Commons:Bots/Requests/ja

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
This project page in other languages:
ボットの方針 · ボット使用申請 · ボット作業依頼  · Requests for batch uploads
Gnome-system-run.svg

コモンズでボットを動かすには、まずボット・フラグを入手することをお薦めします。 下記の手順に従い、ボット・フラグのリクエストを提出してください。

ボット・フラグ・リクエスト一覧

Requests for permission to run a bot[edit]

Before making a bot request, please read the new version of the Commons:Bots page. Read Commons:Bots#Information on bots and make sure you have added the required details to the bot's page. A good example can be found here.

When complete, pages listed here should be archived to Commons:Bots/Archive.

Any user may comment on the merits of the request to run a bot. Please give reasons, as that makes it easier for the closing bureaucrat. Read Commons:Bots before commenting.

Wcdo-bot (talk · contribs)[edit]

Operator: --Marcmiquel (talk) 19:14, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought:

To upload, rename and delete on a weekly basis multiple files (images with data visualizations) related to the project WCDO.

Automatic or manually assisted:

Automatic, based on prepared hand-reviewed batches of up to several hundred at a time.

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

In batches - one with the data generated for each language edition. Once a week or every two weeks.

Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute):

12 per minute (I would adapt it to the Commons requirements).

Bot flag requested: (Y/N):

Yes.

Programming language(s):

Python (pywikibot)

Marcmiquel (talk) 19:14, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

  • Please create account, its user and talk pages and perform test run. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:30, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

JeffGBot (talk · contribs) 5[edit]

Operator: Jeff G. (talk · contributions · Number of edits · recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought:

  • Use COM:AWB, COM:JWB, or COM:VFC to do mundane non-controversial maintenance things at higher speeds than humans are expected to perform, while not clogging up recent changes. Specifically, substitute templates that must be substituted in the intended namespaces. There are 212 such templates which transclude {{Must be substituted}} in their descriptions and are therefore listed here per this count, but some of the templates may not be transcluded at present. Of course, VFC can only be used in filespace. I have already made 309 such edits (listed here) to subst Template:PD-Trademark-Text-Logo using JWB and my main account, without enhanced speed and edit summary, but the process would be more efficient if I were allowed to go faster using my bot account and flag.

Automatic or manually assisted: Manually assisted for AWB and JWB, automatic for VFC

Edit type (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): One time runs at the discretion of the operator, one template at a time

Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute): 60 edits per minute for semiautomatic AWB and JWB or as fast as VFC can go

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): N (already have it)

Programming language(s): AWB, JWB, or VFC (Compiled C++, JavaScript)

  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:31, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

OK with me as long as detailed edit summaries are used. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:00, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
@EugeneZelenko: My initial summary is "Bot: Substing Template:TEMPLATENAMEHERE. (Task 5)", but I am open to suggestions.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:04, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Please perform some test edits on the bot account. --Schlurcher (talk) 22:29, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
@Schlurcher: Here are 21 test edits substing Template:Flickr author with JWB. I need help in telling VFC how to select such files, if that is even possible.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 23:10, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Try mw:Help:CirrusSearch#Hastemplate --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 23:34, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
@Zhuyifei1999: Thanks, I will.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 23:48, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm generally very supportive of this task. There are some comments I have regarding the test edits and the task in general.
  • To some extent this task should also be educational to the user adding the template in the first place. It would be good to have subst: somewhere in the edit summary. Something like: Bot: Applying subst: to Template:TEMPLATENAMEHERE. (Task 5)"
  • For {{Flickr author}} a recursive subst is necessary: {{subst:Flickr author|nsid=XXXX|name=John Doe|subst=subst:}}. Otherwise, the #if are not resolved leading to ugly code. See: [1] for an example and [2] for an explanation.
  • I'm not sure if templates should be substed outside of their intended namespace. Discussion-worthy example from the test edits is: [3]. Another examples might be the template {{Npd}}. This template is intended to be used in the file namespace. I'm not sure if it should be, for example, substed in the user namespace. Users may place it there just as a template for further use.
--Schlurcher (talk) 21:13, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Recursive subst is now done automatically on the template code side without needing |subst=subst, using a documented workaround --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 01:21, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
@Schlurcher, Zhuyifei1999: Thank you for your comments. I can certainly use that summary and check for the need to recursively subst. An enabled template like {{Npd}} could lead to deletion in seven days if the enabler is not careful, no matter what I do.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:05, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, no further comments. --Schlurcher (talk) 16:48, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
@Schlurcher: You're welcome.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 07:08, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Could you please describe why in Special:Diff/294948008 the subst should have been done? To be honest, I don't get that.
    In any case I'd advise to double check if the templates in question are marked as subst-only for good reason, as it may be difficult to undo that later without knowing who did the substs. --Krd 06:50, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
    @Krd: I'm sorry, I should have considered the need for double subst. You would have to ask User:Jean-Frédéric why the template should be substed in the first place per this edit.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 07:08, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
    I'd say it would be your job as bot operator to make sure in any way that the substs are reasonable, because as said it is way more difficult as normal to detect and undo mistakes. --Krd 07:21, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
    @Krd: Point taken. In this case, both substs looked reasonable in HTML, the single subst not so much in wikitext.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 07:29, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
    I'd still say this should be undone, the wikitext of the file page is unreadable now. --Krd 05:39, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
    @Krd: @Zhuyifei1999 undid what I saw as the unreadability 01:20, 5 April 2018 (UTC) in this edit. Do you think "[[flickruser:aljazeeraenglish|Al Jazeera English]]" is unreadable? I don't.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:02, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

