></element> → <element /> conversion does not present any problems, only <element></element> → <element/> conversion.  —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  13:42, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

@ Bgwhite: I had this already in mind as CHECKWIKI task bu I think we first have to see how many are these are if they reoccur. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 22:17, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

CheckWiki already checks for

<font> Between a bot and alot of *$(#& manual fixes, there are currently no <font> tags in article space.

<big> But, it is not currently switched on for enwiki.

</br> There are currently no </br> tags in articles, but alot are added everyday. Checkwiki also checks for other cases of bad <br> tags.

I can add <tt> to Checkwiki. I can also give a listing of articles using it via a dump file or any other tags. At one point, I was changing <tt> to {{ mono}} or <code>, but was getting alot of complaints, so I dropped it. Bgwhite ( talk) 22:53, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, <big>...</big> and <small>...</small> would be nice to get rid of. They're convenient for entry, like <font>...</font>, but we should not be using these things in mainspace or any equivalent, including template, book, portal, etc. It would be nice if all this stuff were purged from Wikipedia namespace, too. Really, everywhere, though I guess we care least of all if they remain in the talk spaces. People can complain all they want, but <tt>...</tt> in particular is just dead and they have to move on with their lives. That whole "acceptance" stage of grieving. :-)  —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  13:42, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

SMcCandlish A list of <tt> tags from the March dump can be found at User:Bgwhite/Sandbox1. There are sports articles at the beginning of the list in which the tt tag should be removed and not converted to <code>. Not all tt tags should be converted to code, so a bot couldn't run on the list. Manual editing should be done. Bgwhite ( talk) 18:51, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Bgwhite Then replace them with the span in mainspace, portals, etc. While the markup will still be MoS-wrong, it will not be W3C-wrong, so it will still be an improvement. The bot could even use an edit summary that said something like "Converting invalid HTML to valid span. Please consider removing it entirely if extraneous, or converting to <code>, <samp> or <kbd>, as appropriate."  —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:46, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

@ SMcCandlish: What are your thoughts on using a template to implement the span? This would give us better tracking so actual humans can gradually replace the improvement-but-still-inappropriate fix with the best solution on a page-by-page basis. ~ Rob ^Talk 18:17, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

@ BU Rob13: Sure. That's why I created {{ mono}} in 2008 or so, because <tt>...</tt> was frequently being used in articles. A bot or AWB script or whatever could add a silent parameter for tracking purposes.  —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  18:59, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

@ SMcCandlish: As usual, you've completed the work before I've even thought of it. I'd recommend placing that template around the text currently in tt tags, with additional parameter | needs_review = yes placed at the end (or beginning, whichever's easier). Someone can create a tracking category of every transclusion with a nonempty needs_review parameter at a later time. To be clear, this is not a substitute for properly informing editors that the edit is worth reviewing via the edit summary. A proper implementation should do both. ~ Rob ^Talk 19:34, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

@ BU Rob13:. I added that to Template:Mono/doc.  —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:31, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

What's the status of this? I could possibly do it with AWB if we're using a list generated from a dump. I'd probably go for the "low-hanging fruit" of \<tt\>([^\<]*)\<\/tt\> --> {{mono|$1|needs_review=yes}} on whichever namespaces this task has consensus to run on. It would miss something that had additional HTML tags within the tt tags, but it should hit most things, and the rest probably are worth editor review anyway. Where is the consensus discussion for this, by the way? ~ Rob ^Talk 00:25, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Be careful about your proposed changes to the name= tags. The danger points are, offhand 1. The possible (though horrible) situation where Johnson1999 and "Johnson1999" are different references. and 2. Accidental breaking of citation templates, e.g. the Harvard Referencing templates.

As for the rest, one issue is that this makes the code somewhat harder for editors to understand. I'd suggest using templates wherever the code gets complicated. Complicated, naked HTML is an accessibility issue. . Adam Cuerden ^{( talk)} 00:33, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

@ Adam Cuerden: I'm pretty sure re your first point an error is already emitted by the Cite extension in that case. -- Izno ( talk) 00:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

@ Izno: As long as that's true, and name=foo/ is also distinct from name=foo then I think that only the accessibility issue (templating instead of complicated raw HTML) remains. Perhaps {{ mono}}, which already exists? Adam Cuerden ^{( talk)} 00:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

@ Adam Cuerden, Izno, and SMcCandlish: While the details matter, I think the obvious next step is to seek general consensus that a bot to clean up inappropriate uses of HTML in certain namespaces (everything outside of User/User talk would seem fair game to me) is worthwhile. ~ Rob ^Talk 01:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I doubt anyone disagrees it's worthwhile, at least in principle; however, a bot is not a human, and, as such, we need to think for it in advance. That means identifying the problems first, and making sure they can be mitigated.

For example, <strike> might be invalid in HTML 4.0 strict, but trying to remove it would make getting the sometimes necessary effect so difficult that it's simply not worth trying to remove it. The accessibility issues are too massive. In the cases here, however, any issues can be dealt with - but identifying possible issues and how to deal with them is how we know that's true. Adam Cuerden ^{( talk)} 01:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Not sure I follow your example. The fix for <strike>...</strike> is <s>...</s>. WP emits a doctype of plain "HTML" (i.e., HTML5), not HTML 4.0 strict, anyway. If the argument is that any strike-through, including <s>...</s> and <del>...</del> is an accessibility issue, that seems to be a more theoretical matter; both those tags are part of the HTML specs, and this thread is about complying with them but getting rid of use of the invalid <tt>...</tt> element.  —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:19, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

JFYI strike tag has been already replaced in all articles. So I agree with the replacement of tt tag too. The problem is that the ast time I tried to replce them it was not straightforward. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 09:27, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

