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.
Perhaps someone's running a bot that already does this, but I thought I'd bring it up anyway, in case nobody was.
When text precedes a header, the header doesn't work, and the coding appears as normal text; run a Ctrl+F search for the equals sign at [1]. Fixing it is easy, because you just have to add a couple of new lines. If this isn't already being done, could someone's wikisyntax-fixing bot be given this as an additional task? Nyttend (talk) 15:31, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
I would try asking at WT:CHECKWIKI, they love that sort of thing, and would probably even generate monthly reports with offending articles. Frietjes (talk) 00:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Template parameter scan
Hi. Could someone help generate a list/table like this, using this data? User:Plastikspork used to do it, but unfortunately he doesn't seems to be online lately... Also, could you tell me if there is a way to find which articles use a particular parameter (on my own)? Thanks, Rehman 14:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Doing...Already doneAPerson (talk!) 01:01, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
APerson, I hope it's not too late to inform you, but Plastikspork just came back online and did the table. Thank you so much for helping. Rehman 14:40, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
No problem. APerson (talk!) 16:14, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
A request for a bot to perform null edits
Please disregard this. I think there is a bot somewhere that does this. That, and {{Lx1}}'s transclusion count went from 900-ish to below 800 in about 5 minutes, so something is doing the fixes. Steel1943 (talk) 21:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Is there a bot in existence or one that could be created to perform null edits to a group of pages on demand? If so, I would like to request that all the subpages of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log have null edits performed; I recently merged some of the functionality of {{Lx1}} into {{Lx}} and corrected the template usage in {{Lc1}} ... which is transcluded in all usages of {{Cfd2}} ... which is on essentially every WP:CFD nomination page. (In other words, I'm trying to update the {{Lx}} and {{Lx1}} transclusion lists ... {{Lx1}} currently lists over 900 transclusions, most related to {{Cfd2}}.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:56, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Http->Https for Newspaper.com links
Hi all. If you didn't know, we have a substantial donation of accounts to WP:Newspapers.com as part of the Wikipedia Library partnership program. As part of the recent expansion of access to 300 accounts, our contact noted that they can no longer track referral traffic from Wikipedia, because of the change earlier in the year for all Wikipedia readers to be on Https (Https only communicates referrals to https not http). We would like help changing http to https links for Newspapers.com, for several reason:
From the start, the have been one of our most used partners by volunteers, and they are very much willing to expand our editor access to include more editors as demand; we want to keep currying this good will.
In part this demand from editors, is in response to their Open Access "Clipping" function (read more), which allows our editors to pull their sources out from behind the paywall on Newspapers.com. This particular case study has been part of our business case for other partners creating more open access options (for example WP:Newspaperarchive.com created the exact same feature as part of the development of our partnership, and we are using it to propose other reader-favorable access negotiations with other partners). Having good metrics for this case study from both the Wikipedia side and from the Newspapers.com analytics side, which includes referrer information, helps us make the argument to other publishers/databases
Https links are more secure for our readers that do click through to their project (even though Newspapers.com plans to redirect any traffic from Wikiepdia to a https url, that redirect loses the referral information, which effects 1 and 2, and temporarily routes readers through a insecure server).
Could someone run a bot that substitutes http with https when it precedes newspapers.com? Our contact assures me that none of the link should break. A tool/bot that can substitute http to https link like this might be useful for a number of different TWL and WP:GLAM partnerships in the future: part of the business case for most partnerships is increased traffic, and many of our historical allies will be converting to https in the near future, if they haven't already (for example, JSTOR plans to). Thanks much from the Wikipedia Library team, Astinson (WMF) (talk) 15:15, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
(Thanks Izno for pinging.) This is somewhat related to my request above. I will include http://www.newspapers.com/ → https://www.newspapers.com/ in my AWB settings, but I think this could be done more efficiently by a bot. Because with Google Books links, I also remove the link clutter on the fly, but this doesn't seem necessary for newspaper.com, or does it? --bender235 (talk) 16:16, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
@Izno: Thanks! @Bender235: I had considered doing it semi-automatically with AWB, but it such a simple conversion that a bot should do it. All the urls are one of two types of structure URIs, so there shouldn't be any clutter, since we have been giving very clear recommendations with the Newspapers.com donation, that they shouldn't be inconsistent. It would be great to have a bot (or a bot activated by a tool), that can help with these kinds of conversions, because I am sure there will be a myriad of requests in the next year or so from GLAMs, etc. Astinson (WMF) (talk) 18:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
@Bender235: Saw the first 4000 links changed, thanks for doing it with AWB! Is there any chance we can update the rest of them in the next week or two, if no-one picks it up with a bot? We would love to be able to keep capturing accurate metrics data to our Newspapers.com partner, sooner rather than later. Astinson (WMF) (talk) 16:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Hm, I could try. --bender235 (talk) 16:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
@Bender235: Per Legoktm's link, I am going to ask for a pause in targeting Newspapers.com links (for a month or two, keep updating them when you come across them in other updates, but don't target the http:// links with AWB). We are going to look at Newspapers.com in the referrer metadata pilot.Astinson (WMF) (talk) 21:22, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
DOI bot
Given a reference in the forms
"<ref>doi:10.[four digits]/*</ref>"
"<ref>http://www.doi.org/10.[four digits]/*</ref>" or
"<ref>www.doi.org/10.[four digits]/*</ref>",
the bot should insert the full reference into the article page and into Wikidata. It might be extended to add data to existing references that are, say, missing the date of publication.
