Wikipedia:Bot requests

For the policy on bot requirements, see WP:BOTREQUIRE.

This is a page for requesting tasks to be done by bots per the bot policy. This is an appropriate place to put ideas for uncontroversial bot tasks, to get early feedback on ideas for bot tasks (controversial or not), and to seek bot operators for bot tasks. Consensus-building discussions requiring large community input (such as request for comments) should normally be held at WP:VPPROP or other relevant pages (such as a WikiProject's talk page).

You can check the "Commonly Requested Bots" box above to see if a suitable bot already exists for the task you have in mind. If you have a question about a particular bot, contact the bot operator directly via their talk page or the bot's talk page. If a bot is acting improperly, follow the guidance outlined in WP:BOTISSUE. For broader issues and general discussion about bots, see the bot noticeboard.

Before making a request, please see the list of frequently denied bots, either because they are too complicated to program, or do not have consensus from the Wikipedia community. If you are requesting that a template (such as a WikiProject banner) is added to all pages in a particular category, please be careful to check the category tree for any unwanted subcategories. It is best to give a complete list of categories that should be worked through individually, rather than one category to be analyzed recursively (see example difference).

Alternatives to bot requests

• WP:AWBREQ, for simple tasks that involve a handful of articles and/or only needs to be done once (e.g. adding a category to a few articles).
• WP:URLREQ, for tasks involving changing or updating URLs to prevent link rot (specialized bots deal with this).
• WP:USURPREQ, for reporting a domain be usurped eg. |url-status=usurped
• WP:SQLREQ, for tasks which might be solved with an SQL query (e.g. compiling a list of articles according to certain criteria).
• WP:TEMPREQ, to request a new template written in wiki code or Lua.
• WP:SCRIPTREQ, to request a new user script. Many useful scripts already exist, see Wikipedia:User scripts/List.
• WP:CITEBOTREQ, to request a new feature for WP:Citation bot, a user-initiated bot that fixes citations.

Note to bot operators: The {{BOTREQ}} template can be used to give common responses, and make it easier to keep track of the task's current status. If you complete a request, note that you did with {{BOTREQ|done}}, and archive the request after a few days (WP:1CA is useful here).

---

Please add your bot requests to the bottom of this page.
Make a new request

#	Bot request	Status	💬	👥	🙋 Last editor	🕒 (UTC)	🤖 Last botop editor	🕒 (UTC)
1	Removing Template:Now Commons from files tagged with Template:Keep local	BRFA filed	8	6	Anomie	2025-08-26 04:52	Anomie	2025-08-26 04:52
2	Create and maintain a page that shows the top Wikipedia pages by views and edits		4	3	GalStar	2025-08-25 06:00	GalStar	2025-08-25 06:00
3	Bot to add missing hyphens to multiple article titles?		12	5	Rich Farmbrough	2025-08-11 22:10	Rich Farmbrough	2025-08-11 22:10
4	Culling categories to update lists		3	2	BX	2025-08-07 22:37	Rich Farmbrough	2025-07-30 21:56
5	WikiProject Bot for Auto-Assessing Pre-Defined Article Lists		6	4	GalStar	2025-08-25 06:04	GalStar	2025-08-25 06:04
6	Finish merging Template:Infobox Canadian Football League biography		4	3	WikiOriginal-9	2025-08-25 12:41	Anomie	2025-08-25 12:35
7	List-defined references format		11	6	Alenoach	2025-09-05 02:35	Anomie	2025-09-04 11:30
8	Typo fix for template redirect	Y Done	3	3	TheSandDoctor	2025-09-09 05:21	TheSandDoctor	2025-09-09 05:21
9	Replace template		7	5	Jonesey95	2025-09-09 01:00	Primefac	2025-09-09 00:14

Legend
In the last hour
In the last day
In the last week
In the last month
More than one month
Manual settings
When exceptions occur, please check the setting first.

Removing Template:Now Commons from files tagged with Template:Keep local

Hi, I would like to request a bot to take on the task of removing the {{Now Commons}} from pages tagged with {{Keep local}}. Files tagged with the latter are not eligible for deletion in accordance with WP:CSD#F8 and should not be tagged as such. I usually take care of these manually, but there are currently over 100 files tagged as such in Category:Wikipedia files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons as of unknown date, which is too large of a burden. This task was previously handled by FastilyBot (see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/FastilyBot 15), but has never been picked up after the operator's departure. ✗plicit 00:38, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

@CanonNi plans to do this with Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/CanonNiBot 1, but they have not been active lately and are not responding to questions on the BRFA. I can take this on if they do not reply within a few days. – DreamRimmer ■ 01:24, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

We're still a few days off from the task expiring mainly due to a lack of feedback/input from the botop, but if there's still radio silence by next weekend that's what will happen. Primefac (talk) 15:06, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Here's a Petscan. It's currently empty. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 00:08, 25 July 2025 (UTC).

