Commons:Bots/Requests

This page in other languages: English | 日本語 | +/−

Shortcut COM:BRFA

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

If you want to run a bot on Commons, you must get permission first. To do so, file a request following the instructions below.

Please read Commons:Bots before making a request for bot permission.

I	Create a user account (while logged in to your normal account) and user page for the bot On the bot's userpage, add {{bot}}, which automatically adds the page to Category:Commons bots. Then add the following information to the bot's userpage (all this is mandatory): Who the creator/operator is and how they can best be contacted Details of the bot's task or tasks Whether the bot is manually assisted or runs automatically When it operates (continuously, intermittently, or at specified intervals) The bot's maximum edit rate (eg edits per minute) The language and/or program that it is running
II	Create your bot request: Replace "YourBotName" with your bot's username in the box below and click the button. Complete the questions on the resulting page and save it. Remember that your bot will be allowed to operate only for those tasks that you have specified in your request. Add your bot request to the list here: Edit the following request list, adding the following text to the top of the appropriate section (replacing "YourBotName" with your bot's name): {{Commons:Bots/Requests/YourBotName}}
III	Test run Make a short test run with your bot account (30-50 edits/uploads) to allow other users to review your bot's tasks.
IV	Waiting for approval. You now need to wait for community approval. A bureaucrat will close the request and will also grant a bot flag, where necessary. Closed requests are moved to Commons:Bots/Archive.

Archives List all Requests

Requests made on this page are automatically transcluded in Commons:Requests and votes for wider comment.

Bot Name	Bot Operator	Request Created	Request Status
HuskyBot (T|C|B|F)	User:Husky	4 February 2014	Open
GifTagger (T|C|B|F)	User:McZusatz	27 January 2014	On hold
NeechalBOT (T|C|B|F)	User:Neechalkaran	26 October 2013	Open
YiFeiBot (11) (T|C|B|F)	User:Zhuyifei1999	6 October 2013	Open
SpreadthesignBot (T|C|B|F)	User:Spreadthesign	1 October 2013	Open
Fundación Joaquín Díaz (T|C|B|F)	User:-jem-	2 October 2013	On hold
LibraryBot (T|C|B|F)	User:Andrew Gray	2 October 2013	Open
VacioBot (T|C|B|F)	User:vacio	27 September 2013	Open
Hazard-Bot (13) (T|C|B|F)	User:Hazard-SJ	24 August 2013	Open
SamoaBot (4) (T|C|B|F)	User:Ricordisamoa	6 July 2013	Open
SamoaBot (2) (T|C|B|F)	User:Ricordisamoa	26 March 2013	Open

Edit the summary table

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.

UN OCHA maps bot (talk · contribs)Edit

Operator: Jeremyb (talk · contributions · Number of edits: · recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · SUL)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: uploading maps to category:Maps by United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs

Automatic or manually assisted: supervised (automatic)

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

Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute): 2/min ?

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): Y (if you think it should be)

Programming language(s): python

Jeremyb (talk) 21:03, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

• Please make a test run with about 10-20 uploads. odder (talk) 21:05, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• Already working on the test. --Jeremyb (talk) 21:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

HuskyBot (talk · contribs)Edit

Operator: Husky (talk · contributions · Number of edits: · recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · SUL)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: tasks mostly related to my Commons:GLAM activities as Wikipedian in Residence such as batch renaming categories, uploading images, etc. For now i'll focus on moving images from Category:Royal Library, The Hague to Category:Koninklijke Bibliotheek and Category:Media_contributed_by_Koninklijke_Bibliotheek

Automatic or manually assisted: Automatic

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

Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute): 10?

