Wikipedia talk:Database reports/Archive 6

CC-By-SA files have a requirement for attribution by URL. Lots of people forget this when they use |link=|. The query below doesn't work since usability team decided to merge the file list into WhatLinksHere. Although a dump report is still possible.

SELECT il_from, il_to, include.tl_title
FROM page AS image
JOIN imagelinks     ON il_from!=0      AND il_to=page_title
LEFT JOIN pagelinks ON pl_from=il_from AND pl_namespace=page_namespace AND pl_title=page_title
LEFT JOIN templatelinks AS exclude ON
      exclude.tl_from=page_id
  AND exclude.tl_namespace=10
  AND exclude.tl_title LIKE "PD-%"
JOIN templatelinks AS include ON
      include.tl_from=page_id
  AND include.tl_namespace=10
  AND include.tl_title LIKE "Cc-by-sa%"

WHERE image.page_namespace=6
AND pl_from IS NULL
AND exclude.tl_from IS NULL
LIMIT 550;

— Dispenser 19:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The 'non-article' exception to Wikipedia:Database reports/Empty categories probably can be removed. It appears that there are no longer any empty categories containing "non-article", and any that still exist or come into existence should be identified and handled. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 09:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"It appears that there are no longer" - but it may appear again Bulwersator (talk) 10:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, of course, but we should know about any that do appear so that they can be populated or deleted. 'Non-article' has almost wholly been superseded by 'NA-Class', so there is no good reason for empty 'non-article' categories to remain undisturbed. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:49, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first order of business is fixing this report all together- It's supposed to be updating daily but hasn't for over 9 days. Removing that exception seems reasonable to me, however. VegaDark (talk) 18:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that, too, but I couldn't figure out the reason: BernsteinBot is still operating and the configuration for the report hasn't been altered since 2009. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are only two remaining 'non-article' categories. Neither one is empty and one I've already nominated for deletion, so I have proceeded with removing (diff) the 'non-article' exception from the configuration page. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 03:12, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Over at Bot Requests, Baa made a proposal about something that could find articles with the least amount of edits in X years. They suggested I take it over here since toolserver can apparently handle it better. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Before anyone here starts work on this, I've already replied at WP:BOTREQ. [1] Tim1357 ^talk 04:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DBR/Non-free files missing a rationale is not updating, It's giving blank results :(

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oversized non-free files (configuration) — figure out what state this is in (no notes, I guess?) and fix it
• user subpages recently where the account didn't exist or was deleted so would it be possible to see a report of subpages for nonexistent accounts?
• subpages of indefinitely blocked accounts.
• a listing of IPs with subpages

--MZMcBride (talk) 02:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I may, I'd like also to re-request one for red-linked categories with significant incoming links (i.e., links from all namespaces except User:, Wikipedia: and the talk namespaces). This is an ongoing issue for the editors who operate WP:CFD/W and such a report would be extremely helpful. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:16, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reasonable enough. I replied up there. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Some of you might have run into me before...I am doing a research project on bots, bot operators, and technical tools on WP and WM projects. I'm wondering if anyone wants to tackle this problem, which would help me out tremendously. I am looking for stats and data on bots, especially over time. Things like:

• (#) of bot accounts registered over time (by month would be fine) (on English WP)
• (#) of bot edits over time (on English WP)
• (#) of BRFA approved and not approved over time (on English WP only, obviously)
• same trends for bot use on other language versions (which would be a bonus)

I've found some info on these things spread around WP, but nothing that is both up-to-date and reasonably accurate/reliable. If you're interested in investigating this with me, I'd really appreciate the help (I don't have the technical knowledge base personally to find this data). Please let me know here or on my talk page.

And if you're a bot operator or Wikimedia developer (or someone who deals with the technical infrastructure of WP) and you'd like to be interviewed, please see my call here.

Thanks! UOJComm (talk) 20:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you might also want to know how many bot accounts are active (i.e. being used) and how active they are (edit count) over time. The count of bot accounts will just rise and rise, as it's unusual for a bot account to have the flag taken away. Josh Parris 22:42, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently there has been ~800 bots ever and currently there are only ~650 tagged. I'm working on the first one right now. Tim1357 ^talk 23:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first one is done [2]. For the second one, did you want # of bot edits to date, or # of bot edits that week/month/day? Tim1357 ^talk 23:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Josh Parris and Tim1357...Thank you both for your comments and your work. Josh...yes, stats on active versus inactive bots would help. Tim...this looks great (thank you!) Can you briefly explain to me how you got these numbers? For the second bullet point, I meant # of bot edits per month and year, though knowing the total # of bot edits to date would also be helpful (and in turn, what percentage of all edits that represents). Are you also able to do this for other language versions? Thank you again for the help! UOJComm (talk) 22:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Non-free Wikipedia file size reduction request recently was renamed to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests. I'm not sure if the change affects the Large non-free files (configuration) database report; I could not find anything in the configuration page, but thought it best to report the change nonetheless. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 22:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Configuration page is definitely old. The category name needs to be adjusted in the code. Bleh. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:59, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The categories Images made obsolete by a PNG version and Wikipedia images available as SVG contain files which have been superseded. Many of these images have been replaced in articles with their superseded versions, but there are a lot of articles which still need to be updated to use superseded images. I would like to have a list of files from each category that are still used in main space, preferably sorted by the number of articles the file is used in. I can't seem to find a way to do this with automated tools such as AWB or CatScan, but if there is a way I'd be happy to do it myself if possible. These lists would help me with the running of my bot (DanhashBot). Can anybody write and run database queries for these two lists, or explain how I can use an automated tool to compile such a list myself? Thanks! —danhash (talk) 00:57, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dom says that https://toolserver.org/~magnus/glamorous.php can do what you want to do, but it only works for Commons currently. You'll need to poke Magnus to add a database selection option.

What you're asking about is fairly trivial to do. It's just a matter of joining against the imagelinks table, pretty much. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would be much easier to have this information in the form of a database report. Glamorous seems to be able to provide (all or some of) the information I'm looking for, however it lists every language Wikipedia and is in a format that is very hard to use for this task. Any possibility of a new database report being created for images in use on the English Wikipedia? —danhash (talk) 18:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I asked at jira:DBQ and Hoo man ran a query[3] for me. Any possibility of adding his query as a report here? —danhash (talk) 14:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a report name and update frequency in mind? --MZMcBride (talk) 03:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Superseded files used in articles". Weekly, at least at first, would probably be fine. Also, if the report could be configured to include Commons categories as well (commons:Category:PNG version available and commons:Category:Vector version available) that would be extremely helpful. —danhash (talk) 14:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So what I'm imagining is a report with four sections. It would look something like this:

Superseded files used in articles; data as of ...

== Images made obsolete by a PNG version ==
| No. | File | Uses

== Wikipedia images available as SVG ==
| No. | File | Uses

== PNG version available ==
| No. | File | Uses

== Vector version available ==
| No. | File | Uses

Would that work? I think this should take about five minutes to create. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That seems great. It'd be convenient if the list was descending-sorted by the "Uses" column. —danhash (talk) 18:46, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right. That's easy enough to do. The output will have to be truncated or paginated, though. I just looked and two of the four categories are very large (commons:Category:Vector version available contains over 47,000 files). Any thoughts on this? --MZMcBride (talk) 18:53, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How many of those 47,000 are used in articles? I'd think that the list wouldn't be so long that reasonable pagination would be a problem, but if so the report could be limited to the top 300 or so files (or any other number that seems reasonable). —danhash (talk) 19:57, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A lot, apparently. I set a hard limit of 1000 rows. This report is now written: Superseded files used in articles (configuration). It still needs to be properly incorporated into Wikipedia:Database reports, but I'll do that later. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:46, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I missed the "in articles" bit in writing this. Fuck. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Surely an easy fix? Josh Parris 23:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I don't think it'll be awful. I was waiting for feedback about the current list. Is this holding up the bot request? --MZMcBride (talk) 23:52, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's my reading of what the op is saying. But don't feel pressured by that. Josh Parris 00:47, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have the original two lists that I got from jira:DBQ in a sandbox, but I can't sort them by number of uses. Sorting is not technically necessary, but on images with a small number of uses (especially those with just one or two uses) it is easier to update articles manually as it's not worth setting up AWB. I want to start with files with the highest number of uses, and with the current list it's not easy to find those files. There are other solutions I'm sure (for example I could ask Hoo man to re-run the query and sort the output (should have thought of that when I first asked him)), it just seems like a database report here would be the easiest to use and the simplest to update, but if it's too difficult or time consuming to do I can certainly find another way. —danhash (talk) 14:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Your reply reads as though you missed Superseded files used in articles (configuration). --MZMcBride (talk) 21:59, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm apparently I made a mistake. When you said you missed the "in articles" bit, I thought you meant that you listed the images in each category, but forgot to limit the list to images that were used in articles, so that the database report was a copy of the images in each category. But that was a total misunderstanding on my part and I'm really not sure how I got confused like that or how I didn't figure it out sooner; sorry about that. When you said you missed the "in articles" bit, did you mean that the uses column counts all uses, not just article-space uses? —danhash (talk) 13:22, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry. The current "uses" column accounts for links from any namespace. I'll try to fix this tomorrow.

The Commons component made this report significantly more complex. Because now we're querying Commons for the file names, but we have to set the scope to only English Wikipedia uses, otherwise you end up looking at usage on Commons (or Wikimedia-wide file usage). --MZMcBride (talk) 03:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some way to run the list of 10,000 or 100,000 most-read articles from grok.se and then use MZM's script from Wikipedia:Database reports/Most-watched pages to see which have 5 or fewer watchers? It could be a first-step solution to Wikipedia_talk:Special:UnwatchedPages#Fix_Unwatched_Pages_technical_issues_and_de-restrict_visability. MBisanz ^talk 16:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can provide a list of unwatched by active users of the 10,000 most linked pages. However I doubt with watchlist bankruptcies and fatigue of veteran editors that we'll get 500 useful active watchers. — Dispenser 21:01, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's still worth a shot, thanks. MBisanz ^talk 16:17, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The query ran for about 50 minutes. We have 507,131 articles with no watchers and another 382,684 articles with no active watchers. Active users are those who's user_touched is within the last 30 days, same as $wgRCMaxAge (It was more accurate before automatic log out time was increased from 30 to 180 days). Per Toolserver Rules I can't give this list away. — Dispenser 05:25, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! So, as I understand it, that means 900,000/3,900,000 are not being monitored? Can you think of any way to prioritize those 900,000 into a smaller sample (top 1,000 or 10,000 most-viewed pages) and then another way to get the TS to give permission to give the list (say via email) to trusted users who could add subsets to their watchlists? I'd personally be willing to drop a 500 page chunk on my watchlist. MBisanz ^talk 17:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming a median network latency of 0.3 sec × 900,000 pages = 3 days to run the report. While OK for a onetime job, its not viable for the long term. I had originally sorted by amount of incoming links (there's correlation view count), but I found the pages rather uninteresting. Even built a tool to select from WikiProjects. Still nothing interesting, although seeing WikiProject Fictional characters with a lower unwatched rate (8%) than WikiProject Biography; WikiProject Poland (77% unwatched) beat WikiProject Antarctica (70% unwatched) was amusing. So many stubs, orphans, and obscure incomplete list articles.

