Wikipedia:Bot requests

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).
• WP:TEMPREQ, to request a new template written in wiki code or Lua.
• WP:SCRIPTREQ, to request a new user script. Many useful scripts already exist, see Wikipedia:User scripts/List.
• WP:CITEBOTREQ, to request a new feature for WP:Citation bot, a user-initiated bot that fixes citations.

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

---

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

#	Bot request	Status	💬	👥	🙋 Last editor	🕒 (UTC)	🤖 Last botop editor	🕒 (UTC)
1	Automatic NOGALLERY keyword for categories containing non-free files (again)		16	8	WOSlinker	2024-06-25 12:44	Legoktm	2024-06-24 01:34
2	Can we have an AIV feed a bot posts on IRC?		8	3	Legoktm	2024-06-21 18:24	Legoktm	2024-06-21 18:24
3	Bot to update match reports to cite template	BRFA filed	14	5	Yoblyblob	2024-06-20 21:21	Mdann52	2024-06-20 21:11
4	Bot to mass tag California State University sports seasons	Doing...	5	4	Frostly	2024-06-10 17:05	Headbomb	2024-06-09 17:28
5	Clear Category:Unlinked Wikidata redirects		8	5	Vandervalp	2024-07-01 11:16	DreamRimmer	2024-04-21 03:28
6	Fixing stub tag placement on new articles	Not a good task for a bot.	4	3	Headbomb	2024-05-19 20:17	Headbomb	2024-05-19 20:17
7	User:RetractionBot, v2	Y Done	8	5	Mdann52	2024-05-25 16:06	Mdann52	2024-05-25 16:06
8	Bot to change citations to list defined references	Not a good task for a bot.	3	2	Apoptheosis	2024-06-09 17:44	Headbomb	2024-06-09 16:56
9	Adding Facility IDs to AM/FM/LPFM station data	BRFA filed	10	3	Qwerfjkl	2024-06-12 14:29	Qwerfjkl	2024-06-12 14:29
10	Tagging women's basketball article talk pages with project tags		9	4	Qwerfjkl	2024-06-29 21:03	Qwerfjkl	2024-06-29 21:03
11	Friendly support for Draft categories – feedback request		1	1	Mathglot	2024-06-10 19:40
12	'Literature of Kashmir'	Not a good task for a bot.	2	2	Usernamekiran	2024-06-11 07:37	Usernamekiran	2024-06-11 07:37
13	Adding links to previous TFDs		7	4	Qwerfjkl	2024-06-20 18:02	Qwerfjkl	2024-06-20 18:02
14	Bot that condenses identical references	Coding...	9	4	Acebulf	2024-06-19 03:07	Headbomb	2024-06-18 00:34
15	Convert external links within {{Music ratings}} to refs		2	2	Mdann52	2024-06-23 10:11	Mdann52	2024-06-23 10:11
16	Stat.kg ---> Stat.gov.kg		2	2	DreamRimmer	2024-06-23 09:21	DreamRimmer	2024-06-23 09:21
17	Add constituency numbers to Indian assembly constituency boxes		3	2	C1MM	2024-06-25 03:59	Primefac	2024-06-25 00:27
18	Replace banners of merged history WikiProjects	Resolved	8	2	Primefac	2024-07-05 17:51	Primefac	2024-07-05 17:51

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.

Capitalization error on asteroid stubs

I'd like to point out that thousands of asteroid stubs were created with some incorrect capitalization, using the phrase, "Main-belt Asteroid"[1], or sometimes, "Main-belt asteroid". I am in the process now of correcting the capitalisation of these.

I am also fixing the links within, to reflect what is probably a move in an article title. These were originally wikilinked as [[Main-belt Asteroid]], and I am changing them to [[Asteroid belt|main belt]] [[asteroid]], as there is no article Main-belt Asteroid (it now redirects to Asteroid belt). My use of two links (one to Asteroid belt and one to asteroid) was just a personal choice, but one which I think benefits the reader.

