Wikipedia:Bot requests - Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Bot requests - Wikipedia
Jump to content
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Page for bot requests
For the policy on bot requirements, see
WP:BOTREQUIRE
Overview
Dictionary
Bot policy
Bot Approvals Group
Guide
Noticeboard
Bot Requests
Requests for Approval
Adminbots
{{
BAG Tools
}}
Creating a Bot
List of bots
Activity monitor
Status report
History
Types
Commonly Requested Bots
Frequently denied
Anti-vandal
Archiving
Autoassessment
Newsletter delivery
Template substitution
WikiProject tagging
Shortcuts
WP:BOTREQ
WP:BOTREQ
WP:BOTR
WP:BOTR
This is a page for
requesting tasks to be done by
bots
per the
bot policy
. This is an appropriate place to put ideas for uncontroversial bot tasks, to get early feedback on ideas for bot tasks (controversial or not), and to seek
bot operators
for bot tasks. Consensus-building discussions requiring large community input (such as
request for comments
) should normally be held at
WP:VPPROP
or other relevant pages (such as a
WikiProject
's talk page).
You can check the "Commonly Requested Bots" box above to see if a suitable bot already exists for the task you have in mind. If you have a question about a particular bot, contact the bot operator directly via their talk page or the bot's talk page. If a bot is acting improperly, follow the guidance outlined in
WP:BOTISSUE
. For broader issues and general discussion about bots, see the
bot noticeboard
Before making a request
, please see the
list of frequently denied bots
, either because they are too complicated to program, or do not have
consensus
from the Wikipedia community. If you are requesting that a template (such as a WikiProject banner) is added to all pages in a particular category, please be careful to
check the category tree
for any unwanted subcategories. It is best to give a complete list of categories that should be worked through individually, rather than one category to be analyzed recursively (see
example difference
).
Alternatives to bot requests
WP:AWBREQ
, for simple tasks that involve a handful of articles and/or only needs to be done once (e.g. adding a category to a few articles).
WP:URLREQ
, for tasks involving changing or updating URLs to prevent
link rot
(specialized bots deal with this).
WP:USURPREQ
, for reporting a domain be usurped eg.
|url-status=usurped
WP:SQLREQ
, for tasks which might be solved with an
SQL query
(e.g. compiling a list of articles according to certain criteria).
WP:TEMPREQ
, to request a new
template
written in wiki code or Lua.
WP:SCRIPTREQ
, to request a new
user script
. Many useful scripts already exist, see
Wikipedia:User scripts/List
WP:CITEBOTREQ
, to request a new feature for
WP:Citation bot
, a user-initiated bot that fixes citations.
Note to bot operators:
The
{{
BOTREQ
}}
template can be used to give common responses, and make it easier to keep track of the task's current status. If you complete a request, note that you did with
{{
BOTREQ
|done}}
, and archive the request after a few days (
WP:1CA
is useful here).
Please add your bot requests to the bottom of this page.
Make a new request
Bot request
Status
🙋 Last editor
(UTC)
🤖 Last botop editor
(UTC)
Citation source replacement with {{Cite Köppen-Geiger cc 2007}}
RedWolf
2026-03-07
19:33
Usernamekiran
2025-11-21
13:40
Redirects related to those nominated at RfD
BRFA
filed
17
Thryduulf
2026-02-24
15:51
Vanderwaalforces
2026-02-09
12:58
Move links clean up request
Not
done
HurricaneZeta
2026-02-01
20:20
Anomie
2026-01-19
00:01
Unnecessary disambiguations
25
Primefac
2026-03-19
18:42
Primefac
2026-03-19
18:42
Automatically add Template:AI-retrieved source
Wikiwerner
2026-03-19
11:36
Infobox links to football statistics
Not
done
24
BasicWriting
2026-03-16
17:30
Vanderwaalforces
2026-03-16
14:00
UTM Bot Request
22
SeaDragon1
2026-03-15
02:30
Phuzion
2026-03-14
00:36
Useless non-free no reduce tags
27JJ
2026-04-01
20:32
Anomie
2026-02-21
19:55
archive.today cleanup
Template adjusted.
51
12
WhatamIdoing
2026-02-26
03:28
Sammi Brie
2026-02-24
04:55
10
Reference spam detector
Coding...
Usernamekiran
2026-03-24
08:17
Usernamekiran
2026-03-24
08:17
11
Fix disambiguate links after page move
Done
8rz
2026-02-27
00:09
Phuzion
2026-02-26
14:19
12
Bloxx website creation Bot
Impossible
HurricaneZeta
2026-03-24
01:31
13
Fill "Men's association football players not categorized by position"
BRFA
filed
Tenshi Hinanawi
2026-04-06
18:50
Tenshi Hinanawi
2026-04-06
18:50
14
Bot request: Automated citation metadata verification against external APIs
GreenC
2026-04-12
20:53
Vanderwaalforces
2026-04-03
09:10
15
Change all instances of Hathi Trust to HathiTrust
10
Naraht
2026-04-21
04:20
Primefac
2026-04-17
20:39
16
Arbitration enforcement editnotices
Staraction
2026-04-18
18:08
Bunnypranav
2026-04-14
15:52
17
Automatically notify people who are being discussed at ANI
Dw31415
2026-04-15
19:57
Headbomb
2026-04-15
15:15
18
Remove background color from List of wars involving the Kingdom of France
Dw31415
2026-04-16
11:10
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.
Bot-related archives
Noticeboard
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Bots (talk)
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Newer discussions at
WP:BOTN
since April 2021
Bot policy (talk)
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Pre-2007 archived under
Bots (talk)
Bot requests
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
Bot requests (talk)
Newer discussions at
WP:BOTN
since April 2021
BRFA
Old format:
New format:
Categorized Archive
(All subpages)
BRFA (talk)
10
11
12
13
14
15
Newer discussions at
WP:BOTN
since April 2021
Bot Approvals Group (talk)
BAG Nominations
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 {{Cite Köppen-Geiger cc 2007}}. 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. . 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
Using this template causes a no target error (see
Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors
)) when used in conjunction with short form references.
Lake Nipisso
as an example
[1]
. This could be avoided by whitelisting the template (which can be requested at
Module talk:Footnotes
), but that won't work as long as you're using #invoke for the cite (which short form refs just don't support). --
LCU
ctively
isinterested
» °
∆t
20:26, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
reply
Tried to fix Lake Nipisso by setting ref={{harvid}} but then get a refs duplicate error. Can't change the #invoke because that's the established practice. Why can't the short refs limitation be fixed?
RedWolf
talk
19:33, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
reply
Redirects related to those nominated at RfD
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
Gal
Star
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
Thryduulf
Is there a current discussion that falls into this category that I can test on?
Vanderwaalforces
talk
17:31, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
reply
I don't know of any off the top of my head. I can't think of an easy way to find any other than by doing what this requests asks a bot to do (i.e. look through all nominated redirects and check for similar ones).
Thryduulf
talk
19:46, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
reply
Thryduulf
You’re right, I just put some logics together and tried it; I couldn’t find any too. Maybe there currently isn’t any, but I have coded this task btw, maybe I should file a BRFA?
Vanderwaalforces
talk
19:59, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
reply
Thryduulf
Take a look at my test
at testwiki
. I intentionally created a redirect drama. What do you think?
Vanderwaalforces
talk
09:42, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
reply
BRFA
filed
Vanderwaalforces
talk
12:58, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
reply
I'm not going to get a chance to look until this evening, sorry.
Thryduulf
talk
13:36, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
reply
The BRFA has been withdrawn by the operator (
Vanderwaalforces
) if any other operator wants to take on the task.
Thryduulf
talk
15:51, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
reply
Move links clean up request
edit
I think that cleanup bots should replace link's that havent been edited once the target page is moved to somewhere else
shane
(talk to me if you want!)
23:30, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
reply
Probably a bad idea for a bot task. See
WP:NOTBROKEN
Anomie
00:01, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
reply
Not
done
for the template at the top so this will archive.
(do you need to be a botop to mark it?)
