Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard

Bots noticeboard

Here we coordinate and discuss Wikipedia issues related to bots and other programs interacting with the MediaWiki software. Bot operators are the main users of this noticeboard, but even if you are not one, your comments will be welcome. Just make sure you are aware about our bot policy and know where to post your issue.

Do not post here if you came to

• discuss non-urgent bot issues, bugs and suggestions for improvement. Do that at the bot operator's talk page
• discuss urgent/major bot issues. Do that according to instructions at WP:BOTISSUE
• discuss general questions about the MediaWiki software and syntax. We have the village pump's technical section for that
• request approval for your new bot. Here is where you should do it
• request new functionality for bots. Share your ideas at the dedicated page

AI agents and BRFA

Editors here (BAG members especially) may be interested in Wikipedia:Agent policy, a draft proposal for a policy on AI agents. There's discussion on its talk page, as well as at the pump. Thanks, Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 18:45, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

FireflyBot , Task 12

I think that User:FireflyBot has stopped updating Template:DRN case status. I think it is an orphaned bot. It is making edits, so it is performing some of its tasks, but it isn't updating the DRN case status. Can someone either restart it on task 12 or just restart it? Maybe restarting it will get it to pick up all of its tasks.

Its user page says that non-admins may report malfunctioning bots to WP:ANI. Maybe that advice applies to all bots. However, the bot isn't malfunctioning, because it is non-functioning, so I think this is probably the best forum. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:47, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

It seems you may have fixed it yourself, as it updated after that edit. Tenshi! (Talk page) 08:32, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, User:Tenshi Hinanawi. So it appears that the error in headings had caused the bot to skip the DRN task because it had difficulty parsing the discussion. Is that what we have concluded? That is suboptimal, but with no one actively operating the bot, that is tolerable. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:26, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, that is what appears to have happened. I would say that it's a perfectly normal part of bot/script operations; I can think of a half-dozen similar examples where someone messed with a heading (or added one) and things borked. Primefac (talk) 23:06, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that I "messed with" a heading, but that I "messed up" a heading. The principle is the same. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:03, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

New bot for fixing MOS:CURLY violations

Hello! I'm working on a bot to correct curly quotes to simple quotes per MOS:CURLY. I've already made a userpage for it at User:CurlyBot I and have started development; I plan on writing a BRFA proposal in the coming days.

Any thoughts or ideas so I can improve the bot before submitting it for approval? GrinningIodize (talk) 18:51, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

How will the bot deal with curly quotes that are used instead of {{okina}} and similar characters that should not be straightened? I think you may run into WP:CONTEXTBOT issues that will require the bot to run in supervised mode only. An explanation of the bot's logic would be helpful. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:44, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

To quote MOS:APOSTROPHE: "Letters resembling apostrophes and curly quotes... should be represented by [their] templates or by their respective Unicode characters." Therefore, I don't see any valid reason for anyone to do that. Further ore, MOS:CURLY says the following on the matter: "Use "straight" quotation marks, not “curly” ones. (For single-apostrophe quotes: 'straight', not ‘curly’.)"

As for the bot's logic, I'm away from my computer at the moment and can't give a very detailed response now, but I plan to open source my bot soon. It's written in Python 3 using pywikibot. GrinningIodize (talk) 20:48, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

