Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:50, 6 September 2013

Overview Dictionary Bot policy Bot Approvals Group Guide Noticeboard Newsletter Bot Requests Requests for Approval Adminbots {{BAG Tools}} Creating a Bot List of bots Activity monitor Status report History Types

Commonly Requested Bots Frequently denied Anti-vandal Archiving Autoassessment Newsletter delivery Template substitution WikiProject tagging

• WP:BOTREQ
• WP:BOTR

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 Misplaced Pages community. If you are requesting that a template (such as a WikiProject banner) is added to all pages in a particular category, please be careful to check the category tree for any unwanted subcategories. It is best to give a complete list of categories that should be worked through individually, rather than one category to be analyzed recursively (see example difference).

Alternatives to bot requests

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

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

#	Bot request	Status	💬	👥	🙋 Last editor	🕒 (UTC)	🤖 Last botop editor	🕒 (UTC)
1	"Was" in TV articles		7	5	Bunnypranav	2024-11-26 13:08	Bunnypranav	2024-11-26 13:08
2	Replace standalone BLP templates	Done	7	3	MSGJ	2024-10-30 19:37	Tom.Reding	2024-10-29 16:04
3	Assess set index and WikiProject Lists based on category as lists		19	5	Mrfoogles	2024-11-06 16:17	Tom.Reding	2024-11-02 15:53
4	Request for WP:SCRIPTREQ		1	1	StefanSurrealsSummon	2024-11-08 18:27
5	LLM summary for laypersons to talk pages of overly technical articles?		10	7	Legoktm	2024-11-12 17:50	Legoktm	2024-11-12 17:50
6	Redirects with curly apostrophes		6	5	Pppery	2024-11-11 17:30	Primefac	2024-11-11 16:52
7	Bot for replacing/archiving 13,000 dead citations for New Zealand charts		3	2	Muhandes	2024-11-14 22:49	Muhandes	2024-11-14 22:49
8	Basketball biography infobox request		7	2	Dissident93	2024-11-18 21:04	Primefac	2024-11-17 20:44
9	Meanings of minor-planet names		1	1	Absolutiva	2024-11-18 16:20
10	Reference examination bot		4	3	Wiki king 100000	2024-11-25 17:00	Usernamekiran	2024-11-20 13:02
11	Replacing FastilyBot	BRFA filed	25	9	DreamRimmer	2024-12-17 03:32	DreamRimmer	2024-12-17 03:32
12	Deletion of navboxes at Category:Basketball Olympic squad navigational boxes by competition	Working	4	4	Geardona	2024-11-20 23:48	Qwerfjkl	2024-11-20 17:32
13	Tagging Category:Cinema of Belgium	BRFA filed	20	4	Bunnypranav	2024-12-21 15:58	Bunnypranav	2024-12-21 15:58
14	Bulk remove "link will display the full calendar" from articles about calendar years		6	5	Primefac	2024-12-09 16:31	Primefac	2024-12-09 16:31
15	Province over-capitalization		8	2	Dicklyon	2024-12-21 23:39	Primefac	2024-12-11 22:00
16	VPNGate	Y Done	13	6	MolecularPilot	2024-12-22 01:39	DreamRimmer	2024-12-21 13:40
17	Creation for nano bot	Not a good task for a bot.	3	3	Primefac	2024-12-09 16:30	Primefac	2024-12-09 16:30

list articles with duplicate fields in their language infobox

Since the parameters in the info boxes are inconsistently ordered, we sometimes end up with duplicated fields. This can cause editing problems. I'd like a list of all articles with duplicate parameters in transclusions of {{Infobox language}} and {{Infobox language family}}, with the parameters that are duplicated, even if the fields are blank. (A blank field will still override a filled one, and will also invite future additions that may not display properly). Since there's no actual changes of the articles by the bot, I hope this will be easy to approve. — kwami (talk) 23:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

It's at most 9000 pages to check (if checking for both templates consecutively), and at least 7900, so it'll take a while to complete when started. I'm willing, though I won't be able to start it immediately.  Hazard-SJ  ✈  04:05, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. No rush, and a couple years ago I did an AWB search for some of the more common problems, so hopefully there won't be a lot of hits.

