User talk:Daniel78/Archive/2012

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hagia-Sophia-Laengsschnitt.jpg

The bot keeps closing it. Can you tell him not to do it? Tomer T (talk) 22:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

This an old nomination that was reopneed, the bot does not support it. You need to create a new one to avoid that. /Daniel78 (talk) 07:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not my nomination. But I'm sick of deleting your bot edit. Don't you have any "no-bot" template that tells the bot not to touch? Tomer T (talk) 15:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

no there is no such template. Otherwise feel free to make one and I can add it. I suggest it contains the user who added it and a reason string as parameters. The other option as I said is to create a new nomination and not reopen old ones. /Daniel78 (talk) 06:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it will contribute much if I'll be the one creating the template. The "hard" part is implementing the "no-botting" in code. Anyhow, I copied the nomination to this page. Tomer T (talk) 15:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't notice there was an old nomination. I just followed the instructions on the FPC main page and it created this page for me, with nothing but the standard content. -- H005 20:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The same thing applies to Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Kohrvirab.jpg, which the bot keeps closing as well. The page was created but the picture not nominated in the past (it was not added to the nominations page). The voting actually began yesterday, but the bot keeps tagging it and interfering with people voting. Maybe it would be more efficient if closing the nominations were done by hand rather than the bot, as there are a few false positives? 72.129.75.155 16:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

If someone creates the template as mentioned above I can try to add support for that in the bot - seems like the cleanest solution to me. Disabling the bot closing does not seem like a good idea if this only happen in these rare cases. /Daniel78 (talk) 16:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the primary responsibility to prevent a bot from faulty behavior (especially if it repeatedly continues to do it) runs with the botrunner. I did create a new nomination template now, which hides all the previous history of the page (which wouldn't have been the ideal solution). But if you can't create a template to prevent the bot from faulty behavior, I think the best solution would be to at least monitor the changes it makes and revert the wrong ones. After a few days into voting, I don't know how many votes the bot has prevented from being cast by repeatedly closing the discussion. Chaojoker (talk) 19:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the simpler solution would be to have created a new nomination. I have no time to keep monitoring all changes by the bot, if it goes bad I can turn it off or an admin can block it. If the community wants something fixed they are free to do so, the source is available. I am happy to help out when I have time, but have no responsibility to do so. /Daniel78 (talk) 19:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

information about FPC nominations for authors

Hello, I'm not sure if I'm right here or if I better should propose the following at the FPC talk. Would it technically be possible to inform authors by your bot about a FPC nomination? (of course, only those authors who have an account on Commons) Or has this idea already been discussed before and rejected? If an image is nominated at FPC by somebody else than the author, he doesn't take notice of the candidature as long as the nominator (or somebody else) does inform him activly. As I understood the FPC system it is quite welcomed if candidate images are optimized during the vote period. In my opinion it would be fair in comparison to self nominated candidates to let all authors know about a candidature of one of their pics. The (not self nominating) author only gets automatically informed - by his watch list - if an image is indeed featured, but he eventually never hears of a rejected FPC. Thus he can't learn what to make better next time. --Martina talk 22:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, it might be hard to do it 100% correct as the author and the uploader might not be the same person. Finding the author if it's not the same as the uploader would need parsing of the image description page and some guessing as to who is the author there. But notifying the uploader in the cases where it's not the same as the nominator should not be very hard to add. But I think it should also be proposed at FPC talk before it's actually added. /Daniel78 (talk) 20:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Informing the uploader would already be great imo. I'll post it at FPC talk. --Martina talk 22:48, 7 March 2012 (UTC) now done --Martina talk 23:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello again, there's no voice against my proposal. It woold be fine if you'd install a bot-notification to uploaders. Thanks a lot. --Martina talk 16:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, sorry for taking time, but I will try to add this soonish. /Daniel78 (talk) 09:37, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

No problem, we all are volunteers and have other things to do. Thank you a lot for caring about this. --Martina talk 13:54, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

User:FPCBot

Hi, I was wondering if you would be interested in adjusting the bot. I have modified the {{Assessments}} parameters so that they are more human readable. |com=1 parameter became |featured=1 parameter. Both com and featured parameters do the same thing but I eventually want to phase out the old "com" parameter if that is alright with you.

There is no hurry so I would be more than pleased to wait if you are busy, :)

-- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 05:20, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Seeemed like a quick fix so I have added it. See commit here. /Daniel78 (talk) 09:22, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I am also considering merging wallpaper assessment into the assessments template which had been implemented in it for the past 4 years. Is the {{Wallpaper}} assessment commonly used? I do not see it that often.