Anyway, I've done several hundred of what are over 11,000 of these articles. Is there any way that a bot could be programmed to do what I have been doing? (Example: [2]) Thanks! 98.82.34.167 (talk) 19:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me that someone with some authority ought to respond to this request. 98.71.255.6 (talk) 03:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Anyone? 98.71.255.6 (talk) 00:45, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Coding... I'm working on this one... code almost done just testing that it works. Will file a BRFA shortly. --RA (talk) 17:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

One question tho... should it not be "main-belt asteroid" (instead of "main belt asteroid")?

BRFA filed ... but I don't know how it is going to go down. This could be seen as a spell-checker process, but sure we'll soon see. --RA (talk) 18:13, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval#Luas.C3.B3g_bot_2 ... again, I dubious it might be shot down for being a spell-checker but it's in anyway. --RA (talk) 18:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

• First of all, RA, thank you for helping to move this forward. Even if it doesn't happen, at least now I will know that it was properly considered. Thank you very much.
• As to your question, should it not be "main-belt asteroid" instead of "main belt asteroid?. I've looked it over, and I find that yes, you are correct, both in terms of standard English grammar and usage here on Wikipedia. So feel free to follow your instincts on that one. And again, thanks. 98.71.255.6 (talk) 09:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Bot to update the title of Today's Featured Article

We'd like a bot which creates in advance the daily subpage of Template:TFA title with the TFA title, which can be retrieved from the daily TFA template, Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 6, 2024. See Template talk:TFA-editnotice#Proposed alternative display for the discussion. Thanks, Cenarium (talk) 16:48, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Per there I've protected the subpages via titleblacklist, so the bot would need the tboverride right, probably through the accountcreator group. AFAICR it's precedented to add accounts to the group purely for that right, although I think we could just as well add it to the bot group. The pages aren't really a target for vandalism, but if we keep one page per day for historical purposes, it's unfeasible that anyone will watch them, and they are not supposed to be changed by a human anyway. Amalthea 09:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Anyone? It's a very simple, non-critical job:

• A couple minutes before UTC midnight, go to tomorrow's TFA blurb
• Search it for /'''\s*\[\[([^\]|]*)(?:\|[^\]]*)\]\]\s*'''/, and fill the matched group (trimmed) into tomorrow's title template

Amalthea 11:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok. BRFA filed Anomie⚔ 16:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Stripping disambiguator in Template:Infobox ice hockey player

Template:Infobox ice hockey player was just modified so that the player's name appears at the top of the infobox. When the infobox contains no "name" field, the default is the PAGENAME. (Most infoboxes currently lack this name field.) One of the annoyances is that articles where the title is disambiguated, e.g. Doug Harvey (ice hockey), will display the disambiguator at the top of the infobox. (see this version of the Doug Harvey article. So we're requesting a bot to go through the articles in which the template is transcluded, find those with some sort of "(ice hockey)" or "(ice hockey b. xxxx)" disambiguation and a the proper "name" field in the infobox. I'm willing to double check the results manually. Pichpich (talk) 14:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

FYI looks like about 764 articles are affected. I wonder if this can't be solved with some template wizardry (str len and such). –xeno^talk 14:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

 Doing... –xeno^talk 15:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

That was quick. Thx Xeno. Pichpich (talk) 16:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done I think I got them all. 648 edits. Maybe I'm wrong though, let me know. As I commented at the tt page, a maintenance category is probably a good idea. –xeno^talk 16:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Remove external links and references of ThePPN

ThePPN (http://wiki.theppn.org/) was a Wiki about Japanese pop culture that went offline a few years ago, but some articles here still link to it or use it as a source. There aren't many articles, but at 143, I'm too lazy to remove them myself. I would appreceate it if someone could run a bot to remove all of these. Note that some use an interwiki link such as "[[ThePPN: Sexy 8 Beat]]". Thanks! Sorafune +1 23:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Surely, these do not need to be removed, rather archived at Wayback. Unless, theppn specifically requested to not be archived, that is.—  Hellknowz  ▎talk  00:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

