Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 8

Hello, would it be possible to have a bot created that would add the Law enforcement wikiproject header ({{Law enforcement}}) to articles that are in the Law Enforcement catagory? (here). Many thanks.--SGGH 14:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll take care of it shortly.

talk • contribs • Bot

) 14:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou.--SGGH 15:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

What subcats do you want tagged?

talk • contribs • Bot

) 16:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

If im understanding you correctly, then all of the sub cats apart from Unarmed people shot by police, People shot dead by police and Vigilantes.

Ill start on this

talk • contribs • Bot

) 17:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

See User talk:Betacommand/20081201#Bot question, thanks/wangi 22:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

It looks like some people have "Free Use" confused with "Fair Use". Regardless, this bot is still doing the proper thing. The images that have been tagged by people incorrectly will have to be fixed by hand regardless. Kaldari 04:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The sooner we can get

Template:CopyrightedFreeUse deleted the better. It seems to be the source of lots of confusion and redundancy. Kaldari

04:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Could someone please create a bot which would automatically replace the Template:SER with Template:SRB. Even though SRB is an official ISO 3166-1 3-letter country code and an abbreviation for Serbia (from Srbija) many people still think this code is SER and having a wrong template doesn`t help either. It would be nice to have an automatic bot to correct future mistakes. Avala 14:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm tinkering with a proposal I've made which involves using categories to replace a list page (the proposal is Wikipedia:WikiProject The Simpsons/Proposal for managing song lists on Simpsons episodes) but I wonder if this is something that could be well managed by a bot.

The requirement would be to generate a page (or I guess edit a delimited section in the middle of a page) based on all the pages listed in a different category. Perhaps the extended requirement would be to find all the subcategories of a given category and use them to generate a list of lists. For instance, 'generate a page with sections named from subcategories of the category "songs on the simpsons", where each section has a list formed from the names of the pages in those subcategories (which would be the names of songs)'.

Or perhaps to take the text from a given section from each page of a list of pages (identified from being members of a category) and generate one page containnig all those sections. For instance 'copy all the sections called "songs" from all pages in the category "simpsons episodes" to the "songs" section of the page "list of songs on the simpsons" page'.

This all sounds quite fiddly, but I can imagine someone may have made a generic bot that can be fed with parameters to do this sort of processing. Is there anything out there to do something like this, or any keen on developing one? Please feel free to chat on my talk page if you want to ask questions or suggest solutions --Mortice 18:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds feasable, But i have few questions are the songs in their own cats? if not do the page names all follow a pattern? could this just be one master list sorted by name?

talk • contribs • Bot

) 18:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Even if the bot can be developed, this suggestion has to pass approval by the people who maintain the relevant pages, I'm just trying to kick some ideas around to see if one sticks --Mortice 20:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Update - I've been having a look at the bot API and it looks quite straightforward so I might 'have a go' at this (I'm a coder by trade and have a 24/7 connected server), although I know it will require 'approval' and I'm sure I'll need advice about writing an industrial strength bot --Mortice 00:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I've written a spec for this bot - see

User:Mortice/ListGenBot, which I'm sure would be of use for all sorts of pages. So much so that I'm sure someone must have developed it already - anyone confirm or deny that? And if I develop it I'm likely to have a few questions about producing a pywikipedia based bot - anyone volunteer to be a sounding board for me? I'm aware of the requirement to get it approved first --Mortice

21:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm currently developing this bot --Mortice 12:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Main pages with misplaced talk page templates contains pages with a template that belongs on the page's talk page instead. Can we employ a bot to move these? (Radiant) 13:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Yet again I should be able to do this if you explain the function a little better,

talk • contribs • Bot

) 14:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks. Templates in this category shuold be on an article's talk page rather than the article itself. The category I mentioned above contains articles that contain at least one of those templates. The bot should periodically check this category, remove the relevant template(s) (and any parameters) and add them to the talk page instead. (Radiant) 14:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