Noting that Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/CanonNiBot 1 has expired. Tenshi! (Talk page) 15:18, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Feel free to take this up, I have other tasks pending. The code is ready, so let me know if anyone wants it. – DreamRimmer ■ 15:27, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

I'll look at having AnomieBOT do it, and the other things from CanonNiBot 1 as well. Anomie⚔ 16:20, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

BRFA filed Anomie⚔ 04:52, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Create and maintain a page that shows the top Wikipedia pages by views and edits

I'd be interested in a few separate Wikipedia lists that are maintained by a bot once every 24 hours. I will go into detail on which each list should do.

• Information for "Wikipedia:Bot requests" - Wikipedia

1. The first list should include the most viewed pages. While I understand that pages with the most viewed articles exist, I would like to see a bot-maintained list that includes pages not in mainspace. I would like to know what the top viewed pages are that are not articles but seems to be very limited information on this. If you go into the page information section of this page, the area of the page I'm focused on is Page views in the past 30 days. If someone can figure this out, that would be great.
2. In the edit history section of the page, I would like to see the top articles by Total number of edits, Recent number of edits (within past 30 days), as well as Recent number of distinct authors. The information on this is very limited outside of article pages, but I would like to see a maintained list of this.

The reason why I would like a bot to analyze these things is because I would like to analyze not only article traffic, but also pages that are not articles like in Projectspace and the Talk pages so that when I make changes to Wikipedia, since it is built for readers and to a lesser extent, editors it would be good to see how traffic like on the Teahouse compares to other pages. Please ping me when done. Thank you. Interstellarity (talk) 21:16, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

For #2, see WP:Database reports/Pages with the most revisions * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:55, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I was aware of that page, but I didn't think about that when making the request. I think we are good on the total number of edits, so no need to create a new bot for that. It's just the other stuff I'm asking about. Interstellarity (talk) 22:01, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

You should be able to write a SQL query to do this without a bot. GalStar (talk) (contribs) 06:00, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Bot to add missing hyphens to multiple article titles?

Following on from the discussions at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Olympics#100_metre_vs_100-metre_vs_100_metres_vs_100m hundreds of swimming articles are missing the hyphen and per MOS:SUSPENDED, articles like Swimming at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Men's 200 metre butterfly should be at Swimming at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Men's 200-metre butterfly. Valenciano (talk) 02:39, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Despite MOS:SUSPENDED+1 (Suspend refers to the previous bullet point.) I'm not convinced this is a good idea. Firstly I'm not sure it's good style or that SUSPENDED+1 applies, while "100 metre breaststroke" is clearly a noun phrase the modifier can be taken as "breaststroke". Secondly common usage is without the hyphen - see ngrams. Thirdly, since thousands of article names, as well as categories and templates, not to mention section headers, tables and text would be affected I think a much wider discussion, and clearer consensus would be needed. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 06:59, 25 July 2025 (UTC).

Hey @Rich Farmbrough, thanks for weighing in on this. I think that argument you use for taking the modifier as "breaststroke" can be used for most situations of MOS:SUSPENDED+1, which means you would be arguing for repealing the guideline almost entirely. I'm not sure what you meant by "see ngrams", but in case you meant search the Google ngrams search, I did (here), and it seems the dash is common usage? I certainly would not be opposed to seeking further consensus. Where would be the best place to take it from here to let the community weigh in? IAWW (talk) 15:35, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

It's complicated, I have a variety of results from Google, they are not consistent either on a style level or with themselves. If you take your example and select British English you only get the no-hyphen version. if you select American English you get "no ngrams to plot" - very odd.

Your example shows a reversal in the last few years, but compared with 100 metres freestyle (no 100-metres freestyle found) here, the story changes.

With yards it's different again here.

100 metres breaststroke

I'd start an RFC at WP:Village pump (proposals), and leave messages at the appropriate project(s) and MoS talk page. I'm not sure if I have an opinion on what's better here, I think I might look at what the international swimming and athletic bodies do. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 21:35, 30 July 2025 (UTC).

Rich Farmbrough thanks for the reply, which I've only just seen. The issue is that I feel that I'm going round the houses here. I first raised this at the help desk who advised me to head to the relevant Wikiproject and already did raise this at the most relevant Wikiproject (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Olympics#100_metre_vs_100-metre_vs_100_metres_vs_100m) who referred me here. Now I'm being passed somewhere else yet again. Sadly, leaving out the hyphen is one of the most common mistakes in English these days, up there with your/you're, it's/its, there/their/they're etc so I have absolutely no doubt that there are many links using it, but it's still wrong according to every style guide, including our own. I feel a little like I'm at an impasse here. Valenciano (talk) 12:27, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

How I understand it, at least for the sport of athletics, is that the 400 metres hurdles is run on a 400-metre track. The '400 metres' distance is modified by 'hurdles', so '400 metres' ends in 's' and has no hyphen, whereas the 'track' is modified by '400-metre', so '400-metre' doesn't end in 's' and has a hyphen. By analogy, it would be: 200 metres butterfly in a 50-metre pool. Here it doesn't mean a specific type of butterfly stroke used over 200 metres (which would probably be a 200-metre butterfly), but a distance modified by the type of stroke used; at the same time, it does mean a specific type of pool (a 50-metre pool). Looking at the website of World Aquatics, they typically abbreviate the distance as '200m' which removes the question altogether; I couldn't find many examples of the longer form, there are a couple in this report, both '200 metres' and '200 metre' (no hyphen) are used here, but that's not much to go on. So taking all this into account, for swimming, I would use the form '200 metres butterfly' for the article titles. – Editør (talk) 14:50, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I can see it's frustrating. It doesn't appear that anyone is whole-heartedly behind this idea so far, apart from you, you may wish to move on to something else. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 21:53, 11 August 2025 (UTC).

@Rich Farmbrough by the way you accidentally removed a much of replies with your reply IAWW (talk) 22:04, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I get edit conflicts with myself from 3 seconds ago, but not from other users days ago! All the best: Rich Farmbrough 22:10, 11 August 2025 (UTC).

I agree in principle that we should follow our MOS there, but this needs to be well settled in discussion, and manual moves and edits accepted, before bringing it up as a bot request. Dicklyon (talk) 16:44, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

And of course it's not just a few hundred swimming articles. Here are over 14,000 more to consider (not carefully pruned yet; about 50 have the hyphens already). Dicklyon (talk) 17:34, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

In general, I'd prefer to shorten the titles using standard abbreviations, with space, not hyphen, (e.g. "100 m") per standards about how such things are done, and not just our MOS. Dicklyon (talk) 17:43, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Culling categories to update lists

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball#Is anyone maintaining these "lists of MLB players"? regarding updating the Lists of Major League Baseball players with a bot rather than manually. Ideally, whenever a new article is created and added to a teams' players' category, a bot would add it to that team's list of players. First, there is not really a consensus to do so, just discussion at present. Second, would such an activity be possible for a bot? And third, are automated edits like this permitted in article space? Just looking for input here at this stage. Rgrds. --BX (talk) 19:59, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps the trickier part would be removing items inserted in error. It would certainly be possible, and if there was consensus to do it, then it would be permitted. In principle it could be a clean operation, but there are a lot of detailed decisions to be made. For example Boston Red Sox all-time roster has bolding for Hall of Famers and flags (possibly against guidelines) for non-US players. Anything like this would either need to be supported, not interfered with, or overwritten. There would have to be acceptance that the article name for the player would be the name used in the list, or some other way of determining that. There might be no entries for people who did not have an article. Nothing impossible to deal with, but it would need to be worked out. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 21:56, 30 July 2025 (UTC).

Thanks for the feedback. I'll take this back to the Project in case a decision is made to move forward with the task. Rgrds. --BX (talk) 22:37, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

WikiProject Bot for Auto-Assessing Pre-Defined Article Lists

WikiProjects (and individual users) often created tables or lists of articles and their associated article assessments. As an example, Wizardman created User:Wizardman/Packers-Browns Connection to track the assessment of a specific set of articles (User:Community Tech bot sort of does this for Popular Pages already based on articles within a specific WikiProject). However, these tables or lists, especially the larger they get, can become out-of-date. I'm wondering if there is an opportunity for a bot to automate this.