It would help if AWB had a module which could do a "find and replace with one of many potential options". Basically, when you get to a page with a "find" value, the program jumps to that instance and requests for you to pick from several replacements. I can see many cases where that would be valuable. -- Izno ( talk) 12:27, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Template:Filmr and Template talk:Filmr both show up at Special:WantedPage with about 3000 incoming links each. The template itself was deleted in 2012 since it was just a holding page. It's used in many non-free screenshots as part of the fair use rationale parameter within the Template:Navbox used for the rationale. Could a bot remove the entire name parameter from these Navbox templates on the pages that are linking to Filmr? The box will then stop trying to link to the deleted template, talk and edit option as seen here and instead will be a plain box like this. Either the parameter can be removed or a bot could just as easily remove the text "Filmr" to reduce the chance of error. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 09:26, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

@ Ricky81682: I could definitely handle this task, but I have some concerns about whether the edits are justified. What's the net gain here? Just getting Filmr off the wanted pages list? You may want to seek consensus for this somewhere. Honestly not too sure where, but a clear consensus for undertaking this task would help me get the BRFA through. ~ Rob ^Talk 11:48, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Would that be a task that's related to the actual deletion of the template? It's sort of cosmetic as these pages all supposedly link to a template that was there for a reason and while the template is gone, the substituted uses of it remain. Perhaps WP:VPP is the place to go. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 18:07, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd recommend starting a discussion there unless you can find a wiki project related to non-free content. Removing links isn't a part of deletion normally, so this would need more specific consensus. The argument for this task is probably that the edit links could cause confusion. ~ Rob ^Talk 18:39, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• In this case we should be replacing {{ Navbox}} with a custom template. All the best: Rich  Farmbrough, 00:17, 3 April 2016 (UTC).
  

Could somebody recreate User:Pigsonthewing/Direct calls to Infobox for me, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:59, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Done. Izkala ( talk) 22:28, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

@ Izkala: Thank you, but something's not right with that, so I've reverted. For instance, 2–3 zone defense and 2012 Eastern Province Kings season were missing. The overall number is far lower than I'd expect. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:20, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

@ Pigsonthewing: Done, 2660 matches in the May 1, 2016 database dump. -- John of Reading ( talk) 12:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

The case sensitive mainspace search on the May dump \{\{\s*([Ii]nfo box|[Ii]nfoBox|[Ii]nfobox [Cc]onditionals|[Ii]nfobox/old|[Ii]nfobox/row|[Rr]ow)\s*[\|\}], which includes all of the #Redirects to {{ Infobox}} (and only #Redirects), returned these 3 additional pages: Windows NT 4.0, Windows Embedded Automotive, Windows Embedded Industry.   ~  Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf)  15:38, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

@ Tom.Reding and Izkala: Thank you. In April 2014, there were 2398 articles using {{ Infobox}} directly. I and others converted 1,044 instances to better templates. And there are now 2660 articles which use {{ Infobox}} directly. very disappointing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:35, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

That's disheartening. I'll see if I can work through some of the list in my spare time. Izkala ( talk) 16:45, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:MOSTEDITED is sorted by both the number of editors and the number of edits, based on a formula to convert them both into standard scores from their approximately lognormal distribution as non-negative integers, and then adding the resulting normal scores together before sorting to rank the articles.

I want to do the same thing with both pageviews and ORES wp10 quality scores. The pageviews API is at e.g. https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/metrics/pageviews/ ( per-article documentation) and the ORES API is at https://ores.wmflabs.org/v2/#!/scoring/get_v2_scores_context_model_revid

I want to start with, say the top 1,000 articles from May 1, 2016 and get a list of those with the lowest ORES scores, and go from there. Who can help me please? EllenCT ( talk) 14:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Y Done as per below; shortcut WP:POPULARLOWQUALITY. EllenCT ( talk) 05:08, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Python help please?

Here's what I have so far for trying to find the lowest quality high-popularity articles:

import sys
import urllib2
import safeJSON

r1 = urllib2.Request('
https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/metrics/pageviews/top/en.wikipedia.org/all-access/2016/05/15')
# use about 5 days ago (test how long ago is reliable) for the date at the end of that url in production e.g.:
#   import datetime
#   print ((date.today() - timedelta(days=5)).strftime("%Y/%m/%d"))
try:
    u1 = urllib2.urlopen(r1)
    top_articles = safeJSON.loads(u1.read())
    for i in range(2, 999):
        article = top_articles['items'][0]['articles'][i]['article']
        views = top_articles['items'][0]['articles'][i]['views']
        title = article.replace('_', ' ')
        r2 = urllib2.Request('
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=query&format=json&prop=revisions&titles=' + article)
        try:
            u2 = urllib2.urlopen(r2)
            revinfo = safeJSON.loads(u2.read())
            revid = revinfo['query']['pages'][revinfo['query']['pages'].items()[0][0]]['revisions'][0]['revid']
            r3 = urllib2.Request('
https://ores.wmflabs.org/v2/scores/enwiki/wp10/' + str(revid))
            try:
                u3 = urllib2.urlopen(r3)
                ores = safeJSON.loads(u3.read())
                prediction = ores['scores']['enwiki']['wp10']['scores'][str(revid)]['prediction']
                if prediction in ['Stub', 'Start', 'C']:
                    print('[' + '[%s]] %s-class with %d views' % (title, prediction, views))
            except:
                0 # print(i, title, 'no ORES score') # e.g. article is too new
        except:
            0 # print(i, title, 'can not get latest revision') # e.g. Special: namespace
except:
    print('can not load top articles') # e.g., less than 5 or so days ago

Can someone who understands bots please turn that into a WP:MOSTEDITED-style report updating daily with the most recent top articles date (at the end of the first url)? EllenCT ( talk) 09:30, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