I don't know what would be an easy way to do this, since there are an indefinite number of possible parameters. Perhaps one way would be to flag any parameters which aren't supported by the template; that would be useful info to have as well, though I didn't want to ask for too much in a bot request. — kwami (talk) 05:59, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

PS. "Speakers", "extinct", and "era" should count as duplicates of each other, because they override each other. ("Speakers2" is not a problem.) — kwami (talk) 01:36, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: The following is the result (sorry, it wasn't filtered by namespace):

 Hazard SJ  08:08, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! That wasn't bad to clean up at all. Some important fixes, though, so I'm glad we did it. — kwami (talk) 10:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The Best Is Yet to Come

Redirect page is The Best Is Yet to Come (song), with pages linking to the redirect. The target page is the very old song, so "(song)" should be dropped in linked articles. --George Ho (talk) 23:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Why? In general, WP:NOTBROKEN applies. If you're going to change the target of the redirect or have some other reason that WP:NOTBROKEN doesn't apply, you need to say so. Anomie⚔ 10:27, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

There is more than one song of the same name, so WP:NOTBROKEN wouldn't apply. --George Ho (talk) 16:24, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Template:Infobox soap character 2 cleanup

Template:Infobox soap character 2 should only be used for EastEnders characters where relationships play a strong role. Nowadays, the infobox has been ambushed to import unencyclopedic text in infoboxes. A bot (or a willing editor) should replace Template:Infobox soap character 2 with Template:Infobox soap character to all non-EastEnders characters. this can be done by simply removing the number 2. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree. Yes, since a lot of non-EastEnders characters are using that infobox.  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 14:09, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Discussion is active at Template_talk:Infobox_soap_character_2#Infobox_needs_to_be_replaced_in_many_many_cases. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

If that's the case, it should be renamed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:22, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Andy Mabbett check this. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:24, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

On reflection, I've nominated both templates for a merger discussion at TfD. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

That template is almost certainly not attributed exclusively to EastEnders articles. Very bold move to simply set a bot on any given number of articles. Please consider that many other editors have spent their time discussing what should be included in the infobox. It has been adapted for wide use. It has been discussed before and not only those at WP:EE were willing to use the template. And as for the unfounded accusation that it was "ambushed to import unencyclopedic text". Most have spent time eliminating as many clutter and in-universe parts of the template going.Rain the 1 20:36, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Correct, it's not only for EastEnders, it's for all. The documentation hadn't been updated since several templates were merged (nobody had noticed) a few years ago. Nothing has been ambushed and there is no unencyclopaedic text. But no, removing the "2" won't work because the two templates have very different parameters. –anemoneprojectors– 08:21, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Category:Pages using citations with accessdate and no URL

With new error checking, we currently have 45,000+ pages in Category:Pages using citations with accessdate and no URL. This is mostly due to citation templates that include |accessdate= but do not have |url=. --  Gadget850 19:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Do we want outright deletion or putting it into a comment or? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 19:29, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete. I have sampled the category and each has been a book or journal without a link. 'accessdate' has no meaning without a URL. --  Gadget850 20:09, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll have that added to Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval/Hazard-Bot 21.  Hazard-SJ  ✈  06:06, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Bot to tag articles only sourced to National Register Information System

Through many pages/months/years? of discussion at WT:NRHP and its archives, it has been decided that a bot is needed to tag any articles with only a single reference to the National Register Information System (NRIS) with the {{NRIS-only}} template, which encourages the addition of extra sources and puts the articles in cleanup categories, "Articles sourced only to the NRIS since MONTH YEAR". The shortcomings of NRIS are explained here.

To find articles that are only sourced to NRIS, a list of all the pages on which {{NRISref}} is transcluded could be a starting point. There may also be pages that link directly to older versions of the NRIS website, which would include the string "www.nr.nps.gov" somewhere in their content. From this giant list of articles, those with a single reference need to be picked off and tagged.

After its initial run, the project would like for the bot to continually check new articles and tag them if they are NRIS-only and prevent the removal of the NRIS-only template from existing articles unless a second source is added. Is this possible?--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 05:06, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Dudemanfellabra for raising this. The hopes and concerns for what a bot run could accomplish were under discussion at wt:NRHP#Moving forward. I guess it can be discussed here instead; there is a pointer now from there to here.

I don't agree that it "has been decided" that tagging, as proposed, should be done, and especially not with promises to repeatedly reimpose a tag, where editors make judgment that the tag is not helpful. It would clearly be helpful to identify the articles believed to have faults, say by listing them in a workpage.

If and when a tag is deemed helpful by a real consensus, the tag itself would need improvement, including to have a state-specific switch/indicator, to enable customization of links for state-specific sources, to enable state-specific categorizations.

