Wikipedia:Bot requests

Commonly Requested Bots

This is a page for requesting tasks to be done by bots per the bot policy. This is an appropriate place to put ideas for uncontroversial bot tasks, to get early feedback on ideas for bot tasks (controversial or not), and to seek bot operators for bot tasks. Consensus-building discussions requiring large community input (such as request for comments) should normally be held at WP:VPPROP or other relevant pages (such as a WikiProject's talk page).

You can check the "Commonly Requested Bots" box above to see if a suitable bot already exists for the task you have in mind. If you have a question about a particular bot, contact the bot operator directly via their talk page or the bot's talk page. If a bot is acting improperly, follow the guidance outlined in WP:BOTISSUE. For broader issues and general discussion about bots, see the bot noticeboard.

Before making a request, please see the list of frequently denied bots, either because they are too complicated to program, or do not have consensus from the Wikipedia community. If you are requesting that a template (such as a WikiProject banner) is added to all pages in a particular category, please be careful to check the category tree for any unwanted subcategories. It is best to give a complete list of categories that should be worked through individually, rather than one category to be analyzed recursively (see example difference).

Alternatives to bot requests

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

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

Please add your bot requests to the bottom of this page.
Make a new request

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

Legend
In the last hour
In the last day
In the last week
In the last month
More than one month
Manual settings
When exceptions occur, please check the setting first.

"Was" in TV articles

I'm still finding a lot of TV show articles following the format "Name of show was" even though MOS:TV has dictated "Name of show is" for ages. Could a bot be made that can find cases where "was" is still being used? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:13, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TenPoundHammer: in theory, yes. A lot of variations of the sentence would have to be considered, but it is possible. A few rare false positives may occur if the show's name was changed. This would make it borderline WP:CONTEXTBOT though. But if we make the bot good enough, then we may be able to run it. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:07, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have context concerns as well. This might be better for a database report, if only to see the scale/scope of the issue. Primefac (talk) 13:40, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac: can we do that then? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:02, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, I am not personally going to do it, but "we" as a whole/community can certainly do that. Primefac (talk) 19:34, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TenPoundHammer try at WP:SQLREQ if you want some SQL code for the DB report. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 13:08, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a job for WP:AWB, where each change can be verified by a human before it is made. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:30, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Replace standalone BLP templates

The templates {{BLP}}, {{BLP others}} and {{Active politician}} should not be called directly, but are triggered via the banner shell template in the following ways:

|blp=yes produces {{BLP}}
|blp=other produces {{BLP others}}
|blp=activepol produces {{Active politician}}

This is a request for the standalone templates to be replaced by the parameter in {{WikiProject banner shell}}. Example: [1]. If the parameter is already present, then the template can simply be removed. Pages can be tracked in Category:Talk pages using standalone BLP templates (0). Thank you — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:59, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can help with this. – DreamRimmer (talk) 15:11, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I already have some of the code to do this safely. Less than 1k pages so far so it shouldn't cause much fuss. Anyone doing this needs to be mindful of the activepol > yes > other > no priority. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 20:25, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tom.Reding, please feel free to take on this task if you already have the code available. – DreamRimmer (talk) 09:29, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Remaining 83 pages need manual attention: BLP/blp, BLP/blpo, BLPO/blp conflicts/mismatches, archives, stray text in one of the templates, etc. Will check periodically for a few days to see if any more pages filter in. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 16:04, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thank you. I'll look through the 0 ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:47, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tom.Reding

Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Assess set index and WikiProject Lists based on category as lists

I was trying to assess some of the articles in WikiProject Chemicals, because I noticed there were only 400 chemicals articles that weren't assessed, and I noticed that most of the unassessed ones are just set index articles (there are a lot of these for ambiguous chemical names) for which no one had set the assessment to lists.

It seems to me like this wouldn't be that complicated to do with a bot: detecting templates in articles might be somewhat difficult due to the need for parsing due to the existence of nowiki brackets, but it could also be done by just assessing every page in the categories, Category:All set index articles and Category:WikiProject Lists articles as List-class. The "All set index articles" also includes a bunch of surname articles, but the templates listed all say in strong language that they are only to be used on set index articles, so I think it's fine.

Alternatively, all the various sub-categories of Category:Set index articles could also be included but that would probably be laborious.

