Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 15

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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.

Contents

Anti-Vandal Bot in this chart I made

Image:CoasterBot Diagram.png
A bot I am planning, CoasterBot, is going to use PHP coding, that is under heavy development. I know a bit about PHP and I need some tips. And tips about it's actions (in the chart)! —Coastergeekperson04's talkoffline 08:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay I got this PHP script to edit for a bot, and I barely worked on it, just the top line. I don't know what I'm doing, or what to make it connect to any useful IRC channel (I find those more efficient) and I need advice. Here is the script. —Coastergeekperson04's talkoffline 08:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Anti vandal bots are hard work. Take a look at cluebot's source, which is also written in PHP. If you don't know PHP you might want to start out with a simpler task to program, like replacing categories, updating templates, etc. Ρх₥α 04:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)==

A "see also" organizer bot?

Would it be possible to program a simple bot to go around and alphabetize the "see also" sections of articles? It seems like a fairly simple task and one that no one would have any objections to. In this case, how should I go about getting such a bot to run on my computer? Could someone post the necessary code and applications (and maybe some instructions) on my talk page? Thanks very much for the help, Beast of traal T C _ 19:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)Beast of traal

I dunno, some articles might have the links in order by relevance or topic. Or they might be alphabetized according to some not-quite-trivial rule (such as sorting names of people by last name). If you were to do this, I'd suggest at least the following:
  • Skip (or at least require human confirmation for) all "see also" sections that contain anything other than a simple list of links, where "anything" includes any text before or after the list, multiple and/or nested lists, subsections, additional text after any link in the list or any HTML <!-- comments -->. (Any interlanguage links, category tags or stub templates, however, should not be considered part of the section.)
  • Fetch all the linked articles and check if they have category sort keys (either as {{DEFAULTSORT}} or in individual category tags; what to do if there are several is left as an exercise). It may be advisable to run the pages through Special:Expandtemplates first. If a non-trivial (longer than one letter) sort key is found, use that for sorting. However, if the link in the "see also" section is itself piped to something substantially different from (i.e. not just a substring of) the title of the target article, that should probably take precedence.
  • Even if no sort key is found, try to guess one for articles that seem to be about a person (including redlinks to titles that look like names). Keep in mind, however, that not all cultures put the family name last.
  • Finally, use a "natural sort" routine that is smart enough to, for example, sort "X2" before "X10".
—Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Forgive me, I am not an experienced programer, would it be worth it to create a bot like that? Or would the effort out way its value? Beast of traal T C _ 03:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)Beast of traal
The question you must ask first is "Is this a task worth doing at all?" If the answer is yes, then it is definitely a bot-able task. You might want to ask around at the village pump to see if people feel a need to sort those sections in the first place. — Coren (talk) 20:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Indeed "one that no one would have any objections to" is never (rarely) the case on WP. Rich Farmbrough, 17:57 13 November 2007 (GMT).

Android Mouse Bot

Can we make a clone of Android Mouse Bot? It hasn't worked since August. Thedjatclubrock :) (T/C) 04:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

That's because Android Mouse retired. There are some bots now performing some of the same tasks (see the Bot requests archives for that); the only one I don't believe is still being done is fixing links to point at archives, which at some point I hope to set up.  :p — madman bum and angel 06:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
We need a bot to replace multiple maintenance tags with {{articleissues}} Thedjatclubrock :) (T/C) 13:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Hm, there is no consensus I think, that "{{Articleisues}}" is a Good Thing, judging by discussion during the Ambox debate. Rich Farmbrough, 17:46 13 November 2007 (GMT).

Category talk namespace

Could someone have their bot create a list of pages in the category talk namespace for which the corresponding category does not exist?

I know what you're thinking ... the category talk namespace is the most obscure namespace after the MediaWiki talk namespace. Even the portal talk namespace seems to get more action! :) Well, hear me out ...

When a category is renamed or merged, its contents are usually relocated by a bot. After that, the bot generally deletes the category through the operator's sysop account. However, the bots do not move the category's talk page to the new location. In many cases, including virtually all cases of merging, they shouldn't. However, sometimes a category talk page does contain useful discussion, or links to prior CFD discussions, and should be preserved and transferred.

I don't expect there to be more than about 200 such pages, so going through them should not take too much time. The only question is: is anyone willing? Help would be most appreciated. – Black Falcon (Talk) 18:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

280, as a matter of fact, and they are all listed at User:ST47/OCT. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 20:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm looking at a few of them. My general opinion is that if they are redirects with no incoming links, they can be deleted out of hand. If they have other content, more thought is needed. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I commented out 115 that were archives or other subpages - once the main set is done, you may want to look at those. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 20:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I expect that most of these will be deleted per CSD G8, but there should be a few that have useful content. Anyway, I'll start on it. – Black Falcon (Talk) 20:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject participants list maintainance

Would it be possible to create a bot that would do the following:

  1. Extract a list of users by scraping links to userpages from a particular page (ie a WikiProject participants list)
  2. Periodically scrape recent changes from a list of pages, as defined by links present on another page (ie a Project Watchlist, pages in category, etc)
  3. Search for recent edits by each user made to those watched pages
  4. Thereby generate a list of users who have not made edits to the watched pages in an arbitrary timeframe (say 2 months)

I'm sure that with some imaginative coding, server pressure could be kept to a minimum. Any thoughts? Happy‑melon 22:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Im kinda busy at the moment but poke me in 2 weeks and Ill write this. βcommand 22:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
hell given enough time I could just write a database query. βcommand 22:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Features and Admins