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): Y

Programming language(s): Python, Pywikipedia

Husky ^{(talk to me)} 12:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

• Could you please use links to categories in edit summaries? I think will be good idea to create template for all images created by library and add Category:Media contributed by Koninklijke Bibliotheek there. Please also perform test runs for other tasks. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:50, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, i realised later on that it would make more sense to add the Template:Koninklijke Bibliotheek instead of the category directly. I'll fix that. I'll also add an edit summary. Thanks. Husky ^{(talk to me)} 09:56, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
• G'day Hay, nice to bump into you again. Can you clarify the copyright situation of files like File:Sierpapier_(8074158775).jpg for me? From the description it looks like the artwork was done in 1991? If so, does the library really have the authority to license it? --99of9 (talk) 03:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Hey 99of9. Good question, i'll figure that out. Husky ^{(talk to me)} 09:56, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Sigh.. apparently CC-BY-SA was set for all photos in the KB Flickr stream, even for photographs that were still under copyright. I will go through the category and check which photos are PD and which are not. Husky ^{(talk to me)} 12:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
      • Thanks. I'm glad I asked! --99of9 (talk) 13:41, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

GifTagger (talk · contribs)Edit

Operator: McZusatz (talk · contributions · Number of edits: · recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · SUL)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought:

1. Tagging static GIFs with {{PNG}}
2. (if 1.) Cleanup per Commons:Bots/Requests/YaCBot

Automatic or manually assisted: Automatic

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

Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute): less than 12

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): Would be helpful, I guess.

Programming language(s): Java

McZusatz (talk) 17:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

Is there a community consensus for doing this? Should we really tag each and every gif with a message that requests a re-upload as PNG? I'd think that only a tiny fraction of GIFs would benefit from this (if any). I don't think there is much benefit of just converting a GIF to a PNG. The big PNG feature - alpha transparency - will be unused, unless the image is recreated from scratch (or from a source that has alpha transparency). Maybe I'm missing something... --Dschwen (talk) 17:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

There are some reasons which favor PNG:

1. Better thumbnails
   C.f. thumb on the right; GIF thubnails are often pixelated due to the 'palette-effect'
2. Smaller size
   GIF files tend to be larger than PNG
3. Easier editing/"Lossless" editing
   Someone may want to edit those files. Surely the editor prefers a 24-bit palette over the 8-bit GIF-palette without uploading a new PNG derivative file before or after his edit by fiddling with (partly) broken tools such as UpWiz or DerivativeFX. Also you can not apply most filters to indexed palettes which results in a lossy process: Palette -> 24 bit -> Apply filter -> another? Palette
   However, the conversion from GIF to PNG is lossless and also the transparency, if present, does not get lost. (PNG supports 8-bit transparency in contrast to GIF's 1-bit transparency.)

--McZusatz (talk) 18:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the detailed response. I was not aware that the GIFs thumbnail so terribly (why doesn't MW just generate PNG thumbs?). --Dschwen (talk) 18:39, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

How hard would it be for a bot to do the conversion, upload the png, link them in other_versions, (and bonus points: replace mainspace usage)? (rather than just tagging) --99of9 (talk) 03:49, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it would be too hard. Mainspace usage replacement could be delegated to existing bots and upload and conversion should only take marginally longer than an edit to the file page. --Dschwen (talk) 03:56, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

---

 On hold I will modify the bot to do the conversion right away. --McZusatz (talk) 16:44, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

NeechalBOT (talk · contribs)Edit

Operator: Neechalkaran (talk · contributions · Number of edits: · recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · SUL)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: Transfer images from local wiki to commons and upload image to commons similar like CommonsHelper

Automatic or manually assisted: Manually assisted

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

Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute): 4

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): Y

Programming language(s): Google Apps Script

Neechalkaran (talk) 05:10, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

Could you please elaborate on images review policies? Who will categorize transferred images?

Looks like more work on license in needed.For example, for File:Female neelgai 1 gir 2006 karthick.jpg - source image doesn't have public domain tag, Creative Commons tags are duplicated. File:Spectrum-ta.png misses reference to source image(s).

EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:42, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

The images which are all ready to transfer from local wiki to commons are transferred. These images are finalized by local community wiki. example in Tamil Category:Transferable Images for commons. Duplication of creative commons tags like {{GFDL}}{{cc-by-sa-all}} will be avoided accordingly with original licence henceforth. I will add a source as From ta:பகுப்பு:Wikipedia license migration candidates. File:Spectrum-ta.png is my own derivative work, so I gave direct licence instead of localwiki. Please let me know if any corrections needs to be made on it further--Neechalkaran (talk) 16:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Dear EugeneZelenko, Please refer latest uploads where I have modified the corrections.--Neechalkaran (talk) 00:55, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Who will do the categorization once the files are on Commons? --99of9 (talk) 03:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

The newspaper File:Tamil_Harijan.jpg is probably not written by ta:User:அரிஅரவேலன், so it appears that not all the license tags are correct. Perhaps I have misunderstood, but if not, perhaps the ta-wp reviewers could be asked to check the licenses. --99of9 (talk) 03:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

YiFeiBot (talk · contribs) (11)Edit

Operator: Zhuyifei1999 (talk · contributions · Number of edits: · recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · SUL)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: Get rid of a invisible character (Unicode 200e) in files description pages (mainly category links) as requested in Commons:Bots/Work_requests#Unvisible_controll_characters_in_category_tags.

Automatic or manually assisted: automatic unsupervised

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

Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute): 6 edit per minute

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): N

Programming language(s): pywikipedia

Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 13:22, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

• Test ran at [1] --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 13:22, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

  I think will be good idea to use Unicode code(s) in edit summaries. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:28, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

   Done --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 03:50, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

  Carefully with removing from Hebrew and Arabic texts! Isn't it the only place where the characters are needful? --ŠJů (talk) 11:53, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

   Fixed now replace iff the previous character is neither an RTL character nor U+064f. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 10:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• Check also the characters manually removed here: [2],[3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. Tab characters (?) which impede to recognize the monument ID. --ŠJů (talk) 02:31, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

  Not sure about this. Tabs can be useful in some way. Also the tab is included in regular expression character class \s, so regexes can filter it out. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 03:50, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

  My third (not particularly informed) opinion is to remove the tab characters. I don't see how they're useful in template parameters. --99of9 (talk) 04:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

SpreadthesignBot (talk · contribs)Edit

Operator: User:Spreadthesign

See Commons:Batch_uploading/Spread_the_sign. For upload project

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: The bot will upload about 50 000 films of signs in 16 different languages.

Automatic or manually assisted: Automatic, unsupervised

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

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

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): Y

Programming language(s): PHP

Spreadthesign (talk) 12:42, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

• Please make a test run. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:42, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

• I take it that File:Bho-make+a+reservation-spreadthesign-9982.ogv is an example. One comment so far - please can you expand the descriptions like this? Go ahead with more test uploads so that we can spot potential patterns of issues for improvement. --99of9 (talk) 01:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Fundación Joaquín Díaz (talk · contribs)Edit

Operator: -jem- (talk · contributions · Number of edits: · recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · SUL) (Board member of Wikimedia España)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: Upload and tag ~3500 images associated to Fundación Joaquín Díaz. Project supported by Wikimedia España.

Automatic or manually assisted: Automatic

Edit type (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): Upload mentioned images, description and categorization.

Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute): Depends on the weight of each image

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): Y (Temporary, ~1 month. At the end we will request removal of the flag.)

Programming language(s): Programmed using PHP and using as base w:es:User:Jembot.

• Alan ^(talk) 22:34, 2 October 2013 (UTC) (As member of Wikimedia España)
• Rastrojo _(D•ES) 22:36, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
• -jem- (talk) 22:42, 2 October 2013 (UTC) (operator and base code programmer; Wikimedia España member)

DiscussionEdit

• I think will be good idea to reflect author information in image descriptions. Do you need OTRS status too? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:44, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi. If possible, yes. (also temporary). --Alan ^(talk) 19:46, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

@Alan: Are the bot flag and the OTRS flag still required for this task? I see that the bot has over 2,700 edits, and a lot of uploads, so I think we can mark this as resolved? Apologies for the belated reply. odder (talk) 10:25, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

@Odder yes, but only bot flag. No longer need the OTRS flag. Cheers, Alan ^(talk) 11:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

@Alan, @-jem-: Thanks; I just had a look at five most recently uploaded pictures and have a few questions:

1. Have you managed to fix the encoding problems visible on this page?

See bugzilla:57052. --Alan ^(talk) 13:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

@Alan: I'll take it as a yes, then :-) odder (talk) 14:34, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

1. Could you automatically add all pictures uploaded through this bot to Category:All medias supported by Wikimedia España; I see that Diego has been adding it manually to those pictures I checked. (Note: this category might need to be renamed; media is the plural form for medium, but you might want to use files; anyway I digress a bit.)