Anyway, if this got done, it would eliminate most of the WikiProject Chemicals unassessed articles, and likely a significant number in other projects as well. There's ~3,000 unassessed list articles and at the least a few hundred unassessed set index articles, but probably more. Mrfoogles (talk) 17:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AWB would probably be better for this given the relatively low number of pages; if you don't have access or don't want to deal with it yourself, feel free to ask at WP:AWB/TASKS. Primefac (talk) 18:19, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't think 3,000 was low; I'll ask there. Doesn't that require someone to click through 3,000 times in order to update all the articles, though? I feel like it somewhat defeats the purpose of having a bot do it. I'm not sure how many set index articles are properly assessed but there are ~100,000 of them total, so if even 1 in 1000 are unassessed that leave 1,000 articles, and more otherwise. Mrfoogles (talk) 18:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~You said there were only 400 that weren't assessed, where did 3000 come from? Primefac (talk) 18:37, 28 October 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]

sigh ignore me. I somehow managed to only parse about half of your paragraph. Primefac (talk) 18:39, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, letting this request stand then. Mrfoogles (talk) 19:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We can automatically assess SIAs as List-class if that works for every project. I did suggest this at Module talk:WikiProject banner once but didn't get much response. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably easier than making 3k edits to talk pages. Primefac (talk) 09:58, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support this also. Wikipedia:Set index articles says in the first sentence A set index article (SIA) is a list article, so this is also supported by the guideline itself. Gonnym (talk) 10:18, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So we have two ways of doing this: force all SIAs to have List-class (ignore any other value in |class=) or just default to List-class if |class= is blank/invalid — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:29, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say ignore |class= values for SIAs per Primefac & Gonnym. My guess is that any non-list |class= values are either mistakes or out of date. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 21:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some set index articles are classed as disambiguations, I think, so allowing other values would then require a large cleanup effort to fix those. I would say it's better not to. Mrfoogles (talk) 23:48, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is that classification intentional or accidental/stale? I have not dealt much with dabs/SIAs. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 15:53, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Me neither but the pages I've read spell out pretty clearly that set index articles are supposed to be classed as lists: Wikipedia:Content_assessment explicitly says set index articles are supposed to be List-class. So I think the Disambig. class is incorrect (accidentally incorrect, probably), yeah. Mrfoogles (talk) 03:51, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Linking Module_talk:WikiProject_banner/Archive_14#More page types for posterity. Looks like one person opposed it, but not very committedly, so it's probably fine. Wouldn't we want to change Module:Banner shell, though, or does the shell use the Wikiproject banner module? Mrfoogles (talk) 23:53, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the process of these edit requests is to get a consensus for the change to be done among the people who have found the discussion, and then wait for someone with permissions who is interested to make the change. Discussion appears to have slowed and the general opinion is unclear, so I'm going to post a poll. Pinging all the people in the discussion thus far: @Primefac @MSGJ @Tom.Reding Mrfoogles (talk) 05:38, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom Mrfoogles (talk) 05:38, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From my point of view, there is consensus for this, but I need to find the time to write the code and test it — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:51, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thanks. I wasn't trying to pressure anyone to respond quicker; I just wasn't sure what to do, so I figured I'd just put a poll to make consensus/no consensus clear and then let it be to see if anyone was interested in taking the request. It'll be interesting to see how many unassessed chemicals articles are left after the set indexes -- I wonder if it might be the first project to have all the articles rated. Mrfoogles (talk) 16:17, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request for WP:SCRIPTREQ

Would like to attain WP:SCRIPTREQ bot's buildup code. StefanSurrealsSummon (talk) 18:27, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LLM summary for laypersons to talk pages of overly technical articles?

Today I was baffled by an article in Category:Wikipedia articles that are too technical which I was easily able to figure out after pasting the pertinent paragraphs into ChatGPT and asking it to explain it to me in layman's terms. So, that got me thinking, and looking through the category by popularity there are some pretty important articles getting a lot of views per day in there. So I thought, what about a bot which uses an LLM to create a layperson's summary of the article or tagged section, and posts it to the talk page for human editors to consider adding?

I think I can write it, I just want others' opinions and to find out if someone is trying or has already tried something like this yet. Mesopub (talk) 09:38, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Considering past discussions of LLMs, and WP:LLMTALK, I doubt the community would go for this. If you really want to try, WP:Village pump (proposals) or WP:Village pump (idea lab) would be better places to seek consensus for the idea. Anomie ⚔ 14:17, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think WP:LLMTALK necessarily applies here: that's about using chatbots to participate in discussions, which is utterly pointless and disruptive. The idea here seems to be using an LLM on a talkpage for a totally different purpose it's much more suited to. That said, I also doubt people will get on board with this.

Mesopub, having a quick look at your list, I think your target category Category:All articles that are too technical (3,420) is not a great choice: I see articles towards the top like Conor McGregor, Jackson 5, Malaysia, and Miami-Dade County, Florida. All of these are members of the target category due to transclusion {{technical inline}}, which produces ^[jargon].

All of these would easily be fixed by a simple rewording or explanation of a single term: none of the examples would benefit from an LLM summary.

I don't necessarily think the basic idea is terrible, which I've bolded for emphasis. We do have a lot of articles that are written at a level most appropriate to grad students or professionals in a niche scientific field. Of course, any LLM summary of these articles would have to be sanity-checked by a human who actually understands the article, to ensure the LLM summarises it without introducing errors.