My other reason for requesting the removal of ThePPN, which I did not give because I thought was obvious, is that ThePPN was a wiki editable by anyone, and not a reliable source. It also certainly has no use as a normal external link because the website is dead. And if I remember correctly, ThePPN suffered from a tremendous amount of fancruft in its articles. Sorafune +1 00:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

OH, Wiki! I should read more carefully... —  Hellknowz  ▎talk  12:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

A job for AWB. OpenTheWindows, sir! 12:27, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Tagging thousands of categories for renaming

Bot help is needed to tag a couple thousand categories for renaming; see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Mobius Bot 2 and/or Wikipedia:Bot_requests/Archive_36#Tagging_circa_850_categories_for_renaming. Most of the categories listed here need doing and since the promised bot owner is AWOL, I expect they will all need reposting to new CfD.

Ideally, the bot would add (with an informative edit summary) the following code to each category:

{{subst:Cfr|''ProposedName''|Many more settlements}}

where ProposedName is the proposed new name of the category. A less-complex (and perhaps AWB-able) option is:

{{subst:Cfr||Many more settlements}}

Thank you, -- ^{şṗøʀĸɕäɾłäů∂ɛ:τᴀʟĸ} 00:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

• I have closed the previous nomination and relisted it at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 May 28#Many more settlements. With luck, someone can take on this task.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I can have my bot do this task using CSVLoader plugin and AWB. Let me do some trial edits and get back to you. — Ganeshk (talk) 04:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Trial run is complete. Please check the following categories. If they look good, I can complete the rest. — Ganeshk (talk) 04:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

1. Category:Cities and counties in the Tampa Bay Area
2. Category:Cities and settlements of Alexander the Great
3. Category:Cities and settlements of Philip II of Macedon
4. Category:Cities and towns built in the Soviet Union
5. Category:Cities and towns claimed by China and India
6. Category:Cities and towns in Abruzzo
7. Category:Cities and towns in Adilabad district
8. Category:Cities and towns in Adygea
9. Category:Cities and towns in Agra district
10. Category:Cities and towns in Aguascalientes
11. Category:Cities and towns in Ahmednagar district
12. Category:Cities and towns in Ajmer district
13. Category:Cities and towns in Alappuzha district
14. Category:Cities and towns in Aligarh district
15. Category:Cities and towns in Allahabad district
16. Category:Cities and towns in Almora district
17. Category:Cities and towns in Altai Krai
18. Category:Cities and towns in Alto Adige
19. Category:Cities and towns in Alwar district
20. Category:Cities and towns in Ambala district

I noticed the following categories were redirects. How do you want to handle these? — Ganeshk (talk) 04:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

1. Category:Cities and towns in Aguascalientes
2. Category:Cities and towns in Alto Adige

• The bot seemed to have worked perfectly, so you can go ahead and do them all. For the tagging process, though, I don't think we need to worry about treating the redirects differently, since this is just the tagging process. But if you end up with a list of the ones that are redirects, that would be great to have when we get to closing the nomination. If not, don't worry about it.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay. I can get you a list of ones that are redirects. I will run the bot tomorrow. It's late. — Ganeshk (talk) 04:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Fantastic. Thanks so much for your help.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I would treat the redirects just as you have-- but a list may be handy to look at. Thanks.

Would it be hard to also genarate a list with it of what the redirects are pointing to? ^{şṗøʀĸɕäɾłäů∂ɛ:τᴀʟĸ} 17:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I have added the redirects to this page. I cannot think of a easy way to pull the categories the redirects are pointing to. May be others have ideas. — Ganeshk (talk) 17:27, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done — Ganeshk (talk) 17:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Awesome. I've repurposed the redirected categories from rename/merge to delete in the nomination itself, so when it is closed, that should be handled without difficulty. Thanks again to you and your hardworking bot.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

A question...

