User talk:DeltaBot

• User talk:DeltaBot/Flow

Merge of Wikimedia disambiguation page with non disambiguation page

What triggered the bot to do this merge? instance of (P31) got both Wikimedia disambiguation page (Q4167410) and magazine (Q41298). Someone have been cleaning up, but the old Swedish description remained. Have the trigger för this type of merge been blocked? I have seen both bot and user merges like this. Maundwiki (talk) 15:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

This edit has been made almost three years ago when Pasleim was still the sole maintainer of the bot. Plenty of code has been rewritten since then and the scheduling has been changed significantly, thus I cannot fully trace back how this edit was made. —MisterSynergy (talk) 18:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I am looking into merges/changes of Wikimedia disambiguation page (Q4167410) and the three subclass pages Wikimedia human name disambiguation page (Q22808320), municipality name disambiguation page (Q61996773) and Wikimedia surname disambiguation page (Q66480449) to objects that have a non disambiguation_page instance of (P31). Sometimes the other instance of (P31) have taken over the object and all the "Wikimedia_disambiguation_pageLabel" is still there for a lot of languages. An example of many (1500+) is [1]. It can be several changes of P31 in the object. Medieval Croatia (Q6806805) Wikimedia disambiguation page (Q4167410) to 3024240) later Wikimedia disambiguation page (Q4167410) was removed and later changed to Wikimedia list article (Q13406463). This gös back to a bot 2013 that should have created a new object for the non disambiguation. This one is not to bad since it has few links. I assume many of these changes happen because people only look at one languages. That was the background for my question. Thanks for the response. Maundwiki (talk) 20:41, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

An other case is Q2827429: Wikimedia disambiguation page:

• disambiguation page
• described by source (P1343): Ottos Enzyklopädie and Pauly-Wissowa

Kolja21 (talk) 17:47, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. The editing in the item before the bot came to create the redirect was already incorrect, but the merge should not have happened. I need to add another check to this job to make sure that "incompatible" (whatever this means) items are not being merged together. —MisterSynergy (talk) 18:14, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Ein weiterer Fall:

• Codices Palatini latini ist Teil von Codex Palatinus (Q42940353)
• zusammengeführt mit: Cod. pal. lat., Wikimedia-Begriffsklärungsseite

@Epìdosis: FYI. --Kolja21 (talk) 02:09, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Ich habe einigermaßen aufgeräumt, de:Cod. pal. lat. muss bitte einmal einem passenden Datenobjekt zugeordnet werden. Da weiß ich nicht, welches richtig ist. Das Datenobjekt zur Begriffsklärungsseite ist mittlerweile gelöscht.

Insgesamt eine schwierige Situation für den Bot. Die Seite in dewiki war tatsächlich mal ne BKS und wurde dann umgemodelt zu einer richtigen Seite. Der Sitelink wurde dann an andere Stelle verschoben und ein leeres BKS-Datenobjekt hinterlassen. Ganz vermeiden lässt sich sowas nicht – es sei denn, ich schalte das Skript ganz ab. —MisterSynergy (talk) 12:34, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Older property proposals keep reappearing in status updates

I see that there are some older property proposals and created properties, some from as far back as December, that the bot has kept re-adding to Wikidata:Status updates/Next each week (so that the list has become inordinately large). Any way that those can be skipped? Mahir256 (talk) 03:21, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the report; I will have a look at it on the weekend, hopefully. —MisterSynergy (talk) 21:43, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

someone omitted proper categories from recent status reports since mid December 2024, thus the bot was not aware of reports since then. categories were added and the next status report was also tidied —MisterSynergy (talk) 21:51, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

@Danny Benjafield (WMDE), Mohammed Abdulai (WMDE): for your information. Mahir256 (talk) 23:15, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Oh thank you for that catch and adding the category to the missing summaries. We remove it when sending the page via MassMessage and I forgot to re-add it.-Danny Benjafield (WMDE) (talk) 08:19, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

@MisterSynergy: It seems that despite "Category:Wikidata status updates" being added to the /Next page, property proposals from as far back as February were re-added to the page yesterday. Did something happen, or was something missed somewhere else? Mahir256 (talk) 03:14, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Database reports/without claims by site/simplewiki

Hi,I noticed that the bot links to English wikipedia instead of simple wiki.This is kind of inconvenient.

