Wikipedia talk:Database reports

To help centralise discussions and keep related topics together, talk pages for some individual database reports are either redirected here, or shown a notice to start future conversations here.

Archives

Index

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Requests: Please list any requests for reports below in a new section. Be as specific as possible, including how often you would like the report run.

Omit piped links from Wikipedia:Database reports/Linked miscapitalizations?

Much of what shows up in Wikipedia:Database reports/Linked miscapitalizations is due to piped links that have no affect on the article appearance, and I spend a lot of time fixing them so that I can get down to what matters in the report. And I take a certain amount of flak for fixing things that don't affect the article appearance. If those piped links were simply skipped, the report might be a more useful list of what to fix.

On the other hand, quite a few of those piped links also have miscapitalized link text in the article, so are still worth looking at sometimes. Maybe we could have reports both ways? Or separate counts of piped and not? Other ideas? Dicklyon (talk) 17:07, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone interested? Dicklyon (talk) 03:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the text of the piped links aren't stored in the database, just the links themselves. I'll think a bit about this, maybe a separate tool that did further processing would do the trick. Legoktm (talk) 17:23, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Longest short description

A short description is usually seen in the search bar, and gets cut off after around 40 characters. But it's not hard to find SD's about twice that long,[1][2] and perhaps even longer than that. I wonder what is the longest short description. Wizmut (talk) 06:53, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After some digging and learning I found that it is possible to do a Quarry search for these.[3] But it might still be nice to have a page dedicated to these cases. Wizmut (talk) 10:14, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed your first link for you. Take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Short descriptions and the associated talk pages for links to categories and a lot of discussion about the length of short descriptions. Wikipedia talk:Short description/Archive 12 and Wikipedia talk:Short description/Archive 14 have particularly good discussions with actual data. The truncation of the second line of text in the search results in the Vector 2022 skin is a bug, submitted as T311277 in 2022, which has not yet been fixed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:39, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the links. There's a bunch of people who are passionate about short descriptions, and I like it :) Wizmut (talk) 13:51, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wizmut: I didn't see that anyone tackled this yet, so I turned that Quarry link into Wikipedia:Database reports/Long short descriptions. Let me know if you want other changes or tweaks. Legoktm (talk) 18:07, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I like it. Perhaps add a link to the project page for short descriptions, which has a bellyful of useful advice. Wizmut (talk) 05:53, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this needed? We have a tracking category, Category:Articles with long short description. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:25, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why but the category is empty and the report is not. Wizmut (talk) 23:44, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The category is populated by short descriptions with length greater than 100; the report is apparently greater than or equal to 100. The only page that would have appeared in both was Cuaderno, whose description has been shortened since the report was last generated. —Cryptic 00:08, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh awesome, I wasn't able to find the category earlier. I'll delete the report then. Legoktm (talk) 04:25, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request most watched users to be run again

Hi everyone, Wikipedia:Database reports/Most-watched users is pretty out of date at this point and I would be interested to know if the data has changed. Can we run it again? Tykeshay (talk) 23:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's blocked on a redacted version of the database table being made available again, see T59617. Legoktm (talk) 23:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Database reports/Untagged biographies of living people didn't update this week

Hi, I just wanted to note that the report linked above didn't run on Thursday like it usually does. Just thought I'd bring it to the attention of whomever needs to know. Thanks for all your work maintaining these reports. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 13:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding that there are quite a few weekly reports that haven't updated since May 9. DB1729^talk 13:52, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DB1729, do we know why? Jonteemil (talk) 18:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Idk. All I know, is it happens occasionally and someone (User:Legoktm in recent times) has to fix and restart a bot. DB1729^talk 18:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Database reports/Polluted categories (categories which have user or user-sandbox pages in them in defiance of WP:USERNOCAT) also didn't update this week, yet Wikipedia:Database reports/Polluted categories (2) (categories which have draftspace pages in them) did. Bearcat (talk) 13:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Database reports/Unused templates (filtered)/1 and Wikipedia:Database reports/Uncategorized templates/1 (updated by HaleBot, pinging 0xDeadbeef and Legoktm) are also not being updated. If we know the queries behind them, it is possible that the pages could be updated to use the wonderful {{Database report}} and then the reports could be updated manually if they stall. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's a link to source on its user page. Most reports are a single query, which makes picking them out easy even if you don't speak Rust. A few have significant post-processing or followup queries, though I haven't found one yet that couldn't be done - perhaps a bit less easily, granted - in a single query. —Cryptic 15:27, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HaleBot healthy?

