Wikipedia:Bot requests

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

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

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

Alternatives to bot requests

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


Please add your bot requests to the bottom of this page.
Make a new request
# Bot request Status 💬 👥 🙋 Last editor 🕒 (UTC) 🤖 Last botop editor 🕒 (UTC)
1 List-defined references format 27 8 DreamRimmer 2025-12-29 12:11 DreamRimmer 2025-12-29 12:11
2 Decap "External Links" eraser Undone 9 5 William Avery 2026-01-14 10:19 William Avery 2026-01-14 10:19
3 Disambiguate all internal links  Not done 8 6 DreamRimmer 2025-12-30 15:36 DreamRimmer 2025-12-30 15:36
4 Citation source replacement with {{Cite Köppen-Geiger cc 2007}} 5 4 ActivelyDisinterested 2026-01-17 20:26 Usernamekiran 2025-11-21 13:40
5 Add a WikiProject banner to articles in a category 7 4 Kingsacrificer 2025-12-30 18:48 Legoktm 2025-12-30 17:16
6 WikiCup submissions bot BRFA filed 5 3 Tenshi Hinanawi 2025-12-21 20:30 Tenshi Hinanawi 2025-12-21 20:30
7 Web scrapping 4 3 Headbomb 2026-01-03 05:00 Headbomb 2026-01-03 05:00
8 Bot to add non-breaking spaces 5 3 Anomie 2025-12-31 16:42 Anomie 2025-12-31 16:42
9 Redirects related to those nominated at RfD BRFA filed 10 2 Thryduulf 2025-12-31 20:05 GalStar 2025-07-02 20:56
10 Bot to remove false positive AI-generated tags 4 3 Primefac 2026-01-04 13:47 Primefac 2026-01-04 13:47
11 Bot to revert improper use of certain inline sources on BLP articles 4 4 Lee Vilenski 2026-01-04 17:17 Headbomb 2026-01-04 17:05
12 Update broken Svenska Dagbladet archive URLs 3 2 Saftgurka 2026-01-09 08:22 DreamRimmer 2026-01-08 15:33
13 List of Wikipedians by non-automated/manual edits 1 1 HKLionel 2026-01-09 12:58
14 Website to article mass redirect creation 10 5 Primefac 2026-01-17 11:48 Primefac 2026-01-17 11:48
15 Removing links to copyvio site 15 7 LaundryPizza03 2026-01-24 20:55 Tenshi Hinanawi 2026-01-15 01:19
16 Broadcasting magazine citation cleanup request 8 4 Mach61 2026-01-22 07:03 Headbomb 2026-01-21 03:27
17 Move links clean up request 2 2 Anomie 2026-01-19 00:01 Anomie 2026-01-19 00:01
18 Unnecessary disambiguations 11 6 TenPoundHammer 2026-01-21 00:46 Qwerfjkl 2026-01-20 22:28
19 Automatically add Template:AI-retrieved source 2 2 Chrs 2026-01-20 02:46
20 Infobox links to football statistics 1 1 BasicWriting 2026-01-25 01:18
21 Remove leftover substitutions of Template:Blocked user BRFA filed 3 2 Vanderwaalforces 2026-01-29 14:40 Vanderwaalforces 2026-01-29 14:40
22 UTM Bot Request 4 2 SeaDragon1 2026-01-29 14:24 Vanderwaalforces 2026-01-29 12:55
23 Infobox settlement country label easter egg/overlink delinking 2 2 Qwerfjkl 2026-01-28 22:40 Qwerfjkl 2026-01-28 22:40
Legend
  • In the last hour
  • In the last day
  • In the last week
  • In the last month
  • More than one month
Manual settings
When exceptions occur,
please check the setting first.

List-defined references format

[edit]

Proposing a bot that replaces {{reflist|refs= ... }} with <references> ... </references>

The reason is that there are issues with list-defined references that are based on the template reflist. The VisualEditor can't parse references (and more broadly HTML tags) that are inside templates. This is apparently a design choice, it has been like this for around 10 years and isn't going to change. It means that in the VisualEditor, list-defined references that are within a reflist template can't be modified, and are not displayed (you instead get the message "This reference is defined in a template or other generated block, and for now can only be previewed in source mode"). However, the parsing works with list-defined references that use the <references> template.

There was a long discussion on this a few months ago, here of one of the paragraphs of the closing comment:

"There was 2:1 support in favor of deprecating {{reflist|refs=}} and replacing existing instances. I updated the linked documentation pages to do so. Someone will need to write a bot and follow the procedure at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval. At least one editor had concerns about bots making incorrect edits. There was also discussion of whether or not such changes should be bot-flagged so they don't show up on watchlists, and whether it should be required that other changes be made at the same time. The bot approval process is designed to take these concerns into account and balance them against the proposed benefits; that would be the place to raise them. (It might be helpful if whoever makes the requests notifies the editors who participated in this discussion.)"