Media -> Multimedia (synonymous). --Alan ^(talk) 12:50, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

@Alan: Apologies for not being clear enough; what I meant is that media should be used as a plural form for medium (rather than medias; see Wiktionary). This is, however, nothing that blocks this request, merely a sidenote. odder (talk) 14:34, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

1. I also note that the aforementioned picture (and probably others as well) does not have any data inside the | Date = parameter; if that's because Fundación Joaquín Díaz does not have that information, please use | Date = {{unknown|date}}.

   This also needs to be fixed in those pictures already uploaded; I see that some of them include dates, but the bot did not recognize it, so it might need to be fixed manually.

2. Could you please upload additional five pictures so we can make sure everything is in order? Thanks :-) odder (talk) 12:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘

Ping: Rastrojo

@Odder For 3 last points, it's better wait to respond by Rastrojo. --Alan ^(talk) 14:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Odder, just to clarify things on my side: As you can see in Bugzilla, finally the task was requested there and I just provided the data to use for the descriptions, not the bot code nor operation. After not just the encoding problem, but the point that things aren't checked after the first upload (as I would have done, of course), I think I'll take care personally in the future. What is missing is an «upgrade» to better resolution versions of the same pictures, and a verification of the license status for each one; everything is pending further contacts between Rastrojo and Fundación Joaquín Díaz, and then we (that is, I) could add that category after consensus about the name, and the date parameter (the received data was quite chaotic; there were some dates, but sometimes in one field, sometimes in another; sometimes it wasn't clear if it was the date the picture was taken, or the postcard was bought, or arrived to the Fundación... I just fixed the most important and visible problems, even if it wasn't my task; the data problems must be discussed with the Fundación, too). If I take over, I'll try my best that things are arranged properly, but I'm also considering to do all the work with my bot account, Jembot, and request the bot flag for it, as I was planning to do it in the future anyway, and I like things to be "clear". So, for the moment, this thread should be "on hold" until Rastrojo is back (I think he's having University examinations) and we decide how to proceed. Sorry for any inconveniences. -jem- (talk) 13:08, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

@-jem-: No inconvenience caused, and thank you for the clarification. I agree we should put this request on hold until Rastrojo can comment on it. odder (talk) 13:45, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi guys, I'm back. I would say that the preferable option is just to keep this request on "stand-by" for a while (I have to contact again Fundación Joaquín Díaz in order to get full resolution scans of the already uploaded pics... and this will take a couple of months). Sorry for these troubles. Best, Rastrojo _(D•ES) 23:24, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

LibraryBot (talk · contribs)Edit

Operator: Andrew Gray (talk · contributions · Number of edits: · recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · SUL)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought:

• Updating metadata on images previously uploaded by the same bot, or metadata on other material from the British Library (those using {{British Library image}} and related templates)

In the immediate case, this is to fix a trivial error in the template for the recent Ordnance Survey Drawings upload (I got a lat/lon pair mixed up and didn't realise until too late).

In the long run, I would like to use it to make similar small corrections to the metadata in {{British Library image}} and elsewhere to make sure that the links to original images and catalogue records are correct and consistent. However, I'm happy to put in a second request for this.

Automatic or manually assisted:

• Automatic (manually-triggered) but the first edits in each batch would be run manually to check for glitches.

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

• One time runs as and when needed (probably infrequent)

Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute): Can be throttled as required, but would probably run ~4/minute unless requested otherwise.

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): No.

Programming language(s): Standard pywikipedia bot framework.