That discussion does not appear to be leading to getting a bot to start working on the Cite Doi templates. Abductive (reasoning) 19:13, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
The bot in question preempts the need for doing so (were it turned on). Inserting {{cite journal|doi=value}} and then the bot fills in the other data is what the bot does (or did with {{cite doi}}). --Izno (talk) 19:48, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
As for Wikidata, I'm not sure of your intentions, so you will need to clarify. Regardless, that bot would need to be approved at Wikidata, not here. --Izno (talk) 19:49, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
That sounds good, and would do half my request. I hope it's back soon.
Apologies for the lack of clarity. Wikidata has a data format for journal sources, but there is currently no way to create items from citation templates. See this discussion. There are tools for doing it from a DOI; see the tools section here. It seemed to me that co-ordination between bots working on both might be helpful at avoiding duplicates, etc., but I take your point that separate bots might be easier. HLHJ (talk) 14:40, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
There is consensus at WPMED to replace cite DOI with cite journal on medical articles. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:35, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
For the record, we have an user tool that can be used to derive {{Cite journal}} from DOIs. Having a bot that can autoexpand DOIs to full citations would be useful. Maybe one could reuse the {{Cite doi}} template for it; the bot would convert it to a {{Cite journal}}. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
FYI, consensus was reached to deprecate the {{cite doi}} templates.[2] Citation bot will no longer be creating those templates or inserting references to them into articles. Thus I don't think there's anything blocking the original request here. Kaldari (talk) 21:21, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Can't imagine that's worth the effort. Is this ever a problem? I'm sure there are occasional situations where moving is necessary; a blanket ban would be counterproductive. — Earwigtalk 23:19, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Note that there's a WP:VPP discussion about whether this should happen going on right now. APerson (talk!) 23:01, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Help with BAFTA articles
Hello. I recently split content from BAFTA Award for Best Film (which previously listed nominees for three different categories) to make BAFTA Award for Best British Film and BAFTA Award for Best Film Not in the English Language. But I've noticed that lots of articles are fixed to pipe straight to the "Best Film" article so they are now directed to the wrong place. See for example Ida (film) and the BAFTA link right at the end of the lead. It's happening like this on most relevant articles I've looked at (which is annoying because the redirects would have worked anyway).
I don't quite know what bots are capable of, but I'm hoping it's possible to fix this. I imagine the best way would be for a bot to search for any articles with: [[BAFTA Award for Best Film|BAFTA Award for Best British Film]], [[BAFTA Award for Best Film|Best British Film]], [[BAFTA Award for Best Film|BAFTA Award for Best Film Not in the English Language]], [[BAFTA Award for Best Film|Best Film Not in the English Language]], [[BAFTA Award for Best Film|BAFTA Award for Best Foreign Film]], [[BAFTA Award for Best Film|Best Foreign Film]]. And then hopefully it could fix them by removing the piping? If it's at all possible that would be great because doing it manually will take ages. --Loeba(talk) 11:24, 10 December 2015 (UTC)#
I never entirely understood AWB but I've installed it, and after fiddling I think I could probably manage it. I've put in a request for full usage, let's see. --Loeba(talk) 17:48, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
This is too complicated for a bot. AWB works Set up a search for all links to BAFTA Award for Best Film and then have it do disambiguations for BAFTA Award for Best Film with the two others as options. You'll see every version and can work on it page by page to get rid of the piping. Contact me if you need help @Loeba:. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:53, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
AD / CE - BC / BCE Suggestion
I am asking that someone with the necessary skill looks at a BOT that can, if agreed, add the following;
Link: AD to CE and BC to BCE.This would only need to be done once per article (maybe in the first instance of it occurring) a suitable article, for example, is History of timekeeping devices. It may also be required to wikilink AD / BC in the first place. If feasible the Bot should be able to reverse link (BCE to BC) the critical action is that AD is linked to CE and BD to BCE, whatever starting point is within the reviewed article.