Doing this change wasn't expected to significantly impact reference lists rendering, besides making them more VisualEditor-friendly. But there can be instances where the template reflist is used with additional arguments, in which case it may be good to double-check that the rendering remains approximately the same when using <references>. Also note that what is inside "..." in {{reflist|refs= ... }} can contain nested templates, so the parsing required to implement the bot could potentially be tricky. Here is an example of what this kind of edit looks like. If I had to guess, I would say that around 5% of Wikipedia articles would be affected. Alenoach (talk) 04:18, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"There was 2:1 support in favor of deprecating {{reflist|refs=}} and replacing existing instances"
I don't see that at all in the discussion, I see closer to 1:1 (3 oppose, 3 support). {{Reflist}} is used on virtually all articles (6.3M pages). A decision letting a bot run on millions of articles (even 5% of that would be 315K pages) needs a much, much stronger consensus than an even split between 6 people. Especially when the saner solution seems to fix VE. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:03, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A naive search gives 55,000 articles. A slightly more complex search times out at 56,500. — Qwerfjkltalk 12:19, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And let's face it, VE is probably never going to get fixed. The devs who might are too busy working on shiny new features instead. But I do agree that this really should have an RFC at WP:VPR (and advertised on WP:CENT) before a BRFA, the lightly attended RFC linked is too small to prevent people freaking out over "local consensus". I'd also recommend recruiting the people who participated the linked RFC to draft a strong statement for the new one, pre-addressing the many misconceptions already seen in the linked RFC, rather than jumping straight to a half-baked RFC that will drown in those misconceptions. Anomie 15:06, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The change would be just for when the "refs" parameter is used. Maybe one additional safety precaution would be to apply the change only when "refs" is the only parameter to the template {{reflist}}. That would likely still cover most of the instances of the problem, and leave the more tricky cases where reflist has a combinations of parameters.
In the discussion, the initial discussion about discouraging list-defined references did not get consensus, but the later discussion about specifically replacing {{reflist|refs= ... }} did get much more support. The main objection was from Gawaon about the flexibility of {{reflist}} to have parameters like colwidth, but he eventually agreed with the proposal, and I guess limiting the change to when only the parameter "refs" is used would address his remaining concern.
Is it worth people's time to have an advertised RFC about on this technical topic? If option 1 is not changing anything, should option 2 be about changing if "refs" is the only parameter, or changing if "refs" is among the parameter to {{reflist}}? Alenoach (talk) 15:25, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is it worth people's time to have an advertised RFC about on this technical topic? Yes, because it will save a lot of time later where people would otherwise complain about "local consensus" and that they weren't consulted. Anomie 15:46, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure there was no consensus whatsoever to have all instances of {{reflist}} replaced. The discussion was specifically about the refs= parameter. Gawaon (talk) 17:10, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The monthly parameter usage report for Template:Reflist suggests that there are 183,000 articles using |refs=. It seems like any sort of replacement would need to start with a well-advertised RFC that successfully deprecated |refs=. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:39, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That has already happened, see the closing comment of the linked discussion. Now it just needs to be implemented. Gawaon (talk) 06:51, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. I wonder what explains the difference with the 55,000 returned by Qwerfjkl's search. Alenoach (talk) 02:35, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note there's now a discussion opened at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Bot to make list-defined references editable with the VisualEditor. Anomie 11:30, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion was automatically archived by a bot. The consensus was clear, although there hasn't been a formal closure message. Alenoach (talk) 17:32, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Alenoach: If I am reading the discussion correctly, the only change required is to replace {{reflist|refs= ... }} with <references> ... </references> when the reflist template has only one parameter named refs. I am available and can file a BRFA. – DreamRimmer 17:08, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming most of the time there is only the refs parameter and it would be the simplest option. But if there is a safe replacement for additional parameters, which does not affect the rendering, it would be even better, and the importance of being able to handle additional parameters depends on how many occurrences there are. This link provided by Jonesey95 suggests that the most common parameter besides refs is group, for which <references> has a direct equivalent (although refs and group probably often don't occur together, it's likely worth handling if not too complex). The bot is not required to be exhaustive, and other parameters seem rare. I guess that the rest can be ignored or changed manually if it's more convenient.
The bot should however not change anything if the reflist has no refs parameter (some people insisted for doing that as well, and it would make sense, but that was not the primary topic of the RFC and it's unclear whether there would be consensus). Alenoach (talk) 18:20, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Uses with |1=2 or |1=30em (with or without the explicit 1=) or |colwidth=30em should be safe to ignore those parameters, unless there are 10 or fewer references in the article. Uses with |1=1 (or probably things like |1=100% or |colwidth=100%) should be safe to replace with <references responsive=0 />. Other values for those parameters would likely result in a change in rendering. at least those that are valid for CSS column-count or column-width; if someone did something like |colwidth=bogus we could probably go with <references responsive=0 />.
Certain values of |group= (upper-alpha, upper-roman, lower-alpha, lower-greek, lower-roman) will currently result in different rendering. It would be possible to work around this, either by adding some rules to MediaWiki:Common.css or some TemplateStyles stylesheet we'd include into pages when <references group="one-of-those" /> is used.
|liststyle= with one of those values will almost always result in changed rendering, unless someone is doing something redundant like {{reflist|group=lower-alpha|liststyle=lower-alpha}}.
Any other parameters should be safe to ignore, as the above are all I see used by {{reflist}}. Anomie 23:15, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Anomie: Can you help me with the final replacements? Your explanation was clear, but I want to be sure because I have not worked with these much and I want to avoid causing any rendering issues, so I would appreciate it if you could list the replacements to make. – DreamRimmer 16:26, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's not exactly a "list of replacements" to make, at least not to my way of thinking. I'd think about it in terms of looking at the parameters to the {{reflist}} and deciding what to do based on that, more or less as I described. Anomie 17:40, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I am filing a BRFA to process the pages where the reflist has only the refs parameter. Once that is complete, I will file another BRFA to fix the additional parameters as per your suggested fix. – DreamRimmer 15:18, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decap "External Links"

[edit]

