Wikipedia talk:Database reports

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. 
 * Archive
 * Bugs
 * Configuration

Wikipedia:Database reports/Unused templates (filtered) update related to Module:Pagetype
A recent change to Module:Pagetype has caused some pages to register a self transclusion (but they are still unused). Can Database reports/Unused templates (filtered) be modified to now check if the template's only transclusion is itself and if so keep it on the report? Gonnym (talk) 12:39, 6 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Looking for a template with no transclusions is much easier than just looking for one that happens to be a self-transclusion...I'm thinking of how to restructure the SQL query to accommodate this, if anyone wants to propose a better query that handles this, please do. Legoktm (talk) 04:02, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't see why it would need it? Just add a clause to the templatelinks join; you already have the template page's page_id.  query/80586.  Also note the backslashes in the LIKEs; underscore is a metacharacter. —Cryptic 06:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * And query/80588 lets you get rid of the postprocessing and all those secondary queries. —Cryptic 07:01, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Cryptic: awesome, I'm glad you're better at SQL than me :) Would you like to submit a PR with your improved query? Otherwise I'll get to it shortly. Legoktm (talk) 05:11, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd rather not deal with another identity at github. —Cryptic 05:53, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Can we switch that page to use Database report? I set up a sample page at User:Jonesey95/self-transcluded-templates and it seems to work OK. I probably don't understand the larger implications though. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:25, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * We have another issue which could be related to this change. Template:Anarchism US shows a transclusion at its talk page but it's not used there. So the updated code should also check if the self transclusion is from its own talk page. Gonnym (talk) 07:49, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That's a strange one. I'm guessing that one of the "new pages" lists causes this check somehow. I wonder if the problem will resolve itself after the new template page (created March 11) falls off of the list eight days after its creation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

HaleBot has not edited for a couple of days
I'm not panicking yet, but HaleBot has not edited for a couple of days. Over 48 hours, if my math is right. It averages about 45 edits per day, so a two-day break is unusual. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:01, 22 February 2024 (UTC)


 * 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)

Polluted categories
I wanted to ask if it's possible to generate an earlier-than-usual update on a report. I hadn't personally done a runthrough on Database reports/Polluted categories in about a month or two while assuming that other people were staying on top of it, but it turns out they weren't — so when I went back to it this morning there were 1,000 categories on it, which is its generation limit, and that limit had only gotten it to the letter P, meaning that there are potentially dozens or hundreds more categories hiding on the other side of the wall.

So I've trudged my way through cleaning up what was there (pity me), but wanted to ask if it's possible to run an early update to catch the post-1,000 stuff instead of having to wait three more days for the regular weekly update. Bearcat (talk) 16:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Weekly potential U5s database report not updated for nearly a year
This seems to be broken somehow.

"Potential U5s; data as of 06:56, 25 May 2023 (UTC). This report is updated every 7 days" Database reports/Potential U5s/1 Flounder fillet (talk) 19:28, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm looking at the query and I don't see how it ever worked. (Besides doing things very inefficiently, it can't see user pages created after late July 2018 - intentionally, though I can't fathom why - nor users who have any deleted edits, which is probably accidental.)  I'll see if I can't come up with something that does what I think it was trying to. —Cryptic 19:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * (query/81990 if you want some pages to look at in the meantime. It currently sorts alphabetically and cuts off in the B's, which is... not ideal.) —Cryptic 20:19, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Now sorting by whether it's a redirect first then by page length, which, while not as good as user creation time, is more likely to be useful than alphabetical. (Sorting by redirect is needed to make it reasonably fast, and there's only a handful of user page redirects that meet the other criteria.  And they're likely all problematic anyway.)   This query can be dropped into /dbreps2/src/enwiki/webhostpages.rs without other changes, or I can take over this report with SDZeroBot's database report if you prefer. —Cryptic 20:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * (Also pinging User:0xDeadbeef, since Lego hasn't edited in a month and I'd, uh, forgotten you also maintain HaleBot. Oops.) —Cryptic 21:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I have been quite busy these weeks. Feel free to open a GitHub issue/pull request, or ping me here again on the weekends to nudge me.. 0x Deadbeef →∞ (talk to me) 13:57, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Is there a reason to prefer pinging someone here with instructions over a GitHub pull request? --MZMcBride (talk) 08:10, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Based on what I encountered, the deleted edit thing was probably supposed to make it not list user pages of users whose only contributions are creations of deleted pages and who have warnings and stuff on their User: instead of User talk: for some reason (example: User:ISpeakTruth). Doesn't seem to be that many of those, and these situations can no longer occur, so it's probably not needed. Flounder fillet (talk) 21:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That's possible, but I really don't think it is. The way it was programmed makes it look like it was accidental - it checks the current total of non-deleted edits in user: and user talk: and compares them against the user_editcount field.  If it were intentional, directly checking for deleted edits in the archive table would be a more natural way to do it, more accurate, (much) faster, and could be made to only exclude users with deleted edits in non-user/usertalk namespaces besides. —Cryptic 21:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I wrote some versions of this query. Of course the query worked previously, the proof is in the page history. My off-hand guess for why it broke is that some query planner got worse or some index got changed and the query is now taking too much time or CPU to generate, but who knows. Sometimes it's a database field that's been renamed, sometimes it's something else entirely.
 * Cryptic, you should have access to look at the logs yourself, but if you don't for some reason, that seems like the real issue here. I don't know why you'd need to ping Legoktm and others, that seem very silly.
 * This query made some heuristic choices for finding these types of potentially problematic user pages. These choices obviously have trade-offs. In particular, I happened to be focused on older and longer pages, which is why I added restrictions on  and  . I personally also wanted to only find cases where the user had only edited in two specific namespaces, at least to start. However, there are lots of cases that won't be included as a result of making these choices. If a user made a single spam edit to a real article as well as spamming their user page, they wouldn't be included in this report as-written. In cases where   is wrong, this report could omit some pages. In cases where the page length is 498 bytes and still promotional spam that should be deleted, it wouldn't be included here. And so on.
 * Improvements to this and any other database report are always welcome. I thought the  table was no longer available in database replicas, but I may be mistaken. Let's see you all do better. Please. :-)  --MZMcBride (talk) 07:48, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Quarry says my  query against enwiki_p has been queued for 21 minutes now, but I was able to run this query against a database in a different cluster and   and friends are still available. I guess I was thinking of something else. I'm doubtful it will be efficient or quick to use the   table or similar, but I'm very interested to see what you all come up with to uncover more pages to be reviewed and potentially deleted. --MZMcBride (talk) 08:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Omit piped links from Database reports/Linked miscapitalizations?
Much of what shows up in 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)


 * Anyone interested? Dicklyon (talk) 03:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

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, and perhaps even longer than that. I wonder what is the longest short description. Wizmut (talk) 06:53, 9 May 2024 (UTC)


 * After some digging and learning I found that it is possible to do a Quarry search for these. But it might still be nice to have a page dedicated to these cases. Wizmut (talk) 10:14, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I fixed your first link for you. Take a look at 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 in 2022, which has not yet been fixed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:39, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)

Request most watched users to be run again
Hi everyone, 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)


 * 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)

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. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 13:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Adding that there are quite a few weekly reports that haven't updated since May 9. DB 1729 talk 13:52, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @DB1729, do we know why? Jonteemil (talk) 18:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Idk. All I know, is it happens occasionally and someone (User:Legoktm in recent times) has to fix and restart a bot. DB 1729 talk 18:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)


 * 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 Database reports/Polluted categories (2) (categories which have draftspace pages in them) did. Bearcat (talk) 13:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Database reports/Unused templates (filtered)/1 and Database reports/Uncategorized templates/1 (updated by HaleBot, pinging and ) 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)
 * 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)

HaleBot healthy?
HaleBot is way behind on some reports. Anyone know why? Dicklyon (talk) 03:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 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 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)
 * After much fiddling and hacking, I have 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 and  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)
 * 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)
 * Thanks for the corrections to my hacking. That works great now. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Hi all. I have restarted the bot's operations by fixing a small bug. Let me know if any additional problems surface. 0x Deadbeef →∞ (talk to me) 03:20, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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? 0x Deadbeef →∞ (talk to me) 11:15, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)

HaleBot is taking some time off again. Dicklyon (talk) 03:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @0xDeadbeef can you check again? Nobody  ( talk ) 11:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Is there any report that it is not updating? The bot's contributions look healthy for me. 0x Deadbeef →∞ (talk to me) 12:31, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * List of Wikipedians by number of edits Subpages haven't been updated for a week. Nobody  ( talk ) 12:44, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @0xDeadbeef See above edit. Nobody  ( talk ) 12:39, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 0xDeadbeef and Legoktm. None of the weekly reports scheduled to update today have updated. DB 1729 talk 21:21, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This may have something to do with toolforge problems. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:35, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)

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)


 * 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)

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)