Why: AD and BC are based on a presumed date of a birth of deity and whilst whether it is factually correct is irrelevant, it has become the standard universal dating method. 1) Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, needs to inform that there is alternative terminology, and that within many educational establishments the measurement of time on this scale is taught through CE and BCE. Please see, for example one of many previous discussions at Talk:History_of_timekeeping_devices#WP:ERA. Whether the link is within the text of the article or separated out for whatever reason is another discussion, the importance is the one link between AD to CEandBC to BCE. Edmund Patrick – confer 08:44, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
A bot performing an action like this would, at a minimum, need consensus via a widely advertised discussion. I suspect that you would not find it easy to achieve that, given the existing guideline. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:49, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I totally agree that a consensus would be needed, and this is just a small part of the conversation that needs to be had, but I disagree with your example of the existing guideline. What I am asking for is just a link that makes clear to the reader that BC = BCE and AD = CE. I am not asking for the dating style of any article to be changed, nor the manual of style, just for Wikipedia to do what an encyclopedia should do, inform! in this case by what is after all Wikipedia's strength a simple link. I will seek the next platform is raise this discussion, I would still like to know if it was feasible though? Thanks again Edmund Patrick – confer 09:24, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Although not originally written as a rfc I have today linked it to technical and proposals. With Thanks Edmund Patrick – confer 10:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Apologies RFC now housed on my talk page,here as I felt that was more suitable space rather than this specific talk page. With Thanks Edmund Patrick – confer 10:33, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
List of old TWA user pages
Can someone come up with a list of userspace pages generated using TWA, that are over 6 months old? These have names of the form "User:Example/TWA", "User:Example/TWA/Earth" and "User:Example/TWA/Teahouse", etc. 103.6.159.71 (talk) 19:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
@Giftpflanze: Thanks. Could you, or another user, get the list on-wiki? Just post it in the Sandbox. 103.6.159.76 (talk) 13:52, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Sorting AfDs into into WikiProject Deletion Sorting
This may have been requested before but I couldn't find it searching (sorry if it has), but is there a bot that could automatically sort AfDs based on the page's current categories? Perhaps this is way too time intensive, but I figure it would save a lot of time if a bot could recognize the category a page has already been listed in, and then use that to sort it into the relevant AfD deletion sorting category. FuriouslySerene (talk) 18:56, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
A critical part of such a bot would obviously be some sort of list that links categories with the deletion sorting list they correspond to. I don't think generating such a list would be easy; given the diversity of topics that show up at AfD, quite a few categories would need to be on it. Detecting WikiProject banners for this purpose might be valuable, and this detection is already done by WP:AALERTS. Either way, it sounds like an interesting idea. APerson (talk!) 03:33, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Interesting. Perhaps the bot could learn from previous AfD sortings - there's a huge amount of data available potentially. Not being capable of coding such a bot myself, perhaps I'm asking too much. Thanks for the response! FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:11, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
WP:AALERTS currently detects banner- and infobox-tagged pages and pages that fall into certain talk page and main page categories, as well as DELSORT lists. We have deliberately limited it to few of those, only 1 per type. This is mainly because each of those categories/templates has to be correlated with each of the processes (AfD/PROD/RfC/etc.) and this is a lot of requests and data. That said, a few years have passes and it's possible we might consider some sort of expansion to this. I would say there should be a separate bot to guess pages belonging to projects and perhaps a supervised mode where an editor can very quickly accept or reject these guesses. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 20:15, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Missing categories on footballer articles
I've noticed that a lot of articles on footballers do not have them in all the available categories. Would it be possible for a bot to run off a report identifying players who are listed as playing for a club in their infobox, but do not have the matching category (e.g. Category:Manchester United F.C. players). Perhaps this could be done (as a test run) for players in Category:English footballers.
