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:USURPREQ, for reporting a domain be usurped eg. |url-status=usurped
• WP:SQLREQ, for tasks which might be solved with an SQL query (e.g. compiling a list of articles according to certain criteria).
• WP:TEMPREQ, to request a new template written in wiki code or Lua.
• WP:SCRIPTREQ, to request a new user script. Many useful scripts already exist, see Wikipedia:User scripts/List.
• WP:CITEBOTREQ, to request a new feature for WP:Citation bot, a user-initiated bot that fixes citations.

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

---

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

#	Bot request	Status	💬	👥	🙋 Last editor	🕒 (UTC)	🤖 Last botop editor	🕒 (UTC)
1	Request for bot to perform automated task related to MOS:POSLINK		33	10	Steel1943	2026-05-14 11:58	Primefac	2026-05-09 20:58
2	Bot request: Automated citation metadata verification against external APIs		5	4	GreenC	2026-04-12 20:53	Vanderwaalforces	2026-04-03 09:10
3	Arbitration enforcement editnotices		10	6	Staraction	2026-05-16 06:22	Bunnypranav	2026-04-14 15:52
4	Automatically notify people who are being discussed at ANI		7	4	Dw31415	2026-04-15 19:57	Headbomb	2026-04-15 15:15
5	Remove background color from List of wars involving the Kingdom of France		4	3	Dw31415	2026-04-16 11:10
6	Pywikibot script to award barnstar automatically		9	2	Fade258	2026-05-01 12:50	DreamRimmer	2026-05-01 11:43
7	Remove visible "double sentence spacing"	BRFA filed	6	2	Primefac	2026-05-25 12:19	Primefac	2026-05-25 12:19
8	Update locations in America with the 2020 census information		5	4	LaundryPizza03	2026-05-18 08:24
9	Main article links to non-English Wikipedias		6	4	Primefac	2026-05-03 19:11	Primefac	2026-05-03 19:11
10	Change "Yokohama" (template call) to "Yokohama Rubber Company"		4	3	WhisperToMe	2026-05-08 04:27	Primefac	2026-05-06 10:04
11	Replace all redirects of Israel-Hamas war with Gaza war	Not a good task for a bot.	2	2	Wikiwerner	2026-05-14 11:34
12	Fixing link from location article to race track.	Not a good task for a bot.	3	2	Mark McWire	2026-05-15 23:14	Primefac	2026-05-15 09:22
13	Bot to make Wikipedia a better place		3	2	Inyamad	2026-05-16 11:21
14	Mass text and link update: Sierra Leone Cricket Association → Cricket Sierra Leone	Not a good task for a bot.	4	3	Elison Pokhrel	2026-05-16 13:02	Anomie	2026-05-16 11:58
15	Change parameters in Women in Red template	BRFA filed	4	2	DreamRimmer	2026-05-21 14:05	DreamRimmer	2026-05-21 14:05
16	Correcting user GA count after user page moved		2	2	SD0001	2026-06-01 11:46	SD0001	2026-06-01 11:46
17	Mass-removal of WikiProject categories added directly in wikicode to talk pages		9	6	StefenTower	2026-06-02 19:10	Phuzion	2026-06-02 18:10

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.

Request for bot to perform automated task related to MOS:POSLINK

I'm requesting that a task be created for a bot to perform the following action per MOS:POSLINK that has very little chance of having any false positives:

Replace [[Foo|Foo's]] with [[Foo]]'s.

This can probably be a task that runs an indefinite amount of times, probably once every month or so. Steel1943 (talk) 21:38, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Is there any consensus for a bot to mass replace these for MOS:POSLINK though? Tenshi! (Talk page) 21:43, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

WP:BOTREQUIRE doesn't require that, and the content of MOS:POSLINK was formed by a RfC. But, if that route needs to be taken, by all means, bureaucracy away! Steel1943 (talk) 21:48, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

This seems like a WP:COSMETICBOT to me. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:52, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Interesting, didn't know that existed. (But, then again, I don't read the bot policy page that much.) Whatever happens here happens, but either way, this policy was recently formed via consensus and this type of change has ... almost no false positive chance. Steel1943 (talk) 21:55, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Technically not WP:COSMETICBOT, as it does make a difference to the rendering of the link. Anomie⚔ 00:22, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

It does not make a difference in the rendering of the link. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 05:38, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

It does, though. Foo's is different from Foo's. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 06:06, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

@Vanderwaalforces: It may be difficult to see, but notice the differences between how the "'s" is linked in both the links Myceteae made above. Steel1943 (talk) 20:18, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Maybe I was understanding "rendering" differently. But why I said there's no difference is that both of them have the same href= and title= values, only the display text is different. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:30, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

