Jump to content

Wikipedia:Bot requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcuts
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

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 List-defined references format 27 8 DreamRimmer 2025-12-29 12:11 DreamRimmer 2025-12-29 12:11
2 Decap "External Links" eraser Undone 8 4 Phuzion 2025-11-12 13:38 Phuzion 2025-11-12 13:38
3 Disambiguate all internal links  Not done 8 6 DreamRimmer 2025-12-30 15:36 DreamRimmer 2025-12-30 15:36
4 WP:CAT#T 7 6 Kaffet i halsen 2025-11-13 20:07 Primefac 2025-11-10 23:39
5 Bot to count Twitter/X citations with August dates 2 2 Qwerfjkl 2025-11-12 18:12 Qwerfjkl 2025-11-12 18:12
6 Citation source replacement with {{Cite Köppen-Geiger cc 2007}} 4 3 RedWolf 2025-11-21 17:09 Usernamekiran 2025-11-21 13:40
7 Add a WikiProject banner to articles in a category 7 4 Kingsacrificer 2025-12-30 18:48 Legoktm 2025-12-30 17:16
8 WikiCup submissions bot BRFA filed 5 3 Tenshi Hinanawi 2025-12-21 20:30 Tenshi Hinanawi 2025-12-21 20:30
9 Web scrapping 4 3 Headbomb 2026-01-03 05:00 Headbomb 2026-01-03 05:00
10 Bot to add non-breaking spaces 5 3 Anomie 2025-12-31 16:42 Anomie 2025-12-31 16:42
11 Redirects related to those nominated at RfD BRFA filed 10 2 Thryduulf 2025-12-31 20:05 GalStar 2025-07-02 20:56
12 Bot to remove false positive AI-generated tags 4 3 Primefac 2026-01-04 13:47 Primefac 2026-01-04 13:47
13 Bot to revert improper use of certain inline sources on BLP articles 4 4 Lee Vilenski 2026-01-04 17:17 Headbomb 2026-01-04 17:05
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.

List-defined references format

[edit]
Tracked in Phabricator
Task T356471
Tracked in Phabricator
Task T399937
Tracked in Phabricator
Task T52896

Proposing a bot that replaces {{reflist|refs= ... }} with <references> ... </references>

The reason is that there are issues with list-defined references that are based on the template reflist. The VisualEditor can't parse references (and more broadly HTML tags) that are inside templates. This is apparently a design choice, it has been like this for around 10 years and isn't going to change. It means that in the VisualEditor, list-defined references that are within a reflist template can't be modified, and are not displayed (you instead get the message "This reference is defined in a template or other generated block, and for now can only be previewed in source mode"). However, the parsing works with list-defined references that use the <references> template.

There was a long discussion on this a few months ago, here of one of the paragraphs of the closing comment:

"There was 2:1 support in favor of deprecating {{reflist|refs=}} and replacing existing instances. I updated the linked documentation pages to do so. Someone will need to write a bot and follow the procedure at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval. At least one editor had concerns about bots making incorrect edits. There was also discussion of whether or not such changes should be bot-flagged so they don't show up on watchlists, and whether it should be required that other changes be made at the same time. The bot approval process is designed to take these concerns into account and balance them against the proposed benefits; that would be the place to raise them. (It might be helpful if whoever makes the requests notifies the editors who participated in this discussion.)"