Anyway, following from the discussion I hacked up recent changes to only show one-fifth of articles, tools:~dispenser/cgi-bin/unwatched_changes.py. Its clear to me now that we need to rethink RC patrol. AJAXified with "X new changes, update now" atop, articles scope to your interests, inline-diff, reverts automatically hidden, user karma/hours, diff verification with multiple levels, Cluebot vandalism score, improved automatic edit summaries, and more. Only if people cared enough. — Dispenser 05:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by article count could be expanded to cover other namespaces. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:49, 7 May 2016

Orphaned articles something something.

SELECT
  page_title
FROM page
LEFT JOIN pagelinks
ON pl_title = page_title
AND pl_namespace = page_namespace
AND pl_namespace = 0
WHERE pl_namespace IS NULL
AND page_namespace = 0
AND page_is_redirect = 0
LIMIT 100;

Exclude redirects, disambiguation pages, and pages tagged with {{orphaned}}.

• Report title: ??????
• Update frequency: ??????

--MZMcBride (talk) 23:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From Roan:

The segfault was due to excessive recursion in PCRE, triggered by a regex in PageTriage. Offhand it looks like it would be triggered on pages where there are more than ~18k characters between a '{{' and its matching '}}'

We're fixing it by setting the PCRE recursion limit to 1k, apparently the default value (which it was set to previously) is 100k which is way too high

--MZMcBride (talk) 02:55, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This refers to the edits by 0:0:0:0:0:0:0:1, 216.38.130.164 and 208.80.152.165 on May 11th, 2012 between 01:01 and 02:02 UTC. Those were caused by me chasing down an error that was occurring when people edited this page: you'd see an error page with ERR_ZERO_SIZE_OBJECT but your edit would go through. This pointed to a segmentation fault in the Apache process handling the request, and tracking it down was difficult (and added another bogus edit to the page history every time I tried), but I got there in the end as explained in my quote. --Catrope (talk) 03:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like, if it's possible, to have a list of all cases where:

1. Template:A links to Template:B's edit page (see this version of {{Camp Half-Blood}} for an example)
2. Template:A and Template:B aren't documentation pages (that is, pages ending with the "/doc" ending)
3. Template:A transcludes one of {{Navbox}}, {{Navbox with columns}}, {{Navbox years}}, and {{Navbox with collapsible groups}}
4. Template:B isn't {{Navigation templates}}

Templates like that usually are the result of some navbox being renamed without the "name" parameter being updated. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:30, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See #Navboxes with wrong name parameters for my similar suggestion to Od Mishehu's. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:03, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible to get a list of SUL accounts without any attached local accounts? This is a random glich that can happen when the last local account is renamed or when a user's registration breaks. MBisanz ^talk 18:36, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's a glich? --MZMcBride (talk) 19:19, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A glich is what happens when my spell checking software is disabled and I try to type glitch. MBisanz ^talk 19:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Database reports/Large non-free files tells that the list contains files which are not in Category:Non-free Wikipedia file size reduction request. However, the category is called Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests and it seems that the report does indeed contain files in that category. I suppose that you should also check Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing if you're not already doing this. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:22, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amy chance that Wikipedia:Database reports/Uncategorized templates could be run twice a week? -- WOSlinker (talk) 21:33, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music samples and non-free content criterion 3, non-free music samples will rarely need to be more than 64kbps. It should be easy to create a database report which lists all non-free audio files of higher than 64kbps, which could then be flagged as needing attention/fixed. (It may also be worth not including any files currently tagged with {{non-free reduce}}, as these have already been flagged as needing attention.) A weekly update would probably be fine. Thanks, J Milburn (talk) 21:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

During a discussion on a proposed category page MOS at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Category_pages#Cat_main the issue was raised of missing and incorrectly sorted main articles in categories. As an example science should be (and in this case is) in Category:Science with a category sort order of a space. Due to either forgetting in the case of new categories or removal due to vandalism this important bit of code or important categorisation is often missing. Can a report be generated that dives the instance where there is a category lacking its associated article and another report giving the cases of the absence of the space sort key? See WP:SORTKEY for info. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:45, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that this page, which lists broken section links, was last updated over a month ago and is now out of date. Can the page be updated more frequently (perhaps once a day or once a week?) I'm trying to fix broken section links on Wikipedia. Jarble (talk) 18:13, 2 July 2012 (UTC) It appears that the page was updated daily until April 20, 2012. Jarble (talk) 18:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A large number of the long entries showing up in this report do in fact have an NFUR meeting NFCC, I've been marking this up with {{has-NFUR}}. Could this be added to the list of 'templates' to look for when removing the item from the report? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:12, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Stub_sorting#Untagged stub articles, weekly report showing short articles that aren't marked as stubs and are not marked as some other type of normally short page.

SELECT concat( '*[[', page_title, ']] - (', page_len, ')' )
FROM enwiki_p.page
LEFT OUTER JOIN enwiki_p.categorylinks cc ON cl_from = page_id AND ( cl_to LIKE '%_stubs'
  OR cl_to IN ( 'All_disambiguation_pages', 'All_set_index_articles', 'Redirects_to_Wiktionary', 'Wikipedia_soft_redirects' ) )
WHERE page_namespace = 0
AND  page_title NOT LIKE 'List_of_%'
AND page_is_redirect = 0
AND cl_from IS NULL
AND  page_len < 1500
ORDER BY page_len ASC
LIMIT 1000;

- TB (talk) 20:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please add "AND page_title NOT LIKE 'Lists_of_%'" to the query above. This should be categorized under "Stub" reports as a companion to the Long stubs report. The long stubs report lists articles that have stub tags but probably shouldn't (based solely on length of article). This report indicates articles that do not have stub tags, but probably should. Dawynn (talk) 11:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Toolserver has been closed down on July 1, 2014. Please use Wikimedia Cloud Services, or more precisely Toolforge. And preferably, stop using this template.

Many of the reports are currently not being updated - for example: Articles containing links to the user space was last updated at 15:25, 19 May UTC and should be updated weekly; PRODed articles with deletion logs was last updated at 22:45, 8 April and should be updated daily; and File description pages containing no templates or categories was last updated at 21:15, 19 March and should be updated daily. What's happenning here? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably the Toolserver issues over the course of the last few weeks (months?) have played into this. There are probably threads on WP:VPT about this issue. Killiondude (talk) 18:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just posted this someplace else, but it looks like the s1 cluster, which is this wiki, toolserver database updates are backlogged over 8 days and this growing hourly. I'm adding a table that updates hourly. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the replag is caught up, why are there still daily/weekly/monthly reports that have not been updated in several months? GoingBatty (talk) 00:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. I like to use the Uncategorized categories report, and it is not updating weekly. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:58, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there are a few issues. Some of the reports have been abandoned (easy enough to pick those up and start running them again). Others are simply broken. Some need to be rewritten (moderately painful, but shouldn't be too bad in most cases); some need to be disabled (at least temporarily). I'll work on fixing up some of this during this week and next. It really has gotten out of hand. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:24, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MZM, is there a list of ones that need re-writing? I would be willing to help out on a few. LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 01:29, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Database reports/Largely duplicative file names Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've popped an updated list up at User:Topbanana/DupeFilenames to tide you over until the proper report can be re-run. - TB (talk) 21:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:Database_reports/Archive_2#Uncategorized_templates indicates that when the "Uncategorized templates" report was created in December 2009, it was limited to 1000 entries because there were "too many" uncategorized templates to do a full report. Is that still the case? If not, would it be possible to have a full report? DH85868993 (talk) 05:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's always possible to do a full report. The question is whether it makes sense to do so. I don't know how many uncategorized templates there were in 2009 or how many there are now, but I imagine it'd be a lot of subpages if I switched the report to a paginated output. Do you need the full list for some reason? If you categorize the templates, wait for a refresh of the report, categorize the templates, etc., eventually you'll get less than 1,000 entries at Uncategorized templates (configuration). What's the problem? --MZMcBride (talk) 05:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes when processing Uncategorized templates (configuration), rather than just progressing through the list, I prefer to scan the list looking for "easy targets" (e.g. it's probably going to be pretty easy to find a suitable category for a template named "Australian_<something>"). Having more templates listed in the report, would increase the number of "easy targets" available to address. I also think it would be useful to know how many uncategorized templates there were each time the report was run, so we could see whether the number was static, reducing or increasing over time. Perhaps if a full report is impractical, the number could be increased to 2000 or 3000? Just an idea. DH85868993 (talk) 09:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As of (mumble mumble) 5-ish days ago, there were approximately 118,000 articles in namespace 10 with no categorylinks. - TB (talk) 18:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you account for redirects? I imagine about half are template redirects (which are usually uncategorized, naturally). I'm trying to pull the figure now, but the Toolserver is taking its sweet-ass time. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MZMcBride, please don't invest too much effort trying to determine an accurate figure. Even if half of the 118,000 identified by TB are template redirects, that still leaves way too many uncategorised templates to make generating a full report every time practical. Thank you both for your efforts. But maybe consider my suggestion of increasing the report to 2000 or 3000. DH85868993 (talk) 02:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The toolserver was too grumpy to list for me entities that are non-redirects in namespace 10 that are transcluded into namespace 0. I'd concur with the 50% estimate above; a full report would include around 50,000 items. Best might be to list the 1000 'most interesting' uncategorised templates - the most transcluded or if this is too expensive, perhaps the least dusty. - TB (talk) 07:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to be able to track down groups of external links which are duplicated across many articles. In particular I would like to be able to locate popular DOI and PMID links, those which are found in many articles, which are ripe for sharing using templates like {{cite doi}} and {{cite pmid}}. Currently my only method for finding such links is repeated use of the Linksearch which I doubt is the most efficient method! Is there an existing report which relates to the popularity of External Links, at least by site, and hopefully per site? TIA HAND —Phil | Talk 13:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've popped up an initial listing of common external links to the two sites listed above for you at User:Phil_Boswell/common_els. Be aware that the toolserver (on which this report was generated) is struggling a bit at the moment; changes made to Wikipedia in the last 12 days or so will not be reflected in the report. - TB (talk) 20:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong doi I think. http://www.doi.org/ should be the one. --Izno (talk) 22:39, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, although it's actually http://dx.doi.org for DOI links. But there's something not quite right about the results anyway: there's not nearly enough of them. If you take a look at Special:linksearch/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16381836, there's 79 articles linking to that PMID alone: it doesn't appear on your list, and I'm pretty sure those links were created before the Toolserver got backed up. I suspect if you remove the "http://" from the search criteria, you might see a difference: it does occasionally change the results of the manual search, don't know why because allegedly it shouldn't!