COSMETICBOT rules are primarily about whether the rendered HTML differs between the two edits. Removing whitespace does not affect how the page is rendered. Changing the formatting of a URL from Foo's to Foo's does affect the HTML output of the page. In my opinion, this does not count as a cosmetic edit. phuzion (talk) 17:07, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not objecting to this, was just wondering if there was or not. Tenshi! (Talk page) 21:53, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Oh, I was thinking that your question was based off of it being some kind of prerequisite to perform such a task (as I would've expected from a place that has editors that are probably rather technical.) My apologies for the misunderstanding. Steel1943 (talk) 21:57, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

As I understand, there is no requirement that bot requests must have consensus beforehand, although for contentious tasks (e.g. an adminbot that deletes G13'd drafts) it would likely need a consensus to run such a bot. Tenshi! (Talk page) 22:09, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

I think for a task that is borderline COSMETICBOT like this one, even if not strictly required, it would be a good idea to get consensus beforehand. — Qwerfjkltalk 14:10, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

It looks like there was an RFC that created a subsection of the MOS that indicates that we shouldn't have the 's inside of links. I'd say that's a pretty good consensus. I'll see if I can come up with something. Primefac (talk) 20:18, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

I'd say that's a pretty good consensus. Agreed. This bot would straightforwardly correct clear cut violations of MOS:POSLINK, a recent addition to the MOS which made following a well-attended and near-unanimous RFC. Thanks @Primefac for working on this and thank you to @Steel1943 for suggesting this fix. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:38, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Any updates on this? Steel1943 (talk) 18:52, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

No. It's still on my list. Primefac (talk) 11:44, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Restoring thread from Archive 88. I had forgotten about this until I go the notification that this thread I subscribed to had been archived. @Primefac: is this still on your radar? —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 23:12, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Seems to have fallen off, but I can put it back on my list. (one of these days I'll actually write down said list...) Primefac (talk) 12:03, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! I appreciate it. FYI @Steel1943 —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 14:32, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

This could be added to Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Typos, I believe. Not sure how to search for [[(...)|\1's]] or [[(...)|$1's]] using mw:Help:CirrusSearch TBH. Ponor (talk) 15:59, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

There might be a bit of a CONTEXTBOT issue... I'm still refining my regex search but in the first 20 hits was [[Moody's Ratings|Moody's]] which (correctly) shows up as Moody's but would be "incorrectly" shown as Moody's if the task were to run. I'm also pretty sure that Broca's is correct but not 100% confident on that one, but if it is then that's a 10% failure rate which is usually my cut-off for feeling comfortable with a bot run. Primefac (talk) 10:38, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Interesting problems, thanks for sharing, and for working on this! Yes, Moody's is correct and Moody's is incorrect. Broca area (note the redirect) and Broca's area are both correct but "Broca's" is, I think, the more common rendering and regardless if that's the style being used it should be part of the link. Ideally this would only fix wikilinks like [[Foo|Foo's]] and ignore [[Foo's bar|Foo's]]. In other words, only when the text on both sides of the pipe is identical except for the addition of the final 's on the right side. This would miss things like [[Franklin D. Roosevelt|Roosevelt's]] but the goal is to pick up unambiguous MOS:POSLINK violations with a minimal error rate. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:48, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Added a constraint and it seems to have levelled those out. I'll see about checking the first hundred or so. Primefac (talk) 20:18, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Just to clarify, all those will be excluded. If so, that part looks good! —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:24, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Wait... so you don't want everything that search picked up to be changed? Primefac (talk) 20:31, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

When I look at the first few results from the search you linked, I see things like [[2001: A Space Odyssey (novel)|Arthur C. Clarke's]] and [[2001: A Space Odyssey|Stanley Kubrick's]] which should not be changed. The text on both side of the pipe should be identical except for the final 's. I'm not sure how else to explain it. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:50, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

But yet [[George Washington|Washington]]'s is given as an example of what should be changed at POSLINK. So we have some <foo|foo's> that obviously need to change, and <full name|surname's> that should be changed, but any other piped link should be kept... starting to get that context issue concern again. Primefac (talk) 20:58, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

