If you want to run a bot on the English Wikipedia, you must first get it approved. To do so, follow the instructions below to add a request. If you are not familiar with programming it may be a good idea to ask someone else to run a bot for you, rather than running your own.
Instructions for bot operators | |
---|---|
Bot-related archives (v·t·) |
---|
Current requests for approval
Monkbot 19
Operator: Trappist the monk (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 16:48, Thursday, September 23, 2021 (UTC)
Function overview: rewrite {{cite iucn}}
templates that use old-form urls using data from the IUCN Red List API; confirm, update, add |status=
, |status_system=
, |status_ref=
parameters in {{speciesbox}}
and {{taxobox}}
using data from the IUCN Red List API
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic
Programming language(s): awb/c#
Source code available: User:Monkbot/task 19: cite iucn update
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life § new IUCN update
Edit period(s): continuous until done
Estimated number of pages affected: 13,000
Namespace(s): mainspace
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): yes
Function details: for a complete description of what task 19 does, see User:Monkbot/task 19: cite iucn update
Discussion
Here are 100 manual edits made using the bot's code.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:54, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
BattyBot 61
Operator: GoingBatty (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 17:18, Tuesday, September 21, 2021 (UTC)
Function overview: In various person infoboxes, change values in the |nationality=
field from country names to nationalities.
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic
Programming language(s): AutoWikiBrowser
Source code available: AWB, User:BattyBot/Nationality
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks#Template:Infobox writer
Edit period(s): Monthly run
Estimated number of pages affected: Thousands initially
Namespace(s): Mainspace/Articles
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes
Function details: In various person infoboxes, change values in the |nationality=
field from country names to nationalities (e.g. United Kingdom or [[United Kingdom]] → British, United States or [[United States]] → American). I created a list of infoboxes and countries/nationalities at User:BattyBot/Nationality. Also run AWB's general fixes when updating the field. GoingBatty (talk) 17:18, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Discussion
- Seems reasonable to me, but I'd suggest advertising this on the template talk and ideally some kind of content venue (perhaps BLPN or the WikiProject for biographies). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:51, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- @ProcrastinatingReader: Advertised at Template talk:Infobox person, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography, per your request. GoingBatty (talk) 19:39, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- (editor from WikiProject Biography} I see that this would be a good candidate for a bot task, as it's defined find and replace rules essentially. No issues from me. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 19:56, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- Not sure about updating a parameter that is usually mis-used per WP:INFONAT. It's usually redundant and should be removed. MB 20:27, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- You raise a good point. I don't see that the bot task itself adds to the problem of the mis-using. Perhaps this bot task, another bot task or just an editor could go round and remove the nationality parameter if it's the same as the one listed in the birthplace? If this is run before this bot task, then it would significantly reduce the number of pages the bot edits where the nationality parameter is later removed. However, I don't see the issue of the parameter being mis-used as a major problem preventing this task from being good. I think this because I see this as a small and minor change, which only improves the page. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 10:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
- Just pointing this out to generate discussion. Nothing wrong per se with this proposal. But to remove the nationality, a bot would have to have the logic to determine, for example,
|nationality=American
can be removed if|birth_place=United States
. It may be preferable to handle this with one bot as you suggested. Editors who are aware of this do remove nationality manually, and other editors sometimes put it back; there are probably tens of thousands of articles where it is there unnecessarily. A bot would help in this cleanup effort. Another minor point is UK/US/U.S are sometimes used; can those be added to the table? MB 16:26, 22 September 2021 (UTC)- @MB and Dreamy Jazz: Before a bot removes redundant
|nationality=
values, I suggest updating the various template instructions to specify not to add a value if it's redundant. I updated User:BattyBot/Nationality with variations of US & UK. GoingBatty (talk) 16:40, 22 September 2021 (UTC)I had assumed that as INFONAT exists, the template documentation would follow the MoS.Re MB, thanks for raising it. It's good to have this discussed before the BRFA is over. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 12:19, 23 September 2021 (UTC)- Just realised that {{Infobox person}} does say not to use nationality if it's the same as birth place. As such the template documentation is the same from my point of view. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 12:28, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Dreamy Jazz: Thanks for checking. MB and I added the same comment "<!-- use only when necessary per [[WP:INFONAT]] -->" to other person infoboxes. GoingBatty (talk) 15:32, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
- Just realised that {{Infobox person}} does say not to use nationality if it's the same as birth place. As such the template documentation is the same from my point of view. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 12:28, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
- @MB and Dreamy Jazz: Before a bot removes redundant
- Just pointing this out to generate discussion. Nothing wrong per se with this proposal. But to remove the nationality, a bot would have to have the logic to determine, for example,
- You raise a good point. I don't see that the bot task itself adds to the problem of the mis-using. Perhaps this bot task, another bot task or just an editor could go round and remove the nationality parameter if it's the same as the one listed in the birthplace? If this is run before this bot task, then it would significantly reduce the number of pages the bot edits where the nationality parameter is later removed. However, I don't see the issue of the parameter being mis-used as a major problem preventing this task from being good. I think this because I see this as a small and minor change, which only improves the page. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 10:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
- Not sure about updating a parameter that is usually mis-used per WP:INFONAT. It's usually redundant and should be removed. MB 20:27, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- (editor from WikiProject Biography} I see that this would be a good candidate for a bot task, as it's defined find and replace rules essentially. No issues from me. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 19:56, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- @ProcrastinatingReader: Advertised at Template talk:Infobox person, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography, per your request. GoingBatty (talk) 19:39, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- The request says "various person infoboxes" will be changed. Besides Template talk:Infobox person, which other ones, if any, will also be changed?—Bagumba (talk) 13:31, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Bagumba: I documented the list of infoboxes at User:BattyBot/Nationality. Thanks for asking! GoingBatty (talk) 14:49, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
- I support changing the link as proposed. I do not support the side proposal above to remove
|nationality=
, as some of the ibx's besides {{Infobox person}} have convention to use nationality, e.g. sportspersons. It's a convention in some, for example, to list nationality as "American", while not duplicating "U.S." in birthplace.—Bagumba (talk) 01:38, 24 September 2021 (UTC)- @Bagumba: Thank you for sharing this information. I'm happy to keep this bot task limited to changing the parameter as proposed. GoingBatty (talk) 02:23, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
- Sports IBs shouldn't be following a "convention" that goes against the MOS. However, I do see that this is not the place to open that issue up. The bot could do this in the non-sports infoboxes where, as far as I am aware, there hasn't been any significant opposition. Or maybe a different task. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MB (talk • contribs) 17:33, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Bagumba: Thank you for sharing this information. I'm happy to keep this bot task limited to changing the parameter as proposed. GoingBatty (talk) 02:23, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
- I support changing the link as proposed. I do not support the side proposal above to remove
- @Bagumba: I documented the list of infoboxes at User:BattyBot/Nationality. Thanks for asking! GoingBatty (talk) 14:49, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
DaxServerBot I 3
Operator: DaxServer (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 19:56, Thursday, August 19, 2021 (UTC)
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: supervised
Programming language(s): Python
Source code available: Pywikibot GitHub (under-development)
Function overview: Sub-categorize non-free posters in Category:Non-free posters based on the langauge
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):
Edit period(s): Regular
Estimated number of pages affected: ~88,000+ initial run, there-after regular runs at regular intervals
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes
Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): No
Function details: The bot will crawl thru files categorized at Category:Non-free posters (with no other cats). Checks the pages where the files are embedded and determines the language of the films based on the categories. It then adds the category to the {{Non-free poster}}
as a parameter so it is categorized into appropriate subcat. At the moment, the languages supported are limited to the ones at Category:Indian film posters. New categories need to be setup for appropriate languages. If the movie is multi-lingual, then the first category that bot loops would be set in the template parameter, and the following as a normal category. The languages list is prepared from Category:Films by language
Discussion
On hold. I see a bit of half-baked proposal here. I'll resume the proposal after gaining a consensus, and better workflow following it. -- DaxServer (talk) 12:41, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
RichBot 2
Operator: Rich Smith (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 22:11, Wednesday, August 18, 2021 (UTC)
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic
Programming language(s): PHP
Source code available:
Function overview: Add a copyright notice to drafts that may be copyvios
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):
Edit period(s): Once every 12 hours
Estimated number of pages affected: Depends on amount of copyright content found
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes
Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): Yes
Function details: RichBot (formally NoSandboxesHere) already checks a maximum of 200 drafts every 12 hours though Earwig's Copyvio Detector to create User:RichBot/copyvios which it does under the provisions of WP:BOTUSERSPACE. I am proposing to tag the found potential copyvios that have a confidence score of > 70% with User:RichBot/maybecopyvio (as a template) which will indicate to reviewers to check the report before reviewing. If the tag is removed, the bot will not re-add it during that submission round.
Discussion
I think it would be helpful to link from the template to WP's policy on copyright violation. Many people are unaware, as I once was, that inserting copyvio text is not allowed, even in Draft space with the intention of paraphrasing it later. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:55, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- Excellent point, this has been added. I have also added the ability for a percentage to be given as a parameter which will change the text a little, this can be seen on my sandbox - RichT|C|E-Mail 13:57, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
I can see this potentially having a lot of FPs (a short article with lyrics, copying from another article, etc), and thus being bitey. It may have less FPs if it only included drafts created by new editors. Either way, it's probably best to advertise this discussion to copyright venues (talk page of the policy, Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations, etc) to get some thoughts from those who deal with CVs regularly. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:15, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not going to outright decline this, just in case I'm missing something, but we do not have bots run through The Earwig's Copyvio Tool because we only get a limited number of searches. Auto-checking is something we should not be doing, and I am wondering if the updates to User:RichBot/copyvios are what have been causing me lately to run into the max search issue at seemingly earlier points in the day. Primefac (talk) 20:41, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Provided the bot limits its daily searches, this isn't completely unacceptable. Of the past 1,767 tool uses with the search engine enabled (a two-day period), RichBot made 404. This might be a bit high if we're seeing the limit being exceeded frequently, as you say, but 200/day is only about 10-15% of our quota, so I don't think that alone is a problem. Also, the bot would be free to make as many checks as it wants if it disables the engine and uses "links in page", if we need to go down that route.