Currently at WP:DERM we have a small section providing links to various data, but I wanted to know if someone would help us expand that section to provide more types of interesting data that people can use? Any help creating regularly and automatically generated types of project data would be great. Overall, I would love to provide readers with data that be be used to track the project growth/development. I am not sure if automatically generated and updated graphs are possible on wikipedia, but, if so, trending data with charts would be very cool. Perhaps someone could help create a "Dermatology task force bot" to perform tasks like this? Regardless, thank you all for your work on Wikipedia. ---kilbad (talk) 17:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

GA symbol

Consensus has been reached at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles#Should all GAs have the GA symbol on the article page? to place the GA symbol ({{Good article}}) on GAs. Could a bot add the symbol to all GAs (listed at WP:GA) and ideally also periodically check afterward whether all articles listed there have the symbol? Thanks, Ucucha 12:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd be happy to do an AWB run for the existing ones? ╟─TreasuryTag►voice vote─╢ 15:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that would work. In the end, we will need some sort of monitoring to make sure the list on WP:GA matches the set of articles with the GA symbol, but I suppose there are several possible ways for that. Ucucha 15:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, if the bot checks the English GAs, why not have it do a check on foreign GAs along with that, adding {{Link GA}} with the appropriate language parameter? I know that the German and Persian wikis have bots do that and I saw it discussed in MediaWiki talk:Common.js/Archive 14 where someone wrote down a code. Hekerui (talk) 16:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

User:LinkFA-Bot is adding {{Link GA}} to articles now. Now we actually got to make it work; see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Good_articles#Making_Template:Link_GA_work. Gary King (talk) 18:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

If a bot could also do a bit of the tagging I'm attempting with AWB it would speed it up a lot :) ╟─TreasuryTag►cabinet─╢ 21:15, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course WikiProject Good Article would have consensus to implement this. That doesn't mean there is community consensus, however. I don't think this should be implemented without more input from the broader community. Kaldari (talk) 21:13, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

This used to get shot down big time "how dare you put a GA star on the main article page". I should know as I'm one of those that tried it, back in my early wiki days. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Out of first 20 supporters only 4 identify themselves as good article WP participants. Out of first 10 opposers 2 do so. How is this possibly not broad enough? —  Hellknowz  ▎talk  21:45, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Excellent, I was going to request this actually. It might actually also encourage more people to develop GAs. Is this a good idea though if the good article marker can be removed from the article? It ought to be fixed I think. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 17:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

We've always been using {{featured article}} for featured articles, so this shouldn't be that big of a problem. What we need to do ultimately is get a bot to keep the GA articles up-to-date so that they all have {{Good article}}. Gary King (talk) 22:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

IF we are certain that there is proper consensus and IF there are no objections to this implementation (which I believe has been controversial in the past), then I would be happy to make/run an AWB (or perhaps Python) bot to patrol and update the Good articles with this symbol (which I personally think is a good idea). I really want to be sure that there is consensus, though, as I have seen all too well what happens when unapproved changes are made in large numbers. Perhaps a more broad consensus is required...I wouldn't be surprised if our friends at WP:BRFA ask for more consensus before handing over the coveted bot flag. Robert Skyhawk ^{(T C B)} 23:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Didn't User:H3llkn0wz's answer to address concerns raised by User:Kaldari more than enough to demonstrate clear-cut consensus? Even those who oppose, like User:Iridescent stated that "...even I can see that there's an overwhelming consensus in support of it and extending the discussion isn't going to change anything"[3] Is that good enough? Like, seriously, we don't need another lame episode of having a poll about this poll, then initiate an RfC after this poll, which further leads to another poll questioning the merits of that RfC, then a poll asking whether if the polling method is the best approach, which then leads to... never mind... We're not seeking for universal support, but clearly consensus has been demonstrated. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that we don't need a poll of a poll. There already was a poll, and based on that poll, the symbol has already been added to many GAs. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)I'm sorry; I didn't mean to imply that we need to actively seek more consensus...seems like that would be akin to flogging a dead horse, if you'll forgive the expression. I just want to be sure that we have it before I start making a request for approval. As I was writing this, though, I discovered that the template is currently at TfD, so I won't be getting the ok from the BAG anytime soon. Once that is settled (and hopefully the template is kept), I'll be able to request approval for a bot. Robert Skyhawk ^{(T C B)} 23:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Updating articles to point to a modified image name at Commons