Wikidata:Database reports/without claims by site/simplewiki RVA2869 (talk) 10:30, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Correct, this was inconvenient. I've changed it to link directly to simplewiki, seems fine now. —MisterSynergy (talk) 22:20, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Delta stopped creating disambiguation objects on 14th of April 2025

Hello, it seems that DeltaBot has stopped creating disambiguation objects on 14th of April 2025:

• https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&target=DeltaBot&namespace=all&tagfilter=&newOnly=1&start=&end=&limit=50

Maybe DeltaBot needs to be restarted? Thanks a lot! M2k~dewiki (talk) 21:23, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Also see Topic:Y9y2d4pl8iouzu18 M2k~dewiki (talk) 21:24, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, it got stuck indeed. I restarted it, and it has already caught up as it seems. —MisterSynergy (talk) 22:31, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

property_uses.py

Template:Number of main statements by property, Template:Number of qualifiers by property and Template:Number of references by property already surpass 100,000 bytes. I suggest a) migrating them to a JSON page (so that they can be used by tools without parsing the template and not counted towards the template expansion limits) and/or b) eliminating zeros (i.e., #default=0). --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 09:14, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

And Template:Property uses, too.

I see they are used for the "Usage history (total)" charts, so perhaps let's not change them for now, but I would definitely store them in JSON as well. (The motivation is to avoid transclusion of 500,000 bytes on every property talk page just to get a few numbers. This could unbreak Property talk:P31.) --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 09:30, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, a JSON export this is worth to consider. Do we have a preferable JSON schema available? —MisterSynergy (talk) 23:15, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

No preference on this matter. In fact, I probably exaggerated the benefits. The templates do not contribute to the limit since they are called from Lua. But they can be problematic elsewhere.

Still, I think it's useful to have a dataset like this around as this information is otherwise inaccessible. --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 17:59, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Per Template talk:Property documentation#WDQS graph split, it now needs to add together results from both WDQS graphs. --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 08:06, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the report.

This seems to be a larger issue which possibly affects other DeltaBot jobs as well. Do we have a help page that aids with migration to the new server configuration? I am somewhat familiar with federation in general, but due to limited time for Wikidata, I am missing plenty of such technical changes in the past years.

Another topic to consider will be the terms and revision database changes that have been announced recently. They will likely require changes to many bot scripts as well.

In general, DeltaBot scripts are available in their current configuration at Github; some informal design considerations for DeltaBot are listed at User:MisterSynergy/deltabot#February 2024. —MisterSynergy (talk) 17:52, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Okay, this script does now query both graphs. It needs ~50 hrs to complete and runs ~50k queries per graph though. —MisterSynergy (talk) 18:33, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Complex constraints down?

Most complex constraint violation reports haven't got an update since April. --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 08:17, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

The job got stuck for a reason that has not found its way into the job log file. So I have just restarted it for the moment. Thanks for the report! —MisterSynergy (talk) 17:57, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

It now finished a complete run, but needed 2 attempts as the first one ran out of memory (with a 2GB limit). This job apparently needs some attention at some point in the future, too. —MisterSynergy (talk) 23:13, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Projectmerge down?

Many of the subpages of User:Pasleim/projectmerge were last updated in late May. Duckmather (talk) 04:28, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

This job is not really down; however, it is the most inefficient one of DeltaBot and it unfortunately crashes occasionally. I hope I find the time to make it more robust at some point, but I do not have much time to spare right now. —MisterSynergy (talk) 22:36, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Removal of units with P1082

According to Property talk:P1082, DeltaBot should remove units from population (P1082) statements. I uploaded some statements with units because OpenRefine complained if I did not set one. It has been about two weeks since the upload and the units are still present. An example is here: Bern-Siedlung Berna (Q97602012). Is this expected or is there something not working with the bot? Uschoen (talk) 09:51, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

That job only applies to a couple of specific values as units, and number (Q11563) was not considered previously. I have added it, so within the next days it should hopefully process as desired. —MisterSynergy (talk) 20:23, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

DeltaBot stopped creating disambiguation objects on 8th of July 2025

Hello, it seems that DeltaBot has stopped creating disambiguation objects on 8th of July 2025:

• https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&end=&namespace=all&newOnly=1&start=&tagfilter=&target=DeltaBot&dir=prev&offset=20250707095651

Also see:

• User_talk:DeltaBot#Delta_stopped_creating_disambiguation_objects_on_14th_of_April_2025
• Topic:Y9y2d4pl8iouzu18

M2k~dewiki (talk) 17:14, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

It might be related to

• https://github.com/magnusmanske/petscan_rs/issues/193
• https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T398932

which also appeared at the same day, PetScan is not working for me since 8th of July 2025. M2k~dewiki (talk) 17:17, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello, for me PetScan is working again since this evening. Thanks a lot! M2k~dewiki (talk) 21:27, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