Hurricane
Zeta
20:20, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
reply
Unnecessary disambiguations
edit
Is there a way a bot could find instances of unnecessary disambiguations? Specifically, instances of articles named "Title (parenthetical)" where there isn't currently an article at just "Title". (In other words, something like
Floofy (band)
existing where
Floofy
is still a redlink.)
I ask this because sometimes I see people stick (film) or (band) at the end of article names unnescessarily, or sometimes the non-parenthetical gets deleted via AFD or PROD and the parenthetical version is never moved to reclaim the title.
Ten Pound Hammer
What did I screw up now?
17:15, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
reply
I’ve also seen several instances of this during NPP, I will try coming up with something.
Vanderwaalforces
talk
17:42, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
reply
I did a quick database query and found a total of 37,887 of these, which is far too large to make any kind of useful report.
* Pppery *
it has begun...
17:50, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
reply
Can these be moved by a bot? If better information is needed before a bot run, then maybe sort by disambiguation and move the ones we know for sure can be moved (pages with
(film)
(country film)
, etc.).
Gonnym
talk
18:06, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
reply
Yeah, that might narrow it down. Start with ones that are "Name (film)" in cases where "Name" doesn't exist, then maybe the same with (band), as those are the two I see most often.
Ten Pound Hammer
What did I screw up now?
18:20, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
reply
All 37,000 can't be moved by a bot because sometimes the actual name of a proper noun includes parentheses, like
Barugh (Great and Little)
(okay,
Barugh
technically exists, but I'm not convinced there aren't any like that where the base name is red). Specific parenthetical disambiguators can probably be botted; see
Wikipedia:Database reports/Specific unnecessary disambiguations
* Pppery *
it has begun...
18:27, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
reply
SD0001
, I'll be honest I've not done much in the way of database reports, could we get this unnecessary dab report refreshed?
Primefac
talk
15:50, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
reply
The bot isn't updating because there's no
|interval=
param. I've added it now for 30 days - feel free to adjust if more frequent updates are desired. It's also possible to just hit "Update the table now" for an on-demand update. –
SD0001
talk
16:07, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
reply
Thanks! Didn't even think to look at the page code for that sort of thing.
Primefac
talk
16:18, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
reply
TenPoundHammer
, from my work on
Wikipedia:Missing redirects project
I obtained
User:Qwerfjkl/sandbox/55
, which
BD2412
organized.
Qwerfjkl
talk
20:57, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
reply
Well, this is quite it then.
Vanderwaalforces
talk
21:01, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
reply
Qwerfjkl
I have been meaning to ask your permission to subdivide that page, as it is of rather unwieldy length. Cheers!
BD2412
21:49, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
reply
BD2412
, by all means.
Qwerfjkl
talk
22:28, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
reply
Qwerfjkl
sweet, that's a big help
Ten Pound Hammer
What did I screw up now?
00:46, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
reply
So could all discrete subsets be moved by bot, provided that the page without "(parenthetical)" still does not exist or redirects to the disambiguated title?
Wikiwerner
talk
17:40, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
reply
Wikiwerner
, these need to be handled on a case-by-case basis in general.
Qwerfjkl
talk
10:53, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
reply
Why? I think it wold be a reasonable bot request to take a specific disambiguator and move all pages with that disambiguator where the base name either has never existed or is a single-revision redirect to the disambiguated page and move them to the base name.
* Pppery *
it has begun...
13:30, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
reply
In fact, I was originally going to code this task, but seeing the discussion so far, I paused because I am not sure we want to, even though I think we should too.
Vanderwaalforces
talk
13:57, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
reply
If someone wants to modify
User:Plastikspork/massmove.js
to strip out suffixes, any admin would be able to batch-remove disambiguators such as
(film)
. It should theoretically just require shifting your lookup value from the front to the back of the string, but I'm pulled in a few too many directions at the moment so I'm not sure if I'm able to do this myself.
Primefac
talk
15:15, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
reply
It really was that easy;
User:Primefac/massmove2.js
allows for stripping of suffixes.
Primefac
talk
15:44, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
reply
Thank you, duh!
Vanderwaalforces
talk
18:38, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
reply
There are only a few hundred (film) and (band) articles in the dbase report, and we can add other values to the report based on the discussion below. I figure to minimise disruption maybe do batches of forty or fifty at a time spread out over a couple of days.
Primefac
talk
10:23, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
reply
I do have concerns that we may end up automating "primary topic" status to a bunch of titles that do not merit that over the title redirecting elsewhere.
BD2412
14:39, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
reply
I was only planning on moving pages that have a redlinked base name.
Primefac
talk
18:42, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
reply
Pppery
, what are some examples of disambiguators that you think could be safely stripped?
Qwerfjkl
talk
17:03, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
reply
Automatically add Template:AI-retrieved source
edit
Since we have
Template:AI-retrieved source
, it would be nice if a bot could add this template to refs based on whether they have the utm_source parameter set to a LLM value. (See
User:Headbomb/unreliable
for a list of these utm_source values).
Sources that were manually verified by someone can simply be marked as "good" by removing the utm_source parameter.
Laura240406
talk
21:56, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
reply
I would be interested in developing this (n.b. I see that
{{
AI-retrieved source
}}
suggests either adding a
|checked=
parameter or commenting out the template rather than modifying the source URL). —
chrs
||
talk
02:46, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
reply
We could also change the citation templats, so that if the URL parameter contains e.g. "UTM_source=chatgpt.com", then
{{
AI-retrieved source
}}
is added at the end of the citation.
Wikiwerner
talk
11:36, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
reply
Infobox links to football statistics
edit
For those players that appear in lists such as
List of men's footballers with 1,000 or more official appearances
List of men's footballers with 100 or more international caps
List of women's footballers with 100 or more international caps
List of footballers with 500 or more goals
or
List of women footballers with 300 or more goals
, create a link that would lead to that respective page (or its list subsection) directly from the relevant number in the infobox, as is already the case in the
Cristiano Ronaldo
article when it comes to the international caps statistic, for example.
For lists such as
List of men's footballers with 50 or more international goals
List of women's footballers with 100 or more international goals
List of footballers with 500 or more goals
or
List of women footballers with 300 or more goals
, the same may be done, with the caveat that many of their statistics already link to player-specific lists (like in the case of the
Barbra Banda
article, for example), which is of course preferable and should not be changed.
I have not managed to find examples of such lists in other sports, otherwise they could be included as well.
Thank you a lot for consideration!
BasicWriting
talk
01:18, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
reply
BasicWriting
To be honest, your request isn't clear, at least to me. Mind explaining better?
Vanderwaalforces
talk
14:50, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
reply
I'm not sure how better to explain this.
This
is a further example of an infobox that does have a link and
this
of one that doesn't. You may also see some of my mechanical contributions to this end, like the last one
here
, before I realized the task was too broad. Thanks a lot!
BasicWriting
talk
15:37, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
reply
BasicWriting
So, I took my time to look at this, and I think it is more technical that it seems; we do not have a clear
if–then
logic yet. I wanted to ask "Which infobox fields are in scope?" but then I realised that the field is not consistent. For example,
Ivan Perišić
, the International caps field that needs to be linked is
| nationalcaps4 =
, but in another article, like
Barbra Banda
, the field was
| nationalcaps2 =
, and for
Robert Lewandowski
, it is
| nationalcaps3 =
; in all, that is pretty inconsistent if you ask me. It is not a problem that it is inconsistent, it is only inconsistent for a bot to actually efficiently and correctly work with. Although, I can see that the equivalent
| nationalteam# =
for these articles is usually only mentioning the "country", which is something we could use to streamline.
Can you provide a fixed whitelist of list pages the bot may link to? Must the player be explicitly present on the list page?, Is linking to the list page sufficient, or must it be player-anchored?
The request is conceptually valid, but currently underspecified.