HaleBot is way behind on some reports. Anyone know why? Dicklyon (talk) 03:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So the discussion is here because User talk:HaleBot was retargeted to here. User:HaleBot lists its two maintainers. The owner, who only reluctantly takes these on after their creators abandon them and nobody else steps up, hasn't edited in 2 months and his recruited assistant isn't healthy. The problem is probably a hiccup on Toolforge of some sort. You can't just put Toolforge jobs on autopilot and expect them to run forever.

"See T358175. It's trivial to restart, but I've left it in a broken state in case it makes it easier for Toolforge admins to diagnose the underlying root cause. Legoktm (talk) 05:23, 22 February 2024 (UTC)"

I agree with Jonesey95 that we should just replace these reports with the more reliable {{Database report}}, e.g. User:Wbm1058/Reports/Linked incorrect names works great for me. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After much fiddling and hacking, I have Wikipedia:Database reports/Uncategorized templates running using {{Database report}}. If anyone knows a bit of SQL and can tell me how to get the report to list templates that match the boolean "either uncategorized OR they are in one or more of categories X, Y, or Z", that would be helpful. For example, templates that are in Category:Pages with disabled graphs and Category:Pages with broken reference names are not actually categorized, so they should appear in the report. I have a list of at least 40 such maintenance categories to add to the query. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done, though it didn't make any difference to the results. Asking at WP:RAQ might get more sets of experienced eyes on such questions; I don't know how many of the regulars there also watch this page. —Cryptic 08:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the corrections to my hacking. That works great now. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Usurping these reports in-place still needs cooperation from the bot's maintainers, or else it'll eventually overwrite the migrated (and possibly improved) queries. —Cryptic 08:51, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per https://toolsadmin.wikimedia.org/tools/id/dbreps, several other people in addition to the two listed maintainers have the technical ability to access this tool. It might be worth asking one of them as well. And I've submitted https://github.com/mzmcbride/database-reports/pull/104 to tell HaleBot to stop updating the uncategorized template report if it ever comes back online. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:01, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. I have restarted the bot's operations by fixing a small bug. Let me know if any additional problems surface. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 03:20, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The bot seems happy for now. Want to describe the bug for us? Are willing to take on some mods as I was suggesting above? Dicklyon (talk) 04:32, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is fixed here. As for your suggestion, I'm not sure what you mean by a piped link. As in, a link whose text is not the same as the target? 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 11:15, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Yes, WP:Piped links display different text, so sometimes a link to a miscapitalized redirect isn't in need of a fix. Often, though, the displayed text is also over-capitalized. It would be awesome to have different reports or different counts of these things. Dicklyon (talk) 23:37, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HaleBot is taking some time off again. Dicklyon (talk) 03:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@0xDeadbeef can you check again? Nobody (talk) 11:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any report that it is not updating? The bot's contributions look healthy for me. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 12:31, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits Subpages haven't been updated for a week. Nobody (talk) 12:44, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@0xDeadbeef See above edit. Nobody (talk) 12:39, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

0xDeadbeef and Legoktm. None of the weekly reports scheduled to update today have updated. DB1729^talk 21:21, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This may have something to do with toolforge problems. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:35, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. I left a comment in that now-renamed thread about the underlying database just being slower than it should be. Legoktm (talk) 05:41, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Database_reports/Forgotten_articles hasn't updated for 11 days

The last update on this page was on 10 June. Has something gone wrong with the bot? Thanks Dupont Circle (talk) 12:20, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That report is maintained by @Community Tech bot, so pinging @MusikAnimal (WMF) (per the bot's user page). Legoktm (talk) 15:58, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Database reports/Untagged stubs false positives

The untagged stubs report is backlogged with a lot of soft redirects to Wikiquote, Wikispecies, etc and lists of lists. It would be useful if these were ignored. The majority of the list is currently false positives which prevents new entries from being added. C F A 💬 19:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC) (please mention me on reply)[reply]

