Jump to content

Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Bots noticeboard
    Shortcuts

    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


    Retiring DannyS712 bots

    [edit]

    I'm not going to be around much anymore (and haven't been for a while) and would like to stop my various bot tasks, but want to make sure that they can be taken over first. At least bot III is still running on toolforge and working properly, but if I'm not around to respond to issues it should probably be stopped. Anyone want to take over the tasks? --DannyS712 (talk) 23:36, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    III's tasks are now handled by DreamRimmer bot. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:38, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DannyS712 bot IV 65 looks interesting. I wonder if it's worth usurping User:AnomieBOT IV to run the task with just bot+reviewer, or if assigning that right to AnomieBOT or AnomieBOT II would be fine. Anomie⚔ 00:52, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Is that bot task still necessary at all? Looking at some of the phab tasks the bug causing this may have been fixed. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:16, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The bot seems to have been making reviews as recently as December 2.[1] 🤷 Anomie⚔ 02:29, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like it happened 285 times in December, but 274 were on a Twinkle revert and Twinkle caught it (log summary "Automatically reviewing reversion (TW)"). One was handled by DannyS712 bot IV, 8 were handled by humans within 15 minutes, and the last two took 72 and 7861 minutes for a human to handle. Anomie⚔ 03:40, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Over all of 2025, there were 262 non-Twinkle-handled instances. 66 were handled by DannyS712 bot IV. 95 took longer than 15 minutes to be handled. While I wrote the code for AnomieBOT to be able to handle this, but since humans seem to mostly handle these well enough (and the bugs from back in 2019 are long since fixed) I'll probably wait on going for a BRFA until there's more evidence people would still find it useful. Anomie⚔ 18:57, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Task 8 is also covered by DreamRimmer bot's task 8 (interesting coincidence). I'd be willing to take over task 69. Tenshi! (Talk page) 01:00, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    If I am correct, PrimeBOT already has a task to disable content categories in the draft and user space. If this needs to be run on Toolforge, I can take care of it. DannyS712 bot was also running the polluted categories database report, and if that requires usurpation, I can handle it as well, or if any other operator is interested, they are welcome to take it up. – DreamRimmer ■ 02:48, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Could the polluted categories report be done using {{database report}} instead of a dedicated bot? Anomie⚔ 03:16, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be great. Relevant SQL queries are available at https://github.com/DannyS712/bot. – DreamRimmer ■ 03:26, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Done, migrated all 4 of the reports over to the on-wiki template. @DannyS712, could you please disable those tasks? Legoktm (talk) 21:46, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    You are correct, but it's an AWB task and thus doesn't run all that often (never, these days, since there are toolforge bots that handle it). Feel free to take it over. Primefac (talk) 11:32, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @DannyS712, thanks for reaching out and telling us. We have too many botops that have just disappeared. Izno (talk) 22:14, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Primefac (talk) 22:23, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    DannyS712, as these tasks get taken over would you mind updating/tweaking User:DannyS712 bot/tasks to get a better idea of what still needs to be dealt with? Primefac (talk) 22:23, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears that all of the tasks have now been taken over by active bots, so @DannyS712, can you please delete these jobs from Toolforge? – DreamRimmer ■ 12:22, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Their bots seem to be still operating and they haven't edited since posting the above announcement here. Tenshi! (Talk page) 02:21, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I've de-flagged the bots. If that doesn't shut down Task 3 I'll block. Primefac (talk) 12:13, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Primefac: Bot III is handling redirect patrolling, but since it doesn't have a bot flag, it's subject to rate limits, currently one patrol every three seconds. My bot is also running the same task and usually starts running just a couple of minutes after this bot, which will lead to duplicate patrol logs. I have seen this happen many times in the past when both bots run within the same window. Without a bot flag, Danny’s bot will struggle with these rate limits, so my suggestion would be to either remove the new page reviewer right from this bot account or regrant the bot flag and allow Danny to turn off this task when they have time. – DreamRimmer ■ 13:19, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies, thought I had removed NPR as well. Sorted now. Primefac (talk) 13:58, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    [edit]

    Hello! I withdrew the application for User:DwAlphaBot because it is just publishing to its own user space. However, it needs to publish links that are now blacklisted. What’s the best way to resubmit? Note thanks to Legoktm for mentioning the solution here Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment#c-Legoktm-20260104180200-Dw31415-20260104162700 Dw31415 (talk) 18:46, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Withdrawn application: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DwAlphaBot Dw31415 (talk) 18:49, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I would just remove the archive templates on the BRFA and relist it, noting that what you want to do requires sboverride to do it, which means the account must be in the bot group. Izno (talk) 21:39, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
     Done thanks!! Dw31415 (talk) 21:54, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Inzo, the request was approved. I think I just wait for an administrator to flip the flag, is that right? thank you! Dw31415 (talk) 14:56, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Bureaucrat, not administrator. Otherwise yes. Anomie⚔ 21:13, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd say that, if the withdrawn BRFA is still accurate as to the task, or can be made so without confusing the existing discussion, you could reopen and relist. Remember to restore the noincluded Category:Open Wikipedia bot requests for approval at the top when reopening, and add a comment in the discussion about the reopening and the reason for it. If it would be cleaner to create a fresh BRFA that accurately describes the task as it exists now, that would also be an option. Anomie⚔ 22:00, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I already relisted with a comment about why. Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DwAlphaBot Dw31415 (talk) 22:41, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    ListeriaBot duplication issue

    [edit]

    Noticed this via MfD nominations of ListeriaBot-maintained pages like Wikipedia:Equity lists/Nationality/Seychelles. The bot requires both {{Wikidata list}} and {{Wikidata list end}}. When users forget the latter, it causes the bot to repeatedly append new tables to the page rather than update the table, expanding to infinity. This query shows a couple hundred pages missing the template. So, first, maybe someone with better regex wizardry than me can AWB those 200 pages to just remove the existing tables and add the end template. But also, massive, regularly updated and expanding pages doesn't seem ideal. What are the options for better flagging this issue to users as they go? Ideally the bot spits out an error when it doesn't find that template, but short of that, maybe instructions should be based on a subst rather than two templates? Also, while I'm here, is there a standard practice for ongoing bot jobs in the userspace of long-inactive users? Or is that determined on a bot-by-bot basis? Courtesy ping Magnus Manske. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:48, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you, User:Rhododendrites. I was about to report this issue, and you have provided more detail than I could have. My thought was that deleting the sandbox that the bot is mindlessly dumping sand into (mindlessly because it is a bot) will not be useful because the bot will recreate the sandbox and resume the dumping operation the next time that it goes through its cycle. I am sure that I have seen this before; I am not sure whether it was in Wikipedia or in a 45-year career as an information technology analyst, but that is not important. It is clear that there is a problem with the duplicate reporting, and that something needs to be done to stop it. User:Fram has identified the existence of the problem by nominating the sandboxen for deletion, even if that is the wrong solution. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:25, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not a ListeriaBot expert, but I think it does need the existence of a wikidata list template, and won't just create the page wholesale based on some external database of pages to maintain. I could be wrong, though. But again, this is an easy fix without deletion -- just add {{wikidata list end}} to the bottom or remove the template at the top with an "if anyone wants to continue using the bot on this page, please clean it up before restoring the template" sort of message. We don't usually just delete things when users mess template syntax. :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:34, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rhododendrites I just went through the query and fixed the equity lists (and got the list down from 210 to 98). I fixed them manually - trying to edit those pages caused my browser to freeze, so I approached them from the history tab and just edited the original queries.
    I stuck to the equity lists so as not to mess up other people's lists in case this doesn't work. Not certain how often ListeriaBot runs, so I'm not sure if I've fixed the problem or not. Hoping this did the trick. Guettarda (talk) 20:18, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rhododendrites@Guettarda Thank you both so much for catching this and helping to clean up my mess. You two are the best. I'm wondering why {{wikidata list end}} isn't part of the template automatically. If this fixes the issue, and I hope it will, it seems like a great solution. Thanks again, everyone. Happy to keep an eye on this too. Will (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:02, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, AFAIK ListeriaBot goes basically by WLH. If the page doesn't exist, there's nothing to link. Izno (talk) 00:15, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Not the wrong solution to delete them. If no one actually looks at these pages (as evidenced by the undetected linear growth over months or in at least one case 5 years), then why should we keep pages around that require regular bot edits but serve no actual purpose? Fram (talk) 09:13, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    If no one is looking at the table, you can just remove {{wikidata list}} from it. That would stop the updates without erasure of history, while allowing someone to revert if they were in fact looking at it. As a bonus, it avoids an unnecessary 7-day MfD discussion. – SD0001 (talk) 09:18, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fram Many of the private lists might have that problem, but the Equity lists and the Women in Red lists (among others) are there to be used by people other than the maintainers. People should keep an eye on these, but the cancerous growth of the lists doesn't mean they aren't useful. Guettarda (talk) 15:04, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Any evidence that anyone used these deficient Equity lists? A few were already disabled for BLP issues (without anyone noticing apparently), a few others will have to get the same treatment. The WIR lists are used (or at the very least many of them are), didn't have the bot issue, and aren't up for deletion or disabling. Fram (talk) 15:07, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want to ensure Magnus sees this concern, you should talk page or email them directly. They are regularly AFK from general goings-on. Izno (talk) 00:14, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I have an afterthought. I haven't looked into how ListeriaBot works. However, I can see that there have been two underlying issues that have combined so that the bot was gradually generating a report that expanded without limit. The first, which I think we have resolved, was the user error of failure to provide the ending template. The second is that the design of the bot is such that a user error, and a user error that is easy to make, causes the bot to behave in an unexpected and undesirable manner. The bot shouldn't continue dumping report pages into a user file if the ending template is missing. I don't know what the bot should do in that situation instead, but the bot is dealing with a user error in an erroneous way. There are two errors, and one of them is being corrected. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:40, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    {{Wikidata list}} is similar to {{database report}}, but the strategy to deal with missing end templates is different. SDZeroBot overwrites everything on the page after {{database report}} if there is no {{database report end}}, and logs a warning in the edit summary. It seems ListeriaBot instead appends the new output to the end of page and there's no warning. – SD0001 (talk) 09:14, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Dw31415 - DwAlphaBot - SodiumBot conflict on RfCHistory

    [edit]

    I manually finished some pages of of my RfCHistory project User:DwAlphaBot/RfcHistory . SodiumBot started notifying users of 2016a . I stopped the task to understand why SodiumBot is making notifications on those history pages. This didn't happen in testing. @Sohom Datta:. I'll investigate now. Dw31415 (talk) 14:57, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks to be limited to be limted to one errant rfc tag that got included.
    Spaces added below
    :logs % grep -R "{{rfc|" . :./removed_rfcs_2016_part1.txt: rfc | rfcid = 80BA7DB :./removed_rfcs_2016.txt: rfc | rfcid = 80BA7DB : Dw31415 (talk) 15:07, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Can someone delete the kill page for me: User:SodiumBot/kill/FRS Dw31415 (talk) 15:10, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed. Sorry about the issue caused :( Sohom (talk) 17:18, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I've reverted SodiumBot as far back as I saw the spurious edits. Sohom (talk) 18:02, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! I'd like to do a test RfC to make sure Legobot picks it up and handles it. Is there an easy way to keep Sodiumbot from picking it up. Was thinking of creating here User:Dw31415/TestRfC Dw31415 (talk) 18:04, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Nevermind Legobot seems to be operating normally https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Trump&diff=prev&oldid=1332062730 Dw31415 (talk) 18:07, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I've also added a check right now for SodiumBot's yapperbot service to ignore userpages at [2] which should prevent any potential issues through any other code path. Sohom (talk) 18:40, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Legoktm, looks like Legobot picked up User:DwAlphaBot/RfcHistory/2016a because of that tag and has added do not archive comments Dw31415 (talk) 15:30, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Dang... it looks like Legobot added an rfcid here. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:DwAlphaBot/RfcHistory/2016a&diff=next&oldid=1332037242 Dw31415 (talk) 15:35, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    This looks like the first one. It's adding an rfc id to an rfcquote https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:DwAlphaBot/RfcHistory/2016a&diff=next&oldid=1332033649 Dw31415 (talk) 19:26, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll add nobots to the pages Dw31415 (talk) 15:38, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Dang Legobot is making circular edits to the page User:DwAlphaBot/RfcHistory/2016a Dw31415 (talk) 15:56, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    {{reply to|Legobot}} Dw31415 (talk) 15:58, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    We need to disable User:Legobot Dw31415 (talk) 16:08, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked for 3 hours. Last edit 4 minutes ago. Dw31415 (talk) 16:25, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    This will need to be cleaned up. Dw31415 (talk) 16:29, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Unsorted&diff=prev&oldid=1332049229 Dw31415 (talk) 16:29, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    User:SD0001, FYI. Dw31415 (talk) 16:44, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m leaning toward deleting content of the history pages because I’m not sure why Legobot seemed to confuse the RfC and rfcquote templates. I need to step away for 30 minutes. Dw31415 (talk) 17:00, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I deleted the content of User:DwAlphaBot/RfcHistory/2016a, watching Legobot to see if it goes after the other pages. Will look at the source to see if because that one page had an unexpected {{rfc| Dw31415 (talk) 17:27, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I added {{nobots}} to all the subpages User:DwAlphaBot/RfcHistory Dw31415 (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chaotic Enby Thanks for the help!
    @User:Legobot does not seem to pick up the other pages. Not sure what it will do. I'll keep watching Legobot's edits for the next 30 min. Dw31415 (talk) 17:46, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Paine Ellsworth noticed that that another bot was picking up malformed requested move tags User talk:Dw31415#Your bot. Waiting to see how that bot reacts to the nobots template on the pages Dw31415 (talk) 19:21, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Status: Legobot seems to be running fine. Just the move tag about above remains an issue. I need to step away for 6 hours. Will try to check from my phone occasionally. Dw31415 (talk) 19:49, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    These new pages are causing various problems. I posted on the bot's talk page with questions. The two main problems are nonexistent templates and hundreds of Linter errors, some of which are of types that have long been eliminated from the English Wikipedia. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:32, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you think I should delete the content for now? Dw31415 (talk) 21:03, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    To answer your question, the idea was to have a searchable record of RfC’s. It was tested but with more recent content (2024, 2025) Dw31415 (talk) 21:15, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know if deleting the content (i.e. blanking the pages) is the best course of action, but maybe so. The information will still be available in the pages' history. Anything you can do to cause the Linter errors to go away would be helpful, because these pages are going to pop up in a bunch of reports, attracting gnomes and bots (as you have already seen). This will waste their time and yours. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:32, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I’ll try delete the page content tomorrow morning. I’ll have to do it manually because I don’t have access to my project computer. Sorry for the the inconveniences Dw31415 (talk) 05:28, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    About to start deleting the content. Dw31415 (talk) 13:39, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Status: Content removed from all the pages. I won't be able to edit again for another 36 hours. I'll look at how to extract some key words from the legobot history instead of resurrecting old text with templates that clearly caused a problem. FYI: @Jonesey95, @Paine Ellsworth, @Legoktm Dw31415 (talk) 14:27, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dw31415: Sorry, looks like I missed all the fun while I was on vacation. Maybe this is better to expose via a Toolforge tool or something instead of on-wiki? Just an idea. Legoktm (talk) 21:37, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I just added a more limited version of the content for 2021 User:DwAlphaBot/RfcHistory/2021#Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States presidential elections expired 2021-01-13 13:01 Rather than resurecting full edits, I extracted words. Will leave just this one page to see if any bots get to it. Dw31415 (talk) 02:50, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    running a bot approved for mainspace in user space

