Commons:Bots/Work requests

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

Shortcut: COM:BR· COM:BWR

Bot policy and list · Requests to operate a bot · Requests for work to be done by a bot · Changes to allow localization  · Requests for batch uploads

Filing cabinet icon.svg
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day.


Hi, FYI: I am currently adding {{int:filedesc}} to all flickr files (per commons standard). New flickr uploads will now automatically have the filedesc fd08437. Please let me know if you have any concerns. :-) Best. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:22, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I know we do not have a policy about it, but to me that is a perfect example of en:Wikipedia:Bot_policy#Cosmetic_changes. --Jarekt (talk) 11:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
@Jarekt: Commons does not have (or similar), appart from COM:Regex. I am not sure if this changes will ever happen. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:55, 1 June 2015 (UTC) has a subroutine listed at Commons:Tools/pywiki file description cleanup which can be run on Commons. Also much more extensive set can be found at Commons:File description page regular expressions. But what I meant in my comment was that You should not be editing pages to add such minor changes, but I think it would be OK if you do it while doing some more substantial changes. --Jarekt (talk) 19:41, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
@Jarekt: And what is THIS edit by JarektBot? Your bot added this cat to +510000 page?! Can you explain please. This is a clear case of wasting of resources and a good example of en:Wikipedia:Bot_policy#Cosmetic_changes. You complain about my COM:Regex fixes and you'r bot does thentousands of non helpful edits. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:23, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
I'd, personally, like to see bot jobs that add files to such categories throttled based on the size of the cleanup category.... such a category with, say, 1000 members is much more likely to be worked on than a category with half a million. The 'wasting resources' argument is tbh a bit of a red herring, unless something is actively lagging the server at a particular moment.... disk space is cheap, and unused processor cycles and bandwidth can't exactly be banked for future use. The only real issue, imo, with a huge cleanup cat is the psychological one... nobody wants to attack a task that is obviously impossible. As far is adding the {{int:filedesc}}, I personally add this to files manually all the time, so I think a bot task to do so is inherently useful... a 'cosmetic' change that is incredibly unlikely to ever be objected to by anyone simply saves the effort of someone eventually making the same change manually while doing something else, and a bot doing it means that it will be done globally. While it's true that the use of that and {{int:license-header}} are technically 'optional', the consensus for their global usage is pretty obvious, and there is an inherent benefit to reusers in having file descriptions pages formatted 'somewhat' consistently.
The enwiki argument (that such changes congest histories) is not particularly relevant here, since the huge majority of file description pages are very infrequently edited. Revent (talk) 02:57, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Category:Media missing infobox template is also useful. Yann (talk) 04:59, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
This is useful. I added this to quite a number of files, and it is a job better done by a bot. Adding == {{int:license-header}} == would also be useful, but this is probably more complex. A category where this is missing would be useful meanwhile. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:32, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per my comment at VP. I don't think these sub-heads add anything useful to the file page. If yes, it is very easy to add such sub-heads as part of {{Information}}, {{Specimen}}, etc. and to license tags. Instead adding these floating sub-heads in filepages are ugly and difficult to manage. What is the use of a big letter "summary"? It is ugly, irrelevant and meaningless. Instead, we have beautiful and meaningful sub-heads like "binomial name" for {{Specimen}} that I widely used. Jee 04:17, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Jee, I don't understand your opposition. I think these are useful, 1. to separate different kinds of information (description, license, i.e. legal information), 2. is automatically translated, so it helps making Commons more friendly for no-English speakers, 3. to edit one section only. Regards, Yann (talk) 04:56, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
      • Point 2 is reasonable; that's why I support updating old "Summary" like sub-heads to int: prefixed heads (if they already exist on pages). I don't see a need for 1 and 3 as file pages are not much big to split up into sections. Moreover, license is part of {{Information}} for all my pages and a head like "summary" in big letters on top is rather unnecessary. Jee 05:15, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
If there is consensus to add this but only when other changes are done, please just append it to com:regex and note it with [Minor]. YaCBot will then do this in the next run. --McZusatz (talk) 16:21, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Any objections to ? --McZusatz (talk) 20:29, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
OK for me. Yann (talk) 21:16, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Default continuation mode for action=query will change at the end of this month[edit]

FYI: --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:45, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