@ Bamyers99: can you please add this to DataflowBot and link the daily report from WP:BACKLOG? Ideally the output would be in similar tabular format sorted first by Stub, Start, and C-class prediction, then by descending pageviews. EllenCT ( talk) 18:13, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

@ EllenCT: Have a look at User:DataflowBot/output/Popular low quality articles (id-2). -- Bamyers99 ( talk) 00:05, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

@ Bamyers99: fantastic! Thank you so much! I wonder why all those time codes are so popular. EllenCT ( talk) 04:58, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

@ Bamyers99: would you please make the warning added to the top of the report permanent until issues with pageview transience (I think we can use a simpler version of the algorithms described here) and ORES predictions for articles composed mostly of templates get sorted out? EllenCT ( talk) 15:15, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

@ EllenCT: I have run the report again. I am running it manually until the specification settles down. I have just coded it to only list articles that are in the top 1000 page views for 3 consecutive days. It is going back 5 - 7 days to check the page views. Both numbers are configurable. -- Bamyers99 ( talk) 00:23, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

@ Bamyers99: thanks, that really clears it up. You might want to leave out anything starting "List of" for the time being, too. I think there are good bug reports in on the transient popularity spike and template issues, so eventually it should just work the way you originally set it up. No ETA on those fixes, though. EllenCT ( talk) 04:32, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

@ Bamyers99: please see the suggestions here for some recommended improvements to the warning message. I am trying to get a top-100,000 list so we may be able to drop the C-class predictions, which aren't generally in urgent need of improvements. EllenCT ( talk) 12:57, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

@ EllenCT: I think that 100,000 might be too many to request ORES scores for. The bot requests scores for 100 articles at a time, so that would be 1000 ORES API requests. 100 API requests for 10,000 articles might be acceptable. -- Bamyers99 ( talk) 15:07, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

@ Bamyers99: yeah. Can you use WP:5000 for the interim? That looks like it is still being updated weekly. EllenCT ( talk) 12:25, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

@ EllenCT: Disambiguation pages are now removed. The ORES API is now giving a 500 error when trying to request more than 1 score at a time. -- Bamyers99 ( talk) 01:15, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

@ EpochFail: should we report that as a bug? EllenCT ( talk) 01:21, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes. thank you for the ping. We're looking into it right now. Phab:T136278 -- EpochFail ( talk • contribs) 09:25, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

The issue is now resolved. Thanks for reporting. Sorry for the trouble. -- EpochFail ( talk • contribs) 10:50, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Further discussion on the bot's talk page please. EllenCT ( talk) 21:15, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Resolved

Some time ago, the parameter |licensor= was corrected to |licensee=, however the template calls in article space were never updated to reflect the name change. Now that |licensor= is being phased out, the call will need to be updated.

• Template:Infobox animanga/Video
• Parameter rename: licensor -> licensee
• Category:Anime and manga articles using obsolete and incorrect infobox parameters (631 articles)
• Example

I would have done this myself using AWB, but considered it to trivial of an edit to be allowed under AWB usage rules. — Farix ( t |  c) 11:38, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

• @ TheFarix: The same usage rules apply to bots, as per WP:COSMETICBOT. There are two options here.

1. If there are other edits necessary for these templates, it might be possible to piggy-back cosmetic changes off of another non-cosmetic change. Is there anything else worth doing in a semi-automated or automated fashion?
2. You could aim for consensus that these cosmetic edits are worthwhile. Consensus generally trumps WP:COSMETICBOT. You are much more likely to find consensus (outside of your local area, keep in mind) if you're making many changes to drastically simplify template syntax/structure rather than a single minor change. ~ Rob ^Talk 15:21, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

@ TheFarix: now the change is part of AWB general fixes. It is easy to be done now. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 16:07, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello all! Not sure if this is the correct place to request this, so let me know if I should go elsewhere. I am working on restarting the Wikipedia:WikiProject Green Bay Packers and would like to get an updated and completed list of all of the articles that have had some type of recognition (featured articles, featured lists, DYK, etc.). I would like a query to be run to generate a list of Green Bay Packers-related content that some form of recognition. This could be done by finding searching all pages that are in Category:WikiProject Green Bay Packers and querying out those that have {{ Article history}} and {{ DYK talk}}. I am also open to other ideas that would complete the task. The main output would be a list or relevant articles (which could be placed here). Let me know if this can be done, or if I should ask elsewhere. Appreciate the help! Thanks, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 01:18, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Template:WP GBP + Template:AH and Template:WP GBP + Template:DYK talk. -- Izno ( talk) 23:33, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Y Done Well that was easier than I thought it was going to be. Thank you @ Izno! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:56, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

More than a week ago I placed my #Bot request above, but nobody responses. What's going wrong? Sander.v.Ginkel ^{( Talk)} 09:38, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

My experience is that many requests don't get responded to. Number 5 7 10:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

From the looks of it, you got a response at User talk:Yobot. -- Cheers, Ril ey 10:02, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I can start the tagging after the weekend. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 10:13, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I've suggested before that instead of simply archiving this page, requests should be archived in one of two ways: "done/won't do/not valid" vs. "awaiting action". That way, valid requests that are not recent will be more readily found by someone who might want to work on them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:08, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

That system honestly doesn't work. A similar system at Module talk:Citation/CS1/Feature requests has basically gone unanswered. Either someone does it ("done") or not ("not done"), and distinguishing them further doesn't make any sense. -- Izno ( talk) 14:25, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I believe that archiving on a page like this can be set up such that only sections with specific tags are archived. I think User talk:Citation bot is set up that way. It makes it so that some decision needs to be made about each request, and requests won't be archived simply because they age out.

Such a system is feasible, but it requires active management of the page. The CS1 feature requests page is a lonely backwater compared to this one, and that page is not archived by a bot, so I don't think the situations are comparable. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 00:56, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

• The problem is... well most of you can guess what I'm thinking. All the best: Rich  Farmbrough, 18:49, 5 April 2016 (UTC).
  