On another note, you'll see there's a template on that list, a sub-page of {{cite doi}}: it looks easy enough to extend the search to the Template NAMESPACE, is that correct? That would be helpful to determine which of those links already have a template suitable for sharing.

Thanks again, HAND —Phil | Talk 06:05, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, a bit fiddly, but is User:Phil Boswell/common els/doi more along the lines of what you were after? - TB (talk) 21:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like a report for bulleted lists of at least 4 bullets, each with bold words, and each with at least 10 non-bold words. Such bulleted lists should be converted to table.

Smallman12q (talk) 00:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I note the existence of Wikipedia:Database reports/Broken redirects and Special:BrokenRedirects, is that unnecessary duplication? --j⚛e decker^talk 20:38, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think Category:Articles with missing files is auto-populated now? It can probably be used to generate these two database reports much, much faster. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:34, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to the bot that used to comment out deleted or red linked files? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:04, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean ImageRemovalBot? It appears to still be operating. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:44, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are two bots which remove file links. ImageRemovalBot removes Wikipedia files after they have been deleted from Wikipedia. CommonsDelinker removes Commons files after they have been deleted from Commons. Both bots seem to be operating properly. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:53, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So the contents of Category:Articles with missing files are ones that slip by while the bots are sleeping? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:19, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, or typos in filenames when users add files to articles. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:38, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We pick up and fix quite a few typos in filenames over at the Red Link Recovery project. If there are particular problems that crop up often, post me a few examples and I'll look into it. - TB (talk) 20:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get a bot to comment out the missing files in the 8,506 articles that are currently in Category:Articles with missing files? I have had a bit of a look and I think a bot could cope for cases where the image is not in a template. If the images are in a template one of us humans will have to do it. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 10:45, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don't think this is an appropriate bot task. I've done a few hundred of these image removals (of deleted images) and the number of edge cases and other weirdness simply can't be accounted for programmatically. Consider, for example, a <gallery> inside its own section of the page with a single deleted image:

== Gallery ==
<gallery>
File:The pretty image that once was.jpg|Caption text here
</gallery>

A human would know to remove the entire section. A bot would just comment out the single image, leaving a blank and very awkward section. This is obviously only one specific edge case, but there are hundreds (if not thousands) of other edge cases. For example, another issue that comes up frequently is the use of an "image" template parameter accompanied by a "caption" parameter. Nearly any bot will ignore the caption parameter, but a human usually can look at the page and see the relationship between the deleted image and the caption and know to remove both.

The entire practice of commenting out images rather than outright removal has also never made much sense to me. If I were the king of the world, CommonsDelinker and ImageRemovalBot wouldn't be allowed to operate. Fundamentally I don't believe this task is fit for bots at this time. --MZMcBride (talk) 13:57, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the bots should remove the file completely rather than commenting them out. The edits summary can b usewd to mention the filename so others could possibly chase it up. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:06, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DragonflySixtyseven suggested a report of file names where there's a local name and a Commons name, but the files have different contents. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:33, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As an answer, I created this. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fresh report of the first 500 eclipsed files at User:Topbanana/Eclipsed Files - TB (talk) 21:34, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know Python? The database reports code could use some love, if so. The code's on GitHub. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I love the name "shadows" for these files, but I may like "eclipsed" even more. Such nice imagery in both. This should be trivial to create as a regular database report; I may get to it this week (or this year, who knows).

Can anyone identify which content of Category:Image with comment templates is causing it to appear in Wikipedia:Database reports/Template categories containing articles? I can see numerous non-templates (i.e. user pages, "Wikipedia" pages and a redirect) in the category, but I can't see any articles. I recognise that there may have been an article in the category when the report was generated which is not there now, but the category has been listed in the report the last 4 times it has been generated and each time I've checked it (which is usually within an hour of the report being generated), I haven't seen any articles. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 06:11, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pixie dust. Blame the little people. - TB (talk) 06:34, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

Is it possible to get some of these reports for other wikis as well? E.g. I'm interested in the "User preferences" for Portuguese Wikipedia, but if it is not a difficult thing to do it I imagine some users would consider useful other reports as well. Helder 03:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So? Helder 17:14, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

At this moment, I personally certainly cannot commit to helping out other wikis, but all of the code is public and in the public domain. It's available at https://github.com/mzmcbride/database-reports. Each report also has a /Configuration subpage (e.g., this one) and there is a master /Configuration subpage.

I'd suggest getting a Toolserver account or finding someone with a Toolserver account who will volunteer to run these reports. Anyone with a basic understanding of Python can figure this out in an hour or less.

Hopefully that's somewhat helpful. If you have specific questions about how to set up database reports, feel free to leave me a note on my talk page or on this page. Eventually someone will get back to you. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:21, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just oppened DBQ-197 requesting the data from toolserver. Thanks for the info! Helder 18:07, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could a new database report be articles that have been indefinitely semi-protected (or protected for a year or longer, maybe) that had no prior protection history? Thanks, David1217 ^{What I've done} 02:15, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? Anyone? David1217 ^{What I've done} 04:33, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We hear you. The logging database table in which the information you need resides is a large and ugly, making (for purely technical reasons) your request a bit trickier to fulfil than you might expect. I'm sure myself or one of the other volunteers here will do this eventually. - TB (talk) 07:25, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'll take this one. It shouldn't be too bad to do, it'll just need to be done in separate queries. Basically you get a list of every indefinitely semi-protected article and then iterate through the list looking for any previous protection entries.

How often would you like the report to be updated? And will "Indefinitely semi-protected articles with no prior protection history" work as a report title? --MZMcBride (talk) 15:25, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, you don't need to update it that often—monthly is fine. I'm good with any name you choose. Thanks for taking this, MZ. I've got just one request: if this initial report goes well, could it be expanded to articles that have been indefinitely semi-protected with few (two or less) prior protections? Thanks. David1217 ^{What I've done} 03:37, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. There's already an Indefinitely semi-protected articles (configuration) report. I wonder if adding a "Prior protections" column that contains the number of prior protection entries makes sense. That would seem to make more sense than making a separate report.

I also just noticed that the pagination on that particular report is currently a bit funky. Assuming the pagination could be fixed up (the current report divides redirects and non-redirects into sections), would the addition of a "Prior protections" column be sufficient here? --MZMcBride (talk) 04:58, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adding it on to an existing report would be great. David1217 ^{What I've done} 17:36, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Back in mid-July, there was a request on this talk page to schedule an "Untagged stub articles" report. Code was even provided for the report. What protocol is needed to establish this as a scheduled monthly report? Dawynn (talk) 00:21, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there really is a procedure, but I'll write it up now and give it to MZ. LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 00:47, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pull request. LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 01:33, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is: Wikipedia:Database reports/Untagged stubs. Should update weekly. Legoktm (talk) 11:13, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed up and synced. Thanks for your help moving this report forward! --MZMcBride (talk) 15:10, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I <3 your new sig.

Congratulations on getting your new report set up. Any advice on how to get the existing reports updated? GoingBatty (talk) 18:09, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

The real answer to your question is to get yourself a Toolserver account and learn Python. The database reports code is all hosted on GitHub and released into the public domain. :-)

Now, I'm in a constant battle to remember that this isn't a fair answer. Not everyone can be expected to want to spend the time necessary to get a Toolserver account, figure out how to use it, figure out Python, and then contribute code. In this particular case, because Legoktm did all of that, I was happy to review his code (and even rewrote parts of it for him).

In your case, there have been two comments on this talk page from you, but I'm still completely unclear what you even want. There are a lot of database reports (well over 100 at this point, I think). Some are broken, it's true. Some actually break for a few weeks and then magically fix themselves. So when I look at old comments about how "this report isn't updating", a lot of the time the report has resolved itself. Sometimes not. It depends on the specifics (which we unfortunately lack here!).

Focusing more narrowly on the productive and the constructive: if you can tell me "I'm trying to improve Wikipedia by doing X, and your report Y is broken and is making this more difficult", that would be very helpful. That way, I could actually take a look at Y and figure out how to make it work properly so that you can do X. This isn't to say that having a clear bug report will suddenly give me more time or inclination to put more work into these database reports, but it will go a very long way in getting your issue resolved both in this case and in future cases. You also have to take care when dealing with developers, but particularly volunteer developers, to not throw an entire elephant at them at once. Find a discrete issue and focus energy on getting that discrete issue fixed; don't make a giant list that just scares everyone away. ;-) --MZMcBride (talk) 18:57, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply, MZMcBride! Maybe someday I'll learn Python, get an account, and work on debugging existing reports or creating new reports. Until then, I just depend on the kindness of strangers. I didn't make the giant list of reports - it was here before I discovered this page. Having said that, your advice is reasonable, and I'll start a new thread using that approach. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 02:12, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The last time I looked at the list of reports, there were many that said they were to run daily/weekly/monthly but had not been updated according to the published schedule. The list looks much better today, so thank you to everyone who has worked to get the reports back on track! GoingBatty (talk) 02:22, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming that would be a very long list, I don't need all of the articles (unless it is just as easy or easier to get all of them). PleaseStand mentioned that the SQL might be something like "SELECT article.page_title FROM page article LEFT JOIN page talk ON talk.page_namespace = 1 AND article.page_title = talk.page_title WHERE article.page_namespace = 0 AND talk.page_id IS NULL;". Thanks, Ryan Vesey 03:39, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would probably be desirable to exclude redirects by including "AND article.page_is_redirect = 0" in the WHERE clause. PleaseStand (talk) 04:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

tools:~mzmcbride/articles-without-talk-pages-enwiki-2012-11-07.txt (242,527 results) --MZMcBride (talk) 04:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I don't know if you are allowed to leave it up there indefinitely, but I'll be putting it into a text file tonight. I noticed that a number of the pages (at least the recent pages) had been deleted? Is there a way to filter those out? Otherwise I'll plug it into AWB. Ryan Vesey 19:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think MZMcBride was planning on leaving it there (he can keep it there as long as he wants to). Are you referring to where the article page has been recently deleted? Or the talk page? Legoktm (talk) 20:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article page. Ryan Vesey 20:26, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You'll need to filter out deleted pages yourself. At any given time, there are dozens (or hundreds) of pages up for deletion (speedy, prod, deletion discussions, etc.). So when a list is generated, it'll quickly become out of date. Such is the nature of a wiki that sees somewhere around 200,000 changes per day. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 04:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was nice to have this back again late last month, but it appears that it didn't run the following week, any chance this is easy to get repaired? It was quite effective at digging up stuff for WP:URBLP to put into its queue to work on... Cheers, --j⚛e decker^talk 17:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. Bizarre. I wonder what's going on there. These kinds of intermittent issues are annoying, as now I'll look at the report (in the index) and think it's working fine because it last updated November 23. When in reality, something is terribly broken somewhere. Hmm. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:42, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*laughs* Isn't that always the way?  ;-) Looks like it ran again, thanks! --j⚛e decker^talk 15:01, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello-

I'm really working through the Polluted Categories backlog; I did 400 or so in two days. I was wondering if the page could be updated twice a week, so that I don't run out of pages.