- Separately, we should work on the language in User:RichBot/maybecopyvio. "Has a high confidence chance of being a copyright violation" is too strong of a determination given the frequency of false positives, and the tool doesn't use the term confidence anymore because it is misleading—there is no probabilistic basis for the percentage. You could say that the submission was found to be highly similar to another source found on the web, for example. — The Earwig (talk) 03:56, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
DaxServerBot I 2
Operator: DaxServer (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 19:03, Monday, August 16, 2021 (UTC)
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: supervised
Programming language(s): Python
Source code available: Pywikibot Github
Function overview: Add {{Documentation}}
and {{Check completeness of transclusions}}
to Navbox templates
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):
Edit period(s): Regular
Estimated number of pages affected: 50,000+
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes
Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): No
Function details: I'll be using this bot to add {{Documentation}}
and {{Check completeness of transclusions}}
for {{Navbox}}
templates, so that the usability would be improved for the templates.
I'll be using these regexes, which would be improved when an edge case is encountered.
}}<noinclude>\n{{Documentation\|content=\n{{Align\|right\|{{Check completeness of transclusions}}}}\n{{collapsible option}}\n}}
to check if they are already present and skip^{{Navbox
to check if this is a Navbox at all and skip}}\s*<noinclude>(\[\[Category:.*)?(?:\s*(?:{{Documentation\|content=\n)?(?:<br/>)?{{collapsible option}}(?:\n}})?)?(?=(?:\n*{{.*}})?(?:\n*<!--Categories-->)?\s*(?:\[\[Category:|==\s*See also\s*==))
for pattern matching to insert the doc and transclusion check templates, after the above checks
I've been using AWB (link) for the last couple of days and would like to automate it. So far, I've only modified the templates within the scope of India but could be expanded if automated. There were a few edits (like this, the usage section was manually added so as to separate the text from state param doc) failed the regex as there is a text. It is a manual copy-paste in AWB for the moment, regex could be expanded if it's a common occurrence. The bot would take a category (preferably from terminal) and parse recursively and is not run in an indefinite mode, or during my off-hours.
Discussion
I was looking at your previous manual edits and on this edit you added {{collapsible option}} but the navbox does not have the |state={{{state|}}}
parameter. Shouldn't you also be adding that or not adding the collapsible option? -- WOSlinker (talk) 14:44, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- @WOSlinker True, I've corrected it. Thanks for the inspection. I'll run AWB again (or using the bot after approved) if you on the templates I edited (all covered recursively under Category:India templates), and check if the state is not set. I'd propose setting it as
|state={{{state|autocollapse}}}
or should I omit the autocollapse? Or, should I skip the page totally when there is no state param set? Thoughts? -- DaxServer (talk) 16:08, 17 August 2021 (UTC) - There were a few edits like this, where the collapsible option has a state param. I retained it by editing manually, but the regex would be updated to account for it. -- DaxServer (talk) 16:27, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- I think setting the state as
|state={{{state|<includeonly>autocollapse</includeonly>}}}
would work better so that it does not autocollapse on the template page itself where the template page may have some other navbox on the page in the documentation section, such as that example you linked to. -- WOSlinker (talk) 16:45, 17 August 2021 (UTC)- In that case, I'd expand the bot to set the state for all Navboxes it parses:
- if not set, set to what you said
- if
|state=autocollapse
or{{{state|autocollapse}}}
is set (even the ones I updated in AWB), update it to add includeonly - if
|state={{{state|}}}
is set, update it to set includeonly autocollapse - if state is set to
collapsed
orexpanded
, retain it and add the parameter to the{{collapsed option|default=xyz}}
- Also to mention, I'd log the templates that failed the regexes so an incremental regex update would be done or a manual update based on the content. -- DaxServer (talk) 17:16, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- Actually, how about this:
|state={{{state|<includeonly>autocollapse</includeonly><noinclude>expanded</noinclude>}}}
like this edit so that the navbox will be expanded always on the template page? -- DaxServer (talk) 14:23, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- Actually, how about this:
- In that case, I'd expand the bot to set the state for all Navboxes it parses:
- I think setting the state as
- My initial thoughts are somewhat negative here. Not every navbox needs a /doc, and not every navbox needs a {{collapsible option}}, and most of them definitely do not need a {{collapsible option}} template inside a {{documentation}}. I think you need to demonstrate consensus before this gets approved, or even before you keep mass-adding this content with AWB. Primefac (talk) 20:55, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
On hold. Thanks for the inputs, Primefac! — DaxServer (talk to me) 19:26, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
ElliBot
Operator: Elliot321 (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 14:46, Saturday, January 23, 2021 (UTC)
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic
Source code available:
Function overview: Automatically apply {{redirect category shell}} templates to redirects with Wikidata, and remove redundant {{Wikidata redirect}} templates.
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):
Edit period(s): one time run
Estimated number of pages affected: 50,000-100,000
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes
Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): No
Function details: I recently modified {{Redirect category shell}} to automatically detect Wikidata links and apply the template {{Wikidata redirect}} if they exist. This was previously already done with protection levels, and there is no reason that {{Wikidata redirect}} should not also be applied.
There are currently 100,000 redirects in the category Category:Redirects connected to a Wikidata item, which is applied by the software. There are currently 30,000 redirects in the category Category:Wikidata redirects. Nearly all of these were put into that category by applying {{Wikidata redirect}} manually, meaning they will need the tag removed (as it will be a duplicate).
Many of the remaining 70,000 pages will need the template {{rcat shell}} added. As the change to {{Redirect category shell}} was recent, many redirects connected to Wikidata items, without {{Wikidata redirect}}, but with {{Redirect category shell}}, have not been added to Category:Wikidata redirects. The difference in count between Category:Wikidata redirects and Category:Redirects connected to a Wikidata item is the number of pages that will be modified.
The edits will be carried out with AWB running as an automated bot. There is very low risk of disruption in this task, though the number of edits is significant. Using AWB, this bot can also carry out other generic fixes to redirects, though this is not a significant part of its functions.
A somewhat similar failed request was Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/TomBot, but that that request was for a bot that would edit ~30-60x more pages, with less benefit overall. This is a much more narrow and useful request.
Discussion
- Any prior discussions on doing this that you're aware of, which establish broader consensus for this task?
- Will this BRFA cause Template:Wikidata redirect to become redundant? If I understand correctly, this task will orphan all of its transclusions? If so, and especially if there's no prior discussion, I suggest sending that template to TfD (and then this bot task can be technically implementing that TfD). That would be one way to test the wider consensus for this task, too.
ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
- There are no discussions I know of establishing consensus around this particular task. {{Wikidata redirect}} will not become redundant for two reasons. {{redirect category shell}} transcludes it. However, this usage could be subst, of course. The other usage is in cross-Wiki (such as to Wiktionary) and category redirects, the "soft" usage. The "hard" usage could be deprecated from the template, however (they are implemented slightly differently, with an automatic switch). Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 16:20, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
- To begin with, I'd say stylistically this presentation is inferior. See eg here. The one on the top (caused by the edit) doesn't look as good as the manual one & looks slightly out of place with the plaintext.
- If the rcat shell has to be manually added by bot, is there really a point to this? Why not have a bot add {{Wikidata redirect}} to pages in Category:Redirects connected to a Wikidata item? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:39, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry - that was due to my changes being misunderstood and reverted. If you check now, you can see the way they were intended to look.
- The reason for adding {{redirect category shell}} over {{wikidata redirect}} is for automatic detection. If the link on Wikidata is removed, no update on Wikipedia is necessary (likewise, if a link on Wikidata is added to one using the shell, no update is necessary). Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 07:52, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
- Okay, makes sense. I'd suggest dropping a link to this BRFA from the template talk pages for the two templates, to allow some time for comments. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:37, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
So the idea is that {{RCAT shell}} should add the Wikidata box by checking for the connected item. Manually adding the template wouldn't be necessary then because the software can already detect if a page is connected to a Wikidata item. Is that correct? --PhiH (talk) 13:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
- @PhiH: pretty much. The shell will automatically detect a link to Wikidata, and if found, transclude the template. Therefore, this bot will remove the redundant manual transclusions of the template, and add the shell to automatically transclude on any redirect linked to Wikidata. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 15:36, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
If I understand what changed with {{wikidata redirect}} and {{redirect category shell}} correctly, redirects that only have {{wikidata redirect}} will be changed to an empty {{redirect category shell}}, which then results in an error. This means that manual inspection is needed to determine another redirect category to apply, which obviously this Bot task cannot do. —seav (talk) 01:02, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- FYI, an empty Rcat shell results in sorting the redirect to the Miscellaneous redirects category, which is monitored by editors who will then tag the redirect with appropriate categories. P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 03:41, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- Would that be a problem then, Paine Ellsworth? Filling the cat up with some tens of thousands of pages? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:12, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- An empty RCAT shell with a Wikidata item doesn't need to be categorised in Category:Miscellaneous redirects because it generates the Template:Wikidata redirect. I didn't check if that is implemented yet. A page with that template and no Wikidata item is a problem as well. They just move from one tracking category to another. --PhiH (talk) 08:44, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- Why doesn't it need to be categorised into misc redirects? Having a Wikidata item connected/existing isn't really an explanation of why there's a redirect on enwiki. Surely the redirect still needs to be categorised? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:06, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- @PhiH: @ProcrastinatingReader: the {{redirect category shell}} template should not be applied without any categories by a bot as the Category:Miscellaneous redirects should be filled manually. Consequently, I don't plan to do that with this bot. I can manually categorize the redirects that do not have any categories.