Doing this change wasn't expected to significantly impact reference lists rendering, besides making them more VisualEditor-friendly. But there can be instances where the template reflist is used with additional arguments, in which case it may be good to double-check that the rendering remains approximately the same when using <references>. Also note that what is inside "..." in {{reflist|refs= ... }} can contain nested templates, so the parsing required to implement the bot could potentially be tricky. Here is an example of what this kind of edit looks like. If I had to guess, I would say that around 5% of Wikipedia articles would be affected. Alenoach (talk) 04:18, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"There was 2:1 support in favor of deprecating {{reflist|refs=}} and replacing existing instances"
I don't see that at all in the discussion, I see closer to 1:1 (3 oppose, 3 support). {{Reflist}} is used on virtually all articles (6.3M pages). A decision letting a bot run on millions of articles (even 5% of that would be 315K pages) needs a much, much stronger consensus than an even split between 6 people. Especially when the saner solution seems to fix VE. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:03, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A naive search gives 55,000 articles. A slightly more complex search times out at 56,500. — Qwerfjkltalk 12:19, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And let's face it, VE is probably never going to get fixed. The devs who might are too busy working on shiny new features instead. But I do agree that this really should have an RFC at WP:VPR (and advertised on WP:CENT) before a BRFA, the lightly attended RFC linked is too small to prevent people freaking out over "local consensus". I'd also recommend recruiting the people who participated the linked RFC to draft a strong statement for the new one, pre-addressing the many misconceptions already seen in the linked RFC, rather than jumping straight to a half-baked RFC that will drown in those misconceptions. Anomie⚔ 15:06, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The change would be just for when the "refs" parameter is used. Maybe one additional safety precaution would be to apply the change only when "refs" is the only parameter to the template {{reflist}}. That would likely still cover most of the instances of the problem, and leave the more tricky cases where reflist has a combinations of parameters.
In the discussion, the initial discussion about discouraging list-defined references did not get consensus, but the later discussion about specifically replacing {{reflist|refs= ... }} did get much more support. The main objection was from Gawaon about the flexibility of {{reflist}} to have parameters like colwidth, but he eventually agreed with the proposal, and I guess limiting the change to when only the parameter "refs" is used would address his remaining concern.
Is it worth people's time to have an advertised RFC about on this technical topic? If option 1 is not changing anything, should option 2 be about changing if "refs" is the only parameter, or changing if "refs" is among the parameter to {{reflist}}? Alenoach (talk) 15:25, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is it worth people's time to have an advertised RFC about on this technical topic? Yes, because it will save a lot of time later where people would otherwise complain about "local consensus" and that they weren't consulted. Anomie⚔ 15:46, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure there was no consensus whatsoever to have all instances of {{reflist}} replaced. The discussion was specifically about the refs= parameter. Gawaon (talk) 17:10, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The monthly parameter usage report for Template:Reflist suggests that there are 183,000 articles using |refs=. It seems like any sort of replacement would need to start with a well-advertised RFC that successfully deprecated |refs=. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:39, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That has already happened, see the closing comment of the linked discussion. Now it just needs to be implemented. Gawaon (talk) 06:51, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. I wonder what explains the difference with the 55,000 returned by Qwerfjkl's search. Alenoach (talk) 02:35, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note there's now a discussion opened at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Bot to make list-defined references editable with the VisualEditor. Anomie⚔ 11:30, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion was automatically archived by a bot. The consensus was clear, although there hasn't been a formal closure message. Alenoach (talk) 17:32, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Alenoach: If I am reading the discussion correctly, the only change required is to replace {{reflist|refs= ... }} with <references> ... </references> when the reflist template has only one parameter named refs. I am available and can file a BRFA. – DreamRimmer ■ 17:08, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming most of the time there is only the refs parameter and it would be the simplest option. But if there is a safe replacement for additional parameters, which does not affect the rendering, it would be even better, and the importance of being able to handle additional parameters depends on how many occurrences there are. This link provided by Jonesey95 suggests that the most common parameter besides refs is group, for which <references> has a direct equivalent (although refs and group probably often don't occur together, it's likely worth handling if not too complex). The bot is not required to be exhaustive, and other parameters seem rare. I guess that the rest can be ignored or changed manually if it's more convenient.
The bot should however not change anything if the reflist has no refs parameter (some people insisted for doing that as well, and it would make sense, but that was not the primary topic of the RFC and it's unclear whether there would be consensus). Alenoach (talk) 18:20, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Uses with |1=2 or |1=30em (with or without the explicit 1=) or |colwidth=30em should be safe to ignore those parameters, unless there are 10 or fewer references in the article. Uses with |1=1 (or probably things like |1=100% or |colwidth=100%) should be safe to replace with <references responsive=0 />. Other values for those parameters would likely result in a change in rendering. at least those that are valid for CSS column-count or column-width; if someone did something like |colwidth=bogus we could probably go with <references responsive=0 />.
Certain values of |group= (upper-alpha, upper-roman, lower-alpha, lower-greek, lower-roman) will currently result in different rendering. It would be possible to work around this, either by adding some rules to MediaWiki:Common.css or some TemplateStyles stylesheet we'd include into pages when <references group="one-of-those" /> is used.
|liststyle= with one of those values will almost always result in changed rendering, unless someone is doing something redundant like {{reflist|group=lower-alpha|liststyle=lower-alpha}}.
Any other parameters should be safe to ignore, as the above are all I see used by {{reflist}}. Anomie⚔ 23:15, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Anomie: Can you help me with the final replacements? Your explanation was clear, but I want to be sure because I have not worked with these much and I want to avoid causing any rendering issues, so I would appreciate it if you could list the replacements to make. – DreamRimmer ■ 16:26, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's not exactly a "list of replacements" to make, at least not to my way of thinking. I'd think about it in terms of looking at the parameters to the {{reflist}} and deciding what to do based on that, more or less as I described. Anomie⚔ 17:40, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I am filing a BRFA to process the pages where the reflist has only the refs parameter. Once that is complete, I will file another BRFA to fix the additional parameters as per your suggested fix. – DreamRimmer ■ 15:18, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decap "External Links"