–Drilnoth (T/C) 04:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Switched to daily. Though do try to remind me when it can be switched back. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:49, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, thanks. I'll do my best to remember! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drilnoth (talk • contribs)

Hi Drilnoth - I'm using my bot to remove the categories from the user pages based on this report. However, this doesn't fix categories that are populated using templates. You may want to look at Wikipedia talk:Database reports/Polluted categories and see which categories should be populated with {{polluted category}} (so they won't appear on the report) or which templates should be updated so the category only appears for articles in mainspace. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 04:57, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, odd. I hadn't seen that bot going around at all. Well, I'll see what I can do... get my template editing skills back up to par. Thanks! –Drilnoth (T/C) 05:22, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, turns out I don't have time at the moment. Feel free to switch it back to weekly. Thanks! –Drilnoth (T/C) 21:51, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've been looking at this report almost every day, and using my bot to remove the categories from user pages and manually adding {{polluted category}} to maintenance categories. Now that the easy stuff is done and report is down under 800 entries, a lot more analysis will be needed to see which templates need to be changed so they only categorize in mainspace. Therefore, I reverted the changes that MZMcBride made on Wikipedia:Database reports and Wikipedia:Database reports/Polluted categories/Configuration to get this back to weekly. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 18:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so my changes didn't stop this report from running again today. MZMcBride, could you please let me know if there's something else that needs to be done? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 04:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right, the configuration subpages are just for reference, they don't actually get read by any scripts. That'd be awfully dangerous. Occasionally I'll update my crontab when I notice someone editing a configuration subpage, just to make them feel special. ;-)

In this case, there was a discrepancy between the configuration subpage and the index. The index said (says) "Weekly" while the configuration subpage was reading "2,6" (which is twice a week). I've changed the configuration subpage to be proper (once) weekly syntax and synced the change to the live crontab. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for making me feel special once again! GoingBatty (talk) 06:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For example, it includes Category:American murder victims, which Yanker finds [4] including User:Alexdrudi/sandbox, which was last edited in August [5]. by a direct edit to remove all its categories. I know there's a bit of replag, but this looks like something different than the categories-not-getting-updated-by-conditional-transclusion bug. Am I missing something? --j⚛e decker^talk 03:55, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The replicated copies of the English Wikipedia are on two hosts: thyme and rosemary. Both are corrupt, last I heard. Demonstration below. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

mzmcbride@willow:~$ mysql -hthyme -e "select page_namespace, page_title from page join categorylinks on page_id = cl_from where cl_to = 'American_murder_victims' and page_namespace = 2;" enwiki_p;
mzmcbride@willow:~$ mysql -hrosemary -e "select page_namespace, page_title from page join categorylinks on page_id = cl_from where cl_to = 'American_murder_victims' and page_namespace = 2;" enwiki_p;
+----------------+-------------------+
| page_namespace | page_title        |
+----------------+-------------------+
|              2 | Alexdrudi/sandbox |
+----------------+-------------------+

D'oh! I hate when that happens.  :) Glad to hear it's not just me missing the obvious .... this time. Thanks! --j⚛e decker^talk 04:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unresolved

I have noticed that quite a few pages in this report shouldn't be there. For example the most recent report, generated today, includes Category talk:Indonesian military-related lists, it isn't orphaned and it hasn't been edited since October - so it hasn't been fixed since the report was generated. There are quite a few occurrences like this. Is this a bug or am I missing something? -- Patchy1 09:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could it be the same issue that is impacting the Polluted Categories report mentioned in the section above? GoingBatty (talk) 17:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, so who fixes that? -- Patchy1 23:55, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unresolved

I'm no expert but I'm guessing these reports look for external links and when it can't find any it includes the article, would that be right? Alot of the articles in the reports are not completely unreferenced and I have noticed that most of them use either {{Infobox NFL player}} or {{Infobox gridiron football person}} (there are probably others). Both of these infoboxes use a parameter where the ID of the football player is given and the link is automatically created for a football website. Like I said I'm not an expert, but are these being included in the report because there isn't actually an external link in the article code itself? And if this is the case, can it be fixed to exclude them? Let me know if I'm making stuff up... -- Patchy1 09:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The code looks for a further reading/bibliography/references/external links/sources section, any <ref tags, any urls which have the form http(s)://, and "isbn", so any auto-links created by an infobox won't be noticed. It probably would be nice if it also checked the externalinks table as a backup (maybe even at the same time as the initial query?). Legoktm (talk) 09:45, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! So we do have a problem. -- Patchy1 11:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The new tracking category Category:Pages with malformed coordinate tags has made the report WP:Database reports/Articles containing overlapping coordinates redundant. The report can now be removed. —Stepheng3 (talk) 18:49, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had assumed so too: but the latest run picked up a problem on Brisbane River Stage which Category:Pages with malformed coordinate tags didn't show. I mentioned it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates#Undetected issues on 20 December 2012 but nobody has yet replied. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:24, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch, Redrose. Let's keep the report until the bug fix is in production. —Stepheng3 (talk) 00:33, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fix (to {{Coord}}) is in! —Stepheng3 (talk) 09:03, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way to know which Article Talk pages receive the most revisions? Similar to Wikipedia:Database reports/Pages with the most revisions but exclusive to the Article Talk NAMESPACE. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 16:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pages with the most revisions (configuration) includes pages in the Talk namespace. Just sort by the "ID" column ("1" is "Talk", cf. Wikipedia:Namespaces). The issue is that Pages with the most revisions (configuration) is broken (hasn't updated since July 2011). :-(

You may be interested in Talk pages by size (configuration) or Long pages (configuration). --MZMcBride (talk) 16:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I was aware of those but I'm looking for a report that shows only Article Talk pages by revision within a month. In other words, Wikipedia:Database reports/Pages with the most revisions but solely Article Talk pages. Size, while useful, is kinda irrelevant for what I'm looking for. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 17:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A one-time report or a regularly updated report? The only way I can see to do this these days (given the size of enwiki's revision table) is to do individual queries for every talk page. At the moment, that's about 4,343,871 queries (many more if we include redirects), which is technically doable, but a little tedious and not inexpensive.

It's clearer now what you want, but it remains unclear why. That is, if you can explain further what you're trying to do with this report, there may be alternate ideas to solve the underlying task. Unless, of course, you're simply interested in the data and nothing more. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both: regularly updated and one-time report. The report would show which Article Talk pages were edited most each month (first 5,000). It is simply for statistical and historical purposes so that we know which articles are being and were discussed most on Wikipedia each month. I'm pretty sure there must be an easier way to ask the database: "give me the top 5,000 Article talk pages that were edited most on November 2012" and "give me the top 5,000 Article talk pages that are being edited most this month". This is akin to a "hot discussions" list and will allow editors to set an eye and contribute to discussions which are undergoing heavy influx—which, in turn, will make Wikipedia more collaborative while increasing the quality of its articles. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 18:42, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I posted this request on Wikipedia talk:Database reports/Linked misspellings but didn't get any response, so I'm reposting here:

This report has been very helpful to find misspellings that tools such as AWB and WPCleaner are programmed to ignore. However, with 1,000 entries, it's a daunting task to clean these up. In order to help prioritize the entries on this report, could someone please temporarily update the report to exclude piped links, so we can focus on those misspellings that are presented to the reader? For example, it's more important to fix [[Tennesee]] than it is to fix [[Tennesee|TN]]. I realize that this might exclude some piped links that present misspellings to the user, such as [[Millersberg, Michigan|Millersberg]] (instead of Millersburg), which is why I'm requesting this change to be temporary. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 02:41, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The way the report is set up right now that isn't possible. It simply checks against the link tables which only stores what the user clicks on, not what they see. The only way to check for piped links would be checking against page text, aka a dump. Legoktm (talk) 02:44, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK - thanks for the quick response. GoingBatty (talk) 03:08, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although Wikipedia:Database reports/Polluted categories is scheduled to be updated weekly, it was last updated on April 19. Could someone please determine how to fix this? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 03:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing this! GoingBatty (talk) 04:07, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please read request at Wikipedia_talk:Database_reports/Long_pages. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 03:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible to write a query to list all pages on enwiki that would be classes at 'orphan'?

• No links from the main space (disambiguations, lists, Indexes of, redirects, softredirects) don't count

·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 13:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, would just like to have a few requests here, partially because I am inspired by Cracker Barrel, and also in response to a question I asked on the mathematics reference desk some time ago.