JhealdBot (talk · contribs) (5)[edit]

Operator: Jheald (talk · contributions · Number of edits · recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought:

To rename multiple files, uploaded here from the British Library "Mechanical Curator" set on Flickr.

Automatic or manually assisted:

Automatic, based on prepared hand-reviewed batches of up to several hundred at a time.

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

In batches, with review after each batch.

Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute):

60 12

Bot flag requested: (Y/N):

JhealdBot already has the bot flag. But I think it would need the file-mover flag.

Programming language(s):

Perl, using MediaWiki::Bot

More detailed explanation:

For some time I have been working towards an upload of images identified as maps, found in the 1 million images extracted from old books that were uploaded by the British Library to Flickr.
These uploads would include categorisation based on locations inferred from the georferencing campaign here, and meaningful file names based on map titles input as part of the georeferencing process. Here's a page showing some typical intended filenames:
Commons:British Library/MC maps batch 01 (GB counties)
(See also further pages in Category:MC_upload_prep_pages. These filenames would also be similar to those used for many many of the BL books (over 20,000 images in all) by User:Metilsteiner, as per those in eg: Category:Finska_kriget_och_Finlands_krigare_1808-1809_(1897)_by_DANIELSON
However, I took too long about it, and recently User:Artix Kreiger has uploaded just over 20,000 of the images (about 40% of the maps total) using Flickr2Commons, giving standard F2C filenames like these:
User:Jheald/Kreiger/UK IE/MC maps batch 01 (counties)
-- ie the book name (at some length) and page number, but not eg the date or what the file is actually about.
Rather than these, I believe that when eg reviewing thumbnails in a category, or adding further categorisation with Cat-a-lot, that file names indicating what the map itself actually contains, along with book author, date, and volume / page number, would be more useful.
Therefore I would like permission to work through batch-by-batch to re-write these filenames per my original intended scheme. That would also mean they would harmonise better with the remaining majority of files, that are still to upload.


