Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 89

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Bot requests. 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 main page.

Archive 85

←

Archive 87

Archive 88

Archive 89

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

SD0001, I'll be honest I've not done much in the way of database reports, could we get this unnecessary dab report refreshed? Primefac (talk) 15:50, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

The bot isn't updating because there's no |interval= param. I've added it now for 30 days - feel free to adjust if more frequent updates are desired. It's also possible to just hit "Update the table now" for an on-demand update. – SD0001 (talk) 16:07, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! Didn't even think to look at the page code for that sort of thing. Primefac (talk) 16:18, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

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)

Well, this is quite it then. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:01, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

@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)

BD2412, by all means. — Qwerfjkltalk 22:28, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

@Qwerfjkl: sweet, that's a big help Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:46, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

So could all discrete subsets be moved by bot, provided that the page without "(parenthetical)" still does not exist or redirects to the disambiguated title? Wikiwerner (talk) 17:40, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Wikiwerner, these need to be handled on a case-by-case basis in general. — Qwerfjkltalk 10:53, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Why? I think it wold be a reasonable bot request to take a specific disambiguator and move all pages with that disambiguator where the base name either has never existed or is a single-revision redirect to the disambiguated page and move them to the base name. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:30, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

In fact, I was originally going to code this task, but seeing the discussion so far, I paused because I am not sure we want to, even though I think we should too. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:57, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

If someone wants to modify User:Plastikspork/massmove.js to strip out suffixes, any admin would be able to batch-remove disambiguators such as (film). It should theoretically just require shifting your lookup value from the front to the back of the string, but I'm pulled in a few too many directions at the moment so I'm not sure if I'm able to do this myself. Primefac (talk) 15:15, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

It really was that easy; User:Primefac/massmove2.js allows for stripping of suffixes. Primefac (talk) 15:44, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, duh! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:38, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

There are only a few hundred (film) and (band) articles in the dbase report, and we can add other values to the report based on the discussion below. I figure to minimise disruption maybe do batches of forty or fifty at a time spread out over a couple of days. Primefac (talk) 10:23, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

I do have concerns that we may end up automating "primary topic" status to a bunch of titles that do not merit that over the title redirecting elsewhere. BD2412 T 14:39, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

I was only planning on moving pages that have a redlinked base name. Primefac (talk) 18:42, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Pppery, what are some examples of disambiguators that you think could be safely stripped? — Qwerfjkltalk 17:03, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

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)

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)

We could also change the citation templats, so that if the URL parameter contains e.g. "UTM_source=chatgpt.com", then {{AI-retrieved source}} is added at the end of the citation. Wikiwerner (talk) 11:36, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

I am building a website builder and SEO optimization tool, users by default customers bring in their Socials across yelp, google reviews, instragram et cetera by way of google places API.

One thing that signals trust is also a wikipedia page with founding date and basics of the company. For the established businesses with important context, i'd like to automatically create the wikipedia pages via the API with the important details on the company to signal trust. Jamespentalow (talk) 00:13, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Jamespentalow, Wikipedia is not intended as a directory or something to signal trust, but an encyclopedia. As an encyclopedia, there are criteria for inclusion. The criteria for inclusion for companies is at WP:NCORP. This is a generally higher bar, and thus it's harder to get an article on a company than it is to get one on most other topics. We require high-quality, independent, and reliable sources for articles, and right now there is not an AI or other automated software that can gather these, let alone write an article. If you think the company meets WP:NCORP, you're free to take a stab at writing an article about it yourself and going through the Articles for creation process. However, the task is Impossible for a bot. HurricaneZeta^C 01:31, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

I would like to see a bot that would detect likely Reference spam, and generate a confidence score internally, the way User:Cluebot NG does. Ideally, at high levels of confidence, perhaps it could just revert as Cluebot does, but in any case, it ought to generate a project page with a table or log of rated edits so that humans could review the results, comment, perhaps define a confidence threshold for auto-reverts, and of course, provide data for refining and tuning the algorithm.

I seem to be spending more and more time analyzing and reverting WP:REFSPAM, and a lot of them are very obvious and really should not need human intervention. If someone is a new editor, adds substantially the same citation to multiple articles, with no added content (or brief, near-identical content), and has few or no edits outside one topic area (i.e., an WP:SPA), odds are very high they are a ref spammer. Mathglot (talk) 01:34, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

@Mathglot: this is programmatically possible, a little difficult and time-consuming — but possible. I have a few questions, would it be okay if we continue the discussion on your or my talkpage? —usernamekiran (talk) 08:37, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

usernamekiran, sure, let's move it, but let's find a more public Wikipedia page or WikiProject page where we have a prayer of attracting other interested comment. Perhaps Wikipedia talk:Spam (540 watchers, 56 pageviews/mo.) or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam (1,218 / 1,926), or a subpage of one of them to centralize possibly extended commentary? My knowledge in this field is ancient now, but I wonder if we compiled a grab-bag of possible features (to add to the four I listed), generated a test set of a few hundred human-assessed spam evaluations, and threw a machine learning bot at it with the feature set, whether that might generate a usable model, at least as proof of concept. Likely with all the advances in AI, some of that can be streamlined, maybe even the assessments? That would be a win. Mathglot (talk) 09:19, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

That's even better, I should have thought of that. I have a primary workflow in my mind, only for creating the report(s). In the early phase, the bot should rely on heuristics instead of machine learning. Once we create a good confidence scoring mechanism, we can move to next phase of reverting the edits. But during first phase, we will need inputs from other users on reports — to cross-verify the suspected spam links. In few hours, I will copy-paste this conversation, and detailed workflow on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam, and notify few relevant venues of the discussion. Once we create a workflow/logic, I can start on concrete programming. During the discussion, I will create code for detecting the URLs being inserted, associating them with users/articles, and other basic necessary stuff. —usernamekiran (talk) 23:28, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

• moved. —usernamekiran (talk) 02:28, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Coding... a base/skeleton code has been created, but given the complexity, this would take at least a month to go fully operational in bot's user-space, and to collect enough data. It would take at least a month or two after that to go live in mainspace/BRFA. —usernamekiran (talk) 08:17, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

I am wanting to see if there is potentially a way to automate the adding of Wikilinks to all articles that have listed or otherwise have Bruce Dukov mentioned in the contents of the article. This is an entry I recently created (after it was initially deleted in 2006), and there are about 290 articles that mention Mr. Dukov individually (not in infoboxes, it seems) in the text of the article. I am wanting to see if those mentions could be automatically linked, essentially. Please let me know if this is possible.

Sincerely, PootisHeavy (talk) 22:48, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

WP:AWB is probably the best option for this. BilledMammal (talk) 03:45, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

{{BOTREQ}} Primefac (talk) 17:20, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

I am unfamiliar with bots, and have no idea if this is a bad idea or not (it may very well overload the server or something).

Would it be a good idea to have a bot automatically put redirects with no categorisation into it's own maintenance category, so editors can fix it? (See WP:RCAT) Jacksonvil (talk|contribs) 05:29, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

I think a database report might be better for this, based on the sheer scale. One might already exist though, I'm not sure. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 08:50, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Correct (about using a report, that is). Primefac (talk) 10:29, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing me to the notice of this. I will have a look. Jacksonvil (talk|contribs) 11:29, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

{{BOTREQ}} Jacksonvil (alt) (talk) (contribs) (Main account) 05:21, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

{{Non-free no reduce}} is intended to keep a bot (I think it is DatBot (talk · contribs)) from downsizing large non-free images to no more than 100k square pixels. Therefore, it is redundant and pointless if an image with size ≤100k has this tag. I recently found an image File:Gangbusters title.png that had this tag with a size of 418×239 px (99902 px²). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:16, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

This page is for bot requests. Are you requesting a bot? SeaDragon1 (talk, contributions) 16:11, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, because this is an issue that is trivial to handle and likely to recur in the future. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:40, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

So from a bot perspective, how often (generally speaking) does this sort of thing happen? Primefac (talk) 12:56, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Looks like there are currently 204 such images, 41 with the latest file revision in 2025 and one so far in 2026. There are also four audio files with the tag: File:J Dilla - Don't Cry.ogg, File:J Dilla - Time, The Donut of the Heart.ogg, File:Jane Remover - Dreamflasher.ogg, and File:Kanye West - Blood on the Leaves.ogg.

I note 57 of the 204 are in Category:Sports uniforms, 54 of them last uploaded in 2024. Many appear to be templated images showing two variations of a uniform, in contrast to others (over 100000px²) that have three variations (e.g. File:ECM-Uniform-PHI.png vs File:ECA-Uniform-DET.png), which makes me suspect they started tagging all new template images with {{Non-free no reduce}}. Anomie⚔ 19:55, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

@27JJ: This is you who uploaded the latest version of sports uniforms. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:57, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

I’ve been applying the tag consistently across template-based uploads to prevent unintended resizing. This was inherited from other contributors. Since it’s unnecessary for images under 100k px, I’ll adjust moving forwards. Feel free to clean up existing files where needed. 27JJ (talk) 20:32, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

I'd like to propose a bot that automatically verifies citation metadata in Wikipedia articles by cross-referencing structured fields in citation templates against external APIs. Specifically:

• DOIs resolved via the CrossRef API, comparing the returned title and authors against the values in the {{cite journal}} or {{cite book}} template
• PMIDs looked up via the NCBI PubMed E-utilities API, with the same comparison
• ISBNs checked against Open Library or WorldCat

The bot would flag cases where:

• A DOI or PMID resolves to a different paper than described in the citation
• A DOI or PMID does not resolve at all
• There is a significant mismatch between the template metadata and the API-returned metadata (e.g. different title, different authors)

It would not assess whether the source supports the claim it is cited for — only whether the citation is internally consistent and points to a real, correctly identified document.

This would be useful for several reasons. First, it addresses growing concerns about LLM-generated articles introducing incorrect citation metadata (wrong DOIs, fabricated PMIDs, misattributed authors). Second, it would improve citation quality across all articles, regardless of how they were written — human editors also introduce typos, outdated DOIs, and copy-paste errors in citation fields. Third, all required APIs are free and public, making implementation straightforward.

The output could be formatted as a report similar to existing cleanup listings, or the bot could add maintenance tags like {{failed verification}} to individual citations where mismatches are detected.

I encountered this issue firsthand while working on Draft:Age and mathematical productivity, where several citation template fields (PMIDs, DOIs) contained minor errors that pointed to different papers in the same journals. These were caught manually, but an automated tool would have flagged them instantly and could do the same across all of Wikipedia's approximately 230 million citations.

Would there be interest in developing or supporting a bot like this? ~2026-20189-58 (talk) 12:27, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't know that there are growing concerns about LLM-generated articles introducing incorrect citation metadata. Rather, there are concerns (not growing, but already in full bloom) about LLM-generated material making its way into Wikipedia, in prose as well as hallucinated sources.

The proposed bot would instead hide evidence of LLM generation. In the case of DOIs and PMIDs, these are typically copied and pasted into the template by the editor, so there would be no typographical errors.

I would prefer such a bot not correct the DOI, PMID, or ISBN, but flag them with an appropriate superscript label like ^{possibly hallucinated} or something more concise. And this should happen in mainspace and draftspace. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 14:20, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Good idea. The important part is that suspicious sources are properly flagged to make review easier. ~2026-20189-58 (talk) 14:29, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

This is something I could do, but it would need to be discussed somewhere first as I wonder how much traction it would gather. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:10, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

I would like to see a tool that can legitimately verify the ISBN metadata vs. the citation metadata. However there is no public API for that. Often the APIs conflates work vs. edition. US vs UK edition. Hardcover vs paperback. etc.. untangling these messes is not a simple API query. The more you lean on APIs the more of a mess it creates. It copies mistakes from the API datasets into Wikipedia. CitationBot has been doing this for years, tagging citations with whatever ISBN it can find. Then you have a split brain problem: ISBN points to one edition, metadata points to a different edition. -- GreenC 20:53, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

It's not uncommon for people to forget to notify the people they are complaining about. Could we have a bot detect if a username is inserted as a parameter in the {{userlinks}} template and the user hasn't already had an ANI notice about that thread? This could make sending notices simpler; instead of opening a thread and then going around to talk pages, you just use the template and the bot notifies people for you. This would save time for the OP and for people who have to notify when the OP forgets. QwertyForest (talk) 14:56, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is a good task. First, people are supposed to notify users that have ANI threads made about them. Which means that very often, if not in most cases, other users that are mentioned are incidental to what's being discussed.

E.g. User:Bob keeps vandalizing the subpages of User:Example, see Special:Contributions/Bob.

User:Example here doesn't need to be notified.

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:15, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

When a username is put into the {{userlinks}} template, the user is probably not incidental. Even if a bot was going to notify everyone mentioned whether or not the template was used, User:Example may still appreciate an invitation to the discussion about a user they have been affected by. However, if you wanted to limit messages to the people the thread is about, having the bot only do it with {{userlinks}} usernames should work. QwertyForest (talk) 17:14, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

How exactly is the bot supposed to tell if someone has gotten an ANI notice? Template:ANI-notice is the most widely used method of notifying, but it isn't required to use that specific template. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 17:36, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

I think you've found a problem. I was expecting it to work with the normal template, but custom messages would confuse it. Do you see a way around that? QwertyForest (talk) 18:41, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

I can't think of anything foolproof. The bot looking for links to ANI might be sufficient, but it wouldn't be perfect. 'Notice' is a vague enough term to classify such notifications as "hey you are in a report at ANI" as probably sufficient to meet the threshold, which doesn't use any links. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 19:52, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

I think there’s a benefit in human notification in filling out the reason for the notification. That said, the bot could look at mentions on a delay and check the users talk page to see if a link is present. The bot would only notify if the target page has not been linked at the user’s talk page. Dw31415 (talk) 19:57, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Many of the results are simply not linear enough to be assigned to a color. This article should have all background colors removed from the outcome column like on List of wars involving Spain. Otherwise there will always be disagreement on the supposedly "straightforward" outcome of a war. Not to mention the vandalizing no-name accounts like to do on these types of articles (plus the edit war that's literally going on right now). Bubba6t3411 (talk) 17:02, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Does this involve a Bot? Dw31415 (talk) 17:52, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

This is not the correct venue for this request. The article's talk page should be used to achieve consensus. If consensus to remove the backgrounds is achieved, a bot is not needed; a simple find and replace of the background styling should be easy for anyone with a little text-editor experience. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:16, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

The talk page for List of wars involving Spain is the right venue. See WP:RFCBEFORE for a list of dispute resolution methods. Dw31415 (talk) 11:10, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

The Women in Red project have renumbered a couple of their events (please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red#Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/2016 Women in Philosophy Drive). We would like parameters changed in the template as follows:

• {{WikiProject Women in Red|2017}} → {{WikiProject Women in Red|32a}}
• {{WikiProject Women in Red|2018}} → {{WikiProject Women in Red|63a}}

Please note that other parameters may also exist, which should be preserved, e.g.

• {{WikiProject Women in Red|31|2017|35}} → {{WikiProject Women in Red|31|32a|35}}
• {{WikiProject Women in Red|2018|68}} → {{WikiProject Women in Red|63a|68}}

Please do not change the year parameter, e.g.

• {{WikiProject Women in Red|year=2017}} → {{WikiProject Women in Red|year=2017}}

Pages to be processed are:

• Category:WikiProject Women in Red meetup 2017 articles (0)
• Category:WikiProject Women in Red meetup 2018 articles (0)

Thank you — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 04:07, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

I will file a BRFA today or tomorrow when I get some time. – DreamRimmer ■ 10:25, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

It was tomorrow yesterday :)) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:23, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

BRFA filed – DreamRimmer ■ 14:05, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Marking as {{done}}. – DreamRimmer ■ 14:57, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi. Anyone can help me on creating pywikibot script to award barnstar automatically? Hope for positive response. Fade258 (talk) 16:05, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Which event do you want to distribute awards for? – DreamRimmer ■ 16:34, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

@DreamRimmer, Regarding this drive Fade258 (talk) 16:36, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

@DreamRimmer. Is it possible? Fade258 (talk) 06:07, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

@DreamRimmer, Please look at this code and help me on rectifying. Fade258 (talk) 06:43, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

It's possible. I will write one for you. – DreamRimmer ■ 09:33, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

@DreamRimmer, Thank you so much for your assistance. Fade258 (talk) 10:00, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

You can find the script here. Please set Run to true to award users and false to print messages. Parsing may not be fully reliable, as the GAN backlog drive pages are inconsistent across drives. You shouldn't have any issues with the February drive or future drives that follow the same format. I see that some users have already received their awards, so I have added a variable to skip them. In future, it would be better to keep a list of users and points on a separate page or txt file instead of taking data from drive pages, as that would be more reliable. – DreamRimmer ■ 11:43, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

@DreamRimmer. Thank You so much for providing the script. I will do it. Can you please provide me a script by adding list of users and points in txt file? Guide me I will do that. I hope for positive response. Fade258 (talk) 12:50, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Please could a bot-op (or other person who knows how) generate a list of articles that use the {{main}} template with a link to a non-English Wikipedia, e.g. {{main|:fr:Siège de Marseille (1524)}}, grouped by destination Wiki. If the list is short, please place it directly in the discussion at Template talk:Main#Main article link to non-English Wikipedia. If the list is (in your opinion) too long for there, please create it as a separate page somewhere suitable (my userspace is fine) and put a link to it there. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 15:46, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't see that this would need a bot. Seems like a reasonably simple regex to get a list of articles in the {{main|: format. I suppose going through and listing them per Wikipedia would be the issue Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:03, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Thryduulf, like this search? — Qwerfjkltalk 17:01, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

I didn't know you could do regex searches! Exporting the results to a list would be easier to work through, but that is certainly better than iterating through language codes 1 by 1 that was all I knew how to do. Thryduulf (talk) 17:22, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Thryduulf, that's easy enough to do with AWB, JWB, or pagepile. — Qwerfjkltalk 17:30, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm going to use https://petscan.wmcloud.org/?psid=46902942 for use on the linked discussion. Primefac (talk) 19:11, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

I moved the template Template:Yokohama (an icon of a tire company) to Template:Yokohama Rubber Company to make room for a navigational template about the city of Yokohama.

However existing calls for "Yokohama" (which must be replaced before I can insert the city navigational template) number over 500. I need all instances of {{Yokohama}} changed to {{Yokohama Tire Company}} so no existing tire-related pages are affected by me inserting a navigational template in the "Yokohama" space.

Thanks, WhisperToMe (talk) 03:48, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Sounds like a good use for a bot indeed. Is the new template up and working? Can you share a diff where you have successfully changed it? Dw31415 (talk) 19:55, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

The template does not yet exist.

You could also just name the new template Template:Yokohama city or Template:Yokohama (city) per similar city names for navboxes you've created.

For what it's worth I've been planning on nominating {{Yokohama}} and other tire templates for deletion, so give me a few days (and make your navbox!) to sort that out; it's been somewhat low on my priority list but I'll bump it up. Primefac (talk) 10:04, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! I started it at Template:Yokohama (city) WhisperToMe (talk) 04:27, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm seeking comment on an idea for a bot to automatically create editnotices (including templates like Template:Contentious topics/Arab-Israeli editnotice when pages are edited) for pages that are protected as an arbitration enforcement action (for either/both pages that are protected in future & for those currently protected). User:ClerkBot automatically categorises such protections already, over at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/Protections, and it seems tedious to manually create editnotices for each page, which I believe is the status quo.

I'm not sure if there would be a more efficient way to implement such an idea, such as using a module(?), but if a bot is the right idea, I'd be willing to write it and carry it through consensus-seeking, BRFA, and operation. A couple of questions here:

• Is there a more efficient way to implement the idea?
• The bot would need to create many pages, in the format of this manual edit, meaning WP:MASSCREATE would apply. Is there any technical barrier here, or is it simply the consensus of the community?
• The bot would need pagemover or template editor permissions to override the title blacklist. Would this be a technical issue?
• On the non-technical side: does the community even want this bot...is it a good idea? Sysops, template editors, and pagemovers, would you find a task like this useful? (If this thread is encouraging, my plan is to go to WP:VPPROP for consensus for the task.)

Thanks for your input. Best, Staraction (talk · contribs) 13:47, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

While this is not an argument for opposing a bot, I would assume many such protection actions are done by Twinkle (I know not all admins prefer it). It might be possible to include this automation in Twinkle itself.

@Staraction, regarding some of your questions, neither WP:MASSCREATE nor granting pagemover (which I think is technically enough and preferred for such a task) would be any problem, provided consensus for doing the task in the first place is there.

Notified: Wikipedia talk:TW. ~~~~

~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 15:52, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Editnotice § Creating editnotices lists the locations for namespace-specific edit notices. For instance, the one for mainspace is located at Template:Editnotices/Namespace/Main. Its implementation invokes Module:Mainspace editnotice, which could be modified to check for some suitable indicator (if one exists) that a page has been protected for a specific purpose. isaacl (talk) 22:14, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

I believe this is how Template:BLP editnotice works, where the indicator is "either Category:Living people or Category:Possibly living people". I don't think there's a similar category for the different protection reasons, and the {{ARBPIA}} template might not always be present on the article's talk page. Is there another indicator that might be relevant here, other than the category? Staraction (talk · contribs) 07:33, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

• I'd love to see anything that can manage the tedious clerical tasks at AE. Valereee (talk) 12:51, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
• Could the existing logger bot add these, maybe? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:33, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

  @ScottishFinnishRadish: I think that'd certainly be easiest, although it would be up to @L235 (courtesy ping!) of course. Staraction (talk · contribs) 18:08, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

I have began a thread at the village pump to seek consensus for this task. Best, Staraction (talk · contribs) 06:22, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Marking as {{BOTREQ}} per Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/StaractionBot 2. Tenshi! (Talk page) 15:31, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Link replacement: Israel–Hamas war → Gaza war

Task: Mass-replace text/wikilinks inside "Past/Current Events" portal pages and all article pages.

Find: Israel–Hamas war (and piped variations like [[Israel–Hamas war|). See Special:Whatlinkshere/Israel–Hamas war

Replace with: Gaza war

Reason: The primary page target was moved to Gaza war, and past event sub-pages need cleanup. ~2026-28818-51 (talk) 05:30, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Not a good task for a bot. See WP:NOTBROKEN. Wikiwerner (talk) 11:34, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

"Electrified" in {{Infobox station}} belogns to history part. It should whire the time of electrification, but not "Yes" or "No". Benteds (talk) 03:16, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Looks like about 5k pages (4k yes and 800 no) so a bot would probably be best. As a short-term solution (which might just fix the problem anyway) I'll add in some tracking cats and logic to prevent the yes/no from showing in the articles. Primefac (talk) 12:08, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Happy to knock this one out. I've already got the logic written, and I've tested it with about 50 supervised edits. I'll submit a BRFA shortly. Also as a side note, it might be worth changing the parameter name to {{{electrified_date}}} or something. Paging @Zackmann08 who might have some ideas. phuzion (talk) 14:55, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Phuzion large number of conflicting parameters in this one... Up to you whether to do this as one run or two... If the parameter is supposed to display when it was electrified, then the label should also be changed to reflect that. Full support changing to |electrified_date= though. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 14:59, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

I've already done a manual run of 50 pages all of which looked good to me. I think this should be a fairly straightforward request, so BRFA filed. phuzion (talk) 15:14, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Sounds good. Get er done! Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 15:15, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

You could say I got er {{done}}. phuzion (talk) 18:28, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

As a follow up, this entire template is going to require a bot run in the near future to convert up the Location map to the new module... Again, can be a separate bot run, or we can do it all at once? Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 15:00, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

It can be a separate run. You can replace the should-soon-be-deprecated |electrified= with |electrified_date= during that run. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:25, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

WP:AWB/RTP can also be updated to reflect this, though it might be worth clearing out the yes/no values first. Primefac (talk) 16:50, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