    [edit]

    Monkbot task 22 was approved to operate only in mainspace (BRFA). On 10 January 2026, I reported that the bot had completed its task.

    The task was only approved to operate in mainspace, but pursuant to a request from Editor Zackmann08, I ran the bot in draft space. On 12 January 2026, Editor MPGuy2824 deleted {{Infobox ship career}}, {{Infobox ship characteristics}}, {{Infobox ship class overview}}, and {{Infobox ship image}} (but not {{Infobox ship begin}} don't know why that is ...).

    Following the deletion, Editor Jonesey95 complained that the deletion caused Linter errors in some User pages. Editor MPGuy2824 subsequently undeleted those templates.

    Editor Zackmann08 has now asked me to run task 22 in user space so that the the table-based infoboxen template may be deleted. Is it permissible to run a bot approved for mainspace operation in user (and some Talk:, some Wikipedia:, some Template:, perhaps a few other namespaces)? I am not eager to get into disputes with editors who might take offence at my bot mucking about in 'their' user space.

    —Trappist the monk (talk) 16:09, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    FWIW, I think the Linter errors arose from not deleting {{Infobox ship begin}}. If there is no appetite for replacing these TFD'd templates in User space, I hope that the deleting admin will delete all of the templates this time. Complainingly yours, – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:27, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I wondered that too but am not now convinced. I created a simple table-based ship infobox in my sandbox but used the live {{Infobox ship begin}} and the nonexistent templates {{Infobox ship career/deleted}} and {{Infobox ship characteristics/deleted}} and saved it. When I looked the 'page information' it did not show any linter errors. When I changed {{Infobox ship begin}} to {{Infobox ship begin/deleted}}, only then did page info showed the fostered content linter error. From this simple test, I think that we can guess that there will be 675-ish pages added to the fostered content linter report if all of the fix older {{infobox ship <begin>|<career>|<characteristics>|<class overview>}} templates are deleted.
    When you wrote that the deletion caused Linter errors in some User pages, how many is some? Editor Zackmann08 said the deletion caused massive linter errors. Which of you is correct?
    Of course, none of this answers my real question ...
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 17:04, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't remember how many. It was somewhere between a couple dozen and one hundred in User space. It was not equivalent to every transclusion of {{Infobox ship begin}}, of which there are about 630 at this writing. I did not record any of the affected page names. My suspicion, returning to your question, is that the bot will be fine running in User space and that you will get two complaints or reverts out of 600 such edits. We Linter gnomes can deal with those individually. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:57, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    No, if the bot task was only approved for running in mainspace then a new BRFA would be needed to update the approval to run in additional namespaces, particularly when it's not something closely related to mainspace like draftspace is. On the plus side, it's a good candidate for a {{BotSpeedy}}. You may also be able to apply WP:IAR if the namespace restriction wasn't really discussed in the BRFA, but that won't help the "editors who might take offence" possibility. Anomie⚔ 17:51, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree somewhat with this; the "namespace" prompt is to give an indication of where the template will be editing, but I do not think that this is always proscriptive; if the task is to replace a template being deleted, it seems somewhat pointless to prohibit the template from being replaced in a location where it might not be expected to be found (and in this case in particular, the Draft space is basically "mainspace lite").
    In this particular instance, the task is "replace wikitable-based ship infoboxen...", so we should let that task proceed. I am not strictly opposed to a voice vote of BAG here to support continuation of this task in other namespaces, but I am opposed to creating a new BRFA purely for this purpose (even with the Speedy option). Primefac (talk) 11:25, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Iirc I have at least once gotten slight changes of scope similar to this by pinging the approving bag member on the brfa talk page and had them add an addendum for nice documentation. It is good to have a clear approval document people can easily verify but it also seems overly onerous to require a new BRFA. This might be a reasonable middle ground. Trialpears (talk) 12:48, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    If the namespace field doesn't mean anything, then why do we have it? Should we remove it from the form? Anomie⚔ 13:14, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. If something is approved for mainspace, requiring another BRFA for the same edits on lesser namespaces like draft/user is unnecessary bureaucracy. – SD0001 (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems like an assertion that could very easily come back to bite someone. "I was approved to bot-enforce some nitpicky MOS thing in articles, now I can do everyone's userpages and talk pages too without any further approval!" Anomie⚔ 23:42, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, fair points. Let me restate my opinion along the lines of Trialpears, in that we don't need a new BRFA to update the existing one; in this particular case for this particular BRFA, I see no issue with extending the approval to allow for finishing up the task. Given the pushback here I will not do that unilaterally though I was the approving BAG. Primefac (talk) 00:34, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Primefac: In this case, go ahead. It's a pretty straightforward TFD cleanup task already, and it being filed as limited to mainspace was probably an error in the first place. I'd be wary of using this as precedent for doing larger or more complex expansions of tasks here instead of in BRFAs though. Let's save discussion here for things that could be simple errors (like this), and reviews that could lead to narrowing or revoking approvals. Anomie⚔ 02:54, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, no precedents being set here. TTM, I'll update the BRFA shortly; I am looking forward to removing those templates from WP:TFDH. Primefac (talk) 11:57, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    We have a long history of running bots in userspace to update templates after a TFD, so I doubt editors will kick up a stink about it. I support running this code on the remaining transclusions of {{infobox ship begin}}. My sincere appreciation for all your work on this, Trappist the monk :) Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:29, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry playing catch up here... Long day at work. User:Trappist the monk I appreciate all your work. If I in any way implied you had caused errors, that was NOT my intention! Sorry for the misunderstanding. You are doing great work and I hope this new request can be speedily approved. If I can help further or clarify anything, let me know! Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 03:19, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    No ToC at Wikipedia:Bot requests

    [edit]

    Wikipedia:Bot requests does not have a ToC because Wikipedia:Bot requests/Header uses NOTOC. Is there any reason it does this? This makes navigating the page unnecessarily harder with the default skin with the ToC on the left sidebar. Gonnym (talk) 20:03, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Probably because Wikipedia:Bot requests/topic list is transcluded at the top and if there was a TOC then we'd effectively have two of them. Primefac (talk) 20:32, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    bot checking for file-licensing tags

    [edit]

    Do we have an extant bot that checks the File: namespace for files lacking any copyright tags? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 17:44, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    User:ImageTaggingBot, for newly-uploaded ones. —Cryptic 18:12, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! I've asked there if that bot can also trawl extant uploads. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 19:57, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard&oldid=1336207027"