Jheald (talk) 17:34, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

since I was pinged, i wanted to say that the maps were already given the names by the British Library as is. None of the names were given by me. (although I removed the part "Image taken from" while uploading.) This invariably also uploaded several dups, those that were actually rotated, but was not flagged as duplicate by the auto detecting software. JuTa, since you dealt with some of these pics, do you have any opinion? Artix Kreiger (talk) 17:40, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Will it invoke delinker for each file move, or will do the delinking on its own? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 18:02, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
    • I was literally just going to use the move call in MediaWiki::Bot (if it still works), which in turn calls the MediaWiki mw:API:Move. I haven't used the Move function before, so hadn't considered Commons:Delinker. I presumed the old file pages would be turned into redirects, and was going to be content to leave it at that. But I am happy to do more, if more is required. Jheald (talk) 18:34, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
      • I think a filemove should get the files delinked, either through delinker or by the bot itself (I recommend the former). You can add the requests in batches if you want. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 18:39, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
        • Okay, that looks straightforward enough, if it's really not a problem dropping a couple of hundred requests there in one go. Though they were only uploaded quite recently, and not advertised, so I think file usage so far is pretty minimal. Just having a look with PetScan to see. Jheald (talk) 18:53, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
        There is currently one file being used externally from Artix Kreiger's "Set of Maps" upload. But older files that others have uploaded may have accumulated more uses, so I acknowledge that it's important to check this. Jheald (talk) 19:11, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
File mover rights requested for User:JhealdBot Jheald (talk) 12:53, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Please explain the edit rate of 60 per minutes. All your other tasks are with 12 per minutes (one every 5 seconds). Based on the quantity of changes suggested here, there seem to be no need for a higher rate. --Schlurcher (talk) 22:41, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
@Schlurcher: Changed to 12. Don't know where the 60 came from. Completely agree, no need for anything faster. Jheald (talk) 09:31, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
No further comments and no concerns regarding this request. --Schlurcher (talk) 16:49, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Do you intend to use suppress_redirect when moving the files? --Krd 20:00, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
@Krd: I had thought to keep the redirects, just in case somebody has externally linked to one of these files. Redirects are cheap. And leaving the old pages may also help flag possible duplication to any future uploaders from Flickr, if some of these files have been cropped or adjusted in the meantime.
BTW, I do hope to do a demonstration run really soon now. I'm just finishing some work preparing for book & author wikidata links & categories for the files that will be in the first set, per JhealdBot (4) Jheald (talk) 20:41, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
The bot already has file mover rights, when ready please continue and make a small test run. --Krd 06:36, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
@Jheald: Please advise when ready to test. Thank you. --Krd 05:41, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Pi bot (talk · contribs) 1[edit]

Operator: Mike Peel (talk · contributions · Number of edits · recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: Deploy {{Wikidata Infobox}} to Commons categories that have commons sitelinks on Wikidata

Automatic or manually assisted: Automatic

Edit type (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): Primarily a one-time (but very large) run; then monthly (smaller) runs for new categories/links from Wikidata

Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute): 60 edits per minute

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): Y

Programming language(s): pywkibot. source code

This bot deploys {{Wikidata infobox}} to all Commons categories, with the provisos that they are linked to Wikidata through a Commons sitelink there, and that the Wikidata item is either not a Wikimedia category or has a category's main topic (P301) link. It does not edit categories that use an alternative template, as listed in the 'templatestoavoid' variable. It looks for subcategories of a specified category, which is currently a small category for testing (running in a manually-assisted way under my main account), but would be Category:Categories for the main run (unless anyone can suggest a better way to select all categories?). Edits look like [4], or in the case of a P301 link, then [5].

The bot deployment is currently being discussed VP/P (but with near-unanimous support so far), and the run would not start until that is complete. Additionally, off-wiki conversations with @Lydia Pintscher (WMDE): about the performance impact of the template mean that it shouldn't be massively deployed until phab:T186714 and phab:T186716 are concluded (the first one is done, the second is still open).

This request is a bit early, but I would like feedback on the bot code and any potential issues, ahead of the closure of the VP/P discussion and the resolution of the phab tickets. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:45, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