For me, it's a good chance to rethink whether some bot tasks are valued. Those of mine that break (and there may be several as I rely on old versions of pywikibot) I'll probably just leave stopped, unless someone positively asks for me to get them working again. I'll have to ponder if it is worth my volunteer time compared to other stuff that might give me income or thanks and recognition for my effort. As an example, I would have a higher chance of getting through RFA if I stopped operating bots altogether, automation being used as a reason to dismiss my work as the work of the tools and me just being a tool monkey. -- (talk) 11:57, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
This change will break a lot of bot. I am wondering if this api change is really needed. In general devs are encouraged to keep api backward compatible. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:01, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Don't worry about the bots: Every bot should be maintained and it isn't that much of a deal to add a single parameter. What worries me is, this will break all programs that were published previously or which the maintainer lost interest in and does not bother to publish a fresh release. --McZusatz (talk) 16:16, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
@Fae, your unsuccessful RFA has nothing to do with your effort building useful tools but the lack of addressing the questions that were already even raised in previous RFAs. --McZusatz (talk) 16:16, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
If you check through them, it has always been an issue. I have not said it was the only issue raised in 5 RFAs, certainly some nasty chapter politics guarantees my RFAs remain of interest for those that enjoy that sort of thing. As for RFA processes this is a subject to raise elsewhere, I am hardly going to rake through every heckle from griefers in my 9 years of contributing to Wikimedia projects, answering relevant questions based on my contributions to this project in the last 12 or 18 months makes common sense, after all anyone could easily clean start in that period and put in a successful RFA without questions about past sins. -- (talk) 16:24, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Réunion des musées nationaux[edit]

Hi, Could someone add all images from Réunion des musées nationaux (French museums) (and also [1]) to the category Category:Images from Réunion des musées nationaux. Thanks, Yann (talk) 17:05, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

That source should probably have institution and 'source' templates, quite a few files. Revent (talk) 23:44, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
OK, here we are: Institution:Réunion des musées nationaux. Yann (talk) 05:28, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Added a substantial number (over 1000) that had "Source =" in the wikitext using cat-a-lot, though there are quite likely others that should be included.... other search terms seemed to be pretty contaminated with things like File:Parc_de_Versailles,_Bassin_de_Flore,_Jean-Baptiste_Tuby_(1672-79)_07.jpg (that just uses the RMN as a reference). Revent (talk) 05:03, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
FWIW, they seem to be the source of quite a few images of works that are not actually in their collections. Revent (talk) 05:18, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
@Revent: Thanks a lot. There are a few copyright violation among these. As I was away for sometime, I will look about this now. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:38, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Category-creation bot[edit]

LudwigSebastianMicheler helpfully creates photo-by-day categories such as Category:Photographs taken on 2015-06-07, but what if something happens to him or he simply decides not to continue contributing? It would be helpful if we had a bot to create a new category every day. The category only really needs a single template, which for today's category is {{Photographs taken on navbox|2015|6|7}}. Nyttend (talk) 13:57, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done @Nyttend: see this for example. Cat will be crated at midnight (if creation at midnight (00:00) fails then the bot will retry at 12:00, if page exist ignore). --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:42, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
@Steinsplitter: Nice! But a creation at midnight is too late to find this category - think about photographers near "International Date Line": their day beginns earlier there! To find the fitting day-box for their photos, the creation should start one day earlier? A Info-link or a little more explanation would be nice (like I have done sometimes as a comment direct in the categories like here:
taken on 2015-06-07/edit in Category:Photographs taken on 2015-06-07). An Info-link to the discussion-page Category talk:Photographs by date might be helpful (and a backlink to that discussion here to explain the development).

For the parallel day-timeline (like Category:2015-06-07) a creation of 3 days (or one week?) in the future might be helpful to create and include existing subcategories for realistic future events (example Category:21st century lunar eclipses. --LudwigSebastianMicheler (talk) 15:44, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

@LudwigSebastianMicheler: I followed the instructions placed in cats source here. Time not sorted by UTC? --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:53, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Though 7,340 Subcategories in Category:Days by day have been created in the past years, I do'nt know about a decision to follow UTC like it is written in the parallel photo-subcategories Template:Photographs taken on navbox. For me it seems logical for the future day-categories to follow UTC too, and add a short text to the description in Template:Date navbox to say that to our Commons-users and photographers. --LudwigSebastianMicheler (talk) 15:43, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

CategorizationBot down too?[edit]

Is User:CategorizationBot down too? Will many bots be down now due the new changes that are going to take place in WMF? I see that another bot User:Wdwdbot is probably dealing with similar works. Can it be used to do what CategorizationBot did? Pinging the owner @Wdwd:. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:12, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Probably affected by Labs outage. --Denniss (talk) 07:47, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi, my bot-script add categories to uncategorized files with an algorithm similar to a function used to categorize files which were bot-transfered from de.wp to commons (the algorithm is briefly described on User:Wdwdbot). I use this functions and extend it to uncategorized files which are already on commons. Wdwdbot functions are not similar and could not easy extend to the functions of User:CategorizationBot - which find uncategorized new uploads and mark them. This is is a different task.--Wdwd (talk) 14:14, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Pictures sorting[edit]

Hello all,

I would need a bot to perform the below task:

Thank you! Popo le Chien ouah 13:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC) 

You can create the list using a query with Catscan2. It will even format the results as a wiki table if you want it. -- (talk) 14:12, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
✓ Done There is a bunch of false positives but this will have to do. Thanks. Popo le Chien ouah 15:04, 22 June 2015 (UTC)