Most well-developed Wikipedia pages of a species have information from the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be an automated process to keep the information up to date.

At the moment the data on the page for Gorilla gorilla was added in 2009. Wikipedia thus lists incorrectly "Current Population Trend" as unknown when the IUCN list it as "decreasing". I imagine that there are a lot of pages where the information that's in Wikipedia is outdated. Many smaller pages of species such as the Unicorn leatherjacket completely lack the information, while IUCN lists the information on the status of Unicorn leatherjacket (Aluterus monoceros) on their page.

Given that the IUCN reports their data in a very orderly fashion it should be straightforward to write a bot that regularly transfers new data from ICUN to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChristianKl ( talk • contribs) 14:58, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

If this is in an infobox (or taxobox, or other template) the bot edits should be done on Wikidata, and the values transcluded from there by the template(s). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:20, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Resolved

It's been a while since we've had a tagging run the project, so if a bot could tag the following articles with {{ WikiProject Academic Journals}} this would be great. Were' talking

•  Done All articles with a {{ Infobox journal}} template should be tagged with {{ WikiProject Academic Journals}}.
•  Done All articles with {{ Academic-journal-stub}} or any stub templates from Category:Academic journals stub templates should be tagged with {{ WikiProject Academic Journals}}
•  DoneImport |class= from other banners when possible.
  •  Not done If not, a blank |class= should be used.
•  Done Articles tagged with {{ WikiProject Academic Journals}} that do not have the journal infobox should be tagged with |needs-infobox=yes. Some articles won't need an infobox, but they can be dealt with one by one.
•  DoneArticles tagged with |needs-infobox=yes that have an infobox should be untagged. They can be found at Category:Journal articles needing infoboxes

Additionally

• All local (non-commons) images linked in the |cover= of {{ Infobox journal}} should be tagged with {{ WikiProject Academic Journals}}.
• If possible, compile a list of all local (non-commons) images not tagged but {{ WikiProject Academic Journals}} but found in articles tagged by {{ WikiProject Academic Journals}}. Because this will create a lot of false positives for images in the scope of the project, I'll review the list, and I'll manually tag the files myself.

Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:59, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Headbomb I can do it. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 16:07, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Excellent! Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:09, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Headbomb Please leave a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic Journals to link to this discussion here so everyone is aware about it. Thanks, Magioladitis ( talk) 16:27, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Done, although it's never been a problem in the past. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:18, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Headbomb I know but after all these complains I keep getting I want to be on the safe side. I also still look for volunteers to do the tagging instead of me. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 20:52, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Headbomb For instance United Nations Economic Commission for Europe contains Infobox journal. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 21:38, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes? As far as I'm concerned, it should be tagged since it talks about Statistical Journal of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:42, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

OK. I tagged it. I just wanted to see if we are on the same page. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 05:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I auto-assessed for Stub/Start class and manually fixed all in NA-class. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 10:28, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Headbomb I can't find an easy to way to fulfill the images request. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 10:33, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

That may require a database dump scan. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:02, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Headbomb or a tracking category to collect all images in this parameter for starts. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 13:37, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Not sure how that would work, given that tracking category would be on the article, not on the file. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I am so happy to discover that I was the one who did a previous bot tagging in 2011. 5 years ago :) -- Magioladitis ( talk) 11:21, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

@ Headbomb: Are you satisfied with what's been done, or do you still have a pending request here? If a request is still pending, could you re-list what you still want done? ~ Rob ^Talk 14:14, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Of what's above, the image stuff is still pending. You can have a stab at that if you want. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, AWB isn't well-suited to that task. If another bot operator can do a quick run-through of these transclusions and just generate a list of all non-Commons cover images, then I could do the actual tagging with AWB. ~ Rob ^Talk 17:05, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

The subheaders of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure are "Requests for comment", "Backlogs", "XfD", "Administrative", and "Requested moves". For each subheader, add in the <includeonly> section that is visible only to WP:AN (to which WP:ANRFC is transcluded) how many discussions are waiting closure in that section and how old the oldest discussion in that section is. Maybe update this once a day. Pinging BU Rob13 ( talk · contribs), who suggested this here. Cunard ( talk) 20:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Just a few notes on how this might be technically accomplished. To search for the oldest discussion, you could look at the date parameter within the {{ Initiated}}, which should be included for each request. I'd recommend just updating this once for the entire page (i.e. not worrying about each subheading), mostly because figuring out the oldest discussion for the backlogs would be a bit tricky, where an entry is an entire process rather than a single discussion. RfCs are always open longer than XfDs, so you wouldn't need to worry about an older deletion discussion than the oldest RfC awaiting closure. As for how many discussions, that varies a bit by heading. For RfC, XFD, and administrative, just count the subheadings. For requested moves, count the bullet points. For backlogs, it's a bit tricky. Currently, editors are just manually updating the backlog amounts every once in awhile. If it's possible to have a bot automatically update those numbers (and then add them all together to get the total for the transclusion to WP:AN), that would be ideal. It would solve two problems at once. A good benchmark of which discussions to consider a part of the backlog would be anything older than a week at CFD, MFD, or RM and anything older than two weeks for move reviews (since those can take a bit longer, sometimes). ~ Rob ^Talk 20:55, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I write in my capacity as one of two Wikipedians in Residence at TED.

Firstly, I would appreciate some help, please, in counting links to TED talks (URLs including /talks/), topics (URLs including /topics/) and speaker profiles (URLs including /speakers/) in this and the other top ten largest Wikipedias. There is some prior discussion of the issue at WP:VPT#‎External links by page type. [Now resolved.]

