Last modified on 21 December 2014, at 16:02

Commons:Bots/Work requests

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 .


We need a bot to add {{Wikidata}} to category pages which have a reciprocal "Commons category" property (P373), "Commons gallery" property (P935) or commons page link on Wikidata. See the template's "what links here" page for examples. Can someone do that, please? Andy Mabbett (talk) 10:43, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Easy enough and Faebot has some slack. Is there a community agreement on this to point to, it would be a very widespread change. -- (talk) 11:40, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Note that on most wikis, {{Wikidata}} is used to link a page to the Wikidata item that precisely matches that page, not to a related Wikidata item. For Commons categories, article-like Wikidata items are only related, not the items that precisely matches the page. So we should perhaps be cautious about exactly how we use {{Wikidata}}.
Instead, we should perhaps come up with a more specialised template to link Categories here with Articles on wikidata and wikipedias, using the "topic's main category" property (P910) where possible. For those articles we could, for example, give the item's name as given in any language on Wikidata (once Phase 2 is enabled here, which Lydia is happy to turn on whenever we ask for it), and possibly the description in any language (need to check). Further fields could also be provided once Phase 3 is available.
Property P910 is only possible for Categories here that are linked to a category-like item on Wikidata. For reasonably current statistics, see d:Wikidata:WikiProject Structured Data for Commons/Phase 1 progress/Statistics and its talk page. Not all Commons cats currently have items, and of those not all category-items currently have values for property P910 to indicate corresponding article-items. But creating the template would be an incentive to improve this. Jheald (talk) 12:19, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Pinging @Multichill: for feed-in on this. Jheald (talk) 12:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Parking, pending advice. Looking at as an example, this shows that the Commons gallery Barack Obama already links to the Wikidata entry, yet I see no obvious template needed to do this. I suspect that any quick bot I run up would not be as efficient as other, more systematic, solutions. Smile fasdfdsfoiueire.svg -- (talk) 12:33, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
On a gallery page, we should be able to automatically pull the translation table, and a link to a wiki in the user's preferred language or best fallback, on the fly automatically from the corresponding fields on Wikidata. It just needs somebody to knock together a template, and the community to agree that it wants to roll it out. I'd volunteer, but I need to be a bit focussed on the supporting pages and materials for this at the moment. Jheald (talk) 14:52, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Here's a testpage for a very basic version of such a template: d:Template:SimpleCommonsGalleryHeader/test. On Commons the "see also" link would be prettier, cf the "see also" at the top of the gallery London currently. The text of the wikilink and description should adapt automatically to the user's current language (or preferred fallback). What else would be good to be added ? Jheald (talk) 19:33, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd be content for there to be a "Wikidata item for this category" template, specifically for categories. But to not have a link to Wikidata from categories, at all, is unhelpful, to say the least. As is waiting for a future phase of Wikidata. Andy Mabbett (talk) 22:09, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing:. There are 700,000 categories that can (currently) be tied to a Wikidata article-like item using P373. A bot running at 12 edits a minute would take 6 weeks - 40 days, more precisely - to go through them all. So we should probably work out what we want, and exactly what fields we want to be putting into any template, before starting any such bot run. Jheald (talk) 23:40, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
At least I'm not wasting anyone's time with trivial requests, then ;-) Fair enough; let's decide what we need. Andy Mabbett (talk) 20:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Rather than templates, isn't cross-linking something that could work in a similar way to global links? That is, more at a wiki database level rather than wiki page level, or is that a silly way of making it work system wide? -- (talk) 20:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
@Fae: To some extent it already does. We already have sidebar links, and clicking on the little quill at the bottom takes you to the Wikidata page. But this could certainly be made more prominent -- so there's a case for putting the link on the page; but arguably then whether and how to present such a link becomes something for the page markup code.
There's a separate issue, that some categories don't (yet) have Wikidata entries, yet relate to articles which do have a Wikidata item. So these categories need something to relate them to the article-like Wikidata item and the articles. Either that information should be stored on the page; or (better, because it can be navigated the other way as well) they should have a new category-like Wikidata item made for them, and that should be linked to the article-like Wikidata item. It's something that should bring advantages, if we can describe in machine readable form what categories represent -- ie perhaps a multiple intersection of items; or files from a particular scanning of a particular book. But with 3.5 million categories on the system, it will be quite a big task, presumably one that will need to rely heavily on some automated analysis of the category tree. Jheald (talk) 20:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Any such solution will take a significant time to develop and implement. We can start applying a template today, and if the former solution eventually happens, then the links in the templates can be converted to it. Andy Mabbett (talk) 22:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
@Fae, Pigsonthewing:. A little more on this.
If pages have a direct 1:1 link to an item on wikidata, then a "Wikidata item" link is shown in the "tools" section of the sidebar, which goes to the wikidata page of the corresponding item.
For headers of galleries that have a linked wikidata item, can I suggest an appropriate template would be something like that tested at d:Template:SimpleCommonsGalleryHeader/test (though a bit more polished), that would automatically show a category link, language-localised wikipedia link, and language-localised description. It could also be display little icons to link to wikisource, wikiquote, wikidata etc similar to the way Creator templates do at present.
That leaves headers of categories. There are two complications here: (i) most Commons categories don't have wikidata items (and it is not clear whether they should, or whether the Structured Data team will find a different place to store structured data about them); and (ii) in most cases it is relevant Wikidata articles we are interested in a template linking to, or the Reasonator page for an article-like item, not the category page.
For categories it probably is useful to store the Q-number for a wikidata item in a template. But it should probably be the Q-number for most closely related article-like item, that could then be displayed using Reasonator, rather than the Q-number for the category-like item (if any) that is directly site-linked to the page.
This is not what {{Wikidata}} does, so we should be looking for a different template, not {{Wikidata}}. Jheald (talk) 13:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
RfC now open as to whether we would like to ask for Wikidata Phase 2 now to be activated for Commons. This would allow the automated gallery-header template to be trialled and installed. Jheald (talk) 14:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