And, Category:Articles actively undergoing construction and Category:Articles actively undergoing a major edit are supposed to be temporary categories, but have grown very large. Perhaps a bot could depopulate them weekly? (Radiant) 13:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes I can and Will have my bot empty the cat, Is there a day that you would suggest doing this?

talk • contribs • Bot

) 14:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Not particularly. Note that these categories are generated by {{
  Underconstruction}}. Thanks! (Radiant
  ) 14:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Before I go and have my bot blocked for this, (as a malfunctioning bot) what should I use for the edit summary?

talk • contribs • Bot

) 15:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• How about "(bot) Remove inuse tag, no activity for three days"? Or maybe five days. Or I could think of some pun to go with that :) (Radiant) 15:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I try to go through this and weed out the forgotten ones. It is a bit frustrating because some people demand the right to leave up the tag for long periods of time, and aren't shy about complaining. Also it's transcluded on a bunch of instructional pages, like

How do I make a bot to message Wikiproject Gold Coast members? If possible, can someone make it for me. Thank you -- Nathannoblet 07:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Can do this. But I need what you want sent out and to who.

talk • contribs • Bot

) 13:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I have opened suggestions for creating a template for image pages that warns admins that a user has contacted the copyright owner requesting the image's use of Wikipedia and asks not for it to be deleted while a response is expected. The discussion can be found here.

In order to work, it will need a bot that checks a tagging date and remove images that have been tagged for more than one week, and create a relevant category of unlicensed images each day, the same way it is done in {{

I don't have any expertise in creating bots, so could someone please create a bot that can do this? ~ ► Wykebjs ◄ (userpage | talk) 18:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

talk • contribs • Bot

) 20:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Betacommand, that would be much appreciated. ~ ► Wykebjs ◄ (userpage | talk) 21:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, Category:Pages needing an infobox conversion and Category:Needs album infobox conversion contain a template that should be switched to another template. Would a bot be feasible here? (Radiant) 13:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Likewise I can set my bot up to do this if you give some more detailed information on exactly what is changing

talk • contribs • Bot

) 14:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• This gives some related info. I'll ask around a bit to get the specifics. (Radiant) 14:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • (queried at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums). (Radiant) 16:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • [16] [17] [18] These three diffs are examples of the way the replacement works. The editor who does this is unconvinced that this can in fact be automated, so ymmv. (Radiant) 09:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

There are quite a few lists of new articles related to specific subject used by various wikiprojects. They all work 'manually' - with dedicated users adding articles they find to the lists - but this could all be easily autmomatized (botized). We need a bot that would: 1) look at a specified forum (i.e. Portal:Poland/New article announcements) 2) look at a specified section to find last reported article (they differ as various wikiprojects and such have no unified structure, so some may have 'November', others 'November 1-15', and so on 3) look at a 'what links here' of given article(s) - for example, Poland, Polish, Polish language for Portal:Poland, see what new articles have been added to the 'what links here' and generate a report in the above section in the format *[[article name]] created by [[User:Username]] on date This bot would save much time now spend by dozens of dedicated editors who scour the 'what links here' lists instead of doing more constructive work. Issues to consider: articles in question (countries) have many pages of 'what links here', to speed up the process the bot may want to look from the end to find the most recent article added, thus skipping 99% of the links - but this may skip checking redirect. I don't know how long will it take to analyze the entire page to find and analyze redirects, but once they are found they can be added to the main 'check' list and the bot wouldn't have to look through main article for them again, so it would be useful to have to options: normal scan (from the end to the last reported) and complete (from the end to the last reported, and then to the begining but generate only list of redirects). Additional features which I doubt would be included (wishlist): add lenght of the article, tags, lead; scan for new pictures, categories and stubs.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I support this idea. If the bot doesn't work properly, it can be disabled. --Ineffable3000 18:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support. It would definetly save a lot time for users. AQu01rius (
  Talk
  ) 00:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support. These lists could do with a bit of a hand. It'd be better if it had some way of working from newpages instead, but whatlinkshere would at least get it kicked off. Rebecca 09:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• This is an interesting idea. I would be happy to get a bot-generated list once per day of articles that might be related to Germany, I would check them by hand and announce at the relevant
  announcement page myself. Whether the bot should work from Special:Newpages or from some Whatlinksheres or both should be tried out experimentally, whatever works best. Kusma (討論)
  16:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Seems worth trying the experiment. - Jmabel | Talk 07:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Per