Secondly, it would be a good idea to clean up TED links. We have both external links and links in citations, to pages like:

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/robert_lang_folds_way_new_origami.html

and:

http://www.ted.com/index.php/speakers/siegfried_woldhek.html

In such links, the index.php/ and .html parts are redundant; and http:// would be better replaced by https://

Links may have one, two, or all three of these issues.

Thirdly, external links for TED speakers should be replaced using {{ TED speaker}} - though that might be better done once Wikidata is populated with TED IDs, and values can be called from there. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:57, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Fourthly, links like https://ted.com/daphne_koller_what_we_re_learning_from_online_education should have the "www" prefix added. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:54, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

{{ TED talk}} is now available, also. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:04, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I've now determined that there are 148 links whose URL includes ted.com/index.php/, and 883 links whose URL ends with .html. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

@ Pigsonthewing: Not agreeing to this yet (but interested in working it). Have some questions:

1. Because these are somewhat non-printing changes (potentially infringing on WP:COSMETICBOT), could you please establish consensus to make these changes?
2. Here's what I think your requests are Please feel free to help me clarify your request:

   R1: Standardize Ted.com external links so that

   R1A: We do not select a connection identifier (https/http) but let the user's browser choose

   R1B: The subdomain www is immediately before the ted.com domain and top level domain

   R1C: index.php is not included in the external link

   R1D: a trailing html is not included

   R2: We replace any speaker links (in an external links section) with the {{ TED speaker}} template

   R3: We replace any Talk links (in an external links section with the {{ TED talk}} template

Please let me know if I've parsed your requests correctly. Hasteur ( talk) 12:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

@ Hasteur: Thank you. Yes, except:

• R1A - My understanding is that https:// is preferred.
• R3 - I've found some instances of talk links which include a speaker name/ link; I may need to tweak the template.
• I don't believe that COSMETICBOT is intended to stop us fixing outdated links, which may at any time stop working (and I'm pretty sure there is also consensus to do so); and applying templates will often change (standardise) the link wording, so does not fall foul of that policy.

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:03, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

@ Pigsonthewing: In that discussion there was a good case for not forcing the https only standard. I strongly suggest you code for the //www.ted.com domain in the templates (as I would code the bot task to do the same standard) and let how the user accessed us make the decision about how to move forward. Even if we've deprecated non-HTTPS access here, there might be a case for not passing on a bunch of HTTPS connections on to TED.com. While I understand your finessing of the cosmeticbot rules, I could see certain editors who have an axe to gring argue that these are cosmitc changes and violate the policy. I prefer to be exceedingly conservative with bot changes after I was nearly crucified for something that was completely reasonable. Hasteur ( talk) 14:23, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

@ Hasteur: I feel your pain. If it becomes an issue, where or how (if not here) do you think that consensus would best be demonstrated? Regarding protocols, please see my latest comment at VPT. I'm confident that TED can handle the traffic. Meanwhile {{ TED talk}} now has parameters for a speaker name and link. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:25, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

@ Hasteur: Did you see this? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:26, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Update: Links in the form http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/thandie_newton_embracing_otherness_embracing_myself.html should also drop the lang/en/ component (for all langauge codes; 93 instances). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:36, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

As Hasteur is unavailable, can anyone else help with this, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:10, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

(cross-posting from Phabricator and Commons)

Wikipedia Zero's made us attractive as a piracy host ( T129845). To combat music piracy I suggest setting up an audio fingerprinting system like Echoprint or AcoustID. These are open sourced (unlike Shazam or Gracenote) and supposedly easy to get running. — Dispenser 23:27, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Can someone take over for User:Wikinews Importer Bot since Misza13 seems to have disappeared about a year ago? It would be greatly appreciated. ··· 日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:27, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Note: It stopped working in June 2015, several months after Misza13 stopped editing. I'm guessing the bot was hosted on the tool server (or whatever replaced it), but not sure. No idea what the code is. ··· 日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:19, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Looks like someone with a wikitech account can login and manage the bot here if you're in the NovaServiceGroup. ··· 日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:36, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

How does one join that group? I've been meaning to step up and start doing some bot and other tool work, but just as I was familiarizing myself with the ToolServer, they dumped it and switched The New Way. I'm still working out its processes. There were lots of MiszaBot things many of us would like back.  —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  19:00, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

@ SMcCandlish: Not sure. Perhaps this page will help. ··· 日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:16, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

It looks like it may be under the purview of the admins and crats on meta. Perhaps ask there? It seems to be part of Wikimedia Labs. ··· 日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:20, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Just pinging to keep this in mind (and see if there is any new info on it). SMcCandlish ··· 日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:32, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I haven't looked into it. Swamped with other stuff.  —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:29, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the update. ··· 日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:15, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Anyone else interested in looking into this? ··· 日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:16, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

@ Nihonjoe: I am looking into this. I need to make sure Misza's code still works. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 16:13, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

@ JJMC89: Thanks! It seemed to be working up until last year some time. ··· 日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:47, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

@ JJMC89: Any update on the progress of reviewing the code? Thanks! ··· 日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:40, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

@ Nihonjoe: I'm having issues getting it running on toollabs:. I'm trying to find a kind soul to point out what's wrong with my setup. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 05:50, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate the update. I wish you luck on finding that kind soul. ··· 日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:00, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

@ Nihonjoe: BRFA filed 10:58, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks! ··· 日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:51, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Updating this: the BRFA was approved. ~ Rob ^Talk 05:53, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Awesome! Thanks to everyone who helped. ··· 日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:35, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi,

Can someone please sort the names in Category:Wives of Ottoman Sultans and Category:Daughters of Ottoman sultans so that they are arranged by first name and not by title? These people don't actually have a last name (see List of Ottoman titles and appellations and a corresponding category at Turkish wikipedia) and right now their categories are chaotic, some of them are arranged by first name and some of them by title. (I expect this to be a recurring problem as some editors might not be familiar with the fact that not everything is a surname that occurs at the end of a name...) I wanted to sort them out but there are over 100 of them.