If it's possible, the bot would know that certain clubs have been renamed (for example players listed as playing for Small Heath F.C. would be in Category:Birmingham City F.C. players. I'm happy to provide a list of these if it helps. Cheers, Number57 11:44, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
I need a bot to insert {{Research help|Mil}} and {{Research help|Med}} into batches of articles under the ==References==, ==Footnotes== or ==Works cited==. In both, we will do this in batches: starting with 100 articles, then 500, then 2000, then 5000, then more. Moreover, in Military history, the consensus is to pilot on WWI and WWII task force articles first. The edit summary, needs to point towards WP:Research help/Proposal, asking for feedback/discussion on the talk page.
Also, cc-ing bot operators that have helped The Wikipedia Library in the past @Cyberpower678:. Would probably be able to implement this with AWB- its a insert-after activity. Astinson (WMF) (talk) 17:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Sure, I can do this. I'll get the articles via {{WikiProject Military history}} (well, since this has no category that tracks {{{WWI}}} and {{{WWII}}} usages, either I check each page for the params or I check for Category:World War I and Category:World War II) and {{WikiProject Medicine}} transclusions, and do half the number of article edits for each WikiProject. Let me know if that sounds okay. HazardSJ 07:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Otherwise sounds good! Make sure that the link to the proposal is clear in the edit summaries. Also, as you update the different batches of articles, can you make sure you add a typestamped {{done}} in the pilot stages marked at: Wikipedia:Research_help/Proposal#Project_steps. This will help us measure pageviews in the experimental conditions, etc. to figure out the if/when of the changes. Astinson (WMF) (talk) 16:57, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Should I simply skip if none of the three sections (references, footnotes, and works cited) are on the page?
Then there's Rivadavia-class battleship, and possibly others, with the template in an endnotes section, even though both a footnotes and a references section exists.
If more than one of the sections exist, is there any specific way I should handle that?
Where in the section should the template be placed (e.g. at the very top, at the very bottom, just before/after reflists if any, etc.)?
Once I get these sorted out, I could proceed with the implementation of this task (P.S. I'm using Python, not AWB). HazardSJ 08:23, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
@Hazard-SJ: Thanks for the questions: the template should be between the {{reflist}} or the <references/> (these might be more consistent than the section headers). You might use those as the insertion criteria, but you are going to need a filter that removes just plain "Notes" or named reference sections (so reflists that use "|group ="?)). Once inserted the templates should look like: Wikipedia:Research_help/Proposal#Proposed_design_for_links_on_article_pages. As for the multiple sections: it should be the main referenced footnote section used throughout the articles. In the first couple small batch insertions, if you take add it to all the articles that have only one possible sections and/or one version of {{reflist}} and/or <references/>, and keep a log of the articles that don't get inserted, we can find where there are machine implementable rules for exceptions in the larger batches. However, this is a pilot: so as long as we know the number of articles added too, it doesn't matter if we skip a few (as long as we have a count/log those as well).
For section titles, I did some research a few years back and the most frequent section headers were: "Footnotes", "References", and "Works cited". If you add "Endnotes" to that list: it should cover something like 80%+ of the articles. Thank you so much for the thorough examination, Astinson (WMF) (talk) 14:45, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
@Astinson (WMF): Pings don't work unless you sign in the same edit. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 20:37, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
@Astinson (WMF): The "Notes" section seems to be another section to include. With the sections we have so far, a quick partial dry run shows these pages as pages that neither have {{reflist}} not the references tag. I've looked through a few, and strangely Animal testing is on the list, so that's an issue with the parser I'm using (it strangely didn't detect all of the sections on that page, I'm trying to have that looked into). Also, please confirm that it's before the reflist (you said "between"). HazardSJ 04:50, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
@Hazard-SJ: "Notes" sections tend to be split between commentary notes and actual reference footnotes: so they are not always tied to the research process -- we don't want to be overapplying the template right now - I would rather miss some articles, than create mistakes at this point; if/when we move towards an RFC, we will probably suggest that it be substituted in {{reflist}} templates, unless turned off, which should be a better solution than adding a separate template. Also, for right now, I think the other sections should be enough: I did a spot check on the list, and there are a number that have reference sections for example Adaptive_immune_system and Agent Orange, and I think you are missing articles that have a reflist w/ a variable (for example {{reflist|30em}}). You might want to look for the string {{reflist without the closing bracket, to make it more effective - that should capture both the | and }} which will follow. And for confirming location: yes, before the reflist template or references tag, after the section header (between the two) see the sample in the proposal). Thank you again! Its awesome to see this project moving forward, we are finding this page is incredibly useful in outreach, and have found a lot of teachers and librarians are excited about it :) Astinson (WMF) (talk) 15:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