For that reason I think that if you're convinced of the utility of this process, you should start very slow, select a small number of articles in different fields, post the LLM summaries with proper attribution in your userspace, and notify appropriate WikiProjects to see if anyone is interested in double checking them, or working to incorporate more accessible wording into the summarised articles. If no one has any interest, there's no realistic future for this. Folly Mox (talk) 15:28, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the current consensus that we cannot allow AI-written text because of questionable copyright status? Primefac (talk) 17:02, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no ban AFAIK, just that editors need to be careful and check the LLM didn't spit out copyrighted text back at them (or closely paraphrased, etc.). I think this is less of a risk with the proposed use case, which is taking existing Wikipedia text and cutting it down.

I agree with Folly Mox mostly, if you think this is going to be useful, try it on a very small scale and see how it goes. Legoktm (talk) 19:00, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what formal consensus looks like on the LLM copyright issue. Wikipedia:Large language models § Copyright violations is pretty scant, and of course it's not policy. m:Wikilegal/Copyright Analysis of ChatGPT concludes in part with all possibilities remain open, as key cases about AI and copyright remain unresolved. The heftiest discussion I was able to find lazily is Wikipedia talk:Large language models/Archive 1 § Copyrights (January 2023); there is also this essay. Folly Mox (talk) 20:54, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I kinda wonder how reliable LLMs are at simplifying content without making it misleading/wrong in the process. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:30, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't. Even setting aside the resources they waste and the exploitative labor on which they rely, they're just not suited for the purpose. Asking editors with subject-matter expertise to "sanity check" their output is just a further demand on the time and energy of volunteers who are already stretched too thin. XOR'easter (talk) 22:37, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some examples: User:JPxG/LLM_demonstration#Plot_summary_condensation_(The_Seminar) and Wikipedia:Using_neural_network_language_models_on_Wikipedia/Transcripts#New York City. Legoktm (talk) 17:50, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but if you don't know the subject material, then you're not in a position to judge whether ChatGPT did a good job or not. XOR'easter (talk) 22:46, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects with curly apostrophes

For every article with an apostrophe in the title (e.g. Piglet's Big Game, it strikes me it would be useful to have a bot create a redirect with a curly apostrophe (e.g. Piglet’s Big Game).

This could also be done for curly quotes.

Once done, this could be repeated on a scheduled basis for new articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:27, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The justification for creating redirects with ASCII hyphen-minus to pages titled with en-dashes is that en-dashes are hard for people to type since they aren't on most keyboards. The opposite would be the case with curly quotes: straight quotes and apostrophes are on most people's keyboards while curly versions are not. This seems like another one that would be better proposed at WP:Village pump (proposals) to see if people actually want this.

Further complicating this is that the bot would need a reliable algorithm for deciding when to use ‘ versus ’. The general algorithm may need to be part of the community approval. Anomie ⚔ 12:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This probably isn't a useful thing to be doing; as Anomie says ' is almost often shown as ' during regular typing, and curly apostrophes are often Office-related auto-changes. I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to a bot fixing in-text curly apostrophes, but we shouldn't be proactively creating redirects. Primefac (talk) 13:03, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think straight versus curly for single and double quotes is mostly an OS thing. When I tap on the redlink Piglet’s Big Game and close out the editor, I get {{Did you mean box}} linking the valid title at the top of the page; if I search for the title with &fulltext=0 I'm redirected to the bluelink. The curly apostrophe also resolves to the straight apostrophe if typed into the search box.

Really, the piece missing here – if any – is automated fixing of redlinks with curly punctuation in the target.

User:Citation bot replaces curly apostrophes and double quotes with ASCII versions within citation template parameters, even though Module:CS1 renders them identically. Some user scripts are capable of doing a gsub over an entire article, like User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/DraftCleaner.js. (I know this isn't directly related to the OP, but tangentially related to the suggestion just above.)

I suppose the genesis of this request was this Help desk request? Folly Mox (talk) 15:15, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will also note that a curly quote is on the title blacklist, so it should be the case that we shouldn't even be accidentally creating these in the first place. Primefac (talk) 16:52, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added that to the blacklist because I was tired of articles being created with curly quotes and having to move them to the correct title, when that's almost never correct. The intend wasn't to block redirects with curly quotes.

Nevertheless, I oppose this because we already have a {{did you mean box}} warning for the situation, and that's sufficient.

