:{{ping|Darkwolfz}} Did you see the categories I linked to above? --[[User:DannyS712|DannyS712]] ([[User talk:DannyS712|talk]]) 05:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
:{{ping|Darkwolfz}} Did you see the categories I linked to above? --[[User:DannyS712|DannyS712]] ([[User talk:DannyS712|talk]]) 05:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
:{{ping|DannyS712}} yes, but almost all of then have title errors, and if we could just find tag errors, it'd be great. As in Missing <ref> or </ref>
Revision as of 05:42, 6 February 2019
page for bot requests
This page has a backlog that requires the attention of willing editors. Please remove this notice when the backlog is cleared.
For the policy on bot requirements, see WP:BOTREQUIRE.
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:SQLREQ, for tasks which might be solved with an SQL query (e.g. compiling a list of articles according to certain criteria).
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
Creating redirects from values in a list of episodes article
Hello and thanks in advance for your time. Is it possible for a bot to take a list of list-articles, with articles such as List of House episodes, go to the episode section of an article from that list, and then get all values in the "title" column? Basically the name of each episode. If that is a yes, can the bot then check if an article at that name is present or not? Finally creating a redirect based on that article name. So for example:
If article (or redirect) present then create a redirect at "title (TV show)" (as: "Honor Thy Father (Arrow)"), if not then output to list as "title" (as: "Honor Thy Father").
My goal is to be able to create episode redirects fast and easy, so trying to figure out how best to do it, as manually this is taking me a very long time (there are a few more steps, but would like to know if the general idea is even possible). --Gonnym (talk) 08:01, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
More likely would be for the bot to look for the {{Episode list}} templates in the wikitext, rather than trying to scrape the HTML. But first you'd need a consensus at WP:VPR or the like establishing that the community actually wants all these redirects. Anomie⚔11:06, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect creation is typically much less controversial than full article creation, but that is a LOT of redirects and it would be nice to not have to update them every 2 weeks because someone though 'wouldn't it be nice if...' or 'could we do this instead...'. Feedback from WT:AST would be useful, since they have created a crap ton of systematic redirects, and devised templates like {{NASTRO comment}}. Headbomb {t · c · p · b}01:29, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Report on Lunar Nomenclature by the Working Group of Commission 17 of the IAU
Centralize the ~1400+ instances of references (Template:Cite journal ...) to the "Report on Lunar Nomenclature by the Working Group of Commission 17 of the IAU" by replacing them with a single template (named e.g. Template:R:LunarNomenclature). The contents of the latter should be:
{{cite journal |last1=Menzel |first1=Donald H. |authorlink1=Donald Howard Menzel |last2=Minnaert |first2=Marcel |authorlink2=Marcel Minnaert |last3=Levin |first3=Boris J. |last4=Dollfus |first4=Audouin |authorlink4=Audouin Dollfus |last5=Bell |first5=Barbara |title=Report on Lunar Nomenclature by the Working Group of Commission 17 of the IAU |doi=10.1007/BF00171763 |journal=Space Science Reviews |volume=12 |issue=2 |pages=136–186 |date=1971 |bibcode=1971SSRv...12..136M |ref=harv }}
yielding: Menzel, Donald H.; Minnaert, Marcel; Levin, Boris J.; Dollfus, Audouin; Bell, Barbara (1971). "Report on Lunar Nomenclature by the Working Group of Commission 17 of the IAU". Space Science Reviews. 12 (2): 136–186. Bibcode:1971SSRv...12..136M. doi:10.1007/BF00171763. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) Urhixidur (talk) 14:43, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What would be the purpose. We the community and external parties have tools and bots designed to work with CS1|2 ({{cite journal}}). So many things run on this system. Shortcut templates can create more problems then they solve. -- GreenC06:00, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
spectator.co.uk
There are about 1000 mainspace links to Spectator, most are broken. They changed URL schemes without redirects. The pages still exist at a new URL. Example:
I actually does not have much knowledge about the wikipedia bots. When I checked two to three links, the things that needs to be done from a reader's point of view is:
1)Identify the link which is identified as broken.
2)Remove the words "-.thtml" from the last portion of the link.
3)Add the month number and year number before the last section of url which needs to be separated by commas. This year and month number is the number on which the article appeared. If the month is only one digit, you need to add a zero before the month number.Adithyak1997 (talk) 10:40, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The idea is to automate the conversion since it's 1000+ links. A bot wouldn't know which month. In the second example it is "letters-201" vs "letters" thus "-210" is also an unknown. If there was a way to find the redirected URL, such as though archive.org or some other way. Or volunteers to manually fix them. -- GreenC20:14, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
One could also just write an e-mail to spectator.co.uk with the old urls and kindly ask them to give a mapping to the new urls. Then a bot could replace those links. -- seth (talk) 11:13, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2018-11-11 10:02: mail sent to spectator digitalhelp@... (probably this was the wrong address, because they only look after subscriptions).
2018-11-11 10:12: first (automatic) answer: "You will receive a reply from one of our customer service team members within 48hrs."
2018-11-13 01:48: second answer: "I am awaiting further information regarding your enquiry and I will contact you as soon as this information has been received."
2018-11-14 01:42: third answer: "We would request you to email editor@... for further information." (deleted e-mail address)
2018-11-14 19:54: second try (mailed to editor@...)
2018-11-14 19:54: forth answer: "I'm afraid that due to the number of them received at this address it’s not possible to send a personal response to each one. To help your email find its way to the right home and to answer some questions:
If you are writing a letter for publication, please send it to letters@....
Please send article pitches and submissions to pitches@....
If you are having problems with your subscription, please email customerhelp@... [...]. For problems with the website, our digital paywall, our apps or the Kindle edition of the magazine, our FAQ page is here – and if that doesn’t answer your question please email digital@....