  • Most of the code is okay in logic, though the code styling could be improved (flake8 will complain), and some nitpicks:
    • line 28: templatestoremove is unused. You mean to use it at line 79?
    • line 35: Filter by namespace, not the namespace prefix in title. For more efficient filtering you can use the subcategories() method
    • line 45: continue? avoid nesting in the else:
    • line 49-52: if any(...): continue, avoids use of test flag
    • line 66-70: ditto
    • line 72: P301 is still not defined. You don't want to continue executing as it it is defined, do you?
    • line 98: is this ment to be outside the if-block above?
    • line 99: exception catching too generic. You'd be unable to interrupt it with Ctrl-C (SIGINT).
    • line 104: just break. exit() should not be used in programs
  • Also, I'm asking @Gabrielchihonglee: to work on the interwiki removal (forking my bot's code, should be done in a few weeks due to timezone differences) so that shouldn't be needed. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 04:22, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
@Zhuyifei1999: Thanks for the feedback! I've incorporated all but one of your points (updated on bitbucket); the one I haven't is about P301, since I think this was confusion with P31 that's also used. It's good to know about the interwiki removal, I've dropped that from my code (I'm still not sure why those function calls didn't seem to do anything though). Presumably you've seen Commons:Village_pump/Proposals#Proposal_to_migrate_interwiki_links_to_Wikidata_(wherever_possible)? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 12:52, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes I am aware of that discussion, but I have not read through it. I personally am not very confident on a bot that adds links to wikidata; wikidata bot operators would be better than me to program a logic that determines whether a link is safe to add. Like my own bot task, I consider only removing the redundant links, where they exist as both explicit wikitext form and on wikidata. Unconditionally removing them / migrating them, will end up terribly.
Yeah that P301 may be my error. I don't understand that part of logic too well. What I right now understand is: if P301 is not found, continue only if P31 is not found or P31 exists bit is it not Q4167836. Is my understanding correct and the intended behavior?
Also, line 35 (if 'Category:' in target.title():) is still redundant. all subcategories will be... categories. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 18:35, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
@Zhuyifei1999: Is there an easy way to find categories here with interwiki links? If so, I might have a look into adding commons sitelinks on Wikidata based on them (plus other logic such as title matches), and then they could be removed as redundant. On the properties: the idea is that if P31 is Q4167836 (a category item), then we only want to add the template if there is then a value for P301 (a main topic for that category), that's probably coded a bit backward at the moment. Line 35 will be gone in the next version. :-) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:01, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
My method is parsing xml dumps. Searching insource:/\[\[en:/ seems to also work, but the regex will definitely time out and you won't ever get a complete set of results. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 23:01, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Where should the wikidata template be placed? Sometimes the bot's edits result in a blank line. --Schlurcher (talk) 06:02, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
@Schlurcher: I'm leaning towards always placing it after the last }} on the page, to avoid any conflicts with other templates that may add a lot of whitespace (due to issues in the other templates, not in this one). Can you point me to some examples of where the bot is adding blank lines? It shouldn't do that, so perhaps it's because those blank lines were there already? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:45, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Here is an example: [9] --Schlurcher (talk) 16:09, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
@Schlurcher: Aah, thanks. Spotted a stray "\n", and I'm also now removing trailing "\n"s from templates that are removed at the same time. example edit, and the new code's on bitbucket. BTW, @Zhuyifei1999: I've also reworked the category-walking code to avoid infinitely looped categories. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:37, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Maybe Template talk:Wikidata Infobox is a better place for it, but i try here. I just placed for tests {{Wikidata Infobox}} on the category I working on - Category:Raspberry Pi. It doesn't work, trying to find item name "Category:Raspberry Pi" at Wikidata. It works on gallery page Raspberry Pi but... the result is some underwhelming in this case. --Jasc PL (talk) 23:11, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
    @Jasc PL: The infobox relies on the interwiki link between Commons and Wikidata, if that's not present then it will ask you to create it, as was happening at Category:Raspberry Pi. Since there was also a gallery, which occupies the sitelink on the topic item, I created a new Wikidata item that provides the link, and the info should show up now in the category. Note that the bot will not add the infobox to pages without that interwiki link, so it shouldn't be an issue with the large-scale deployment. With the 'underwhelming' result, is there anything else you'd like to be added to the infobox? Note that it's obviously limited to the information that's available in the Wikidata entry. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:49, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I feel that most of the concerns have been addressed and the requestor is generally very responsive to feedback. Still due to the potential very high amount of edits, I would like to see an unsupervised test run of around 500 edits performed with the bot. I understand that this is more than we normally require, but some specifics may only be identified in rare cases. --Schlurcher (talk) 05:36, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
    • @Schlurcher: Sure, I'm happy to do that. Want to suggest a category, or should I start at Category:CommonsRoot? I can either do the run later today, or on Sunday. Note that I've also been testing the code in various categories with manual approval for each edit using my account, and it seems to be working quite well. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:43, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Could you use Special:Random/Category, so we get a large coverage? Please let the bot run unsupervised for around 500 edits. Please update us once completed so we can have a final look. --Schlurcher (talk) 21:59, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