Could someone write a bot for me that could automatically coallate the F&A section of the signpost? If so, would you be able to let me run the bot so I can check it each week? The Placebo Effect 04:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I already run a bot that updates WP:LA every day. You could diff one week to the next (the list is divided into 3 pieces, so it's 3 diffs). Similarly, can't you just diff the appropriate versions of WP:FA from it's history? Alternatively, I run a bot that updates Wikipedia:Featured articles nominated in 2007. Newly promoted FAs are really easy to figure out from this list as well. -- Rick Block (talk) 05:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Well i was wondering if a bot could put the whole article together (admins, bots, FA, Fl, FFA, FAOTD, ect.) So i could shave an hour and half off my monday. The Placebo Effect 05:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Cat:Cattle stubs tagging request

Could a bot run a procedure to find all articles in Cat:Livestock stubs AND (Cat:Cattle OR Cat:Cattle breeds) and REPLACE {{livestock-stub}} with {{cattle-stub}}? Thanks --Doug.(talk • contribs) 05:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

consider it done :) :: maelgwn - talk 05:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Bot to undo incorrect linking of dates within date ranges

Can anyone make a bot to undo incorrect linking of dates within date ranges? One example is [[December 14]]-[[December 15|15]] and it can look like "14 December-15". See: Romanian Treasure.

Another example of this class is: [[December 14]]/[[December 15|15]]. There are many more. Can anyone do this? Perhaps it could be in AWB general fixes. Lightmouse 17:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

How should it look? --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs 17:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
We now have the following examples:
  • [[December 14]]-[[December 15|15]]. This can look weird like "14 December-15" rather than "December 14-15"
  • [[December 14]]/[[December 15|15]]. This can look weird like "14 December/15" rather than "December 14/15"
  • [[19 December|19]]–[[20 December]]. This can look weird like "19 December 20" rather than "19-20 December"
Date ranges should not be linked. I am asking for a bot to search out and delink date ranges. Lightmouse 10:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
This can be done manually, check out my monobook.js, the code is in there. Dreamy § 16:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. I know it can be fixed manually. The code in your monobook looks almost identical to mine. I am still hoping that somebody can do it with a bot so we do not have to do it manually. Regards Lightmouse 08:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes this is easy. But it may generate howls of protest. Rich Farmbrough, 17:58 13 November 2007 (GMT).
Further to the above the target should be either [[December 14]]-[[December 15]] or a templated form of the same thing. The reason for the first is that you can have a column of linked dates with some ranges in - which will get broken by preferences if the range is not linked. The advantage of the second is that it will allow implementation of more sophisticated date management techniques that have been requested from the devs. Further a shared or disparate year should be subsumed into the same solution. Rich Farmbrough, 18:04 13 November 2007 (GMT).
Quite. Innocent humans will continue to act rationally. They create human formats and link them. So there should be a bot constantly and rapidly addressing these bad links. I think the machine format is unpleasant. The developers are not coming out with a better solution any time soon. The simplest and easiest solution is to unlink them so that is what I do. I have not encountered any howls when I have done it. It is a generic problem that is ideal bot fodder. Lightmouse 19:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone have a bot and is willing to do this? We already have the code. Lightmouse 12:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
No, unlinking them isn't the best solution. Linking them so they work is. Gene Nygaard 21:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

London Gazette references

About a month and a half ago the London Gazette changed its website (http://gazettes-online.co.uk) (this change also affects the Edinburgh Gazette and Belfast Gazette) meaning that all references to it that actually linked direct to a pdf copy of the relevant gazette on the website (created prior to this change) are now broken. Links to search results pages are similarly broken. An example of an old style link is as follows:

The most important parameters in this are:

    • webType - which indicates whether it is a London (0), Edinburgh (1), or Belfast (2) Gazette which is being referred to and
    • issueNumber which surprisingly enough refers to the number of the Gazzete issue

The equivalent "new" url (in its minimal form) would be:

where:

    • pdf is equivalent to the old issueNumber and
    • geoType is equivalent to the old webType, but now takes a text input

The main problem is that we lose the specific page being referred to, this is because the new url scheme uses the absolute page number, this numberings starts at 1 for the first page of the first issue each gazette of a new year. The old scheme simply numbers each page within an issue (starting with 0). Appending &page=<old page number> to the new url doesn't seem to break anything, but doesn't take you to the right page either - it would however preserve this information for our readers.

The nature of this conversion naturally suggests a bot process, assuming we can easily identify the pagess containing broken links. I've tried using special:linksearch to identify pages linking tothe Gazette website, but this seems to be returning only a fraction of the actual pages, try searching Wikipedia for either "London Gazette" or "gazettes-online" to see what I mean.

Also, User:DavidCane has created {{LondonGazette}}, if references to the Gazettes consistently used this, ongoing maintenance should be easier, since any future changes to the urls could probably be fixed simply by a template change, and it would in any case be easier to identify affected pages by checking transclusions of the template. However, at the moment this also requires the date the Gazette was issued and the (absolute) page number of the first page being referred to, which are generally not easy to identify. If these were not mandatory, a bot could also be sued to turn the broken urls into templated references. If such a bot logged its changes, then this data could be manually inserted at our leisure by working through the logs.

It would also be necessary to update references which link to search results pages e.g.

maps to

It seems the search engine has also been updated, so different results are returned, so it is not worth trying to preserve the parameter indicating which results page we were on. Anyone any thoughts on how best to proceed? David Underdown 10:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

You probably want a database dump search for the string "gazettes-online" - then get these articles converted to the template. Might take two passes or need to be ongoing as ppl add more URLs. I'll try to run the DB dump search for you. Rich Farmbrough, 17:54 13 November 2007 (GMT).
NOw running, although the db dump is a little stale. Rich Farmbrough, 18:58 13 November 2007 (GMT).
Thanks, I've been rather randomly working my way through some articles fixing where I can, but it's rather a tedious task on a manual level, particularly since the indexing of the Gazette's still seems a little hit and miss, so it can be hard to find what you're ooking for, even if you know the date/issue of the Gazette . David Underdown 19:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
List is at User:Rich Farmbrough/Article lists/Gazette. Rich Farmbrough, 09:58 14 November 2007 (GMT).
Thanks again - would it be better if I moved it to my user space, so I can strike out or whatever to my heart's content, without messing around in your user pages? David Underdown 18:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Goings-on archival

Currently, Wikipedia:Goings-on is archived (moved to a dated subpage and reset to an empty slate) by hand every week as soon as someone is available to do it after midnight Sunday (UTC). It's a simple process, but somewhat tedious, and sometimes doesn't happen for days when the regular archivers are unavailable or on wikibreak. The other issue with doing it by hand is that human mistakes or oversights occur occasionally.