I need to replace all wikilinks from New York State Fairgrounds to Syracuse Mile in AAA/USAC/NASCAR championship season articles where the link specifically refers to the race track rather than the fairgrounds complex. Thx. Mark McWire (talk) 03:44, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Not a good task for a bot. Context issues, and only ~150 links anyway so would be better to be done manually or via WP:AWB. Primefac (talk) 09:22, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Okay, I will it change myself with manual edits. --Mark McWire (talk) 23:14, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Bot Name: InyaBot Inyamad (talk) 06:24, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

This is a page for requesting tasks to be done by bots. What task would you like performed by a bot? Dw31415 (talk) 08:06, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Anti vandal? If not possible, a typo corrector. Inyamad (talk) 11:21, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

The governing body for cricket in Sierra Leone has officially rebranded from the 'Sierra Leone Cricket Association' to 'Cricket Sierra Leone' (the main article has already been updated). Could a bot please perform a find-and-replace across all articles to update both the links and the text from 'Sierra Leone Cricket Association' to 'Cricket Sierra Leone'? Thank you! Elison Pokhrel ^TALK 03:12, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Not a good task for a bot. See WP:NOTBROKEN. Primefac (talk) 10:26, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Rather than WP:NOTBROKEN, I'd point to WP:CONTEXTBOT and the fact that a search turns up only about 20 instances of the phrase. Someone could easily do this manually. Anomie⚔ 11:58, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! Elison Pokhrel ^TALK 13:02, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

it has been over 6 years and many wikipedia articles still list the 2010 census as the most recent ~2026-26422-81 (talk) 10:39, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Should we not have this data come from WikiData? Feels odd to have it native to en. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:54, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Do you have any ideas on how a bot could help? Dw31415 (talk) 13:52, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

This is related to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1222#Automated_editing_in_census-designated_place_articles that began around the same time. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:21, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Vilenski's suggestion of implementing a Wikidata system including all United States Census data of an appropriate type (probably just population, gender, and race in the generic case). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:24, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Per MOS:DOUBLESPACE, punctuation marks should be followed by a single (visible) space; however, currently we have ~2000 pages that use .  (period followed by a non-breaking space and a regular space), which renders as a doubled space. See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#DOUBLESPACE for details. Please run a bot to go over these articles and remove such spurious   occurrences. (Some of them are not related to double sentence spacing, but are still erroneous, so removing them should not make things worse. Other cases of MOS:DOUBLESPACE violation, such as using .{{nbsp}} , are much less common and will be easier to correct manually.) — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 23:59, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure I read that discussion as indicating we need to fix these, but I also note that it has gone on at least three different tangents... I'm fine coding it up (simple find/replace) but I just want to make sure that the discussion in question really is giving approval for this task. Primefac (talk) 21:41, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Sure. It seems that nobody objects the intention but some people started warring on wording (unrelated to the actual problem), which I really did not expect when making this request. Let's wait until that discussion settles down... — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 01:56, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

@Primefac: that discussion has apparently settled down, also with a consensus to run the bot. When you find time to run the task, please also do the same with ,   – there are several hundred pages with such occurrences, more or less all of which should be eliminated. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 21:20, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Cool, I'll try to get a BRFA filed at some point this week. Primefac (talk) 08:09, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

BRFA filed Primefac (talk) 12:19, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

{{resolved}} If "Foo–Bar relations" is an article, and any of the following pages is a redirect to "Foreign relations of Foo" or "Foreign relations of Bar", then these should be repointed to the article:

• "Bar-Foo relations"
• "Bar – Foo relations" (spaced dashes were in vogue once)
• "Foo – Bar relations"
• "Bar - Foo relations" (the same thing with a keyboard hyphen)
• "Foo - Bar relations"

I would estimate there are several thousand of these to fix right now, and then a trickle of one every few days.

* Pppery * _{in solidarity} 02:44, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Found only 35 redirects to fix from this query. Redirecting them shortly.