To be clear, most of the examples *are* MOS:POSLINK violations. Maybe the Clarke–Kubrick examples (from Artificial intelligence) are an outlier but it caught my eye. There's also an example from Kazakhstan with [[Kazakhstan national football team|men's]], [[Kazakhstan women's national football team|women's]] to refer to the men's and women's national football teams. That one could be argued either way but the way it appears in the article now is acceptable. I haven't looked at enough of these to get a sense of the true "error" rate. If we restrict it to only [[foo|foo's]] then the error rate should be very low but it will leave behind a lot of POSLINK violations. If it could get the full name–surname thing right that would be a big win, since this is very often used with personal names. Basically, the more distinct the two sides of the pipe are, the more likely it is to be an acceptable use. The vast majority will still be unacceptable. I can't say for certain that it's >90%. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:06, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

To put it another way, from the standpoint of the MOS, almost all of these need to change. I can't speak for Steel but my hope for this was to at least take care of the very lowest hanging fruit while accepting that it would still leave behind a large number of POSLINK violations. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:18, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Yep, all of this discussion is the exact reason why I'm only suggesting "[[Foo|Foo's]] to [[Foo]]'s" and absolutely nothing else ... almost 0% chance of false positives. Steel1943 (talk) 11:58, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Bot request: Automated citation metadata verification against external APIs

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. -- GreenC 20:53, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement editnotices

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)

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. ~~~~

~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 15:52, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

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)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement and Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee. Thryduulf (talk) 14:11, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

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)

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)

• I'd love to see anything that can manage the tedious clerical tasks at AE. Valereee (talk) 12:51, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
• Could the existing logger bot add these, maybe? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:33, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

  @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)

I have began a thread at the village pump to seek consensus for this task. Best, Staraction (talk · contribs) 06:22, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Automatically notify people who are being discussed at ANI

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)

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 {t · c · p · b} 15:15, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Remove background color from List of wars involving the Kingdom of France

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)

Does this involve a Bot? Dw31415 (talk) 17:52, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

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)

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)

Pywikibot script to award barnstar automatically

Hi. Anyone can help me on creating pywikibot script to award barnstar automatically? Hope for positive response. Fade258 (talk) 16:05, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Which event do you want to distribute awards for? – DreamRimmer ■ 16:34, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

@DreamRimmer, Regarding this drive Fade258 (talk) 16:36, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

@DreamRimmer. Is it possible? Fade258 (talk) 06:07, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

@DreamRimmer, Please look at this code and help me on rectifying. Fade258 (talk) 06:43, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

It's possible. I will write one for you. – DreamRimmer ■ 09:33, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

@DreamRimmer, Thank you so much for your assistance. Fade258 (talk) 10:00, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

You can find the script here. Please set Run to true to award users and false to print messages. Parsing may not be fully reliable, as the GAN backlog drive pages are inconsistent across drives. You shouldn't have any issues with the February drive or future drives that follow the same format. I see that some users have already received their awards, so I have added a variable to skip them. In future, it would be better to keep a list of users and points on a separate page or txt file instead of taking data from drive pages, as that would be more reliable. – DreamRimmer ■ 11:43, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

@DreamRimmer. Thank You so much for providing the script. I will do it. Can you please provide me a script by adding list of users and points in txt file? Guide me I will do that. I hope for positive response. Fade258 (talk) 12:50, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Remove visible "double sentence spacing"

Per MOS:DOUBLESPACE, punctuation marks should be followed by a single (visible) space; however, currently we have ~2000 pages that use .  (period followed by a non-breaking space and a regular space), which renders as a doubled space. See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#DOUBLESPACE for details. Please run a bot to go over these articles and remove such spurious   occurrences. (Some of them are not related to double sentence spacing, but are still erroneous, so removing them should not make things worse. Other cases of MOS:DOUBLESPACE violation, such as using .{{nbsp}} , are much less common and will be easier to correct manually.) — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 23:59, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure I read that discussion as indicating we need to fix these, but I also note that it has gone on at least three different tangents... I'm fine coding it up (simple find/replace) but I just want to make sure that the discussion in question really is giving approval for this task. Primefac (talk) 21:41, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Sure. It seems that nobody objects the intention but some people started warring on wording (unrelated to the actual problem), which I really did not expect when making this request. Let's wait until that discussion settles down... — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 01:56, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

@Primefac: that discussion has apparently settled down, also with a consensus to run the bot. When you find time to run the task, please also do the same with ,   – there are several hundred pages with such occurrences, more or less all of which should be eliminated. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 21:20, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Cool, I'll try to get a BRFA filed at some point this week. Primefac (talk) 08:09, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

BRFA filed Primefac (talk) 12:19, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Update locations in America with the 2020 census information

it has been over 6 years and many wikipedia articles still list the 2010 census as the most recent ~2026-26422-81 (talk) 10:39, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Should we not have this data come from WikiData? Feels odd to have it native to en. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:54, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Do you have any ideas on how a bot could help? Dw31415 (talk) 13:52, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