[edit]

Decap "External Links" to "External links". Here is the search code (insource:/==External Links==/) I was just going to fix them with JWB but there are quite a lot. At least 7,900, possibly more. Here is the code with different spacing as well (insource:/== External Links ==/) That will generate a different set of results that also need fixing. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 00:29, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WikiOriginal-9, 16,000 (regex times out). — Qwerfjkltalk 08:05, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Though this seems fairly trivial, so maybe just add to RegExTypoFix and forget about it? — Qwerfjkltalk 08:06, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
eraser Undone at WP:AWB/T. phuzion (talk) 02:24, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Phuzion: This new rule will not get the job done. As explained at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Typos#Usage, most of the tools that use the typo list do not run the rules on section headings. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:47, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch! Given that AWB and other tools won't actually utilize this rule, do you think it's worth removing from the RegExTypoFix list? I've marked the task as undone for now, as well. phuzion (talk) 12:38, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Phuzion: Yes, I've removed it. -- John of Reading (talk) 13:35, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! phuzion (talk) 13:38, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Request: Disambiguate all internal links to Akpanta (which currently redirects) and replace them with Akpanta, since the page now refers to a specific event. — NatHaddan NatHaddan (talk) NatHaddan (talk) 22:24, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTBROKEN probably applies to these 27 links. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:06, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Probably is broken though. Why would the name not lead to the actual place, Akpanta, Nigeria? Gonnym (talk) 09:32, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Jonesey95, I suppose this would be fine if the plan was to then change the target of Akpanta to Akpanta, Nigeria. — Qwerfjkltalk 11:23, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even then, that would be something for WP:AWBREQ since there is only 26 links pointing to Akpanta. Tenshi! (Talk page) 12:25, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The original article for Akpanta have be move to new name Akpanta killings which refer to specific event that happened in Akpanta. It's the cause of the redirect that's pointed to Akpanta killings instead of Akpanta, Nigeria Akpanta, Nigeria is article about the geographic region itself. NatHaddan (talk) 13:36, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can fix the redirects manually if you want to. Meanwhile, please stop using LLMs to generate article content. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:07, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done for the bot. Noting that this was not a suitable task for a bot and that the requester is now banned indefinitely. – DreamRimmer ■ 15:36, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CAT#T

[edit]

WP:CAT#T states [t]emplates are not articles and thus do not belong in content categories. They should, however, be placed in template categories – subcategories of Category:Wikipedia templates – to assist when looking for templates of a certain type. However, templates and template categories end up in content categories. Would it be possible for a bot to look if a parent category is without {{template category}} and remove these out-of-guidelines linkings from the templates and template categories? Cases where the template or template category would end up without parents might instead be reported in a specific page. Some cases may be through the /doc and if they cannot be fixed, they may also instead be reported.