I do not have anything to do with Petscan, but thanks! ;-)

Anyways, there are apparently maxlag issues this evening, which is why some of my bot tasks cannot properly catch up. I'll have another look at to tomorrow. —MisterSynergy (talk) 21:34, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Okay, the problem is more serious, as some of the data queried from the Wikidata replicas has been migrated to another database server (wbt tables). This needs some changes in the script; hopefully I find some time to fix this within the next days. —MisterSynergy (talk) 22:28, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Should be fixed now —MisterSynergy (talk) 18:12, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much! M2k~dewiki (talk) 18:43, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Creating items that have "(disambiguation)" in their titles

Hi! When DeltaBot creates items for disambiguation pages with "(disambiguation)" in their titles, can it be configured not to add that disambiguator to the items' labels? For example: Dunga (Q135760223) and Sabaya (Q135700248). Also, those two items already have corresponding entries: Dunga (Q10269055) and Sabaya (Q22813637), so could the bot either avoid creating duplicate items or instead add interlanguage links to the existing ones? Thanks, 87.95.213.146 13:08, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Not sure what went wrong here, the bot is supposed to do what you are describing anyways. Nothing suspicious in my logs. Need to dig deeper, unfortunately. —MisterSynergy (talk) 12:35, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Duplicate item creations

Hello, DeltaBot uses the value in brackets as label, for example:

• (disambiguation) in English: d:Q135700248 (also see User_talk:DeltaBot#Creating_items_that_have_"(disambiguation)"_in_their_titles)
• (Begriffsklärung) in German: d:Q3112846
• (desambiguación) in Spanish: d:Q135790796
• (flertydig) in Danish: Q131629220

According to d:Help:Label/de, the values in brackets should not be used as label, but rather as description: So fallen zum Beispiel in Wikidata die Klammerzusätze weg. Zur Unterscheidung wird die Beschreibung verwendet.

Therefore DeltaBot sometimes creates duplicates, a few of the recently created items have been merged now, for example:

• d:Q135740566 -> d:Q3112846
• d:Q135749250 and d:Q131629220 -> d:Q19697568
• d:Q135760223 -> d:Q10269055
• d:Q135786831 -> d:Q15410797
• d:Q135829392 -> d:Q29536612
• d:Q135831103 -> d:Q64877348
• d:Q135840228 -> d:Q16520364
• d:Q135841834 -> d:Q5303180
• d:Q135849501 -> d:Q1137984
• d:Q135878626 -> d:Q7574949
• d:Q135880361 -> d:Q1073084
• d:Q135905300 -> d:Q1640605
• d:Q135907983 -> d:Q350986
• d:Q135911658 -> d:Q5994762
• d:Q135914388 -> d:Q19858132
• d:Q135915560 -> d:Q1821064
• d:Q135917334 -> d:Q113860619
• d:Q135917724 -> d:Q2368172
• d:Q135919482 -> d:Q927285
• d:Q135920106 -> d:Q267345
• d:Q135920350 -> d:Q54868339
• d:Q135920352 -> d:Q16295646
• d:Q135921805 -> d:Q830271
• d:Q135923444 -> d:Q3532273
• d:Q135926254 -> d:Q19829123
• d:Q135926608 -> d:Q10852898

M2k~dewiki (talk) 10:19, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Would it be possible to change the labels to values without brackets

• for already existing disambiguation items (e.g. using QuickStatements)
• for newly created disambiguation items

Would it be possible to (semi)automatically merge already existing duplicate disambiguation items, e.g. using QuickStatements?

Thanks a lot! M2k~dewiki (talk) 10:37, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Recent examples:

• d:Q135961448 -> d:Q20830268
• d:Q135967104 -> d:Q15883397
• d:Q135969484 -> d:Q4456281
• d:Q135985090 -> d:Q394675
• d:Q135986086 -> d:Q1266273
• d:Q135998028 -> d:Q402333
• d:Q136007707 -> d:Q22148342
• d:Q136007708 -> d:Q1671780
• d:Q136008691 -> d:Q30708926
• d:Q136029716 -> d:Q2927473
• d:Q136043849 -> d:Q107548670
• d:Q136079401 -> d:Q2019844
• d:Q136087367 -> d:Q1987342
• d:Q136091970 -> d:Q2056853

M2k~dewiki (talk) 12:28, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Specify which items are linked (if only a few)

Would it be possible to get the bot to list a couple (maybe up to 3 or 5) of the items are linked on RFDs, and link the using the Q template, when the bot already says "This item is linked from 1 other" for example? ·addshore· ^{talk to me!} 20:22, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Would this actually be helpful at all? I can't see the benefit provided by such links, to be honest. Once they are removed, this is outdated information as I do not think that I could include this information dynamically. And the Special:WhatLinksHere link is already in the header of each section available.

So, I'm not saying this is not possible, but I think we should really understand what is required here before we change anything in the code. —MisterSynergy (talk) 20:50, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

You make a good point about if they are being removed then it becomes outdated.

I was trying to avoid extra clicks into the what links here page and then clicks top open them.

But perhaps this is better provided by a gadget actually!

·addshore· ^{talk to me!} 09:54, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

It could indeed be helpful if a link was provided as an anchor link to the claim using the item as value (or qualifier/reference value), but it would be quite an effort to figure out the usage with that precision. I guess this would require WDQS interaction, which I would like to avoid for that task.

Aside from that option, I think the current solution is sufficient. —MisterSynergy (talk) 19:02, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Update P244 Complex Constraint Violations page?

Hello! Would it be possible to update Wikidata:Database reports/Complex constraint violations/P244 so that the items that now have English labels (almost 2,850 as of today) no longer display? The data time stamp for the page = 21 March 2023, 02:16 (UTC), so I don't believe (?) the updates are holistically/consistently overwriting the page? Thanks! RealityBites (talk) 21:21, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

It is not updating anymore since the complex constraint was removed from the property on that date [2] —MisterSynergy (talk) 21:25, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! I am new to getting into this level of Wikidata, so there is much I don't know. Cheers! RealityBites (talk) 22:03, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Merge suggestion?

Hi @MisterSynergy:!

Thanks for your (or DeltaBot’s) suggestion to merge instead of delete. I’ve tried to carry out a few merges myself via Special:MergeItems after my initial deletion request. Some of them went smoothly, but others ran into issues.

In particular, I’m encountering a problem with conflicting descriptions for certain languages (e.g., "Conflicting descriptions for language xxx"), which is preventing the edit from going through. I also received the following error message: "The save has failed. As an anti-abuse measure, you are limited from performing this action too many times in a short space of time, and you have exceeded this limit. Please try again in a few minutes."

If you have any quick suggestions on how to proceed, I’d greatly appreciate it. Right now, I'm specifically having trouble merging Q26166272 into Q8554002.

It looks like there's quite a bit of cleanup needed, particularly involving Thai-language items. A more technical bridge would really help empower volunteers from Thai Wikipedia and sister projects to address these issues themselves.

Thanks in advance for your help! -- Taweetham (talk) 02:00, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

I would start with a recommendation for the merge gadget, see Help:Merge#Gadget. Using that gadget, Special:MergeItems is not needed anymore. Can you report back whether you see the same issues when using the gadget? —MisterSynergy (talk) 18:50, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your suggestion, @MisterSynergy:!

• The Help:Merge#Gadget works fine for me and I merged quite a number of items this morning without hitting the rate limit of Wikidata.
• It is still not clear to me why these orphan items were created in the first place and what would be the best way to quickly match/eliminate them.
• Some of the templates were converted to redirects on the Thai Wikipedia. I guess Wikidata community has an automatic mechanism to take care of it? or I should check/make note of something before converting a page to a redirect?

--Taweetham (talk) 04:15, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

A little update on RecentDeaths reports, please ?

Hi, I see that you have taken after @PLbot since 2024. Thanks a lot for that... I've been missing those.

I only noticed last week that Wikidata:Database reports/Deaths at Wikipedia were updated, and needed a lot of love to be cleaned up (over 33000 items ?).

I've worked on those reports and all the 1940s should be updated, as well as some 2020s... could you please rerun those years, to help find the missing items, please ?

