Change of policy?
The policy was always "If you want to run a bot on Commons, it is recommended that you get a bot flag." now it was suddenly changed to "If you want to run a bot on Commons, you must get permission first. " I oppose this change of policy, where was this discussed? Where is the consensus? Multichill (talk) 12:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- There is a discussion starting at Commons talk:Bots#page re-write. Would you like to comment there? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
@Multichill: Policy on Commons is descriptive and we've been requesting/requiring that people seek community approval for some time now. Getting the policy wording updated to match practice seems a good thing, but I'm not sure that it is a requirement that it be discussed again. But in any case, MM's suggestion of where to discuss this seems apt. Please be prepared to explain WHY you think that asking the community for approval of something (that is potentially very disruptive and potentially will require a lot of work to fix, should it go awry) is a bad thing. Most wikis either require bot approval, or are so small that the global bot policy is a better fit. ++Lar: t/c 13:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Restriction of bot
Where can I request that a bot be restricted so that it does not create falsehoods? In particular, the User:Slobot claims to reformat dates into the ISO 8601 format. However, dates in Commons are not necessarily in the Gregorian calendar or the proleptic Gregorian calendar, but dates in ISO 8601 format must be (proleptic) Gregorian dates. The user running the bots has declined to adress the matter. --Jc3s5h (talk) 18:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- You have not helped your case by calling the bot a liar, and nor have you said what actual changes you would like the bot operator to make. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- I have not called the bot a liar. I have indicated that it could become a liar if, after warning, it makes false date conversions. As for a suggested change, I think the bot author should investigate the date when the Gregorian calendar was adopted in the countries where any language supported by the bot is the primary language. The bot should be limited to changes to dates where the year is greater than the most recent adoption year and less than or equal to 9999 (to conform to another ISO 8601 requirement).
- Another alternative is to limit changes to fields that are sure to be computer generated dates, since such dates are almost always Gregorian.
- Unfortunately, Commons does not seem to have any facility to inform readers of how ambiguous information should be interpreted, corresponding to the legend of a map. If such a facility existed, it could contain a statement that Commons content is not governed by ISO 8601 and the meaning of dates in the YYYY-MM-DD format must be determined from context. But as it is, not only is there a widespread perception that dates in that format are governed by that standard, but User:Slobot explicitly claims to follow the standard. --Jc3s5h (talk) 19:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Approval process partially stuck
There are some requests with the discussion came to an end but still waiting for an action by the approval crew. Eg. FrescoBot, RobotMichiel1972, Esby-mw-bot, etc. The approval process seems to be partially stuck since april. -- Basilicofresco (msg) 11:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- In order to reduce the risk of unnecessary stalls, I would suggest to introduce the use of templates like en:Template:BAG assistance needed and en:Template:Operator assistance needed. What do you think? -- Basilicofresco (msg) 19:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Question: how does COM:AWB access (now at COM:RFR) figure in the bot approval process? Do secondary bot accounts with AWB access necessarily need to go through a bot approval process (even though AWB access for the main user's account seemingly doesn't)? Rd232 (talk) 22:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- Great idea! I'm sure this will help the bureaucrats to proceed the requests a bit faster. :) Trijnsteltalk 10:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- Would anyone support this one that is automatically updated? 04:47, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Bots making extremely long file names
US National Archives bot is using the file description as the file name. This is producing files with extremely long names, often with the useful part cut off. When I request changes to the names to something more manageable, there is no rename rule to cover this, so the request is summarily rejected.
So can we:
- REGEX the names into something more readable? For instance, Demolishing a tower in London's Smithfield Market which was unsafe after it had been damaged by enemy action. New… - NARA - 541894.tif is perfectly described by "Demolishing a tower in London's Smithfield Market - NARA-541894.tif".
- Add a rename rules for robo-articles like these so cleanup attempts aren't so hair pulling.
- To avoid duplication, I have responded at Commons:Village_pump#Ridiculous_file_names where this same topic has been raised. --Fæ (talk) 11:13, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Bot with unknown function
I have a question. We make soon a lot of pictures (photo flights) and I expect that here again changes are necessary, which can be done with a script/bot and should. How I can request such a bot, though I do not know the function? --XRay talk 16:57, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think there is need to request a bot if you do not yet know the function. As soon as you are clear about the function, the request should not be a problem. --McZusatz (talk) 15:01, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
We should mark this as a bot, as other wikis have done. No need for RfBot because it's run by Mediawiki so it can't exactly fail the nomination. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 16:30, 13 April 2014 (UTC)