Commons:Bots/Requests/File Upload Bot (Edward)

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

File Upload Bot (Edward)[edit]

Operator: edward

Automatic or Manually Assisted: Automatic, supervised

Programming Language(s): Perl

Edit period(s) (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): every few days

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): Y

Functions: Upload photographs of railway stations

Discussion[edit]

Could you please use Template:Information and language tags for uploaded images? Will be also good idea to follow regular section names and license tags placement (as in manual upload).
Also will be good idea to geocode images (source website looks provoding this information).
EugeneZelenko 15:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Good suggestions. I will make these changes. edward 16:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
See Image:Fishguard Harbour railway station in 2002.jpg for a sample. edward 09:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Looks great! Is it possible to add Summary and Licensing sections also? --EugeneZelenko 15:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Just to make it clear, you want me to add a Summary above the Template:Information and a License heading above the license tag? edward 07:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Sure. As MediaWiki do with manual upload. --EugeneZelenko 14:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I like it better without those headings. I don't why we have them anyway. Not very multilingual either. Rocket000 14:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
My point is for bot to follow standard way of doing things, not invent new one. --EugeneZelenko 14:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Of course. I guess this isn't the place to discuss things like that. :) Rocket000 20:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Edward, do you agree to follow the community standards about templates regardless of personal preference? If not, we should either discuss this further or just close this as unsuccessful I think, that seems a pretty strong sticking point to me. ++Lar: t/c 01:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. edward 06:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
can you do another short test run showing that you're adding them per current standard practice? Link the results for us... If that looks good I will have no objections. Thanks! (although Image:Fishguard Harbour railway station in 2002.jpg looks good to me, so if that's how things work now I think maybe we're good...) ++Lar: t/c 15:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Can somebody unblock the account so I can do a test run? Thanks. edward 18:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Unblocked. (I did not realise it was blocked, how were you doing tests before? From your ID?) Advise of any issues. ++Lar: t/c 20:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for unblocking. I've done another test run. The other sample was uploading using my normal user account. edward 10:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
This bot seems to be doing a thorough job of taking the geograph images, their descriptions, and the like, and building a good information box including links to the original image and the contributor which seems to have been done in accordance with current practice here. In my images, I put the geocode at the top, above the information, but that's a nit, or a personal preference, and not an issue... :) I may have missed something here, but I see no issues and think we should grant the flag and approve the bot for this usage. Formally: No objections ++Lar: t/c 12:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Minor suggection - to move {{location}} into summary section. --EugeneZelenko 15:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Done. edward 19:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Anything else, gang? Let's put this one to bed so we can get more railway photos!!!! :) ++Lar: t/c 00:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)