Last modified on 21 February 2013, at 05:51

Commons:Bots/Requests/NonProgressive

NonProgressive (talk · contribs)Edit

Operator: Slick (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:

Automatic or manually assisted: manually at this list (maybe later automatically for all new uploadet files)

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

Maximum edit rate (eg edits per minute): depend on progressive jpeg files found .. up to 20/minute

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): Y

Programming language(s): python/bash, source will published if work fine Slick (talk) 12:45, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

  • I think will be good idea to add Bot into name. As well as JPEG. How about converting and re-uploading images instead of adding templates? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:42, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
  • For reuploading instead of adding a template see this long discussion. I guess a new name is only possible with a new account, so I will create it and add a request soon. So this request (with this name) can ignore now. --Slick (talk) 16:48, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Accounts can be renamed. Please do not create a new one. --Dschwen (talk) 17:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Rename request done. Please help to speed it up. Until the bot is sleeping. --Slick (talk) 18:11, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Renamed. --Dschwen (talk) 19:00, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Big Thanks. What about this request here? Have it to rename too? --Slick (talk) 19:24, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't think it would be a good idea to tag all JPEG progresive files. If you just want to warn uploaders, you don't need to tag thousands of files from the same uploader - who is unlikely to process and reupload those thousands of files, specially if they aren't causing any noticeable problem by now. A message in uploader's talk page would be more effective and less disturbing for users.
Btw, I'm not familiar with bot approval processes. This one seems to be still open. Are you running a 3000 edits test?--Pere prlpz (talk) 00:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC>T
All comments about the job, please read add here. There is a longer discussion about. This just the request for the bot. And I stopped the bot until this unclear situation. --Slick (talk) 10:16, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Ok Slick, what ist this bot supposed to do now? See bottom of (page.section) is not an acceptable summary, that section is still changing. You are not tagging progressive JPGs that do thumbnail correctly, are you? Prer prlpz is right by the way, the linked discussion is merely about technicalites. I think it is useful to reupload images that cannot be thumbnailed correctly (even better would be fixing the broken thumbnailer!) --Dschwen (talk) 14:06, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Looking through the last few edits of your many edits (which are way beyond testing volume) I see only images that thumbnail correctly. This is a waste of resources and an unnecessary confusion of users. Please do not do this. Actually I would suggest a full revert. This is merely file page clutter. --Dschwen (talk) 14:12, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
    • First the job was done by Slick-o-bot and this convert all progressive JPEGs greater than 5 MB in baseline. Now the new bot should check the list with images less than 5 MB and add the template (and maybe later do check all new uploadet files for progressive). I assumed this was right. But as discussed suddenly, this is not sure. In the ĺinked discussion suddenly all is unsure now. I dislike this situation, but the bot should do what will be the result of this discussion. So I cant give you a clear statement what the bot should do at the moment. If the result will other than the already done work (add the template) I will revert this files, no problem. So I suggest let us wait what will be the result of the discussion first. --Slick (talk) 14:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
      • Slick, I know this situation. I appreciate that you are trying hard to be helpful here, and I realize that this "bureaucracy" looks like an obstruction to you. The discussion looked clear only because there was no discussion whether this is a useful task. All the discussion immediately jumped to a technical "how to implement this". --Dschwen (talk) 15:15, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, here is what I take from the discussion (of course heavily influenced by my view):

  • Revert the tagging of progressive JPG images
  • Reupload only images with broken thumbnails (make sure the bot checks if the reupload is necessary or if the image was manually reuploaded since the list of broken JPGs was created!)
  • Do not tag newly uploaded images.

What are your plans for monitoring current uploads (once the old images are taken care of)? You could try pulling thumbnails of mime image/jpeg images uploaded in the last 24h once a day. Choose a standard thumbnail size (the one that Dispenser uses in his script!). I suggest automatic re-upload of new images that do not correctly thumbnail (if they are progressive JPG!). It may be helpful to place a notification template of the user pages of those users (once!). That template should contain a friendly explanation geared at non technical minded people. Please no flashy red bars etc. --Dschwen (talk) 16:47, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I wrote a summary of the opinions at the discussion page. There a 2 different possible results ... convert all progressive images above a given limit or convert only images without valid thumbnails. I do not know what the community like. But I will "revert" all touched images and remove the template. I think we all agree at this point. --Slick (talk) 16:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Slick. Consensus decisions are not necessarily yielding the best results of technical issues like this one. I would happily approve a bot request that involves reuploading any images that cannot have thumbs generated (although it sounded like you already did that...). I won't grant a request that involves "fixing things that are not broken". But there are other bureaucrats who might feel differently about this. --Dschwen (talk) 21:54, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Are there a lot of this images to create a bot to convert/reupload this images? Someone tell me about there are only less than 200 with broken thumbnails yet. I am not sure it is worth to create a bot for. Only when we like to search for this images in new uploads then a bot is required. --Slick (talk) 06:50, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
By why this problem could not be solved on MediaWiki level? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:44, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Well... a lot of problems that we approve bots for could be solved on MediaWiki level ;-). I agree that this one would be particularly straight forward to implement (at least for newly uploaded pictures). --Dschwen (talk) 16:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
I think will be good idea to search bugzilla: for open bug or file new one. Other trick - how to get attention of developers, especially WMF-paid... --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:44, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree entirely with Dschwen on this. I'd prefer that you only reupload images with broken thumbnails, not all progressive images. --99of9 (talk) 04:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, could we get an update from User:Slick about what has been already done with the bot and what the new tasks requested for the bot are? --Dschwen (talk) 16:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

It is unclear furthermore what the bot should do, because there is no consents at the discussion about the job yet. Sorry. The bot is sleeping furthermore and did and doing nothing. --Slick (talk) 07:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Really?! What is still unclear? Reupload files that don't thumbnail correctly or withdraw this bot request. It is not getting any clearer. --Dschwen (talk) 14:14, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Uhm, that sounded a bit harsh, sorry. There is not really any rush, so do what you are comfortable with. --Dschwen (talk) 14:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I think about the current job of the bot and I think I followed the wrong goal in complete. In the discussion about progressive JPEGs I sad it is to less work to run a bot only for some progressive JPEGs a month. My new (I think great) idea is why do I like to check only JPEGs for a valid thumbnails? There is a thumbnail Bug PNG too (25 MPixel Limit). So the bot should named ThumbnailCheckBot or like this and should check all files for a valid thumbnail. If it not given, then it check why there is not a thumbnail i.E. it is a large progressive jpeg and or it is a png greater than 25 MPixel or other. Then did a action, i.E. add the Template:Use baseline or Template:LargePNG or other. To check the thumbnails does not need a lot a bandwidth, only a HEAD request will be done, so a mass check on all fresh images is easy to realize. And we can add other mime-types to check later. So the bot has a nice work to do and there is a win-win situation. What do you think about? --Slick (talk) 18:17, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Sounds good. I would forget about the {{Use baseline}} template though in my opinion it should be deleted (too technical and confusing). For files that do not thumbnail just fix it by reuploading a baseline file, for files that thumbnail correctly don't do anything. For large PNGs the bot could upload a scaled down version for thumbnailing and link it in the {{LargePNG}} template. If I were you I'd go ahead and write that bot and forget about the unproductive lengthy discussion on the work requests page. It is up to you whether we leave this request open or create a new one. --Dschwen (talk) 18:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Thumbs up and confirm. Please close this request and I will a new one when the bot is renamed and the source is prepared. Maybe you can help to speed up this. --Slick (talk) 19:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Closed, withdrawn for now. --Dschwen (talk) 05:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC)