To help centralize 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.
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]
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]
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]
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. —Cryptic00:08, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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. CFA💬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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
TV articles with "was"
Could we get a database report on TV show articles that have "was" in the first sentence (i.e., Name of Show was...) MOS:TV has dicated use of "is" since forever, but I'm still finding "was"es all over the place. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?)20:56, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can we have a report of content in draftspace containing mainspace categories? This routinely needs to be cleaned. BD2412T22:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