This is related to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1222#Automated_editing_in_census-designated_place_articles that began around the same time. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:21, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Vilenski's suggestion of implementing a Wikidata system including all United States Census data of an appropriate type (probably just population, gender, and race in the generic case). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:24, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Main article links to non-English Wikipedias

Please could a bot-op (or other person who knows how) generate a list of articles that use the {{main}} template with a link to a non-English Wikipedia, e.g. {{main|:fr:Siège de Marseille (1524)}}, grouped by destination Wiki. If the list is short, please place it directly in the discussion at Template talk:Main#Main article link to non-English Wikipedia. If the list is (in your opinion) too long for there, please create it as a separate page somewhere suitable (my userspace is fine) and put a link to it there. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 15:46, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't see that this would need a bot. Seems like a reasonably simple regex to get a list of articles in the {{main|: format. I suppose going through and listing them per Wikipedia would be the issue Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:03, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Thryduulf, like this search? — Qwerfjkltalk 17:01, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

I didn't know you could do regex searches! Exporting the results to a list would be easier to work through, but that is certainly better than iterating through language codes 1 by 1 that was all I knew how to do. Thryduulf (talk) 17:22, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Thryduulf, that's easy enough to do with AWB, JWB, or pagepile. — Qwerfjkltalk 17:30, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm going to use https://petscan.wmcloud.org/?psid=46902942 for use on the linked discussion. Primefac (talk) 19:11, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Change "Yokohama" (template call) to "Yokohama Rubber Company"

I moved the template Template:Yokohama (an icon of a tire company) to Template:Yokohama Rubber Company to make room for a navigational template about the city of Yokohama.

However existing calls for "Yokohama" (which must be replaced before I can insert the city navigational template) number over 500. I need all instances of {{Yokohama}} changed to {{Yokohama Tire Company}} so no existing tire-related pages are affected by me inserting a navigational template in the "Yokohama" space.

Thanks, WhisperToMe (talk) 03:48, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Sounds like a good use for a bot indeed. Is the new template up and working? Can you share a diff where you have successfully changed it? Dw31415 (talk) 19:55, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

The template does not yet exist.

You could also just name the new template Template:Yokohama city or Template:Yokohama (city) per similar city names for navboxes you've created.

For what it's worth I've been planning on nominating {{Yokohama}} and other tire templates for deletion, so give me a few days (and make your navbox!) to sort that out; it's been somewhat low on my priority list but I'll bump it up. Primefac (talk) 10:04, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! I started it at Template:Yokohama (city) WhisperToMe (talk) 04:27, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Replace all redirects of Israel-Hamas war with Gaza war

Link replacement: Israel–Hamas war → Gaza war

Task: Mass-replace text/wikilinks inside "Past/Current Events" portal pages and all article pages.

Find: Israel–Hamas war (and piped variations like [[Israel–Hamas war|). See Special:Whatlinkshere/Israel–Hamas war

Replace with: Gaza war

Reason: The primary page target was moved to Gaza war, and past event sub-pages need cleanup. ~2026-28818-51 (talk) 05:30, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Not a good task for a bot. See WP:NOTBROKEN. Wikiwerner (talk) 11:34, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Fixing link from location article to race track.

I need to replace all wikilinks from New York State Fairgrounds to Syracuse Mile in AAA/USAC/NASCAR championship season articles where the link specifically refers to the race track rather than the fairgrounds complex. Thx. Mark McWire (talk) 03:44, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Not a good task for a bot. Context issues, and only ~150 links anyway so would be better to be done manually or via WP:AWB. Primefac (talk) 09:22, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Okay, I will it change myself with manual edits. --Mark McWire (talk) 23:14, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Bot to make Wikipedia a better place

Bot Name: InyaBot Inyamad (talk) 06:24, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

This is a page for requesting tasks to be done by bots. What task would you like performed by a bot? Dw31415 (talk) 08:06, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Anti vandal? If not possible, a typo corrector. Inyamad (talk) 11:21, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Mass text and link update: Sierra Leone Cricket Association → Cricket Sierra Leone

The governing body for cricket in Sierra Leone has officially rebranded from the 'Sierra Leone Cricket Association' to 'Cricket Sierra Leone' (the main article has already been updated). Could a bot please perform a find-and-replace across all articles to update both the links and the text from 'Sierra Leone Cricket Association' to 'Cricket Sierra Leone'? Thank you! Elison Pokhrel ^TALK 03:12, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Not a good task for a bot. See WP:NOTBROKEN. Primefac (talk) 10:26, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Rather than WP:NOTBROKEN, I'd point to WP:CONTEXTBOT and the fact that a search turns up only about 20 instances of the phrase. Someone could easily do this manually. Anomie⚔ 11:58, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! Elison Pokhrel ^TALK 13:02, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Change parameters in Women in Red template