Finally, if this is done, it definitely needs some logic to auto-retarget and G7 any redirects that have diverged from their sources, as AnomieBOT already does for dashes. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:30, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bot for replacing/archiving 13,000 dead citations for New Zealand charts

Dead citations occur due to the website changing the URL format. For example https://nztop40.co.nz/chart/albums?chart=3467 is now https://aotearoamusiccharts.co.nz/archive/albums/1991-08-09.
Case 1: 9,025 pages that are using these URLs found through search. Some may already be archived.
Case 2: 4,133 citations using {{cite certification|region=New Zealand}} and {{Certification Table Entry|region=New Zealand}}, categorized Category:Cite certification used for New Zealand with missing archive (0).

An ideal transition seems difficult as it would require the following steps:

Find an archived version through the wayback machine, e.g., https://web.archive.org/web/20240713231341/https://nztop40.co.nz/chart/albums?chart=3467 for the above. For case 2 this requires inferring the URL first (https://nztop40.co.nz/chart/{{#switch:{{{type|}}}|album={{#if:{{{domestic|}}}|nzalbums|albums}}|compilation=compilations|single={{#if:{{{domestic|}}}|nzsingles|singles}}}}?chart={{{id|}}}))
Harvest the date 11 August 1991 either from the rendered archived page or from the archived page source, <p id="p_calendar_heading">11 August 1991</p>
For case 1, translate the URL accordingly to https://aotearoamusiccharts.co.nz/archive/albums/1991-08-11.
For case 2, add |source=newchart and replace |id=1991-08-11.

Note that for case 1, the word after "/archive/" changed according to the following incomplete table. For case 2 this is handled by the template so no need to worry about it.

Old text	New text
albums	albums
singles	singles
nzalbums	aotearoa-albums
nzsingles	aotearoa-singles

If someone is willing to go through the above, at least for simple cases, I think it is the ideal solution, especially for case 2. Failing that, a simpler archiving procedure can be taken.

For case 1: add |archive-url= and |archive-date= per usual archiving procedure. Add |url-status=deviated. If no archive exists (which should be a minority), add {{dead link}}
For case 2: add |archive-url= and |archive-date= per usual archiving procedure as they are supported by the templates. Add |source=oldchart (even if no archive is found)

I will be happy to support any technical assistance. Muhandes (talk) 15:08, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muhandes, I believe WP:URLREQ is the place for requests like these. — Qwerfjkl talk 16:56, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thought case 2 above will require a post here, but I'll repost there. Muhandes (talk) 22:49, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Basketball biography infobox request

On the basketball biography infobox, all instances of |HOF_player= and |HOF_coach= should just be |HOF= as there is no actual difference between the two. The issue can be seen on Lenny Wilkens where both parameters are used and link to the same page. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Sharman appears to not hold to that trend, so it would appear that it is not true to say "all" instances must be changed. I will also note that there are only 79 instances of both parameters even appearing in the same article, so this is too small a task for a bot (try WP:AWBREQ or just tweak things manually). Primefac (talk) 20:13, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that even single instances of |HOF_player= and |HOF_coach= should be moved to |HOF=, allowing the removal of the first two parameters within the infobox itself. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:31, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the other two parameters are reasonable alternate parameters, it would make more sense to have them as alternate parameters rather than edit every page using any single parameter. Primefac (talk) 20:36, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They are redundant as they both link to the same exact page as there is no official designation between being inducted as a player or coach into the Naismith Basketball Hall of Fame. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:43, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, Bill Sharman uses both parameters with different values in them. The might have the same base URL, but clearly the values passed to them can be different. Primefac (talk) 20:44, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it does seem like there are separate pages to represent an inductee's playing and coaching accomplishments despite there being no official difference between the two, as per Bill Sharman. In that case, I suppose there must be more of a consensus to merge/remove the parameters before this can be implemented. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:04, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meanings of minor-planet names

Should we move to a hyphenated version of "minor-planet" instead of without hyphen for "minor planet", which is moved per Talk:Minor-planet designation#Requested move 21 September 2021, by numbers ranging from 100001–101000 to 500001–501000. Absolutiva (talk) 16:20, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reference examination bot

I want a bot to help me.can anyome pls help me with this. Wiki king 100000 (talk) 07:46, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please elaborate further? – DreamRimmer (talk) 10:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

guessing from the title, I think they want the bot to fact-check the reference or something similar that. —usernamekiran (talk) 13:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the same. Actually my english spelling problem. Wiki king 100000 (talk) 17:00, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Replacing FastilyBot