If the matter is urgent, please call our switchboard on 020 [...]."
2018-11-14 20:06: third try (mailed to digital@...)
add {{subst:#invoke:CFB schedule/convert|subst| at the top of the table, before the {{CFB Schedule Start}} and }} to the bottom after the {{CFB Schedule End}}.
While we're doing the conversion, it makes sense to get everything working properly. Others have noted that there is a glitch in using the "Source" column in the named parameters version of the template. Whether the glitch in documentation or in core functionality, it should be remedied so that the "Source" column can be added. Cbl62 (talk) 10:38, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The "glitch" is that people have expressed a concern that they have difficulty adding a "Source" column to the new named parameters chart. See discussion here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#2018 Nebraska score links. I have yet to see a version of the new named parameters chart that includes a source column. Can you show an example where it has been done? And is there a reason it is not included in the template documentation? (By way of contrast, in the unnamed parameters version, the Source column is included in the template documentation as an optional add-on, see, e.g., 1921 New Mexico Lobos football team.) Cbl62 (talk) 15:00, 19 November 2018 (UTC) See also 2018 Michigan Wolverines football team where sources are presented in each line of the template but no "Source" column has been generated. Cbl62 (talk) 15:06, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
the source parameter is demonstrated in example 3. feel free to add this to the blank example at the top of the documentation, along with other missing parameters, like overtime, etc. Frietjes (talk) 16:11, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac: Could you actually leave this for now? I've been trying to get a technically-minded friend interested in Wikipedia for a bit, and this may interest her. I'm reaching out to see if she'd be interested in jumping in and creating a bot. ~ Rob13Talk23:44, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, a non-starter. She took a look around and ultimately decided she wasn't interested in the culture after seeing a talk page discussion gone bad. Which is fair, to be honest. Primefac, all yours. Thanks for holding off. ~ Rob13Talk02:20, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Could a bot please identify articles that are not currently tagged as unreferenced but seem not to have references? Thanks for looking at this, Boleyn (talk) 19:12, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Headbomb: That would've been autocorrect being sneaky. Foobar is what I meant (did it again writing this) and that does clarify it for me. I will work on this tonight or tomorrow. --TheSandDoctorTalk00:13, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bot to improve names of media sources in references
Many references on Wikipedia point to large media organizations such as the New York Times. However, the names are often abbreviated, not italicized, and/or missing wikilinks to the media organization. I'd like to propose a bot that could go to an article like this one and automatically replace "NY Times" with "New York Times". Other large media organizations (e.g. BBC, Washington Post, and so on) could fairly easily be added, I imagine. - Sdkb (talk) 04:43, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Tigraan:That's a good point. I think it'd be fairly easy to work around that sort of issue, though — before having any bot make any change to a reference, have it check that the URL goes to the expected website. So in the case of the New York Times, if a reference with "NYT" didn't also contain the URL nytimes.com, it wouldn't make the replacement. There might still be some limitations, but given that the bot is already operating only within the limited domain of a specific field of the citation template, I think there's a fairly low risk that it'd make errors. - Sdkb (talk) 10:52, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I should add that part of the reason I think this is important is that, in addition to just standardizing content, it'd allow people to more easily check whether a source used in a reference is likely to be reliable. - Sdkb (talk) 22:01, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Sdkb: This is significantly harder than it seems, as most bots are. Wikipedia is one giant exception - the long tail of unexpected gotchas is very long, particular on formatting issues. Another problem is agencies (AP, UPI, Reuters). Often times the NYT is running an agency story. The cite should use NYT in the |work= and the agency in the |agency= but often the agency ends up in the |work= field, so the bot couldn't blindly make changes without some considerable room for error. I have a sense of what needs to be done: extract every cite on Enwiki with a |url= containing nytimes.com, extract every |work= from those and create a unique list, manually remove from the list anything that shouldn't belong like Reuters etc.., then the bot keys off that list before making live changes, it knows what is safe to change (anything in the list). It's just a hell of a job in terms of time and resources considering all the sites to be processed and manual checks involved. See also Wikipedia:Bots/Dictionary#Cosmetic_edit "the term cosmetic edit is often used to encompass all edits of such little value that the community deems them to not be worth making in bulk" .. this is probably a borderline case, though I have no opinion which side of the border it falls other people might during the BRFA. -- GreenC16:53, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@GreenC: Thanks for the thought you're putting into considering this idea; I appreciate it. One way the bot could work to avoid that issue is to not key off of URLs, but rather off of the abbreviations. As in, it'd be triggered by the "NYT" in either the work or agency field, and then use the URL just as a confirmation to double check. That way, errors users have made in the citation fields would remain, but at least the format would be improved and no new errors would be introduced. - Sdkb (talk) 08:17, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Right that's basically what I was saying also. But to get all the possible abbreviations requires scanning the system because the variety of abbreviations is unknowable ahead of time. Unless pick a few that might be common, but it would miss a lot. -- GreenC14:54, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm not too worried about comprehensiveness for now; I'd mainly just like to see the bot get off the ground and able to handle the two or three most common abbreviation for maybe half a dozen really big newspapers. From there, I imagine, a framework will be in place that'd then allow the bot to expand to other papers or abbreviations over time. - Sdkb (talk) 07:01, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Changing New York Times to The New York Times would be great. I have seen people going through AWB runs doing it, but seems like a waste of human time. Kees08 (Talk)23:32, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not really sure changing Foobar to The Foobar is desired in many cases. WP:CITEVAR will certainly apply to a few of those. For NYT/NY Times, WaPo/Wa Po, WSJ, LA Times/L.A. Times, are