I don't know much about that, at least the bot does not do anything with it. /Daniel78 (talk) 07:30, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Also would you be interested in coding and running a bot that checks local wikis for their FP status (to promote/demote). Often cases the page name is a problem since for instance English wikipedia almost never uses filename as the vote page.

-- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 16:50, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Daniel. There seems to be a problem with the "subpage" parameter in the new version of the template. See here. Tomer T (talk) 21:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Hm yes, so seems that the template has removed that parameter. By the documentation I did not get what the replacement is. It mentions that "You can change the nomination subpage using xxwiki-nom=Xxx", but among the xx there seem to be no value for commons. Any idea what should be used now ? /Daniel78 (talk) 07:30, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I tried myself to find a different parameter and didn't manage. What I did in necessary cases was creating a redirect page... Tomer T (talk) 09:54, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I notified the person that have been updating the template (here). /Daniel78 (talk) 10:23, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Subpage was used? I replaced all instances of "subpage" with "com-nom" as in commons nomination. I thought I had notified you, sorry about this.

Just an FYI, Category:Assessment tagged pages that need review should display all possible problems when they happen. It seems like a 3rd image was having problems after the file was renamed. This may be a reoccurring issue.

-- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 18:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

New voting template for FPCbot

Hi Daniel!
This new template was used several times now, please add to FPCbot processing:

•  Weak oppose - {{weak oppose}}
  

With best regards, George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:12, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I have added it now. /Daniel78 (talk) 07:19, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

...and "weak support". Tomer T (talk) 17:14, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

That is already there. /Daniel78 (talk) 22:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Question by newbie on featured picture candidates

Hi Daniel, hope you dont mind me leaving a question for you on your talk page. I am new to Wikicommons and Wikipedia and have recently nominated a selection of pictures which some have achieved QI. I recently nominated a picture for featured picture which all was going well and closed with 4 support, 2 oppose and 1 neutral, but the picture was not promoted. Can you tell me please why this was not given featured award having mostly supporting votes. Many thanks for your help, All help and guidance is greatly appreciated and helps my learning curve. I have also just found that the picture has been re nominated by another user only half a day of my nomination closing on this picture, they have slightly edited it and re nominated it. I feel a little disappointed by this, is this allowed can you tell me please?? --Danesman1 (talk) 20:40, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Danesman. The reason why your picture was not featured was that it did not meet the criteria for being featured. In short what is needed are at least 7 support votes and two thirds majority of support votes. You can see all the info at Commons:FPC. About editing images on commons you are allowing that by the license of your image. I would say that on wikimedia commons editing and improving images is not just allowed but even encouraged if there is a flaw that can be corrected. /Daniel78 (talk) 10:12, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Early closes with only one support vote

FPCBot improperly closed Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Gruppo del Brenta 01.JPG early due to its having only one support vote. When applying the five-day quick-fail rule, it should check for zero support other than the nominator, and not one support, as the nominator may not support their own nomination. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:58, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, true the bot only check for support vote. Not who made it. I added it as an issue here. Will look at it when I get time. /Daniel78 (talk) 07:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

FPCBot tossing bird images in random sections on Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds

I'm not sure if this can be traced back to a user, but many images have been placed in incorrect sections by FPCBot on Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds. Albatrosses are not in the seagull family, for example. I'm sure there'd be many other errors if I had the time to check. JJ Harrison (talk) 03:32, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

You would have to check the history of changes to that page to see who moved it into the wrong subcategory. From what I can see the bot did not do anything wrong, it would just put the image in the unsorted section in the bottom of the page. Then someone has manually moved it up into the wrong section. Perhaps you could use some tool such as this to search through the revisions: http://wikipedia.ramselehof.de/wikiblame.php. /Daniel78 (talk) 10:15, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

FPCBot: Plants and Fungi

Hi Daniel. I noticed that for some time, but just now I'm writing about it: the FPCBot is inserting images to appropriate categories in Commons:FP, except of Plants and Fungi - this section is not updated by the bot. Can it be fixed? Tomer T (talk) 10:44, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Tomer, I can't investigate until monday, but can you give me an example of an image that did not go there and I can try to check the logs. /Daniel78 (talk) 10:53, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