Hi @CFA, I've done the first part by excluding more soft redirects. Can you give an example of the lists of lists you're seeing? The report should already exclude articles that start with "List of" and "Lists of". Legoktm (talk) 06:45, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Legoktm: Thank you. This has already freed up a bunch of slots. For the lists of lists, see Siege of Suffolk order of battle, Battle of Piedmont order of battle, Fauna of Denmark, etc. I also forgot to mention it does not exclude redirects currently at RfD (e.g. [4][5] etc.) Thanks again. C F A 💬 03:17, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! And, thanks for the examples, I've added some more filtering conditions that should exclude those in the next run. Legoktm (talk) 04:39, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think pages in Category:Temporary maintenance holdings should also be excluded from this report. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:39, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Database reports/Linked miscapitalizations broken

In this edit, the bot updated the date, but didn't otherwise update the report, which I know should have a ton of changes reflecting my hundreds of case-fixing edits yesterday. Never seen that before... Dicklyon (talk) 15:41, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

High replag means that all sorts of stuff that should update will not update until the replication lag goes back to zero. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:50, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hope it recovers eventually. Dicklyon (talk) 14:37, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like this process] has been stalled for about a week. I expect someone is trying to figure it out, but I don't know any more visibility into that. Dicklyon (talk) 03:58, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Broken report

Wikipedia:Database reports/Unusually long IP blocks - the only thing that shows on the page is an LUA error. 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:24B4:D100:18CB:DB92 (talk) 22:07, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should be fixed in the next update, thanks for flagging. Legoktm (talk) 06:37, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files without a license tag is missing certain non-free files

I've been doing some file cleanup lately and have come across a significant number of files which are tagged with a non-free use rationale (such as with {{Non-free use rationale}}) but which are missing an actual file copyright tag (such as those listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags/All. Per the section on that page regarding non-free content, non-free files are required to have both a rationale and a copyright tag. Currently, the report at Wikipedia:Database reports/Files without a license tag does not seem to include files which do have a rationale but which do not have an actual license/copyright tag; for instance, File:Esther Applin 1944.jpg (which should presumably get tagged with {{non-free biog-pic}} unless it is found to be public domain or similar), among many others I've seen in the course of my recent cleanup work. Would it be possible to add files in this situation to the report, or else create a separate report for them? 🔹Blue (talk/contribs) 21:53, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Filter out template disambiguation

I think templates in Category:Template disambiguation pages should be excluded from Wikipedia:Database reports/Unused templates (filtered), since it's a subcategory of Category:Wikipedia transclusionless templates. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:34, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I might be useful, if we're going to change that page, to convert it to use the format at User:Jonesey95/self-transcluded-templates so that regular editors (or template editors, if we want to protect the report a bit) can make changes like the above after discussion. That way, nobody has to mess with off-wiki code. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:19, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have raised a PR (https://github.com/mzmcbride/database-reports/pull/141) to get HaleBot to stop updating pages containing {{nobots}}. This would enable usurping reports following on-wiki discussions without getting the two bots to overwrite each others' reports. @0xDeadbeef Can you review it? – SD0001 (talk) 19:55, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to follow up, the PR has been merged and deployed. Please go ahead with {{database reports}}-ification! Legoktm (talk) 16:54, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dusty Articles should exclude soft redirects and potentially Set indexes

@Legoktm since the report already excludes hard redirects, it should exclude soft redirects, which is currently does not do, for example, various wiktionary redirects like Technical tap, this could probablly be resolved by excluding pages found in Category:Wikipedia soft redirects and it's subcategories.

Another issue is Set index articles, which are functionally another disambiguation page and often do not need edits for long periods of time, such as some surnames, geographic details, etc. I'd propose excluding these from Dusty Articles and perhaps have it be a sub report exclusive to set indexes, maybe for particular categories of sex indexes, as sometimes they can be genuinely overlooked(i.e. an article was created for a person with an obscure surname that does indeed already have SIA). Anyway I understand this to likely be a much more nuanced issue to resolve than the soft redirects so more disccusion is likely needed on that matter. Akaibu (talk) 21:40, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]