those guaranteed to a refer to a version of these journals that were actually called by the full name? Meaning that was there as some point in the LA Times's history were "LA Times" or some such was featured on the masthead of the publication, in either print or webform? If so, that's a bad bot task. If yes, then there's likely no issue with it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b}01:54, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For the "the" publications, it's part of their name, so referring to just "Foobar" is incorrect usage. (It's admittedly a nitpicky correction, but one we may as well make while we're in the process of making what I'd consider more important improvements, namely adding the wikilinks to help readers more easily verify the reliability of a source.) Regarding the question of whether any of those publications ever used the abbreviated name as a formal name for something, I'd doubt it, as it'd be very confusing, but I'm not fully sure how to check that by Googling. - Sdkb (talk) 21:04, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The omission of 'the' is a legitimate stylistic variation. And even if 'N.Y. Times' never appeared on the masthead, the expansion of abbreviations (e.g. N.Y. Times / L.A. Times) could also be a legitimate stylistic variation. The acronyms (e.g. NYT/WSJ) are much safer to expand though. Headbomb {t · c · p · b}21:41, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is a change I have had to do many times since it is brought up in reviews (FAC usually I think). It would be nice if we could find parameters to make it possible. Going by the article, since December 1, 1896, it has been referred to as The New York Times. The ranges are:
September 18, 1851–September 13, 1857 New-York Daily Times
September 14, 1857–November 30, 1896 The New-York Times
December 1, 1896–current The New York Times
New York Times has never been the title of the newspaper, and we could use date ranges to verify we do not hit the edge cases of pre-December 1, 1896 The New York Times articles. There is The New York Times International Edition, but it seems like it has a different base-URL than nytimes.com. I can go through the effort to verify the names of the other publications throughout the years, but do you agree with my assessment of The New York Times?Kees08 (Talk)01:51, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Remind me bot
Hi, it would be wonderful if we had a bot that looked for uses of a template called {{remindme}} or something similar (with a time parameter, such as 12 hours, 1 year, etc. etc.) and duly dropped a message on your own talk page at the designated time with a link to the page on which you put the remindme tag. It would only send such reminders to the person who posted the edit containing the template in the first place. Kind of like the functionality of such bots on reddit, I guess. Fish+Karate13:11, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That looks like it should go through BRFA smoothly. There seems to be some use case. It looks simple enough, so I would volunteer to code it, but the only way I can imagine to make it work is by monitoring Special:RecentChanges (or the API equivalent) for additions of the template, and that looks extremely inefficient; beards grayer than mine might have a better idea. TigraanClick here to contact me13:33, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Monitor the backlinks (whatlinkshere) for the template, maintain a database of diffs to that backlinks list each time the bot runs via cron. New additions will show up. I wrote a ready-made tool Backlinks Watchlist. -- GreenC14:20, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Would it even need to maintain a database? Just go hourly (or some period) through a populated category and if it is time, notify and then change the template to {{remind me|notified = yes}} to disable the category (and also change the text of the template to something like "This user was reminded of this discussion on Fooember 24, 2078."). Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:35, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Backlinks or category are pretty much the same from user and bot PoV, I think (maybe it is a different story on the servers though). Maybe a small advantage to cat, because it can be more easily reviewed by humans.
In either case the point of maintaining the database would be to limit the scans. If the template gets some traction, and a million user each places a thousand reminders asking for a reminder in 3018, scanning every still-active template every time could get inefficient (as the category is populated with lots of reminders that you need to scan every time). For a first version though, we do not care; if bad stuff happens, it will be easy enough to put a limit on templates left by users (either limit active templates per user, or how far in the future you can set reminders).
If none else comes around it, I will try to draft the specs this weekend. Fish and karate, please whip me if you see nothing next Monday. I would ask the bot to do it, but it does not exist yet. The trickiest part will probably be who can ask a reminder for whom (I would probably say that only User:X can ask for a notification to User:X, to avoid abuse of the tool, which then needs a bit of checking of who put the template on the page). TigraanClick here to contact me17:36, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is interesting, I think the bot I'm envisioning is more general than that, you could place the template anywhere and it'll ping you to go back there after a set time has elapsed (potentially could also put a specific datetime). Tigraan I definitely think only user X could ask for a reminder for user X, otherwise it would be open to abuse. A throttle of no more than Y reminders per day (or Z open reminders overall) may also be a good idea. Fish+Karate09:20, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Basic spec, policy questions to be answered
OK, so the basic use is as follows:
User:Alice places a template (to be created, let's call it {{remind me}}) inside a thread of which they wish to be reminded. The user specifies the date/time at which the reminder should be given as an argument of the template (either as "on Monday 7th" or "in three days" - syntax to be discussed later). At the given date, a bot "notifies" Alice.
On a policy level, I see a few questions:
What kind of notification?
Can Alice ask for Bob to be notified?
Should we rate limit (and if so how?)
Where, if anywhere, should we get consensus for all that?
Depending on the choice for each of those, this will change the amount of technical work needed, but as far as I can tell, those questions entirely define the next steps (coding/testing/approval request etc.). Please discuss here if I missed something, but below to answer the questions. TigraanClick here to contact me13:36, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion on the spec
I made a separate section for this because I am almost sure of the questions that need asking but less sure of the answers they should get. What follows is my $0.02 for each:
The simplest would be a user talk page message or a ping from the page from where the notification originates, but maybe WP:ECHO can allow better stuff. A user talk message is easy to code (read: I know how to do it), but it might lead to some clutter.