- (though, a tracking category for uncategorized redirects that can be applied by a bot would probably be useful. I don't feel like gaining consensus for that, though, as that would likely be much more contentious than this proposal) Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 11:37, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- I think my point is easier to demonstrate with an example, or I’m mistaken about exactly what is proposed here. Can you make 5 edits as a demonstration, either with the bot or by hand if you don’t have the bot coded yet? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:10, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- Maybe a page demonstrating what changes would be made would be more useful, since there are a few differing cases here? Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 03:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- An actual edit or two of each case would be preferable, as that's the least confusing way to see what is actually proposed. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:57, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- Maybe a page demonstrating what changes would be made would be more useful, since there are a few differing cases here? Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 03:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- But you want to add an empty RCAT shell to pages that currently only use {{Wikidata redirect}}, don't you? Should they be added to Category:Miscellaneous redirects if they are connected to a Wikidata item or not? --PhiH (talk) 12:32, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- I think my point is easier to demonstrate with an example, or I’m mistaken about exactly what is proposed here. Can you make 5 edits as a demonstration, either with the bot or by hand if you don’t have the bot coded yet? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:10, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- To ProcrastinatingReader: as long as there is at least one rcat template within the Rcat shell, such as the "Wikidata redirect" template, then the redirect would not be sorted to Category:Miscellaneous redirects. As the proposer suggests, that would not be a problem. The proposer appears to know that a bot should not add an empty Rcat shell to redirects, which would bloat the Misc. redirects category. P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 15:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- An empty RCAT shell with a Wikidata item doesn't need to be categorised in Category:Miscellaneous redirects because it generates the Template:Wikidata redirect. I didn't check if that is implemented yet. A page with that template and no Wikidata item is a problem as well. They just move from one tracking category to another. --PhiH (talk) 08:44, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- Would that be a problem then, Paine Ellsworth? Filling the cat up with some tens of thousands of pages? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:12, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
I think there are multiple cases we have to discuss, feel free to comment below.
- Redirects that already use the RCAT shell
- This should be uncontroversial: Where {{Wikidata redirect}} is used it gets removed and the template is transcluded by the RCAT shell.
- Redirects without the RCAT shell…
- …that use {{Wikidata redirect}} and are connected to a Wikidata item
- The template gets removed and the RCAT shell is added. Should the RCAT shell be programmed to add these pages to Category:Miscellaneous redirects?
- …that don't use {{Wikidata redirect}} and are connected to a Wikidata item
- The RCAT shell is added. Same question as above arises.
- …that use {{Wikidata redirect}} and are not connected to a Wikidata item
- The template gets removed. Adding the RCAT shell would cause them to be added to Category:Miscellaneous redirects.
Currently these pages are tracked in Category:Unlinked Wikidata redirects. Before this bot task begins someone should work through this list and add the pages on Wikidata if necessary.
- The template gets removed. Adding the RCAT shell would cause them to be added to Category:Miscellaneous redirects.
- …that use {{Wikidata redirect}} and are connected to a Wikidata item
--PhiH (talk) 14:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
If I understand correctly, this bot will add the Rcat shell along with an internal {{Wikidata redirect}} tag when it senses any redirect that is already itemized on Wikidata. If that is what happens, then the redirect will not be sorted to the Misc. redirects category. I also sense a possible challenge where the {{NASTRO comment}} template is applied. One of many examples is at 3866 Langley. Would this bot do anything to those many redirects? I actually like the idea of more Rcat shell transclusions. I wonder if the bot will continue checking for new redirects that become connected to a Wikidata item? P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 21:57, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- The bot won't touch the {{NASTRO comment}} redirects, since it has no need to.
- I could run this after the main clean-up job (probably a weekly run would be sufficient). Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 05:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- NASTRO comment applies the Rcat shell and so would auto-apply the Wikidata redirect template. There will then be two renditions of Wikidata redirect. Won't one of them have to be removed? P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 18:49, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- I thought the point of this bot is that these edits wouldn't be necessary anymore. Here you said If the link on Wikidata is removed, no update on Wikipedia is necessary (likewise, if a link on Wikidata is added to one using the shell, no update is necessary) --PhiH (talk) 19:00, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- A weekly run would handle any new redirects that have been created. Editors LOVE to create new redirects; however, they generally leave it up to bots and Wikignomes to categorize their new redirects. P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 17:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- I thought the point of this bot is that these edits wouldn't be necessary anymore. Here you said If the link on Wikidata is removed, no update on Wikipedia is necessary (likewise, if a link on Wikidata is added to one using the shell, no update is necessary) --PhiH (talk) 19:00, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- @PhiH: "Redirects that already use the RCAT shell: This should be uncontroversial": Have you thought about the cases where the rcat shell only contains the Wikidata rcat? 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 21:25, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Also curious as to why AWB is used? Don't get me wrong; I love AWB. However it's not known for its speed or lack of clunkiness. According to the manual, ...any edit to the bot's talk page will halt the bot. Before restarting the bot, the bot operator must log in to the bot account and visit the bot's talk page, so that the "new messages" notification is cancelled.
So why not make a non-AWB bot to do the task? P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 22:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- Mainly because I know AWB and regex better than I know any other frameworks to interface with Wikipedia. I could write custom code, if that would be preferred. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 05:26, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- I was just curious, so it would be up to you, of course. I just know how it drives me crazy sometimes when I have to stop in the middle of something, log out of AWB, log in to Wikipedia just to check notifications, log back out and into AWB to commence. That happens with non-bot-auto work as well. P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 18:53, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
So just to clarify what I'm waiting on: An actual edit or two of each case would be preferable, as that's the least confusing way to see what is actually proposed.
After that, it'll be more clear to have the discussion on which edits are good and which need further discussion. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:32, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
- Re: the message above. Primefac (talk) 13:44, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Primefac and ProcrastinatingReader: thanks for the ping. I've actually expanded the scope of what I'm intending to do here a bit (see User:Elli/rcat standardization) - and planning on getting consensus for the changes elsewhere first, before going through with this, so if I could put this request on hold or something that would be ideal (sorry, I'm not sure exactly how this type of situation works, but getting approval for the narrow task of shelling and removing one rcat doesn't really make sense given my goal to deal with ~20 of them). Elli (talk | contribs) 18:38, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Bots in a trial period
Dexbot 12
Operator: Ladsgroup (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 20:36, Friday, September 10, 2021 (UTC)
Function overview: Adding sortkey to categories based on pattern recognition of sister categories.
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic
Programming language(s): python
Source code available: From pywikibot
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):
Edit period(s): Monthly
Estimated number of pages affected: A couple thousand categories every month
Namespace(s): Category
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes
Function details: Here is a link to some test edits [1] and [2] and [3]
Discussion
Test edits 1 & 2 were not actually needed due to the DEFAULTSORT already matching the key value. Is there anyway to also check what that is set to before deciding if an edit is needed? -- WOSlinker (talk) 20:49, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- You could do like https://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=query&titles=Category:People%20from%20Raunds&prop=pageprops&ppprop=defaultsort&formatversion=2 Anomie⚔ 16:21, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- Please notify WikiProject Categories, and expand the function details a bit (does "sister categories" mean the categories in the category hierarchy having the same parent cat, or the other categories present on the same page?). – SD0001 (talk) 14:53, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- @SD0001 Former (sister as having the same parent). I will notify WikiProject Categories Ladsgroupoverleg 12:40, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
- Done: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Categories#Adding_sortkey_to_categories_based_on_pattern_recognition_of_sister_categories Ladsgroupoverleg 12:42, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
- Would it be possible to link to the source code? I'd be interested in seeing the pattern recognition heuristics you're using. Colin M (talk) 16:46, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Approved for trial (25 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. For the trial edits, please link to this BRFA in the edit summary so that people know where to give feedback. – SD0001 (talk) 11:43, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
NovemBot
Operator: Novem Linguae (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 19:52, Sunday, September 12, 2021 (UTC)
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic
Programming language(s): PHP
Source code available: https://github.com/NovemLinguae/NovemBotTask1
Function overview: After approved by the coordinators, promote successful good topic and featured topic candidates. This process has many steps and is currently done manually. The steps are located at User:Aza24/FTC/Promote Instructions.
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 82#Featured topic bot, Wikipedia talk:Featured topics#Bot to promote good and featured topics
Edit period(s): Probably hourly
Estimated number of pages affected: 25 per week
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No
Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): No
Function details: Testing - I've done some semi automated testing (where the bot suggests changes via a webpage, then I copy paste that into Wikipedia, hit preview and diff, look it over, then submit). This process identified and fixed some bugs. I think the bot has reached a state where all major bugs are fixed. Ready to start letting it automatically edit. I'll continue watching the edits for several weeks to see if there are any more edge cases that need fixing.
I wrote unit tests for about half the bot's functions. The bot's steps that it takes are divided into about 30 functions in the src/Promote.php file.
Eventually I'll put this on ToolForge and let it run hourly.
The bot is summoned by placing the template User:NovemBot/Promote on a page, which puts the page into a hidden tracking category that the bot checks.
Security features to prevent abuse include the bot not editing unless the featured topic template is located on the summoning page, and some maximum article and maximum topics in category throttles.
Keep in mind that topics are variable in size. To promote each one is around 15-50 edits. For a trial, may make sense to approve a period of time or a certain # of topics, rather than a certain # of edits.