The idea would be that a user could create a page, either in their user space or the Wikipedia space, that would automatically get updated by the bot every 2 weeks to show revised assessments. This initial input could be one of two options: a specific category or a user-generated list. Either way, after the initial input, the bot would format the list into a table like Wizardman's and then automatically updated every two weeks (similar to Community Tech Bot's timing). Thoughts? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:02, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

For the user generated list, should it use some existing page with a list (i.e. could be an existing page in the user's userspace) or something else? Tenshi! (Talk page) 17:06, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Tenshi Hinanawi, I struggled with that one. Obviously the easiest input would be an established category. But I can imagine, similar to the example above, that users would be interested in generating their own lists. Maybe a simple bulleted list could be the input, in addition to a category? I'm open to whatever makes most sense. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:45, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Is it possible to do this with {{database report}}? — Qwerfjkltalk 17:47, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Additionally, I think the output would be a simple table, like this:

Article	Rating
Chet Adams	C
Chris Akins	Start
Jake Allen (American football)	Start
Joe Andruzzi	C
Roy Barker (American football)	Stub

The input for the bot to parse could just be a page that says:

• Chet Adams
• Chris Akins
• Jake Allen (American football)
• Joe Andruzzi
• Roy Barker (American football)

Thanks! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:49, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

This could better be done by a completely separate website (sort of like how edit information is better displayed in xtools rather than in your own userpage). GalStar (talk) (contribs) 06:04, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Finish merging Template:Infobox Canadian Football League biography

Template:Infobox Canadian Football League biography and Template:Infobox gridiron football person (both are the exact same infobox) are being merged into Template:Infobox NFL biography per this discussion. NFL biography will then be renamed Template:Infobox gridiron football biography. Here is an example edit of me converting the basic parameters from a CFL infobox to an NFL infobox. I imagine a bot could do most of this. The only parameters that might require some advanced programming are the following:

• playing_years1 and playing_team1 (2, 3, 4, etc) in the CFL infobox will just become "teams" in the NFL infobox. See this edit for an example.
• The honors parameters in the CFL infobox like "CFLAllStar" will all be thrown under the "highlights" parameter as bulleted lists in the NFL infobox. Example edit.

I anticipate some more questions but that should be a basic enough explanation for now. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 18:32, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

I've been looking at doing this on and off for a while. I'll throw some tracking categories in there to see how crazy I need to get with the architecture of the code. Primefac (talk) 21:36, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Some of this proposed process seems to be doing things in the wrong order. It would seem better to rename Template:Infobox NFL biography first (or at least make a redirect from Template:Infobox gridiron football biography for a future move-over-redirect), then do the other things, so that you don't wind up with an NFL-named template on CFL pages. Anomie⚔ 12:35, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Redirect created. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 12:41, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

List-defined references format

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T356471

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T399937

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T52896

Proposing a bot that replaces {{reflist|refs= ... }} with <references> ... </references>

The reason is that there are issues with list-defined references that are based on the template reflist. The VisualEditor can't parse references (and more broadly HTML tags) that are inside templates. This is apparently a design choice, it has been like this for around 10 years and isn't going to change. It means that in the VisualEditor, list-defined references that are within a reflist template can't be modified, and are not displayed (you instead get the message "This reference is defined in a template or other generated block, and for now can only be previewed in source mode"). However, the parsing works with list-defined references that use the <references> template.

There was a long discussion on this a few months ago, here of one of the paragraphs of the closing comment:

"There was 2:1 support in favor of deprecating {{reflist|refs=}} and replacing existing instances. I updated the linked documentation pages to do so. Someone will need to write a bot and follow the procedure at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval. At least one editor had concerns about bots making incorrect edits. There was also discussion of whether or not such changes should be bot-flagged so they don't show up on watchlists, and whether it should be required that other changes be made at the same time. The bot approval process is designed to take these concerns into account and balance them against the proposed benefits; that would be the place to raise them. (It might be helpful if whoever makes the requests notifies the editors who participated in this discussion.)"

Doing this change wasn't expected to significantly impact reference lists rendering, besides making them more VisualEditor-friendly. But there can be instances where the template reflist is used with additional arguments, in which case it may be good to double-check that the rendering remains approximately the same when using <references>. Also note that what is inside "..." in {{reflist|refs= ... }} can contain nested templates, so the parsing required to implement the bot could potentially be tricky. Here is an example of what this kind of edit looks like. If I had to guess, I would say that around 5% of Wikipedia articles would be affected. Alenoach (talk) 04:18, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

"There was 2:1 support in favor of deprecating {{reflist|refs=}} and replacing existing instances"

I don't see that at all in the discussion, I see closer to 1:1 (3 oppose, 3 support). {{Reflist}} is used on virtually all articles (6.3M pages). A decision letting a bot run on millions of articles (even 5% of that would be 315K pages) needs a much, much stronger consensus than an even split between 6 people. Especially when the saner solution seems to fix VE. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:03, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

A naive search gives 55,000 articles. A slightly more complex search times out at 56,500. — Qwerfjkltalk 12:19, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

And let's face it, VE is probably never going to get fixed. The devs who might are too busy working on shiny new features instead. But I do agree that this really should have an RFC at WP:VPR (and advertised on WP:CENT) before a BRFA, the lightly attended RFC linked is too small to prevent people freaking out over "local consensus". I'd also recommend recruiting the people who participated the linked RFC to draft a strong statement for the new one, pre-addressing the many misconceptions already seen in the linked RFC, rather than jumping straight to a half-baked RFC that will drown in those misconceptions. Anomie⚔ 15:06, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

The change would be just for when the "refs" parameter is used. Maybe one additional safety precaution would be to apply the change only when "refs" is the only parameter to the template {{reflist}}. That would likely still cover most of the instances of the problem, and leave the more tricky cases where reflist has a combinations of parameters.

In the discussion, the initial discussion about discouraging list-defined references did not get consensus, but the later discussion about specifically replacing {{reflist|refs= ... }} did get much more support. The main objection was from Gawaon about the flexibility of {{reflist}} to have parameters like colwidth, but he eventually agreed with the proposal, and I guess limiting the change to when only the parameter "refs" is used would address his remaining concern.

Is it worth people's time to have an advertised RFC about on this technical topic? If option 1 is not changing anything, should option 2 be about changing if "refs" is the only parameter, or changing if "refs" is among the parameter to {{reflist}}? Alenoach (talk) 15:25, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Is it worth people's time to have an advertised RFC about on this technical topic? Yes, because it will save a lot of time later where people would otherwise complain about "local consensus" and that they weren't consulted. Anomie⚔ 15:46, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure there was no consensus whatsoever to have all instances of {{reflist}} replaced. The discussion was specifically about the refs= parameter. Gawaon (talk) 17:10, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

The monthly parameter usage report for Template:Reflist suggests that there are 183,000 articles using |refs=. It seems like any sort of replacement would need to start with a well-advertised RFC that successfully deprecated |refs=. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:39, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

That has already happened, see the closing comment of the linked discussion. Now it just needs to be implemented. Gawaon (talk) 06:51, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Interesting. I wonder what explains the difference with the 55,000 returned by Qwerfjkl's search. Alenoach (talk) 02:35, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Note there's now a discussion opened at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Bot to make list-defined references editable with the VisualEditor. Anomie⚔ 11:30, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Typo fix for template redirect

Could a bot please replace all uses of the misspelled template `{{CA-Ministers of Intergovermental Affairs}}` with the correct version, `{{CA-Ministers of Intergovernmental Affairs}}`?

It's a simple typo (missing an "n") cleanup affecting the 15 pages listed here: Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:CA-Ministers_of_Intergovermental_Affairs.

Thanks!

Anamul Haque Nayeem ^{💬 🛠️} 01:44, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Manually completed using WP:AWB. As a side note, I took the liberty of redirecting those to the parent template, {{Ministers of intergovernmental affairs of Canada}}. Phuzion (talk) 03:02, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Y Done -- Tagging done for archiving purposes. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:21, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Replace template

Per Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 January 26#Template:Infobox Jewish leader; please replace {{Infobox Jewish leader}} with {{Infobox religious biography}}. There are about ~1,100 transclusions. The parameters have already been merged, so there should be no issues on that front. Thanks! Sophisticatedevening^(talk) 12:49, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

@Primefac, does Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PrimeBOT 24 cover this? — Qwerfjkltalk 13:07, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Probably this should be taken to Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Holding cell, which is the normal place for templates needing replacement after TFD to be handled. That page lists three bots that can handle this sort of thing. Anomie⚔ 15:36, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes it does, and per Anomie it should be listed at TFDH so someone such as myself can take care of the merger. It's very possible that this merge can be made into a subst wrapper that Anomie's bot can handle (but I haven't looked at the merge yet). Primefac (talk) 23:44, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

It was at previously at WP:TFDHC however it was recently removed after I made this request saying it was a template wrapper and that it didn’t need to be there. Sophisticatedevening^(talk) 00:00, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I'll try to take a look in the next few days and see about sorting it out. Primefac (talk) 00:14, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Please do not do this. The merge is already complete. The merged {{Infobox Jewish leader}} template assigns |religion= automatically, which the pre-merge template did, and which a redirect or replaced template would not do. That quirk was not mentioned at the TFD; everyone who voted to merge just appears to have assumed everything would work fine without actually looking at the details. The OP here also assumes there would be "no issues" with just replacing the template name, but that is not correct.

These templates were at the holding cell. I merged the parameters from Infobox Jewish leader into {{Infobox religious biography}}, then turned Infobox Jewish leader into a wrapper that assigns one parameter automatically. I suppose a bot could edit all 1,200 transclusions of Infobox Jewish leader to add the |religion= parameter and then Infobox religious biography instead, but I don't see the point of that. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:00, 9 September 2025 (UTC)