Now that Fastily has retired, FastilyBot is no longer running. Any chance of a replacement? On the bot's deleted userpage, one can see that it ran 17 tasks and updated 31 database reports. ✗plicit 14:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have written code to update ten database reports. – DreamRimmer (talk) 14:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the userpage to Special:Permalink/1258404221 for tracking purposes. If anyone needs any of the code from any of the subpages, please let me know. Primefac (talk) 14:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am taking over the following database reports: 4, 11, 12, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 28, 29, 30, and 31. – DreamRimmer (talk) 17:50, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DreamRimmer, given the availability of the sql queries https://github.com/fastily/fastilybot-toolforge/tree/master/scripts, it might be better to convert the pages to usse {{Database report}}. — Qwerfjkl talk 18:14, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I second this suggestion for database reports. I converted Wikipedia:Database reports/Transclusions of non-existent templates (number 18 on the list) to use {{database report}}, and after fixing a couple of bonehead oversights on my part, it is working well and more functional than the previous report. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:42, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have spent time writing code to update these database reports. There are some config files for certain database reports, so I have included functionality to exclude files from the report that transclude any templates or belong to any category listed in the config file. Database reports cannot do that, but I have no problem if you all want to use SDZeroBot's database reports. – DreamRimmer (talk) 03:25, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DreamRimmer, I agree that if it's not possible or feasible to use {{Database report}}, it makes sense for you to handle it; but where we can, it's nice to have some kind of standardisation for the reports. — Qwerfjkl talk 17:34, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look into taking over the deletion discussion notifier. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 16:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BRFA filed DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 23:18, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

except for database reports, let me know if I can help with any other task. —usernamekiran (talk) 17:58, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since I'm heavily invested in the file namespace, tasks 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, and 17 are relevant for my work. ✗plicit 00:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would strongly second that tasks, 1-2, 4-12, and 14-17 are more or less essential for keeping this area running smoothly. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:03, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
alright. So what tasks are remaining now? —usernamekiran (talk) 12:59, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tasks 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15 and 17 are still pending. If my assistance is needed with any task, I would be happy to help with some of them. – DreamRimmer (talk) 13:05, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DreamRimmer: I think Explicit is going to take over tasks 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, and 17. What I mean is, first we should make it clear who is going to tackle which task, before spending time working on it. —usernamekiran (talk) 14:03, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, I'm clueless in this area. Those are the tasks are the ones I would like to have kept going. ✗plicit 14:17, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is the code for these tasks available somewhere? It might be fairly simple to get it up and running again. — Qwerfjkl talk 17:39, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it's availabe at https://github.com/fastily/fastilybot/blob/main/fastilybot/bots.py. — Qwerfjkl talk 17:41, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are also some config pages on-wiki, I think I managed to undelete them all but if one is missing let me know. Primefac (talk) 14:08, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since no one is taking these, I am going to take over two tasks, Task 4 and 10. I will code these from scratch and file a BRFA in a few hours. – DreamRimmer (talk) 07:30, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BRFA filed and BRFA filed. – DreamRimmer (talk) 10:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Current progress

Just creating a table below for a quick idea of which tasks (based on Special:Permalink/1258404221) are being handled. Please add ~~~~~ at the bottom if you update things. Primefac (talk) 12:42, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Original task	Description	New Task
1	Replace `{{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}}`, for local files which are already on Commons, with `{{Now Commons}}`.	CanonNiBot 1
2	Remove `{{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}}` from ineligible files.	CanonNiBot 1
3	Report on malformed SPI pages.
5	Add `{{Wrong-license}}` to files with conflicting (free & non-free) licensing information.
7	Replace `{{Now Commons}}`, for local files which are nominated for deletion on Commons, with `{{Nominated for deletion on Commons}}`.	CanonNiBot 1
8	Replace `{{Nominated for deletion on Commons}}`, for local files which have been deleted on Commons, with `{{Deleted on Commons}}`.	CanonNiBot 1
9	Remove `{{Nominated for deletion on Commons}}` from files which are no longer nominated for deletion on Commons.	CanonNiBot 1
11	Fill in missing `date` parameter for select usages of `{{Now Commons}}`.
13	Post various database reports to Wikipedia:Database reports.
17	Remove instances of `{{FFDC}}` which reference files that are no longer being discussed at FfD.	KiranBOT 14
15	Remove `{{Now Commons}}` from file description pages which also translcude `{{Keep local}}`	CanonNiBot 1
14	Leave courtesy notifications for uploaders (who were not notified) when their files are proposed for deletion.	DatBot 12
4	Remove `{{Orphan image}}` from free files which are not orphaned.	DreamRimmer bot 3
6	Leave courtesy notifications for uploaders (who were not notified) when their files are nominated for dated deletion.	DatBot 12
10	Add `{{Orphan image}}` to orphaned free files.	DreamRimmer bot 2
12	Leave courtesy notifications for uploaders (who were not notified) when their files are nominated for discussion.	DatBot 12
16	Leave courtesy notifications for article authors (who were not notified) when their contributions are proposed for deletion.	DatBot 12

12:42, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi. Since nobody's taking them, I'm gonna try working on tasks 5 and 15. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 02:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for volunteering :) – DreamRimmer (talk) 03:32, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

updated task 17 with KiranBOT 14. —usernamekiran (talk) 23:37, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of navboxes at Category:Basketball Olympic squad navigational boxes by competition