Decap "External Links" to "External links". Here is the search code (insource:/==External Links==/) I was just going to fix them with JWB but there are quite a lot. At least 7,900, possibly more. Here is the code with different spacing as well (insource:/== External Links ==/) That will generate a different set of results that also need fixing. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 00:29, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WikiOriginal-9, 16,000 (regex times out). — Qwerfjkltalk 08:05, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Though this seems fairly trivial, so maybe just add to RegExTypoFix and forget about it? — Qwerfjkltalk 08:06, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
eraser Undone at WP:AWB/T. phuzion (talk) 02:24, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Phuzion: This new rule will not get the job done. As explained at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Typos#Usage, most of the tools that use the typo list do not run the rules on section headings. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:47, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch! Given that AWB and other tools won't actually utilize this rule, do you think it's worth removing from the RegExTypoFix list? I've marked the task as undone for now, as well. phuzion (talk) 12:38, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Phuzion: Yes, I've removed it. -- John of Reading (talk) 13:35, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! phuzion (talk) 13:38, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of points:
  1. If we limit the search to the article space, i.e. [1], the haul is much less impressive.
  2. I regularly use a prefix in the search and cycle through the alphabet to correct these errors, and the other MOS:HEAD errors that are frequently present on those pages. i..e use a search like this.
So by all means do something to make it easier to fix MOS:HEAD errors in general, but please don't remove this handy signpost for where they can be found. William Avery (talk) 10:19, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Request: Disambiguate all internal links to Akpanta (which currently redirects) and replace them with Akpanta, since the page now refers to a specific event. — NatHaddan NatHaddan (talk) NatHaddan (talk) 22:24, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTBROKEN probably applies to these 27 links. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:06, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Probably is broken though. Why would the name not lead to the actual place, Akpanta, Nigeria? Gonnym (talk) 09:32, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Jonesey95, I suppose this would be fine if the plan was to then change the target of Akpanta to Akpanta, Nigeria. — Qwerfjkltalk 11:23, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even then, that would be something for WP:AWBREQ since there is only 26 links pointing to Akpanta. Tenshi! (Talk page) 12:25, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The original article for Akpanta have be move to new name Akpanta killings which refer to specific event that happened in Akpanta. It's the cause of the redirect that's pointed to Akpanta killings instead of Akpanta, Nigeria Akpanta, Nigeria is article about the geographic region itself. NatHaddan (talk) 13:36, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can fix the redirects manually if you want to. Meanwhile, please stop using LLMs to generate article content. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:07, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done for the bot. Noting that this was not a suitable task for a bot and that the requester is now banned indefinitely. – DreamRimmer 15:36, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Citation source replacement with {{Cite Köppen-Geiger cc 2007}}

[edit]

Hundreds (thousands?) of mountain articles use as a reference a paper titled "Updated world map of the Köppen-Geiger climate classification" that was published in 2007 in Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, Volume 11, Issue 5. Typically these use {{Cite journal}} passing in the appropriate values. However, the values were not consistently applied and so we have generated references that do not provide all the necessary information each time it's used nor is the information as complete as it could be. Thus, I created the template to provide complete information about the source reference so that it's consistent across Wikipedia. I then searched for "Updated world map of the Köppen-Geiger" to find articles using this reference source and started replacing the citation source text with <ref name=KGcc2007>{{Cite Köppen-Geiger cc 2007}}</ref>. The search found other articles on rivers and human settlements also using this source reference. At this point, I have manually edited over 360 pages to make this change, the high majority being mountain articles but also a few articles about rivers and populated places. The search currently returns over 2800 results. So at this point I think it would be good if a bot could automate this edit to articles using this source reference. Typically in mountain articles, the citation is in a "Climate" section which usually begins with the sentence "Based on the [[Koppen climate classification]],". Other times it's in the lead section. Often the citation is using a named reference, typically "Peel" for the first author, although the paper does have three authors, which is why I chose to use KGcc2007 rather than Peel. Perhaps the reference could be named a bit different to denote it was a bot edit, e.g. <ref name=KGcc2007be>. I have been using "{{Cite Köppen-Geiger cc 2007}}" as the edit summary. RedWolf (talk) 21:00, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is the need to mass replace all of these citations with this template? Tenshi! (Talk page) 13:52, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
pinging RedWolf —usernamekiran (talk) 13:40, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to what I already stated above, many of the raw source references are just using ISSN with a large range which if clicked would return a page with over 13,000 results (i.e. ISSN 1027-4606); I don't understand why editors gave a huge range. The template adds the DOI and BIBCODE as well as an archive link so there are direct links to the source paper. All uses of this source will have consistent and basically complete information. As well it provides all the other benefits with using a template (e.g. what links here for usage count). RedWolf (talk) 17:09, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Using this template causes a no target error (see Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors)) when used in conjunction with short form references. Lake Nipisso as an example[2]. This could be avoided by whitelisting the template (which can be requested at Module talk:Footnotes), but that won't work as long as you're using #invoke for the cite (which short form refs just don't support). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:26, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Add a WikiProject banner to articles in a category

[edit]

All articles in this category Category:Books with missing cover should have Template:WikiProject Books banner in their talk page. If not present, the script should add it. It should also add the 'needs-infobox-cover=yes' flag to this banner either way.

It will be a bot command acting on around 1700 articles. Kingsacrificer (talk) 09:37, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I hadn't seen you had also posted here. Would this not be more suitable for an WP:AWB run? Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:10, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't used this before. How do you suggest I begin? Or should I make a request there instead? Kingsacrificer (talk) 17:24, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
AWB is a tool people can use to do lots of similar edits across lots of articles. This seems like a very suitable task for this. I'd recommend posting at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks and someone will probably pick it up. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:20, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting that the related discussion ended with no action taken.
Had I seen this before that discussion started, I would have probably discouraged posting to AWB; unless someone is really motivated, editing tasks involving 500+ edits are usually easier for a bot to deal with since it doesn't have to click "save" that many times. Primefac (talk) 14:54, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is a good category to use for automated tagging. The Books WikiProject scope is non-fiction books, but the category contains plenty of articles that would be out of scope, like novels. My quick SQL shows there are 1,178 non-Books tagged articles, but 607 of those are already in the Novels project. Legoktm (talk) 17:16, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we discussed this and decided that it is not the right way. Kingsacrificer (talk) 18:48, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup submissions bot

[edit]

Hi, I'm organizing the 2026 WikiCup and would like to know if it is possible to code a bot that can help out with setting up WikiCup contestants' submission pages. Specifically, automating the following tasks:

User:LivingBot (maintained by @Jarry1250) already records WikiCup scores, but WikiCup judges still have to create the users' submission pages manually. If this is feasible, the bot would have to run from January 1 to October 31 of each year, but the trial should preferably take place before January 1, 2026 (or wait until after that date). – Epicgenius (talk) 17:03, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it would be possible. I'm willing to code a bot for this. Tenshi! (Talk page) 17:24, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'd really appreciate it. Accessedgrant (Epicgenius mobile alt) (talk) 18:09, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Coding... Tenshi! (Talk page) 19:09, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
BRFA filed Tenshi! (Talk page) 20:30, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Y Done I believe this should have been marked as done since BRFA was approved already. —Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:27, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Web scrapping

[edit]

Not sure a bot is best suited for this, but I'd like some form of web scrapper that would crawl this list https://www.elsevier.com/products/journals?query=&page=1&accessType=open-access&sortBy=relevance

And fetch the list of OA journals from Elsevier

  • AACE Clinical Case Reports
  • AACE Endocrinology and Diabetes
  • AI Open
  • AI Thermal Fluids

alongside a sample DOI from the journal, e.g.