While Wikidata Phase 2 is a good thingTM, how can we move this request forward, in the meantime? Andy Mabbett (talk) 16:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: Hi Andy, thanks for cracking the whip and keeping noses to the grindstone. In my opinion, we ought to create a template {{Reasonator}}, with syntax {{Reasonator|P301=Q....}}. The template would create a right-justified patch, similar in style to en:Template:Commons category, with text "Data, and links to articles on this topic, are available on Reasonator", linking through to the Reasonator page for the corresponding wikidata article-like item.
It should be possible to roll this out to about 700,000 Commons categories.
This could be done straight away, and would not need Phase 2 wikidata for it to work. Even with Phase 2, it is about as good as we will be able to do for categories while 'arbitrary access' is unavailable. Jheald (talk) 16:07, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Why not add a Reasonator link to the existing {{Wikidata}} template? Andy Mabbett (talk) 19:28, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: The existing {{Wikidata}} template is problematic, because for a category it is not clear whether it is being used to link to one of Wikidata's category-like items, or one of Wikidata's article-like items. The reasonator template would explicitly be linking to the latter.
The existing template in any case only has 3600 transclusions, so it is not such a hardship to start again. Jheald (talk) 20:31, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
In that case, I suggest we add a parameter to the existing Wikdata template to indicate which type it's linking to. Alternatively we could survey which type the majority of the 3,600 transclusions are used for, and either make that the default with a switch for the other type; or deprecate its use for the other type. I'm keen to get this moving. Andy Mabbett (talk) 12:11, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: Update: TheDJ (talk · contribs) put together a very nice gadget at the hackathon in Amsterdam last weekend (User:TheDJ/wdcat.js), which automatically shows a template-style link to Reasonator on a category page if there is an article-like Wikidata item available without having to add a template to the page.
To try it, add importScript('User:TheDJ/wdcat.js'); to your common.js file.
Unfortunately at the moment it takes a bit too long to load, and puts a bit too much load on the WDQ server for mass usage. But that could quite likely be resolved, if a server tool were written to provide it its own specialist look-up table, rather than using the generic WDQ call. Jheald (talk) 11:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

heading= → heading:Edit

I noticed that I used "heading=" instead of "heading:" (the equal sign instead of the colon) in {{location}} template by mistake many times. This wrong format is non-functioning. As we can see, that's not only my problem. There are hundreds files (1367 pages found) which contain {{location}} or {{location dec}} with faulty format of heading parameter. Could somebody correct it by a bot? (P.S., some other occurences concern the {{Depicted place}} template which doesn't support heading parameter at all yet.) --ŠJů (talk) 00:56, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Also other atributes of this template (region:, scale:, dim:), missing underscore character between parameters etc. can be checked. --ŠJů (talk) 00:56, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Halloo! Is here somebody? --ŠJů (talk) 23:42, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I created Category:Media using Location template with incorrect parameter and will try to clean it up once it fills up a little. --Jarekt (talk) 06:00, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Remove hardcoded "See below"s in Information permission fieldEdit