The Women in Red project have renumbered a couple of their events (please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red#Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/2016 Women in Philosophy Drive). We would like parameters changed in the template as follows:

• {{WikiProject Women in Red|2017}} → {{WikiProject Women in Red|32a}}
• {{WikiProject Women in Red|2018}} → {{WikiProject Women in Red|63a}}

Please note that other parameters may also exist, which should be preserved, e.g.

• {{WikiProject Women in Red|31|2017|35}} → {{WikiProject Women in Red|31|32a|35}}
• {{WikiProject Women in Red|2018|68}} → {{WikiProject Women in Red|63a|68}}

Please do not change the year parameter, e.g.

• {{WikiProject Women in Red|year=2017}} → {{WikiProject Women in Red|year=2017}}

Pages to be processed are:

• Category:WikiProject Women in Red meetup 2017 articles (1,095)
• Category:WikiProject Women in Red meetup 2018 articles (2,185)

Thank you — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 04:07, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

I will file a BRFA today or tomorrow when I get some time. – DreamRimmer ■ 10:25, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

It was tomorrow yesterday :)) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:23, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

BRFA filed – DreamRimmer ■ 14:05, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Correcting user GA count after user page moved

Not sure if this is the perfect place for this and please let me know if there's a better resource. I submitted a GA nomination a while back under my prior username User:RyanAl6. Between the time I submitted the GA and the time it got approved, I changed my username. Now, the new GA is not showing up in my GA count when nominating/reviewing other GAs. I was wondering if a bot could fix this? Thanks. VaguelyVogue (RyanAl6) (talk) 18:16, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Which article are you referring to? You seem to have one GA which is correctly attributed to your new username, and none to your old username. – SD0001 (talk) 11:46, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Mass-removal of WikiProject categories added directly in wikicode to talk pages

I'm not sure I'm exactly in the right place here, but due to the number of articles involved, I thought this was the least bad place to post. It's just come to my attention that there are well over 4,000 talk pages that have the text Category:WikiProject Ice Hockey articles in their wikitext, which I would like to have removed by a bot/script. It's my understanding that categories (especially WikiProject categories) are never added to talk pages directly, but rather through templates, because they can easily get swamped by other wikitext added below them or get lost in archives like what happened at Talk:Arizona Coyotes/Archive 1. I'll notify Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey and User talk:Buffalkill, as this user appears to be responsible for quite a few of these. Thanks for any assistance. Graham87 (talk) 13:37, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

This would be a very simple bot run. I'd be happy to run this once consensus is established. phuzion (talk) 13:44, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I also notified Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council for completeness. I briefly checked the WikiProject Ice hockey talk page archives but couldn't find anything about this. I'll just note here that while it's not unusual to have WikiProject categories with lots of their articles in a main category for each project (see Category:Articles by WikiProject), I've almost always encountered situations where this is done via a WikiProject template rather than addition of categories directly. Graham87 (talk) 14:06, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Looking at a few and they had {{WikiProject Ice Hockey}} as well as the wikicode category. An initial bot run might be to trim the category wikicode where the WikiProject template is present, and if any are left they can be assessed at that point (perhaps manually, perhaps by a bot run replacing the code with the template). CMD (talk) 14:07, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Agree with the task. I think the wikicode can just be removed from the page, without the need for any manual processing — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:21, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Re those without the ice hockey WikiProject template: those can be filtered out using the hastemplate search keyword like so; all of the remainder (at time of writing) are in Category:Women's ice hockey task force articles. Those too can be filtered out with incategory and I've just dealt with those that I could find manually (see my relevant contribs). Graham87 (talk) 15:38, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I think will just use all members of the category, and skip any that do not have the WikiProject template. No need for an insource search. phuzion (talk) 18:10, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I saw the note at WT:COUNCIL. Graham is correct that these categories should be supplied by the WikiProject banner template and not added manually. If there's something wrong with the templates (such that it's not properly emitting the ordinary categories), then those templates should be fixed. Anyone who needs help with fixing one of those templates should ask at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:43, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Agreed, but a more direct way to address a problem in a template is on its talk page with {{edit template-protected}} (or similar technical request if they are not protected). the Stefen 𝕋ower 19:10, 2 June 2026 (UTC)