  • AACE Clinical Case Reports (10.1016/j.aace.2024.11.008)
  • AACE Endocrinology and Diabetes (10.1016/j.aed.2025.12.012)
  • AI Open (10.1016/j.aiopen.2025.01.002)
  • AI Thermal Fluids (10.1016/j.aitf.2025.100024)

....


Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:09, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This website loads its content on the client-side using JavaScript, which means scraping would require a browser automation tool such as Selenium, and would likely fail on many pages due to Cloudflare and other anti-bot protections. – DreamRimmer 15:07, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Headbomb,
Qwerfjkltalk 20:33, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks this will be very helpful. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:00, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Bot to add non-breaking spaces

[edit]

Something I've noticed is that many articles have measurements, but the spaces between the value and unit isn't non-breaking (these should be implemented via & nbsp;). To fix this, I thought a bot would be useful to add non-breaking spaces where appropriate and can easily be run from the bot user page (something I've noticed you can do with other bots).

For a name, I thought NBSPBot would be appropriate (?).

Does this seem like a good idea for a bot? Thanks, TwoGamer1000 13:50, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not technically a cosmetic edit, since there are places where an nsbp would keep the text from wrapping, but it is awfully close. I am also somewhat concerned about CONTEXT issues, in that there are likely plenty of places where an nbsp shouldn't need to be added. There would need to be a consensus. I would also note that MOS:NBSP does not say that spaces must be used, just that they are desirable (though I feel like I've seen more forceful language in the maths/science areas I hang out in. I guess my point is that it's not something as a BAG I would decline outright, but I'd really want to see a strong consensus that this is both needed and can be done effectively. Primefac (talk) 14:27, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Thanks, TwoGamer1000 14:39, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:TwoGamer1000, please remove the <br /> tags from your signature, per WP:SIGAPP. It makes for excess vertical whitespace in talk pages. Anomie 16:42, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it may be worth reviewing past BRFAs such as Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 47 and Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Plasticbot. Anomie 16:42, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Per the initial discussion at Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion#Avoided double redirects of nominated redirects I believe there is consensus for an ongoing bot task that does the following:

  • Looks at each redirect nominated at RfD
  • Determines whether there are any other redirects, in any namespace, that meet one or more of the following criteria:
    • Are marked as an avoided-double redirect of a nominated redirect
    • Are redirects to the nominated redirect
    • Redirect to the same target as the nominated redirect and
      • Differ only in the presence or absence of diacritics, and/or
      • Differ only in case
  • If the bot finds any redirects that match and which are not currently nominated at RfD, then it should post a message in the discussion along the lines of:
    • Bot note: {{noredirect|Foo Smith}} (talk · links · history · stats) is an avoided double redirect of "Foo Jones"
    • Bot note: {{noredirect|Foo smith}} (talk · links · history · stats) is a redirect to the same target as "Foo Smith"
The bot should not take any actions other than leaving the note, the goal is simply to make human editors aware that these redirects exist.

I don't know how frequently the bot should run, but it should probably wait at least 15 minutes after a nomination before checking or editing so as not to get into edit conflicts or complications as discussions of multiple redirects are often nominated individually and then the discussions manually combined. Thryduulf (talk) 13:11, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a strong consensus; if there are no objections in the next day or so, I'll file a BRFA. In the meantime I'll code up the bot. GalStar (talk) 17:56, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've just thought of a third case to check for: differences only in hyphenation/dashes. Thryduulf (talk) 21:38, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually that's generalisable to differences only in punctuation. Thryduulf (talk) Thryduulf (talk) 03:40, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@GalStar is there any update on this? Thryduulf (talk) 20:01, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still working on it. I'm still getting some of the underlying tooling working, but I should be done soon. GalStar (talk) 16:40, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Thryduulf (talk) 16:50, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone is wondering, I'm currently porting my code to toolforge, so it can run continuously, and without the unreliability of my home network. This is taking longer than I expected however. GalStar (talk) 17:17, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
BRFA filed GalStar (talk) (contribs) 20:56, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Restored from Archive 87. The BRFA mentioned above (Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/GraphBot 2) was abandoned before a working bot was written so the task remains outstanding. Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion#Avoided double redirects of nominated redirects received no objections to my reinstating this request. Thryduulf (talk) 20:05, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bot to remove false positive AI-generated tags

[edit]

I've developed and tested a methodology to identify likely false positive {{AI-generated}} tags on articles by comparing article text to pre-June 2023 revisions (before widespread LLM use). If the current text is ≥90% similar to the historical version, the tag is almost certainly erroneous.

Test results: In a sample of 100 tagged articles, 6 qualified for removal (text essentially unchanged since mid-2023).

Working code: I created a Python/pywikibot script - handles both article-level and section-level tags, normalizes text for comparison.

I was denied at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AITagReviewBot due to lack of editing experience. Seeking an established bot operator interested in running this task. Happy to share code and methodology.

(Note that I created a Wiki account, Cheetah4640, for managing the bot, but since I can't create the bot myself, I would rather remain logged out) ~2026-51343 (talk) 15:06, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably take this idea to WP:Village pump (proposals) to see if the community agrees with your idea before asking someone to run the bot for you. Anomie 16:32, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have done that ~2026-51343 (talk) 16:47, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Link to discussion at WT:AIC. Primefac (talk) 13:47, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Bot to revert improper use of certain inline sources on BLP articles

[edit]

Full disclosure, I mentioned this issue at the Teahouse first, where I was requested to bring the issue to the RSN. I was told there that we currently have no technical way to handle what is needed (see below).