Important concerns about some proposals include:

• the likely disruption caused by the posting of a negatively worded template in many NRHP articles, when the proposed message is alarmist and sometimes false. Note the current wording proposed is far more negative than, say, the {{One source}} template.
• no procedure for removal of template, or intentions to battle about it, when article editors have already done what could be done for an article. For example there are articles where multiple sources were in fact used, but are included as external links or have been removed by article-specific dispute, e.g. where one editor argues a source is a blog or too-blog-like to be included in a mainspace reference. That's a sourcing disagreement to be covered properly at the article's Talk page, and an incorrect tag message should not be re-inserted at the article itself by a bot or otherwise. Some provision for a hidden category or a list of articles not to be re-tagged needs to be set up, before tagging proceeds.
• the potential wp:BATTLEGROUND set up by the wishes by one or more to manually battle, or to have a bot run repeatedly impose, the insertion of a negative template into articles where it is arguably not helpful (for reasons above, or otherwise). Dudemanfellabra's request, here, clarifies that it is indeed his intention to carry on in that way, while he responded unhelpfully and not clearly answering, to a question on this at the previous discussion.

These are serious issues which should be resolved elsewhere, perhaps including ANI or arbitration or RFC/U, about personal attacks and so on included in the discussion.

However, if this bot were just to create a workpage, listing and linking to the articles, which would help to quantify the problem and allow for editors to address the targeted articles, and not to tag them in mainspace, I do support that.

To clarify or perhaps improve upon the bot request:

• Could the bot identify not just the NRIS-only-sourced articles, but also identify no-sourced or just-one-non-NRIS-source articles, and identify which they are. The bot could hopefully identify whether there is zero or just one inline reference in a given article, and where there is one, determine if that is an NRIS-only one by seeing if it starts with <ref name="nris"> or <ref name=nris>. That would correctly identify most NRIS-only ones, but there are other formats of references which actually really only refer to the same NRIS underlying source, but which are presented as references to NationalRegisterOfHistoricPlaces.com (a private website that is an NRIS mirror) or otherwise.
• Could the bot make a list organized by state, or make a separate list for each state, to be located at, say, Misplaced Pages:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/OneSourceList (or Misplaced Pages:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/OneSourceList/Alabama, Misplaced Pages:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/OneSourceList/Alaska, etc for state-specific ones). This would facilitate followup work by editors (who are mostly geographically focused).

--doncram 17:58, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Dudemanfellabra's bot request is the result of a discussion process (Misplaced Pages talk:NRHP#New articles should be sourced) that started about a month ago. Everyone who has participated in the discussion appears to support this bot request, except for Doncram. Doncram's request to inject several additional layers of complexity does not have support on the Wikiproject -- and in fact may be an attempt to derail Dudemanfellabra's request by making it so impossibly complex that it won't be implemented. Dudemanfellabra's request is a good idea, with broad support. Please consider it. --Orlady (talk) 18:25, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no complexity that I am able to observe. The language of the tag is in no way, different than, any other tag stating that an article requires work/attention. If the tag were to state, WOW this is terrible OR what a big bag of suck this is, etc etc, sure fine. It does not. I have volunteered to take a look at all NRHP in WV. I started with McDowell County, so far, its about right. BUT, if a bot were to add the potential for more data, lets do it. Very simple.Coal town guy (talk) 18:40, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with Orlady's characterization. The general discussion has included support for other alternatives, such as creating a cleanup category (which would not require any mainspace display). There was considerable support for that. The discussion also included vile language and personal attacks, and then most participants dropped out, relatedly. There is less-than-broad support for the specific proposal made here about tagging mainspace articles.

And, about the suggestion that my suggestion is an attempt to make something impossibly complex, is nonsense. It would be easy for a bot to make a worklist, this is done all the time. And should not be controversial. --doncram 18:41, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

If you disagree with Orlady, OR ANYONE ELSE, isnt there another avenue besides this bot request?Coal town guy (talk) 18:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

In the discussion of this proposal at WT:NRHP, everyone involved besides Doncram supported this proposal; Doncram's attempt to raise issues about this proposal here, after a consensus was already established, strikes me as forum shopping. TheCatalyst31 01:29, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Moreover, this kind of behavior was already discussed at Arbcom, and Doncram was informed that actions such as attacking others' words as "vile" were seriously at variance with our standards — yet he has continued in his course of action. No further action needs to be taken, unless he wants to take himself back to Arbcom. As Hasteur notes, Doncram's suggestion makes the situation far more complicated; let's not make it any harder than necessary. Nyttend (talk) 03:46, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