After thinking over it, that is not obviously a bad thing that it is technically feasible (we can certainly decide it is against policy to do it or restrict the conditions, the question is whether this should be technically impossible). Alice has to post something to cause the bot to annoy Bob, so it is fairly similar to pings, which none would call to be terminated because of the potential for abuse. On the other hand, surely it would be OK and have some use case that one user can notify their own sockpuppet (e.g. I notify myself from my bot account). The only real problems I can imagine for cross-user postings is "privilege escalation" stuff:
A user could cause the bot to notify users who have a protected talk page (at a protection level that the bot can access but not the user)
A user could place many such templates in a single edit, causing multiple notices to be sent in a short time (while not being caught by rate limits on the servers)
I do not think there is any legitimate-use reason for restricting the number of notifications. There might be a technical reason of avoiding to have large amounts of pending notifications depending on how the bot works (see previous discussion) or counter+vandalism reasons (e.g. allowing not only self-notifications, but only X pending notifications originating from a single user at a given time, so that a spam-notifier vandal cannot get far). If we do not allow cross-user notifications, I think we can go without rate limiting until the performance becomes an issue.
The bot request page is not watched a lot, but I am not sure where else it can go. Maybe worth cross-posting to WP:VPP?
Answering the set of questions (this is as I see the bot working - and note when it comes to this kind of thing I'm a vision man, not details!)
What kind of notification?
A message on your talk page ("Hi (user name), here's the reminder you asked for - {link)") People could, I guess, if they prefer, have the bot post to a defined sub page (I would see this as a "phase 2" development). A small, unobtrusive ping might also work but that requires an edit and I can see a busy thread that lots of people are interested in being peppered with these pings being an unpopular choice. Keeping it to the user's own talk page is less imposing on other users.
Can Alice ask for Bob to be notified?
No. Alice can only ask for Alice to be notified. Let's keep it simple, at least initially.
Should we rate limit (and if so how?)
Initially I think it's not a terrible idea to ensure the capability is there in the code to throttle it in case it starts causing (as yet unforeseen) issues. The bot can just refuse to provide more than X reminders a day if issues arise.
Where, if anywhere, should we get consensus for all that?
@Fish and karate: About 4: if we go to BRFA with the whole agreement of two of us, they are going to tell us to get consensus that the task is useful somewhere else. Per the guide at WP:BRFA: If your task could be controversial (e.g. (...) most bots posting messages on user talk pages), seek consensus for the task in the appropriate forums. (...) Link to this discussion from your request for approval. Again, VPP is the catch-all, but that's because I have no other idea. Maybe a link from the talk page of WP:PING as well, since the functionality is closely related.
Tigraan, I would absolutely ask for a well-advertised discussion with consensus for this bot, if I came across the BRFA. I think it's an idea I would use (I do on reddit!), but I could see it becoming unintentionally disruptive (Let's say - 50 people use the "remindme" template on a popular arbcom case or RFA). I'm not sure what the best way to address that would be. SQLQuery me!22:37, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see the point, perhaps this will remain a pipe dream. If someone can think of a way to work around that, that would be welcome. Fish+Karate15:07, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Tigraan: I've started a script that would allow users to schedule reminders for themselves (stored in a json pages), and am now working on a script to be able to go through those and make a master json page of all pending reminders, as well as if they have already been reminded. I don't think that consensus is needed for a bot to post on a user's talk page based on that user's request (stored in that user's user:username/remind.json). Let me know if you, or anyone else, can help with the bot part / implementation (cause I don't really know how to do a bot, so I was going to manually trigger a user script ~every day). --DannyS712 (talk) 01:43, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Recently, consensus was reached to move all election and referendum articles to have the year at the front. A bot, TheSandBot, was created to move the articles (approximately 35000) to the new titles. However, the bot did not change navboxes to use the new format. Per WP:BRINT, redirects from navigational templates should be bypassed to allow readers to see which page they are on in the template. This is a lot of simple work which would have to be doe by humans, if a bot were not created. Danski454 (talk) 15:15, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
YDone - If anyone wants User:RF1 Bot to run for you aswell let me know.
I'd like to have a bot that once a month creates a page at this months subpage for Talk Archives like here User:RhinosF1/Archives_2018/10_(October)
And redirects to my main user page.
How would it be coded?
Happy to run it semi-automatic and monitored.
Would not run outside my mainspace.
I personally see zero reason for a bot to do this - you don't need a User: page that corresponds to a User_talk: page, especially when it's a user subpage that is just a redirect to the userpage itself. Primefac (talk) 14:46, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac: Again, I like having my userspace like this, I'm pretty decent at python but am not sure how to use APIs to do this or where to start. If somebody could give me some example foundation code that would be excellent. RhinosF1 (talk) 15:03, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying you can't set up your userspace like this, I'm saying that there's not much of a reason to do so. If there's a consensus that says a user can create a bot that will edit once a month so that a pointless redirect can be created, then it might pass WP:BOTREQUIRE. This, I suppose, is the purpose of this thread, but if there is consensus against this task (based on this thread) then chances are you won't be able to get your bot. Primefac (talk) 16:05, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why this is being done either, but couldn't RhinosF1 simply manually create the redirects ahead of time for the next year, no bot required. -- GreenC16:14, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note WP:BOTUSERSPACE: "any bot or automated editing process that affects only the operator's or their own userspace (user pages, user talk pages, user's module sandbox pages and subpages thereof), and which are not otherwise disruptive, may be run without prior approval." Chances are that one redirect per month isn't going to be disrupting things. Anomie⚔02:38, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@RhinosF1: What programming language(s) are you familiar with? I do most of my work here in Python. If you give me specific details of what it is to do etc, I will happily do it for you (if you want) and then you can learn off of the code. For the next couple of weeks, I have a decent amount of free time on my hands. --TheSandDoctorTalk18:14, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@RhinosF1: Then I would recommend checking out mwclient as that should cover your needs, but it is only in 3.0+ if I recall correctly. As I said above, if you want I can make it for you and then link you the code for future reference. You could also check out my repositories as they are all relevant (particularly this one). --TheSandDoctorTalk18:37, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@RhinosF1:Here, though you are going to need to install mwclient via pip. If you would rather that I run it, you may email me the bot account's login info. That said, if you do choose that option, though I would never attempt anything, I would strongly recommend making sure that its password is unique for best security practice purposes. This is critical with an account acting as a bot, regardless of not being flagged. I have commented where the code itself needs to be changed in order to function and produce the desired range. It would be simpler just to make a year or two's worth at once, and that is how the code has been set up. --TheSandDoctorTalk01:12, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy running it myself, thanks for the help. Am I definitely safe to run without BRFA approval?