@Schlurcher: OK, I've coded up the random selection, updated code on the git repository, and it's currently running. I did 10 edits first to double-check, it's now doing the other 490. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:51, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
@Schlurcher: All done, see [10]. There seems to be a conflict with {{Building address}} that's due to a bug in that template, reported here, otherwise it seems to have worked well. I haven't made any manual edits with these 500 today, but I'll check through them in more detail on Sunday. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 00:01, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
One was reverted, discussion at User_talk:Josve05a#Wikidata_Infobox. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:53, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
It's looking like it is best to exclude Taxon-related categories from this deployment, and I'm also tempted to avoid pages using {{Building address}} until that bug is fixed. Both are simple to do by using the templatestoavoid array, and we can always change that in the monthly runs if needed. Thoughts welcome. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:40, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for doing this. I have no furhter comments. I think these look good. --Schlurcher (talk) 22:17, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
If this gets approved (and I'm hoping it's close to that), then there are several extra things to consider. First is the server load, and I'm in contact with the Wikidata team about this, who will be talking to the database admins on 4th April, so the full bot deployment won't start until after that happens and they give a go-ahead. Then, there's the potential number of uses; there are statistics for the number of commons sitelinks at [11], which imply that there are ~1.1 million categories that this could be added to, with another ~0.6 million if [12] is approved, and that shouldn't happen all at once. So perhaps this should be capped at, say, 10k additions per day for a week, and then we can see how things are going - suggestions for that number per day are welcome. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 00:23, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Pywikibot has a default throttle limit of 6 edits per min. That's 8640 per day, pretty close to your 10k, and with 197 days of running it should finish 1.7 million edits (and 10k per day would be 170 days). I don't think there's a great urgency on this task so 170-197 days looks fine to me, and leaves plenty of room for potential bugfixes. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 00:54, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
I currently have that throttle set to 60 per minute, but I can reset it. There are currently around a dozen editors manually adding the infobox to quite a few categories, and I would like to minimise the time they spend adding it to categories where the bot could have added it, so they can instead focus on adding new sitelinks. So I'd like to see an escalating cap that would ideally finish the initial deployment at the end of April, if possible. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 01:11, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Pywikibot respects the API etiquette and thus automatically throttles in case of high server load. Thus, a higher edit rate should not be a problem server wise. The edit rate limit is also to allow the bot maintainer to clean up after the bot if needed. Even if the here stated 60 edits per minute are approved (where I have no objections to), my suggestion to the bot owner would be to start for the first days with like 6 per minute, continue to monitor and then increase. Also, please consider to reduce the rate for the subsequent monthly runs. --Schlurcher (talk) 22:17, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. To clarify, the server load question is about the running of the template on so many categories, not so much the edit rate of the bot. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:47, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
I see. My comments were sololy regarding the edit rate of the bot. --Schlurcher (talk) 23:06, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
OK, Amir just emailed me this after discussing the issue with the DBAs: "I just deployed a change in commonswiki that makes the logging table grow at one tenth of the speed it used to be, also I'm planning to delete 72% of that table so storage-wise it won't grow for quite some time. The DBAs told me two things in this case: It needs to be under control and slow as possible. If the table grow twice in one month, we'll have a problem Secondly, any change might end up having effects in unexpected places. In this case, watchlist and recentchanges might get slow. Please inform the community on this change and come back to me as soon as you encounter any problems anywhere so I can investigate and check at least if it's related or not." So I think we can go ahead with this, but slowly, and we keep an eye out for problems.
How does that sound? Can this be approved, with slow roll-out to start with, and we can monitor things as they go? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:36, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
  • @Zhuyifei1999, EugeneZelenko, Schlurcher, Jasc PL: Is anything more needed before this could be approved? I've added a few more templates to the templatestoavoid array (in particular, templates related to {{Object photo}}, as well as {{taxonavigation}} and {{Building address}} as discussed above), and I haven't had any other feedback from users after the test run. From the WMF/WMDE side things seem to be fine. Deployment will be slower to start with (and I'll probably pick some 'easy-win' categories to start with, such as Category:Brazil and Category:United Kingdom, before starting at Category:CommonsRoot). There is an ongoing enwp RfC at en:Wikipedia:Wikidata/2018 Infobox RfC that is about infoboxes there, but I don't think the arguments against them there carry over here. So from my side, I'm just waiting to set this going, unless there's anything else that's needed. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:30, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
    Seems OK for me for start, but I would expect more templates replacements after initial roll out. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:04, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
    @EugeneZelenko: By 'templates replacements', are you meaning templates to avoid, or templates to replace with the infobox? Either should be straightforward to do by changing the configuration arrays at the top of the bot code. In the longer term there will probably be templates we want to migrate to Wikidata and include via the infobox; for example I've manually been working through uses of {{Infopat}} to migrate those (with the template creator's OK), but that's best done by a different bot proposal at a later date and/or other bot writers rather than trying to do it at the same time. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 00:01, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