I seem to remember that there was a bot that checked images that had been copied to Commons with a new name (like File:010 Training Camp.jpg -> File:Lovie Smith Training Camp.jpg), and would then adjust the text of the articles to point at the new image. I don't think this is still happening. The process of moving images to Commons is very time-consuming, and letting a bot handle this step is very helpful. It is also important that this bot runs at least once a day, because sometimes the admins don't check image links when deleting these images (there is a huge deletion backlog for these images), and then the article editors will never know what happened to the image. I was going to suggest User:Erwin85Bot for this, as this bot processes the exact same images to notify the original uploader of the new location, but this bot seems to be blocked right now. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 09:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I could look into coding something for this soon. FinalRapture - † ☪ 17:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Great, thanks. There are 8300+ files in Category:Wikipedia files on Wikimedia Commons, which only contains images with different names here vs. Commons (as opposed to Category:Wikipedia files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons). My guess is that a good number of these need to have the image link redirected. Thanks for your help! ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 18:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks like there are 42 articles currently affected.

Rich Farmbrough, 11:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC).

Old signpost article cleanup

Several old signpost articles are not as technically refined as today's Signposts. This creates a lot of problem in the book versions of the Signpost and in the PDFs of these articles. I found a couple of things that could be fixed with simple find/replace logic.

1) Replace

<noinclude>[[Image:WikipediaSignpostVertical.svg|right|The Wikipedia Signpost]]</noinclude>

with

<noinclude>{{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Long-image}}</noinclude>

2) Replace

<noinclude>
<center><small>
Also this week:
...
</small></center>
</noinclude>

with

<noinclude>
<center><small>{{hide in print|1=
Also this week:
...
}}</small></center>
</noinclude>

See this for an example of text that needs to be cleaned up. I may have more find/replace logic in the future, but for the moment these are the only issues I am aware of that requires such a fix. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

A list of the pages this should be run on can be found here. (Only those with Wikpiedia:Wikipedia Signpost/YYYY-MM/DD/Foobar). I'd run this on AWB myself, but it'd take a long while. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like another task for Signpost Book Bot, I'll code it soon and file a BFRA for the new task FinalRapture - † ☪ 17:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Coding... FinalRapture - † ☪ 19:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Some Signpost articles may not have these within <noincludes>. In which case, the noincludes should be added. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes, the "Also this week" may come as

<center><small>{{Signpost1-15}}</small></center>

or similar. In this case, it should be replaced with

<noinclude><center><small>{{Signpost1-15}}</small></center></noinclude>

And

<noinclude>[[Category:Exclude in print]]</noinclude>

should be added to {{Signpost1-15}} (and equivalents). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Partial emptying of Category:Wikipedia books

Resolved

 – Already requested and being discussed elsewhere. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 23:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

As part of ongoing reorganization of the Wikipedia-Books category tree, Category:Wikipedia books is being converted into a container category and should contain only subcategories, a few directly related pages, and books which have yet to be categorized into a topic-specific category.