• {{
  Africa in topic}} to {{Africa topic
  }}
• {{
  Asia in topic}} to {{Asia topic
  }}
• {{
  Europe in topic}} to {{Europe topic
  }}
• {{
  North America in topic}} to {{North America topic
  }}
• {{
  Oceania in topic}} to {{Oceania topic
  }}
• {{
  South America in topic}} to {{South America topic
  }}

Thanks!  David Kernow (talk) 10:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there's really a need for that. It wastes a lot of resources making all those edits, and the templates redirect to each other anyway. —Mets501 (talk) 21:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Templates {{

I can do this with AWB, though can I have a link that says they must be substed? ST47Talk 20:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Template namespace. Chris cheese whine 20:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'm trying to get some Country and City Wikipedia pages for use on a Google map travel site. The code is written in C# and works ok for other sites. On Wikipedia I get a 403 error when I read in a page. Do I need to register my site process as a bot or could I use an existing bot to get the pages ?

please

our robots.txt blocks all automated crawlers. I would recommend that you either [download.wikimedia.org download a database dump] or use google's cache. ST47Talk 01:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks I'll try those --Seewhere.net 02:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

"On Wikipedia, and other Wiki-based websites broken external links still present a maintenance problem."

linkrot

I am hoping someone takes on the task to write a WebCite-Bot, i.e. a bot which automatically feeds all cited URLs in Wikipedia to WebCite, which is a web archive similar to the Internet Archive, but with enhanced features such as on-demand archiving, and with a focus on scholarly material (as opposed to IA's shotgun-crawling-"archive-all-you-can"-approach). WebCite creates a snapshot (cached copy) of the cited URL, thereby archiving/preserving the cited webpage or webdocument (if caching was successful, the link to the snapshot should be added to the original URL on wikipedia). WebCite takes care of robot exclusion standards, no-cache tags etc on the cited page. If caching was successful, WebCite hands back a WebCite-ID, which should be added to the original link (for an example on how this could look like see examples below and also see the reference list at the bottom of the article http://www.jmir.org/2006/4/e27/ - all cited non-journal webpages also have a link to the WebCite snapshot). The benefit would be that all cited material will be automatically preserved and link rot, 404s or changes in the cited webpages will no longer be a problem. WebCite has an XML-based webservice which allows to communicate the caching request as well as to receive the WebCite ID if the caching was successful, see technical guide http://www.webcitation.org/doc/WebCiteBestPracticesGuide.pdf User:Eysen 19:45, 04 December 2006 (UTC)

Webcite usage is under discussion at

WP:EL. Could be a great idea, but this type of citation usage is still a long way from mass replacement by bot. ∴ here…♠

02:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I have seen a bot dealing with 404 broken links running on Polish Wikipedia. I couldn't remeber the bot's name, but you can ask at pl:Wikipedia:Boty.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  05:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The idea of WebCite is to prevent 404s in the first place by archiving the cited webpage immediately after they have been cited, i.e. archiving them prospectively and replacing the original URL with a link to the cited snapshot (in contrast, I assume that the Polish bot merely deletes or flags broken links). BTW - In the discussions on WebCite I have seen some misguided comments on copyright concerns - on that note one should stress that caching on the Internet is frequently done and does not constitute a copyright violation if no-cache tags and robot exclusion standards are honored (see also Webcite FAQ, which cites a recent lawsuit against Google, which Google won). While retrospective "mass replacement" makes little sense, at least cited URLs in new articles should be webcited as soon as possible. I am still hoping for a volunteer to write an experimental bot which hands over new wikipedia submissions to WebCite and replaces newly cited URLs with WebCite links or at least adds a WebCite link to the original reference (for how to do this including explanations of the XML-based webservice see WebCite FAQ. Below, I have given some examples on how this should look like. --Eysen 19:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