    I meant templates which could be replaced with infobox completely at current point of time. Sure, if data need to be migrated, such cases may be handled later. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:02, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
    @EugeneZelenko: Ah, I see. If you know of any right now, then I'm happy to look into them, otherwise we can tackle them as they arise. That OK? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:21, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
    Actually it'll be reasonable to keep a list/statistics of templates still remained on pages, so you could prioritize further Wikidata migration. Sure, maintenance ones like {{Categorise}} should be excluded. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:29, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
@Mike Peel, first of all - great thanks for your whole hard work, kindly feedback and help. I was unable to read all and participate in the discuss at VP/P, but I try to put some more factual comments at Template talk:Wikidata Infobox tomorrow. Only some technical notices (only my point of view, of course) now:
  • Vertical space between image and logo - now both are often glued together, always if both consumes all their space; ~10px Vspace by default should fix it
  • The logo is often disproportionately big, especially when is up-close to quadrat; examples, some that was by hand: Raspberry Pi, Mozilla Firefox, Milanówek, FETA (festiwal)
About Raspberry Pi example: I'v placed this logo in its WD item - is suitable for most applications, but not for infoboxes - without additional scaling down. We have the complete set including this logo, but how to play with both of them in one time - regarding of purpose?
  • In my opinion, the logo, emblem, symbol, flag - should be placed at the top of infobox
However, we have still serious and comprehensive discuss in some community places, but... what for, if in the meantime one of users running a bot/script placing {{Wikidata infobox}} and removing other category pages content? I'v noticed that and asked this user at 19 March 2018 - his arguments are very peculiar for me. One topic below - the same problem. --Jasc PL (talk) 21:44, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
@Jasc PL: on the first two, try {{Wikidata Infobox/sandbox}} and see how that looks - the padding should be there, and the logo should be smaller. I'll push that into the main version soon. On the positioning, it's probably best to discuss that on the template talk page first. With the bot run, I'm only adding functionality, not removing any content - whether or not to remove that content is something that should probably be decided case-by-case. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:24, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks @Mike Peel! Now, both graphics elements looks OK. One problem I discovered yet is the interference between infobox and often used {{Categorise}} template. --Jasc PL (talk) 01:12, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
@Jasc PL: The problem is with {{Categorise}}, which has "width:100%; clear: both;" in the table style. That means that it wants 100% of the width of the page, and that it should appear below any other box. So it insists on being below {{Wikidata Infobox}}, which creates a huge amount of whitespace. There are a number of other templates that do the same unfortunately. There's nothing I can do in the infobox to fix this - it requires fixing all of the other templates. The work-around is simply to place the infobox below the other templates, which this bot does by looking for the last }} and adding the infobox below that. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:07, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
@Mike Peel you are extremely fast and effective :). Of course, that was not the infobox problem but excellent that you have a good solution avoiding problems with such templates; placing them in separate DIV container with fixed width will work also? --Jasc PL (talk) 15:56, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Let me ask one more question @Mike Peel - is there any version/variant of {{Wikidata Infobox}} concerning computing; OS'es, hardware, software etc? --Jasc PL (talk) 19:57, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
@Jasc PL: Putting the categorise template into a div container would work, I guess. The infobox should work for all topics, let me know if there are any additional Wikidata properties that you want adding to it for computing topics. I’m travelling this weekend, normal service will resume on Monday. ;-) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:01, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Dear Mike Peel, I just added a new topic Template_talk:Wikidata_Infobox#Computing_categories, but now it's work for us, not for you - have a great weekend, without Wikimedia and all professional problems! :) --Jasc PL (talk) 22:51, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
@Jasc PL: I've replied there, the new properties are now in the sandbox. My weekend offline was partly a photo-expedition, the results of which will be uploaded here soon, so not really a weekend without Wikimedia. ;-) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:53, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Anything else, or can we move on to starting this running? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:38, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Personally, I would say this can be approved in the current state. This is with the understanding that the bot owner is monitoring the downstream effects on Wikidata and will address issues with other templates that might come up in an extended run. Given the responsiveness here, I have no doubt that this will happen. --Schlurcher (talk) 16:12, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
In my opinion, it could be placed automatically by default, when the new category is manually created (excluding creation by bots). --Jasc PL (talk) 01:17, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
There was a discussion today at Commons:Village_pump#Wikidata_Infoboxes_disrupt_sorting that was mostly about edits that were made manually, but they've led to some improvements in the DEFAULTSORT code in the infobox, along with some extra tracking categories. I've also written a new script that looks through Category:Pages with DEFAULTSORT conflicts for uses of the infobox, and resolves them by disabling the defaultsort code in the infobox (adding it to Category:Uses of Wikidata Infobox with defaultsort suppressed for later manual/bot debugging). Ideally that'll run once a day. Can that new script also be included in this bot request, or should I start another one for it? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:42, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