• Semi-protected biographies of living persons
• Semi-protected stubs
• Semi-protected pages without interwiki links (meaning semi-protected articles without an article on any other Wikipedia)
• Featured articles without interwiki links (meaning featured articles without an article on any other Wikipedia, like Cracker Barrel)

Would any of them work? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:57, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Only one way to find out:

• Semi-protected biographies of living persons: User:Narutolovehinata5/SPP BLP (Also: Category:Wikipedia indefinitely semi-protected biographies of living people)
• Semi-protected stubs: User:Narutolovehinata5/SPP Stub
• Semi-protected pages without interwiki links: User:Narutolovehinata5/SPP No Interwiki
• Featured articles without interwiki links: pending

- TB (talk) 19:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, although I would like these to be updated weekly, and for the semi-protected without interwiki links one to list the first 1000 pages. Also, I would like to request a few more similar to the ones above (more specific)

• Indefinitely semi-protected stubs
• Indefinitely semi-protected articles without interwiki links (example: Jim Hawkins (radio presenter))
• Long-term semi-protected (>1 month) featured articles

Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:51, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unresolved

Is it possible to have this report include a column with a timestamp of the most recent edit, that way it will make it easy to find legitimate discussions that have just been started incorrectly. Also I intend to to a lot of work with this report, so would it be possible to increase the frequency of runs to say every week instead of every month? -- Patchy1 09:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also can the links be changed to wikilinks so redlinks show? -- Patchy1 09:11, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following would be ideal if someone was going to sit down and do it, but I know how much work it takes, so I know this might just be a wishlist. -- Patchy1 10:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fetching the most recent edit would require an additional query to the revision table, and the number of entries in the log one would require a query to the logging table. It should be easy to get the article (simple string parsing) as another column. Legoktm (talk) 09:07, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could I have Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage split into two lists in my userspace? One of all users on that list who have not made at least 30 edits in the last three years or are currently blocked and another of all those who have made at least 30 edits in the last three years and are unblocked. One time run. Thanks. MBisanz ^talk 05:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, writing/running a query right now. Legoktm (talk) 06:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Inactive/blocked and recently active. There seems to be a bit of encoding errors at the end, I'll manually fix that up now. Legoktm (talk) 07:12, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 18:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Database reports/Largely duplicative file names, Can this report be amended to discount redirects, because according to a vocal concern expressed when I put a lot of duplicative named image redirects up for RFD said these should not be deleted, to 'avoid breaking' stuff. ? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One of my older requests (Featured articles without interwiki links) was never responded to. Can someone try it? Thanks. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have no featured articles (in the main namespace) with no interwiki links. I've posted a report at User:Narutolovehinata5/featured article langlinks listing those with the fewest interwiki links in case it's useful to you. - TB (talk) 19:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm speaking nonsense - we've loads of featured articles lacking even a single solitary interwiki link ;) Report revised and reposted at the same location. - TB (talk) 19:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone analyse the pages (Article namespace or otherwise) created in the first half of 2012, say; compare their dates of creation to their dates of deletion (if any); and produce from this a survival curve of new pages? I.e. a graph that would show what percentage of pages were still around a week after their creation, what percentage were still around after two weeks, etc.? I would ask that on the graph you have one line per namespace, plus a line for all pages combined. This would be a one-off report.

I ask because I am thinking of proposing that, once Wikidata is more integrated into Wikipedia and new articles/project pages get added to it by bots as a matter of course, that said bots be made to wait until the page is ${\displaystyle t}$ days old on this project, so that editors won't have to delete entries from multiple wikis if e.g. the page gets speedied over here. If we were able to see that ${\displaystyle k\%}$ of articles are deleted within a week, or that ${\displaystyle l\%}$ of Template pages that survive a week then go on to survive at least another three months, or whatever, we would be in a far better position to make an informed decision on how long to make bots hold off for (i.e. what to make ${\displaystyle t}$). It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 21:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could one of you nice, smart people pull the interwiki link data I'm describing at Wikipedia_talk:Wikidata_interwiki_RFC#Common_sense? It would be a one-time run with a possible new request once Wikidata goes live on en.wiki. Thanks. MBisanz ^talk 19:35, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done-TB (talk) 20:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! MBisanz ^talk 20:16, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be curious to see those numbers evolve as maybe a weekly thing, if it's not a particularly painful query. I can't say that it would have practical maintenance value, but I do think it would be interesting to watch the transition. *shrug* --j⚛e decker^talk 00:39, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on setting up a rrd, but the problem is even if the langlinks are removed locally it wont make a difference since links from Wikidata will show up in the same table. Legoktm (talk) 00:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh, of course. Thanks for the clue.  :) --j⚛e decker^talk 00:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DROP TABLE IF EXISTS u_tb.llsum;

CREATE TABLE u_tb.llsum AS
SELECT /* SLOW_OK */ ll_from, count(*) AS 'c'
FROM enwiki_p.langlinks
GROUP BY ll_from;

CREATE TABLE u_tb.llstops ( n int(11) NOT NULL );
INSERT INTO u_tb.llstops VALUES ( 1 ), ( 5 ), ( 10 ), ( 20 ), ( 50 ), ( 100 );

SELECT n, count(*)
FROM u_tb.llsum
JOIN u_tb.llstops
WHERE c >= n
GROUP by n
ORDER by n ASC;

I did some manual archiving but it was reverted. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:21, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please yes. --j⚛e decker^talk 01:07, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'd rather not archive a request that is feasible and no one has just gotten to it yet, but I'll take a look and see which ones we can archive. Legoktm (talk) 01:08, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This talk page is pretty long, yeah. It's perpetually on my to-do list to trim it down, but it's a bit overwhelming. Wikipedia:Database reports/Bugs was where I was sticking outstanding action items. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:42, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm intested in seeing the usage of the various Convert sub templates. Could someone run a query for me? Thanks -- WOSlinker (talk) 21:43, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SELECT tl_title, COUNT(*) AS usage
FROM templatelinks
WHERE tl_namespace = 10
AND tl_title LIKE 'Convert/%'
GROUP BY tl_title

 Doing... Legoktm (talk) 22:42, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, see tools:~legoktm/convert.txt. I stuck in a ORDER BY COUNT(*) DESC to sort it. Legoktm (talk) 04:00, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. -- WOSlinker (talk) 07:13, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Related and of possible interest; Missing Converts - a report that shows attempts to link subtemplates of {{Convert}} that do not exist. - TB (talk) 10:01, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as Wikidata is now live, I was wondering if there is a list of articles with interwiki links that are not sections (e.g. have a # in the link). They could be ordered by the number of interwiki links they have. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 15:49, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure me and lego can come up with something for this. Also just a note when I get around to it I should have a lovely db generated webpage showing all IW links Addbot has left on any page globally as well as the date of its last check e.t.c :) ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 15:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds brilliant! Great work :) Del_♉sion23 (talk) 16:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if it would be possible to obtain a list of Wikipedia:Most wanted articles or Wikipedia:Most missed articles but filtered by articles related to a WikiProject/country? I would love to see them for the two wikiprojects I am representing, WP:POLAND and WP:SOCIO. I and some others would be happy, for example, to take a stab at whatever the most wanted/missed articles are, if I only knew what they were. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The English Wikipedia has a culture against red links. At WP:FAC they often viewed as a negative towards "completeness" and the recommended action is to create stubs or delete them. And unlike stubs, its fairly hard to add metadata to them, although the Video game reference library been doing a pretty good job at it. See also: WP:RLR. — Dispenser 17:04, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice to somehow be able to order Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests by megapixels (width×height/1,000,000) so that the largest offenders might get attention first. Even if ordering them is a no-go for now, listing them with megapixels next to the filename would be a good start. – JBarta (talk) 23:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible to simply get User:DASHBot to resume automatic reductions of images tagged for reduction? That way, the category would usually be more or less empty. I'm not sure why the operator stopped running the bot every day. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found an initial concern about automatically reducing images. I kind of share that sentiment. I've combed through the category of non-free file size reduction requests and found generally a small minority of those images are really large (>1000x1000 pixels), the rest being technically too large but not alarmingly so (maybe 400x500). If the sizes could be listed and if the list could be sorted, the largest offenders could be managed manually without much of a problem. I might also add that some images I've seen that are technically too large contain fine print or details and resizing them would ruin the image. Those I'm happy to pass on and I'd hate to see a bot come by and mangle them. – JBarta (talk) 00:14, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Database_reports/Files_with_conflicting_categorization should ignore stuff tagged {{photo of art}} because they aren't actually conflicted. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Database reports/Non-free files missing a rationale should exclude items with the pattern 'image has rationale=yes' in a license tag.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would be good if some of these reports were updated in light of the addition of the Module namespace for Lua code. I would be particularly interested in having an update for the most transcluded list that also included Modules. Dragons flight (talk) 18:56, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to have a report which identifies templates which have been redirected and where the former usage isn't that high, typically around 20 uses? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:29, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I popped a report showing the first 100 templates matching your criteria up at User:Sfan00 IMG/Seldom used redirected templates. - TB (talk) 08:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request that template {[tl|protected generic image name}} be excluded from - Wikipedia:Database reports/Largely duplicative file names Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:00, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, it's been a while since my last DBR request. Actually, I have two for now: Indefinitely semi-protected articles (excluding BLPs) without interwiki links, and Indefinitely semi-protected BLPs without interwiki links (that's two separate requests). So basically, the contents of Category:Wikipedia indefinitely semi-protected pages (excluding sub-categories) and Category:Wikipedia indefinitely semi-protected biographies of living people that do not have even a single wikilink. The reason I'm asking for separate reports is that, the maximum number of articles that can be returned is 100, so I would want to see a separate list for non-BLPs and BLPs, because otherwise they could combine. Thank you. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:45, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible to update the Wikipedia:Database reports/Template categories containing articles report. It hasn't been updated since July 24th and it appears all items on the current report have been fixed. Kumioko (talk) 18:19, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[6] LGTM? Legoktm (talk) 23:06, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This report hasn't been updated for a few days. Is there some error with it? I noticed this since I saw that Category:Orphaned non-free use Wikipedia files hasn't been populated with new files for a few days, except for three manually tagged files. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:39, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For whatever reason, it seems to be working now: [7]. Legoktm (talk) 23:14, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be useful to have a list of fully-protected templates and modules that have few transclusions. I would set the limit at fewer than 10,000 transclusions (my usual rule of thumb for applying full protection to templates), and have the report run fortnightly. It would be a useful counterpart to Wikipedia:Database reports/Templates transcluded on the most pages - at the moment admins can patrol that report to find templates that need protection, but there isn't any report that admins can patrol to find what pages need their protection reducing. This has resulted in a steady increase in the number of protected templates over time (although some of that must also be attributed to the general growth of Wikipedia). — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 11:12, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Database reports/Indefinitely protected templates without many transclusions is already running. Legoktm (talk) 23:05, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh, I obviously should have looked harder... I missed it because it was listed under "protections" rather than under "templates". It could do with an update, though, as it was last run in February. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 23:47, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pages with the most revisions (configuration) just saw its first update in like two years. It executed on Labs in about 19 minutes. Hooray! --MZMcBride (talk) 04:54, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are a substantial number of biographical articles misplaced within categories due to no DEFAULTSORT template. Finding these in a large category is an art form. Many of them have arisen from quick take-on of articles without sufficient controls. Yes, I appreciate there are certain countries / languages where DEFAULTSORT is not required, but the benefit of this report would outweigh these exceptions. Itc editor2 (talk) 12:15, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My previous request did not receive a reply. Could someone try to do it? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:41, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to have a report listing the articles with AFTv5 enabled which have unreviewed feedback older than, say, 2 weeks. On those pages, enablers failed to respect the requirements for usage of the tool set by the associated RFC, so something needs doing. --Nemo 09:30, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now living at <http://tools.wmflabs.org/tsreports/>, allegedly. Might be a nice alternative to these database reports. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:49, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1 month should be enough to allow people to find and work through, fixing the backlog of unbalanced brackets. Jamesmcmahon0 (talk) 11:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please could someone update Wikipedia:Database reports/Cross-namespace redirects as it's not been updated since January. Thanks 31.118.128.129 (talk) 10:59, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Try this labs tool in the meantime. - TB (talk) 20:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This should probably be limited to redirects from mainspace to mainspace, if practical. I don't think it needs to update more often than monthly.