@Astinson (WMF): Hopefully what I've implemented so far is okay. I won't check the Notes section as you said. I've made 4 tests in my userspace for you to see: Special:Diff/695426787, Special:Diff/695426845, Special:Diff/695426892 and Special:Diff/695426919. It should also work for <references />. Let me know if there's any issue with that. Also, for the edit summaries, how does "Bot: Adding <template> (see the proposal for details)" sound? Is there any additional content that you would want in the summary than that? HazardSJ 00:29, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
@Hazard-SJ: Maybe add to the edit summary "please leave feedback/comments at Wikipedia talk:Research help". In general, the edits look good. Make sure that you are using the variable in the templates correctly: in the documentation above I included all caps, but we set up the redirects to be capitalized for the first letter, and lower case for the second two (Mil and Med vs MIL and MED) this was a mistake on my part in the request; sorry. Otherwise, excited to see it start! Make sure to document when you do the batches at Wikipedia:Research_help/Proposal#Project_steps. Thank you again! Astinson (WMF) (talk) 18:11, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
@Astinson (WMF): The summary and templates have been updated. I'm assuming you'll let me know when you want the different batches to be run? Also, it looks like we're ready to take this to BRFA now, right? (P.S. trial edits will possibly take up half of the first batch) HazardSJ 19:38, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
@Hazard-SJ: Go ahead and take it to BFRA. As for the batches: if you do them at 5-10 days apart based on your own volunteer schedule, that gives us enough time to respond to conversations within the community. I will let you set your own timeline (considering the holidays, etc) and will only poke you if we pass into that window of time without implementation. (I figured the first couple batches would be trials). Astinson (WMF) (talk) 20:25, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Maybe a bot that fixes a collection of dead links? The Ohio Historical Society once maintained a few thousand pages with a well-maintained naming convention, http://ohsweb.ohiohistory.org/ohpo/nr/details.aspx?refnum=XXXXXXXX (the Xs represent an eight-digit number), but they took down these pages a good while ago. Now that OHS has renamed itself to Ohio History Connection, it's put up a new website, and these pages are once again good, but with different URLs, http://nr.ohpo.org/Details.aspx?refnum=XXXXXXXX. Could a bot go around and perform replacements? The work should be easy, and manual fixes will take a lot of work for a human but should be easy for a bot, given the careful adherence to the naming convention. A few of these links have been correctly marked with {{dead link}}; it would also help if the bot were to remove that tag when it's present. Nyttend (talk) 21:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Then my bot should come by soon and replace the tagged ones with a wayback link.—cyberpowerTrick or Treat:Limited Access 02:54, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm confused: why would that help? Almost none of these are in archive.org (I've checked), and why would it be good in the first place for the bot to use an archive URL instead of the URL of a currently active page from the same source with the same content? Nyttend (talk) 04:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Sorry that was meant to be more of a general comment. Cyberbot II now attempts to attach wayback links to tagged links.—cyberpowerTrick or Treat:Online 15:56, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
It would be better to set up an external link template (like e.g. Template:Ofsted) for this, and editing the pages to use the template. Then, any future similar change to the external website could be dealt with simply by changing the template. – FayenaticLondon 09:34, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Here's a complete list of pages that need to be updated, somewhat more than five hundred in total:
Fayenatic london or C678, would either of you be able to run a bot to replace the old URL with the template that Fayenatic recommends? Again, it sometimes appears within <ref name=> tags or in the external links, so you'd just want to do a find-replace, and it would help if you'd remove {{dead link}} when it's present. I've not yet created the template; I'll create it once someone's agreed to run the bot. Nyttend (talk) 13:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Update — I've created the template at {{OHC NRHP}}. Nyttend (talk) 20:12, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Not me, I don't run bots, I just suggested a way to approach the task. – FayenaticLondon 23:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
@Nyttend: Just to double check, this would be a one-time task to go through the list above and make the following changes:
Change url=http://ohsweb.ohiohistory.org/ohpo/nr/details.aspx?refnum=XXXXXXXX to url={{OHC NRHP|XXXXXXXX}}, and remove any associated {{dead link}} template
Change [http://ohsweb.ohiohistory.org/ohpo/nr/details.aspx?refnum=XXXXXXXX Words] to {{OHC NRHP|XXXXXXXX|Words}}, and remove any associated {{dead link}} template