@RhinosF1: From WP:BOTUSERSPACE: "In addition, any bot or automated editing process that affects only the operator's or their own userspace (user pages, user talk pages, user's module sandbox pages and subpages thereof), and which are not otherwise disruptive, may be run without prior approval.". You are good so long as you don't go crazy running it tons. You will also need to update the call_home method to reflect your bot's username and whether or not you wish for such a method. If you have any questions about the code or operating of a bot, please feel free to let me know (if so, ping please). --TheSandDoctorTalk08:45, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's showing an error :AssertUserFailedError: By default, mwclient protects you from accidentally editing without being logged in. If you actually want to edit without logging in, you can set force_login on the Site object to False. RhinosF1 (talk) 15:58, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
@RhinosF1: Oh, yeah. Sorry. Where it has try: pass in main(), remove "pass" and uncomment the site.login bit. It should then work. When I was testing, didn't want to actually edit so I removed that and forgot to put it back before pushing. --TheSandDoctorTalk16:58, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@RhinosF1: Awesome! I'm glad I could help. As for the rate limiting, that is something that happens for non-bot flagged accounts. I am glad that you were able to add a delay easily. --TheSandDoctorTalk21:25, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Automatic US congressional Election Result Updating bot ?
It's surprising that given how long Wikipedia has been around and how easily automatable the task is that no bot exists to automatically update US congressional district pages which are almost uniformly a mess. Theirs exists no template for how to present results with some going in reverse chronological order than other pages and there being zero consistency in presentation many pages haven't been updated since 2014.
Going through and manually editing all 435 pages would be extremely tedious so the most logical solution is to create a bot dedicated to the task, which can not only update the pages but fix them.
The quality of the result section of congressional pages is abysmal and is easy to fix, simply create a standard congressional district page standard for displaying the results and then create a bot to automatically generate election templates and them to the page following the template. I'm a bit of newb so I don't know how exactly we would go around agreeing to a standard page but I'm sure there is a process.
I would be open to coding the bot myself if somebody more experienced with them is willing to offer help/assistance.
This might be better done as a Lua template with data files anyone can edit and template options anyone can modify. But the data still has to be entered so there is no savings of labor or guarantee of staying up to date, unless someone made a bot to pull data from external sources into the Lua tables. The benefit would be consistent display. The downsides would be a system working outside normal wikisource which creates other complications. All this is possible but not simple. -- GreenC16:26, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Given that their are API's that allow one to automatically access election information, it would seem pretty simple to create template and have the script iterate over every district. Are their any good places to learn more about Lua templates on Wikipedia ?Zubin12 (talk) 01:16, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A bot would first put the data somewhere convenient (Wikidata/Commons) and then we could include those data using a template here. --Izno (talk) 03:49, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To summarize a number of ways to store and access the data:
On Wikidata - Accessible via Template:Wikidata list with some limitations, or via a Lua template if the Wikidata query isn't complex.
On Commons as a .tab file (mw:Help:Tabular Data). Accessible via a Lua template.
Thanks, It would seem like using tabular data would make the most sense given that it's easy to find election results stored in a CSV format. How exactly would one go about uploading the data?And do I need to do anything further to get permission? Zubin12 (talk) 05:32, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've never used .tab on Commons before but agree it is probably best option because it's universal available to all wiki languages, and it's easy to import data compared to Wikidata or Lua tables. Would encourage developing a bot to keep the data up to date, automatically, otherwise it will depend on manual updates, is error prone. A bot will require a bot flag (bot permission). See Commons:Commons:Bots. -- GreenC19:03, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried my hand at creating a bot for this but it is super complicated. I've got a script that I'm running but have yet to get the results reliable enough to be able to use it as a bot. Right now I basically use it to just expedite the process. Basically I copy the table into my code, run it and then copy the results back into the browser. The issue is that I have to manually adjust each result before saving. The need for this/decision to make this change is all covered in this TFD. If anyone is willing to take this on, please let me know? I'd be very eager to work with you and help in any way I can. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:42, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
TheSandDoctor, your bot can convert them if you are willing to do the following converting because Frietjes did not develop script which can convert them into Module:Sports results
Frietjes has a script that does it, but it requires human input in the process. I would rather have the tables converted consistently, with meaningful team abbreviations, than some generic AAA, BBB, CCC, etc. The script requires human input to help determine the abbreviations. Thanks! Plastikspork―Œ(talk)13:04, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why not write code to check the first three letters of the team name, capitalise, check to see if that abbreviation already exists in the list, if it does look at the first 3+n letters until you get a distinct hit? Do the abbreviations have to be only three letters? There's no master abbreviation table, and I've never used one when using the new template. SportingFlyertalk18:51, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. MOS:ACCESS#Text / MOS:FONTSIZE are clear. We are to "avoid using smaller font sizes in elements that already use a smaller font size, such as infoboxes, navboxes and reference sections." However, many infoboxes use {{small}} or the html code, especially around degrees earned (here's one example I corrected yesterday). I used AWB to remove small font from many U.S. politician infoboxes of presidents, senators, and governors, but there are so many more articles that have them. Here's an example for a TV station. I've noticed many movies and TV shows have small text in the infobox as well. Since I cannot calculate how many articles violate this particular rule of MOS, I would like someone to automate a bot to remove small text from infoboxes of all kinds. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:04, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
At least on my screen, your edit had no effect, because as far as I know, there is some sort of CSS style that limits infobox font size to a minimum of 85%. I am pretty sure I just saw that described the other day, but my searches for it have turned up nothing. Maybe someone like TheDJ would know.