Maybe the template category part can instead be solved with a tracking category in {{template category}} but for the templates I imagine how it would work without a bot. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 08:48, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The idea makes sense - however, the bot wholesale removing a template from a content category and taking no further steps may not always be useful. The bot doesn't really have a way of knowing a more appropriate category for the template to be in, so I suppose it edits would have to be supervised? I will file a BRFA if anyone has any workarounds. WikiMacaroonsCinnamon? 18:45, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We need numbers before we start thinking about BRFA. If there are not that many they can (and probably should) be done by hand or AWB. Primefac (talk) 23:39, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Primefac. A query or petscan search is needed to determine the scope of this issue. As far as I know, many navboxes are housed in content categories, a de facto practice that goes against the guideline. A discussion to deprecate that practice or make an exception to the guideline may be needed if there turn out to be many such navboxes. A few editors work diligently to keep the number of uncategorized templates low (there were over 8,000 uncategorized templates just three years ago). A bot task like this has the potential to flood Category:Uncategorized pages with new entries. Pinging Bearcat and DB1729, who might have thoughts, since they work on fixing category issues in template space. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:40, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, there is a large number of navboxes in content categories, and yes it seems to be a fairly common practice despite the guideline. There was an RfC in 2022 on changing the guideline which references another discussion from 2020.
It would be interesting to see a list of navboxes categorized solely in content categories, if that is possible, while I shudder to think how many of those cases there might be. DB1729talk 04:18, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Commenting because I was summoned. TBH I mostly only work with template-in-category stuff when (a) the template is filed in or generating a redlinked category, or (b) the template is erroneously transcluding content categories onto the articles and drafts and such because a category that should have been wrapped in noinclude tags wasn't — I rarely get involved directly in the question of where templates should or shouldn't themselves be categorized in their own right, and in fact it's literally only a few weeks ago that I even learned that templates being categorized is a standard expectation now and not just a strictly optional choice as it used to be. So I don't know that I really have much to contribute here, because the issues where I do wander into templatespace aren't really what's being talked about here.
But yeah, I would be a little bit concerned about the potential flood of templates into the uncategorized pages maintenance queue, though I imagine there could be ways to mitigate that, perhaps by having a bot work in carefully managed batches whose replacement template categories can be reasonably inferred from the template's type and purpose? I don't know if that's actually feasible, as I rarely work with bot programming either, but I'm sure that it's possible in theory. But since I did get pinged, I didn't want to just completely ignore the discussion even though I don't have any brilliant input. Bearcat (talk) 14:33, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input! I cannot come up with a scan that lists all or a subset of the templates as linking may be directly or through categories or categories parents. I see them here and there, more frequently in football-related categories. I will start with AWB and see if I can learn better rules to facilitate cases such as this one (788 categories) and come back if I find something that can truly be bot work. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 20:07, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bot to count Twitter/X citations with August dates

[edit]

a bot that uses the MediaWiki API to 1) find all pages linking to '*.twitter.com' and '*.x.com/*', 2) fetch the content of each page, 3) use regular expressions to find citations that contain a Twitter/X link and a date in 'August' (e.g., 'August 5', '12 August'), 4) aggregate a count for each day of August (1-31), and 5) post the daily counts as a response. ~2025-32995-36 (talk) 15:19, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~2025-32995-36, why August in particular? — Qwerfjkltalk 18:12, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Citation source replacement with {{Cite Köppen-Geiger cc 2007}}

[edit]