Vanderwaalforces
talk
16:09, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
reply
Thank you for looking into this! The way this particular issue could be streamlined is that, if we take the article about international caps as an example, the international caps that ought, according to my proposal, to link to that respective list, are by definition all the international caps above 100. So the bot could be considering the number itself and linking any number of 100 and above to said list. If only the player articles that the list links to are considered, then those players will very likely be those explicitly present on the list page (and same for other lists), so the whitelist could simply be all the articles being linked to by the nine lists I have listed. However, the important caveat is that, again, some of those statistics do already have links to player-specific lists, like in my
List of international goals scored by Barbra Banda
case, so I'd envision the bot as checking for those instances too and not changing them. As for anchoring, so far, those infobox links that are present are not anchored so far, but perhaps they could be to make it easier for the viewers.
The only issue with this strategy would be those players, who have completed the milestone playing for several teams. But this seems to not be an issue with, say, those players who competed for both West Germany and later Germany (like
Lothar Matthäus
), as their infobox statistics is taken together, and it is probably the case in other instances too (such as, the goals in the infobox are listed separately for various teams, but the infobox does provide a total sum).
These are my thoughts, but obviously I am not as gifted in coding as to foresee all possible issues with taking this route.
BasicWriting
talk
19:06, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
reply
BasicWriting
I am still exploring other ways to correctly identify which
| nationalteam# =
we can correctly look at. Is it true that most of these Country names are almost always linked to “COUNTRY national football team”?
Vanderwaalforces
talk
19:50, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
reply
I would think so (in case of the international lists, anyway).
BasicWriting
talk
22:33, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
reply
BasicWriting
For
this list
and
this one too
, take anybody listed there as an example, what value in the infobox should be linked to these lists? Please do the same for the last 4 lists you mentioned.
Vanderwaalforces
talk
22:54, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
reply
Of the lists you've mentioned: for the first one,
| totalcaps =
, for the latter,
| totalgoals =
, at least that is my base understanding. In the latter case, the link would look better if it were not taking the parentheses the goals are shown in, but I think that does indeed happen automatically already. Not every player does have the sum listed in the infobox, but that should not be not an issue, I imagine. (Or we might write a different bot that first sums the infobox statistics, but that is a different task altogether.)
For the list you've mentioned earlier, it would indeed show a country name after
| nationalteam# =
, but some of those might be names of non-existing countries. It might be practical to make it navigate to the largest number among the national teams.
In case of women footballers, much of the same holds with the further caveat that their infobox statistics seem to be oftentimes lacking, so the bot won't link many instances.
In any case, I would, as a precaution, make the bot first look at the number it is linking, and check whether it is truly equal or greater than 1000, 500, 300, 100 etc. in those respective situations. And, again, not apply any of the above in the case there already is a link present in the infobox field, which is going to be the case mostly with
| nationalgoals# =
In some ways, I have changed my mind and I don't think it would be a good idea to work on the club statistics at all and just keep our focus on the international statistics. The reason for that is that the club statistics do indeed follow various methodologies and the numbers seem way more inconsistent within the lists and the infoboxes. Possibly, they could know more about that in
the respective portal
Secondly, and I am even less certain of it, given that some of the international goals fields in the infobox already link to player-specific lists, providing a link in the cases they don't to the general list could possibly border with
WP:EASTEREGG
, among some interpretations of that rule.
The cases where, I think, we should definitely go forward without any qualms are thus
List of men's footballers with 100 or more international caps
and
List of women's footballers with 100 or more international caps
, even though those might be the hardest to program.
Thank you a lot for your help!
BasicWriting
talk
11:12, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
reply
BasicWriting
As a matter of fact, those are the only two lists I think we can correctly work on with a bot. Because I looked at
List of men's footballers with 1,000 or more official appearances
and found
Tommy Hutchison
, for example, in the list table, it says "1,178+", but in his article we only have "983". The other lists cannot work because they will very much require human editorial judgment which would not be appropriate for a bot. Same thing applies to the 300-500 or more goals lists.
I think we can also work on/with the XX or more international goals since they usually accompany the international caps lists. But just to be clear, did you say you do not want the international goals to be linked if the international caps is linked?
Vanderwaalforces
talk
12:38, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
reply
No, that's not what I said. What I was saying in the original request was that the international goals themselves already link to player-specific lists, and changing those should be avoided (so the bot should just for numbers above a certain threshold and ones that are not part of a link already.
BasicWriting
talk
13:32, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
reply
Ah, got it! I also want to say that, the figures in some of the articles are different from the ones in the list. Take
Eseosa Aigbogun
for example and the
List of women's footballers with 100 or more international caps
Vanderwaalforces
talk
13:59, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
reply
It does seem that her particular case might be one of a missing update. But this is again why I said the bot ought to first check the actual number in the infobox. If it is above 100 (in the case of the two lists we ought to go through with), and it is a player whose article is being linked by the list, there is a high probability they did appear more than a hundred times and thus the number ought to be linked through. The men's list does mention some of the cases where the number differs and this is due to whether a country's national football team is a member of FIFA or not and different approaches in counting the appearances against them. Something like that might be the case here as well. So, to conclude, in cases like hers, the bot should not link the article to the list.
BasicWriting
talk
15:13, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
reply
Coding...
Vanderwaalforces
talk
16:02, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
reply
BasicWriting
Check these diffs, it worked like magic;
Special:Diff/1336581922
Special:Diff/1336581949
Special:Diff/1336581978
Vanderwaalforces
talk
16:28, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
reply
These are truly epic! Thank you for your work!
The handballers might indeed be a similar case, but if we take a look at
List of female handballers with 1000 or more international goals
, I do notice some eventualities, given for example how
Jasna Kolar-Merdan
played for multiple national teams and her infobox doesn't provide a sum for the appearances. But that is fine if we forgo the cases where the sum is not shown. The male list, which, by the way, has to be moved to "List of
men's
handballers with 1000 or more international goals" (which will go on to request myself), seems to have some fringe cases too, like that of
Frank-Michael Wahl
or
Talant Dujshebaev
, where the sums are missing (but these instances are few and far between and may be addressed manually).
BasicWriting
talk
22:15, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
reply
If this is okay, then I can go ahead and file a BRFA for this task.
Vanderwaalforces
talk
16:29, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
reply
I also observed that
List of handballers with 1000 or more international goals
might just be in the same situation.
Vanderwaalforces
talk
21:37, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
reply
BRFA
filed
Vanderwaalforces
talk
02:35, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
reply
BasicWriting
I will not be working with the handballers (men's and women's), I think those are small number of entries altogether and can be manually worked on.
Vanderwaalforces
talk
08:08, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
reply
Dear
Vanderwaalforces
, I have finished working on the handballers, and it led me to another (perhaps less complicated) suggestion: we could also try to link all players in these lists to them by the virtue of the "See also" section, where we would list the corresponding lists they're in (again, excluding those links already present). This way we could capture even the lists that are for various reasons we've talked about above not applicable for the infoboxes.
BasicWriting
talk
11:37, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
reply
BasicWriting
That makes sense. I have added that functionality now.
Vanderwaalforces
talk
08:33, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
reply
Alas, this was
Not
done
Vanderwaalforces
talk
14:00, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
reply
Indeed it wasn't! The consensus on the project page was not there. I do still think it was a good idea on the whole.
The 'See also' section part would definitely not have suffered from
WP:EASTEREGG
, and could have covered all nine lists that I've originally mentioned. If you think that part is still worth it, you could file a slimmed-down version of our previous request!
BasicWriting
talk
17:30, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
reply
UTM Bot Request
edit
Hi! I have a bot idea, and since I don't have the knowledge of how to code it, I'll share my idea:
links = document.getElementsByTagName("a");
for (var link of links) {
var href = link.getAttribute("href");
if (!href) continue;
if (href[0] == "#") href = location.href + href;
else if (href[0] == "/") href = location.protocol + "//" + location.pathname;
var source = new URL(href).searchParams.get("utm_source");
if (source !== null) {
// Add page to Category "Pages with utm_source={source}"
Iterate through all namespaces, then through all pages in that namespace. Please share any questions with me. Thanks!
SeaDragon1
talk
) — Happy
new year
14:01, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
reply
SeaDragon1
Does that category exist? What problem are we solving with this?
Vanderwaalforces
talk
12:55, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
reply
It makes sorting easier.
SeaDragon1
talk
) — Happy
new year
14:20, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
reply
Besides, I'm pretty sure there are a lot of non-existent categories that pages still put themselves in.