Andrew Gray (talk) 22:17, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

• Please make a test run for each kind of task. Please use language templates for each non numeric/ID field in image descriptions. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:46, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
• @Andrew Gray: I see that the bot is used to upload new files; is there anything that we can do to close this request? Have you implemented the suggestions @EugeneZelenko proposed? odder (talk) 22:54, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

VacioBot (talk · contribs)Edit

Operator: Vacio (talk · contributions · Number of edits: · recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · SUL)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: Adding/moving/creating categories, especially for WLM images

Automatic or manually assisted: Automatic with pywikibot (already 30k+ edits in hywiki)

Edit type (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): In September/October: probably daily, otherwise: occasional

Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute): 20

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): Y

Programming language(s): pywikibot

vacio 07:28, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

• Please go ahead and run ~50 test edits. --99of9 (talk) 14:22, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for the delay... Now that I am trying to make edits with pywiki, I can't and I get this message:

Getting 45 pages from commons:commons...

WARNING: Token not found on commons:commons. You will not be able to edit any page.

Received incomplete XML data. Sleeping for 15 seconds...

It seems that Commons does not allow me to make bot edits with VacioBot. Maybe this is because I had limited time to make those 50 edits? --vacio 20:37, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Maybe you haven't run login.py? --99of9 (talk) 23:09, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

• @Vacio: Is there anything that we can help you with to close this request? Are you still needing the flag for your work on categorizing pictures from Wiki Loves Monuments? odder (talk) 22:48, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Hazard-Bot (talk · contribs) [13]Edit

Operator: Hazard-SJ (talk · contributions · Number of edits: · recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · SUL)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: Flickr uploads

Automatic or manually assisted: Automatic

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

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

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): No

Programming language(s): Python

The primary task of this request is for Flickr uploads. See here for the first planned request (code).  Hazard-SJ  ✈  20:43, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

• Uploads have been made for a trial.  Hazard-SJ  ✈  00:13, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

  Please enclose Author field in language template. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:47, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

  Done in this change.  Hazard-SJ  ✈  03:58, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

  Could you please make a test run? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:04, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• Because the task is flickr uploads, License-reviewer flag is granted. – Kwj2772 (msg) 08:07, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

  Thanks, I'll soon modify the script to integrate uploading by URL.  Hazard-SJ  ✈  19:47, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

  • In relation to this request, the licence reviewer flag isn't required as it is inserting images which are covered by OTRS and by way of an individual licencing template. But sure, Hazard-SJ is a trusted user, so the licence-reviewer flag on the bot may be useful for future usage by Hazard-SJ of the bot. russavia (talk) 18:07, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• I have some issues with this. Firstly, the bot did not decide to upload the images itself. There needs to be some identification of why these images are being uploaded. A link to the request would probably suffice, or putting the name of the person who made the original request as the upload inuitiator. Secondly, the images are licensed as CC BY-ND 2.0 ("no derivatives") on Flickr, but the template being used is for an entirely different license. That license specifically says that the reuser is free to "adapt the Information". Thirdly, based on the template used, I suspect that the OTRS release is a general one and not specific to Flickr. Someone should check that, with careful attention paid to the different license used there. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

  Okay,

  1. That can be easily fixed.
  2. I've just verified that the licenses are different.
  3. Strangely enough, the template does say

     "This file comes from the Flickr stream of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and is copyrighted."