List of templates for deletion at Category:Basketball Olympic squad navigational boxes by competition

Requesting for bot help to nominate 156 navboxes for deletion (listed above). These navboxes are for teams that finished lower than third place in the Olympic basketball tournaments. Such templates are subject to WP:TCREEP and were previously deleted per May 31, 2021, April 22, 2020, June 7, 2019, and March 29, 2019 (first, second and third) discussions (to name a few). – sbaio 17:13, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe one day I'll complete User:Qwerfjkl/scripts/massXFD and things like this will be much easier.— Qwerfjkl talk 17:32, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is very easy to list these templates at TFD as a batch. Someone with AWB should be able to help you apply the correct TFD template to all of them. Notification of the templates' creators might also be not-too-hard with AWB, especially if you provide a list of those editors. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:07, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ill tag them, if I could get the editors users ill notify as well.

Working with AWB. Geardona (talk to me?) 23:48, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging Category:Cinema of Belgium

Hello, I would like to kindly request that all articles, categories, files, etc. within the Category:Cinema of Belgium be tagged with the newly created Belgian cinema task force. This will help streamline efforts to improve the quality and coverage of Belgian cinema-related content on Wikipedia. Earthh (talk) 11:41, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How far down? I went down 3 levels and found Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, which does not seem likely. Primefac (talk) 13:06, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick clarification: please tag all entries in the Category:Cinema of Belgium with the Belgian cinema task force, except for the entries of the following categories, as they may include films that are not necessarily Belgian:

Thanks for your help! --Earthh (talk) 13:39, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've cross-posted this to WP:AWB/TASKS as I think it's small enough for manual addition (though I may have miscounted, will check when I get home later). Primefac (talk) 14:35, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Earthh, as Primefac suggested, this can be done at WP:AWB/TA. This query with depth of 2 shows 717, and 86 with depth 1. Could you clarify on that. Also, what template changes are you suggesting? Like what should one tag it with? ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 14:41, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your patience as I worked through the depth question. For this request:

Category:Cinema of Belgium: tagging should include up to depth 2.
Category:Belgian films: tagging should include up to depth 3.

The template to use is: {{WikiProject Film|Belgian-task-force=yes}}. Let me know if there are any issues or further clarifications needed.--Earthh (talk) 18:35, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it's over 700 it does push it a little into the bot territory, but if we can nail down a final number that would be best. Primefac (talk) 20:13, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This one for Category:Belgian films and this for Category:Cinema of Belgium shows 717+956=1673 total. Is that right? @Earthh Also, all these pages are already tagged with film banner right, only the param is required? ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 04:45, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1682 for Category:Belgian films and 1189 for Category:Cinema of Belgium, including articles, files, templates, categories and portals. If these are already tagged with the film banner, |Belgian=yes or |Belgian-task-force=yes parameters will be enough. Earthh (talk) 15:48, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

will file a brfa tomorrow.

Not a big deal, but If these are already tagged means are they or not? ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 15:57, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a note of caution, per WP:Film#Scope, {{WikiProject Film}} should not be added to biographical articles/categories/etc., which should use {{WikiProject Biography|filmbio-work-group=yes}}. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 16:12, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right. For entries tagged with {{WikiProject Film}}, the parameter |Belgian=yes should be used. For entries tagged with {{WikiProject Biography}}, the parameter |cinema=yes should be added to {{WikiProject Belgium}}. However, it seems that this parameter is not yet supported. I've submitted an edit request on Template talk:WikiProject Belgium to address this. Earthh (talk) 22:35, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tom for the disclaimer.

@Earthh I shall do it like this. Replace {{WikiProject Film with {{WikiProject Film|Belgian=yes similarly {{WikiProject Biography with {{WikiProject Biography|cinema=yes For the pages in both above petscan queries. Is that fine? ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 10:24, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your availability.

{{WikiProject Film}} should be replaced with {{WikiProject Film|Belgian=yes}}.
{{WikiProject Biography}} should be replaced with {{WikiProject Biography|filmbio-work-group=yes}}.

For the entries in both Petscan queries, {{WikiProject Belgium}} should be replaced or added as {{WikiProject Belgium|cinema=yes}} if not already present. Earthh (talk) 18:32, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BRFA filed. Now time to wait! ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 12:59, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Earthh: All done from the lists I hade made. Please tell if I missed any! ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 16:21, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Earthh: {{WikiProject Film|Belgian=yes}} should be used per Template:WikiProject Film#National and Regional task forces. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 12:38, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They are both in use at the moment; the one you suggested is definitely shorter :) Earthh (talk) 15:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bunnypranav: Thank you for all the work you've done! Many individuals are still missing because we excluded the addition of the {{WikiProject Belgium}} tag and opted to only modify the parameters where it was already present. Is there anything we can do about this? Earthh (talk) 15:52, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Earthh Unless we have a clear cut definite list, I'm afraid it can't be a bot run ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 15:58, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bulk remove "link will display the full calendar" from articles about calendar years

There are presumably hundreds of articles about calendar years (for example, 671) that contain the text "link will display the full calendar".