SeaDragon1
talk
) — Happy
new year
14:24, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
reply
I'm not entirely sure what you're sorting. I have a bot task that
removes
utm_source tags from URLs, is that what you're wanting?
Primefac
talk
20:15, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
reply
Well, I mean we can know WHICH pages have WHICH
utm_source
tags, so we don't have to scour every single page.
SeaDragon1
talk
20:17, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
reply
Hello?
SeaDragon1
talk
contribs
happy birthday!
) 17:24, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
HELLO?
SeaDragon1
talk
contributions
16:09, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
reply
Primefac
SeaDragon1
talk
contributions
16:09, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
reply
I personally don’t understand this request tbh, it’s not well put together at least to me.
Vanderwaalforces
talk
17:44, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
reply
What I mean is:
We can organize pages based on what UTM source the links in the article have.
For example, this would be in
Category:Pages with utm_source=chatgpt.com
[https://example.com/page?utm_source=chatgpt.com]
SeaDragon1
talk
contributions
18:43, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
reply
Primefac
, is there any worry of it removing a useful flag of an AI-generated reference?
Qwerfjkl
talk
19:57, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
reply
I'm not particularly concerned about the content of the utm values, I suspect a large number have been removed but utm tracking doesn't necessarily mean the site itself is AI-generated.
Primefac
talk
23:11, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
reply
Primefac
, no, but it could suggest that the source may not verify the text.
Qwerfjkl
talk
10:50, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
reply
Do we have a consensus, or..?
SeaDragon1
talk
contributions
14:33, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
reply
HELLO?
SeaDragon1
talk
contributions
20:13, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
reply
Primefac
Qwerfjkl
SeaDragon1
talk
contributions
20:13, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
reply
SeaDragon1
, I don't think your task, as you described it, is going to get consensus.
Qwerfjkl
talk
21:08, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
reply
I meant, like... is it going to be
WP:BRFA
filed or not? That's the sort of consensus I'm talking about (let me guess, it's not going to be filed).
SeaDragon1
talk
contributions
22:41, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
reply
SeaDragon1
As a bot operator, I'm having trouble understanding exactly what your request is, and its purpose. I've seen no proof of consensus that this is something that the English Wikipedia editor community
wants
. For a bot operator to spend the time to write the bot code, test it, ensure that it is compliant with
WP:BOTPOL
and file a
WP:BRFA
, they would need to see evidence that the requested bot is something that the community wants. If there is consensus for this being something that is desired, please link it in this discussion. If no such consensus exists,
the BRFA will fail
regardless of how good of a bot there is.
Additionally, we are all
volunteers
, and most importantly,
there is no deadline
. Please keep that in mind when
requesting
that the bot operator community write a bot and file a BRFA for you.
phuzion
talk
00:36, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
reply
┌───────────────────────────┘
SeaDragon1
, it will be filed if someone decides to file it, but I doubt that will happen.
Qwerfjkl
talk
13:26, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
reply
Oh, okay. Sorry.
SeaDragon1
talk
contributions
02:30, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
reply
Useless non-free no reduce tags
edit
{{
Non-free no reduce
}}
is intended to keep a bot (I think it is
DatBot
talk
contribs
)) from downsizing large non-free images to no more than 100k square pixels. Therefore, it is redundant and pointless if an image with size ≤100k has this tag. I recently found an image
File:Gangbusters title.png
that had this tag with a size of 418×239 px (99902 px
). –
Laundry
Pizza
03
c̄
21:16, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
reply
This page is for bot requests. Are you requesting a bot?
SeaDragon1
talk
contributions
16:11, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
reply
Yes, because this is an issue that is trivial to handle and likely to recur in the future. –
Laundry
Pizza
03
c̄
04:40, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
reply
So from a bot perspective, how often (generally speaking) does this sort of thing happen?
Primefac
talk
12:56, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
reply
Looks like there are currently 204 such images, 41 with the latest file revision in 2025 and one so far in 2026. There are also four audio files with the tag:
File:J Dilla - Don't Cry.ogg
File:J Dilla - Time, The Donut of the Heart.ogg
File:Jane Remover - Dreamflasher.ogg
, and
File:Kanye West - Blood on the Leaves.ogg
I note 57 of the 204 are in
Category:Sports uniforms
, 54 of them last uploaded in 2024. Many appear to be templated images showing two variations of a uniform, in contrast to others (over 100000px
) that have three variations (e.g.
File:ECM-Uniform-PHI.png
vs
File:ECA-Uniform-DET.png
), which makes me suspect they started tagging all new template images with
{{
Non-free no reduce
}}
Anomie
19:55, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
reply
27JJ
This is you who uploaded the latest version of sports uniforms. –
Laundry
Pizza
03
c̄
19:57, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
I’ve been applying the tag consistently across template-based uploads to prevent unintended resizing. This was inherited from other contributors. Since it’s unnecessary for images under 100k px, I’ll adjust moving forwards. Feel free to clean up existing files where needed.
27JJ
talk
20:32, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
archive.today cleanup
edit
Cross-posting
Wikipedia:Link rot/URL change requests § Migration away from archive.today
, but as a non-standard URL replacement I think this would be more appropriate for a new bot task.
After
an RFC
, links to
archive.today
have been deprecated and should be removed as expeditiously as possible. The current instructions are at
WP:ATODAY
. It would be amazing if a bot could loop through all links to dot-today and:
Get the page being archived (chopping off the
prefix from archive URLs, like https://archive.today/20120710094053/http://freespace.virgin.net/howard.anderson/loospreparations.htm)
If the URL is available at
archive.org
, replace the dot-today link with a dot-org link. Dot-org has
an API
for fetching already-archived URLs, and it also returns the appropriate date for the
|archive-date=
(from
{{
cite xxx
}}
) or
|date=
(from
{{
webarchive
}}
)) parameters.
If the page is not archived at archive.org:
If the original URL is still live, try to archive it at archive.org (after a
lot
of digging, I found the
API instructions
for saving a page). If archiving works, replace the dot-today link with dot-org; otherwise, remove the
WP:EARLYARCHIVE
If the original URL is dead, tag the link with
{{
New archival link needed
|date={{subst:monthyear}}|bot=insert your bot's name here}}
Thanks a million, in advance. Best,
House
Blaster
talk
• he/they)
21:50, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
reply
This is not an appropriate task for a bot.
sapphaline
talk
22:08, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
reply
I disagree; if we manage to run things like IAbot and WaybackMedic, which have to deal with the same hurdles, we can find a way to make it work. Best,
House
Blaster
talk
• he/they)
22:11, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
reply
IABot and WaybackMedic archive live URLs; of course doing so is 1000 times easier than trying to archive dead URLs.
sapphaline
talk
22:14, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
reply
They... do in fact archive dead URLs? Unless you select
Add archives to all non-dead references (Optional)
, IABot only adds archives to dead URLs.
WaybackMedic task 3 and 4
do likewise. Best,
House
Blaster
talk
• he/they)
22:23, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
reply
You have to verify that the content relevant to the citation is actually available at the live url and/or archive.org. This is not always true, and it is not possible to reliably do this by bot. A few days ago I found an instance where the URL was dead and the archive link was of a 404 page, fortunately an older archive snapshot actually had the content saved but this required my abilities as a human to determine.
Thryduulf
talk
22:51, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
reply
It should be possible to automatically extract and compare content, and replace the archive.today link with the alternative link if the match percentage is very high, but this would certainly be more resource-intensive than a search-and-replace bot. Bit of brainstorming here:
Wikipedia talk:Archive.today guidance#Bot for checking for identical text
Dreamyshade
talk
23:26, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
reply
To build off of this,
Wikipedia talk:Archive.today guidance#Most common links
suggests that there are 600+ instances that can be fixed by a bot swapping from archive.today to the Internet Archive along with 1,000+ instances where a page changed urls and could be updated by changing the link with a bot. --
Super Goku V
talk
10:24, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
reply
I think a bot is premature.