Hi there. The {{Information}} template used to show the text "See below" when its Permission field was empty, as a way to point to the license. After a while, we stopped showing the empty Permission field altogether, because there was little value in the "See below". Additionally, as we're moving towards more modular ways of presenting content, we can't be sure that the license is actually "below".

However, some users have been adding "See below" manually (see examples), so we should probably get rid of those as well.

I've seen at least three different versions of the See below:

  • as plain wikitext: | Permission = See below
  • as linked wikitext: | Permission = [[#Licensing|See below]]
  • as localized template: | Permission = {{See below}}.

I recommend that we remove those to be in line with the default behavior of the {{information}} template. Guillaume (WMF) (talk) 00:19, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I recommend rather to move the license tag from bellow into the Permission field of the Information template. --ŠJů (talk) 02:19, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I will fix this. Amir (talk) 12:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm opposing ŠJů's suggestion. --Leyo 17:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Leyo, what's your ideal? Something like this?

 |description = {{See below}}
 |date = {{See below}}
 |source = {{See below}}
 |author  = {{See below}}
 |permission = {{See below}}
 |other_versions = {{See below}}

{{Information}} template is intended to organize the file description page. We should not continue with coexistence of two incompatible ways how to organize the page. Either by section titlets, or by {{Information}} template. --ŠJů (talk) 18:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

permission is for OTRS and similar. --Leyo 18:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Leyo. The current upload tools (Special:Upload, UploadWizard) all distinguish between general information and license information. What I'm suggesting here is that the files that don't conform to the current standard be made consistent. Changing the current standard is a completely different discussion. Guillaume (WMF) (talk) 23:57, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
A license is not a permission? And is not similar to OTRS permission? Oh so... UploadWizard is generally a tragedy which ignores all logic and standards and the feedback as well. It confuses camera location and object location, confuses last edit date with the shot date and the upload date, doesn't group entries logically to the Information template but shatter and scatter them chaotically around and outside etc. As long as we don't want to resolve the problem with "see bellow" phenomenon really, we should rather keep it be as it is for now. --ŠJů (talk) 23:36, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Your personal grievance with UploadWizard aside, what we're proposing here is to take files that are inconsistent with the current standard and make them consistent. This is also the standard used by the traditional Special:Upload form. One may personally disagree with the standard but that's not a reason to prevent others from applying it. Guillaume (WMF) (talk) 19:07, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
We never had an agreement as to where to place license so it either goes into "permission" field or below the {{Information}}. Both places are OK and unless you want to start WWIII I would not go about changing the choices of the uploaders. I am fine with removing {{See below}} from Permission field as it serves no purpose. --Jarekt (talk) 02:40, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Bots/Requests/Dexbot 3: once it got approved I'll start removing them. Amir (talk) 09:06, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

You can close this task as done Amir (talk) 23:39, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 08:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Adding the Information template to files that don't have itEdit

Hi again :) As part of the File metadata cleanup drive, I'm working to add the {{Information}} template to the ~700,000 files that don't have it, so that the information can be accessed easily. This is a complex undertaking, but there are small tasks we can take on to make incremental progress.

An easy group of files to start with are those like this one, whose description page basically consists of:

== {{int:filedesc}} ==

< Some description >

== {{int:license-header}} ==

{{Self| <some licence(s) }}

< categories >

In this case, it's relatively easy to add the {{Information}} template:

  • add the information template under == {{int:filedesc}} ==
  • move the existing description to the Information template's Description field
  • add the name of the uploader as the author (since it's their own work)
  • add {{own}} as the source
  • add the date from EXIF data, if available, otherwise leave blank.