As a programmer, I'd say that it'd be theoretically simple to script, but, since my day job involves heavy coding, I'm unfortunately extremely ready to do other things (such as writing non-computer-science-related articles and playing Halo :)) that don't involve my professional knowledge by the time that I get home. The archival process, written out explicitly, is as follows:

  1. Copy the entire contents of Wikipedia:Goings-on to your clipboard.
  2. Move Wikipedia:Goings-on (but NOT the talk page) to Wikipedia:Goings-on/Month day, Year. Again, make sure to uncheck "Move associated talk page".
  3. Edit Wikipedia:Goings-on and replace the redirect with your copy-and-pasted code.
  4. Change the date in the line "Goings-on in the week starting" to the new Sunday that just started.
  5. Clear out the bulleted items in the ==New featured content== section, leaving only the bolded subheadings.
  6. Save the page.
  7. Edit Template:Goings-on and add the date that you just archived to.

Again, this needs to done only once a week and involves only a handful of page requests, so it shouldn't be a server drain. It'd just make wikilife a bit easier for people who update and maintain that page.

As a guess, I'd say that, with minimal work (and if we were to use a subst'ed "reset" template, which I could help with, instead of manual editing for steps 1 and 3–5), the bot that does this could be made generic enough for any page that's archived on a pure date basis (but I'm not aware of any others off-hand). — TKD::Talk 12:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

See User:MiszaBot. It already does stuff like that. Soxred93 has a boring sig 01:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I know about the thread-archiving bots; this is a somewhat different procedure, in that WP:GO isn't thread-based. — TKD::Talk 02:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

FA Cup Final articles

I would like to request a bot that could move all FA Cup Final articles from FA Cup Final YYYY to YYYY FA Cup Final as per all Football League Cup Final, UEFA Champions League Final, UEFA Cup Final and FIFA World Cup Final articles. I realise I could do this work myself, but there are over 100 articles in total to move, and it would simply take too long to do in one go, as would be required (I mean, we can't have half the articles at FA Cup Final YYYY and the other half at YYYY FA Cup Final, now can we?). This has been discussed at WP:FOOTY, and it stands to reason that these articles should follow the standard laid down by all the others. If anyone could make a bot that could do this, I would be much obliged. - PeeJay 17:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok im working through these now :: maelgwn - talk 05:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Cheers bud. The bot seemed to get them all except FA Cup Final 2006, which I have now taken to WP:RM under Uncontroversial proposals, as I could not perform it manually. – PeeJay 09:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

De-wikifying mainspace category tags in user space

I copy-and-pasted a protected mainspace article into User space to start working on a compromise proposal to get it unprotected (long annoying story, ignore that part). I failed to catch the fact that, since I did a complete copy-and-paste, I now had the category tags linking to a page in User space, generally making things ugly and broken. TexasAndroid caught my mistake and fixed it.

Seems like a bot ought to be able to do that, eh? --Jaysweet 22:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

ill look into this, but I need to figure out how to find these type of pages. βcommand 16:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

reformat images per WP:MOS#Images

I realise that using a bot to systematically modify articles to conform strictly to WP:MOS#Images would be highly controversial. However, I believe that a few of the points there could be automated, or be automatically tagged for manual attention.

In particular, I believe that adding "upright" to thumb image formatting when the image is in fact taller than it is wide should be relatively non-controversial.

Also, building a list of articles with left aligned images directly below headings would be helpful for manual cleanup.