Redirect	Current target	Should be retargeted to
Africa-Bangladesh relations	Foreign relations of Bangladesh	Bangladesh–Africa relations
Africa–Bangladesh relations	Foreign relations of Bangladesh	Bangladesh–Africa relations
Australia - Bulgaria relations	Foreign relations of Australia	Australia–Bulgaria relations
Australia – Bulgaria relations	Foreign relations of Australia	Australia–Bulgaria relations
Azerbaijan - Czech Republic relations	Foreign relations of Azerbaijan	Azerbaijan–Czech Republic relations
Bulgaria-Australia relations	Foreign relations of Australia	Australia–Bulgaria relations
Bulgaria - Australia relations	Foreign relations of Australia	Australia–Bulgaria relations
Bulgaria – Australia relations	Foreign relations of Australia	Australia–Bulgaria relations
Bulgaria–Australia relations	Foreign relations of Australia	Australia–Bulgaria relations
Cambodia - South Korea relations	Foreign relations of Cambodia	Cambodia–South Korea relations
Cambodia – South Korea relations	Foreign relations of Cambodia	Cambodia–South Korea relations
Croatia - South Korea relations	Foreign relations of Croatia	Croatia–South Korea relations
Croatia – South Korea relations	Foreign relations of Croatia	Croatia–South Korea relations
Egypt - Kazakhstan relations	Foreign relations of Egypt	Egypt–Kazakhstan relations
Egypt – Kazakhstan relations	Foreign relations of Egypt	Egypt–Kazakhstan relations
Estonia-Croatia relations	Foreign relations of Estonia	Croatia–Estonia relations
Estonia–Croatia relations	Foreign relations of Estonia	Croatia–Estonia relations
European Union-Malaysia relations	Foreign relations of Malaysia	Malaysia–European Union relations
Kazakhstan-Egypt relations	Foreign relations of Egypt	Egypt–Kazakhstan relations
Kazakhstan - Egypt relations	Foreign relations of Egypt	Egypt–Kazakhstan relations
Kazakhstan – Egypt relations	Foreign relations of Egypt	Egypt–Kazakhstan relations
Kazakhstan–Egypt relations	Foreign relations of Egypt	Egypt–Kazakhstan relations
Mali-Libya relations	Foreign relations of Libya	Libya–Mali relations
Mongolia - Turkey relations	Foreign relations of Mongolia	Mongolia–Turkey relations
Mongolia – Turkey relations	Foreign relations of Mongolia	Mongolia–Turkey relations
NATO-Cyprus relations	Foreign relations of NATO	Cyprus–NATO relations
NATO–Cyprus relations	Foreign relations of NATO	Cyprus–NATO relations
New Zealand-Netherlands relations	Foreign relations of New Zealand	Netherlands–New Zealand relations
New Zealand - Papua New Guinea relations	Foreign relations of Papua New Guinea	New Zealand–Papua New Guinea relations
New Zealand – Papua New Guinea relations	Foreign relations of Papua New Guinea	New Zealand–Papua New Guinea relations
Sudan-Eritrea relations	Foreign relations of Eritrea	Eritrea–Sudan relations
United Kingdom-Solomon Islands relations	Foreign relations of Solomon Islands	Solomon Islands–United Kingdom relations
United Kingdom–Solomon Islands relations	Foreign relations of Solomon Islands	Solomon Islands–United Kingdom relations
United States-Asia relations	Foreign relations of the United States	Asia–United States relations
United States–Asia relations	Foreign relations of the United States	Asia–United States relations

– DreamRimmer ■ 04:04, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Repointed. – DreamRimmer ■ 04:10, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Wow, I was expecting there to be a lot more. I guess that proves Wikipedia is never what you expect - sometimes what you think is a big problem is a tiny one and sometimes something that looks trivial sprawls into a mess. * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 04:34, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

100% – DreamRimmer ■ 07:45, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the perfect place for this and please let me know if there's a better resource. I submitted a GA nomination a while back under my prior username User:RyanAl6. Between the time I submitted the GA and the time it got approved, I changed my username. Now, the new GA is not showing up in my GA count when nominating/reviewing other GAs. I was wondering if a bot could fix this? Thanks. VaguelyVogue (RyanAl6) (talk) 18:16, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Which article are you referring to? You seem to have one GA which is correctly attributed to your new username, and none to your old username. – SD0001 (talk) 11:46, 1 June 2026 (UTC)