That would be very nice, and should definitely get those numbers down :D Hsarrazin (talk) 18:48, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Doctoral advisor from inverse claim

I just merged Daniel DeBra (Q96184916) and Daniel DeBra (Q102250061), and as much as this edit is appreciated, it should then also remove the old reference to Q102250061 instead of creating a "duplicate" doctoral advisor (P184). Your bot did this with all of DeBra's 21 advisees. --Bender235 (talk) 15:22, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikidata:Requests for deletions

Hi DeltatBot don't work anymore on Wikidata:Requests for deletions. --Fralambert (talk) 23:48, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I think it is back up. —MisterSynergy (talk) 18:52, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Completing partially done merges

Hi, Wikidata:Database reports/to delete/completely empty items has grown a lot during the past two weeks, and most of them seem to be items with partially done merges which would've normally been completed by DeltaBot within a couple days. I looked at the bot's contributions from the last 48 hours and I could find only 3 merges which seems very low. Any idea why this is happening? Samoasambia ✎ 06:50, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

I have migrated the bot to Python 3.13 (from 3.11) recently, and it is now stricter with escape characters in regular expression search strings. Thus I need to review plenty of regexes. Hope I'll find time soon to fix it; at least the problem is already identified. —MisterSynergy (talk) 23:40, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

We are catching up. Besides the regex issue due to the new Python version, there was also a change in API responses which required a modification, coincidentally roughly at the same time I migrated to the new Python version. Anyways, it should be resolved now, and soon also the backlog is processed. —MisterSynergy (talk) 21:09, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Samoasambia ✎ 06:33, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Requested deletion, but you merged

I requested a deletion, but you merged. I asked for a deletion, because the items had authors with different series ordindal numbering and now each author is listed twice. I understand why you deleted (my request wasn't precise). Can you delete, please? Trilotat (talk) 23:43, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, which item do we talk about? The link shows me some random location on the archive page, apparently not related to this request. —MisterSynergy (talk) 23:47, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Sorry. Q137372413 Trilotat (talk) 04:47, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

The authors are in the same order but in Q134119966 are numbered from 2 instead of 1 - is there a reason for that? Peter James (talk) 10:26, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I am really lost with this situation.

• Q137372413 has been nominated for deletion as a duplicate of Q137361693 on December 20th. However, the latter has been deleted by User:Samoasambia on December 21st.
• DeltaBot has not modified any of these items.

What exactly are we discussing here? —MisterSynergy (talk) 21:29, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

I think Trilotat must be refering to the message left by DeltaBot on Wikidata:Requests for deletions. DeltaBot leaves an automatic message when someone merges an item that has an active deletion request. In this case the merge of Q137372413 into Q137361693 was done by you Trilotat, not by DeltaBot or its owners. Samoasambia ✎ 21:41, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Folks, I'm really sorry for this confusion and for wasting your time. Trilotat (talk) 00:20, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

P887 job

Hi, I noted that DeltaBot's based on heuristic (P887) job needs update. The current query finds only qualifiers with values defined in one-of constraint (Q21510859) in the property, but that constraint was removed back in 2019 and the property uses now value-type constraint (Q21510865). Samoasambia ✎ 22:01, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Do you have diffs to look at? DeltaBot has almost 50 jobs defined, and I am not spontaneously sure which one we are talking about. —MisterSynergy (talk) 22:03, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

I mean the P887 move qualifier to source job on User:DeltaBot/fixClaims/jobs. I have no diffs as the bot won't make any edits with the current query. Samoasambia ✎ 22:07, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Okay thanks. Do you think we should remove the job from fixClaims entirely, or do we need an adaptation to the "new" constraint definition? —MisterSynergy (talk) 22:11, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

A new adaptation would be great. If I understood the logic correctly, this new query should work with P887's value-type constraint.

SELECT DISTINCT ?item WHERE {
  ?item ?st ?statement .
  ?statement pq:P887 ?value .
  wd:P887 p:P2302 [ ps:P2302 wd:Q21510865; pq:P2308 ?valuetype ]
  { ?value wdt:P31 ?valuetype . }
  UNION
  { ?value wdt:P279* ?valuetype . }
}

Try it!

Samoasambia ✎ 22:14, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Any idea about the background for this edit?

Your query proposal looks roughly fine. The source code for the bot is at Github. The relevant code starts in line 408. —MisterSynergy (talk) 22:41, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Ah, didn't notice that. The user appears to be a globally locked sockpuppet. I don't see where this property would be useful as a qualifier. Samoasambia ✎ 23:13, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Oh yes you are right. Seems that user has modified that constraint to remove constraint violations that they had introduced just moments before. I have removed the qualifier scope.

Time is running out for me today as my vacation days are over, unfortunately. However, I think we can proceed with the modification of the job definition. If you feel comfortable you can proceed to do so as you have admin status and therefore rights to edit the job definition page—otherwise I am going have a look in the next days. —MisterSynergy (talk) 23:43, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Okay, I have changed the job definition and an initial run has tidied all 142 cases that have piled up. —MisterSynergy (talk) 16:22, 2 January 2026 (UTC)