This will work for only a subset of the files missing the {{Information}} template, but we have to start somewhere :) (Pinging Multichill, MGA73, Amir and Keegan per previous discussions.) Guillaume (WMF) (talk) 00:50, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I will fix this. Amir (talk) 12:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
I have been adding Category:Media missing infobox template and thinking about this issue. I was also trying to discuss it at VP, see here. I think we should use divide and conquer approach I would propose the following:
  1. Mark the files by adding them to Category:Media missing infobox template what will allow everybody to see the files.
  2. Some files likely have information template but have some syntax errors, those I try to place in Category:Pages using Information template with parsing errors
  3. I would propose to first give the original uploaders a chance to fix the files. We can do that by writing a standard message, which without any threat of deletion, ask for help whit bringing those files up to current standards. We should have one message per uploader with a list of all the files that need infoboxes. Many of the images without infobox templates are from the early days of Commons and many of those people might not be around anymore. We should also advise them on the use of VisualFileChange gadget or requesting specific tasks to be done by bots at Commons:Bots/Work requests.
  4. Many files have all the info just not in the right form, for example File:Orchis militaris flowers.jpg or File:St Germain des Prés fenêtre.jpg. We might be able to recognize some patterns used and fill {{information}} based on that.
  5. Some images were moved from wikipedia, like File:St michaelis.jpg and have no information about the photographer. we would need to look the information up on EN-WP to find the name of the original uploader.
  6. Some images imply "own" work by the uploader, like File:MaisonHonfleur1.jpg or File:Pinus pinaster female.jpg, but do not actually say it. If the files have EXIF data and templates like {{PD-self}} or {{GFDL}}, {{self}}, I think it might be OK to fill the {{Information}} with {{own}} and the name of the first uploader and the EXIF date.
  7. Some files have some home-brewed infobox templates that are not maintained or recognized
  8. Many {{PD-old}} files should use {{Artwork}} instead of {{Information}}, for example File:Leonardo da Vinci Grotesque Heads.jpg.
  9. I do not know what to do with, files like File:Ruins at Delfi.JPG. User should have been advised that he needs to send the permission to OTRS, but 10 years ago when he uploded the image OTRS mostly dealt with handling emails from the public not permissions.
Once we deal with a lot of "easy" cases we can asses what is left. --Jarekt (talk) 16:46, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Jarekt! That's a great plan. Should we discuss the details elsewhere or is here ok? Guillaume (WMF) (talk) 18:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
I would just keep the discussion here. I was trying to have this discussion on VP and Commons talk:Structured data, but nobody wanted to talk about it, so this place seems better. By the way Category:Items with OTRS permission missing infobox template seems like are distinctive enough to warrant a separate category. --Jarekt (talk) 18:58, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
My approach is to fix easy cases and evolve the script as we handle more complex cases. Amir (talk) 19:49, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Amir, I am slowly working on step #1 adding Category:Media missing infobox template and more specific subdirectories, so far I am ~5% done. You can start with those files or have your own way of generating the list of files with no infoboxes. It should not be hard as I added {{Infobox template tag}} to all infobox templates (other than {{Information}}) so any file that do not have {{Infobox template tag}} or {{Information}} is likely not to have an infobox. So maybe you want to tackle cases where author, source and possibly date and the description are present, and unambiguous to a human reader (case #4), than you can develop regexp rules to detect them and place them in the correct fields. Some of those rules can be "borrowed" from toollabs:add-information. But the bot should skip unusual cases. Many of the uploads are by the same users which might follow the same pattern and we could process few more prolific users with a custom set of rules. --Jarekt (talk) 20:37, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
ُThank you for your hints, I'll use them and probably work on case #4 Amir (talk) 21:01, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

It would also be helpful to have toollabs:add-information fixed. Currently, it occasionally destroys section headers and other parts of the code. --Leyo 17:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed; I'll reach out to Magnus and follow up here. Guillaume (WMF) (talk) 18:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I finished the script that fixes cases that they consists only language templates (example 1, example 2) Is it okay to start with them? Amir (talk) 09:01, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

That is good, however are you going to be able skip cases which are clearly not "own work", like File:FSO ok 1974r.jpg. Also Files with only language templates might have date, author, source which are not the same. Do you attempt to recognize those? --Jarekt (talk) 09:38, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
It skips when the template:Self is not used and if the language template consists several lines (instead of one). Is that enough? Amir (talk) 11:06, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
I think that limiting it to files using {{Self}} is enough. Could you also remove Category:Media missing infobox template, in case the file has it? (you might be doing it already). Thanks --Jarekt (talk) 17:11, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't remove self template. Should we remove it? Amir (talk) 21:23, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
I am sorry, I forgot : and Category:Media missing infobox template did not show up. I meant to remove that category. --Jarekt (talk) 03:30, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, It does remove them Amir (talk) 08:46, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