Thanks, – Alensha  ^talk 17:12, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Alensha, can you give an example of an article that's currently sorted by a title and not a name? I looked through the first category you linked and couldn't find any, although that's almost certainly a result of my lack of experience in this topic area. APerson ( talk!) 19:28, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Behice Hanımefendi for example, should be at B, not H. ( Hanımefendi means something like "lady".) – Alensha  ^talk 04:28, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Alensha, oh, I see what you mean. The default biographical Persondata sorting goes "lastname, firstname" - so you're saying that removing the defaultsorts for the pages in those categories would work? Enterprisey ( talk!) _{(formerly APerson)} 01:41, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it would work. Thank you! – Alensha  ^talk 15:41, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Y Done Enterprisey ( talk!) _{(formerly APerson)} 02:30, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Currently there exists a log of all blocks, which can be examined. The fact that it exists and can be examined is crucially important to transparency. There exists no such log of unblock requests which links to them/lists whether or not they were granted. Therefore, there is no practical manner by which to get a big picture sense of what is going on in the realm of unblock requests; there is simply no big picture transparency. I'm concerned (may or may not be true but there's no way to know) that there is a relatively small numbers of block happy admins dealing in this realm, thereby chasing away potential editors and thereby harming Wikipedia (which appears to be having a major problem recruiting/retaining new editors). I'm asking someone with the tech abilities to A. create a page the logs all talkpage templated unblock requests and memorializes them over time B. have the log contain a link to each talkpage and info as to whether the request has been granted/denied/or is pending and C. create a bot to automatically update the log page....I simply do not have the skills to make this happen...Thank you for considering.. 68.48.241.158 ( talk) 20:49, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Redundant Just click "What links here" at Template:Unblock reviewed to see transclusions of the denied unblock request template. I can say with near certainty that no such "unblock cabal" exists, but you're welcome to spend your time going through those denials and seeking ones that you disagree with if you wish. As a side note, if an editor is requesting clemency but acknowledges that he or she did something wrong, any administrator is well within their right to decline to unblock them. If an editor truly did nothing wrong and there's been some sort of misunderstanding, then they can appeal through the UTRS to get another opinion or just use the template again. Obviously, if they get multiple "no"s, then it's pretty clear there's been no misunderstanding. ~ Rob ^Talk 04:35, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

http://www.enjoy.org.nz/ have completely redeveloped their website, breaking all the links. Could all currently links to their website please be redirected to the https://web.archive.org/web archives? Stuartyeates ( talk) 19:49, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Looks like someone else has already done this, marking this as Y Done. Enterprisey ( talk!) _{(formerly APerson)} 03:02, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

I started the question Category_talk:Battles_of_the_Middle_Ages#Catsort_by_bots.3F here but I think this is the best place for it. It does not only refer to Battles but many more topics. Is it possible to program/run a bot that properly catsorts the pages according to a general idea: Now: example, not a real case, Article "Battle of Prague" appears in the category "Category:Battles of Central Europe" under the B because it is not properly sorted under P. The correct sorting would be done on the article "Category:Battles of Central Europe|Prague".

In my latest contributions list you can see I did a couple of dozen pages manually but it's much too much (repetitive) work to correct it by hand. It seems not too hard to program, when you use "When Article starts with <Battle> and it is in a category of <Battles>... then recatsort the Article to <Battles>...|X" with X the word coming after "Battle of X", in the example "Prague". Similar for an article like "Treaties..." which now may appear under the "T" in any Treaties... category while it should be sorted like "Treaty of Versailles" -> "Cat:Treaties...|Versailles". I hope it's clear, I am not a programmer but as an amateur most of those things can be done by bots easily. Many articles are already properly sorted but also many are not (yet). Thanks and cheers, Tisquesusa ( talk) 23:07, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

@ Tisquesusa: (i don't run a bot here, so i won't help, but...) yes, it's pretty trivial to create such catsorts. BTW, WP:HotCat is very useful for manual work. -- Edgars2007 ( talk/ contribs) 20:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Shouldn't be that hard. Starting to write some code now. (Ping me here if I don't respond in a few days.) APerson ( talk!) 15:02, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

@ Tisquesusa:, I wrote some code and started a discussion on WT:MILHIST; if that discussion results in a consensus for this task, I'll file the BRFA. APerson ( talk!) 17:57, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

BRFA filed. APerson ( talk!) 19:54, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

BRFA approved, so I'll mark this as Y Done. Enterprisey ( talk!) _{(formerly APerson)} 03:07, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Most of the Wiki pages do not have all of the WikiProjects tagged on their talk pages. On the basis of their categories this could be done. If a bot can tag the missing wikiprojects this saves a hell lot of time and makes it completer than it would ever become. Example: there are over about 4000 pages in the category category:Men's volleyball players and Category:Women's volleyball players that should all be tagged with {{WikiProject Volleyball}}. Is it possible to create a bot doing that? Sander.v.Ginkel ^{( Talk)} 17:13, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it is possible. You should follow procedure described User:Yobot#WikiProject tagging or User:AnomieBot. -- Edgars2007 ( talk/ contribs) 17:44, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Might as well tag them with {{WikiProject Biography|sports-work-group=yes|sports-priority=}} if it's not already there. GoingBatty ( talk) 20:05, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for you rely Edgars2007. I made a list of all volleyball categories and made a bot request at User talk:Yobot. Sander.v.Ginkel ^{( Talk)} 16:40, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Bot request