Hundreds (thousands?) of mountain articles use as a reference a paper titled "Updated world map of the Köppen-Geiger climate classification" that was published in 2007 in Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, Volume 11, Issue 5. Typically these use {{Cite journal}} passing in the appropriate values. However, the values were not consistently applied and so we have generated references that do not provide all the necessary information each time it's used nor is the information as complete as it could be. Thus, I created the template to provide complete information about the source reference so that it's consistent across Wikipedia. I then searched for "Updated world map of the Köppen-Geiger" to find articles using this reference source and started replacing the citation source text with <ref name=KGcc2007>{{Cite Köppen-Geiger cc 2007}}</ref>. The search found other articles on rivers and human settlements also using this source reference. At this point, I have manually edited over 360 pages to make this change, the high majority being mountain articles but also a few articles about rivers and populated places. The search currently returns over 2800 results. So at this point I think it would be good if a bot could automate this edit to articles using this source reference. Typically in mountain articles, the citation is in a "Climate" section which usually begins with the sentence "Based on the [[Koppen climate classification]],". Other times it's in the lead section. Often the citation is using a named reference, typically "Peel" for the first author, although the paper does have three authors, which is why I chose to use KGcc2007 rather than Peel. Perhaps the reference could be named a bit different to denote it was a bot edit, e.g. <ref name=KGcc2007be>. I have been using "{{Cite Köppen-Geiger cc 2007}}" as the edit summary. RedWolf (talk) 21:00, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is the need to mass replace all of these citations with this template? Tenshi! (Talk page) 13:52, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
pinging RedWolf —usernamekiran (talk) 13:40, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to what I already stated above, many of the raw source references are just using ISSN with a large range which if clicked would return a page with over 13,000 results (i.e. ISSN 1027-4606); I don't understand why editors gave a huge range. The template adds the DOI and BIBCODE as well as an archive link so there are direct links to the source paper. All uses of this source will have consistent and basically complete information. As well it provides all the other benefits with using a template (e.g. what links here for usage count). RedWolf (talk) 17:09, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Add a WikiProject banner to articles in a category

[edit]

All articles in this category Category:Books with missing cover should have Template:WikiProject Books banner in their talk page. If not present, the script should add it. It should also add the 'needs-infobox-cover=yes' flag to this banner either way.

It will be a bot command acting on around 1700 articles. Kingsacrificer (talk) 09:37, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I hadn't seen you had also posted here. Would this not be more suitable for an WP:AWB run? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:10, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't used this before. How do you suggest I begin? Or should I make a request there instead? Kingsacrificer (talk) 17:24, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
AWB is a tool people can use to do lots of similar edits across lots of articles. This seems like a very suitable task for this. I'd recommend posting at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks and someone will probably pick it up. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:20, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting that the related discussion ended with no action taken.
Had I seen this before that discussion started, I would have probably discouraged posting to AWB; unless someone is really motivated, editing tasks involving 500+ edits are usually easier for a bot to deal with since it doesn't have to click "save" that many times. Primefac (talk) 14:54, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is a good category to use for automated tagging. The Books WikiProject scope is non-fiction books, but the category contains plenty of articles that would be out of scope, like novels. My quick SQL shows there are 1,178 non-Books tagged articles, but 607 of those are already in the Novels project. Legoktm (talk) 17:16, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we discussed this and decided that it is not the right way. Kingsacrificer (talk) 18:48, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup submissions bot

[edit]

Hi, I'm organizing the 2026 WikiCup and would like to know if it is possible to code a bot that can help out with setting up WikiCup contestants' submission pages. Specifically, automating the following tasks:

User:LivingBot (maintained by @Jarry1250) already records WikiCup scores, but WikiCup judges still have to create the users' submission pages manually. If this is feasible, the bot would have to run from January 1 to October 31 of each year, but the trial should preferably take place before January 1, 2026 (or wait until after that date). – Epicgenius (talk) 17:03, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it would be possible. I'm willing to code a bot for this. Tenshi! (Talk page) 17:24, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'd really appreciate it. Accessedgrant (Epicgenius mobile alt) (talk) 18:09, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Coding... Tenshi! (Talk page) 19:09, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
BRFA filed Tenshi! (Talk page) 20:30, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Web scrapping