--snip--

It is proposed to develop a bot which - using the WebCite webservice - changes a reference (or even "naked" URLs) as follows:

Replace a reference like:

• Plunkett, John. "Sorrell accuses Murdoch of panic buying", The Guardian, October 27, 2005, retrieved October 27, 2005.

with a reference like this

• Plunkett, John. "Sorrell accuses Murdoch of panic buying", The Guardian, October 27, 2005, retrieved October 27, 2005, WebCited December 4th, 2006.

or this (in addition to the WebCite URL, the original URL might be given):

• Plunkett, John. "Sorrell accuses Murdoch of panic buying", The Guardian, October 27, 2005, retrieved October 27, 2005, original URL: http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,14173,1601858,00.html, WebCited December 4th, 2006.

Alternatively, the cited URL can also be retained as part of the link to webcitation, to keep the cited URL explicit and to allow easy reverting to the original URL should this be desired:

• Plunkett, John. "Sorrell accuses Murdoch of panic buying"], The Guardian, October 27, 2005, retrieved October 27, 2005, WebCited December 4th, 2006, archived URL:http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,14173,1601858,00.html&date=2006-12-04

--snap--

As a lowly peasant of wikipedia only, I think this is a great idea - PocklingtonDan 22:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Great - any volunteers to write a beta-bot to experiment with this?--Eysen 17:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello again, I was wondering if one of you lovely people could help us out again - we've set up an Assement department and would like all {{Architecture|class=stub}} adding to all of the stubs currently listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture/Stub categories, starting with those articles with {{architecture-stub}} and {{architect-stub}} tags. Cheers. --Mcginnly | Natter 12:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Ill take care of that

talk • contribs • Bot

) 14:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I see the bots off and running already - cheers. Please share a cigar with me as a token of my appreciation - for all you americans out there - it's the best cuban.......--Mcginnly | Natter 00:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Back again, on a similar tack, is it possible to add the FA and GA criteria as well, just leaving the A's and B's for us to assess? --Mcginnly | Natter 00:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

(This isn't a bot request per se but an "is this worth doing" post - I can write the bot myself if people think its worth doing.)

I notice that one of the items permanently on the maintenance list is the Wikipedia:Cleanup list and that the number of articles needing cleanup seems to be increasing rather than decreasing. I had an idea for a bot that might help with this problem. I could write this bot myself (already have one bot on trial) but wanted to get people's ideas for whether it was worthwhile, comments etc etc, before I started on it.

Brief scope as I see it now (amenable to change): Bot would be manually run or automatically run on an eg weekly basis. Bot would trawlCategory:All_pages_needing_cleanup and find any new additions since its last trawl. It would visit each new addition and pull a list of contributors. It would then leave a message on the talk page of (every contributor) or (last 10 contributors) or (article starter) or (contributors with 10+edits) or (whatever) notifying them that the article is in need of cleanup and listing tips for how they could help to achieve this etc.

