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

KrinkleBot (talk · contribs)


Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought:

  • AWB: Automating simple boring tasks. Such as replacing a deleted template with alternative content or follow up template. Mostly for cleaning up Special:WantedTemplates. Will also do common tasks while there (ie. internationalisation headings).
  • Pywiki: Helping out in category maintaince. Such as creations of categorietrees and solving over-categorised files.

Automatic or manually assisted: Depending on the case/task.

  • In AWB I always do Manually assited every edit. When working on a simple task in pywiki that needs no manual interaction will be on Automatic.

Edit type (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): One time runs

Maximum edit rate (eg edits per minute): 10 per minute

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): Yes.

  • At the AWB-approval I didn't think it was neccecary, but now that there is more work to be done, and automated tasks in pywiki, it's appropiate to flag these edits as bot to prevent flooding user's lists.

Programming language(s): pywiki & AWB (already AWB-checked (diff)

Krinkletalk 17:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


  • Hi, you might want to double-check the most recent edits of your bot and tells us when we can have a look at some that should be like you intend them to be. BTW, I found Special:WantedTemplates mostly useless as it seems filled with POTD. I assume you wont deal with them? -- User:Docu at 17:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
    • The edits of yesterday were a mistake and have been fixed using the same script reversed. The POTD-templates will stay the way there are, that is, I don't see anything wrong. But if I see a way to clear those from the Special-page without distorting anything else I will ofcourse. –Krinkletalk 17:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
      • Currently I'm doing something representative (Templatefix Template:2). –Krinkletalk 21:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
        • You might want to double-check your edits. I have seen it break coordinates templates and removing parameters from {{MetaCat}}. Please be careful. -- User:Docu at 15:41, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
          • Hi Docu. Thanks for your concerns, but I when I do edits that aren't rock-solid (possibility of screwing up other templates) I always do it manually and check each and every edit, taking other stuff at the same time like here. –Krinkletalk 20:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
            • Broken coordinates are, e.g. here. I don't think there is a consensus to do this type of change (insert a header, lots of whitespace, and systematically move the template). Your edit didn't really improve anything.
              The number in {{MetaCat}} counts images, galleries and subcategories, not just images (at least until bugzilla:21822 is done). Please revert your changes.
              If you want to work on improving templates, you might want to look into one of these requests: #Yorck_project, #Template:Painting. They aren't that complex and should improve quality. -- User:Docu at 05:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
              • That edit was a human mistake, which I realised a split-second too late but fixed the same minute here. About the other stuff that was changed at the same time (translateable header and removal/add of whitespace) where done manually (It's a bit of an old habbit, it won't happen again). Excuse me if I didn't make it clear but I would not and have not done something like Template:2 as an automatic run, instead I used AWB as a tool to ease up the boring work (eg. list the pages it is on, and open them one for one); the other changes were done manually, or should I call it script-assisted.
                Regardig the {{MetaCat}}, I'm not sure what you mean. I (not AWB) made a list of Meta-categories that were empty in Category:Non-empty meta categories. Since, like you said, the PAGESINCAT is not working that way I removed it from the categories in there (see also here) that were empty in the mean time, so that there is a bit of overview in there as to what is actually non-empty. This list was generated manually and imported into AutoWikiBrowser. Unless it went wrong (put empty categories in there, or took out non-empty ones) I see no reason to revert it.
                I will look over the edits again to make sure no mistakes were made, and will look into those requests. Thank you for your information, I appreciate it. –Krinkletalk 09:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
                • Try {{PAGESINCATEGORY:Buildings in Poland by voivodeship}}, it gives 17, not 0. Thus Category:Buildings in Poland by voivodeship could use {{MetaCat|18}}. -- User:Docu at 10:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