An example patternEdit

@Ladsgroup:@Guillaume (WMF):Last month under my "normal" account I went through and cleaned up a couple hundred file pages by hand looking for such patterns. Here's an easy(ish) test case for a bot to take on:

RHaworth has/had a bunch of old (2005/6ish) uploads that need formatting. They're pretty easy to do by hand, but even so there's still 61 files left that need completed; I did the other half by hand. The list is on this labs page. I can copy the file names over if need be. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 21:16, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

@Keegan (WMF): on File:All_Saints,_Beeston_Regis.jpg why did you put User:RHaworth as the author, when the text was clear that it is actually User:Stavros1 (Mark Hobbs)? --99of9 (talk) 23:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
@99of9: because I made a mistake there. I've fixed it, thanks for pointing it out :) Keegan (talk) 03:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Dutch wiktionary patternEdit

There are 130.000 pronounciation uploads from wiktionary on commons, a few thousand (my estimate would be around 7000-15000) don't have information templates. Most of these are uploaded with the same pattern. There are uploads by different uploaders with different patterns. In this edit I change the filedescription of a file by GerardM (which have similar patterns), the description was created by me (but could be generated based on the title. The words "eigen opname" (meaning: own recording) are added in slightly different formats, besides that there is not really a lot of info on the images. This one might be an easy one to add templates to and also a pretty big one. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 00:13, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

In smaller numbers this holds for other languages as well (en, pt I've seen). Mvg, Basvb (talk) 12:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
I will fix this for Dutch pronunciations by the weekend Amir (talk) 02:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

9154 files of Dutch pronunciations didn't have Information template. Now 8588 more files have it (so 566 still needs to be fixed. I'll do that too) Amir (talk) 05:37, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Nice work, with those numbers we can work very well! Mvg, Basvb (talk) 11:28, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


A list of books (with more than 100 files) which have no infobox template and could probably use some automated adding of the book-template. Most books have a few hundred pages and thus we are looking at a few hundred files per listed book. Basvb (talk) 00:17, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I can finish the Book categories. I have a system going that adds book templates with unique page numbers so you can page through the files. The only slow down is that I am creating book templates and often creator templates as I go. --Jarekt (talk) 20:28, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
✓ Done That was a good find and since all the files already use Template:LA2-NSRW, it was also easy to fix. --Jarekt (talk) 05:02, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I can do those, since I have some script for adding page numbers so one can page through the book, but I would appreciate help with the book templates, like {{L'Odyssée}} or {{Nietzsche's Werke, III}}, since they are the most time consuming especially since I do not speak any of the languages. --Jarekt (talk) 05:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I can do the templates in a few days. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 12:01, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Btw, is there any fix for the fact that all (or a lot) books with booktemplates end up in Category:Files with no machine-readable source and Category:Files with no machine-readable author? Basvb (talk) 12:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Template:L'Ile des Pingouins is done (I'll add them to the relevant lines of the books from here on). Basvb (talk) 14:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Smiley.svg Thank you --Jarekt (talk) 18:13, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! I've also left a message to the French Wikisource community to see if they can help to create the book templates. Guillaume (WMF) (talk) 18:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
@Guillaume (WMF): Thank you, althought my French is limited exactly to the understanding of book covers. I've a question, is it possible to generate from the data about files without infobox which users have uploaded a lot of files (let's take over 100) or a lot of files in one category? This would help a lot in finding books like these and other patterns which can be fixed easily. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 21:13, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Basvb: Sorry for the delay on this; I'm still new to SQL queries, so it took me a little time. The list you asked for is now available and I'll set it up to be refreshed every day. You might want to download the file to your computer to avoid encoding errors if you open it in your browser. I see familiar names in the list, like MarcBot (used for many of the books discussed above) and G.dallorto (that you mentioned below), so I'm reasonably confident that it's what you're after. Let me know if I can do anything else! Guillaume (WMF) (talk) 01:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Guillaume (WMF): Thank you very much, that makes it much easier to search for the big fish, which will save the people who work on this file by file a lot of work. If we for example fix all files of uploaders with over 1000 uploads (without infobox) than we have the first 200k done. About the anything else, I indeed had another idea, depending on how hard it is a good way to find similar uploads is when the lists are sortable on uploaddate, but I can be busy with the this uploader list for a while. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 09:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Basvb: I've made another query. You can now download a list of the files missing machine-readable metadata, grouped by user, and with the timestamp. Warning: this is a ~40 MB text file so some browsers may have issues with it. I suggest you download it to your computer and open it with a spreadsheet application, so you can reorder the content more easily. For example, I imagine that you could select all the files from a given user, and reorder them by upload date to see if there are patterns. The file isn't being updated for now, but I can set it up if you think it would be useful. Guillaume (WMF) (talk) 19:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Guillaume (WMF): Thank you, now I can get to the regexfixing. Update of the file is not really needed (until a big chunk is done). Mvg, Basvb (talk) 20:31, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