Recently I've come across a batch of articles improperly using primary (see WP:BLPPRIMARY) or unreliable sources like classmates.com, familysearch.org and imdb.com to cite personal details, (DOB, place of birth, etc.) about living people with imdb the most frequently appearing. None of these sources can be considered reliable or appropriate for a BLP and imdb is even listed at the perennial sources page as unreliable, (though it's noted as acceptable to be added to external links sections). I think a bot that finds a certain unreliable or primary source in an article tagged as a BLP should be able to remove the improper citation and add a {{fact}} tag at a minimum, with an edit summary noting removal of improper primary source or unreliable source. The issue with imdb is especially egregious, as it is constantly being added as an inline citation to BLPs in ways that it explicitly should not be. We need a better way to manage BLP sourcing besides people just manually removing common bad citations when they happen to see them. Thoughts? - The literary leader of the age 14:31, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Seems too WP:CONTEXTBOT to me to be reliable as a bot task. If you want to pursue this, WP:Village pump (proposals) is probably the place to seek consensus, maybe first with a stop at WP:Village pump (idea lab) to figure out how to best present it. Anomie 14:48, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The issue with the bot-removal of a source is that while a bad source was used, it still was the source, and may be required for attribution purposes. And it's also very possible some sections of those sites are more reliable, even reliable enough, to be used in a BLP.
I have no opinion on whether or not this task should be done, I'm just listing a concern that the community should take into account when debating the issue. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:05, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Do we already have a bot that tags these BLP references? To me that seems like a good place to start. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 17:17, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Update broken Svenska Dagbladet archive URLs

[edit]

Svenska Dagbladet has recently changed the URL structure of its historical newspaper archive, causing many archive links on Wikipedia to break.

Old format (broken):

  • https://www.svd.se/arkiv/YYYY-MM-DD/PAGE/SVD - for example: https://www.svd.se/arkiv/1960-08-17/9/SVD

New format:

  • https://www.svd.se/arkiv/YYYY-MM-DD/SVNY/PAGE - for example: https://www.svd.se/arkiv/1960-08-17/SVNY/9

I request a bot run to automatically update all affected links in articles to the new format so that the archive references become functional again. Saftgurka (talk) 15:17, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:URLREQ can help with this. – DreamRimmer 15:33, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll try asking there. Saftgurka (talk) 08:22, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

List of Wikipedians by non-automated/manual edits

[edit]
List of Wikipedians by non-automated edits
There are various lists of Wikipedians by edit count and related stats. One that I'd be interested to see would be Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by non-automated edit count. I think the presence of such a list might be a small help re Editcountitis, as it'd recognize/incentivize editors whose edit count has not been juiced through tons of (typically low-value) automated edits.

Would anyone be interested in coding a bot to populate and maintain such a page? Courtesy pinging Legoktm and 0xDeadbeef, who run the bot that updates the overall edit count list, in case either of you might be up for it. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 20:48, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How is non-automated edit vs automated edit defined? Legoktm (talk) 22:40, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This thing knows. Folly Mox (talk) 22:54, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, it's controlled by MediaWiki:XTools-AutoEdits.json. Legoktm (talk) 23:07, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like we need three lists: total, manual and (semi-)automated. Or possibly two: manual and (semi-)automated. The negative/subtraction name "by non-automated edit count" rather should be a positive name "by manual edit count". I'm not convinced automated edits are typically low-value, anyway, manual edits often have the same characteristics. Plus it's so hard to tell since automation can take many forms that are impossible to track. -- GreenC 03:58, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

XTools doesn't distinguish between semi-automated and automated edits, so if we're using their definitions, we won't either, at least to start. I'm guessing that there may be some blurriness that would make such a distinction tricky.
"manual edit count" sounds fine for the page name.
Regarding your other points, we're never going to come up with a perfect measure of editor contributions. This list will need a caveat lector just like the other — the goal is just to provide another angle that perhaps incrementally reduces the incentive to game the system. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 05:03, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above request, transcluded from WP:Bot requests/Archive 85#List of Wikipedians by non-automated edits, expired after a day in July 2023. Sdkb has agreed that it would be a good idea to request this again. List of Wikipedians by manual edits could be an alternative title and is the one currently linked to in TM:Wikipediholism, which is how I discovered this potentially interesting statistical compilation. Cheers, HKLionel TALK 12:58, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Website to article mass redirect creation

[edit]

Many articles on Wikipedia have a Website listed in their infobox and/or as an external link. I was thinking it would be good to have redirects from websites which do not have their own pages to articles on subjects that are hosted on said websites. Many popular articles already have such redirects, such as google.com -> Google Search, however there are a plethora more that do not. Due to the massive scope of this, would it at least be possible to:

  • Go through all articles with a value for Website in its infobox
    • There are different types of infoboxes which all have Website fields; I don't know if that would be a problem or not...
  • Obtain the domain/URL from the listed Website, removing the www and HTTP protocol (e.g. https://www.example.com would become example.com), stopping if it is invalid
    • Some infoboxes link the Website (e.g. Example Official Website), so it would have to get the URL rather than the text somehow (Sorry that I don't know how this works )
  • Create a redirect from that domain to the article (if a page named the domain doesn't already exist) with these redirect categories:
    {{Redirect category shell|
    {{R from domain name}}
    {{R unprintworthy}}
    }}
    
    • For pages with paths (e.g. example.com/page; or would the inclusion of these be excessive?), {{R from URL}} would be used in place of {{R from domain name}}

I initially attempted to do this manually, but quickly realized the sheer scale at which this would need to be done. I don't know if this is a task better suited for AutoWikiBrowser, userscripts, related WikiProjects, or manual editing (though I risk catching editcountitis)... but I think it would be helpful to have these redirects, as it seems searching for some websites on Wikipedia will not even show their relevant articles in the search results. I don't have a readymade list, but I have a feeling this would involve a lot of pages. I'll attempt to compile a list of these pages if needed. Does anyone know how to best do this? Thanks! Some helpful person (talk) 20:54, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like something that should be raised at WP:VPR first, to see if the community in general thinks that having a redirect for every domain name is something we even want. Anomie 23:24, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah... I don't see this happening, but I could be wrong; demonstrating consensus is a must for this sort of ask/task. Primefac (talk) 00:10, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I could see this being done for current domains redirects, but i doubt the mass creation of domain redirects would be supported, unless strongly curtailed by something like 'top 100 most popular websites' or something. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:19, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, okay. Didn't realize this would require consensus. I only skimmed through the policies on mass editing, but the mass page creation section of the editing policy gave me the impression that wasn't required for redirects... though I suppose creating redirects for every single website is a little different than creating redirects for certain alternative names. I just thought it made sense to be able to search for a website domain and immediately find the relevant article. I guess I'll stick to adding them on a case-by-case basis for now, as I don't know if I could convincingly pitch it to others in the face of more important things. Some helpful person (talk) 00:38, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well, redirects aren't covered by MASSCREATION specifically, but they are still subject to BOTPOL overall, which does require consensus for any bot task. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:43, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I probably should have read the policies a little closer before proposing this... but I don't suppose this means I could sit down and create all of these redirects manually either? Some helpful person (talk) 00:56, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Some helpful person, that would be a bad idea. — Qwerfjkltalk 16:06, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Okay then. I guess I got a little carried away... Some helpful person (talk) 04:13, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing wrong with that, it's good to see folk interested in Wikipedia, and new ideas are always welcome (even if they aren't implemented). Primefac (talk) 11:48, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

worldradiohistory.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:frSpamcheckblacklist hitsMER-C X-wikigs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: searchmeta • Domain: domaintoolsAboutUs.com
Originally requested by LaundryPizza03 at WP:AWBREQ, but Sophisticatedevening suggested it would be easier for a bot. There are 28,012 links to this site in sources in mainspace [3]. This also turns up 1,963 more. I'm not fully sure about the feasibility of this with a bot as I don't know much on the technical side, but I thought it was worth forwarding this here if a bot could knock out at least some of these. In line with the previous chakoteya cite removal, if this is the only citation it should be removed and replaced with a {{cn}}. Courtesy ping to LuniZunie and also see m:Talk:Spam blacklist#worldradiohistory.com. HurricaneZetaC 01:03, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Given I am an editor in the topic fields in question (WP:TVS and WP:WPRS) I can provide some assistance.
The vast majority of these links will inevitably be going to Broadcasting magazine (which underwent multiple name changes over the years and is now the website Broadcasting & Cable) or to the Broadcasting yearbooks. Sammi Brie has been utilizing a ProQuest media database she has access to (but regrettably is not in TWL, else I would be using the database myself) to insert replacement tags in the id= fields. My thought is such a bot command would have to be staged and deal with those instances right off the bat. Also of note @HurricaneZeta there's also americanradiohistory.com here and here and, to a much lesser extent, davidgleason.com here and here. Nathan Obral • he/him/🦝 • tc12:47, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
One thing I would strongly suggest (and I know Sammi Brie would agree) is that the refs should not be junked altogether but to simply have the URLs stripped. The refs can be converted into ones that either have a ProQuest ID tag or are offline. Very rarely are they just bare urls. I do not know if that makes the bot command more complex or simple. Nathan Obral • he/him/🦝 • tc13:10, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I will note that...
  • There are some cases in which the publication is out of copyright, e.g. early years of Television Digest pre-1963 without a copyright notice, or where the author/publisher has contributed the work to WRH, e.g. Duncan's American Radio. These are probably legitimate.
  • Several years ago, in my older GAs and FAs, I overbuilt ProQuest IDs onto WRH references to Broadcasting except in a handful of cases. (I recall some issues in the 1970s that ProQuest did not have.) This was done very deliberately to allow the WRH URLs to be removed at a later time.
    • Unlike Chakoteya, the problem is not reliability of the publications (headlined by a series of broadcasting and music industry trades — Broadcasting (& Cable), Radio & Records, etc.) but their availability online.
  • Some of these sources are unfortunately not available via other means. And even ProQuest poses a problem for all editors I know of but two. I also strongly strongly encourage getting TWL to subscribe to the ProQuest collection Entertainment Industry Magazine Archive. It is not in TWL's ProQuest offerings at present (I have different, institutional access), and obtaining it would help me point editors to legitimate ways to link to Broadcasting and in some cases (their year range is unfortunately fairly limited) Radio & Records. As a result, there are only two people I know of who can access the ProQuest IDs included in many of my articles (the other is Flip Format) and probably hundreds of ProQuest IDs that not even most Wikipedia editors can open.
What I don't want is for innocent editors—who right now have no other way of accessing many of these sources—and their pages to be caught up in this by removing references wholesale from articles. I'd much prefer something like Special:Diff/1158839954 where the references remain intact without WRH links. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 17:14, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
To second Sammi Brie, I object to having a bot simply purge any and all refs tied to WRH outright. That type of request is incredibly punitive and potentially unnecessary. Broadcasting magazine itself is not a copyvio (and is actually a rather important trade magazine that covered much of the history of radio and television), but the links to it hosted by WRH are a gray area. A case can be made for removing the URLs on all Broadcasting refs linked to WRH (and also those of Radio & Records and Billboard) and converting the refs to {{Cite magazine}} format, not dissimilar to what Mikeblas was doing in the above example. At the time, I objected to Mike's rationale, but over two years later can understand the nuance of it now, which also is a sincere apology to Mike on my end.
Given how different my request is from the OP, I would be willing to make a bot request of my own if that would be appropriate. Nathan Obral • he/him/🦝 • tc19:38, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for pinging me, and thank you for your apology.
I'd love to see a bot take care of these links once and for all. Removing the URLs while leaving behind the rest of the "offline" reference information is compeltely feasible.
I'm made uncomfortable by some of the generalizations here, though. There are lots of different magaiznes scanned at these sites, and I don't think there's any majority -- particularly not a "vast" one.
I see there's talk about blacklisting the site m:Talk:Spam_blacklist#worldradiohistory.com. Is there a reason that it shouldn't be blacklisted at Wikipedia:Spam blacklist instead (or as well)?
Finally, the claims that certain copies of material are or are not copyvio have to be made very carefully and usually can't be easily done. Linking to copyvio material makes the Wikipedia project vulnerable, and linking to external material needs to be done very carefully. (This is all made clear in Wikipedia policy.) -- mikeblas (talk) 01:09, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If it is listed at the meta Spam blacklist, it would apply to every Wikimedia wiki, making listing at the local page redundant. Tenshi! (Talk page) 01:19, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Mikeblas: did you create a bot at all for those tasks? I'm trying to remember if you had or not. I'm sorry, brain fail on my end... it had been over two years and I thought you had constructed something. If so I would like to talk with you because I have been mulling multiple proposals on maintenance-related things. Nathan Obral • he/him/🦝 • tc02:19, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a Wikipedia bot. But I do have some C# code that parses things up and removes the links. It converts {{cite web}} to {{cite magazine}}, then renames the parameters that have to be fixed up. -- mikeblas (talk) 02:57, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh I gotcha, it makes sense. I based my below proposal off of what you had done prior. :) One of these days I need to implement C# code on my end if but to make some tasks easier. Nathan Obral • he/him/🦝 • tc04:03, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
One reason I link to worldradiohistory.com is because sometimes they're the only source of information for chart positions, specifically those of Radio & Records and RPM. Our previous source for RPM positions was flaky and incomplete, meaning about half of 1989 and a few positions from 1993 were missing entirely. I feel like wholesale removing links to worldradiohistory would do more harm than good. If there are concerns about copyvio, then they should be handled case by case. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 17:19, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused by your comment. Radio & Records and RPM are sources, but worldradiohistory is not. -- mikeblas (talk) 23:48, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean is that in at least a few cases, worldradiohistory is the only place I can find that information in the first place. The Radio & Records Canada Country charts used to be on WP:BADCHARTS due to a lack of an accessible archive, but the existence of worldradiohistory was enough to get them taken off WP:BADCHARTS. How else can the positions be cited if not through worldradiohistory? Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 01:27, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The positions can be cited using the source publication itself. -- mikeblas (talk) 17:53, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think the point here is that you can use a pirate site to access a citation you couldn't obtain otherwise, but you shouldn't link to it in the citation. We don't link to Sci-Hub in references to scientific papers. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 20:55, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Broadcasting magazine citation cleanup request