     In that case, I'm guessing either you're correct about the OTRS ticket or the license has changed since then. We'll need an OTRS member to check on ticket:2013061310007371 (I'll leave Russavia a note since he is one and is the requester of this specific task, though anyone with the ability may feel free to check.  Hazard-SJ  ✈  19:47, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Hazard-SJ all is good, it's covered by the OTRS ticket. The licence on Flickr hasn't changed, it's something that some UK govt departments do due to there not being an OGL option for licencing on Flickr. For example, the Department for International Development does it differently, File:Heikki_Holmås,_Norwegian_Minister_for_International_Development,_speaking_at_the_London_Summit_on_Family_Planning_(7556998858).jpg is from here which states "This image is posted under a Creative Commons - Attribution Licence, in accordance with the Open Government Licence." The only difference here is that the OGL with the FCO has been done via OTRS instead. It's all ok :) russavia (talk) 17:05, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Can we get a second opinion on this from someone else with access to the OTRS ticket? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:40, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
      • No, there is no need. Delicious carbuncle is implying that I am lying about the OTRS ticket. Don't entertain such trolls. russavia (talk) 17:53, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
        • Given the discrepancy in licensing, it is simply common sense to have someone other than the initiator of this request check the OTRS ticket. Russavia is understandably oversensitive after the recent loss of his Bureaucrat rights, but this isn't personal. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:15, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
          • DC, I am not over-sensitive about any bureaucrat rights, I don't know what gives you these delusions. I am "sensitive" of people using edit summaries which imply I am lying. russavia (talk) 20:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Just something else quickly, this is exactly why Hazard-SJ has gone to the trouble of writing this bot, so that we can upload media from Flickr which is on Flickr with a non-Commons compatible licence, but for which we have a Commons compatible licence via OTRS. There are a couple of other streams which I hope Hazard-SJ will do in the future too, {{Aeroprints.com}} being one of those -- available on Flickr as All Rights Reserved but we have a CC licence on OTRS. russavia (talk) 17:15, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• Please have a look at the latest uploads in the trial (see here).  Hazard SJ  05:10, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

  The first two files uploaded are correct, in that they have the licencing and "to check" category. The other files only have "Bot: Uploading files from Flickr per request by Russavia" with no informatio, source, licencing template or categories. Perhaps get rid of the bot message, and try another batch. I'll fix these current files though. russavia (talk) 05:26, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

  Thanks, I've looked through Pywikibot's code, and have seen that it doesn't exactly support the implementation. I have verified that MediaWiki supports it, so I'll go ahead and submit a patch for Pywikibot to properly support this, then re-run another trial.  Hazard SJ  00:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

  I've gotten the patch merged, so now the latest trial is here.  Hazard SJ  21:15, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

  And it all looks good. This request could now be expedited and marked as approved I believe. russavia (talk) 17:11, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

• These particular uploads look fine. My question is about who takes legal responsibility for publishing the uploads, since the license won't always be publicly checkable as it would for most Flickr uploads. If the bot operator is not checking the OTRS/license, then only OTRS agents should be requesting/responsible-for the batch uploads, because only they can read the correspondence? Should we require that they are different to the person who approved the correspondence (as they were here)? --99of9 (talk) 03:27, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Anyone? --99of9 (talk) 10:49, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

@Russavia: ^?  Hazard SJ  04:10, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I find 99of9's proposal quite reasonable. I suggest we agree (and document) that the bot can only do batch uploads if an OTRS agent other than the one who approved the ticket confirms that the ticket is fine. Perhaps it would be good to add that agent's user name in edit summary so people know where to direct they queries if anything goes wrong. Back to you, @Hazard-SJ. odder (talk) 13:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Sounds fair User:Odder. User:Hazard-SJ is this already part of the bot operation isn't it, with the documenting of who requested? russavia (talk) 11:43, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

SamoaBot 4 (talk · contribs)Edit

Operator: Ricordisamoa (talk · contributions · Number of edits: · recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · SUL)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: "condense" multiple {{assessments}}-like templates into single ones (example)

Automatic or manually assisted: automatic (after test run)

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

Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute): 8-12 EPM

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): N

Programming language(s): Python, PWB

--Ricordisamoa 04:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

• Looks OK for me. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
• Please can you initiate (or point to) a community discussion involving FPC/QIC/VIC noticeboards to confirm that they want this? --99of9 (talk) 11:00, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Unnecessary clutter/fragmentation of the file description page is no option, not now and not in future. -- Rillke^(q?) 08:05, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

@99of9: I'm a bit busy at the moment, could you please initiate (and point to) such community discussion? --Ricordisamoa 17:34, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