Via this way, according to the rules of User:Yobot#WikiProject_tagging, I want to make a bot request to tagg pages with WP Volleyball. I'm a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Volleyball, and I posted the request on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Volleyball. I also posted the request on User talk:Yobot. I created a list of all volleyball categories. I checked and delete wrong and double categories. Sander.v.Ginkel ^{( Talk)} 18:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

[Removed huge list of categories, see history if you care. Anomie ⚔ 18:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)]

@ Sander.v.Ginkel: I just want to make sure I understand this list. Did you list each individual category where all pages JUST in that category (not necessarily subcategories, although those may be listed separately) should be tagged? If I'm understanding you right, I'll get to work on this soon. ~ Rob ^Talk 23:58, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi BI Rob13, great that you're are taking this. Yes I screened the categories one-by-one. But please say if I'm not correct. What I thought is that if it is once inserted by a bot, they will be for ever tagged automatically. If it's not that easy and/or if the bot only screens the categories once, I can make a small selection of the most necessary articles. Otherwise I will start doing the same for other sports in which I'm active :) Sander.v.Ginkel ^{( Talk)} 08:42, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

@ Sander.v.Ginkel: It's a one-time run, not automatic tagging forever, but listing all the categories is fine. If you want this done in the future for other projects, feel free to ping me; these sorts of tasks are fairly easy to do. Use a new heading in BOTREQ, though. It would get messy if multiple projects used this one heading. ~ Rob ^Talk 14:10, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

@ Sander.v.Ginkel: As an update on the status of this; I currently have a BRFA pending for a similar task. I plan to wait for that one to be approved before filing this one, since I'm hoping I can get a speedy approval for this task after the initial tagging one is done. If you have other projects you want tagged, now would be the time to notify them and give me category lists so I can file it all as one BRFA. ~ Rob ^Talk 18:35, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

@ BU Rob13: great work! Thank for letting me know. Over the last months I also creating a few thousands of other biographies of cyclists, football players, and gymnast. I can get at least the categories of the articles I created, and if I have time I will try to get again such a list as above again. Thanks, Sander.v.Ginkel ^{( Talk)} 18:38, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

@ Sander.v.Ginkel: If it helps, I can give you a list of all subcategories (and sub-subcategories, etc.) of any category you give me. You'd then just have to go through the list and remove categories that shouldn't receive tagging. ~ Rob ^Talk 18:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi @ BU Rob13:, that is what I did. As I'm into cycling I know the categories. I was able to create a list of I think 99% of the approproate cycling categories! See below. I will add a few gymnastics and football cats. tomorrow.

[Removed huge list of categories, see history if you care. Anomie ⚔ 18:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)]

Sander.v.Ginkel ^{( Talk)} 19:33, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

@ Sander.v.Ginkel: Please don't paste huge lists of categories into this page. Create them as subpages of your userspace and link to them. Thanks. Anomie ⚔ 18:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I can't recall. Did Yobot already did this request? -- Magioladitis ( talk) 15:46, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

@ Magioladitis: Nope, I checked and confirmed tagging was still needed when I filed Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/BU_RoBOT_13. ~ Rob ^Talk 01:17, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

@ Sander.v.Ginkel:  Done for Volleyball, or will be soon at any rate. I'm probably going to hit my "throttle limit" imposed at the BRFA with a couple hundred left to go, but I'll do those manually or just wait 24 hours. You had mentioned at one point that you had other tagging tasks. Feel free to message me on my talk page about those (after notifying the relevant projects and waiting a few days, checking the category lists manually, etc) ~ Rob ^Talk 14:14, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello all! I have a pretty straightforward WikiProject Banner request. I would like to ensure that {{ WikiProject Green Bay Packers}} is on all Green Bay Packers-related content. The tasks would be as follows:
1. Go through Category:Green Bay Packers and all of its subcategories (see category tree below) and add {{ WikiProject Green Bay Packers}} to any article that is missing one.

When adding {{ WikiProject Green Bay Packers}}:

• Add {{ WikiProjectBannerShell}} to any talk page with multiple WikiProject Banners (and any other normal talk page clean-up).
• Autoassess {{ WikiProject Green Bay Packers}} any article that is rated as a Stub by another WikiProject. Add message stating bot autoassesed as stub because another project was rated as stub. Leave unassessed if any other class rating. Do not autoassess importance.
• Add |unref=yes if there are no external links in the article. Parameter populates Category:Unreferenced Green Bay Packers articles.
• Add |needs-image=yes if there are no files in the article. Parameter populates Category:Green Bay Packers articles needing images.
• Add |needs-infobox if there is no infobox in the article. Category:Green Bay Packers articles needing infoboxes.

2. Go through Category:WikiProject Green Bay Packers and make sure that the following are assessed correctly:

• |class=category for all Category pages
• |class=template for all Template pages
• |class=project for all Wikipedia pages
• |class=file for all File pages
• |class=redirect for all Redirect pages (will be adding functionality in banner soon, will default to NA-class for now)
• |class=disambig for all Disambiguation pages (will be adding functionality in banner soon, will default to NA-class for now)

When editing a talk page for task 2, add {{ WikiProjectBannerShell}} to any talk page with multiple WikiProject Banners (and any other normal talk page clean-up).

3. Go through Category:WikiProject Green Bay Packers and add the following parameters to {{ WikiProject Green Bay Packers}} (for the articles that were not edited in task 1):

• Add |unref=yes if there are no external links in the article. Parameter populates Category:Unreferenced Green Bay Packers articles.
• Add |needs-image=yes if there are no files in the article. Parameter populates Category:Green Bay Packers articles needing images.
• Add |needs-infobox if there is no infobox in the article. Category:Green Bay Packers articles needing infoboxes.

4. Produce a linked log (article and talk page links listed side-by-side in a numerical list) for my use to see what article talk pages are edited, make it easier to assess each article manually and to confirm the bot edits.