If I am correct, that means that edits to remove small templates and tags from infoboxes would be cosmetic edits, which are generally frowned upon.However, there are a heck of a lot of unclosed <small>...</small> tags within infoboxes, along with small tags wrapping multiple lines, both of which cause Linter errors, so it may be possible to get a bot approved to remove tags as long as fixing Linter errors is in the bot's scope. I welcome corrections on the four things I got wrong in these four sentences. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:58, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fascinating. I just looked at the two revisions of Brian Bosma in Chrome while not logged in, and I definitely see a size difference in the "BS" and "JD" characters. So these would not be cosmetic edits after all, at least for some viewers using some browsers. (I have struck some of my previous comments.) – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:59, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jonesey95 and Muboshgu: Hello. Although the 85% font-size is defined, the computed value of the font-size is below 11.9px (it is 10.4667px). This is because font-size percentages work based on the parent container, not the document (see 1 under percentages). In this case the infobox has already decreased the font-size to 88% of the document, the font-size computed from the {{small}} tag will be 74.8% smaller than the rest of the document (0.88 * 0.85 = 0.748). This is the case in Firefox, Chrome, Edge (10.4px), Opera and Internet Explorer. This behaviour is the standard and so will be experienced in all browsers. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions10:46, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, here's a demo of what happens when percentages get enclosed by other percentages: Text Text Text Text Text . That goes to five levels, each being 95% of the enclosing element. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:42, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is helpful. I discovered that I have set my Firefox preferences to prevent the font size from going below 11 pt, which enforces MOS for me. But in Chrome, which I have left unconfigured, that text gets smaller. By all means, let's remove instances of <small>...</small> and {{small}} (and its size-reducing siblings) from infoboxes, both in Template space and in article space. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:31, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have been using AWB to help with this issue too. <small> and </small> cam be removed with a simple find and replace but the template is better dealt with using Regex. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:08, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The location is not critical, but I would suggest giving preference to putting it immediately after the last Wikiproject template, whee possible. Omit pages that already have the template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits15:59, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A reasonable request, but I think it might need some sort of consensus to implement. Is there a WikiProject interested in using this (very-recently-created) template in order to improve Wikipedia? Primefac (talk) 15:13, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Scope: for each talk page, extract each 2-level section. For each section, check for existence of reference tags ie. <ref></ref>. If exist, check for existence of {{reflist-talk}} or <references/>. If none exist, add {{reflist-talk}} at end of section (optionally in a 3rd-level subsection called "References").
A more determinate method is search the HTML for <ol class="references"> - this will always exist if there is <ref></ref> somewhere in the page, regardless of existence of {{reflist-talk}} or <references/> and it will account for things like <!-- <ref></ref> --> -- GreenC16:36, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I know. It will always exist if there is a ref, regardless of the existence of <references/> or its equiv. -- GreenC20:16, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I ran a script. In 2000 Talk pages it found 11 cases:
I imagine it's fairly confusing for IP users to have to scroll through lots of old warnings from previous users of their IP before getting to their actual message. We have Template:Old IP warnings top (and its partner), but it's rarely used—thoughts on writing a bot to automatically apply it to everything more than a yearish ago? Gaelan💬✏️16:21, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi bot people. I was wondering whether it might be appropriate/worthwhile/a good idea to get a bot to remove "living=yes", "living=y", "blp=yes", "blp=y", etc from the talkpages of the articles listed at Wikipedia:Database reports/Potential biographies of dead people (3). I recognize that automating such a process might result in a few errors, but I think that would be a reasonable tradeoff compared to how tedious it would be for humans to check and update all 968 articles in the list one by one. (And hopefully, for those few(?) articles where an error does occur, someone watching the article will fix it). I spot-checked a random sample of articles in the list, and for every one I checked, it would have been appropriate to remove the "living=yes", etc from the talkpage, i.e. the article had a sourced date of death. To minimize potential errors, I would suggest the bot skips any articles which cover multiple people, e.g. ones with "and" or "&" in the title and Dionne quintuplets, Clarke brothers, etc. Thoughts? DH85868993 (talk) 12:53, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That last might not be easy to bot-automate. Though, if instead of a bot we get a script, it would be possible to quickly deal with any multiples before running it. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs13:03, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi guys, I'd like to create lists of NZ heritage sites. Lists would be very similar to those at German Wikipedia, see List of monuments in New Zealand. The database with the heritage sites is available here: http://www.heritage.org.nz/the-list You can search all sites in a specific region and export CSV.