Discussion
- As a delegate at FGTC, I just wanted to echo some of the above. I've been supervising and assisting Novem as they created this spectacular bot and the test runs have already made massive improvements in the FGTC process (which is otherwise extremely slow due to the mass manual updating required). This would be an invaluable bot and I have no doubts in the merits and quality of Novem's achievement. Aza24 (talk) 23:11, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- Is anyone able to trigger the bot? Or is it available only to FGTC coordinators? – SD0001 (talk) 07:46, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- Currently anyone because that was easier to code, but I am open to feedback. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:51, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Approved for trial (30 days). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Given the large number of edits needed to implement each promotion, I think it would make sense to add some anti-abuse measure restricting usage to only trusted users, though I don't think the potential for disruption is high to block even a trial. Since it appears the bot gets pinged (User:NovemBot/Promote), maybe it could check who pinged it using the Echo API? – SD0001 (talk) 14:47, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- Sounds good. I'll look into adding a user whitelist. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:19, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
FastilyBot 15
Operator: Fastily (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 09:53, Friday, September 3, 2021 (UTC)
Function overview: Remove {{Now Commons}}
from file description pages which also translcude {{Keep local}}
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic
Programming language(s): Python
Source code available: In this GitHub repository, when it is written
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Suggested by @Explicit, here
Edit period(s): daily
Estimated number of pages affected: 5-20, daily
Namespace(s): File
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes
Function details: As stated above. Additional context: editors (and transfer-to-Commons tools) may erroneously append {{Now Commons}}
to the file description pages of transferred files despite the presence of {{Keep local}}
(as a rule of thumb, files tagged with {{Keep local}}
should not be deleted without an FfD nomination). This creates busywork for reviewing administrators, who must then manually remove such inappropriate usages of {{Now Commons}}
. -FASTILY 09:53, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Discussion
- If the filename on Commons is different from that on Wikipedia, please copy the filename from the {{Now Commons}} template to the {{Keep local}} template so that the information isn't lost. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:12, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comment. To be clear, I'll be limiting the bot to files with the same name on Commons. IMO the situation you describe is out of scope for this BRFA, occurs rarely, and can just be fixed manually. -FASTILY 00:06, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Approved for trial (20 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Primefac (talk) 16:16, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
- Looks like there haven't been too many instances of mistagged files within the past week. Here are two instances where the bot performed fixes: 1, 2. Not sure if that's enough, but I can keep the trial going if more examples are needed. -FASTILY 04:26, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Another example -FASTILY 23:33, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
- Looks like there haven't been too many instances of mistagged files within the past week. Here are two instances where the bot performed fixes: 1, 2. Not sure if that's enough, but I can keep the trial going if more examples are needed. -FASTILY 04:26, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
BHGbot 9
Operator: BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 00:21, Thursday, August 19, 2021 (UTC)
Function overview: Remove the banner tag {{Cleanup bare URLs}} from articles which no longer have any WP:Bare URLs.
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic
Programming language(s): AWB module (C#)
Source code available: will be published once written, and before any trial run. I don't want to spend time coding it unless there is support in principle for this task.
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):
Edit period(s): Initial run to clear the backlog, then about weekly
Estimated number of pages affected: Initial run ~1,650 pages. Thereafter a rough guesstimate of ~50 pages per week
Namespace(s): Article, Draft.
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes
Function details: initial article list to consist of all main- and draft-space transclusions of {{Cleanup bare URLs}}. With each page:
- check that the page contains the banner template {{Cleanup bare URLs}}, or one of its many aliases. If not, skip the page.
- count the number of {{Bare URL inline}} tags in the page, including aliases
- count the number of bare URL ref tags in the page, i.e. those which match the regex
<ref[^>]*?>\s*\[?\s*https?:[^>< \|\[\]]+\s*\]?\s*<\s*/\s*ref
- if the total matches of step 2 + step 3 is greater than zero, then skip the page
- Optional check for bare URLs not in ref tags:
- Test for existence on the page of any other URLs which are not:
- wrapped in a {{cite}} tag, or
- wrapped in {{URL}}, or
- formatted as
[http://www.example.com/foo some-non-space-characters]
, or - the value of a
|website=http://www.example.com/foo
parameter in any infobox
- if any such URLs exist, then skip the page
- Test for existence on the page of any other URLs which are not:
- remove the banner {{Cleanup bare URLs}}, and save the page with AWB genfixes, using an edit summary of the form
WP:BHGbot 9: removed {{Cleanup bare URLs}}. This page currently has no bare URLs
- Note 1
- Step 5 (check for bare URLs not in ref tags) is based on the discussion at User talk:Citation bot/Archive 26#Cleanup tag not removed after problem fixed, where both @AManWithNoPlan and @Headbomb advocated retaining the banner tag if there are any bare URLs anywhere on the page.
I think that this approach is overly cautious, because in practice the {{Cleanup bare URLs}} tag seems to be used overwhelmingly for bare URLs within ref tags. However, I am happy to include this step unless there is consensus to omit it.
- Note 2
- My estimate of ~1,650 pages in the initial run is based on comparing the 7,362 pages currently transcluding {{Cleanup bare URLs}} with a scan of the 17 August database dump which found 459,013 pages with 1 or more bare URLs in ref tags. That comparison found 1,665 pages transcluding {{Cleanup bare URLs}} but without bare URLs.
If the bot is set to skip pages with bare URLs not in ref tags, the initial run will be significantly less than 1,650 pages, but until I run the bot in pre-parse mode I won't know how much less.
- Note 3
- Coding the AWB module is not complicated, but testing it and debugging it without a proper development environment is very slow. So I don't want to put in a few hours work without having first checked that the task has approval in principle.
Discussion
Regarding step 2 & step 3, what if you've got a bare URL tag but the URL is no longer bare, and elsewhere you've got an untagged bare URL? Your bot would skip this if it's only relying on counts? Ditto if there's an inline tag for a URL that's no longer bare? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:34, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- @ProcrastinatingReader: thanks for that observation. I hadn't factored in the case of a ref which has been fixed, but the {{Bare URL inline}} tag has not ben removed. I think that such cases will be rare, and that it will be even more rare to have that oddity and a banner tag {{Cleanup bare URLs}} (without which this bot will reject the page in step 1).
- If you like, I can add extra check for such misplaced {{Bare URL inline}} tags, but I would prefer not to do so, simply to avoid adding extra complexity to accommodate a very rare case whose consequence would be a mistaken skip rather than the more serious matter of a mistaken removal. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:57, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- PS I just ran https://petscan.wmflabs.org/?psid=19858257 to check for main- and draft-space pages which transclude both {{Cleanup bare URLs}} and {{Bare URL inline}}: total 12 pages.
- I checked them all for the case you described, and found only one kindof match, on List of gangs in New Zealand. An IP had wrong added[5] {{Bare URL inline}} after
</ref>
, instead of the correct placement before it. Then reFill filled a bunch of refs,[6] but didn't remove {{Bare URL inline}} because it was not inside the ref tags. I have now fixed[7] that page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:27, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Regarding step 5 and note 1, I don't see why step 5 is necessary. Is there an example of a page with such a URL (of the 'non-ref bare URL' variety) so I can see a valid use case? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- @ProcrastinatingReader: Thanks again. I have identified no such cases. I added Step 5 solely out of respect for the objections already made by the two highly experienced and technically skilled editors who raised the issue at User talk:Citation bot/Archive 26#Cleanup tag not removed after problem fixed. I can't see the use cases myself, but I have high regard for their judgement, which is why I am willing to accommodate their concerns unless there is consensus to proceed without Step 5.
- Maybe @AManWithNoPlan and/or @Headbomb could comment here? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:04, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
For bare URLS without ref tags, here are some basic example
According to a report published at at http://www.example.com, 63% of statistics are made up. ==References== * http://www.example.com ==External links== * http://www.example.com
Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:19, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Headbomb: I get the situation, which is more common in older articles (before incline cites became strongly preferred in ~2007), but is there any evidence that {{Cleanup bare URLs}} is actually used to tag such issues? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:30, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- Pretty sure that in the several thousand of articles with such bare urls, at least one was tagged with {{Cleanup bare URLs}}. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:02, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- For example Ciudad del Carmen or Duncan Sandy, which you've yourself tagged with {{Cleanup bare URLs}}. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:09, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Headbomb: in each case I applied the tags because the page had bare inline refs. That was my sole selection criteria. I didn't even glance at the external links.
- Are you telling me that having applied the tags for that reason, I can't remove them when that problem is resolved? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:23, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- When the problem is resolved, yes. But you've asked for cases where step 5 would be necessary, and those are two examples with {{Cleanup bare URLs}} and non-ref bare URLs. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:35, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Headbomb: I fear that we may be talking past each other.
- So, just to clarify, my AWB job added the cleanup banner only to pages with bare URLs inside <ref></ref> tags. Same with the hundreds which I have since added manually as I follow around after Citation bot's processing of the lists which I feed it. AIUI, User:GreenC bot/Job 16 also selects only pages with bare URLs inside <ref></ref> tags.
- It seems to me that you are saying that the tags should not be removed after the resolution of the the problem which caused their addition, because there is another unresolved issue to which the tag might have been addressed if it was applied by someone else using different criteria, even tho you have not identified any instance of such usage. Is that what you intend? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:58, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- You may have added {{Cleanup bare URLs}} to pages with bare URLs in refs tags, but the criteria for the removal of {{Cleanup bare URLs}} is the cleanup of all bare urls, not just those in ref tags. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:10, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Headbomb: I can see the logic in that approach, but I think it's too rigid. It will leave a lot of pages inappropriately stuck with the tag because of some external links, which are much less significant than refs.