In the longer term, I'd ideally like to see all articles comply with the guidelines, in particular not having static image sizes specified except for the listed reasons. I doubt, however, that anyone is ever going to approve of a bot that tries to systematically remove specified pixel sizes while working out whether any of the exceptions apply. It'd probably be seen as being on par with a spellchecking bot. As an alternative, a bot that builds a list of articles that need manual attention might be viable. --AliceJMarkham 11:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Since when is "upright" a possible option? Either the image is already oriented correctly in which case a specification is nonsensical, or you can simply rotate the image to be the right orientation to begin with. In my experience there are too many possible exceptions to make it a smart idea to automate this. Sometimes sizes are specified to avoid an image to spill into the next section or clash with another image. I think the best way to handle this is manually. - Mgm|(talk) 12:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure if you correctly understand the function of the upright option. It is used for portrait (upright) type images (ie vertical axis longer than horizontal axis), to alter the scaling compared to if it was a square or landscape image. Its function is to tell the wiki rendering system to scale the vertical axis to the desired size instead of the horizontal axis. It's in WP:MOS#Images as the recommended syntax for such images. --AliceJMarkham 13:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
      What problem is this fixing? --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 11:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
      Portrait format images are scaled by width without this, and by height with it. This might not be particularly noticeable on a near-square image or at small image sizes, but when you run a preference of 300px, a portrait image without the "upright" qualifier can end up the full height of a 1600x1200 display. With the qualifier, it ends up being scaled to a more proportional size relative to the other images and to the rest of the article. --AliceJMarkham 13:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
      Wouldn't the image have to be a minimum of 300x1200 (or nearly) for that to occur? Are there really images uploaded with that kind of height? TheHYPO 14:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
      Err. No. If the screen is 1200px high, the browser frame will be about 1000px depending on menubars, etc. The image frame will often also contain text, so the image would only need to be a minimum of around 300x900 to basically fill the height of the frame and even an image of say 300x600 will dominate the frame. Irrespective, what we're effectively discussing here is why this already exists in MoS. All I'm proposing is that a bot would be adding a parameter that MoS says should be there anyway. Another way of looking at this is to say that the problem that we're fixing is that many images are not formatted in conformance with MoS and we're fixing a small part of that. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 04:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
The upright option does not scale thumbnails on height instead of width, that's a misunderstanding. All it does is scale the width from user preferences down an additional 25% [1]. If we wanted all images higher than wide to be scaled down differently, then that would be the MediaWiki default and there would be an option to bypass it in special cases. Instead, the default is to make all thumbnails the same width, and the upright option exists to scale exceptional images further. In articles with many images, especially when they're all aligned on the same side, this creates uniformly sized thumbnails and makes the article look clean, instead of having images of two different widths. Most images higher than wide are not considerably higher, and those that are probably get scaled down through normal editorial process. The MOS mention is just a technical trick to use proportional scaling for images with extreme aspect ratios. Automatic reformatting would be highly controversial indeed, even if limited to some aspect ratio threshold, but a list of uses of high images might be useful for those who want to prune excessively high thumbnails. Another question is if the community really has a problem with articles having such images... --Para (talk) 14:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I was curious to see if there are many problematic uses, and so did a query on the toolserver. See User:Para/high images for a list of images that are higher than they're wide. There's quite a lot of them so that's only the top of the list. I looked through a few of them and don't see any problem with a long image on the side, they fit there just as well as an article wide horizontal scrollable panorama would. I don't think any tagging and reviewing of articles is necessary. --Para (talk) 04:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Namespace bot request on CE

Hello, I need much help, including the Chechen wikipedia. I recently exported a namespace request and it changed. The fall back language is Russian, so all the Images and Categories and Templates are in Russian now, and dont work because of the new Chechen namespace words. So I kindly request someone to design a bot for the wiki to do the following:

  • Change ALL Шаблон and Template to Дакъа
  • Change ALL Категория and Category to Тоба
  • Change ALL Изображение and Image to Сурт
  • Change ALL Участник and User to Юзер

Thank you very much and I hope this works! It is on Ce.wikipedia.org and I will give bot status as soon as it is done. Thanks a lot! ---- Girdi (talk) 19:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Please? It doesnt seem too hard. --Girdi (talk) 16:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I left you a message at The Embassy in the Chechen Wiki. Malafaya (talk) 17:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Got it, responded there, thanks mate. :)

Rugby

This is fairly straightforward one. There are two different sports called "rugby". Rugby union and rugby league, the manual of style in Wikipedia is to refer to both by their full names and not use "rugby" as it is ambiguous.

There are a lot of [[rugby union|rugby]] tags that need to be changed to [[rugby union]] as most editors aren't aware of the MoS.

There may also be a few [[rugby league|rugby]] tags that need to be changed to [[rugby league]] as well.

Thanks in advance.-- GordyB (talk) 20:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Y Done βcommand 11:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

AfD tracker

Date Cases Open Closed
11 June (Wednesday) 89 89 0
10 June (Tuesday) 132 121 11
9 June (Monday) 141 123 18
8 June (Sunday) 127 102 25
7 June (Saturday) 131 96 35
6 June (Friday) 154 89 65
5 June (Thursday) 147 20 127
4 June (Wednesday) 159 0 159
3 June (Tuesday) 137 0 137
Category Cases Open Code
Media and music 100 100 M
Organisation, corporation, or product 87 87 O
Biographical 127 127 B
Society topics 45 45 S
Web or internet 29 29 W
Games or sports 46 46 G
Science or technology 26 26 T
Fiction and the arts 64 64 F
Places and transportation 45 45 P
Indiscernible or unclassifiable topic 10 10 I
Nominator unsure of category 0 0 ?
Debates Not Yet Sorted 1 1 U

Case counts are not accurate, and for demonstration only.
Last updated 13:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC) by Ultraexactzz

Being the lazy fool that I am, I include the RfA Report and Template:ArbComOpenTasks on my userpage. It's nice to have that information in one place, with easy links to go to and from. I was wondering if a similar table could be created for Articles for Deletion.

There are two main areas where I would like to have a bot-updated table. The first is the AfD by date table, where all active dates would be listed (in similar fashion to the main WP:AFD page, where dates with active discussions are listed, followed by dates with open debates past 5 days). Each date would have listings for total cases, open cases, and closed cases. The last date would be the first date with no open cases, to show where the division lies. The case totals would be updated by the bot, and the oldest date would be removed when superseded (similar to closed RfA's at RfA Report).

The second area is deletion by category. I would like a list of the AfD categories (per CAT:AFD) with a count of open AfD's in each category. Again, the count is what would be updated by the bot. The purpose is twofold. First, it permits easy navigation to a category of interest, or to a category which seems to be backlogged or overflowing with Afd's. Second, it permits users such as myself to monitor the Unsorted and Nominator Unsure categories, to make sure that those AfD's are sorted properly into one of the other categories (or sorted to unclassifiable).