As a bot runner: Dudemanfellabra's request is fairly straightforward and does actively flag down assistance for the NRHP articles in addition to collating the articles by when they were discovered as a problem. doncram's counter proposal seems unnecessarily complicated and prefers the "Out of Sight, Out of Mind" philosophy for flagging down assistance by either creating a hidden maintanance category or by generating a Misplaced Pages space page that indexes the problems instead of actively calling out the problem on the page where an unregistered user might be able to correct the issue and be converted into a Wikipedian. I also see the subdivision by geographic region as secondary to the "when was the problem called out". Hasteur (talk) 19:02, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

@Dudemanfellabra, Doncram, Coal town guy, TheCatalyst3, and Nyttend: Ping on this question. I've got some ambition and mental bandwidth to try tackling this, but don't want to touch the issue with a 40 foot pole unless a consensus as to what you want done has been established. Hasteur (talk) 15:10, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, follow the initial suggestion of Dudemanfellabra, its simple, direct, to the point and lacks complication, especially the part of creating a list f those articles single sourcedCoal town guy (talk) 16:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Hasteur, the discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:NRHP#New articles should be sourced was convoluted, but I believe I am correct in saying that this proposal was supported by User:Dudemanfellabra, User:TheCatalyst31, User:GrapedApe, User:Dmadeo, User:Cdtew, User:Orlady, User:Coal town guy, and User:Blueboar. User:Ammodramus and User:Smallbones made comments that were consistent with support, but they didn't say whether or not they supported it. The only user who opposed it was User:Doncram. As User:Nyttend (who apparently also supports it) notes above, Doncram is under some Arbcom sanctions related to some of the behavior he has demonstrated here. It is also useful to note that one of the outcomes of the "Doncram" case at Arbcom was a statement that the issue of adequacy/inadequacy of stubs like these (a content issue that was central to the Doncram case) was one for the community to work out, and that the above-referenced Wikiproject discussion was essentially about that issue and led directly to this bot request. --Orlady (talk) 17:46, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

SUPPORT, just in case there was any doubt. I fail to see how in any manner how tagging single source articles is in any way, negative, anyone want to clue me in ???Coal town guy (talk) 17:54, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I too support the proposal, although I didn't participate in the original discussion. Theoretically we could occasionally have false positives, e.g. someone places an in-text citation to some other source, but (1) the likelihood of that happening is ridiculously tiny, and (2) with something as innocuous as placing a cleanup template, we're not going to have anything harder than removing the template from any articles where this might happen. Orlady makes a good point; we've reached general agreement on how to handle these stubs, so a bot to fulfill this discussion's agreement would be quite helpful. Nyttend (talk) 21:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Hearing significant consensus for this bot process, I'm going to start developing code to work this. Hasteur (talk) 22:07, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, Hasteur. :-) --Orlady (talk) 00:34, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

TedderBot replacement

Hello: Can someone take over the new article alert job from TedderBot? This page has the link to the source code. The bot has been out of operation since August 22. Please see here the requests from various project owners to get bot working again. Thanks. — Ganeshk (talk) 00:33, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Many of the WikiProjects rely a great deal on the results from this bot; It would be really great if we could get new article listings on a reliable and frequent basis. Thanks. Invertzoo (talk) 13:30, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Seconded. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:56, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Rise of the Toolbots

I'm intrigued by the possibility of creating bots to work with Misplaced Pages tools like Huggle or Igloo or Vandal Fighter. That could probably be useful....--User:SmartyPantsKid 20:53, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi, SmartyPantsKid. Have you encountered ClueBot (and read about its process for detecting vandalism)? It's quite interesting. Theopolisme (talk) 21:40, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Request to dump a Template's usage list

This is a read-only request (no bot edits asked, just list pages):
Please list all template calls from Template:RailGauge.

• Template {{RailGauge}} is used in ~11000 pages, quite likely multiple times per page. I'd like tho have a list of all these template calls by input. My targets: I want to source these items on Template:RailGauge/doc, and I want to throw out unreasonable inputs).

Source facts

• Template:RailGauge
• WLH says: ~11000 pages use the template
• Incoming Redirects (R to Template:RailGauge) are to be catched too:

- Template:Railgauge ~850 pages

- Template:Gauge ~100 pages

• There can be multiple transclusions per page
• The transclusion can be through a template used on a page: East Hills railway line uses Template:East Hills Line

Output request

• One full data row per individual template call

Expect ~25000 rows from ~11000 pages.