Do I have that right? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 22:25, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
That looks correct. I doubt you'll find many of these links in citation templates (I don't use the templates, and essentially nobody else writes articles with this website as a source), so the second option will be virtually everything. Nyttend (talk) 22:34, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
@Nyttend: There were only two articles in the list above that were tagged as dead links, so I just did those manually - see this edit and this edit. For the rest, BRFA filed. GoingBatty (talk) 00:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
@Nyttend: The OHC NRHP template doesn't seem to work in citation templates. From Lima Stadium:
{{cite web|url=http://ohsweb.ohiohistory.org/ohpo/nr/details.aspx?refnum=02000219|title=Ohio Historic Preservation Office National Register|date=2008-08-15|work=National Register of Historic Places|publisher=National Park Service}}
{{cite web|url={{OHC NRHP|02000219}}|title=Ohio Historic Preservation Office National Register|date=2008-08-15|work=National Register of Historic Places|publisher=National Park Service}}
[{{{2}}} "Ohio Historic Preservation Office National Register"]. National Register of Historic Places. National Park Service. 2008-08-15. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help)
Do you want to change the OHC NRHP template, or remove the citation templates in these articles? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 01:09, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
How many of these articles use the citation templates? I'm strongly inclined to remove the citation templates, if for no other reason than that the purpose of the OHC template is to ensure that all our links projectwide to these pages be in harmony, and I don't immediately see a way to resolve this problem without getting rid of that goal. Nyttend (talk) 01:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
If you will fix these manually, then I'll change the bot request to do the remaining 460 pages that fall into #2. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 01:34, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
On 1 January 2016, the number of administrative "regions" in Metropolitan France (the part of France in continental Western Europe, excluding Corsica and overseas regions) will be reduced from 22 to 13. Six current regions will remain unchanged, while the remaining 16 will be consolidated into 7 new regions (new articles have already been created for the new regions). In France "regions" are divided into departments, which are divided into arrondissements, which are divided into cantons (this level of government generally doesn't have articles on en-WP), which are divided into communes (towns). With one exception (Lower Normandy & Upper Normandy will be merged to form "Normandy"), all of the new regions will be known by a provisional name until their legislatures meet after 1 January and decide on a new name (must be selected by 1 July). That name must then be approved by France's Conseil d'État (which has until October 2016 to approve the new permanent names).
A bot will be needed to change the name of the "region" in infoboxes of tens of thousands of articles for subunits below the region level (departments, arrondissements, communes, & the few canton articles that may exist). For example, there are 10 departments (infobox template for regions & departments), 44 arrondissements (infobox template), and 5189 communes (infobox template) in the new region Alsace-Champagne-Ardenne-Lorraine. That's a total of 5243 infoboxes (I don't know if any cantons in this region have articles) in this new region alone that will need their infoboxes changed from the current region (Alsace, Champagne-Ardenne, or Lorraine) to Alsace-Champagne-Ardenne-Lorraine. The new regions are based on combinations of existing regions (none of the present regions are divided between 2+ new regions), so it is simply a matter of replacing the name of the present region with the name of the new region. In the future, a bot will be needed to change the name to the permanent name for the region. Because of the multiple changes, I thought this could be a good test case for Wikidata integration into infoboxes and made a suggestion here (no support at the time of making the bot request here).
In addition to just infoboxes on articles about political subdivisions (departments, arrondissements, & communes), which seems like a simple find-and-replace task, the infoboxes of many other types of articles ought to be changed, but discerning when to change seems like a more challenging task (should locations be changed in articles for historical events?). In those cases, the bot should change the region when it is mentioned in the "location" parameter of an infobox, eg. on the article Saverne Tunnel "Alsace" will need to be replaced with "Alsace-Champagne-Ardenne-Lorraine" on 1 January. To be clear, this request is only for a bot to make the necessary changes on 1 January; I've mentioned the fact that they will need to be changed again to the permanent name in case that is relevant to this request. AHeneen (talk) 01:32, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
I am the current Administrator of Hakka Wikipedia.
I would like to create a bot for use on Hakka Wikipedia which is programmed to create articles on small towns and villages of Europe (namely for the Netherlands, France, Spain, Poland, Germany, UK, etc). For example,
Of course, the articles on big cities would still be manually created by by real users but for small towns, it would save more time to have it automated so that other users can focus on editing the more complex topics.