[edit]

Not sure a bot is best suited for this, but I'd like some form of web scrapper that would crawl this list https://www.elsevier.com/products/journals?query=&page=1&accessType=open-access&sortBy=relevance

And fetch the list of OA journals from Elsevier

  • AACE Clinical Case Reports
  • AACE Endocrinology and Diabetes
  • AI Open
  • AI Thermal Fluids

alongside a sample DOI from the journal, e.g.

  • AACE Clinical Case Reports (10.1016/j.aace.2024.11.008)
  • AACE Endocrinology and Diabetes (10.1016/j.aed.2025.12.012)
  • AI Open (10.1016/j.aiopen.2025.01.002)
  • AI Thermal Fluids (10.1016/j.aitf.2025.100024)

....


Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:09, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This website loads its content on the client-side using JavaScript, which means scraping would require a browser automation tool such as Selenium, and would likely fail on many pages due to Cloudflare and other anti-bot protections. – DreamRimmer ■ 15:07, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Headbomb,
Qwerfjkltalk 20:33, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks this will be very helpful. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:00, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Bot to add non-breaking spaces

[edit]

Something I've noticed is that many articles have measurements, but the spaces between the value and unit isn't non-breaking (these should be implemented via & nbsp;). To fix this, I thought a bot would be useful to add non-breaking spaces where appropriate and can easily be run from the bot user page (something I've noticed you can do with other bots).

For a name, I thought NBSPBot would be appropriate (?).

Does this seem like a good idea for a bot? Thanks, TwoGamer1000 13:50, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not technically a cosmetic edit, since there are places where an nsbp would keep the text from wrapping, but it is awfully close. I am also somewhat concerned about CONTEXT issues, in that there are likely plenty of places where an nbsp shouldn't need to be added. There would need to be a consensus. I would also note that MOS:NBSP does not say that spaces must be used, just that they are desirable (though I feel like I've seen more forceful language in the maths/science areas I hang out in. I guess my point is that it's not something as a BAG I would decline outright, but I'd really want to see a strong consensus that this is both needed and can be done effectively. Primefac (talk) 14:27, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Thanks, TwoGamer1000 14:39, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:TwoGamer1000, please remove the <br /> tags from your signature, per WP:SIGAPP. It makes for excess vertical whitespace in talk pages. Anomie⚔ 16:42, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it may be worth reviewing past BRFAs such as Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 47 and Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Plasticbot. Anomie⚔ 16:42, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Per the initial discussion at Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion#Avoided double redirects of nominated redirects I believe there is consensus for an ongoing bot task that does the following:

  • Looks at each redirect nominated at RfD
  • Determines whether there are any other redirects, in any namespace, that meet one or more of the following criteria:
    • Are marked as an avoided-double redirect of a nominated redirect
    • Are redirects to the nominated redirect
    • Redirect to the same target as the nominated redirect and
      • Differ only in the presence or absence of diacritics, and/or
      • Differ only in case
  • If the bot finds any redirects that match and which are not currently nominated at RfD, then it should post a message in the discussion along the lines of:
    • Bot note: {{noredirect|Foo Smith}} (talk · links · history · stats) is an avoided double redirect of "Foo Jones"
    • Bot note: {{noredirect|Foo smith}} (talk · links · history · stats) is a redirect to the same target as "Foo Smith"
The bot should not take any actions other than leaving the note, the goal is simply to make human editors aware that these redirects exist.