(I meant to type furthermore and not further ore, whoops.) GrinningIodize (talk) 20:50, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree with GrinningIodize, an invalid curly is not an Okina. So it changes it from one invalid usage to another, but at the same time, allows the removal of another curly usage from the system. So it is still a net positive. Gonnym (talk) 21:10, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Make sure however you do not change usages in file names, as those can't be fixed like this. Gonnym (talk) 21:12, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Why would a filename ever contain curly quotes? Also, my bot only touches plaintext and not templates of any sort if my memory serves me right, so stuff like codeblocks shouldn't be affected. Furthermore, I intend on limiting it to mainspace so that it doesn't accidentally mess up userpages/Wikipedia pages/talkpages. GrinningIodize (talk) 21:17, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Also, curly quotes in filenames are still curly quotes and therefore invalid under MOS:CURLY. In exceptional circumstances where curly quotes must be used for some reason, you can block CurlyBot I with Template:Bots. GrinningIodize (talk) 21:24, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Why doesn't much matter (though one big reason is that many are files on Commons) so much as that lots of them actually do. Like, nearly 121000 uses among nearly 18000 files lots. Non-image links might be a problem, too; it's not necessarily safe to assume one of [[alpha " beta]] and [[alpha “ beta]] is always a redirect and pointing at the other or that both are redirects pointing at the same title, though of course they should be. It'd be safest to just leave all filenames, links, and template transclusions alone, and figuring out what exactly is going to be turned into a filename and what into a caption in, say, an infobox transclusion isn't trivial. —Cryptic 22:49, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought you meant filenames in the article's text, not media and templates. My bot only edits plain text, it doesn't mess with anything else. GrinningIodize (talk) 22:51, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I am concerned by the proposer's approach above. Approaching bot logic with the equivalent of "why would something happen when editors are not supposed to do it?" is not a recipe for a bot that tolerates the wide variety of goofy stuff that editors do on Wikipedia every day. Saying "curly quotes in filenames are still curly quotes and therefore invalid under MOS:CURLY" does not change the fact that curly quotes exist in file names and the file calls will break if a bot changes them. Changing curly quotes to straight quotes without looking at the context could also lead to Linter or syntax highlighting errors, for example if an article contained "the Boston Globe’s reporters" and the curly quote were changed without using a template. This proposed task needs a lot of careful thought put into it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:59, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

My bot only changes text that is classified by the Python 3 module mwparserfromhell as having the type mwparserfromhell.nodes.text.Text, which means plain text with no formatting. I don't see why my bot would cause linter or syntax highlighting errors. When I said that curly quotes in filenames were still curly quotes, I misinterpreted Gonnym's comment as referring to filenames used in the article's body (for example, in the middle of a sentence) and not as in links or references to media on Commons. I can see why curly quotes would be used in the names of Commons files, and I don't intend to change those into simple quotes. GrinningIodize (talk) 23:32, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

That's good, and it allays many of my concerns. But it's not sufficient by itself for Jonesey95's Boston Globe example above. It would parse into, among other things, a text node containing "’s reporters". If you simply replace the apostrophe at the start, you end up with the invalid wikitext "the ''Boston Globe'''s reporters". —Cryptic 23:45, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

That's a good point, I'll think about it some; thanks! GrinningIodize (talk) 00:01, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

If it creates linter errors, that is also not a deal breaker in my opinion. We have systems in place that catch lint errors. Again, the current style is wrong, so any fix that moves us forward is better. Also, since we are basically at around 0 mainspace errors, we can handle any new errors pretty fast. Gonnym (talk) 17:02, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Not all of the conversions of this type produce Linter errors, although they can cause display errors. The first line below contains a bold italic "Boston Globe" followed by a curly apostrophe. The second line contains that same curly apostrophe converted to a straight single quote mark. Note that the first example properly does not bold the apostrophe, matching the original editor's intent; the second one bolds the apostrophe, which is a change in formatting, but does not cause a Linter error. The third line uses a template to isolate the proper straight apostrophe.

Note: The Boston Globe’s reporter wrote a story about The Sound and the Fury on April 6, 2026.

Note: The Boston Globe's reporter wrote a story about The Sound and the Fury on April 6, 2026.

Note: The Boston Globe's reporter wrote a story about The Sound and the Fury on April 6, 2026.

This is a bit of a contrived example, but they are out there, and if this proposed bot task blindly changes curly apostrophes to straight apostrophes, it will definitely leave behind badly formatted text that does not have Linter errors attached. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:55, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

It sounds like a reasonable goal (although it will take away much of what I do in lazy editing sessions!) One possible improvement I'd suggest is that, in addition to article text, you sic it on any "title=" field in any cite template. A large portion of curly vios are there (understandable, as that is text commonly copied and pasted in.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:40, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I will probably consider this in the future, but for the time being I'd prefer to keep my bot focused in functionality. Thanks for the suggestion! GrinningIodize (talk) 23:51, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

TedderBot appears to be inactive

It appears that User:TedderBot is no longer active as the last edit was at 16:25, 18 October 2013. I dont thank bot rights are even needed anymore. ~ŤheŴubṂachine-840≈ ● ✒️ 19:24, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

The rule is no activity in the past two years on either the bot account or the operator account. The operator's account is active as recently as this week. Izno (talk) 19:46, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

That being said, Cosmic840, you are more than welcome to ask Tedder if the bot still needs its flags. Primefac (talk) 22:36, 4 June 2026 (UTC)