I believe this text violates the spirit of WP:CLICKHERE, specifically:

phrases like "click here" should be avoided [...] In determining what language is most suitable, it may be helpful to imagine writing the article for a print encyclopedia

The text "link will display the full calendar" would of course make no sense in a print encyclopedia, so I think it should be deleted. Given the number of articles that this text appears in, this deletion would best be done by a bot. Stephen Hui (talk) 07:00, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A total of 1562 pages use this wording. – DreamRimmer (talk) 07:22, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DreamRimmer, Stephen Hui, this has been discussed before at Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 84#(link will display the full calendar). — Qwerfjkl talk 11:08, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has also been raised a number of times at WT:YEARS including following the linked BOTREQ (1, 2, 3), all of which were asking to remove it (without reply). Suffice to say, I think per WP:SILENCE there is a general lack of concern about whether this text is removed. Unless there is any significant opposition raised here in the next few days, I would be okay putting in a BRFA to remove the offending text. Primefac (talk) 22:28, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it hasn't been done already, I'd also suggest doing a few dozen "by hand" first, to see if that provokes any objection. I don't expect it will. Dicklyon (talk) 04:16, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Easy enough to mass-rollback, I just forgot I was planning on doing this. Primefac (talk) 16:31, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Province over-capitalization

See WP:AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks#50K articles with over-capitalized "Province" and WT:WikiProject Iran#Fixing widespread over-capitalization of "Province" (just started). There are over 50,000 articles with over-capitalized Province since the Jan 2022 multi-RM that moved all the Iranian province titles to lowercase. Assuming the project discussion doesn't turn up resistance to fixing, many of these would be easily amenable to bot fixing, like the task that User:BsoykaBot did for NFL Draft over-capitalization. Dicklyon (talk) 18:50, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there's not much activity at WikiProject Iran, so if anyone wants to see this discussed more, point me at a better place to bring it up. Dicklyon (talk) 04:00, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did a bunch of these by hand on Dec. 6 (example). No reaction from anyone. Dicklyon (talk) 04:10, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bsoyka and DreamRimmer: Thank you both for volunteering to help if/when we see clear consensus or a closed discussion on this. Does anyone have a good idea how to provoke more response? All I've got so far is silence. The big RM was similarly quiet, with no opposition and just 2 supports. Dicklyon (talk) 21:45, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is why bots go through trials; not only does it allow for the bot operator to demonstrate that their bot operates as intended, it gives users the opportunity to give feedback on the task. If this is a potentially contentious task, we can have the bots not mark the edits as minor during the trial to raise more awareness of it prior to acceptance. Primefac (talk) 22:00, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a trial not marked minor is a good idea beyond the bunch I did by hand not marked minor. Are you prepared to approve such a trial? Bsoyka has a bot that's got demonstrated competence at doing such things, while avoiding purely cosmetic edits. Dicklyon (talk) 02:32, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've got no response at the discussion I opened at the project. Is it OK to move forward with bot approval process? Dicklyon (talk) 19:20, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bsoyka and DreamRimmer: would either of you be willing to file an RFBA on this now, or should I try to provoke discussion elsewhere? Dicklyon (talk) 23:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

VPNGate

Would any admin be interested in setting up a bot that automatically blocks vpngate.net IPs? VPNGate is frequently used by LTAs (notably MidAtlanticBaby) and is very hard to deal with because of the number of rotating IPs available. User:ST47ProxyBot used to do some of this but is no longer active. T354599 should also help but this would be an interim solution to prevent disruption.

I looked into this and it should be pretty simple. VPNGate apparently has a (hidden?) public API available at www.vpngate.net/api/iphone/ which lists all currently-active proxy addresses. You can use regex (e.g. \b(?:\d{1,3}\.){3}\d{1,3}\b) to find the listed IPs from the API endpoint, check if they're already blocked, and then block them for however long as an open proxy. Theoretically if this is run once or twice a day the vast majority of active VPNGate IPs would be blocked. I wrote a quick script and tested it on testwiki and it seems to work. C F A 19:10, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CFA: Looking near the bottom of vpngate.net/en/ you see the following warning: Using the VPN Server List of VPN Gate Service as the IP Blocking List of your country's Censorship Firewall is prohibited by us. The VPN Server List sometimes contains wrong IP addresses. If you enter the IP address list into your Censorship Firewall, unexpected accidents will occur on the firewall. Therefore you must not use the VPN Server List for managing your Censorship Firewall's IP blocking list. It sounds like they are intentionally putting incorrect IP addresses in those lists to discourage people from using the list for unintended purposes. Polygnotus (talk) 03:15, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's an empty threat. It's possible, I suppose, but I haven't seen any evidence of it. C F A 03:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, but its wise to portscan instead of assume. Polygnotus (talk) 03:30, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, not a bad idea. C F A 03:31, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CFA, I'll note that the "ingress" IPs listed on the website are not the IPs that will actually be editing Wikipedia if MAB uses them. For example, if I connect to VPNgate's "210.113.124.81" using OpenVPN, the IP address that requests are made to the outside internet with is 61.75.47.194.