What do you think? Worthwhile? Ideas? Comments? - PocklingtonDan 17:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a nag-bot though if it's only weekly, I don't have a complaint on that. I'd be willing to help out with this if you decide to go ahead with it - for example, AWB can be used to generate a list, and to find new additions to the list.(it can compare 2 lists of articles) AWB can also probably be used to find the last 10 people - it has support for C# modules. I'd have to think about that one. But yeah, it is a good idea! ST47Talk 19:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It would be a nag-bot essentially, yes. I'm not sure from your wording whether or not you're suggesting there is generally a policy agains the use of nag-bots?? It just seems that the articles needing cleanup list is getting bigger and bigger and, since bots cannot effectively clear up articles, the next best thing would be to run a bot to try and prod users into cleaning up articles. Can I get some more input on this, from multiple people before I go ahead? Which set of users do you think it would be fair to "nag"? Perhaps last 0-20 plus article originator?? Editors with top 10 number of edits for that article?? Top 10 most-editing editors from other articles in the category? I want to get a good impression of whether people think the general idea is a good one, and then hammer out a more specific scope/specification before I start work on the bot. Cheers - PocklingtonDan 19:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

If the talk page has a WikiProject tag, could you have the bot flag the attention parameter instead? This will place the article in "X articles needing attention" for the specific WikiProject (see for example Category:Hawaii articles needing attention). Members of the projects are supposed to be watching these cats, so there's no reason to contact anyone. —Viriditas | Talk 21:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC):

This seems like a useful extra feature, certainly. Can you just explain to me exactly how the attention flag works etc? Is it a simple case of adding something like "attention=yes" to the poject banner? If so, I don't see why the bot couldn't set that flag if it was a project article, or else contact some of the editors if not a project article. - PocklingtonDan 21:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. See Template_talk:WikiProject_Hawaii for a brief description. I doubt every WikiProject has the appropriate template, so your bot could check against a list of WikiProjects currently using the assessment template. —Viriditas | Talk 22:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for all comments. This is now in request for approval - PocklingtonDan 12:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi there!

I was wondering if it would be possible to run a spacing bot, either automated or manual, that puts spaces or newlines between wiki syntax and removes spaces or newlines if they weren't needed? Obviously it would have to be pretty simple so as not to get spacing wrong. I could probably knock something up in Yabasic pretty quickly, using an external program like Wget to handle getting and sending data from the page.

If anyone's interested I'll give an account of different wiki syntax that I believe spacing makes easier to understand (like putting spaces after bullet points before the text).

Cheers,

This seems pretty straight-forward; But is it a valuable use of resources? Jmax- 02:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, if it makes wiki syntax while editing pages simpler to understand. By the way, what would be a good delay between each edit? Thanks,

&help!

03:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm skeptical; that's a lot of resources. Part of the rules of

AWB states

Avoid making insignificant minor edits such as only adding or removing some white space

and although that's not official policy, it's generally accepted. Would it change the way pages are displayed, or only their wikicode? —Mets501 (talk

) 11:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The reason for that rule is primarily that (a very few) people complained about such edits (for a number of reasons - one was that there was no "hide bots" option on the watchlist then). With the amount of AWB editing going on, were it to be relaxed, very likely most pages would be in conformance with AWB's "Genreal fixes" quite quickly. However the nightmare scenario would be if a different framework had different standards. So it could work, but would need a little planning and cooperation.

7 December 2006

(GMT).

I don't know how many resources the bot would use up. I expect I would just focus it in the main articlespace. With a 2-10 second delay between edits, it should give the server enough of a break as so not to notice any difference (of course, you're more knowledgeable in this than me). I would make a suggestion that it runs about once every day for a period of about one or two hours; is this acceptable? (To me, it sounds quite a long time, so feel obliged to point out a better timescale.) I'm not sure the rules of AWB take any standing with this, although I see how they could be a good guideline.

The only nightmare I see is if different people have different spacing or newline standards. However, my (personal!) rule is to use as much whitespace as possible.