Here are the two categories that we would be working with:

I will work through each article talk page that is edited by the bot afterward to assess the page and ensure that the maintenance parameter tags are necessary. Please let me know if you have any questions or suggestions to improve this request. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 04:33, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that all parameters in the template are only applicable to pages in the article namespace. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 04:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@ Gonzo fan2007: Before we go down this route, could you consider whether becoming a task force of WP:NFL is preferable to existing as an independent WikiProject with a single active editor? It might help from an organizational standpoint. ~ Rob ^Talk 17:13, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

@ BU Rob13: I have thought of this. My main goal though was to get through the grunt work of updating the WikiProject page, tagging/assessing the articles, and then working to expand the participant list. That way the project can be established, we will know where we stand, have an idea of where to get started and new members can focus on the articles. I have no fantasies of hundreds of contributors, but I definitely think there is value to having smaller projects focused on specific areas of interest where a subset of editors can work on improving a category of articles. We already have over 1,526 of the pages tagged and properly assessed, with about 2,100 pages in the Packers category (mostly new players from the last 5 years will need to be tagged I imagine). I will be working through the articles that the bot would edit to properly assess their importance, so if all else fails we will have a couple thousand NFL pages with solid assessments that can be easily merged into WP:NFL if the projects falters in the future (similar to the Patriots WikiProject, it seems). Just as an aside, {{ WikiProject Green Bay Packers}} now supports |class=project, |class=redirect and |class=disambig. I appreciate the response, let me know if you have any other questions. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:13, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

@ Gonzo fan2007: Alright. What are your thoughts with auto-assessing according to the criteria at User:BU RoBOT/autoassess instead of just with stubs? ~ Rob ^Talk 18:33, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

@ BU Rob13: seems reasonable enough. I am fine with it! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:06, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

@ Gonzo fan2007: Alright, so here's what I can/can't do. Let me know if this is sufficient for you.

1. I can add {{ WikiProject Green Bay Packers}} to all articles in the Category:Green Bay Packers tree if you go through the tree and list out each individual subcategory, checking for any that contain articles you would not want tagged. This is standard practice for automatic tagging tasks, since many category trees are broken and contain things they shouldn't.  Done
   1. I can do talk page cleanup.  Done
   2. I can autoassess according to the rules at User:BU RoBOT/autoassess. If you'd like to modify them in any way (i.e. adding auto-assessment for Category/Template/Project/File/Redirect/Disambig), please let me know. That's doable.  Done
   3. I'll discuss the remaining three bulletpoints below. They would be separate from the initial tagging run, due to the way I'd need to do them in AWB.  Done, handling below
2. I can appropriately assess everything but the disambiguation pages for sure. I could assess all disambiguation pages that have {{ Disambiguation}} on them.
3. See below for 3:
   1. I can not add |unref=yes according to the rules you laid out. Given the many ways that references can be placed in text (i.e. offline references), this is beyond the capability of an AWB bot and possibly all bots. I could compile a list of articles that do not have any ref tags in them, which you could manually go through.
   2. I can not add |needs-image=yes according to the rules you laid out. The big challenge here is image parameters in infoboxes and the various templates that allow you to show files without typing the "File:" in the name. This is beyond the capabilities of an AWB bot.
   3. I can add |needs-infobox=yes to all articles that don't currently have "Infobox" somewhere in the text within a template. That shouldn't have any false positives/negatives.
4. I can provide a linked log of what my bot and I edit, as requested.

If you're okay with what limitations are there, let me know, and I'll go ahead putting this together/getting approval for it. ~ Rob ^Talk 17:18, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Categories, templates, files, etc. are auto assessed. The best option is to not define a class to allow autodetection. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 17:34, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

@ BU Rob13: disregarding everything going on with User:Yobot, I will be able to reply to your questions in depth this evening or tomorrow. Thanks, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:06, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Just as a note, I checked, and Magioladitis is correct that everything you wanted assessed in #2 except the disambiguation pages would be automatically assessed appropriately by the template itself if class is left blank. ~ Rob ^Talk 20:48, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Rob, about images part - not perfect solution for AWB, but if article doesn't contain this regex: \.(gif|jpe?g|png|svg|tiff?)\s*[<|}\]], then it probably doesn't have images at all. This should be pretty trivial to check with Python, though. -- Edgars2007 ( talk/ contribs) 21:01, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I suppose. More importantly, though, I don't think tagging as needs-image automatically is generally very helpful. I usually only use that tag with articles where images should be available and don't bother for articles that likely will never have (or really need) images. i.e. A player who played in one game and spent most of his time on the practice squad probably doesn't need an image, in all reality. I guess I'll leave it up to the requester if he wants me to compile a list of articles that don't have those image tags. ~ Rob ^Talk 00:23, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Agree about usefulness. -- Edgars2007 ( talk/ contribs) 09:36, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

@ BU Rob13: I have gone through all of the sub-categories and everything looks good to go (the category tree is in my original post). I really don't expect many articles to be tagged, except in the Category:Green Bay Packers players category. I am good with everything, don't worry about the images or references parameters. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 03:59, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Doing... Sounds good. In two hours or so, I'll compile an estimate of how many articles will be tagged, then I'll submit the BRFA. ~ Rob ^Talk 04:03, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

@ Gonzo fan2007: I assume you want existing articles to be auto-assessed in the same way as the ones being newly tagged, correct? ~ Rob ^Talk 04:03, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

@ BU Rob13: Category:Unassessed Green Bay Packers articles is empty, so I don't think you will have to auto-assess any existing tagged articles. But if so, then yes that is fine! Thanks! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 04:11, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh, whoops. You're right. ~ Rob ^Talk 04:26, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

•  Done ~ Rob ^Talk 01:13, 19 June 2016 (UTC)