Categorization of user books by topic was deprecated per a recently-closed CFD discussion and, by extension, Category:Wikipedia books should be emptied of all user books (this will not leave them uncategorized as they are all also in Category:Wikipedia books (user books)). Does anyone have a bot which could remove all 974 user books in the category while leaving pages in the Book: and Category: namespaces for manual sorting? -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Josh Parris said he was going to have User:WildBot clean it up sometimes this week. See User_talk:Josh_Parris#Books_and_category_cleanup. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, excellent! (I don't know why I didn't think to contact WildBot's operator directly.) Thank you, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Adminbot to perform simple history merges

I propose an adminbot to perform simple history merges from candidates found in this list. A few years ago I may have attempted this bot myself, but I now do not have the time to program and run it.

Operation

The bot would perform the following operations:

Identify candiate pages

• Use the histmerge list to get potential candidates.
• Reject a candidate if either the original or new page has any deleted edits.
• Reject a candidate if either page has over X edits, where X is probably 1000 or so (certainly less than 5000).
• Reject a candidate if the original page was anything other than a redirect after being set to a redirect. This can likely be done heuristically, using page size (in bytes) to make this determination.
• At first, reject candidates where the original page has a talk page. Later on, pages with talk pages that need merging can be handled.

Perform the merge

I propose the following steps to do the history merge:

• Delete the original page.
• Undelete the revisions of the original page that are not redirect revisions. In other words, all redirect revisions will be deleted at this point, and all revisions prior to the redirect will not be deleted.
• Delete the new (i.e. existing) page.
• Move the old page to the new page; opt NOT to leave a redirect behind.
• Undelete the redirect revisions from the original page
• Undelete all revisions from the new page
• Perform a rollback on the new page, with a custom message stating that the history merge is complete

Effects

The effects of these steps are as follows:

• All redirect revisions of the original page have not moved
• All non-redirect revisions of the original page are merged into the new page
• This totals 2 deletions, 3 undeletions, 1 move, and 1 edit per history merge.

Notes

• This should probably not be fully automated (at least at first). If someone writes source for it, then I can help test it out and run it.

• I've done a bunch of these merges by hand lately, and it seems like at least 10-20 thousand could easily be done with such a bot (based on the history merge list linked above). With talk page merging, we could probably get at least 25,000 merged, and likely even more.

--CapitalR (talk) 22:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

OK I looked at the first one, it is a cut and paste by the original, and then only, author, hence not a problem. Looks like the first page has a bunch of these (Ram-man articles) - these should be removed, then we get a better idea of the scale of the problem. Rich Farmbrough, 09:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC).

Also a some have been hist-merged already The Imperial (album) The Imperial (album) Rich Farmbrough, 09:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC).

Adminbot to deal with the CAT:NCT Backlog

There are 6,264 images in Category:Wikipedia files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons. The majority of these images have moved by an automatic script, and so keep all of the licensing, description, attribution, etc on the Commons version. Since only admins can delete these images, the backlog will always be a problem. Could a bot not go to the Commons version of the image, check for commons:Template:BotMoveToCommons, or otherwise manually check to see if the licensing and information matches the enwiki version, and then delete the it? NauticaShades 00:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure one of the bots did this, but I can't remember which or who. Q ^{T C} 00:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, there really needs to be an admin bot to process these. FinalRapture - † ☪ 00:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem here is CSD:F8 "The image's license and source status is beyond reasonable doubt, and the license is undoubtedly accepted at Commons." Not sure that is currently bottable. Rich Farmbrough, 09:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC).

@ OQ - Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/EyeEightDestroyerBot? (although that was a one time run and had a much more restrictive scope). Personally I think the size of the backlog outweighs the risk of an incorrect deletion (which with the proper checks and balances will be very low anyway). I'll start coding. --Chris 09:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Great! NauticaShades 11:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Correct invocations of Template:Start date and age

This request is about invocations of Template:Start date and age Please, do the following:

• If |df=yes is present, then remove it.
• If |df=anything is present, change it to |df=us

Thanks. SkyBon^{Talk/Contributions} 13:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)