- Let's see what others think. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:47, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- I dunno... the text of {{Cleanup bare URLs}} and its documentation look like the template is just for bare URLs in references. I wouldn't think we should care too much about other URLs, so I agree with BHG & proc that step 5 would be unnecessary. Enterprisey (talk!) 07:17, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- Disagree there. The template isn't just for bare URL in ref tags. For example, a reference section with a non-ref tag'd bare external link. Or further reading sections. Those too should be converted to full citations. Or inline external link used as a reference. Likewise, for external links, it's a very high probability that templates like {{Official}} need to be used. It covers all bare urls. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:24, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- It seems to me that @Enterprisey's view is better supported by the documentation at {{Cleanup bare URLs}}. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:35, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- Disagree there. The template isn't just for bare URL in ref tags. For example, a reference section with a non-ref tag'd bare external link. Or further reading sections. Those too should be converted to full citations. Or inline external link used as a reference. Likewise, for external links, it's a very high probability that templates like {{Official}} need to be used. It covers all bare urls. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:24, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- You may have added {{Cleanup bare URLs}} to pages with bare URLs in refs tags, but the criteria for the removal of {{Cleanup bare URLs}} is the cleanup of all bare urls, not just those in ref tags. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:10, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- When the problem is resolved, yes. But you've asked for cases where step 5 would be necessary, and those are two examples with {{Cleanup bare URLs}} and non-ref bare URLs. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:35, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- For example Ciudad del Carmen or Duncan Sandy, which you've yourself tagged with {{Cleanup bare URLs}}. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:09, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- Pretty sure that in the several thousand of articles with such bare urls, at least one was tagged with {{Cleanup bare URLs}}. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:02, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
there is zilch in the documentation saying that this template is only for bare URL in ref tags. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:15, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- Since bare URLs seem to be about link rot with regards to citations (WP:BAREURLS), I'm not sure the links in the "External links" section, which often just describe the page or site name, are really covered. But there may be better venues to have this discussion if we can't come to a consensus here. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:20, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- Barring that, we can just proceed with the automated task with step 5 and see where that gets us. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:22, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- @ProcrastinatingReader: as I noted in the proposal, I am happy to proceed with step 5 included. It's not my first choice, but better than no cleanup.
- If there is some consensus elsewhere to omit step 5, then it will be trivial matter to disable step 5, subject to BRFA approval.
- @Headbomb and Enterprisey: are you happy to proceed on that basis? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:32, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- Barring that, we can just proceed with the automated task with step 5 and see where that gets us. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:22, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- Possible trial. I may be getting ahead of things here, but if BAG is minded to consider authorising this task with Step 5 included, please can I ask that we start with a trial and go through a few iterations?If step 5 is involved, it would be very helpful to have multiple sets of eyes scrutinising test cases for false positives and false negatives in the check for bare links elsewhere the page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:44, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Please make sure at least 20 of these 50 edits include a 'step 5' skip. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:06, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Pi's Pixie Bot
Operator: Pi (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 18:29, Thursday, July 22, 2021 (UTC)
Function overview: Create and update lists of pages that were deleted after an AFD process and which have redlinks in other articles directed at the page. This can then be reviewed and redlinks removed manually if appropriate
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic
Programming language(s): Python
Source code available: No
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Red_links_to_AfD_deleted_subjects
Edit period(s): Daily
Estimated number of pages affected: 1 edit per day
Namespace(s): Wikipedia
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No):No. The bot only edits one page, which is created specifically for the bot to edit.
Function details: The bot will update the page Wikipedia:WikiProject_Red_Link_Recovery/Red_Links_to_AfD_Deleted_Pages to create a table of pages which were deleted after AfD and which have redlinks pointing to the page. These pages can then be reviewed by members of the Wikiproject to remove links where appropriate. In order to obtain the data the bot obtains the recent AFD pages, and the deletion log and list of backlinks from the API. For testing I've been running the bot manually and approving the edits after reviewing the draft. Now that the script appears to be stable I propose having it run daily as a scheduled task.
Discussion
Note: This bot appears to have edited since this BRFA was filed. Bots may not edit outside their own or their operator's userspace unless approved or approved for trial. AnomieBOT⚡ 14:29, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
- You can maintain this list in userspace and link to that page in a non-userspace page, and that would largely take this outside of BAG approval. I feel like that's usually a better option for these kinds of tasks. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:20, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Pi: I apologize for the long delay! I don't see the harm in this, let's do a short trial. ProcrastinatingReader's suggestion above is a good one as well - it's how I do these.
Approved for trial (7 days). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. !ɘM γɿɘυϘ⅃ϘƧ 22:28, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
DoggoBot
Operator: EpicPupper (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 17:57, Wednesday, June 2, 2021 (UTC)
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic
Programming language(s): AutoWikiBrowser, RegEx replaces
Source code available: AWB. The regex is available at User:EpicPupper/sandbox/4.js, and the custom replace for PumpkinSky's signatures is at [8].
Function overview: Bot to fix various Lint errors, as well as replacing PumpkinSky's signatures including font tags with span tags.
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): [9], Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/MalnadachBot
Edit period(s): One time run, unless more conclusive regexes are written
Estimated number of pages affected: 1,081 currently most likely much more with the new regexes, need to run a search to get the exact number
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes
Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): No
Function details: Requesting bot flag as to not clutter RC. The bot account will need AWB access. All edits will be marked as "minor". Tested once with my own account here (with JWB, as I was on my Mac, but the bot will probably run AWB).
Discussion
I support this task, and request that you add more regexes so that pages do not have to be revisited by multiple bots. On the page linked above in the sample diff, there were multiple easily fixable font tags, along with missing italics at the end of Template:RM bottom, that could be fixed with simple regexes while the bot is visiting each page. There are many such regexes listed at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/MalnadachBot, although the operator reports that they resulted in some false positives. I have some more limited regexes at User:Jonesey95/AutoEd/doi.js, in the sections marked "font wrapping links - move inside link and convert to span tag", "replace font tag in user and user talk links with span tag", and "replace all deprecated font color tags enclosing untagged text". I have never seen a false positive with those regexes. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:12, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Jonesey95: Thank you for mentioning these. I'll take a look at those pages (and the related discussions linked at the BRFA) and try to pick up all the regexes that seem to have no false positives. I prefer to stay on the safe side and only add the non-false positive regexes. EpicPupper (talk, contribs) 21:27, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- As a note, looking at WP:HTML5, there seem to be many other easy replaces (eg strike tags with s tags), which hopefully can be incorporated into this request. Compiling a full list later. EpicPupper (talk, contribs) 21:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- @EpicPupper: Please let me know when you are ready for a trial. --TheSandDoctor Talk 14:31, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you TheSandDoctor. @Jonesey95: could you take a look at the regexes at User:EpicPupper/sandbox/4.js? I am aware that the script is very erroneous and will most likely not work, I am just using it as a dumping ground for regexes (I'll input them raw in AWB). EpicPupper (talk, contribs) 16:27, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- If you are planning to run this bot without supervision, I recommend removing the sections entitled "Links in links", "Fix linter problems", "Fix linter missing or extra end tags", "div-span-flip error", "small tag or template wrapping multiple lines", and "replace deprecated tt tags" (both sections). Certain regexes in those sections can create new errors or recommend inappropriate changes. I always use my script in a supervised mode, inspecting each preview before I save it, so that I can avoid those inappropriate changes. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:12, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Removed, please tell me if you have any other concerns. EpicPupper (talk, contribs) 17:47, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- @TheSandDoctor: I think I'm ready for a trial. EpicPupper (talk, contribs) 04:08, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Jonesey95: Any objections? --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:37, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- @TheSandDoctor: I think I'm ready for a trial. EpicPupper (talk, contribs) 04:08, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Removed, please tell me if you have any other concerns. EpicPupper (talk, contribs) 17:47, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- If you are planning to run this bot without supervision, I recommend removing the sections entitled "Links in links", "Fix linter problems", "Fix linter missing or extra end tags", "div-span-flip error", "small tag or template wrapping multiple lines", and "replace deprecated tt tags" (both sections). Certain regexes in those sections can create new errors or recommend inappropriate changes. I always use my script in a supervised mode, inspecting each preview before I save it, so that I can avoid those inappropriate changes. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:12, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you TheSandDoctor. @Jonesey95: could you take a look at the regexes at User:EpicPupper/sandbox/4.js? I am aware that the script is very erroneous and will most likely not work, I am just using it as a dumping ground for regexes (I'll input them raw in AWB). EpicPupper (talk, contribs) 16:27, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- @EpicPupper: Please let me know when you are ready for a trial. --TheSandDoctor Talk 14:31, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- As a note, looking at WP:HTML5, there seem to be many other easy replaces (eg strike tags with s tags), which hopefully can be incorporated into this request. Compiling a full list later. EpicPupper (talk, contribs) 21:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. @EpicPupper: --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:24, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- "Fix various errors" is too broad. The specific scope of this bot should be documented here. Please note, I just denied BRFA Task#2. — xaosflux Talk 00:53, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- As mentioned above, they (regexes) are listed at User:EpicPupper/sandbox/4.js. EpicPupper (talk, contribs) 02:20, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Xaosflux: Courtesy ping. --TheSandDoctor Talk 22:44, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- As mentioned above, they (regexes) are listed at User:EpicPupper/sandbox/4.js. EpicPupper (talk, contribs) 02:20, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Just wanted to note that I am
Still doing..., I've had some trouble with making the search query for AWB but hopefully I've got it now. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk, FAQ, contribs) 04:12, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- EpicPupper, the bot needs to be added to WP:AWB/CP in order to use AWB. You can use AWB's Wiki search (all NS) option and enter insource search string to get a list of pages. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 04:56, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- @ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ:, yes I am aware that an insource search is possible, however I am having a bit of trouble assembling the search with so many regexes. @TheSandDoctor: that reminds be, would my bot be able to added to the AWB CheckPage? Thanks! 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk, FAQ, contribs) 16:12, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- @EpicPupper:
Done for trial purposes. What's the status of this? --TheSandDoctor Talk 22:44, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- Hi there and sorry for the extremely late reply. The regex search I put together timed out, so I'll need to split it into chunks of three. I'll finish this today. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk, FAQ, contribs | please use {{ping}} on reply) 20:43, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- @TheSandDoctor: hey there, it seems like the wikitext CheckPage is not working. Please add my bot to the JSON CheckPage, thanks. I get a permission error in AWB when trying to run the bot. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk, FAQ, contribs | please use {{ping}} on reply) 22:09, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- @EpicPupper: I did? Not sure why you are getting any errors. What JSON page? --TheSandDoctor Talk 22:20, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- @TheSandDoctor: see here. The JSON CheckPage is located here. The newest version of AWB now requires users to be on the JSON one. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk, FAQ, contribs | please use {{ping}} on reply) 22:23, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- @EpicPupper: I didn't know about the new one, oops. Thanks for the link and the FYI. Done with Special:Diff/1031660294. --TheSandDoctor Talk 22:37, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- @TheSandDoctor: see here. The JSON CheckPage is located here. The newest version of AWB now requires users to be on the JSON one. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk, FAQ, contribs | please use {{ping}} on reply) 22:23, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- @EpicPupper: I did? Not sure why you are getting any errors. What JSON page? --TheSandDoctor Talk 22:20, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- @TheSandDoctor: hey there, it seems like the wikitext CheckPage is not working. Please add my bot to the JSON CheckPage, thanks. I get a permission error in AWB when trying to run the bot. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk, FAQ, contribs | please use {{ping}} on reply) 22:09, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- Hi there and sorry for the extremely late reply. The regex search I put together timed out, so I'll need to split it into chunks of three. I'll finish this today. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk, FAQ, contribs | please use {{ping}} on reply) 20:43, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- @EpicPupper:
- @ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ:, yes I am aware that an insource search is possible, however I am having a bit of trouble assembling the search with so many regexes. @TheSandDoctor: that reminds be, would my bot be able to added to the AWB CheckPage? Thanks! 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk, FAQ, contribs) 16:12, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- EpicPupper, the bot needs to be added to WP:AWB/CP in order to use AWB. You can use AWB's Wiki search (all NS) option and enter insource search string to get a list of pages. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 04:56, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
FACBot 7
Operator: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 01:23, Tuesday, May 25, 2021 (UTC)
Function overview: Run through articles with old peer review templates and merge them into the article history template where one exists.