@99of9: where should the discussion take place? What are "FPC/QIC/VIC noticeboards"? --Ricordisamoa 03:55, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't got around to it either. Here is FPC talk, QIC talk, and VIC talk. Most of the regulars in those communities will have those pages watchlisted. --99of9 (talk) 05:45, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I have sent them identical messages pointing to this page. --Ricordisamoa 07:55, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• Fine for me. — TintoMeches, 08:13, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
• I endorse the objective of reducing page clutter by having assessment-like templates being shown together in a more consistent manner, and I understand the good intentions from the bot implementer to have a bot do that tedious task. I do have some serious reservations about the {{Assessments}} template itself as I find it adds visual clutter and confusion, especially when used for merging FP, QI and VI into the same template with its current implementation. My concerns are
  1. The visual appearance of the template is for me an eyesore when more than one type of assessment is used, see File:Acrocinus longimanus MHNT femelle.jpg for an example where, the template is used for both FP, QI and VI. There are three frames in different colours and inside the box three logos in different colors and styles. Yak! For the Valued image project we spend a lot of time originally in crafting a nice colour scheme for the frame and background colour, which very nicely matches the logo, on which much time was spend. These colours are a trademark of the individual projects and gives project assessment identity. By putting it all together in one monster templte with frames in frames, as has been done, the project identiity is lost.
  2. The usage for VI is not 'approved' (nor documented) and I would object to using it for VI. For instance the Assessment template does not (as far as I know) support the important scope parameter, which is in the {{Valued image}}, nor am I sure it categorizes the file page correctly as the Valued image template does or correctly supports the subpage parameter (when it deviates from the default).
  3. The implementation for the Assessments template is terribly complicated because it is trying to do way too many things at the same time. As a consequence it is very often broken (see the talk page and archives) for its long and troublesome history. It is only a few users here who can actually edit it and maintain it.
  4. Bots specific to the QI, VI and FP projects will continue to add the old templates. Thus this bot will have to run regularly to merge the templates. It should be checked with the other bot implementers that this merge does not influence any of their bot tasks in unforeseen manners.
  5. Although parameter names for the Assessment templates has improved, I find the 1, 3, etc. values in the template confusing and non-human readable.
• Due to these concerns, and since there is not community consensus that an all-engulfing template is a better solution than the existing stand-alone templates, I cannot support this template merge as is. And I will revert any such changes made on photos I have uploaded. If there is a community consensus, that we really want to do the merge as suggested, I will respect that (very reluctantly).
• That said, I also understand that the current situation with the stand-alone templates, placed randomly on the file page and in more or less random order is confusing and improvable. I am just not sure, that merging them into the Assessment monster is the right solution. I would much rather like to see some smart logic by which, when placed side by side in consistent order, the existing templates would render in a neater way, say in in three columns if FP, QI and VI (I do not know if this is technically possible). That would make template maintenance easier (like adding new languages), and it would be easier for the project-specific bots to add them and change them. Something like, when you place a {{Location}} template underneath an {{Information}} template you get a nice consistent view from which it appears when looking at the file page, that it is one integrated table, like here for example. I think a wider community discussion regarding this is needed to get some mockups on the table to understand what is possible in a way, where both a nice visual appearance with project identities are maintained, where the visual clutter is lowered, where it is easy to maintain the template code, and where changes to project-specific bots are minimal.
• For now I can endorse having the bot order the templates consistently, e.g., first FP, then QI, then VI, under information and location info, but nothing more until a community consensus is achieved.

--Slaunger (talk) 19:12, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• I used to be sceptical about merging QI and VI into the Assessments template as well. I think condensation into a single template actually reduces clutter and presents a single compact box to the user. I think this is a usability improvement. I have no reservations about adding this functionality to the QICbot (and the VICbot). I've been playing with the excellent mwparserfromhell python module lately and using that module the task of adapting the bot should be super-easy. --Dschwen (talk) 21:09, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I just had a look at mwparserfromhell. This looks like a most useful python module! So much easier to use than (arcane) regexes. --Slaunger (talk) 19:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
• Furthermore if the current implementation of the template is considered an eyesore ;-) I would invest a little time in improving the template layout. The consolidation in wikitext space should be independent of that effort. