Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks

Home
Introduction and rules
User manual
How to use AWB
Discussion
Discuss AWB, report errors, and request features
User tasks
Request or help with AWB-able tasks
Technical
Technical documentation

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8	Archive 9
Archive 10	Archive 11	Archive 12
Archive 13	Archive 14	Archive 15
Archive 16	Archive 17	Archive 18

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by when more than 3 sections are present.

This page is for AWB'ers who can't find anything to put it to use on, or who would like to help others with this powerful tool.

Below are tasks for which a page-autoloader with various capabilities would be especially useful. That is, the people posting these tasks need the help of AWB'ers! If you have AWB, please lend a hand.

Please note that Wikipedia:Bot requests sometimes has one-time tasks which can be done easily using AWB.

Bulk AfD nomination

175 articles in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Index of Abkhazia-related articles will need to be tagged using AWB. If I unknowingly caught an item that is already proposed for deletion, it can be removed from the list, but I don't think there are any.

Full list

–LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 08:40, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Poking Trialpears. Primefac (talk) 08:55, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doing with JWB. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 00:03, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@LaundryPizza03:

Done 173 pages (Index of Algeria-related articles was listed twice). Tol (talk | contribs) @ 00:08, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies to followup this request to do the exact opposite, but I just closed the debate as "no consensus". Now these pages need to have the AFD template removed and the talk pages tagged with the following: {{Old XfD multi|date=20 February 2022|result='''no consensus'''|page=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Index of Abkhazia-related articles}} ✗plicit 13:09, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tol, you might want to mass-rollback this, which should be faster than editing the pages one-by-one. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:19, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good shout, which I've done now. A handful that still need manual editing though. Primefac (talk) 13:21, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I hope you flagged the edits as bot or else you'd have generated quite a few notifications. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:41, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the AFD tags, by any means other than with a bot, would generate a notice, so it's kind of irrelevant (and last I checked I was not a bot ;-) ). Primefac (talk) 13:47, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I mean the "your edit has been reverted" notification, and I mean the bot=1 URL parameter. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 14:03, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, good point (and my apologies to Tol for that slew of pings then); will try to remember that for future use. Primefac (talk) 14:21, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! (The "99+" notifications were a little shocking, though!) Tol (talk | contribs) @ 20:09, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine not being used to seeing two "99+"s in the personal navbar... ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:09, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ENGVAR redirects for Wikipedia:Language learning centre subpages

Moved from Wikipedia:Bot requests § ENGVAR redirects for Wikipedia:Language learning centre subpages

– ― Qwerfjkl talk 17:18, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can a bot please take all subpages of Wikipedia:Language learning centre (note the spelling of the last word) on all levels, and create a redirect from the corresponding subpage of Wikipedia:Language learning center? Animal lover 666 (talk) 14:46, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are only 33 pages that meet this criteria. It can be done manually or with AWB. Primefac (talk) 14:51, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doing... 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 18:44, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done Please let me know if I missed anything. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 22:26, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Two task requests

Hi, there are two tasks that I would be grateful if anyone could undertake:

In this list (131 items), replace (regex) "in the \[\[(g|G)rand (s|S)lam $tennis$\|Grand Slam T" with "in the [[Grand Slam (tennis)|Grand Slam t"
In these two lists (362 items), replace (non-regex) "|Mixed]]" with "|Mixed doubles]]" (not every article will need this change).

Thanks. --Letcord (talk) 21:30, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doing... 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 22:12, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just made some very rapid edits that I apologize for; I accidentally held down the save button in JWB and made them too fast.

Still doing (but slower)... 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 22:22, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Obsolete discussion about request 2. Letcord (talk) 11:58, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we need Mixed doubles? These are supposed to be short titles and there's no such thing as Mixed singles. I think Singles, Doubles, and Mixed is all we really need. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:33, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I started doing these since I thought they made sense. Looking at Mixed doubles, it seems like this is the common term? I'll pause the changes for now pending discussion. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 22:38, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "mixed doubles" is the proper term, "mixed" alone is informal. These articles all had either "mixed draw" (which is also informal) or "mixed doubles" until about a week ago, when consensus was found to remove "draw". "Doubles" was also removed from "mixed doubles" (without discussion) from those articles that had it, but I realize now that that was done in error. Wolbo reverted a change to "mixed" alone with the edit summary "Mixed doubles is the name of the event, mixed is never just in isolation". Do you agree @Fyunck(click), so this task can be completed? Letcord (talk) 22:57, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest I'm not sure I do agree. I see no reason to use anything but Mixed. I like it much better as we have at 1992 WTA Tour It keeps it a single word like the other two disciplines, at least at the tennis year articles. It's not a big deal but it might be good to hear what tennis editors would like on the chart. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:25, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The tennis project is currently bogged down with the great "Win–Loss" vs "Win–loss" debate and similarly significant capitalization issues. "Mixed doubles" is the status quo ante for these articles [1] and was changed without discussion and then objected to by another editor. Do you feel strongly enough about this one to stand in the way of the reversion, or can you let it slide? Letcord (talk) 23:47, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as there is lukewarm opposition and mixed opinions by multiple editors, I would recommend a RfC before proceeding. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 00:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As shown in my link, it is not the status quo. There were some of "Mixed" and some "Mixed draw", and some "Mixed Doubles." Changing them all to "Mixed doubles" with no discussion seems wrong to me. And remember, Tennis Project as a whole is not bogged down in that debate... that would be tennis vs outside editors. That's fine and dandy and it happens sometimes, but "Mixed" would be more of an internal debate among tennis editors about what works best in the charts we created from scratch. That might not need and RFC but would require at least a little discussion before changing all of the charts to one particular style. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:37, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"status quo ante" is what I wrote, not "status quo". Please read the definition I linked if you don't understand the difference. My link showed the article you linked before the recent change, which had "Mixed doubles". I am requesting here for an editor to assist getting back to "Mixed doubles". If you obstruct, the only difference is that I'll have to spend an hour reverting the edits manually, which I will do if necessary. You are the sole person standing in the way of this process-abiding change - per WP:BRD myself/Dicklyon boldly changed to "Mixed", Wolbo then reverted, this task would just complete the reversion, and then changing to "Mixed" can be discussed later. Can you please let this task be completed unopposed? Is that possible? Letcord (talk) 01:10, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, this involves Dicklyon's proposed changes. I filed a bot request with related (but not identical) changes, which I withdrew. The comments on that page might be helpful. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 01:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For task 2, I've now manually reverted to the status quo ante "Mixed doubles" to complete the R of the WP:BRD process. Thanks to EpicPupper for the help with task 1, and thanks to Fyunck(click) for the obstructionism. Letcord (talk) 11:58, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Always there to help keep wikipedia safe for our readers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Updating format of WTA IDs

If someone could please (regex) replace "(\{(WTA|wta) (profile)* *\| *\d+)\/[^\|\}]+(\||\})" with "$1$4" for the articles in Category:WTA template with ID different from Wikidata, that would be appreciated. Only the numeric part of the WTA IDs has been needed for some time now, and this will bring these few articles with the old ID format in line with their items on Wikidata and the rest of the player articles on Wikipedia, thus clearing this maintenance category. Thanks, --Letcord (talk) 11:57, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doing ― Qwerfjkl talk 12:02, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]