For context, I came across a couple redirects protected by NawlinWiki that were uncategorized at the time (permalink). He unprotected the specific redirects I mentioned but suggested that he would need someone else to assemble a list in order to proceed further. --SoledadKabocha (talk) 00:16, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion in question is now archived at User talk:NawlinWiki/Archive 86#Some protected redirects need categorization. --SoledadKabocha (talk) 05:48, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. Please exclude anything with template-level transclusion (editable by template editors and admins, such as {{Navbar}}) - this is explicitly intended for high risk templates. (This is a newer setting/feature on Wikipedia, which is the reason it wasn't included here originally.)
2. Please have a column of mainspace transclusions.

עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:26, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@MZMcBride: any chance BernsteinBot could be tweaked to accommodate this? Also, let me add another item to the wish list: the list should include Lua modules as well as templates. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:44, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What's the status of migration these reports to Tool Labs? A message above talks about http://tools.wmflabs.org/tsreports/ (maintained by MZMcBride and Valhallasw (?)). Is this active? If yes, could I (username Petr Onderka on labs) be added as another maintainer, so I can run the reports that are currently run from my toolserver account from there? User<Svick>.Talk(); 13:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It was down at the moment due to Tool Labs webserver issues, but it should be on-line now. As for adding reports, please see https://github.com/valhallasw/tsreports/tree/master/reports for how to add one. I've added you to tsreports-dev (please test your query there!), which should also give you access to tsreports. I should write some docs on writing & debugging queries, though... a few pointers: manual query testing can be done with python/QueryWorker.py, testing the web part should be done on tsreports-dev, and can be done with ./deploy (should show up at http://tools.wmflabs.org/tsreports-dev/ - run 'webservice start' if it has a 'no webservice' notice). If it works, push to github (for which I should also add you as maintainer...) and deploy to tsreports with deploy_to_production. Valhallasw (talk) 11:05, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. Please send me an e-mail if you need extra pointers (or find me on IRC) -- I'm not on enwiki often. Valhallasw (talk) 11:07, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have been using Wikipedia:Database reports/Polluted categories to have my bot remove article categories from user pages. I am now also having my bot remove article categories from pages in the Draft namespace. Could someone please create a similar report for article categories that are in the Draft namespace? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 14:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest a weekly report of cases where these are all satisfied:

1. Template:A transcludes {{Navbox}}, {{Sidebar}} or {{Sidebar with collapsible lists}}
2. Template:A links to Template:B's edit page (A ≠ B)
3. Template:A does not transclude Template:B, or if it does then Template:B is a redirect

Explanation: I think that nearly all navboxes satisfy condition 1. If not then more templates may be added to the list there. The name parameter in a navbox must be the template name to make V T E links to the correct page. This example makes a wrong name and would be caught by the report. The suggestion is similar to #Templates linking to other templates' edit pages, but I think that version would give too many false positives when a template transcludes a navbox from another template. The only goal is to find wrong name parameters. If other methods, for example checking the name parameter directly in the source code, are more efficient then just do that instead. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:15, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This would need to be filtered so that sandboxes like Template:Greater Manchester railway stations/sandbox don't report as false positives. However, would it be worth reporting cases like Template:Greater Manchester railway stations/sandbox having |name=Greater Manchester stations (one word, "railway" missing)? --Redrose64 (talk) 14:23, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good point about sandboxes. I suspected, and still suspect, the first report will reveal issues requiring tweaking. I think sandboxes and all other template subpages should just be skipped. If a bad name ends up in the main navbox then it will be picked up in the next report. I don't know whether we have cases where the main navbox itself is on a subpage. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A similar report has now been created at Wikipedia:Database reports/Invalid Navbar links after discussion at Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 62#Navbox templates with wrong names. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template protection is intended for use on modules or templates, or on rare cases of highly transcluded pages outside those namespaces. Occasional mistakes are made in selecting the protection level, for example applying template protection instead of semi protection, so such a report would be useful. Cenarium (talk) 04:05, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cenarium: Try this query and vary the namespace selection. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the past couple of weeks, Wikipedia:Database reports/Broken WikiProject templates has contained spurious entries for WikiProject_Architecure, WikiProject_University_of_Connectict, WikiProject_military_History and WikiprojectBannerShell (by "spurious entries" I mean that the templates are listed in the report but no articles actually link to them). Three(?) weeks ago these were valid entries in the report, and I fixed the offending articles, but the templates have remained in the report for each of the next two weeks, even though no articles link to them. I wasn't concerned when they were still listed last week (I thought maybe there was some sort of database lag), but now that they're still listed again, I'm wondering whether there might be some problem with the generation of the report. DH85868993 (talk) 23:56, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a current plan to bring back the Superseded files used in articles report? —danhash (talk) 22:58, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for continuing to update Wikipedia:Database reports/Polluted categories. I use this report remove article categories from user pages. Today I tried the "main" and "user" links and noticed they still point to the toolserver. When I click on a link, it redirects to tool labs but gives a "404 - Not Found" error. Is this something that could be fixed? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 14:44, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@MZMcBride: Is this something you would be willing to fix? If not, do you have any suggestions on who I could reach out to for assistance? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 03:14, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Database reports/Unprotected templates with many transclusions should not be flagging template editor protected templates. NE Ent 19:05, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Still an issue, no point updating it if we're flagging template protected templates. Banak (talk) 20:43, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Am I right in thinking that the Templates containing links to disambiguation pages report only lists templates starting with numbers or the letters A-C? If so, would it be possible to have a report listing all the templates containing links to disambiguation pages? Also, most of the templates listed in the report contain "legitimate" links to disambiguation pages and don't actually need to be "fixed" - would it be possible to generate a variation on the report which excludes a small number of templates which contain many "legitimate" links (e.g. {{African topic}}, {{Asian topic}}) and a small number of commonly occurring target links (e.g. Article, Example, Sandbox, Test)? Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 06:17, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MZMcBride: DH85868993 (talk) 21:30, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi can someone produce me some stats as to how many edits the Edit Filter prevents? ϢereSpielChequers 23:03, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm .. tricky. I can compile some raw stats, but they may be hard to interpret as filters act in a confounding manner, altering the behaviour of the agent they act against. Picking a recent example at random, IP editor User:86.27.119.250 attempted to vandalise the article Grenada. From from the abuse filter logs, we can see 10 attempts edits were blocked, variously triggering 4 different abuse filters a total of 17 times. A further two edits made it through, but were automatically reverted by User:ClueBot NG within a few minutes.

Arguably, we could say that the edit filter 'blocked' 10 edits here, but in reality had they not been present the editor would probably have only submitted two or three edits - we have no way of knowing. If you have a more specific ideas in mind, please let me know. - TB (talk) 11:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I see the problem. I'm looking in to the arguments as to whether the declining number of edits is evidence that the community is in decline. My suspicion is that if we allow for the edit filters we may find that total attempted editing has been stable or rising since 2009, and that the perceived decline in editing is simply down to the edit filters taking out much of the vandalism. All I want is enough to confirm that the edit filters have significantly reduced actual editing by preventing some vandalism and doing so without edits to revert that vandalism. I can see you won't be able to give me a neat "but for the edit filter we would have an extra x thousand vandalisms, plus for almost all of them a vandalism reversion and for a large proportion a talkpage warning". But could you give me something like "in a typical month we have x thousand IPs and new editors trying to make y thousand edits that the edit filter rejects. Z thousand of them go on to make an edit that gets reverted". Obviously the edit filters have reduced the amount of vandalism that gets through to the pedia, but are we talking less than 100,000 vandalisms a month or is it over a million? ϢereSpielChequers 14:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Ϣere: If you are still interested in abuse filter stats, continue reading.

• Total number of disallowed save attempts: 1,918,132
• Disallowed save attempts in the last 30 days: 22,317
• Total number of disallowed actions: 2,040,820 (these include edit, move, createaccount, autocreateaccount, delete and upload)

Technically abuse filters also prevent edits when they are set to warn, but the user does get an message when (s)he tries to save the page, and unlike with disallowed edits, warns do not prevent the user when (s)he re-tries to save the same edit.--Snaevar (talk) 11:41, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Snaevar, that's much less than I'd expected, but I would assume that the warnings deter a lot of bad edits. Is it possible to get figures on the number of times a warning is issued and the warned editor then doesn't save the same edit? ϢereSpielChequers 11:51, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, here are the stats for warnings.