I'm feverishly trying to edit pages from my watchlist (that contain archive.today) in the hopes I can get them all done before "some bot" comes along and yanks them out from under me. I'm occasionally using the archived archive.today link (on a browser with uBlock Origin) to see the page. Sometimes it's worthless (like a 404 page copied) and I can just remove it from the Wikipedia article, but other times I've been able to use other URLs and title wording found on that archive.today page that have led to me successfully finding (a) actual live pages with newer URLs, and (b) archive.org pages which weren't available to me with only the information found in the Wikipedia article. To resolve about 10% (estim.) of the archive.today links, I've needed to view the archive.today copy.
▶ I am Grorp ◀
23:14, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
reply
This proposed bot would not entirely remove any links. It would replace links to dot-org ones, and tag ones that can't be replaced. Best,
House
Blaster
talk
• he/they)
23:29, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
reply
Okay. That's acceptable.
▶ I am Grorp ◀
23:55, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
reply
A couple big points:
We need a bot
- the task is too large to do manually, and the RfC close is unambiguous that these links need to go.
The bot is technically difficult
- We have plenty of comments from people who know what they're talking about indicating that the full task is not possible to automate without many errors. I definitely think we want a bot that gets used in a staged approach. As a first step, peeling the archive off of links we believe are alive leaving the live link solves a large fraction of the problem. After that we can start working on the rest website by website to figure out if other archive sites are consistently good, consistently impossible, or messy, and handle the first 2 automatically while leaving the third group for a manual cleanup.
Tazerdadog
talk
00:09, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
reply
Remember that while removing archives from a live link may solve today's hot-button issue it is simultaneously creating a different problem for the future if the link is not archived somewhere else.
Thryduulf
talk
01:18, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
reply
Yeah, a run from IAbot over the affected articles after it stops linking to archive.today would probably be in order. That said, the archive.today issue is absolutely the urgent one.
Tazerdadog
talk
01:56, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
reply
I strongly disagree that we should wilfully create future problems without regard for how to solve them. The urgency of replacing archive.today is entirely artificial.
Thryduulf
talk
02:01, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
reply
There is consensus that it should be removed as quickly as possible because it is an unreliable source containing malware. That sounds pretty urgent to me. Best,
House
Blaster
talk
• he/they)
02:21, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
reply
No, there was consensus to remove links "as soon as practicable" due to alleged verifiability issues. Even if there was consensus that the code was malware and/or that it required action (and there was no consensus on that matter alone) the "urgency" is
entirely
chosen by some of the participants in the RFC. A "solution" that creates new problems without regard to solving them is not a practicable one.
Thryduulf
talk
03:03, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
reply
There is a strong consensus that Wikipedia should not direct its readers towards a website that hijacks users' computers to run a DDoS attack
, and then linking to our guideline about malware, sounds like there is consensus that the link is malware. I haven't heard a single argument (other than proof by assertion) to rebut the arguments based on the literal definition of malware. To reiterate, we define
malware
as
any software intentionally designed to cause disruption to a computer, server, client, or computer network
. It is software (obviously), it causes disruption to a computer network (that's what a
DDOS
is), and it was intentional. It is malware.
Many edits might create future problems. But we are worried about the present. I don't see why a solution which
might
cause isolated problems at some indeterminate point in the future is not practicable. Best,
House
Blaster
talk
• he/they)
03:12, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
reply
Regardless of the technicalities of whether archive.today's code is or isn't malware, simply removing links is more than "might" cause "isolated problems" it's
will
cause problems of unknown magnitude, potentially tomorrow.
WP:V
is a core, non-negotiable policy that we absolutely
must
have regard for because there is a big difference between accidentally creating problems on a small scale through good-faith ignorance and wilfully and recklessly causing known problems on an unknown scale through haste.
Thryduulf
talk
03:23, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
reply
Correct, and that's why removing links to an unreliable source is urgent.
House
Blaster
talk
• he/they)
03:26, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
reply
Except removing the links without replacement
isn't
urgent for any reason other than the desire of a few self-selecting Wikipedians, and it isn't beneficial or desirable for any reason at all. Further, if you believe that any of the problems being discussed here is links to an unreliable source then you have grossly missunderstood the issues. The issue at hand is ensuring that
WP:V
will be continued to be met in the future, long after the present moral panic has blown over and cooler heads once again prevail. This is an issue that we have no choice but to address ideally before but certainly no later than the time we address the removal of the existing archive.
Thryduulf
talk
03:42, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
reply
Houseblaster responded to my same concerns above:
This proposed bot would not entirely remove any links. It would replace links to dot-org ones, and tag ones that can't be replaced.
▶ I am Grorp ◀
03:44, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
reply
That's good, but it isn't part of this proposal by Tazerdog,
As a first step, peeling the archive off of links we believe are alive leaving the live link solves a large fraction of the problem.
Thryduulf
talk
05:19, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
reply
Thryduulf
Having material sourced to a website that we know (you get to interact with the evidence of alterered screenshots - specifically compare
[2]
with with archive.today website, if you'd need to) is a
WP:V
issue. We need to ensure
WP:V
is met - but just because I can verify the claim to a screenshot of a newspaper somebody put on reddit, alongside a "trust me bro, this is legit" doesn't mean I it's guaranteed protection under the verification policy. In fact, it isn't - if the claim is related to living people, and I believe it to be contentious, then it's 100% not guaranteed and policy dictates that we remove or better source the material without delay. Now, whether a bot it is the best way to do that, I'll leave to people who actually have experience with dealing with bots on Wikipedia. But to say something to the effect of "we have to keep a website we know has forged material around because they're the only way I can verify these sensitive BLP claims (one of the few things for which we actually require an inline citation)" is, quite frankly, ludicrous.
GreenLipstickLesbian
05:01, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
reply
Almost none of that is related to the actual reality of the situation, as opposed to unsubstantiated and unverified claims about what the archive.today might be doing. When all the hyperbole and exaggeration is put to one side, it is equally important that we ensure
WP:V
is met tomorrow as well as today as it is to remove archive.today links that there is a tiny possibility
might
not be accurate (and in none of the cases has anyone demonstrated any changes that are relevant to any material verified, I don't even recall any allegations of such but there are so many accusations in so many parallel discussions I may have missed some). Your final sentence also makes it clear you haven't actually read and/or understood much of what I'm saying.
Thryduulf
talk
05:17, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
reply
Thryduulf
, if you looked through the list at
WP:NOTGOODSOURCE
, and compared it to what we know about this collection of archives, do you think you'd be left feeling like it's a reliable archive?
"It has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" – Um, nope. In fact, the owner appears to be going out of their way to ruin their reputation.
"It is published by a reputable publishing house" – Heading determinedly into the "disreputable" territory, wouldn't you say?
"It has a professional structure in place for deciding whether to publish something, such as editorial oversight or peer review processes" – Professionalism is a good word to describe what's missing here.
Remember Lugnuts' parting claim that he'd deliberately falsified information in some articles, and how that has haunted some editors for years, even though there's no evidence that Lugnuts ever did that to any article? This situation is worse than that. We have proof that this website is doing that, and the risk is enough to turn most editors against it. We don't meet WP:V's requirements by having an
unreliable
archived copy of a now-dead website.
Also, have you noticed the pattern? We say "at least they're not doing X" on one day, and the next day, they do X. We say, "well, they might be doing X, but at least they're not doing Y", and the next day, they do Y. So please think about
WP:BEANS
before you post any more comments about how they haven't transgressed some further bright line yet. It's already bad enough.
WhatamIdoing
talk
05:44, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
reply
WAID has, as expected, said this far more eloquently than I could. One additional point, though, @
Thryduulf
-- I've stuck to what archive.today has done and threatened to do, and taken those threats seriously. I have made more speculative posts, but over all, not that many.. But I could, if you'd like? For example, let's take the statement we got from the WMF:
We know that WMF intervention is a big deal, but we also have not ruled it out, given the seriousness of the security concern for people who click the links that appear across many wikis.