If designed properly, the two sets of information could conceivably be placed in the same table. I can design the tables, but would like to see if a bot to update them would be possible. Thoughts? Thank you for your time, ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 16:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I've attempted to create a table that would work. The open case count for categories is mainly intended as a checksum, to make sure that a closed case doesn't remain sorted. The table is not too long, and could be split into two separate tables. The main issue I see is the Variable length for the first section (the number of dates with open AfD's might fluctuate). Is this workable? I've included the table here for reference. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 17:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I've amended the table to include the current day and 8 past days of Afd's. This way, even a 4 day backlog is covered, and multiple days of 0 open cases illustrates that the backlog is clear. If there's a way to transclude results from Mathbot (which updates the open case counts at WP:AFD), then that might work in the absence of a separate bot - though I'm not sure what we'd do for the categories. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 04:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

This would be of tremendous usefulness in my opinion! Are you volunteering to code this bot or asking for someone to do it? It's useful enough that I'll step up if needed. — Coren (talk) 00:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I have no idea where I would start, and haven't coded anything more complex than html since college. So, yes, absolutely, if you or someone else can code it, that'd be awesome. I think I could figure out a way to plug the results into a table like this one, so I could at least pitch in - and, simpler results might make the coding a little easier. I've never coded a bot, but might be able to give it a go with an expert as a tutor. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 02:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I've written a bot very similar to this, User:BAGBot, who reports at User:ST47/BAG. A few modifications could have it do this as well. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 11:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
First part is up at User:ST47/AfD - not updating yet though, since it isn't approved. I'm going to hold on the second part, due to the load involved in getting hundreds of AfD pages. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 02:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
That looks great! I can see how server load might be an issue. Tangobot updates the RfA table hourly, but pinging 20 RfA's is a lot different than polling all the AfDs. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 04:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I found a better way, User:ST47/AfDC. I'll post an approval request shortly. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 13:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
... except for the part where there are -52 open AfD in one of the categories?  :-) — Coren (talk) 15:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I fixed that, some fool added a whole log page to one of the categories. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 12:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Article Assessment

I am not sure if there is a bot for this already, but it would be very useful if there was a bot that automatically determined the assessment of a page (maybe from a category or a template) and create a table that uses the {{assessment}} tag. The articles that the bot will go through should be determined by a parameter pointing to a list of articles or some related page. Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 21:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not following what you want. How is this different than the WP:V1.0 bot? Gimmetrow 21:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
That's exactly the answer I wanted. I did not know about the WP:V1.0 bot. Thank you. Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 17:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:Template doc merge bot

{{Template doc}} is {{deprecated}} and {{merging}} into {{Documentation, template}} but parameter differences prevent redirection. {{Template doc}} supports just one optional positional parameter.

A bot is requested to:

  1. Enumerate all pages transcluding {{Template doc}} and
  2. for each page enumerated above perform the appropriate edits:

Edit case 1: no parameter

{{Template doc}}
{{ Template doc }}
{{template doc}}

becomes


{{Documentation, template}}
{{ Documentation, template }}
{{Documentation, template}}

Edit case 2: positioned parameter

{{Template doc|Some Page}}
{{ Template doc | Some Page }}

becomes

{{Documentation, template|{{SUBJECTSPACE}}:Some Page}}
{{ Documentation, template | {{SUBJECTSPACE}}:Some Page }}

Edit case 3: assigned parameter

{{Template doc|1=Some Page}}
{{ Template doc | 1 = Some Page }}

becomes

{{Documentation, template|1={{SUBJECTSPACE}}:Some Page}}
{{ Documentation, template | 1 = {{SUBJECTSPACE}}:Some Page }}

Edit case 4: redirection

{{Template documentation}} redirects to {{Template doc}} and must be considered when performing the above edits. – Added later by Conrad T. Pino (talk) 07:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:Template doc merge bot discussion

This bot request was first discussed here. – Conrad T. Pino (talk) 03:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I will look into it, it should be done soon enough ... :: maelgwn - talk 05:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
A massive number of these are protected, not quite sure how to deal with that yet. :: maelgwn - talk 05:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Begin by enumerating fully protected transcluding pages. I'll use that list to solicit the administrators assisting this merger with protection issues. – Thank you for your interest. – Conrad T. Pino (talk) 05:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Ill do all the ones I can, then it will be obvious which ones still need doing. :: maelgwn - talk 06:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Please do and thank you! – Conrad T. Pino (talk) 06:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Change of plan

Can someone out there list all instances of {{Template doc|somepage}} and {{Template doc|1=somepage}}, which will all be fully protected. These can be updated (im guessing there will be about 10) then {{Template doc}} can be redirected. No point doing several thousand edits where they're not needed. :: maelgwn - talk 06:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Can be done with conditional logic in {{Template doc}} to place pages using a parameter into a temporary Category. What's the policy on "temporary" categories? – Conrad T. Pino (talk) 06:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Temporary category plan

It's working, it's working!!! See: Category:Template:Template doc clients using parameter
We need to wait for the Help:Job queue to finish doing it's thing. Once done we'll have a useful list. – Conrad T. Pino (talk) 07:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm good thought! Ah - i obviously made a capitilisation error the first time through but now I should be able to clean up most of the category. :: maelgwn - talk 10:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Got it now, just those 17 that I can't touch. :: maelgwn - talk 11:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Now down to 14 as some weren't protected. Of the remaining 14 exactly half will work as is once {{Template doc}} achieves it's final fate. – Conrad T. Pino (talk) 22:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Bot request suspended

Let's be bold and use a temporary category, after all we have {{Cfd}}! – Conrad T. Pino (talk) 07:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

User:DreamBot

I would like a bot script written for me. I would like the script to :

  1. Tag pages with a WikiProject tag;
  2. Check through a users contributions back for 31 days and see if their username is on the history pages of the pages listed on this page, and move their name from "Active" to "Inactive", or vice versa. It should be able to be easily converted so that it can be used for any WikiProject.
    It would be great if anyone could do this for me, and I would be eternally grateful to the person that helped. I would prefer that the user that helped me with this replied on my talk page, saying that they e-mailed me the source code and how to implement it, and what it is written in, Ie. Perl, or something else. Thanks. <DREAMAFTER> <TALK> 00:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