[edit]

This is a counterpropsal to the above bot request, and one that is likely more judicious and practical. Also would be the first of several that are based off of Special:Diff/1158839954:

  • All refs and citations to Broadcasting magazine in various iterations, including Broadcasting-Telecasting and Broadcasting & Cable that have URLs pointing to either worldradiohistory.com, americanradiohistory.com or davidgleason.com have said URLs removed. This is not going to be complicated as the base URL is worldradiohistory.com/Archive-BC/* or americanradiohistory.com/Archive-BC/*
  • If the citation template is cite web or cite news, convert it to cite magazine and the website= or work= field to the magazine= field.
  • If there is no id = field or if that field is empty, add the following invisible comment: |id = <!-- needs ProQuest ID tag -->. This can be a good way to track what refs need to be rebuilt and tended to.
  • I'm not sure if this part is possible but can the refs, if they do not have a name, be given one based on the date field? If the source date is, for example, "July 1, 1932" or "1 July 1932", then tag the ref as <ref name="BC19320701">?

If this is doable and functional, I would like to extend this to other publications used as citations that are currently linked to worldradiohistory. Broadcasting is cited the most from said website so this would be the largest such task, by far. Tagging Sammi Brie and Mikeblas. Courtesy ping to LunieZunie and HurricaneZeta. Nathan Obral • he/him/🦝 • tc03:20, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is fine and better than removing it outright since it retains the citation itself - the objective is just to remove the link. HurricaneZetaC 03:22, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Removing the link is a big nono. That's how you find it on webarchive etc... The solution, if a new main site isn't available, is to have |archive-url= added to these templates. I also fail to see how these violate COPYVIO. If they did, these magazines would have long issued a DMCA takedown of WRH and the site wouldn't be winning awards for digital preservation. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:33, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I know bots can find archive links - can one be programmed to do that? As for the copyright infringement, the notice linked in the original local spam blacklist request was https://www.worldradiohistory.com/Radio_and_Hobbies.htm. HurricaneZetaC 20:42, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and for those, you get pointed to https://www.worldradiohistory.com/Radio_and_Hobbies.htm, which have been DCMA takedowned. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:48, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point, but just from searching I can find a few scans of magazines that are pretty clearly not of copyright and seem to have been reproduced without permission. While some of them are out of copyright one scan I found included the barcode printed at the front and was from 2000, with a copyright notice. HurricaneZetaC 21:01, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Fair use allows for archiving copies to be made and distributed. We should not presume copyright violation when none have been shown, especially from an award-winning archival site that has a proven history of respecting DCMA takedowns requests. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:27, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Headbomb Fair use does not cover scanning the entirety of a magazine and uploading PDFs for all to see. Internet Archive learned this lesson to the tune of millions of dollars when it lent out unlimited ebooks per copy, and why Anthropic didn't pay for scans of books it destroyed. The large majority of links to WRH are for scans of copyrighted magazines in clear violation of WP:COPYLINK Mach61 07:03, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I think that cleanup bots should replace link's that havent been edited once the target page is moved to somewhere else shane (talk to me if you want!) 23:30, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a bad idea for a bot task. See WP:NOTBROKEN. Anomie 00:01, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary disambiguations

[edit]

Is there a way a bot could find instances of unnecessary disambiguations? Specifically, instances of articles named "Title (parenthetical)" where there isn't currently an article at just "Title". (In other words, something like Floofy (band) existing where Floofy is still a redlink.)