[3]
Hopefully now we, as a
few self-selecting Wikipedians
, have taken steps to limit the spread of links, the WMF won't need to take further action. But they might. Forcibly removing all links is something they 100% have the right - some may argue an obligation - to do. I'd rather that we, as a community, deal with the links first, making efforts to switch the links to alternative archives or alternative sources when possible. On our own terms. Because the WMF has made it clear that they haven't ruled out acting, and I think we'll do a better job.
GreenLipstickLesbian
06:48, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
reply
I agree with your interpretation of the WMF's statement. However, it's not the only way this decision could be taken out of our hands. Global blacklisting was proposed today at
m:Requests for comment/Deprecate archive.today
WhatamIdoing
talk
06:59, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
reply
Stupid question - I know the enWiki blacklist and (and the edit filter, in this particular care) ideally doesn't prevent us from editing pages with the blacklisted link, only from adding the link. (Which I've gotten around when requesting cv-revdels by spelling out the "www.example.com" as "www dot example dot com" I think that gets a bit messed up when it comes to reverts. Does anybody know if the global blacklist works similarly, or is the only difference the fact that it impacts all Wikipedia projects? Does it impact all Wikipedia projects, actually? I'm assuming it blocks all namespaces - I think our filter has exceptions for archive .is /today links for project-space areas (which incidentally facilitates cleanup). Have I made a stupid mistake in that assumption?
GreenLipstickLesbian
08:05, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
reply
Special:AbuseFilter
allows per-namespace options.
MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist
unfortunately does not. I believe the only thing that's different about the global blacklist is that ours only affects us, and the global one affects all the wikis.
WhatamIdoing
talk
08:19, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
reply
I am currently workshopping a related proposal at
the village pump idea lab
. tl;dr: the tasks of GreenC_bot/WaybackMedic and IABot can probably do some work on the second part, but it's somewhere between unlikely and unclear whether full automation is technically feasible and desirable. Adding the new cleanup tag specific to this problem (its name may be changed to
Template:Deprecated archive
per the VPI discussion) and removing problematic links should be the bare minimum and both of those tasks can be automated.
md
m.b
la
01:13, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
reply
Also @
HouseBlaster
: Currently the tag does not have a
|bot=
parameter. Can that just be added into the template?
md
m.b
la
01:15, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
reply
It can. It (probably) wouldn't change the output; it would just alert editors viewing the page source code that the tag was placed by a bot. Best,
House
Blaster
talk
• he/they)
01:17, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
reply
Template adjusted.
new archival link needed
now displays properly with the bot parameter.
md
m.b
la
01:34, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
reply
I think you misunderstood the way it normally works: usually, the bot parameter has zero effect on the template. It just exists, and doesn't trip the unknown parameter check. Best,
House
Blaster
talk
• he/they)
02:31, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
reply
HouseBlaster
: Thanks for the adjustments; I'm not a prolific template creator and overthought that whole thing wayyyyyy too much.
md
m.b
la
05:17, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
reply
Three domain names that we can remove
edit
As
Dreamyshade
mentioned
, about ~12K of these links go to three websites:
nytimes.com
newspapers.com
washingtonpost.com
These two newspapers maintain their own archives (and so do major public libraries). The middle one is an archive itself. I suggest that unwanted archive links to all three of these could simply be removed by bot. It's only ~2% of the links, but since 100% of the archive links to these domain names are unnecessary for WP:V purposes, then nothing more than a simple removal is needed, and we should get that 2% of the job done.
WhatamIdoing
talk
05:24, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
reply
If a bot
removes
archive-urls from articles in my watchlist purview, I'll revert them to restore the archived links.
▶ I am Grorp ◀
05:43, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
reply
Grorp
Newspapers.com
is an archive. The source is the newspaper. Newspapers.com is an archive of the source. Archive.today is an archive of an archive of the source. Why do you need an archive of an archive of the source?
WhatamIdoing
talk
05:46, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
reply
You don't. This subsection and your post above was ambiguous. It seemed to suggest a bot should remove ALL |archive-urls of things like nytimes.com... not just remove archive.today links for nytimes. My bad if I read it as the wrong fork of the ambiguity.
▶ I am Grorp ◀
05:51, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
reply
We are only talking about removing "unwanted archive links" (and in my case, only ones that are 100% unnecessary for WP:V purposes). That includes archive.today but also "archive dot lots of other things", since that same owner has multiple domain names.
WhatamIdoing
talk
06:08, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
reply
Who has conclusively decided what archive links are unnecessary/unwanted? There are multiple Wikipedia pages dedicated to combating link rot, many of which are even encouraging users to
archive everything
to help preserve verifiability. And evidently according to
WP:PLRT
the pervasive threat of link rot has become such a concern that all new links added to Wikipedia are
automatically archived
. This messaging from
WP:DEADREF
and
WP:MDLI
is very confusing. --
skarz
talk
18:12, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
reply
Skarz
, do we need someone to "conclusively" decide every single thing? Or do you think that editors could use their own best judgement to make decisions? Imagine someone saying "Gee, that's a common university textbook. I remember lugging it around in my backpack. Amazon still sells hardback copies. Okay, we probably don't
need
a link to an online 'archive' for that book".
WhatamIdoing
talk
20:58, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
reply
You completely sidestepped my legitimate question and gave me some bogus strawman argument. Nice. Reminder that your own words are that you are removing archives that are "100 unnecessary." Nevertheless, I am not aware of entire textbooks being archived on Wikipedia nor do I support that endeavor. I am, however, aware that Wikipedia policy encourages webpage archival to prevent link rot which in turn protects WP:V. Thanks, and have a great night. --
skarz
talk
01:09, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
reply
Well, unlike you, I have seen whole books get archive links spammed into the citation (and yes, I did complain to the bot op at the time), and I do think those are 100% unnecessary.
Link rot is a potential problem for websites. Link rot is not a problem for dead-tree media. For example, every source archived in Newspapers.com is a scanned copy of a physical newspaper page. Those sources exist on paper. A URL that allows you to read a dead-tree source online is a
Wikipedia:Convenience link
. It is not a necessity.
WhatamIdoing
talk
03:01, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
reply
Here's an example of me removing
an archive link for a whole text book.
The book's available on Amazon for about $25, and
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Cost
applies.
WhatamIdoing
talk
03:28, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
reply
We also had a formally closed well attended RFC close with a need to remove all of the archive.today links. We're trying to be courteous and do that in a way that minimizes future linkrot, but we do have to do it. In this case, the live links are expected to be stable for these domains. If you want to run behind the bot with a fixed archive bot, great! But standing in the way because removing some links that absolutely need to be removed might cause some issues in the future is unpersuasive when we have the strongest consensus you can get on Wikipedia that these links as is are causing major issues right now. Frankly, how/if/with what priority these links get rearchived is out of scope here - we have to remove these, and the discussion of how to get them rearchived can be separated out.
Tazerdadog
talk
21:47, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
reply
I am hardly "standing in the way" of anything, I was asking clarification on which archive links are considered unnecessary per WP:PLRT. --
skarz
talk
01:18, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
reply
Some Newspapers.com archive links are necessary because the publication is no longer available there. For instance,
WSWG
extensively cites a newspaper Newspapers.com only had available for a few days. It is not even searchable now.
Sammi Brie
(she/her ·
04:55, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
reply
So? We're not citing the newspapers.com archive. We're citing
the newspaper itself
. If you're citing
The Mulberry Advance
, and it happened to be available
|via=
the Newspapers.com archive, and now it's not available through that archive, then – who cares? It's still a valid printed-on-paper source, even if you can't see it anywhere online.
WhatamIdoing
talk
21:57, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
reply
Yes please! This is a good start - it's a meaningful chunk of sources, and it should help us dial in the process.
Tazerdadog
talk
06:02, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
reply
Reference spam detector
edit
Moved to
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam § refspam bot
I would like to see a bot that would detect likely
Reference spam
, and generate a confidence score internally, the way
User:Cluebot NG
does. Ideally, at high levels of confidence, perhaps it could just revert as Cluebot does, but in any case, it ought to generate a project page with a table or log of rated edits so that humans could review the results, comment, perhaps define a confidence threshold for auto-reverts, and of course, provide data for refining and tuning the algorithm.