Any help or guidance would be appreciated, Thank you. --Chrysolophus pictus (talk) 21:26, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
@Edgars2007: Thanks! I will try and contact that bot owner to see how he could help. --Chrysolophus pictus (talk) 22:46, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Bot to tag orphaned SPI pages
I am an SPI Clerk, and this requested is related to a discussion held at the Clerks' Noticeboard. When a SPI case is opened (a page is created) using the process described at WP:SPI (or using Twinkle), the page is automatically tagged with the {{SPI case status}} template with no parameter (like this: {{SPI case status|}}). Then, a bot named Amalthea (bot) searches for such pages and adds them to the main list at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cases/Overview. This is list is, in turn, transcluded to WP:SPI and used by clerks and checkusers to review cases. But, sometimes an editor who is not experienced enough does not follow the procedure and creates a SPI page with no {{SPI case status}} templates. Such a page is then not listed at the main list, and gets lost. We need a bot that would either:
a) search for SPI pages without {{SPI case status}} template and then add template to the page, or
Note that there are many pages in the SPI domain that are archived (example). Those pages should not be added to the list or tagged with the template. Here is an example of a page created without the template: [3]. Vanjagenije(talk) 17:36, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
There are (many?) articles with malformed {{AllRovi movie}} values, for example{{allmovie|the-captain-is-a-lady-v86623}}, that should be {{allmovie|86623}}. Basically, it's "some symbols, then v, then several digits". Another popular pattern: "v and several digits" ({{allmovie|v86623}}), which should be changed to only digits. Less 404s and a little bit easier data export to Wikidata yes, I fully understand, that you don't worry about Wikidata problems :) Note, that template has redirects and value can be for |1= or |id=. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 14:17, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
In last few months, when I have imported some such IDs to Wikidata, I have noticed, that there are many garbage in those templates (malformatted values, copy-paste errors etc.) here and in other Wikipedias, so it may be a start for a larger template clean-up caimpaign. At least, tracking such errors in categories. But OK, it's another story. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 14:20, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
There is a TemplateDataphabricator task that is awaiting development that would add a regex format similar to the Wikidata property format regex. Then a bot could be written to validate the values similar to the Wikidata validation bot. And VisualEditor could issue format warnings. --Bamyers99 (talk) 15:18, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Someone should be able to add a tracking category to that template to test for all-numeric values using #expr or something like it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Added request here. But in future it should all be done in one Lua module: format validation, getting data from Wikidata (if there are), data comparision to Wikidata (with categories) and maybe something else. Because the most of external link templates are quite the same in their structure. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 16:37, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
OK, now there are a little bit more :) I even have written F->R rules for AWB, so it should ease the work. The user, who does this, could keep an eye on changes, but basic testing looked good. Case sensitive button is unmarked.
Of course, only articles should be fixed. It won't fix {{allmovie|america-3000-v1834}} and other rare type of errors, but those can be fixed later manually. Yes, I could do that myself, but I don't have rights to use AWB at enwiki. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 12:37, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
BRFA filed — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:51, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Replace specific PNG image with SVG version on specific pages
Requesting the replacement of all instances of [[File:US Navy Presidential Unit Citation Ribbon.png|frameless|40px]] with [[File:Ribbon of the US Navy Presidential Unit Citation.svg|frameless|40px]] on the following pages:
Simple collapsible table
Alan Shepard, Alexander Vandegrift, Alfred M. Gray, Jr., Arthur W. Radford, Bernard A. Clarey, Carl Epting Mundy, Jr., Carl L. Sitter, Charles C. Krulak, Christian F. Schilt, Clifton B. Cates, Clifton Sprague, Clinton A. Puckett, Dale Dye, David R. Ray, Donald Schmuck, Earl E. Anderson, Frank E. Petersen, George L. Street III, Hector A. Cafferata, Jr., Henry Fonda, Herbert J. Sweet, Homer Litzenberg, Hugh Shelton, Ira Hayes, James L. Jones, James Mattis, James T. Conway, John Basilone, John Glenn, John L. Estrada, John P. Jumper, John Thach, Joseph W. Dailey, Lemuel C. Shepherd, Jr., Leonard F. Chapman, Jr., Louis H. Wilson, Jr., Marc Mitscher, Michael E. Thornton, Neil Armstrong, Oliver P. Smith, Pappy Boyington, Paul X. Kelley, Peter Pace, Ray Davis (general), Richard O'Kane, Robert H. Barrow, Robert Leckie (author), Roy M. Davenport, Samuel David Dealey, Thomas J. McHugh, Thomas R. Norris, Victor H. Krulak, Wesley L. Fox, William Halsey, Jr., William J. Crowe
Doing... Only 55 pages, doing on main account. -- Cheers,Riley 02:00, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
@Evan.oltmanns:YDone, in the future a list with just one article per line is easier. -- Cheers,Riley 02:16, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. I will surely do that next time. Evan.oltmanns (talk) 02:23, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
@Riley Huntley: I have another list for you if you don't mind. Is this how you wanted it formatted, or did you want the brackets so that it links to the article as well?