For 1. Consider WP:AWB or posting a request for what you want done here. For 2. User:Betacommand has said he will look into something similar, see above. :: maelgwn - talk 00:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

How would I do this with AWB, and how is Betacommand going to do this? <DREAMAFTER><TALK> 01:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
1. Use Kinbotk's plugin see here for generic instructions. It may be easier just to ask someone here to do it for you. 2. see this above which is on a similar topic. :: maelgwn - talk 04:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Newsletter bot

I would like a bot that can send newsletters to all members on a list. Please let me know if it is already created. I would use this for the PlayStation Project.--Playstationdude 00:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

There are quite a few, I believe User:Ral runs one, as does User:R. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 11:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I can do this. βcommand 22:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
One that is made to do this specifically is User:DeliveryBot. <DREAMAFTER><TALK> 20:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject newsletter delivery bot

I need a bot script written for me. I need a script for a bot that can deliver a a community newsletter. It would be operated in one trip every Sunday (to deliver the newsletter). If I could get the script for that, I'd apppreciate it really much. Thanks! The Chronic 07:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess Betacommand can help you with this. See #Newsletter bot. --Erwin85 (talk) 07:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Bot request for WP:UKROAD

Using the list here of talk pages: User:Sceptre/UKRD

  1. Skip any pages using the template {{WPUKroads}}
  2. Replace all instances of the template {{motorways}} with {{WPUKroads}}
  3. Tag all remaining pages with {{WPUKroads}}

Thanks, Will (talk) 21:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

consider it Y Done βcommand 05:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Saskatchewan Wikiproject

Is it possible to request a bot for Saskatchewan Wikiproject which is now a sub-category of WikiProject Canada/Assessment that would :

  1. tag all articles in Category:Saskatchewan and all of its subcategories with {{WikiProject Canada |sk = | class=| importance=}} and if {{WikiProject Canada | class=| importance=}} already exists, then can just |sk=yes be added to the Canada template?
  2. all articles which have a Saskatchewan related stub Saskatchewan-politician-stub / Saskatchewan-stub / Saskatchewan-geo-stub to be tagged in their talk pages for wikiproject Saskatchewan and be classified as stub as such: {{WikiProject Canada |sk =yes | class=stub| importance=}}
  3. add GA or FA to to the class parameter of {{WikiProject Canada}} articles if any other template has such a parameter value on the talk page.
  4. add stub to the class parameter if a stub tag is present on the article page.
  5. Replace the old tag {{Saskatchewanproject}} with the new parent wikiproject tag: {{WikiProject Canada |sk =yes | class=| importance=}} and if {{WikiProject Canada | class=| importance=}} already exists, then can just |sk=yes be added to the Canada template?
  6. add to the class area FL for any Featured-class lists articles if any other template has such a parameter value on the talk page.
  7. add to the class area List if the Saskatchewan related item in category:Saskatchewan articles if any other template has such a parameter value on the talk page.

SriMesh | talk 01:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll do it :). Ρх₥α 22:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

AfD sorting and relisting bot

As an AfD closer, I would appreciate it if a bot would regularly process the active subpages of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log and:

  1. Move the transclusions of closed AfD discussions to the bottom of the respective log page. This would save contributors and administrators from having to scroll down the entire log page to find discussions to contribute to, or to close (yes, I know about WP:AfD/Old).
  2. Move the transclusions of any open AfD discussion to which {{relist}} has been added by an admin since the last bot run to the top of WP:AFD/Log/Today.

This would really speed up some of our AfD work. Sandstein (talk) 19:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Date page pruning bot

Would it be possible to have a bot that could do some of the more mundane tasks related to keeping the Wikicalendar articles (January 1, etc.) clean? I would estimate that about 80% of the cleanup tasks with those articles involve patterns that might be easily identifiable by a bot. These include new entries in the Births and Deaths that do not have linked articles, new external links and changes to standard comments. Is this too much to ask? Thanks. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 20:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Move from one category to another

I'm needing a bot to move all pages in the category Category:Closed railway stations in Victoria to Category:Closed regional railway stations in Victoria Wongm (talk) 02:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:CFD βcommand 02:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Template transcluding bot

Does anybody have a bot on hand that can go through Category:Boxers and replace every outbound link to Boxrec in the "external links" section with the new {{boxrec}} template? The hardcoded links will be formatted either as http://www.boxrec.com/boxer_display.php?boxer_id=ID or http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=ID&cat=boxer, and needs to be replaced with {{boxrec|id=ID}} for most articles, or {{boxrec|id=ID|name=name}} for articles with "(boxer)" in the title. Thanks in advance! east.718 at 01:43, 10/17/2007

I can do it, however shouldn't custom name be used for every title with parentheses? Two more questions: is it supported by consensus from appropriate WikiProject and should every page be processed this way, or only those about boxers (I'm going to make it by using Special:Linksearch instead of category scan)? MaxSem(Han shot first!) 16:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! Yes, a custom name should be used for any page with parentheses; the appropriate WikiProject is dead, and this is an extremely trivial change just to make maintenance easier, as all current BoxRec links will cease working in a short while; and no, you should use Category:Boxers and Category:Mixed martial artists. BoxRec also keeps records on judges, referees, managers, promoters, venues, etc. east.718 at 20:23, 11/16/2007
And judges' profile URLs have exactly the same format? MaxSem(Han shot first!) 20:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
They go http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=ID&cat=judge... however the old format used only the boxer_id parameter, so there's no way to differentiate between boxers and judges, etc. That's why I'm asking to go through the cats for boxers and mixed martial artists only, I'll fix the rest manually. east.718 at 20:57, November 16, 2007
There are links like http://www.boxrec.com/print.php?boxer_id=054799 . What about them? MaxSem(Han shot first!) 23:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
And can we safely assume that {{US-boxing-bio-stub}} and its analogs are for boxers only? MaxSem(Han shot first!) 23:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
The print.php links should be changed in the same manner as the boxer_id links (feed boxer_id into {{boxrec}}'s id parameter); yes, you can assume that with the templates. Thanks again! east.718 at 03:03, November 17, 2007