When I saw Guillaume's message on WS, I came here to see what I could do to help. I haven't check all these books, but the 1st one I looked (Category:Lettres de mon moulin), there is already a DjVu file from this same book edition: s:fr:Fichier:Daudet - Lettres de mon moulin.djvu... what is the usual procedure when we come around this kind of thing on Commons? is it considered as a duplicate? Thanks. --Ernest-Mtl (talk) 02:23, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The DJVU Lettres de mon moulin file is misplaced in Wikisource, and has to be uploaded in Commons. There is a number of JPG book pages, such as Gustave Flaubert Category:Bouvard et Pécuchet, Category:L'Éducation sentimentale, Category:Madame Bovary, duplicates of DJVU; now Wikisource uses the DJVU and the JPG are no more useful. --Wuyouyuan (talk) 13:47, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I do not think we have a policy on that but I am inclined to let the old files stay and the book template we use for them can be reused for the DjVu files, as I did with files in Category:Encyclopédie – Planches V1–9 (pages assemblées, DJVU). --Jarekt (talk) 03:19, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I just realized you are talking about the case of some files on Commons which are the same as files on french wikisource. That is quite puzzling why is french wikisource hosting local files? Either way we are not going to delete our copy just because one of the projects has a local copy, and we still would try to add metadata to our copy. --Jarekt (talk) 03:27, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
The reason why I was asking the question is that we are actually moving all those files to commons. Some files from the early days of the projects were simply uploaded to WS. Furthermore, the quality of the djvu scans are a lot better than the jpg in the case of Lettres de mon moulin and I would, personaly, find it a waste of space to keep individual jpgs of a book that can be accessed in djvu, especially that the djvu format here on commons allows people to save individual pages into jpgs on their computer if they can't open a djvu file... That's the reason why I was asking what was the procedure here, before doing something that would not have been considered correct. If someone is to waste time on these 200 some jpgs files, it won't be me as I consider these files useless duplicates. --Ernest-Mtl (talk) 15:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
In such a case once the DjVu file is copied you should nominate the jpegs for deletion as poorer quality duplicates. --Jarekt (talk) 15:16, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, except when the JPEG are not easily available. That was (is?) the case for the Encyclopédie files. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Over 500 images by G.dallortoEdit

There are over 500 images by G.dallorto without information templates which have some basic pattern, dates in exif-data and mainly have a self-license. Seems like a pattern which could be matched. Example edit: here (media missing information template cat should also be removed). Basvb (talk) 00:30, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

My bot will fix this pattern and similar. I'm waiting for approval. Amir (talk) 18:58, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
✓ Done Amir (talk) 12:29, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
A lot of files in Category:Società Umanitaria (Milan) aren't done yet. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 19:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
their pattern was a little bit different, my bot fixes them too now and it finishes them soon Amir (talk) 19:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I see now that this user has images with a lot of different patterns (just heavily active) thus processing all of those by both isn't really suitable, it'll just be part of other botbatches if it fits. Thus lets close this request. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 22:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Category work neededEdit

Category:Images from the Veikkos Archive – needing category checks has a backlog of some 13,000 files. I have come across a number of them that have a redundant category. Is a bot able to do the following:

  • If Category:Sealing stamps of LOCATION and Category:LOCATION both exist then remove Category:LOCATION only if Category:Sealing stamps of LOCATION exists (LOCATION is a variable)
  • If the preceding is true then remove Category:Images from the Veikkos Archive – needing category checks

This would save a lot of time for us human editors. Regards. Alan Liefting (talk) 19:00, 20 December 2014 (UTC)