Well, the CSV contains this header and first record:
RegisterNumber,Name,RegistrationType,RegistrationStatus,DateRegistered,Address,RegisteredLegalDescription,ExtentOfRegistration,LocalAuthorit
yName,NZAANumbers
660,1YA Radio Station Building (Former),Historic Place Category 1,Listed,1990-02-15,"74 Shortland Street, AUCKLAND","Pt Allots 10‐11 Sec 3 City of Auckland (CT NA67C/507), Pt Allot 12 Sec 3 City of Auckland (CT NA152/135), North Auckland Land District","Extent includes the land described as Pt Allots 10‐11 Sec 3 City of Auckland defined on DP 874 (CT NA67C/507), Pt Allot 12 Sec 3 City of Auckland (CT NA152/135), North Auckland Land District, and the building known as 1YA Radio Station Building (Former) thereon.",Auckland Council (Auckland City Council),[]
Turning a CSV into a table is not that difficult - it ca be done with a Word processor, like Word - import csv
Add a "| " to start of row
Change all "," to " || "
Change "end of line" to "end of line" + "|-" + "end of line"
so
text 1,text 2,text 3,text 4
becomes
| text 1 || text 2 || text 3 || text 4
|-
Then one just needs to add the top and bottom of the table.
However - note http://www.heritage.org.nz/terms-and-conditions - "None of the content of this website may be reproduced, copied, used, communicated to the public or transmitted without the express written permission of Heritage New Zealand, except for the purposes of private study, research, review or education, as provided for in the New Zealand Copyright Act 1994.". That could be an issue, as there is a lot of text in some columns. Ronhjones (Talk)18:06, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Right, can't copy-paste content from the web. The challenge is determining which Wikipedia article corresponds to a given CSV record, so you can make a list of Wikipedia articles. -- GreenC18:40, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bot to create entry in the (english) Wikipedia Category: Plants described in (year)
Data to be taken from Wikidata to give the the year of publication of a taxon and create "Category:Taxa described in ()" within the(English) wikipedia taxon entry, if a wikipedia enty has been created. MargaretRDonald (talk) 22:55, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bot to create category "Category:Taxa described by ()"
The bot would use the wikidata taxon entry to find the auhor of a taxon, and then use it again to find the corresponding author article to find the appropriate author category. (This will not always work - but will work in large number of cases. Thus, the English article for "Edward Rudge" corresponds to the category:"Category:Taxa named by Edward Rudge", and the simple strategy outlined here would work for Edward Rudge, Stephen Hopper and .... The category created would be an entry in the article. MargaretRDonald (talk) 23:08, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Auto-classifying bot
There is a huge backlog within most Wikipedia Projects of unclassified articles. I've been recently assessing a number of these for the Politics Project, and have noticed a few patterns that I believe could be automated to heavily reduce this backlog.
At the moment I believe there is a bot that goes around and updates quality tags if another tag on the project has had it's quality increased. However, it appears to only do this if there is currently a quality tag for the project. I believe this can and should be updated to do this regardless of whether there is such a tag for a project. If, for instance, it finds a page like this Talk:1842 New York gubernatorial election it should update the Politics and Election & Referendum templates for that article with the stub class tag, in the process removing that article from the list of articles that the Politics Project needs to work on - and this is not an isolated occurrence. I don't have the numbers, but I have seen this sort of thing numerous times.
It is also sometimes possible to discern the importance of a article with excellent accuracy from the assessment of surrounding projects. For instance, in this article Talk:1844 United States presidential election in New York it would be reasonable to take the assessment from the US/Government/PresElections taskforce, if such an assessment is low, and apply it to the politics one, because the Politics project is never going to consider an article that said taskforce considers low importance any higher than that. As such, a bot that projects could instruct to duplicate the tag of certain other taskforces or sub-taskforces, up to a certain 'level', to their own taskforce is what I am proposing. Alongside the above proposal, this should drastically reduce the backlog across numerous projects that are willing to set up the instruction page for it.
And of course, if we can heavily reduce the backlog like this, we will make attempting the remaining tasks that must be classified by hand less daunting, and thus more likely to be done. It is true that the second part of this proposal will sometimes result in incorrect classification, but the criteria will be up for each taskforce to determine and so I don't believe that risk should prevent this bot being created - and even if they are incorrectly assessed, a few incorrect assessments are better than numerous unassessed articles.
If no one is interested in taking this up then I do intend to get around to it at some point - unless someone is able to explain why it is stupid/unnecessary, though I think the first part of this proposal would be better as a modification to the existing tag-update bot.
I've forgotten just how many times I've had to explain this, but the WikiProject importance ratings are intentionally different. That is because they indicate how important the page is to that specific WikiProject or task force. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:59, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I realize that. However, that doesn't mean they can't sometimes be derived from each other. I'm not suggesting that we set up a bot to duplicate all rankings, I'm suggesting we set up a bot that allows wikiprojects to set conditionals by which their importance ranking can sometimes be derived - I think this misunderstanding is my fault, I didn't explain things. For instance, per my under-explained example above, the Politics Project could seta conditional where:
If the bot finds an article that is tagged as part of the politics project
And If that tag does not have an assessed importance
And If that article is also tagged by the Presidential Elections subproject of the Governence subproject of the United States Project
And If that article is assessed as low importance
Then assess the Politics Project Tag for that article as Low Importance
The idea is that sometimes importance will be the same; in this case, I believe it's extremely unlikely that the Politics Project will find something important when the Presidential Elections subproject does not, and from this idea I wish to enable participating projects to take advantage of these patterns when they discern them, and in doing so reduce the extreme backlog that most projects have. -- NoCOBOL(talk)18:35, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A bot to find links in articles that go to pages that redirect back to them
I just found and fixed an article with two Wikipedia links to two articles that were nothing but redirects back to it, and apparently that's all they had ever been. [3] Can you make a bot to check all Wikipedia links that point to pages that are redirects, then checks to see if that redirect points back to the page its coming from, and then remove the brackets around it so it doesn't link there anymore? If the link has a | in it, then keep what's after that and ditch the rest. DreamFocus16:29, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You mean like a redirect with possibilities? We should definitely not delink those, there is always the possibility that the redirect gets turned into a full article: if this happens, the existing links will then point to the new article. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:30, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tagging shill journal articles
Adverts pretending to be peer-reviewed papers are cited in thousands, possibly tens of thousands, of Wikipedia articles. Articles in paid supplements to journals are generally not independent sources. See this discussion for details.
Sometimes, the citation contains the abbreviation "Suppl.". In this case, the citation could be bot-tagged with {{Unreliable medical source|sure=no|reason=sponsored supplements generally unreliable per WP:SPONSORED and WP:MEDINDY|date=26 August 2024}}
The "sure=no" parameter will add a question mark to the tag, as, rarely, the supplement might actually be a valid source. I think these exceptions would probably be rare enough to manually mark for exclusion by the bot.
This would increase awareness of this problem among editors as well as encouraging editors to scrutinize the tagged sources. HLHJ (talk) 04:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As a work around I am proposing a bot that moves the metadata for references from these two infoboxes to the lead or body of the article in question. Will be done for these ~1200 articles.Category:RTT
An example of what such an edit will look like is this.[5]
@Doc James: In the example given a named reference gets moved out of the infobox and into a call of that named reference in the main body. What happens in the case that there is not such an obvious place to transfer the citation? In that case would the reference just hang generally in the article, would it go into a special subsection for odd references, would the bot skip that transfer, or is there some other plan? Blue Rasberry (talk)20:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Bluerasberry the bot would do nothing. The problem with content translation only occurs when a named reference occurs within the infobox and than is used as "<ref name=X/>" outside the infobox. If it is only used within the infobox there is no problem. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:29, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Doc James: I see. The translation project is concerned with the leads of articles, so when citations critical to the leads is inaccessible in the infobox, then the translation workflow has difficulties applying the full citation in the translated text.
I guess the controversy here could be whether first uses of a citation should be in the body of text rather than the infobox. I say yes - infoboxes increasingly are becoming a space for semi-automatic engagement and any template is challenging for new editors to manipulate anyway. I prefer having a more consistent practice of keeping citations in the body of the text.
Support This proposal does not hurt anything, makes a change which most users would find arbitrary, but which has a big impact for the workflow of the translation team. The bot would do a one-time run of 1200 articles and then perhaps occasional maintenance, which I am guessing could be 1-2 times yearly in the next few years. Do it. Blue Rasberry (talk)20:35, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Infoboxes should be summarising information available in the main article text, so most of the time there will be a choice between citing the full reference in the body text or in the infobox. We ought to prefer having the full citation in article text, because it makes it easier to re-use snippets of text from one article in another, related one. There is rarely any corresponding need to copy infoboxes from one article to another. If this also improves the functionality of the Content Translation tool, then that is a real bonus. --RexxS (talk) 11:43, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Pattern Recognition in Physics <snippet>"Recognizing a Pattern of Problems in "Pattern Recognition in Physics"". Scholarlyoa.com. Archived from the original on 22 February 2014. Retrieved 11 February</snippet>
Scientific Research Publishing <snippet>2014-12-27. Retrieved 2015-01-08. List of predatory publishers by scholarlyoa.com Beall, Jeffrey (2014-10-02). "An Editorial Board Mass-Resignation —</snippet>
Emma Yhnell <snippet>wins BSA Award Lecture | News | The British Neuroscience Association". www.bna.org.uk. Retrieved 2018-10-11. Video of Emma Yhnell speaking on public engagement</snippet>
Catherine Abbott <snippet>Neuroscience Day 2018 | Events | The British Neuroscience Association". www.bna.org.uk. Retrieved 2018-04-15. "Funding Panel membership | NC3Rs". www.nc3rs</snippet>
Irene Tracey <snippet>Winners 2018 Announced! | News | The British Neuroscience Association". www.bna.org.uk. Retrieved 2019-01-04. Tracey, Irene; Farrar, John T.; Okell, Thomas</snippet>
John H. Coote <snippet>"Professor John Coote | News | The British Neuroscience Association". www.bna.org.uk. British Neuroscience Association. Retrieved 4 December 2017. "John</snippet>
Winthrop Rockefeller <snippet>University of Arkansas, "People, Power, and Realpoliticks in the Provinces"". acjournal.org. Archived from the original on June 11, 2009. Retrieved May 31, 2012</snippet>
Danny Patrick (politician) <snippet>University of Arkansas, People, Power, and Realpoliticks in the Provinces". acjournal.org. Archived from the original on June 11, 2009. Retrieved May 31, 2012</snippet>
@Headbomb: can post the report on a regular basis if there is a page. Script takes less than 20 seconds to complete so not expensive on resources. -- GreenC17:02, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure DannyS712 For example if an article have a <ref> and the editors maybe used source editor, and that cause a backspace or enter in <ref> tag, which will make it broken, or editors giving wrong parameters, for example I found a article today where they entered url correct, but Instead of giving website name, they added url. So if there's a bot which can detect broken <ref> tags or hyperlinks, and report it to me, I can fix them. Darkwolfz (talk) _tag_report_bot" class="ext-discussiontools-init-timestamplink">05:02, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DannyS712https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formby_Hall
In it's recent history, I fixed an error like that, and maybe we should scan for source that are in red color between <ref> </ref> or a missing opening <ref> or </closing> ref, also reference title missing ones.
Done. There are still some user-space transclusions of {{CFB Schedule Start}} et al, but barring any accidental miscues from GIGO issues it should be finished. Primefac (talk) 04:15, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Doing... --DannyS712 (talk) 02:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
BRFA filed --DannyS712 (talk) 02:35, 8 January 2019 (UTC) (change to template 01:23, 10 January 2019 (UTC))
Not a good task for a bot.. This falls afoul of COSMETICBOT. Primefac (talk) 15:20, 1 February 2019 (UTC)