                  • What does and does not get counted in PAGESINCATEGORY is known to me. However setting the first parameter in {{MetaCat}} is not very reliable since any change in the number of subcategories or files would make it not accurate. The "did a couple" I mentioned there were not done by KrinkleBot but by hand with my main account. I used that subst:PAGESINCATEGORY for a hand full of empty meta categories that had an outdated number. Those that I did were lucky ones since thoses were in fact otherwise empty and therefor the PAGESINCAT worked; but like I said over there, and as you said above, it does not work like that and cannot me used by a bot. For anything else on this specific I'd like to refer there to keep it central: Category talk:Non-empty meta categories#This isn't working. –Krinkletalk 10:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Now that the request is still running, I'd like to add Pywiki to the languages of the bot. Will be used for category maintaince at first (creating categories according to a preset matrix, such like in the Tropenmuseum/Indonesia collection). And for filtering out parent categories to solve over categorisation afterwards.
      Examples of those kind of edits (for now at 10/minute rate) are here and here --Krinkletalk 03:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
      • How do select the files you are running the filtering on? For the first task, I think you should still try to create a satisfactory series of test edits. -- User:Docu at 04:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
        • I am aware that filtering categories (eg. removing parent categories when subcats are present / anti over-cat) causes intersecting categories for new ones to be harder or impossible. Therefor I always check the categories in question before doing so. In practice so far (twice) I did it after me or someone/some bot has finished intersection. In this case the intersection is done by (a bot from) Multichill with whom I've discussed it with, on IRC.
          Series of test edits have already been done. I've ran about half a dozen short test-runs with creating categories last night in order to realise the cat-matrix concept for the Indonesia photos from the Tropenmuseum. The cat-filtering/anti-overcat script has only been run once so far (here), but since that script is present in pywikipedia by default, I presume that one does not require any 'testing'. --Krinkletalk 10:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
      • The problem with the "filtering categories" script isn't that it makes intersecting more complicated, but that it can remove perfectly valid categories from images.
        I don't think the script as such is authorized for use on random images on Commmons. It is primarily used by Multichill's bots to avoid adding too many categories (or to remove categories it already add itself). As a sample, if you run the script on the images in Category:Portraits of Marcellin Desboutin, it will remove Category:Marcellin Desboutin from File:Marcellin Gilbert Desboutin - Autoportrait.jpg (this version) which it shouldn't.
        With the first task, I meant the edits to templates on file description pages previously discussed. Obviously, we know how AWB works/doesn't work. -- User:Docu at 09:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
        • I think it's debatable whether the category structure is correct if that image is supposed to stay in that (parent-)category aswell, but I haven't looked in to the situation of that image you linked to in-depth.
          But anyhow, two can do more then one and I'm not going to run a filter-script on random images. I'm running it on images that it can and should be applied to. Never "random". In the example case above, related to the Tropenmuseum photo's, it was fine, as discussed with Multichill on IRC. This gave a better overview of what's left for categorisation (since generally speaking an image should not be in a specific category ánd the main category). I'm fully aware of what the script does and how/when it should be (not) used. –Krinkletalk 13:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
            • As you are not sure about the category structure in the above sample, you might want to do a new request for the filtering part when you have a specific project in mind. The Tropenmuseum one seems to be done already. -- User:Docu at 15:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
              • Well, I could've helped out. But since this request is taking a month, Multichil had done it on it's own (which took about 5 days full-time). Obviously, with big things like this, some kind of discussion is done before any kind of action. But then again... Those projects (or requests to categorise those projects) is excecuted by a botowner. This is a botbit request, so that I could take such a request and excecute it (A request that has been discussed). So, Docu, if you have no further concerns or questions about how I do things, I suggest this request get's approved ? –Krinkletalk 00:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone have any reason not to approve this? If they do, they should give their reason(s) in a clear declarative form, free of questions, rhetorical or otherwise. This has sat for several months with no action, for which I apologize. ++Lar: t/c 11:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think Krinkle can be trusted to run a bot. Mistakes happens but as long as user is careful and cleanup any mistakes I do not think that "a bad start" should ban a bot forever. --MGA73 (talk) 19:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Just approve the damn bot ;-) Multichill (talk) 20:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Granted and bot flag set. ++Lar: t/c 01:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)