I would like to see your input on this. Cheers,

31415

19:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Any bot that does nothing but make wikitext prettier is a waste of resources. 10 seconds delay between edits means an extra 8640 edits per day with no benefit to readers. Whitespace edits also tend to make diffs more complicated, although nothing has happened. I am not convinced that this bot will benefit the encyclopedia at all, so any potential mild harm should count against it. Kusma (討論) 13:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Just a random user here, but I have to say i'm baffled as to what if any benefit the clearing of excess whitespace brings?????- PocklingtonDan 13:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi! I agree with your statement, "... so any potential mild harm should count against it", but I personally disagree with your other statement, "... any bot that does nothing but make wikitext prettier is a waste of resources". 10 seconds delay is too little for this sort of bot, I agree; if it was a 60-second pause then that means 60 edits per hour, ie. 120 edits if the bot runs for a two hour period. Whitespace, in my opinion, can make editing easier (and if there are, by any chance, two newlines in a row, they will be converted to one newline, therefore changing the display). It may be you are completely right; however, I just want to 'do my bit' to improve the encyclopedia. Perhaps, instead, I could write a bot to detect very short articles with no stub marker and report them to me, or as such. Any ideas? Cheers,

31415

19:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

(removing indent) I applaud your wish to contibrute your programmign knowledge its just I personally think re-arranging whitespace is a poor use of your bot's time and the server's resources. If there isn't already such a thing, a bot that flags near-empty articles as stubs would seem a much better idea. If it was able to flag the stubs as project stubs based on the category it was in or article name (this would probably need to be manualy-assisted) then all the better. Why not start a new section on this page to discuss this and move these comments there? - PocklingtonDan 19:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

If given the go-ahead I could probably write this myself, but I'll wait for further input first. Please note I'll be away for a few hours; I'll get back to you then. Cheers!

31415

20:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

::I think I saw some discussion of this on another page recently. Objections were raised that: ::*It would lead to overlinking - ie wikipedia doesn't want every year linked. ::*Four-digit numbers could be used as a number or a year. ie "In the year 2000, X did Y" or "X led 2000 troops into battle" ::*Numbers can refer to something more specific ie "2000 AD" or whatever that Judge Dredd comic is. ::*Numbers could be years, but as part of fuller strings, ie "Battle of Suessonia (1976)" should link tot he whole battle article, not just the year. ::*It wouldn't be possible to have a sufficiently clever bot to get round these caveats, so it would probably have to be manually-assisted and would thus represent a massive amount of work. ::Note the above are my recollections of what I read of a discussion of this same idea elsewhere

Ignore me, didn't read properly, thought your edits were going to be in the opposite direction (ie linking, not delinking). Oops - PocklingtonDan 21:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I can set it up and have it run just getting the linked to years

talk • contribs • Bot

) 21:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Out of curiosity does anyone know if a bot like this has been made before? Additionally, would someone be willing to explain how to make bots? b_cubed 04:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I use AWB/Pywikipedia framework but this is a simple find and replace command that I could do fairly simply.

talk • contribs • Bot

) 06:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

With regard to how to make bots, there is a new guide being written at

Wikipedia:Creating a bot. It is not yet complete - PocklingtonDan

09:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

So for myself to get a bot of this kind, would I need someone else to write the code for me or do I need to figure it out? Although I suppose it technically wouldn't matter whose bot it was, as it would help edit wikipedia, I wanted to have one of my own (assuming of course that its usefulness is approved). b_cubed 20:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Either/or would work. I would offer to write this for you but already got a bot development project on the go. If you have programming experience check out the creating a bot guide i linked above, and you should be able to do this yourself. if not, you'll have to hang around til someone with free time and programming skills reads this post - PocklingtonDan 17:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks like I will be waiting around. b_cubed 19:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[Copied from above]: (removing indent) I applaud your wish to contibrute your programmign knowledge its just I personally think re-arranging whitespace is a poor use of your bot's time and the server's resources. If there isn't already such a thing, a bot that flags near-empty articles as stubs would seem a much better idea. If it was able to flag the stubs as project stubs based on the category it was in or article name (this would probably need to be manualy-assisted) then all the better. Why not start a new section on this page to discuss this and move these comments there? - PocklingtonDan 19:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)