• Format: CSV -- you can suggest other
• "rowid" is to be added by the bot (any number will do -- no doubles)
• Header or footer: not needed, but may be added

• Target result page: Template:RailGauge/usage (or Template:RailGauge/usage at 29 aug 2013 looks fine too)
• Other parameters used (all optional and named, or weird & idle) please in a single text string. (Unless it is easy to split them somehow)
  -DePiep (talk) 21:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Coding... Thanks for the fabulous, detailed task description! I'll get this done and generate a CSV in the coming days. Theopolisme (talk) 16:30, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanx! I was wondering if I was writing too shorthanded. Expectations for the result. -DePiep (talk) 23:31, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

May I abuse your ethousiasm & understanding: please split al inputs into n separates, and so switch columns "R from ..." and n "al=on", "allk=on", "wrap=yes, .... (list after R from .. is inknown by number)) OK? -DePiep (talk) 01:40, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

So I have swapped the rightmost example columns: Redirects in a single one. All params not being |1= are optional and so unknown in number (0 ... ). These n can better be rightmost. Please split into "" each, if can be done easy. Not my primary request clearly. -DePiep (talk) 02:13, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Note - I am in the process of migrating individual usages of {{Gauge}} to{{RailGauge}}Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Does not matter (or: could be disturbing even, AGF). Redirects are OK. -DePiep (talk) 23:31, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

• Ol'lol, from 2011; Misplaced Pages:Bot_requests/Archive_41#Template_usage. -DePiep (talk) 02:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• Oy vey – will this be satisfactory for your purposes? I think I'll still probably write the script (just as a fun exercise for myself), but at significantly lower priority if TemplateTiger will handle your needs. Theopolisme (talk) 01:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

The data is as expected. So this is basically OK.

The layout (format) into HTML table is a horror, because I want to process the data further automatically (off wiki). Also the 30-per-page makes it useless. I cannot request (11000/30=) 366 pages manually.

Does redirect Template:railgauge need its own run?

Not all params are listed, but that is not a priority (not needed).

If you can address these problems, this TemplateTiger would be OK.

These 2008 2011 results suggest that my estimation of ~25.000 rows may be too low. Could be 50.000 to 100.000. -DePiep (talk) 09:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

It is mentioned, that it does not handle nested templates. Does that mean I do not see these at all in the results? It would be OK if these nested templates are listed in their template space. Or another trick? -DePiep (talk) 09:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Theopolisme, any thoughts? -DePiep (talk) 23:13, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Unused file redirects

Number of pages affected : ~2000

Task : Flag all unused file redirects with {{db-g6|rationale=Unused file redirect}}. And 'unused' is means no incoming links at all.

This will hopefully end the eclipsing of some files at commons as well a dealing with a backlog that has bulit up in respect of -Misplaced Pages:Database reports/Unused file redirects

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Is this non-controversial enough that an adminbot should be considered (this would obviously involve further discussion and some strict requirements...for example, a certain amount of time would need to elapse)? Theopolisme (talk) 16:27, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Adminbots are of themselves controversial, hence the above suggestion.

If it's technically feasible, a bot to 'cleanup' usages of redirected/retitled images in Article space should also be considered. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:31, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

This is possible. Would you prefer it to check on it's own or be commanded by users?  Hazard SJ  01:47, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Ideally the imeage-redirect cleanup bot should be able to work on it's own in Article space..

But some kind of log so mistakes can be found would be appreciated.

Note not all usages would have a File: prefix, some infoboxes for example add the File/Image prefix internally... Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:56, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Translators available activity updating bot

It was suggested to me at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (technical)#‎Finding ACTIVE foreign language speakers. that a bot would be a good option for updating Misplaced Pages:Translators available. The bot to do this job would, I am supposing on a once or twice monthly schedule, glance across the contributions of editors named therein, and indicate what was the last month in which each such editor had edited. Which would thusly provide an idea of which editors with translational skills would be around to provide such skills in a pinch, as asked. Blessings!! DeistCosmos (talk) 02:17, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Can somebody take over RFC bot?

Chris G (talk · contribs) has left a message on his talk page that real life has taken priority and he's stopped his bots. But he has offered the code if somebody wants to get them running again. Is there anybody willing to take a look at getting RFC bot (talk · contribs) running again? I'm most interested in the WP:DASHBOARD updating, but the RfC stuff is probably a higher priority. Thanks. 64.40.54.22 (talk) 06:09, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

So... Special:Contributions/Legobot. Unfortunately Chris made the toolserver database private, so I'm starting off with a fresh database. I'm not sure what side effects this might have (people might get FRS spammed a bit extra?), but nothing should blow up. Right now I have it on a hourly cronjob. Is there any need for it to run any faster? Legoktm (talk) 06:33, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Hrmph. Special:Contribs/10.4.1.125. I fixed it so that shouldn't happen again in the future. Legoktm (talk) 06:49, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages bots
• Misplaced Pages requests