First run complete (mainspace only). Here is the list of pages bot was unable to change. However, even those articles that were edited are not guaranteed to have no direct links: only those that looked like an == External links == entry were changed. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 17:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm seeing a lot of == External links == sections that have URLs to BoxRec with the "www." missing. Could you please do another run on those? east.718 at 23:48, November 19, 2007
I made another run several days ago, fixing some of rejected pages. Still lots of them remain in the second part of the list, because they're either reference-style[2] or link to other pages on boxrec. www is not a problem, it was fully supported even during the first run. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 07:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Taxobox updates

Hi,

Recent discussion regarding taxoboxes has resulted in an outcome which requires bot assistance, and we'd be very grateful if someone were able to help out.

Task 1: Remove colour parameters

Any taxobox in which one of regnum, virus_group, unranked_phylum, phylum matches one of the entries listed here, and none of the preceding parameters is set, should have its "colour" parameter removed.

Task 2: Remove name parameters

Whilst a bot's doing that, it makes sense for it to further clean up the taxoboxes: In most cases, the name parameter is redundant; in many, it results in the incorrect formatting of the name.

If:

  • the {PAGENAME} is equal to the name parameter, or
  • The {PAGENAME} is equal to one of: genus, species, binomial

Then:

  • Remove the name parameter, so the pagename, appropriately formatted, will be used automatically.

The bot "Taxobot" had outline approval for these tasks and you are welcome to use his account if it helps. Many thanks for your assisstance!

Verisimilus T 23:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

P.S. one last thing, to minimise the changeover time, I've not requested {{Taxobox colour}} be updated yet, and will do this once the bot is active. V.

Television frequencies

This is a bot for two pages: North American broadcast television frequencies and North American cable television frequencies. Currently all have their NTSC (analog TV) video carrier frequencies, some also have their FM audio frequencies as well. All should have the lower edge, video carrier, ATSC (digital TV) carrier, audio carrier, and upper edge, as the VHF ones are done here. This is extremely tedious for the 200 or so listings, so I would really appreciate a bot!

This requires a small amount of calculation from the existing numbers. The offsets from the video carrier are: -1.25 for lower edge, +.06 for ATSC, +4.5 for audio, and +4.75 for upper edge. (This bot might also be useful for other listings for other parts of the world.) Thanks to whoever can do this!  –radiojon (talk) 06:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Taxobox updates

Hi,

I've re-posted the request below as it had been archived; I hope that's the right thing to do!

Recent discussion regarding taxoboxes has resulted in an outcome which requires bot assistance, and we'd be very grateful if someone were able to help out.

Task 1: Remove colour parameters

Any taxobox in which one of regnum, virus_group, unranked_phylum, phylum matches one of the entries listed here, and none of the preceding parameters is set, should have its "colour" parameter removed.

Task 2: Remove name parameters

Whilst a bot's doing that, it makes sense for it to further clean up the taxoboxes: In most cases, the name parameter is redundant; in many, it results in the incorrect formatting of the name.

If:

  • the {PAGENAME} is equal to the name parameter, or
  • The {PAGENAME} is equal to one of: genus, species, binomial

Then:

  • Remove the name parameter, so the pagename, appropriately formatted, will be used automatically.

The bot "Taxobot" had outline approval for these tasks and you are welcome to use his account if it helps. Many thanks for your assisstance!

Verisimilus T 23:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

AfD sorting based on WikiProject banners on article talkpages

There's an active group of contributors using Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Deletion for participation in deletion debates at the moment, which I think is a good thing. However, many debates are not listed, because listing the debates is a manual thing. Currently, there are a few users actively monitoring new AfD requests and adding them, but I feel this work could be done much more efficiently and better by a bot, for obvious reasons. Summarised:

  • Bot looks at new articles for AFD (once per hour?), goes to their talk page, scans for WP:VG project banners, or sub-project banners (Nintendo, Sega, Zelda, etc.).
  • If there is one, add it to the page.

This could be extended to current deletion sorting projects, as well as other WikiProject's deletion pages. User:Krator (t c) 22:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

SatyrBot has a function that is similar to this - and is more robust. Take a look at SatyrBot's WikiProject services, specifically the to do lists which indicate articles up for deletion. Reply there if you would like that service for your WkiProject. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 18:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Bot to update time formats in F1 race report articles

A recent(ish) discussion at WP:MOTOR agreed a standard time format for use in motorsport articles (hh:mm:ss.sss, i.e. the "hours" and "minutes" values should be separated by a colon and the "minutes" and "seconds" values should be separated by a colon). As a result, there are a whole bunch of Formula One race report articles which need to have times updated from "minutes-apostrophe-seconds" to "minutes-colon-seconds", e.g. 1'23.456 --> 1:23.456. I think a bot could easily achieve this by replacing all instances of "<digit>'<digit>" with "<digit>:<digit>". Here's the list of articles that (potentially) need to be updated (some already have their times in the correct format, but I don't know which ones). Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 02:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I will do this, give me a couple of days ... :: maelgwn - talk 03:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
So all hh:mm should be formatted as colons already? :: maelgwn - talk 03:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes. There should only currently be apostrophes between minutes and seconds. DH85868993 (talk) 03:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, upon further consideration, that may not be quite true. I do recall seeing a few instances with an apostrophe between the "hours" and "minutes" values rather than between the "minutes" and "seconds" values. But I don't recall ever seeing multiple apostrophes in the same time string, if that was the point you were getting at. Also, just to clarify, the bot doesn't need to add in an hours value if there isn't one present, or alter the number of digits after the decimal place in the "seconds" value, or anything like that - all it needs to do is change any apostrophes in the time values to colons. (You probably already understood that, but since we're talking about updating a large number of articles, I thought it was better to be safe than sorry). Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 05:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Note: The proper "apostrophe" for minutes is ′, the prime symbol; the bot should probably look for this in case any are present in articles, along with straight and curly apostrophes.—Random832 17:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Religion articles tagging