I ask this because sometimes I see people stick (film) or (band) at the end of article names unnescessarily, or sometimes the non-parenthetical gets deleted via AFD or PROD and the parenthetical version is never moved to reclaim the title. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 17:15, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve also seen several instances of this during NPP, I will try coming up with something. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:42, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I did a quick database query and found a total of 37,887 of these, which is far too large to make any kind of useful report. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:50, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Can these be moved by a bot? If better information is needed before a bot run, then maybe sort by disambiguation and move the ones we know for sure can be moved (pages with (film), (country film), etc.). Gonnym (talk) 18:06, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that might narrow it down. Start with ones that are "Name (film)" in cases where "Name" doesn't exist, then maybe the same with (band), as those are the two I see most often. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 18:20, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
All 37,000 can't be moved by a bot because sometimes the actual name of a proper noun includes parentheses, like Barugh (Great and Little) (okay, Barugh technically exists, but I'm not convinced there aren't any like that where the base name is red). Specific parenthetical disambiguators can probably be botted; see Wikipedia:Database reports/Specific unnecessary disambiguations. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:27, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
TenPoundHammer, from my work on Wikipedia:Missing redirects project I obtained User:Qwerfjkl/sandbox/55, which BD2412 organized. — Qwerfjkltalk 20:57, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is quite it then. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:01, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Qwerfjkl: I have been meaning to ask your permission to subdivide that page, as it is of rather unwieldy length. Cheers! BD2412 T 21:49, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
BD2412, by all means. — Qwerfjkltalk 22:28, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Qwerfjkl: sweet, that's a big help Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 00:46, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Automatically add Template:AI-retrieved source

[edit]

Since we have Template:AI-retrieved source, it would be nice if a bot could add this template to refs based on whether they have the utm_source parameter set to a LLM value. (See User:Headbomb/unreliable for a list of these utm_source values).

Sources that were manually verified by someone can simply be marked as "good" by removing the utm_source parameter. Laura240406 (talk) 21:56, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would be interested in developing this (n.b. I see that {{AI-retrieved source}} suggests either adding a |checked= parameter or commenting out the template rather than modifying the source URL). — chrs || talk 02:46, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

For those players that appear in lists such as List of men's footballers with 1,000 or more official appearances, List of men's footballers with 100 or more international caps, List of women's footballers with 100 or more international caps, List of footballers with 500 or more goals or List of women footballers with 300 or more goals, create a link that would lead to that respective page (or its list subsection) directly from the relevant number in the infobox, as is already the case in the Cristiano Ronaldo article when it comes to the international caps statistic, for example.

For lists such as List of men's footballers with 50 or more international goals, List of women's footballers with 100 or more international goals, List of footballers with 500 or more goals or List of women footballers with 300 or more goals, the same may be done, with the caveat that many of their statistics already link to player-specific lists (like in the case of the Barbra Banda article, for example), which is of course preferable and should not be changed.

I have not managed to find examples of such lists in other sports, otherwise they could be included as well.

Thank you a lot for consideration! BasicWriting (talk) 01:18, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@BasicWriting To be honest, your request isn't clear, at least to me. Mind explaining better? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:50, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Remove leftover substitutions of Template:Blocked user

[edit]

Template:Blocked user was deleted two years ago at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 April 15#Template:Blocked user and previously 7 years ago at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 April 17#Template:Blocked user and all transclusions were removed. However, 1,595 previous substitutions are still on pages (see search resutls).

In addition to the above community decision that this template isn't wanted on pages, in most of these (or all?), the substitution was complete broken and left code on pages. It also left categories, one which was deleted (Category:Blocked historical users) and another which is heading that way (Category:Indefinitely blocked IP addresses). Since these pages will be need edits to remove these deleted categories, it would be best to just complete the TfD result and remove this template code completely from these pages.

In some pages like in User:Cjwright79 where {{sockpuppeteer}} is on the page, it should be changed to {{sockpuppeteer|blocked}}. Gonnym (talk) 08:42, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Gonnym Coding...Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:58, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
BRFA filedVanderwaalforces (talk) 14:40, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

UTM Bot Request

[edit]

Hi! I have a bot idea, and since I don't have the knowledge of how to code it, I'll share my idea:

links = document.getElementsByTagName("a");
for (var link of links) {
    var href = link.getAttribute("href");
    if (!href) continue;
    if (href[0] == "#") href = location.href + href;
    else if (href[0] == "/") href = location.protocol + "//" + location.pathname;
    var source = new URL(href).searchParams.get("utm_source");
    if (source !== null) {
        // Add page to Category "Pages with utm_source={source}"
    }
}

Iterate through all namespaces, then through all pages in that namespace. Please share any questions with me. Thanks! SeaDragon1 (talk) — Happy new year! 14:01, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@SeaDragon1 Does that category exist? What problem are we solving with this? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:55, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It makes sorting easier. SeaDragon1 (talk) — Happy new year! 14:20, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, I'm pretty sure there are a lot of non-existent categories that pages still put themselves in. SeaDragon1 (talk) — Happy new year! 14:24, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Way back in the early days of the project Template:Infobox settlement was created, and all was good. This template was inserted into many thousands of pages before someone realized "hey, maybe we shouldn't include the link subdivision_type = [[List of sovereign states|Country]] and it should be just be subdivision_type = Country for reasons of A) it's an WP:EASTEREGG link and B) people know what a country is, it doesn't need linking. Discussions were had on the template talk page, and the link was swiftly removed. However this was not before the template had been copied onto many thousands of settlement article pages, and this link still persists there to this day on many. I've been removing it when I see it, but this seems like a very simple and uncontroversial job for a bot to perform. It appears simple (it's only in the Template:Infobox settlement section of an article) and it's always the same field. Thoughts? Canterbury Tail talk 18:12, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Canterbury Tail, search gives 150,000 articles. I can take care of this, but I've a bit busy so it would have to wait until the weekend. If anyone else wants to have a go before then feel free. — Qwerfjkltalk 22:40, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
BRFA filed. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:23, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]