JarBot (talk · contribs)[edit]

Operator: جار_الله (talk · contributions · Number of edits · recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: ( Upload from Arabic projects (mainly Wikipedia and Wikisource) files that are in the copy to Commons category. They'll be uploaded in a maintenance category so that we can review them [13] [14])

Automatic or manually assisted: Automatic

Edit type (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): once in month

Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute): 1

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): Y

Programming language(s): python

جار الله (talk) 19:41, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

  • Pictogram voting info.svg  Info This bot will be usefull to move files from here [15] and here [16]. And avoid problems related to templates [17]. --Helmoony (talk) 20:36, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg  Question Will the bot's actions be supervised? What would be the Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute)? After the one time run, will this never need to happen again? If so, why?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:58, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • The discussion related to this bot task on Arabic Wikipedia (permenant link). --Meno25 (talk) 16:56, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • @Jeff G.: We are discussing the technical details about the work of this bot on arwiki currently and will update you shortly. (As this is a coordinated task between Commons and arwiki.) --Meno25 (talk) 17:10, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Who will review candidates for move? Commons has only two administrators who are native Arabic speakers and only one seems to be active. Proper reviews will reduce number of possible conflicts. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:43, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
@EugeneZelenko: as per categories in Category:Files moved to Commons requiring review by source, files will be reviewed by Commons reviewers but also by Arabic projects users who are already aware about that since there is an ongoing discussion about exporting files in our local village pump. As you can see in my contributions for example, I'm already preparing the import by redirecting from templates like Arabic WP PD template to the one in Commons, so that even if you don't understand Arabic you will inderstand the license.--Helmoony (talk) 16:35, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Question is not only linguistic. Different Wikipedias have different attitude toward copyrights and its enforcement. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:19, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
@EugeneZelenko: In addition to our regular maintenance related to files (bots/reviewers), we have restricted the upload feature for new editors. To ask that feature [18] if you are not a reviewer you need to have already asked for uploading some pictures [19]. That way we can evaluate the quality of proposed pictures and how new users handle files. As you can see, the list of allowed users is quite restrive [20]. --Helmoony (talk) 17:41, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Can anybody please summarize if there are unaddressed questions? If there is nothing remaining, I'd say this can be approved. --Krd 06:39, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Seems to be an overall lack of consensus on Arabian Wikipedia about the process for how this bot would work. One commented that they don't trust Commons because there files got deleted for no convincing reason, another mentioned copyright issues and perhaps images not being transferable due to licenses. Jeff G's valid questions remain unanswered and no test run has been attempted. I'd like to see this thing actually edit before we move forward here. ~riley (talk) 06:54, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
@جار الله: is it possible to make a test (20 edits for example) as per @~riley: and reply to @Jeff G.: regarding edits per minute ? After the first run, we can upload pictures 1 time per month. It's engough for us in Arabic Wikipedia/Sister projects to review new free lisence pictures. If there is issues with some pictures we can review them by following Jarbot discussion page. --Helmoony (talk) 22:39, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
@Krd: For the record, all my questions remain unanswered. I am wary of unfilled required fields, one time runs with no logical explanation of why they will never need to run again, and people who won't answer simple questions. COM:PRP prevails.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 01:29, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
For the record, it was already noted twice above that your questions remain unanswered and the bot operator was pinged to respond. Give them some time. ~riley (talk) 07:21, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
My main concern is who will clean up problematic files after transfer, since there are too little native Arabic speakers administrators. It's also hard to tell how good Arabic Wikipedia in copyrights issues. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:11, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
  • @جار الله: This request requires open dialogue if you wish for it to be approved, please communicate answering the above questions and addressing the above concerns otherwise it will be closed as unsuccesful. In addition, a bot trial of (20-50 edits or uploads) is requested. ~riley (talk) 03:53, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
  • @~riley: Thanks for reminding me, i will make (20-50 edits or uploads) this week.--جار الله (talk) 22:55, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose Bot operators need to be responsive to the community's concerns.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 23:14, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
  • @~riley: That file first transfer, is there anything need to fix or can i continue the a bot trial?.--جار الله (talk) 04:05, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
  • My concerns are: 1) Category incorrectly inputted (Category:Category), license issues, file history comment needs to say "Bot: Transferred from ar.wikipedia" rather than outputting messy wikitext and Template:Copy to Commons (Template:نقل إلى كومنز) needs to be automatically removed by the bot. Plese sort those out and upload an additional 5 images for us to review before continuing the trial. ~riley (talk) 04:16, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I would say that thumbnail size images without EXIF are always suspicious and uploader history should be examined. If such preparations are not made in Arabic Wikipedia, I would vote against automatic transfers. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:48, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