To test this theory, I made a pywikibot that uses the list of IPs and OpenVPN config on the link CFA provided, connects to them and determines the actual "output" IP connecting to Wikipedia and then blocks with TPA revoked (I won't say why, but WP:ANI watchers will know). I tested it on a local MediaWiki installation and blocking the input IPs (i.e. the ones listed on the VPNgate website) had no effect but blocking the output ones (obtained by connecting to each input IP's VPN and making a request to [2]) effectively disabled VPNgate entirely.

Will this actually be useful and would you like me to submit a WP:BRFA? MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 02:38, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To demonstrate: It's me, User:MolecularPilot, using the VPN listed as "210.113.124.81" (as that's the "input" IP) but actually editing with the output IP of 61.75.47.194. This output IP is not listed anywhere on the VPNgate website or CSV file. Can this IP also be WP:OPP blocked? 61.75.47.194 (talk) 02:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, well that's an interesting find. I suppose that's what they mean by The VPN Server List sometimes contains wrong IP addresses. It would certainly be useful, but the harder part is finding an admin willing to do this (non-admins can't operate adminbots). Maybe a crosspost to AN would help? C F A 02:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CFA, thank you for your very fast reply! Actually, I just examined the config files (they are provided in Base64 format at the CSV you gave, that's what the script uses to connect), and the listed IPs they give are actually blatant lies. For example, the VPN listed as "210.113.124.81" actually has "74.197.133.217:955" set as the input IP that my computer makes requests to, and, as shown above, actually makes requests to the outside internet/edits with "61.75.47.194". In fact, the VPN server list always contains wrong IP addresses - they're not even the correct input IP. The people behind VPNgate are quite good at tricky/opsec it seems. MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 02:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

74.197.133.217 is actually listed in a completely different section of the VPNgate list (and the associated config file for it of course does not actually use 74.197.133.217), so the provided "IPs" do not match the actual input IP in the config file but the IPs for a different config file. Regardless, these input IPs are useless and it's the output IPs (only findable by testing) that we are interested in. MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 03:01, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Bot policy states In particular, bot operators should not use a bot account to respond to messages related to the bot. You mistakenly used bot account to respond below :) – DreamRimmer (talk) 13:40, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I'm so sorry, I meant to reply with my main account, I didn't realise I was still logged into my bot account (I needed to login to make a manual fix to the JSON file). Thank you for picking up on it and correcting the mistake. :) MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 01:39, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done bot is live and collating data about VPNgate egress IPs at User:MolecularBot/IPData.json. A frontend to lookup an IP address (and the number of times it's been seen as a VPNgate express node, as well as when it was last seen) is available [on Toolforge]. It also can generate statistics from the current list, currently with 146 IPs (only a small drop in the bucket generated during my testing and development, overly represents more obvious IPs) - 42.47% are currently blocked on enwiki and 23.97% are globally blocked. Working on guidelines for an adminbot to block these IPs based on number of sightings (ramping up in length as the IP has more sightings, to not overly punish short term volunteers) and will then post at WP:AN looking for a botop once ready. Consensus developed for both this bot and a future adminbot at WP:VPT. 06:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MolecularBot (talk • contribs) ^<diff>

Creation for nano bot

The 'Nano bot'(Natural Auditor and Native Organiser) will be useful for helping users create their user pages based on their recent actions and edits. Prime Siphon (talk) 20:28, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since userpages are an expression of individuality, and are not necessary to create an encyclopedia, having a bot create them would not work. Polygnotus (talk) 03:17, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not a good task for a bot. Primefac (talk) 16:30, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bot-related archives
Noticeboard 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19
Bots (talk) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22 Newer discussions at WP:BOTN since April 2021
Bot policy (talk) 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 29, 30 Pre-2007 archived under Bots (talk)
Bot requests 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, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87
Bot requests (talk) 1, 2 Newer discussions at WP:BOTN since April 2021
BRFA Old format: 1, 2, 3, 4 New format: Categorized Archive (All subpages)
BRFA (talk) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 Newer discussions at WP:BOTN since April 2021
Bot Approvals Group (talk) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 BAG Nominations
Wikipedia Wikipedia_talk
v t e