Wikipedia talk:Database reports

Template:Excerpt/testcases3 is in Wikipedia:Database reports/Templates containing non-free files, but I didn't find any in the page. Is it due to using an article that contains a non-free file? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:06, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

I just manually ran the query that produces that report (changed slightly to only check that one page, to make it finish faster), and it didn't find any files. So whatever it was, it's fixed now. Maybe there was a non-free file put briefly onto one of the pages it transcludes, or one of the files was changed to use a non-free license template. Only way to find it for sure, if it's still bothering you, would be to go through the history of all those pages and files back to the report's last run. Special:RecentChangesLinked/Template:Excerpt/testcases3 might help. —Cryptic 06:01, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

The latest version of Wikipedia:Database reports/Unbelievable life spans contains an empty table. It usually contains 12 "perennial" entries - see this version as an example. Has the algorithm been adjusted to omit these articles? Or did the bot malfunction? DH85868993 (talk) 04:42, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

I think I see the problem, but to confirm what this report is supposed to be - any article with either a birth year category after their death year category, or a death year category more than 122 years after their birth year category; and not in either Category:Longevity traditions or Category:Longevity claims? (And why not exclude Category:Longevity myths, too?) —Cryptic 19:44, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Anyway, if that's correct, there's a minimal fix at quarry:query/103643, and a replacement candidate at quarry:query/103644. —Cryptic 21:49, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

@Cryptic: Thanks for the reply. I'm not really sure what the report is supposed to be; I just noticed the change and thought I would ask the question. To be honest, it's easier with those "perennial" entries omitted - it means that any entries in the table are genuine errors that need to be fixed. DH85868993 (talk) 08:43, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Usurped. Let me know if you want Category:Longevity myths removed too. There'll be more entries than you're used to, at least for a while; the old query didn't handle years 1-9 correctly (the birth/death year cats are formatted like "AD 2 births"), and didn't attempt to deal with years BC at all. —Cryptic 02:52, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Currently 4 of the top 5 entries at Wikipedia:Database reports/Forgotten articles are soft redirects to Wiktionary and the rest of the list consists mostly of set index articles (SIAs), including surname articles. Wikipedia:Database reports/Forgotten articles states that it ignores disambiguation (dab) pages and redirects. SIAs are classified as standalone lists but they serve a function similar to dab pages. I would think the reasons some dab pages are stable and rarely updated apply to SIAs. Wiktionary redirects are just a special type of redirect; they are far less common than regular redirects. Is there a reason why SIAs and soft redirects are featured here when similar pages are excluded? This has been raised a few times over the years at Wikipedia talk:Database reports/Forgotten articles but that page doesn't see much traffic. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:14, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

The issue with soft redirects has been raised again at RfD: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 April 7#Speciousness. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:58, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

There is no data listed in the chart at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Database_reports/Potential_biographies_of_living_people_(2) ; it looks like there might be a problem with the bot? It deleted the file back in early March but has not updated the listing since then; the last time the page was touched was a few days ago according to the page history. Could someone look into this please? Thanks, FeanorStar7 -- FeanorStar7 (talk) 23:02, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Cryptic, could this be a schema change issue? – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:11, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

It is. Sql at Wikipedia:Database reports/Potential biographies of living people (2)/Configuration. The usual drop-in fix to add another join to linktarget doesn't work here; it's possible to do a variant with a chained join so you keep the same LEFT JOIN...IS NULL layout, but it's complex and unintuitive and it's almost always better to rephrase as a NOT EXISTS (SELECT...) clause in the where. Same problem as two sections up. I'll try to find time to rewrite properly if nobody beats me to it. —Cryptic 00:20, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the update; I hope it's not too much of a problem to fix; I appreciate the work you do behind the scenes to solve these problems. -- FeanorStar7 (talk) 00:50, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Usurped (and combined into one query instead of postprocessing). —Cryptic 02:48, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

thanks very much. I can see the data now. -- FeanorStar7 (talk) 10:10, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be nice to see the total number of references of all English Wikipedia articles? A bot may collect that data monthly and then a graph could be made out out that. Like this chart for the number of good and featured articles: Commons:Total_number_of_GAs_and_FAs.chart

For WP:Statistics and maybe also for the Wikipedia article and English Wikipedia article. In order to get an impression that Wikipedia has become more reliable.

Another interesting metric is share of paragraphs with min. one citation. WikiPate (talk) 10:39, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Still isn't queryable. —Cryptic 11:03, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Hm you wrote that "Historical number of Good Articles isn't queryable either". But it already exists. WikiPate (talk) 11:06, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Doesn't need to be historical. It can be just the current number. "Closest we can come is looking at the external links, and only in the current versions of pages." Could that please be done? WikiPate (talk) 11:13, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

There is likely a vast number of citations without external links. the Stefen 𝕋ower 16:19, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Still would be interesting to see the current total number of external links on the English Wikipedia. WikiPate (talk) 16:23, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

I am all for informative database reports, but for them to be interesting to me, they have to provide information that I can use in my wiki work. In this case, I don't see a use and therefore don't personally find this one to be interesting. the Stefen 𝕋ower 16:46, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

There is the website https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.19291 with a PDF attached.

They write about

• 29.3 million citations in May 2020
• 40.6 million citations in February 2023
• 44.7 million citations in February 2024

WikiPate (talk) 14:03, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Idea: Put redirects with no categorisation into it's own maintenance category (See WP:RCAT and Wikipedia:Template index/Redirect pages) Jacksonvil (alt) (talk) (contribs) (Main account) 05:20, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm wondering if it makes sense to limit Wikipedia:Database reports/Transclusions of non-existent templates so that it does NOT include templates that are exclusively used in draft articles? @Jonesey95: thoughts on this? I know you use this report a lot... Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:31, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I have BOLDly limited the report to not look at drafts with Special:Diff/1357289213. Obviously if anyone disagrees, feel free to revert/discuss here. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:47, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Sounds OK to me. I have documented this additional exclusion. If Draft pages are moved to article space, the pages will show up on the report and can be cleaned up then. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:05, 2 June 2026 (UTC)