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic
Programming language(s): C#
Source code available: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/source/tool-milhistbot/browse/master/mono/PeerReviews.cs
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): User talk:FACBot#Updates to peer review
Edit period(s): One time run
Estimated number of pages affected: 1,000
Namespace(s): Talk
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes
Function details: Run through articles with old peer review templates and merge them into the article history template where one exists.
Discussion
Approved for trial (25 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. – SD0001 (talk) 03:54, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Here is the results of the run limited to 25 edits:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
All checked look fine. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:05, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- In 2, the bot converted the original template's date
February 2008
to00:00:00 01 February 2008 (UTC)
. Could this be avoided? Maybe always put the date as the date of last edit rather than read from PR template? - In 3, there's still a
{{Old peer review}}
left on the page (there were 2 initially). - In 4, the PR date added is 20 October 2015 but that was when the page was moved. PR is actually from 2013. Not sure if this is worth fixing.
- In 6, it duplicated the already existing PR in the AH template.
- In 2, the bot converted the original template's date
- – SD0001 (talk) 13:34, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Second run: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
- @Hawkeye7 Sorry I missed looking at the oldids earlier. Turns out the bot has added the current revid instead of the oldid in every edit.
Also, in the 2nd batch:
- In 2: duplication
- An action2 entry without an action1 entry. I have worked around this by deleting and rebuilding the entries but this may cause some minor re-ordering.
- In 9: it added oldid for GA; but it's not correct (GA nom was in 2014 but oldid is for a 2019 edit)
- It also means that in cases where there is a GA or some other entry missing fields like oldid for whatever reason, these will be added.
- In 11: One
{{Old peer review}}
was removed, the other remains
- In 2: duplication
- – SD0001 (talk) 13:41, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Have fixed the problem with the revid (caused by fiddling with the dates to fix a problem with the first set). have re-run against each of the problematic edits (offline, without updating). Will run off another batch. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:02, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Bots that have completed the trial period
MalnadachBot 10
Operator: ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 11:15, Thursday, September 30, 2021 (UTC)
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic
Programming language(s): AutoWikiBrowser
Source code available: AWB, replacement strings posted in User:MalnadachBot/Task 10
Function overview: Fix deletable table tag and other Lint errors in 12 substituted templates.
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):
Edit period(s): One time run
Estimated number of pages affected: 3,500
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes
Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): Yes
Function details: This task is to fix 12 substed templates listed in User:MalnadachBot/Task 10. All of them have at least one deletable table tag, which is a high priority Lint error. Some of the templates have other Lint errors too, which will be fixed in the same edit. Replacements will be done using AWB's find and replace advanced settings. Most of the edits will be in User talk and User namespaces.
Discussion
Comment: This looks like a routine task that this bot operator has handled well in the past. I wonder if the operator would consider as well. I did a search and found only 16 of them, but the search timed out, so there may be more. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:35, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
- To elaborate on this task a bit, most of the patterns that give deletable table tag error which are present in a large number of pages have been fixed in bot task 5, 6 and 8. The Firefly Linter count currently shows 16,400 table tag errors across namespaces. Fixing the 12 templates in this task will bring the number down to 12,000. I expect about half of the remaining ones will have to be fixed on a case by case basis and cannot be automated. The other half would be like the example above that are present in less number of pages. Though they can be fixed by bot, it is not feasible to ask for approval for each of the patterns because of long tail problem. So I would request BAG to approve this task for all deletable table tag errors caused by substed templates. I have experience fixing this both by this bot and from my main account. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 05:55, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
Approved for trial (100 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. (Not restricted to specific templates). – SD0001 (talk) 10:23, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Trial complete. Result. I have done 10 edits per the first 10 templates listed in task page and noted the number in edit summary. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 12:39, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
FrescoBot 15
Operator: Basilicofresco (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 06:37, Tuesday, July 20, 2021 (UTC)
Function overview: now and then some websites migrate domain or change the path structure of the website and break our links. When the change affects just a prefix of the complete url then update is trivial and straightforward. The idea is to perform these kind of url migrations.
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic
Programming language(s): python
Source code available: standard pywikipedia
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): I already performed a similar task in the past, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/FrescoBot 1
Edit period(s): as needed
Estimated number of pages affected: eg. 1729 for http://www.ariacharts.com.au
Namespace(s): mainly articles, but few edits could affect as well files, portals and drafts.
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): yes
Function details:
- urls with the prefix https://www.ariacharts.com.au/annual-charts will be updated to the prefix https://www.aria.com.au/charts (eg. https://www.ariacharts.com.au/annual-charts/2019/singles-chart will become https://www.aria.com.au/charts/2019/singles-chart)
- urls with the prefix https://www.parmuziku.lv/zinas/ will be updated to the prefix https://www.parmuziku.lv/muzikas-zinas/ (eg. https://www.parmuziku.lv/zinas/latvija/muzikas-paterina-tops-gadu-mija-7661 will become https://www.parmuziku.lv/muzikas-zinas/latvija/muzikas-paterina-tops-gadu-mija-7661
- urls with the prefix https://www.parmuziku.lv/jaunumi/ will be updated to the prefix https://www.parmuziku.lv/muzikas-zinas/ (eg. https://www.parmuziku.lv/jaunumi/latvija/muzikas-paterina-tops-gadu-mija-7661 will become https://www.parmuziku.lv/muzikas-zinas/latvija/muzikas-paterina-tops-gadu-mija-7661
- other similar url migrations in the future
NB. I will not change archive urls. (eg. https://web.archive.org/web/201638/https://www.parmuziku.lv/zinas/latvija/muzikas-paterina-tops-gadu-mija-7661)
Discussion
Potentially dumb question, but is this task not suitable for a WP:URLREQ, or is this bot intended to be a supplement to that page? Primefac (talk) 18:43, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
- Well, actually I could help to solve requests at WP:URLREQ. I often take care of similar issues on it.wiki. -- Basilicofresco (msg) 21:42, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
- Does anyone have any other question? Should I start with some test edits? -- Basilicofresco (msg) 21:37, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
- Hi! After +2 weeks without any question or doubt I guess we can move on.
{{BAG assistance needed}}
-- Basilicofresco (msg) 09:11, 7 August 2021 (UTC)- Let's see how it works,
Approved for trial (150 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. !ɘM γɿɘυϘ⅃ϘƧ 22:22, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Done, here are the test edits. Few noteworthy examples:
- Basilicofresco (msg) 15:48, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- Hello again! Is there any question? Doubt? Request?
A user has requested the attention of a member of the Bot Approvals Group. Once assistance has been rendered, please deactivate this tag by replacing it with
{{tl|BAG assistance needed}}
. -- Basilicofresco (msg) 16:53, 26 August 2021 (UTC) - Sorry, I miss the point that I had to place
Trial complete. by myself. -- Basilicofresco (msg) 11:36, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
- Hello again! Is there any question? Doubt? Request?
- Let's see how it works,
Cewbot 8
Operator: Kanashimi (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 23:43, Saturday, May 8, 2021 (UTC)
Function overview: Maintain challenge templates at corresponding page.
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic
Programming language(s): wikiapi on GitHub
Source code available: 20210902.maintain challenge templates.js on GitHub
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 82#Bot for Challenges projects
Edit period(s): daily
Estimated number of pages affected: 10K+
Namespace(s): talk pages
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes
Function details: This task will take over work of Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/HasteurBot 15.