I seem to be spending more and more time analyzing and reverting
WP:REFSPAM
, and a lot of them are very obvious and really should not need human intervention. If someone is a new editor, adds substantially the same citation to multiple articles, with no added content (or brief, near-identical content), and has few or no edits outside one topic area (i.e., an
WP:SPA
), odds are very high they are a ref spammer.
Mathglot
talk
01:34, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
reply
Mathglot
this is programmatically possible, a little difficult and time-consuming — but possible. I have a few questions, would it be okay if we continue the discussion on your or my talkpage? —usernamekiran
(talk)
08:37, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
reply
usernamekiran
, sure, let's move it, but let's find a more public Wikipedia page or WikiProject page where we have a prayer of attracting other interested comment. Perhaps
Wikipedia talk:Spam
(540 watchers, 56 pageviews/mo.) or
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam
(1,218 / 1,926), or a subpage of one of them to centralize possibly extended commentary? My knowledge in this field is ancient now, but I wonder if we compiled a grab-bag of possible features (to add to the four I listed), generated a test set of a few hundred human-assessed spam evaluations, and threw a machine learning bot at it with the feature set, whether that might generate a usable model, at least as proof of concept. Likely with all the advances in AI, some of that can be streamlined, maybe even the assessments? That would be a win.
Mathglot
talk
09:19, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
reply
That's even better, I should have thought of that. I have a primary workflow in my mind, only for creating the report(s). In the early phase, the bot should rely on heuristics instead of machine learning. Once we create a good confidence scoring mechanism, we can move to next phase of reverting the edits. But during first phase, we will need inputs from other users on reports — to cross-verify the suspected spam links. In few hours, I will copy-paste this conversation, and detailed workflow on
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam
, and notify few relevant venues of the discussion. Once we create a workflow/logic, I can start on concrete programming. During the discussion, I will create code for detecting the URLs being inserted, associating them with users/articles, and other basic necessary stuff. —usernamekiran
(talk)
23:28, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
reply
moved. —usernamekiran
(talk)
02:28, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
reply
Coding...
a base/skeleton code has been created, but given the complexity, this would take at least a month to go fully operational in bot's user-space, and to collect enough data. It would take at least a month or two after that to go live in mainspace/BRFA. —usernamekiran
(talk)
08:17, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
reply
Fix disambiguate links after page move
edit
After a
recent page move
several pages
link to a
disambiguation page
. Requesting link change from
Tennis performance timeline comparison
to
Tennis performance timeline comparison (women) (1978–present)
for pages listed and sorted
here
. Note:first time performing a request of this nature, which may not be properly worded.
8rz
talk
11:40, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
reply
Done
with
AutoWikiBrowser
and
JWB
phuzion
talk
14:19, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
reply
Many thanks.
8rz
talk
00:09, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
reply
Bloxx website creation Bot
edit
I am building a website builder and SEO optimization tool, users by default customers bring in their Socials across yelp, google reviews, instragram et cetera by way of google places API.
One thing that signals trust is also a wikipedia page with founding date and basics of the company. For the established businesses with important context, i'd like to automatically create the wikipedia pages via the API with the important details on the company to signal trust.
Jamespentalow
talk
00:13, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
reply
Hi @
Jamespentalow
, Wikipedia is not intended as a directory or something to signal trust, but an encyclopedia. As an encyclopedia, there are criteria for inclusion. The criteria for inclusion for companies is at
WP:NCORP
. This is a generally higher bar, and thus it's harder to get an article on a company than it is to get one on most other topics. We require high-quality, independent, and reliable sources for articles, and right now there is not an AI or other automated software that can gather these, let alone write an article. If you think the company meets
WP:NCORP
, you're free to take a stab at writing an article about it yourself and going through the
Articles for creation
process. However, the task is
Impossible
for a bot.
Hurricane
Zeta
01:31, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
reply
Fill "Men's association football players not categorized by position"
edit
Hello people. I would like to request for a bot to fill the maintenance category
Category:Men's association football players not categorized by position
. Previously this task was performed monthly by
User:RonBot
. RonBot was operated by
User:Ronhjones
who died in 2019. See
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/RonBot 7
and
User:RonBot/7/Source1
Robby.is.on
talk
01:11, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
reply
Coding...
Tenshi!
Talk page
00:49, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
I see a slight issue here. Given the original category used has been changed in scope to only men's association football players and a second error category
was created for women
, how would a bot differentiate between men and women association football players?
Tenshi!
Talk page
21:50, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
I’d say IF the player article has “men's” in the name of any one of its categories, THEN it is a male player. IF the player article has “women's” in the name of any one of its categories, THEN it is a female player. Sounds bizarre right?
Vanderwaalforces
talk
06:47, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
That hadn't occurred to me, though I should probably know better.
Tenshi!
Talk page
13:09, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
BRFA
filed
Tenshi!
Talk page
18:50, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Bot request: Automated citation metadata verification against external APIs
edit
I'd like to propose a bot that automatically verifies citation metadata in Wikipedia articles by cross-referencing structured fields in citation templates against external APIs. Specifically:
DOIs
resolved via the
CrossRef API
, comparing the returned title and authors against the values in the
{{cite journal}}
or
{{cite book}}
template
PMIDs
looked up via the
NCBI PubMed E-utilities API
, with the same comparison
ISBNs
checked against
Open Library
or
WorldCat
The bot would flag cases where:
A DOI or PMID resolves to a different paper than described in the citation
A DOI or PMID does not resolve at all
There is a significant mismatch between the template metadata and the API-returned metadata (e.g. different title, different authors)
It would
not
assess whether the source supports the claim it is cited for — only whether the citation is internally consistent and points to a real, correctly identified document.
This would be useful for several reasons. First, it addresses growing concerns about LLM-generated articles introducing incorrect citation metadata (wrong DOIs, fabricated PMIDs, misattributed authors). Second, it would improve citation quality across
all
articles, regardless of how they were written — human editors also introduce typos, outdated DOIs, and copy-paste errors in citation fields. Third, all required APIs are free and public, making implementation straightforward.
The output could be formatted as a report similar to existing cleanup listings, or the bot could add maintenance tags like
{{failed verification}}
to individual citations where mismatches are detected.
I encountered this issue firsthand while working on
Draft:Age and mathematical productivity
, where several citation template fields (PMIDs, DOIs) contained minor errors that pointed to different papers in the same journals. These were caught manually, but an automated tool would have flagged them instantly and could do the same across all of Wikipedia's approximately 230 million citations.
Would there be interest in developing or supporting a bot like this?
~2026-20189-58
talk
12:27, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
I don't know that there are
growing concerns about LLM-generated articles introducing incorrect citation metadata
. Rather, there are concerns (not growing, but already in full bloom) about LLM-generated material making its way into Wikipedia, in prose as well as hallucinated sources.
The proposed bot would instead
hide
evidence of LLM generation. In the case of DOIs and PMIDs, these are typically copied and pasted into the template by the editor, so there would be no typographical errors.
I would prefer such a bot
not
correct the DOI, PMID, or ISBN, but flag them with an appropriate superscript label like
possibly hallucinated
or something more concise. And this should happen in mainspace and draftspace. ~
Anachronist
(who / me)
talk
14:20, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Good idea. The important part is that suspicious sources are properly flagged to make review easier.
~2026-20189-58
talk
14:29, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
This is something I could do, but it would need to be discussed somewhere first as I wonder how much
traction
it would gather.