I don't know how frequently the bot should run, but it should probably wait at least 15 minutes after a nomination before checking or editing so as not to get into edit conflicts or complications as discussions of multiple redirects are often nominated individually and then the discussions manually combined. Thryduulf (talk) 13:11, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a strong consensus; if there are no objections in the next day or so, I'll file a BRFA. In the meantime I'll code up the bot. GalStar (talk) 17:56, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've just thought of a third case to check for: differences only in hyphenation/dashes. Thryduulf (talk) 21:38, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually that's generalisable to differences only in punctuation. Thryduulf (talk) Thryduulf (talk) 03:40, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@GalStar is there any update on this? Thryduulf (talk) 20:01, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still working on it. I'm still getting some of the underlying tooling working, but I should be done soon. GalStar (talk) 16:40, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Thryduulf (talk) 16:50, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone is wondering, I'm currently porting my code to toolforge, so it can run continuously, and without the unreliability of my home network. This is taking longer than I expected however. GalStar (talk) 17:17, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
BRFA filed GalStar (talk) (contribs) 20:56, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Restored from Archive 87. The BRFA mentioned above (Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/GraphBot 2) was abandoned before a working bot was written so the task remains outstanding. Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion#Avoided double redirects of nominated redirects received no objections to my reinstating this request. Thryduulf (talk) 20:05, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bot to remove false positive AI-generated tags

[edit]

I've developed and tested a methodology to identify likely false positive {{AI-generated}} tags on articles by comparing article text to pre-June 2023 revisions (before widespread LLM use). If the current text is ≥90% similar to the historical version, the tag is almost certainly erroneous.

Test results: In a sample of 100 tagged articles, 6 qualified for removal (text essentially unchanged since mid-2023).

Working code: I created a Python/pywikibot script - handles both article-level and section-level tags, normalizes text for comparison.

I was denied at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AITagReviewBot due to lack of editing experience. Seeking an established bot operator interested in running this task. Happy to share code and methodology.

(Note that I created a Wiki account, Cheetah4640, for managing the bot, but since I can't create the bot myself, I would rather remain logged out) ~2026-51343 (talk) 15:06, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably take this idea to WP:Village pump (proposals) to see if the community agrees with your idea before asking someone to run the bot for you. Anomie⚔ 16:32, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have done that ~2026-51343 (talk) 16:47, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Link to discussion at WT:AIC. Primefac (talk) 13:47, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Bot to revert improper use of certain inline sources on BLP articles

[edit]

Full disclosure, I mentioned this issue at the Teahouse first, where I was requested to bring the issue to the RSN. I was told there that we currently have no technical way to handle what is needed (see below).

Recently I've come across a batch of articles improperly using primary (see WP:BLPPRIMARY) or unreliable sources like classmates.com, familysearch.org and imdb.com to cite personal details, (DOB, place of birth, etc.) about living people with imdb the most frequently appearing. None of these sources can be considered reliable or appropriate for a BLP and imdb is even listed at the perennial sources page as unreliable, (though it's noted as acceptable to be added to external links sections). I think a bot that finds a certain unreliable or primary source in an article tagged as a BLP should be able to remove the improper citation and add a {{fact}} tag at a minimum, with an edit summary noting removal of improper primary source or unreliable source. The issue with imdb is especially egregious, as it is constantly being added as an inline citation to BLPs in ways that it explicitly should not be. We need a better way to manage BLP sourcing besides people just manually removing common bad citations when they happen to see them. Thoughts? - The literary leader of the age ✉ 14:31, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Seems too WP:CONTEXTBOT to me to be reliable as a bot task. If you want to pursue this, WP:Village pump (proposals) is probably the place to seek consensus, maybe first with a stop at WP:Village pump (idea lab) to figure out how to best present it. Anomie⚔ 14:48, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The issue with the bot-removal of a source is that while a bad source was used, it still was the source, and may be required for attribution purposes. And it's also very possible some sections of those sites are more reliable, even reliable enough, to be used in a BLP.
I have no opinion on whether or not this task should be done, I'm just listing a concern that the community should take into account when debating the issue. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:05, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Do we already have a bot that tags these BLP references? To me that seems like a good place to start. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:17, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bot_requests&oldid=1331119367"