Discussion
In this TfD the community overwhelmingly decided to merge the banners into the WikiProject banner stuff. Although that was only to apply to the {{WPUS50}} template, I think the sentiment in that discussion was against having it in a separate banner. Example new usage. In line with that, I'm wondering how your task would add these templates? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:19, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for the comment. I think we may insert the templates into {{WikiProject banner shell}}. Maybe BabbaQ have good idea? By the way, I think using the expression
|WPUS50=
will cause difficulties of related templates if we want to add/remove them later. The problem triggered when I run the task Normalize Multiple issues in zhwiki or jawiki, they allow both{{Multiple issues|BLP sources=true}}
and{{Multiple issues|{{BLP sources}}}}
. So I need to check them both. If the challenge templates are merged to different meta-templates as parameters, the situation will be more complicated. In my opinion,{{Multiple issues|{{BLP sources}}}}
is better than{{Multiple issues|BLP sources=true}}
, for it is easy to search for both humans and bots. Kanashimi (talk) 00:57, 9 May 2021 (UTC)- The other templates in that category have been nominated for deletion/merging with their parent WikiProject banners. I think it would be best to wait for the outcome of that discussion first. Primefac (talk) 12:59, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- {{BotOnHold}} Sure. I will wait for the discussion Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 May 10#Wikipedia article challenge templates ending. Kanashimi (talk) 00:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- The other templates in that category have been nominated for deletion/merging with their parent WikiProject banners. I think it would be best to wait for the outcome of that discussion first. Primefac (talk) 12:59, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
@Primefac and BabbaQ: It seems Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 May 10#Wikipedia article challenge templates gets no consensus. How about continues this task? --Kanashimi (talk) 01:59, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
- Given my involvement in the TFD (which I believe is sufficient enough to make me involved in this situation) I will refrain from commenting on this from a BAG perspective, but if the TFD closed with no action taken then I see no reason why the templates shouldn't be used in the appropriate locations. Primefac (talk) 18:55, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for the comment. @BabbaQ I will continue the task. {{BAG assistance needed}} May I do some test edits? I will insert challenge templates into {{WikiProject banner shell}}. Kanashimi (talk) 06:26, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
Approved for trial (70 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. There are 7 templates in the category, so please do 10 edits per template (if possible). Primefac (talk) 17:06, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- There are 6 templates that may insert to talk pages. I will try for these templates. Kanashimi (talk) 21:51, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Trial complete. Please see here. There was an issue when inserting as a hatnote, and the bug was fixed. It seems OK now. Kanashimi (talk) 06:22, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
RottenBot
Operator: Notsniwiast (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 03:32, Friday, August 27, 2021 (UTC)
Function overview: Updates Rotten Tomatoes data.
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Mostly automatic. There is a flagging system which flags edits for review.
Programming language(s): Python (pywikibot)
Source code available: On Github
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Here are some relevant links.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Review_aggregators
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Review_aggregators
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film#Critical_reception
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Rotten_Tomatoes_prose
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Cite_Rotten_Tomatoes
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotten_Tomatoes
- https://www.rottentomatoes.com/faq
Edit period(s): One time run by going through each year's film category, e.g. Category:2021 films. Then maybe periodic runs, perhaps every year or so.
Estimated number of pages affected: 20,000? Films for years 2010-2020 have about 7,000 edits, but earlier years have fewer and fewer edits.
Namespace(s): Mainspace
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): I think yes? It uses pywikibot's page.save function.
Function details: This is my first bot. See the Github page for a description and example edits. The general procedure will be as follows.
- Download XML dump of a category of films using listpages and Special:Export.
- Use RottenBot to compute text replacements. This updates the percentage score, review count, average score, critics consensus, and citation. Other minor edits include updating "As of" dates and deleting wikilinks to weighted arithmetic mean. "Dangerous" edits are flagged for review, and flags need to be cleared by a human for edits to go through. See the example_edits.txt file on Github.
- Upload edits that have no flags.
Discussion
Approved for trial (10 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Generally "link to relevant discussions" means discussing this specific bot task onwiki somewhere. I think for this task it would help knowing exactly what kinds of edits will be made, and since it seems you've already written the code, how about you make 10 edits and provide the diffs here? (I see there are some example edits on your GitHub, but nevertheless I think 10 diffs are better). Next steps will be more apparent after that. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:35, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- I am going to request (but not demand) that these edits be made NOT marked as "minor", if only to draw a bit more attention to them and see what sort of stir (if any) it makes. Please make sure your edit summary includes a link to this BRFA. (and for the record, we really should have links to discussions saying this sort of thing is desired) Primefac (talk) 12:38, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- Is Wikipedia:Bot requests the place to start a discussion? Should I just submit a proposal there now? I'm sorry for not doing it before. Winston (talk) 14:05, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- You want to discuss this in a content venue. The edits made should help make the proposal clear for people.
- I'll be honest and say that, reading the below edits, I don't think this would attain community consensus as-is. It makes substantial changes to article prose (eg [13]), which the community is unlikely to support, since it prefers clear prose written in-context, rather than static and bot-like. The change of references that might be used in other contexts (eg here) may cause a problem if the ref is reused and if the new one no longer supports the other text. Edits like this remove wikilinks that may have been kept in by editor judgement (which the bot cannot make). Edits like this seem less contentious, however, but there is still the question of precision (6.00/10 reads wrong).
- There are purely technical issues like requiring a follow-up bot, but those can be hashed out later if this task is to proceed. The issue here is whether the task can proceed, either in current form or in some kind of adjusted form. I'm not really a movies editor so I have no suggestion on that front, but this would need content consensus anyway, and those are the editors who would best know if there is a version of this task that's passable. Try starting a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film perhaps? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:17, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- I've just fixed the technical citation bug. Regarding your change of reference point, my understanding is that the Cite Rotten Tomatoes template is essentially just a shorter version of a Cite Web template for Rotten Tomatoes. You also mention that a bot cannot remove wikilinks. I didn't know about this policy. The reason I'm removing the weighted average wikilinks is because I believe it's actually incorrect to say that Rotten Tomatoes uses a weighted average.
- I admit it would be possible to make the bot less contentious by having it make much more conservative edits. I'll start a discussion at Wikiproject Film's talk page as suggested to address some of these details. Winston (talk) 14:38, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- Is Wikipedia:Bot requests the place to start a discussion? Should I just submit a proposal there now? I'm sorry for not doing it before. Winston (talk) 14:05, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Trial complete. The edits are here. Winston (talk) 13:57, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- I've started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Rotten_Tomatoes_info_editing_bot
- I was notified of this request from the WP:FILM discussion, and I've looked at the test edits and have some issues. In the Creepshow 2 edit, the critical consensus needs to be included inside the reference. Right now, it isn't. As Notsniwiast noted in their explanation at that WP:FILM discussion, though Rotten Tomatoes uses 2 decimal points, we should not be using them if they are trailing zeros. So anything that is X.00, should just be X, while anything that is X.Y0 should just be X.Y. I'm also still not convinced the bot should completely rewrite the prose in some instances. In the A Summer Place edit, this seemed appropriate, but in the Silver Bullet edit, I would argue the bot didn't need to reformat the prose. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:18, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- I suggest this idea be scrapped, at least in this form. Bots directly (re)writing prose sentences is almost never a good idea. If a bot is going to grab data from Rotten Tomatoes and put it anywhere on a WMF wiki, it should be done on Wikidata, which would have far better utility. That way people can use it as they see fit (e.g. in lists), not just in the Reception sections about individual films on just this wiki. Nardog (talk) 12:54, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
- I like this idea of migrating to Wikidata Nardog, specifically thinking of an instance on the English Wiki where film franchise articles sometimes make tables to compare RT percentages across all entries in the series, and pulling the info for all from their Wikidata seems like a beneficial way to go about that. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:00, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
- I've modified the bot to be much more conservative and addressed some of the points brought up. It no longer rewrites sentences since it now only updates the numbers found in the original wikitext. It uses the original citation with an updated access date, or adds a {{Cite web}} citation if there is no citation. It preserves the original average rating's numeric precision. If a critical consensus is added, it puts the citation after the consensus. I'd like to make some more trial edits with this new version. Winston (talk) 14:16, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
- I still don't see the need for a bot that updates individual articles. Just dump the data somewhere. Nardog (talk) 20:47, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
- If the data were dumped into Wikidata, would you support a bot updating individual articles to use a template which retrieves the Wikidata? Or do you think the data would just be for new human edits. Winston (talk) 02:17, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
- I would, as that'll put an end to the tireless updates of RT scores in the main namespace. Nardog (talk) 03:12, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
- I'm also in support of Nardog's thinking on this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 13:53, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
- I would, as that'll put an end to the tireless updates of RT scores in the main namespace. Nardog (talk) 03:12, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
- If the data were dumped into Wikidata, would you support a bot updating individual articles to use a template which retrieves the Wikidata? Or do you think the data would just be for new human edits. Winston (talk) 02:17, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
- I still don't see the need for a bot that updates individual articles. Just dump the data somewhere. Nardog (talk) 20:47, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
- I have implemented the Wikidata suggestion, see the bot request here. I've also created the template {{Rotten Tomatoes data}}. May I make a few new test edits? Winston (talk) 00:14, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- Sure; I'd suggest making them from your own account (semi-automated) for demonstration purposes first, seeing if that now has consensus, and if there seems to be support for the new approach then we can do another trial. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:34, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- See example edits: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. I chose these examples to demonstrate the variety of edits the bot might make. I believe the only "miss" among these edits is in 6 where the bot did not replace "72 votes". This is because "votes" isn't a term used by the bot to detect the review count, and the bot can't account for all possible terms. (But I've now added this relatively rare term to the bot.)