OK, this request if enacted will probably paralyze a bot for quite some time. Having said that, here goes. I am trying eventually to ensure that all the articles related to religion get tagged for all the appropriate projects. There are, unfortunately, a rather large number of them. I was wondering whether the following categories and their subcategories could have the articles within them that haven't already been tagged be tagged with the following templates:

Perfect! I've been wanting to test out my new bot framework, I'll take a few of these: Category:Japanese mythology, Category:Astrology, Category:Cryptozoology, and Category:Intelligent design, Category:Occult :) (and, if all goes as planned, and no one else grabs the rest, I'll probably do those, too) SQLQuery me! 21:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
if you have problems I can have BCBot clear this in a few hours. βcommand 05:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I've worked a good bit of it so far for my BRFA... so far so good :) But, if you want to attack some of it, I won't mind (particularly the christianity one... I'm dreading that one, due to size...) SQLQuery me! 08:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Has this been completed? SatyrBot can work on Christianity, if you'd like. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 18:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if it's been completed, but I rather doubt it has. Please feel free to jump right in if you want to. John Carter (talk) 00:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry :) I completed all but about 2/3 of the Christianity one, and, I'm fairly sure Betacommand got that... :) SQLQuery me! 10:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

New page bot

Idea here for a bot. Before anyone starts to complain about it tagging articles, it won't. It'll sweep through new pages on a regular basis (every 5-10 minutes), and look at each individual page's patrol log. If there's a patrol marked, it ignores it. If there isn't one, It'll add it to a subpage on its userspace in the following format:

page name - created *date* [url to patrol the page]

After each update on the current day's page, it'll check to see if any are patrolled. If they are, it'll remove it. At the end of each day, it'll make a new day page, and start over again. That's the basic idea. Kwsn (Ni!) 00:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a rather simple task with access to the toolserver. As soon as the toolserver is up again I'll check it out. --Erwin85 (talk) 15:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I've set up User:Erwin85/Patrol/20071127 as an example. Do you mean a link to immediately mark the edit as patrolled by the "url to patrol page"? Otherwise I can simply remove the last link and add a rcid variable to the first link. What do you think? Any suggestions? Do you want older subpages to be updated? That is tomorrow my bot would still remove patrolled pages from User:Erwin85/Patrol/20071127. --Erwin85 (talk) 17:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
BTW What are the advantages of having this on Wikipedia? It would be easier to set up a page on the toolserver, like shortpages. --Erwin85 (talk) 20:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm confused here. Special:Newpages already identifies pages that have not been patrolled (they're highlighted). If you're talking about something that identifies unpatrolled pages created more than 8 or 12 or 24 hours ago, that's great - it will help may sure that nothing slips through. If you're talking about something that will identify pages created two minutes ago that aren't yet marked as patrolled, what would be the point? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
What Erwin85 did pretty much is what I was looking for. John, the thing is, so many pages get missed anyway (hide the patrolled edits). Kwsn (Ni!) 19:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
To be honest I think John's idea is better, because a delay in adding new pages makes the list more static. When testing this functionality I noticed that the list changes very rapidly. Checking new pages created a few hours ago possibly prevents users who are specifically checking new pages from doing the same work at the same time as users patrolling recent changes. That's the way we do it on nlwiki where we patrol every anonymous edit. --Erwin85 22:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
<--- Makes sense now that you explain it. Kwsn (Ni!) 23:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Userpage Creator Bot

I was thinking of something that would put together a userpage for you. When you access the page, you'll be presented with eight primary interests, or things that you like that you want to be on your userpages. Then you'd be led to a page where you could scroll through various predesigned userpages. After you select a pre-designed userpage, you select a color scheme consisting of three colors. After you enter your username, the custom userpage would be downloaded to yours. Again, it might be a little tough to constuct, but if you succeed in getting it to work, then it'd be a lot easier for those who don't want to go through all that boring, sensitive syntax. Thanks, --Gp75motorsports (talk) 22:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a social networking site. I suppose one could argue that an automated userpage-builder saves time for those who would otherwise fuss with userpages, but the counterargument seems at least as strong - that this adds fuel to a keeping-up-with-the-Jones approach to userpages; start with a semi-custom design, then keep working on it. It would be a lot better to design something that would focus on mainspace - say, something that walks users through creating a new article - specify a name, and the program checks for duplicate articles; explain notabiliy; for each source, specify a URL, and type, and the program pops open the right cite template; specify a category and the program lists subcategories that might be used instead, and so on. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, this probably wouldn't help you network. But who here is willing to create and run the bot? I can't. I'm not good at any of the PLs.

WP:HSM Bot

I would like a bot that can place {{Wikiproject High School Musical}} on talk pages where {{High School Musical}} is on the article. Thanks in advance -- Whiteandnerdy111 (talk) 19:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Since there are only 22 articles that have that template on them (see here for a list), it would take you less time to do those by hand than it would for a bot to be programmed. Thanks, -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Y all done. SkierRMH (talk) 09:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Leading and trailing spaces in wikilinks

Please can a bot remove leading and trailing spaces in wikilinks. I cannot see any circumstance when these are valid. They are hard for the human eye to detect but easy for a machine. Lightmouse (talk) 13:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe this could go in AWB general fixes?? -- maelgwn - talk 07:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I have made a request there. Lets see what they say. Lightmouse 13:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)