Vanderwaalforces
talk
09:10, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
I would like to see a tool that can legitimately verify the ISBN metadata vs. the citation metadata. However there is no public API for that. Often the APIs conflates
work
vs.
edition
. US vs UK edition. Hardcover vs paperback. etc.. untangling these messes is not a simple API query. The more you lean on APIs the more of a mess it creates. It copies mistakes from the API datasets into Wikipedia. CitationBot has been doing this for years, tagging citations with whatever ISBN it can find. Then you have a
split brain
problem: ISBN points to one edition, metadata points to a different edition. --
Green
20:53, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Change all instances of Hathi Trust to HathiTrust
edit
Per
, the name of the organization is HathiTrust without a space. There appear to be about 2000 occurances in mainspace, which is a bit much for AWB. (HathiTrust is a common reference source for books)
Naraht
talk
14:36, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Is this really worth it? I mean, it’s not like it’s a typo or misspelling…
Vanderwaalforces
talk
18:35, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Why is 2,000 too much for AWB? It's actually a perfect amount. You can go through the first 200 or so slowly to make sure there are no weird edge cases and once you are comfortable with the data just smash the key through the rest. Bot ops have to do the same thing, carefully checking a couple hundred edits for mistakes. They need to make requests for approval etc.. it takes weeks to get approval, and someone might raise an objection ("why bother"). With AWB you can get it done in a few hours, you don't need to ask permission. --
Green
20:36, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
As a rule of thumb, about 500+ (or maybe even 250+) is when I start thinking about a bot. 2000 is a lot to do with AWB in manual mode. No comment on the task itself. –
Novem Linguae
talk
20:55, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
I am not even worried about 2k for an amount; I am more concerned about whether or not it is worth it to do the task because of a space in-between the two words and not a typo/misspelling.
Vanderwaalforces
talk
23:10, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Are we talking about this appearing in citations? And is it just going to keep on appearing that way in citations?
Valereee
talk
13:50, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Greenc
"Smash the key...". I've run into complaints for speed of edits for AWB even for simple edits like this. "can't possibly be looking at the edits" and "Only Bots should edit that fast". Is there any official guidance on this?
Naraht
talk
15:17, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
GreenC
fix notification.
Naraht
talk
18:32, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
WP:MEATBOT
gives the guidance, which is admittedly somewhat vague but basically boils down to "feel free to edit quickly but if someone complains you should stop and/or file a BRFA".
Primefac
talk
20:39, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Did it over the last few days with AWB. Request Withdrawn.
Naraht
talk
04:20, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Arbitration enforcement editnotices
edit
I'm seeking comment on an idea for a bot to automatically create editnotices (including templates like
Template:Contentious topics/Arab-Israeli editnotice
when pages are edited) for pages that are protected as an arbitration enforcement action (for either/both pages that are protected in future & for those currently protected).
User:ClerkBot
automatically categorises such protections already, over at
Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/Protections
, and it seems tedious to manually create editnotices for each page, which I believe is the status quo.
I'm not sure if there would be a more efficient way to implement such an idea, such as using a module(?), but if a bot
is
the right idea, I'd be willing to write it and carry it through consensus-seeking, BRFA, and operation. A couple of questions here:
Is there a more efficient way to implement the idea?
The bot would need to create many pages, in the format of
this manual edit
, meaning
WP:MASSCREATE
would apply. Is there any technical barrier here, or is it simply the consensus of the community?
The bot would need
pagemover
or
template editor
permissions to override the title blacklist. Would this be a technical issue?
On the non-technical side: does the community even want this bot...
is it a good idea
? Sysops, template editors, and pagemovers, would you find a task like this useful? (If this thread is encouraging, my plan is to go to
WP:VPPROP
for consensus for the task.)
Thanks for your input. Best,
Staraction
talk
contribs
13:47, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
While this is not an argument for opposing a bot, I would assume many such protection actions are done by Twinkle (I know not all admins prefer it). It might be possible to include this automation in Twinkle itself.
Staraction
, regarding some of your questions, neither
WP:MASSCREATE
nor granting pagemover (which I think is technically enough and preferred for such a task) would be any problem, provided consensus for doing the task in the first place is there.
Notified:
Wikipedia talk:TW
. ~~~~
~/Bunny
pranav
:<
ping
15:52, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Notified:
User talk:L235
User talk:Left guide
Wikipedia talk:Requests for page protection
and
Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)
Staraction
talk
contribs
14:04, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Notified:
Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement
and
Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee
Thryduulf
talk
14:11, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Wikipedia:Editnotice § Creating editnotices
lists the locations for namespace-specific edit notices. For instance, the one for mainspace is located at
Template:Editnotices/Namespace/Main
. Its implementation invokes
Module:Mainspace editnotice
, which could be modified to check for some suitable indicator (if one exists) that a page has been protected for a specific purpose.
isaacl
talk
22:14, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
I believe this is how
Template:BLP editnotice
works, where the indicator is "either Category:Living people or Category:Possibly living people". I don't think there's a similar category for the different protection reasons, and the {{ARBPIA}} template might not always be present on the article's talk page. Is there another indicator that might be relevant here, other than the category?
Staraction
talk
contribs
07:33, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
I'd love to see anything that can manage the tedious clerical tasks at AE.
Valereee
talk
12:51, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Could the existing logger bot add these, maybe?
ScottishFinnishRadish
talk
13:33, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
ScottishFinnishRadish
: I think that'd certainly be easiest, although it would be up to @
L235
(courtesy ping!)
of course.
Staraction
talk
contribs
18:08, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Automatically notify people who are being discussed at
ANI
edit
It's not uncommon for people to forget to notify the people they are complaining about. Could we have a bot detect if a username is inserted as a parameter in the {{userlinks}} template and the user hasn't already had an ANI notice about that thread? This could make sending notices simpler; instead of opening a thread and then going around to talk pages, you just use the template and the bot notifies people for you. This would save time for the OP and for people who have to notify when the OP forgets.
QwertyForest
talk
14:56, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
I'm not sure this is a good task. First, people are supposed to notify users that have ANI threads made about them. Which means that very often, if not in most cases, other users that are mentioned are incidental to what's being discussed.
E.g.
User:Bob
keeps vandalizing the subpages of
User:Example
, see
Special:Contributions/Bob
User:Example here doesn't need to be notified.
Headbomb
15:15, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
When a username is put into the {{userlinks}} template, the user is probably not incidental. Even if a bot was going to notify everyone mentioned whether or not the template was used,
User:Example
may still appreciate an invitation to the discussion about a user they have been affected by. However, if you wanted to limit messages to the people the thread is about, having the bot only do it with {{userlinks}} usernames should work.
QwertyForest
talk
17:14, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
How exactly is the bot supposed to tell if someone has gotten an ANI notice?
Template:ANI-notice
is the most widely used method of notifying, but it isn't required to use that specific template.
45dogs
(they/them)
(talk page)
(contributions)
17:36, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
I think you've found a problem. I was expecting it to work with the normal template, but custom messages would confuse it. Do you see a way around that?
QwertyForest
talk
18:41, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
I can't think of anything foolproof. The bot looking for links to ANI might be sufficient, but it wouldn't be perfect. 'Notice' is a vague enough term to classify such notifications as "hey you are in a report at ANI" as probably sufficient to meet the threshold, which doesn't use any links.
45dogs
(they/them)
(talk page)
(contributions)
19:52, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
I think there’s a benefit in human notification in filling out the reason for the notification. That said, the bot could look at mentions on a delay and check the users talk page to see if a link is present. The bot would only notify if the target page has not been linked at the user’s talk page.
Dw31415
talk
19:57, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Remove background color from
List of wars involving the Kingdom of France
edit
Many of the results are simply not linear enough to be assigned to a color. This article should have all background colors removed from the outcome column like on
List of wars involving Spain
. Otherwise there will always be disagreement on the supposedly "straightforward" outcome of a war. Not to mention the vandalizing no-name accounts like to do on these types of articles (plus the edit war that's literally going on right now).
Bubba6t3411
talk
17:02, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Does this involve a Bot?
Dw31415
talk
17:52, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
This is not the correct venue for this request. The article's talk page should be used to achieve consensus. If consensus to remove the backgrounds is achieved, a bot is not needed; a simple find and replace of the background styling should be easy for anyone with a little text-editor experience. –
Jonesey95
talk
19:16, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
The talk page for
List of wars involving Spain
is the right venue. See
WP:RFCBEFORE
for a list of dispute resolution methods.
Dw31415
talk
11:10, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
reply
Retrieved from "
Categories
Wikipedia bots
Wikipedia requests
Hidden categories:
Wikipedia move-protected project pages
Non-talk pages that are automatically signed
Pages automatically checked for incorrect links
Pages that should not be manually archived
Wikipedia
Bot requests
Add topic