- One behavior I have refrained from activating is replacing urls with
{{RT data|url}}
. This would handle RT changing their urls in the future (whether for individual movies which occasionally occurs or as a larger structural change), but I believe there was a concern that removing the literal url from the wikitext would hinder archiving or something to that effect. Currently, only {{RT data|access date}} and {{RT data|rtid|noprefix}} (for {{Cite Rotten Tomatoes}}) is put in the citations. Winston (talk) 21:06, 18 September 2021 (UTC)- Also forgot I changed the behavior of "noprefix" parameter in {{RT data}}. So in 1 it should be "noprefix=y", which I've fixed. Winston (talk) 21:11, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- Notsniwiast I have a question regarding the Desert Dancer/4th edit, which might be more of a function of {{RT data}}. In regards to the "as of" adjustments, wouldn't it be easier/possibly more correct to do
{{As of|{{RT data|access date}}}}
and possibly have a way to simply parse the month and year from the accessdate? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:55, 19 September 2021 (UTC)- I'm not sure exactly what you're asking, so let me just explain my thinking regarding the "as of" stuff. The most obvious thing to do is just fill in the parameters of {{As of}}, like
{{As of|{{RT data|year}}|{{RT data|month}}|{{RT data|day}}}}
. That's clearly obnoxious, so I just wrapped {{As of}} in a command to autofill the parameters. However, to allow users to decide the precision of the date used (and so that RottenBot could preserve the original precision), I had to keep the year, month, and day parameters (except that the value supplied doesn't matter since it is taken from Wikidata). In the Desert Dancer edit specifically, the {{As of}} template is actually being used incorrectly, since they have put the month together with the year as the first parameter (though the fact that it still works is probably intentional since this is a common error). It's supposed to be like{{As of|2021|June}}
. One also needs to consider cases where other "As of" parameters are used such as "lc" and "df". Winston (talk) 03:40, 19 September 2021 (UTC)- That more or less answers my question, thanks! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:53, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not sure exactly what you're asking, so let me just explain my thinking regarding the "as of" stuff. The most obvious thing to do is just fill in the parameters of {{As of}}, like
- Notsniwiast I have a question regarding the Desert Dancer/4th edit, which might be more of a function of {{RT data}}. In regards to the "as of" adjustments, wouldn't it be easier/possibly more correct to do
- Also forgot I changed the behavior of "noprefix" parameter in {{RT data}}. So in 1 it should be "noprefix=y", which I've fixed. Winston (talk) 21:11, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- Death is inevitable, it must be planned for in software. There is a non-zero chance that the bot will stop being maintained at some point. Please don't override the access-date with your own custom notation because you discourage ordinary users from manually updating the Rotten Tomatoes score, something that will inevitably be necessary at some point. -- 109.79.81.4 (talk) 15:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
- Very well. The raw access date will be used. This means the access date may become out-of-sync with data from the template in the future, but I suppose that's pretty common anyways. Winston (talk) 19:49, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
- Don't. As long as the data presented in the article is from Wikidata, the citation should show the date when it was retrieved. The IP misses the point in that we can still manually update Wikidata if the bot ceases to operate (which would be preferable to replacing the templates as you would be updating data other articles and projects may also use). Nardog (talk) 00:24, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
- Hmm ok. I think it's not too difficult to figure out my "custom notation" either, since it's a pretty simple template unless it's like your first edit. Winston (talk) 00:55, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
- Ok. We will see. I think you might be under-estimating the already steep learning curve of Wikipedia to make what might seem like simple edits to insiders. I'm sure I'll get more familiar with it and you will get much more feedback and different perspectives as you roll it out wider. -- 109.78.197.83 (talk) 22:02, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
- Using {{RT data}} can't be more complicated than using {{Cite web}} with it's numerous parameters and massive documentation page, or any number of other templates. Also Nardog is right to point out that once {{RT data}} is being used, editors shouldn't need to touch the wikitext to update the Rotten Tomatoes score. Instead, they would go to Wikidata to do that. As a side effect, this might increase Wikidata participation. Now I may be biased, but as a relatively new editor, I think the Wikidata integration is pretty cool and may even catch the interest of some new editors, even if it is technically a steeper learning curve in that they have to learn a bit about Wikidata. Winston (talk) 22:37, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
- FWIW we have pencil icons (Template:EditAtWikidata) in infoboxes and External links sections to point editors to the Wikidata page the data comes from. I'm sure it won't fit in article prose, but it might be acceptable in citations. Nardog (talk) 00:51, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
- For citations it looks like "Nightcrawler (2014)". Rotten Tomatoes. Retrieved February 1, 2021.
. Seems fine to me. I'll add that in. Winston (talk) 02:42, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
- For citations it looks like "Nightcrawler (2014)". Rotten Tomatoes. Retrieved February 1, 2021.
- FWIW we have pencil icons (Template:EditAtWikidata) in infoboxes and External links sections to point editors to the Wikidata page the data comes from. I'm sure it won't fit in article prose, but it might be acceptable in citations. Nardog (talk) 00:51, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
- Using {{RT data}} can't be more complicated than using {{Cite web}} with it's numerous parameters and massive documentation page, or any number of other templates. Also Nardog is right to point out that once {{RT data}} is being used, editors shouldn't need to touch the wikitext to update the Rotten Tomatoes score. Instead, they would go to Wikidata to do that. As a side effect, this might increase Wikidata participation. Now I may be biased, but as a relatively new editor, I think the Wikidata integration is pretty cool and may even catch the interest of some new editors, even if it is technically a steeper learning curve in that they have to learn a bit about Wikidata. Winston (talk) 22:37, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
- Don't. As long as the data presented in the article is from Wikidata, the citation should show the date when it was retrieved. The IP misses the point in that we can still manually update Wikidata if the bot ceases to operate (which would be preferable to replacing the templates as you would be updating data other articles and projects may also use). Nardog (talk) 00:24, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
- Very well. The raw access date will be used. This means the access date may become out-of-sync with data from the template in the future, but I suppose that's pretty common anyways. Winston (talk) 19:49, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
I do like the idea that there should be some way for editors and readers to know that the data is not "hard coded" to each article and can be edited/adjusted elsewhere, ie with {{EditAtWikidata}} in the citation. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:28, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
- I've created an edit command like
{{RT data|edit}}
which wraps {{EditAtWikidata}} so that it can easily be deleted with a simple find and replace if objections are raised. Winston (talk) 21:38, 30 September 2021 (UTC) - @ProcrastinatingReader: Can I make some trial edits? The bot will be approved on Wikidata soon. Winston (talk) 00:41, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
Approved requests
Bots that have been approved for operations after a successful BRFA will be listed here for informational purposes. No other approval action is required for these bots. Recently approved requests can be found here (), while old requests can be found in the archives.
- 'zinbot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Approved 15:08, 28 September 2021 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- GreenC bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 20) Approved 11:53, 28 September 2021 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- Qwerfjkl (bot) (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Approved 19:31, 27 September 2021 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- MalnadachBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 9) Approved 11:12, 23 September 2021 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- FireflyBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 13) Approved 17:34, 20 September 2021 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- WOSlinkerBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 15) Approved 16:26, 20 September 2021 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- MalnadachBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 7) Approved 16:21, 20 September 2021 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- BattyBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 60) Approved 16:21, 20 September 2021 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- MalnadachBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 8) Approved 16:04, 20 September 2021 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- WOSlinkerBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 14) Approved 18:52, 13 September 2021 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- TNTBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Approved 17:05, 1 September 2021 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- WOSlinkerBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 13) Approved 03:26, 28 August 2021 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- MalnadachBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 6) Approved 11:49, 26 August 2021 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- WOSlinkerBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 12) Approved 10:23, 24 August 2021 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- WOSlinkerBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 11) Approved 22:59, 23 August 2021 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- MalnadachBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 5) Approved 21:07, 22 August 2021 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- TolBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 4) Approved 21:07, 22 August 2021 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- William Avery Bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 3) Approved 21:07, 22 August 2021 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- WOSlinkerBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 10) Approved 14:20, 18 August 2021 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- MalnadachBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 4) Approved 14:14, 18 August 2021 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- WOSlinkerBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 8) Approved 14:44, 8 August 2021 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- ProcBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 8) Approved 14:44, 8 August 2021 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- WOSlinkerBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 9) Approved 14:12, 8 August 2021 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- WikiCleanerBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 27) Approved 23:07, 7 August 2021 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- TolBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 5) Approved 12:51, 25 July 2021 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- PearBOT II (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 11) Approved 20:02, 24 July 2021 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- MalnadachBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 3) Approved 18:55, 20 July 2021 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- William Avery Bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 4) Approved 18:55, 20 July 2021 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- TolBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 1A) Approved 18:55, 20 July 2021 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- EnterpriseyBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 11) Approved 18:49, 20 July 2021 (UTC) (bot has flag)
Denied requests
Bots that have been denied for operations will be listed here for informational purposes for at least 7 days before being archived. No other action is required for these bots. Older requests can be found in the Archive.
- Cewbot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 9) Bot denied 14:19, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- Q28bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 1) Bot denied 10:28, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- HooptyBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 10:31, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- SWinxyTheBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 21:02, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- ProcBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 9) Bot denied 21:02, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- AWMBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 2) Bot denied 02:05, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- BattyBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 58) Bot denied 19:16, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
- CountyBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 23:10, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
- K.Kapil77 Bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 15:31, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- DoggoBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 2) Bot denied 00:53, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- LemonadeBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 08:17, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- DannyS712 bot IV (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 73) Bot denied 09:51, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- Usernamekiran BOT (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 4) Bot denied 14:17, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- Pi bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 5) Bot denied 03:37, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- Roccerbot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 23:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Expired/withdrawn requests
These requests have either expired, as information required by the operator was not provided, or been withdrawn. These tasks are not authorized to run, but such lack of authorization does not necessarily follow from a finding as to merit. A bot that, having been approved for testing, was not tested by an editor, or one for which the results of testing were not posted, for example, would appear here. Bot requests should not be placed here if there is an active discussion ongoing above. Operators whose requests have expired may reactivate their requests at any time. The following list shows recent requests (if any) that have expired, listed here for informational purposes for at least 7 days before being archived. Older requests can be found in the respective archives: Expired, Withdrawn.
- TNTBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 2) Withdrawn by operator 18:40, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- TolBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 6) Withdrawn by operator 16:21, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- BHGbot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 8) Withdrawn by operator 20:21, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- PearBOT II (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 10) Withdrawn by operator 14:02, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- DoggoBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 3) Withdrawn by operator 21:22, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
- Uhaas bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Withdrawn by operator 08:03, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- PrimeBOT (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 36) Withdrawn by operator 01:49, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- PrimeBOT (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 35) Withdrawn by operator 00:20, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- DeltaQuadBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 9) Expired 14:15, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- TolBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 2) Withdrawn by operator 20:12, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- DaxServerBot I (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Withdrawn by operator 19:19, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
- YTStatsBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Expired 13:16, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
- MusikBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 16) Withdrawn by operator 17:32, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
- CommonsCategoryBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Withdrawn by operator 20:03, 7 March 2021 (UTC)