• Total number of warnings: 4,141,457
• Warnings in the last 30 days: 37,621

--Snaevar (talk) 00:06, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Container categories are currently defined as categories which should only contain subcategories. I have been doing some work on diffusing container categories that directly contain pages/files. It would be helpful to have a report of container categories which directly contain pages/files, perhaps weekly. Slivicon (talk) 03:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have generated what I hope is the correct report and posted it at User:Slivicon/CCATS for you. - TB (talk) 08:32, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Topbanana: That looks like exactly what I wanted, thank you very much! :) Slivicon (talk) 21:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get this one updated so it can be bot cleaned? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:53, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this up. it will be fixed soon, hopefully in a week. -- NiharikaKohli (talk) 14:52, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done -- NKohli (WMF) (talk) 14:51, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Local files which Shadow Commons and are not tagged as such currently. Is this possible? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you explain this a bit more and perhaps provide an example of such files? --NKohli (WMF) (talk) 03:18, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A similar request was made a few years ago; I'm not sure if the report ever got beyond discussion though - see /Archive_6#Used_file_names. Would an update of User:Topbanana/Eclipsed Files be a useful starting point? - TB (talk) 17:00, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, Stefan2 was also working on something on quarry Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:19, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Topbanana/Eclipsed Files brought up to date. As it stands, the full report would contain ~3300 entries - running time for the query is < 1 min, it should be possible to generate regularly. - TB (talk) 13:01, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, @TB for providing the SQL query for the report. I'll create a new report under Database Reports and set it for weekly updating. Cheers! -- NKohli (WMF) (talk) 04:30, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would be useful to have a report that lists user pages, user talk pages and subpages that are associated with an account that doesn't exist. These pages are eligible for deletion under CSD U2. They are usually created by error, by trollers or as a result of a bad page move. And it is often seen that these pages exist for months before they're deleted or moved to the correct location. 103.6.159.72 (talk) 15:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look this; it's not entirely straightforward to check accounts by a certain name exist (because of Extension:CentralAuth mediated 'global accounts'). Something must be possible though. - TB (talk) 19:18, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Righty. We have 49289 pages in namespace 2 for which no local account exists. The majority of these exist with good reason:

• 8794 exist for Extension:CentralAuth global users who have no presence on enwiki
• 26161 related to IP users (like User:109.77.151.81 and User:2A02:1205:34D8:8960:55FB:77C9:8B62:4F87)
• 11888 are redirects to other user pages - these seem to be mostly from account renaming

This leaves 2446 pages related to 2009 non-existent users to which CSD U2 may apply. 1482 are redirects, 964 not. - TB (talk) 16:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like the ownerless pages in the user space (configuration) report. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering if there is a way to update Wikipedia:Database reports/WikiProjects by changes - it has not been updated since July. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 01:38, 20 December 2015 (UTC)please ping me[reply]

Ottawahitech, the report generation script was inexplicably broken, but I have solved that problem and am running the report now. Harej (talk) 02:20, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way we could have the "linked misspellings" report run 2-3 times a week instead of once? Daily would be ideal, but I don't know how severe of a load it puts on the servers. Thanks. Faceless Enemy (talk) 02:57, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Still interested in this... Faceless Enemy (talk) 19:57, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A 'live' equivalent of this report can be found here. If you exhaust this list, there a related list of redirects that should probably be marked as misspellings. - TB (talk) 16:06, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see a database report for pages with ambiguous dates in cite templates for |accessdate=. An ambiguous citation date would be something of the form 01/02/03 which could either be January 2, 2013 or February 1, 2013. If one of the day/month numbers is greater than 12 it is not ambiguous i.e. 13/01/03 is clear what the date should be.

It should be run every week because some of these dates can be fixed (by a user or a bot) if they are caught soon enough, for instance if a date was found today (15 April, 2014) reading 05/04/14, it must mean April 5, 2014 since the other interpretation May 4, 2014 has not passed yet. Jamesmcmahon0 (talk) 15:30, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

01/02/03 cannot be either January 2, 2013 or February 1, 2013. It might be: 1 February 2003; January 2, 2003; or 2001-02-03 (2001 February 3). For some people, it might even be 2001, 2 March; but however you read it, the year isn't 2013. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:33, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I meant the date 01/02/13, or 1 February 2003; January 2, 2003. You are of course right, that was a silly typo on my part. I've never seen the date format YY/MM/DD or YY/DD/MM is that common?. I was assuming the ambiguity would only come from DD/MM/YY vs MM/DD/YY if people use year first then it it could be a harder task... Jamesmcmahon0 (talk) 20:54, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See ISO 8601#Truncated representations. My father (who was a bit wacky) tended to write dates as YY/MM/DD, this began when he was creating computer databases (this was in the 1970s, no MySQL back then) and needed to sort records by date - so he programmed it to store dates as strings formatted YY/MM/DD. Then he started using the same format when writing dates down in everyday life...

YY/DD/MM is very rare, but if you hang around the right talk pages (like Template talk:Cite web, or WT:MOSDATE) for a few years (as I have done), you'll find that it does come up every now and then. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:55, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting concept - if the report could quickly identify dates such as "07/04/2014", we could assume that this is 7 April 2014 and fix it before July 4 when it would then appear to be ambiguous. GoingBatty (talk) 03:19, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a great idea. If Category:CS1 errors: dates were already empty instead of having 80,000+ articles in it, it would be easy to watch it for new errors and correct them quickly, as we do with a dozen other CS1 error categories that have been emptied by diligent gnomes. We could also deploy ReferenceBot to notify editors when they insert an ambiguous date. Both of those require the category to be empty first, and it's going to be quite a while before that happens. Jamesmcmahon0's idea is a good one that could reduce the addition of new articles to the category while we work to empty it of old errors. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:16, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a good amount of support for this, how does it get actioned? Jamesmcmahon0 (talk) 11:36, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jamesmcmahon0: You can now add Category:CS1 errors: dates to your watchlist, uncheck the hide page categorization box, and click Go. GoingBatty (talk) 23:10, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I was really hammering the Red-linked categories with incoming links list, I've done several hundred of late. But now I've found that it seems to be missing a bunch of categories which are needed but not appearing in the report. For instance, Category:1994 in Fijian rugby union (and 1995/6/7/8) should have been in there but weren't, along with 1990/2001/2/3/6/7 which were in the report. The cats had been on the articles since creation back in August 2013. Another one was the article 1997–98 Coca-Cola Triangular Series which had been tagged (incorrectly as it happens) with both Category:1998 in Bangladeshi cricket and Category:1998 in Kenyan cricket since creation 10 days ago. The former was in the report, but not the latter. I'm not sure what's going on, it feels like being on an article when it's first created could be part of the "problem" but that doesn't explain the cricket example unless it's something like "the report only sees the first category in a new article"?!?!? I leave it to others to work out what's going on, but I thought I'd give a heads-up. Ah well, back to category creation - I've nearly done all the xxxx in Yyyyy categories on that report now, the next time it runs we might even get some non-year categories appearing!!!! Le Deluge (talk) 22:55, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Months ago, I was creating dozens and dozens of these categories. It's nice to see I wasn't the only one taking on these mundane activities. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd noticed that over the last 6 months #1000 on that report had moved from the 1920s to the end of the 1980s, so someone had obviously been working hard! My Wiki time tends to be sporadic so I'm not much good for day-to-day stuff but I tend to get the bit between my teeth and attack a backlog now and then. In this case I set myself a target of taking the end of that report past 2016 and into the non-year categories., I did about 250 off the last report and have so far done 400 off the current one, I've very nearly killed everything that isn't a XXXX(s) (dis)establishment. I'll probably do a few disestablishments next, but I won't be doing many establishments until the next run of the report, if you fancy something to do.... <g> PS I've found another "miss" - the report only showed 1999 out of Category:Track racing by year but most of the 90s were needed. Each had a single Polish speedway category created as a single edit in May 2013 - but there's no obvious difference between 1999 and the others.Le Deluge (talk) 15:13, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, some more examples of categories that were in the report that had adjacent ones missing from it despite needing to be created : Category:1972–73 in Central American football by country (most of the 70s and 80s), Category:1993–94 in Moroccan football, Category:2001–02 in Jordanian football, Category:2005–06 in Belizean football and Category:2003–04 in Nicaraguan football. Even less of a pattern now visible... Le Deluge (talk) 00:19, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the example given (Category:1994 in Fijian rugby union) I see that it has an incoming category link (from 1994_Wales_rugby_union_tour) but no page links. Either the query underlying the report is looking at the pagelinks table (rather than categorylinks) in the database, or it is suppressing entries with no incoming links from namespace 0. - TB (talk) 12:02, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Topbanana - I don't think that's it, because I think 1990 is similar and that was in the report. I think it's tied up with the thing I've discovered in the section above, that when a new category has only a single edit, then it doesn't register in any categories it "should" belong to. At least, at the time the report first picks up on it - it may get more complicated once the bot starts caching its results.... To be honest I haven't fully characterized the problem, but single-edit categories seem to be a big part of it. A null edit should fix it as with the false positives above, but the trouble with false negatives is that you don't know they're out there! But we've got thousands of new categories to create (I'm just shy of 500 from this week's version of this report alone), so I guess there's no hurry, but it's annoying knowing that the report is incomplete.Le Deluge (talk) 22:06, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would anyone be willing to expand Wikipedia:Database reports/Broken WikiProject templates to include templates that start with "WP", as some of those would be broken redirects to WikiProject templates? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 01:30, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Looking at Wikipedia:Database reports/Broken WikiProject templates/Configuration, this is a pretty easy request to fulfill. The more challenging part is updating wherever BernsteinBot runs from nowadays. Hmmm. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:00, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like something changed in early December such that WP:Database reports/Uncategorized categories no longer "sees" categories hidden in templates, so it's now including a bunch of false positives. The easiest way to find some is to sort by number of members as the most common ones are empty category redirects (eg Category:1945 in Comoros or those using templates like {{WPMILHIST Task force assessment level category}} which include Category:SIA-Class maritime warfare articles with 4460 members. I'm not sure how many there are, but the report seems to have ballooned 50% in the last few weeks which may just mean User:Pichpich has been getting lazy <g> but probably gives an idea of the size of the problem. Le Deluge (talk) 14:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have been lazy but I thought I was leaving the backlog in good hands. What's your excuse? :-) Pichpich (talk) 17:00, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lot going on in Real Life unfortunately, it's severely restricted my Wikitime... I also notice that this problem also affects WP:Database reports/Empty categories. Looking around at some of my favourite reports, I see Wikipedia:Database reports/Categories categorized in red-linked categories hasn't updated since November - what's the problem there, is it terminal or merely not-got-round-to-it-yet? Le Deluge (talk) 00:21, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed that the empty category code ignores Category:Wikipedia category redirects which was deleted in September in favour of Category:Wikipedia soft redirected categories, although I've just tried making that replacement on the sample code over on Quarry and it didn't seem to make any difference.... Le Deluge (talk) 02:31, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Le Deluge, please don't post the same question at multiple places. I've replied to your question at mw:Topic:Syyplywzon4sw4td. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:32, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - although you'll notice from the lack of question marks I wasn't actually asking a question here, I was merely providing an update on an existing conversation for the benefit of others here who may have code that looks for Category:Wikipedia category redirects. Don't worry, any detailed queries on SQL will get asked over on Quarry - as you pointed out it looks like my problem was a lack of underscores, even though adding the underscores takes my code over the Quarry timeout. Le Deluge (talk) 16:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(merge threads)
I didn't even know there was a talk page here that folks read. But now that I do, there has been something that has bugged me for a while. And that is in the Empty Categories list shows quite a few soft-redirect categories. This occurs when an admin moves a category (which only happens as a result of a CFD request) and leave a redirect at the old category that points to the new one. There are hundreds of these soft-redirect categories that are empty but it seems like ones that have been recently emptied appear day after day on the Empty Categories list.
I don't know if there is some page purge that needs to be done or some feature reset or a bug that needs to be fixed but could these categories (which are intentionally and perpetually empty) stop appearing on this list? Thanks for any help you can offer. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that Le Deluge has already mentioned this problem (above). Well, I guess you can consider this confirmation that it's still a problem. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz - I've been having a bit of a play with SQL over at query 7554 and although I haven't completely defined the problem, I think I've worked out a work-round. The report looks for categories containing no articles, and then filters out a subset based on certain criteria. We're interested in the criterion where it filters out empty categories that are a member of Category:Wikipedia soft redirected categories. However, there seems to be a bit of a bug when the empty category only has one edit, ie it was added to Category:Wikipedia soft redirected categories when it was created and there have been no further edits. In this case MediaWiki can't "see" the category until there's been another edit. That can include a WP:NULLEDIT (at least, adding a space at the end works but not making no change whatsoever), so I suggest you throw the list of categories in that report at AWB and get it to do a null edit on each article. I've done it to the XXXX in Comoros articles on that report and they dropped out of my SQL query, so hopefully they will also be missing from the next run of that report.