You can see the pictures in Commons:Featured pictures/Fungi, Commons:Featured pictures/Plants and Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Flowers. They are inserted there, but not to Commons:FP. Tomer T (talk) 14:46, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I could not immediately see what is going wrong though. Manually trying the regexps seem to produce the expected results. But I lack some info from the log so have added some new messages there to see if I get some more info from future runs. /Daniel78 (talk) 15:10, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Featured picture candidates

How much pros are needed to be featuered as Excellent photograph? --Frze (talk) 13:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Name of subpage argument in {{Assessments}} template for the case of alternatives needs adjustment in FPCBot

Hi Daniel,

I recently got an image promoted to FP in a nomination that had alternatives, the promoted file did not have the same name as the original FPC subpage. This resulted in this edit on the file page with a rendering of the Assessments template indicating an error. The bot had tagged the image with

{{Assessments|featured=1|subpage=File:Nørre Vorupør Coast 2012-11-18.jpg}}

However, subpage is not a recognised argument of this template. So I changed it manually to

{{Assessments|featured=1|com-nom=Nørre Vorupør Coast 2012-11-18.jpg}}

which appears to work. When time permits for you, maybe you can adjust the code accordingly?

Besides that, I think the Bot is  Awesome! . It doing a great job every day and is a steady and reliable work horse saving a lot of manual, error-prone and boring work.

Best wishes, --Slaunger (talk) 20:31, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

FPCBot

Hi,

It seems like FPCBot has a bug when handling set files as discussed on my talk page. If you have the time, please take a look. :)

I have extended the {{Assessments}} template to handle sets so FPCs could have the names: Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:foo or Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:foo or Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set:foo where "Set:" is new.

Also, the template in all three cases is looking for "foo" dropping everything before the : so the bot shouldn't link to the full page name so that is another bug I believe.

-- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 23:31, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I've created a standard format for set nominations. They'll list all files between <gallery> tags, and とある白い猫 and I are working out the details of how to mark the noms (but I suspect we'll end up standardising to Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/[Nomination name] as that's the only way we've come up with so far to be able to do something useful with [Nomination name] easily)

Gallery tags can list File:Foobar.jpg in any of the following ways:

<gallery> Foobar.jpg|description </gallery> <gallery> File:Foobar.jpg|description </gallery> <gallery> Image:Foobar.jpg|description </gallery> <gallery> Foobar.jpg </gallery> <gallery> File:Foobar.jpg </gallery> <gallery> Image:Foobar.jpg </gallery>

In all cases, <gallery> will likely be something slightly more complex, such as <gallery widths=400px heights=500px rows=1> so it'd be best to ignore everything between <gallery and the final >.

There may be any number of files between the tags. There will likely be comment tags ( <!-- comment --&gt> ) inside the gallery tags.

I suspect you know most of this, but, as someone who dabbles in code, I know that it's useful to have everything listed. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

FPC Bot died

FPCBot missed his 7AM round, and his 15PM round as well. Something happened? Béria Lima ^msg 15:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I did a manual run now and it seemed to work. Possibly there were simply no changes to be made earlier, but I have not followed the candidates for a while - is it something it should have done ?

I also see I have several messages about the bot here from other people, I have not much spare time over for the bot but I'll try to take a look when I get time. And it's of course fine to submit patches to the code if needed, it's on github and linked to from the bot page. /Daniel78 (talk) 12:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The bot is working perfectly fine :D It had only missed the round, and i was not sure if was because you stopped him for some reason, or because Toolserver died in some way. It had a couple of nominations to close, but I did it manually (and now i love your bot even more) until know what had happened :D I also saw he running today, so all is good again :D but thanks anyway! :D Béria Lima ^msg 21:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

PS.: Sorry in advance if you hate barnstar ;)

Thanks a lot, I am happy the bot is useful :) /Daniel78 (talk) 08:23, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Technical Barnstar
	For having created one of the most useful bots in Commons, the FPCBot, I give you this barnstar! Béria Lima msg 21:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

FPCbot results

Please have a look: In at least two recent FPC's (that and this one), the bot did not count one valid oppose vote each, leading to wrong promotion. The support votes are being taken into account correctly so far. Thanks --A.Savin 23:34, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

See Pine's votes: they're probably the reason (he uses "subst:"). Tomer T (talk) 21:54, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

And this is one of the reasons why we have a human checkpoint in the promotion process. It would not be reasonable for the bot to also look for subst'ed templates. --Slaunger (talk) 22:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, my God... yes, that was certainly the reason ;) A.Savin 22:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)