i upload two file and i work to fix issues but now i can't upload any file i get abusefilter-warning-copyv2, any help to get rid of abusefilter-warning-copyv2, 1, 2.--جار الله (talk) 23:41, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Signing your posts on talk pages is required and it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:01, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
  • This is Filter 156. The bot will continue getting that warning for uploading small jpg files until it has reached 25 edits.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:01, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G., ~riley: Thanks, now i transferred more than 5 file, is there anything need to fix?.--جار الله (talk) 23:41, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
@جار الله: I started with the first of the new files, File:Toyota Bus-Train 01.jpg. It had "Permission=CC-BY-SA-2.0." That should just have been "Permission=", unless you wanted to move the actual license template into the Permission field. Also, the Flickr source disappeared in the transfer, and that source is now licensed CC-BY-ND 2.0, which we can't accept due to the ND (NoDerivs) clause, thus the file was deleted here. In fact, nothing from Flickr survived in the summary sections. The problems with File:Toyota Bus-Train 02.jpg were identical. File:Waaba6.jpg is different, I can see no upload logs for @Daif or en:User:Daif.en on enwp or arwp. Can you explain any of this?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:30, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: About File:Waaba6.jpg i am an administrator at arwiki and i can see the deleted version the user upload the file in arwiki
  • Daif.en the log does not appear in the url but it show there is a file upload.
  • Daif the log does not appear in the url but it show there is a file upload.
Do I understand your words CC-BY-SA-2.0 license is not acceptable in the Comens?.--جار الله (talk) 17:46, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
@جار الله: "CC-BY-SA-2.0" license is acceptable here. "CC-BY-ND-2.0" license is not acceptable here. The characters "CC-BY-SA-2.0" in the Permission field are superfluous if there is a license in the license section.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 21:28, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
@Helmoony, Jeff G., ~riley: is there any tips else?.--جار الله (talk) 03:26, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
@جار الله: http://modernegypt.bibalex.org:80/Collections/Images/ImagesLucene.aspx is not specific enough as a source for File:رئيس وزراء مصر مصطفى النحاس وهو يوقع على معاهدة 1936.jpg and File:السادات قبل اغتيالة.jpg. Also, the latter file is cut off at the bottom. Was it cut off at ar.wikipedia? Can you find a complete version? Who is "we"?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:25, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: the point of this request is to see if the bot can transfer the images, after the approval, we can discuss what image can be transfer and what image can not transfer. now is there any issues with the bot work (not with image)? if there anything you want to fix please tell me, Thank you.--جار الله (talk) 02:37, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
@جار الله: I have issues with whoever is selecting these files for transfer, and that person's attention to detail (or lack thereof).   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 03:13, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: How much does a picture with issues is able to stay in categories like Category:Files moved from ar.wikipedia to Commons requiring review without being deleted? After uploding them, just give us (Arabic projects community) a month or something like and we can review them with Commons tools and after bots review. An other thing, we can start uploding PDFs and pictures from Arabic Wikisource since they are in public domain and have less issues. We finish reviweing them and we can fix Arabic Wikipedia later. --Helmoony (talk) 11:02, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
@Helmoony: We have enough copyvios, thank you. What tools for reviewing uploads do we have on Commons that you don't have on Arabic projects? What can we do to make such tools available on Arabic projects?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:20, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Please fill out the requested edit rate and address the comments above. --Schlurcher (talk) 22:44, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
    @جار الله: ? --Krd 19:56, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
@Krd: all I can do fix the code issues if there any, and we will check files copyrights before transportation, and all this files will be in Category:Files moved from ar.wikipedia to Commons requiring review and you can check them and if there any problem you can give us some time before deleting them.--جار الله (talk) 20:19, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

It appears there is still no consensus if the suggested way of file selection for the transfer is acceptable for the Commons community. Additional comments welcome. --Krd 05:44, 15 April 2018 (UTC)