It's also something to be a little bit wary of with empty categories, they may appear to be empty because a daughter category/article isn't registering with MediaWiki. For instance I created Category:1724 establishments in Spain before creating Category:1724 establishments in the Spanish Empire as a daughter. Because the daughter was a new single-edit category, its categorization as a member of the parent was not registering in MediaWiki and so the parent appeared empty on screen, and was showing up in a SQL query looking for empty categories. A null-edit to the daughter category made it show up in the parent. Now I know that can happen, I'll try not to create parent before daughter in future, but it's worth being aware of. I suspect something similar is also causing the problem below.Le Deluge (talk) 22:06, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a space is not a WP:NULLEDIT. Just click the edit tab and go straight for Save page without typing anything in. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:48, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NULLEDIT "Adding new blank lines only to the end of the page is also usually a null edit" and adding a space at the end seems to count likewise, it doesn't get recorded as an edit. In my limited experience, a "pure" null edit doesn't always manage to purge the cache but it seems to work better if you make the system do a little bit of work in trimming a space off the end.Le Deluge (talk) 16:59, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I got curious and ended up filing phabricator:T128701 about the MediaWiki categorylinks table not updating for en.wikipedia.org. This issue probably affects other Wikimedia wikis, too. In general, you shouldn't ever need to manually purge or null edit a page. Users have these tools to force pages to update, but they are hacks. If users are regularly feeling the need to manually purge or null edit pages, the software is broken and needs to be fixed. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:53, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MZMcBride: So where are we with this? My impression is that it's still happening, possibly not quite as much as it was but definitely still happening. For instance, my name comes up 7 times on the latest uncategorised categories report. Aside from one where I was just a bit too quick to revert an IP blank without checking there was cats on the previous version <cough> there's 6 recent examples of categories with cats not being recognised by the report. The Red-linked categories with incoming links report has two even more difficult cases, Category:Orphaned non-free use Wikipedia files as of 7 March 2016 and Category:Proposed deletion as of 8 March 2016 are stuck in limbo because they can't be null-edited because they've been deleted. I suspect the only way to clear them from the system is to create them and then delete them again, but for the time being they're probably more useful being preserved for techies to play with. Still, RLCWIL is looking a lot happier now - it's now (just!) under 300 to go, and I've got some ideas on how to clear out the User cats that make up much of the remainder.... Le Deluge (talk) 23:23, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How can I make this report run again? -- Patchy1 01:53, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pray. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That report was run by DASHbot, so its probably best to talk to Tim1357 to see if he can get it running again. Legoktm (talk) 09:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - now being run by Community Tech bot. Thparkth (talk) 02:44, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Wikipedia:Database reports/Editors eligible for Autopatrol privilege hasn't run for a year now, I think we lost it in the move to labs. I asked the original writer a few months ago but they don't seem to be around much and haven't responded to my request on their talkpage. There is bound to be a whole crop of editors out there who merit being made autopatrollers, but we really need a fresh list to trawl for them. There are several advantages to appointing a bunch of Autopatrollers not least being that it lightens the workload at newpage patrol. I think the criteria were something like:

• Not an Admin, Bureaucrat or Autopatroller
• Has created an article other than a redirect in the last month
• Has created over 50 articles other than redirects in total
• Has not had the Autopatroller right revoked in the last 12 months
• List format as per Wikipedia:Database reports/Editors eligible for Autopatrol privilege
  • If the report could also exclude anyone with a copyvio block from the last 12 months that would be great, but I suspect that sort of thing would best be done by admins trawling the list. ϢereSpielChequers 10:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm working on fixing these broken reports. Could you confirm if the criteria you've stated above is correct? Or could you link me to where the criteria for users with auto-patrol privilege is stated? I'd be able to get it back up very soon hopefully. NiharikaKohli (talk) 17:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Autopatrolled mentions the criteria for getting the autopatrolled right. As per that page users can get the right when they have created 25 articles, excluding both redirect pages and disambiguations. That page mentions that administrators do not need this right as they already have the "autopatrol" right. The page does not however mention bots, but it would make sense to exclude them, because bots have the "autopatrol" right aswell (see Special:UserGroupRights). Excluding autopatrolled users also makes sense, as obviousally they allready have this right aswell.--Snaevar (talk) 15:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this is fixed now but we do see some "bots" in the results. These are bots operating without a bot flag. Suggestions for improvement are welcome! NiharikaKohli (talk) 16:58, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not worried about the bots, but there are loads of accounts there that should fail the test "Has created an article other than a redirect in the last month". Far too many for the report to be worth manually going through as a source of potential autopatrollers. If we can get that part of the query working then the former bots will disappear along with former admins and the other retired accounts and the report will become useful. ϢereSpielChequers 14:25, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thparkth (talk) 03:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible to split this to multiple reports, by namespace (some could be grouped) - problem is that for the most part this is always hitting the select limit due to certain namespaces having legit pages in this classification (or at least pages that need to be dealt with in a different manner). — xaosflux ^Talk 14:44, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about multiple reports. But a single report with namespace sections or a single report with an extra "namespace ID" table column would probably solve this request. The advantage to doing an extra table column is that you could then sort by page namespace ID and you could continue to sort by total overall size. Sorting by overall size across namespaces wouldn't be possible with sections. Thoughts? --MZMcBride (talk) 22:58, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MZMcBride The main issue is the 2000 fetch limit is getting consumed by pages that are "ok" to be there - possibly obscuring other cleanup that may be needed. If this will result in 2000 of EACH namespace it would fix it. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason, I thought this report had a page size column when I wrote the previous reply. I'm now realizing yet again that blank pages will all have a page length of 0 bytes, of course.

I'm still hesitant to do multiple reports, but per-namespace sectioning on a single report should be easy enough to do. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like if you just sort by name/space, that would at least knock all the User_talks down to the bottom of the list, which would hopefully allow the first 2000 to be more interesting pages? As an aside, any chance of reviving Wikipedia:Database_reports/Categories_categorized_in_red-linked_categories - might encourage a few people to have a go at some of them, looking at a direct database query it's down to just over 5000 now, I plan to do some once I'm finished with the red cats with incoming links which should look a lot healthier when the next report runs tomorrow. <g> Le Deluge (talk) 15:52, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps just a one-off run excluding talk and usertalk? — xaosflux ^Talk 22:34, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This quarry job has been taking care of my needs. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:11, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:05, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Thparkth: I noticed for the past few runs there has been a lot of false positives. Can you check the bot to see why it is picking up so many false positives? Thanks. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:01, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• See also mw:Topic:T2r79et87v4753wo. The database seems to contain partially outdated information or something, making several database queries return lots of false positives. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:29, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  What an ugly link, so glad enwiki is not on flow! — xaosflux ^Talk 22:11, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • User:Xaosflux: Unfortunately, there is nothing like WP:FNC#2 for Flow pages. They would really need better page titles. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:35, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Technically shouldn't this report be excluding from it's counting entries where the sole link is a file inclusion on the report page itself? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:22, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a discussion on Phabricator around the idea of having database reports built into Wikipedia's software, rather than rely on the work of bots. There are no firm plans yet; I'd like to gather people's thoughts on the idea. Please comment on the Phabricator ticket. (If you are not familiar with Phabricator, you can log in using your Wikipedia account information if you click the Login or Register: MediaWiki button.) Harej (talk) 12:14, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Typically categories that are either a) involved in a CFD discussion, b) are redirect categories or c) have an {{empty category}} tag placed on them are not included in this list. But this isn't the case any more. There are a lot of categories that have Empty Category tags that are suddenly now included on this list and all three of these types of categories should be excluded. Can this be fixed? Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:15, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz, since this report is maintained by User:BernsteinBot, could you request the same on it's talk page instead? I am not a maintainer for that bot. Thanks. -- NKohli (WMF) (talk) 17:09, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is anyone working on getting the "Biographies of living people" reports back up and running? Several of these Biographies of living people reports would contain some very useful info for editors such as myself that work a lot with BLPs. For example, Wikipedia:Database reports/Completely unreferenced biographies of living people is the kind of thing that somebody like me could go through from time to time, and figure out whether some of these articles should be WP:PRODed or WP:AfDed... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:06, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IJBall. Probably not. Looking at the current index, it looks like many of the BLP-related reports have been updated in July 2016. A few have not been updated in years. Do you think the results at Wikipedia:Database reports/Completely unreferenced biographies of living people (oldest) are useful? I'm a bit skeptical. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:18, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think so, yes – a long-standing unreferenced BLP is about as sure a sign as you can get that that's likely an article which doesn't pass the notability threshold for inclusion, and should be deleted from the encyclopedia. (Or, at the least, should have somebody look it over to see if it's "rescueable" or not!). But I think Wikipedia:Database reports/Completely unreferenced biographies of living people (newest) is probably similarly useful. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:25, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]