Simple collapsible table
15th Infantry Regiment (United States)
1st Battalion 25th Marines
1st Battalion 3rd Marines
1st Battalion 4th Marines
2nd Battalion, 2nd Marines
2nd Battalion 11th Marines
2nd Battalion 3rd Marines
2nd Battalion 8th Marines
3rd Battalion 23rd Marines
3rd Battalion 24th Marines
3rd Battalion 8th Marines
4th Civil Affairs Group
4th Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion
4th Marine Division (United States)
6th Marine Regiment (United States)
9th Marine Regiment (United States)
Alan Shapley
Alfred M. Gray, Jr.
Arthur J. Jackson
Baldomero López
Bill Genaust
Casey Ryback
Charles Calhoun
Charles E. Wilhelm
Charles McMorris
Charles W. Lindberg
Christopher Cassidy
Dan Guenther
David M. Shoup
David W. Sommers
Donald R. Gardner
Duane E. Dewey
Ernest Ivy Thomas, Jr.
Eugene A. Obregon
George C. Axtell
Gerald C. Thomas
Gordon Waite Underwood
Harold G. Overstreet
Henry H. Black
Jackson D. Arnold
James F. Amos
James L. Day
Jerry Mateparae
John Beal (composer)
John Casey (Chuck)
John F. Kelly (Marine)
John R. Dailey
John S. McCain Sr.
Joseph D. Kernan
Joseph Dunford
Justin LeHew
Keith J. Stalder
Lawrence H. Livingston
Leland D. Crawford
Lemuel C. Shepherd, Jr.
Leonard F. Chapman, Jr.
Leslie E. Brown
Lewis William Walt
List of Gomer Pyle, U.S.M.C. characters
Luis Fonseca
Marine Air Control Squadron 1
Marine Wing Support Squadron 271
Marine Wing Support Squadron 372
Martin R. Steele
Ralph Ignatowski
Randolph M. Pate
Raymond Jacobs
Richard D. Hearney
Richard I. Neal
Robert B. Pirie
Robert E. Cleary
Robert E. Cushman, Jr.
Robert Hall (National Guard officer)
Robert Kingston
Robert S. Kennemore
Slade Cutter
Stanley R. Christianson
Stephen W. Pless
Terrence R. Dake
Thomas J. Hudner, Jr.
Thomas R. Morgan
USS Enterprise (CV-6)
USS Halibut (SSGN-587)
USS Houston (CA-30)
USS Kitty Hawk (CV-63)
USS Laffey (DD-459)
USS Lexington (CV-16)
USS Midway (CV-41)
USS Parche (SSN-683)
USS Tunny (SS-282)
USS Yorktown (CV-10)
VMF-113
VMF-132
VMFA-115
VMFA-251
VMFA-314
Walter E. Boomer
William K. Jones
William McGonagle
William McMillan (sport shooter)
User:Jaguar has been blocked for improper use of AWB, but the carnage still remains. for example, this edit screwed up the template at the top of the page. and, this one screwed up the template in the middle of the page. I was able to find/correct all of the ones of type two by checking transclusions of template:section, but the others remain. perhaps we can have a bot scan through all of User:Jaguar's edits to look for {{ |? Frietjes (talk) 20:15, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Doing...-- Cheers,Riley 23:48, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
YDone-- Cheers,Riley 00:59, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Not done. See this thread – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
BRFA filed Hazard SJ 21:19, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Done! GoingBatty (talk) 04:09, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Done, in the future a list with just one article per line is easier. -- Cheers, Riley 02:16, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Doing... Once again, not enough pages to warrant a bot. Slowly doing with AWB. -- Cheers, Riley 03:17, 1 February 2016 (UTC)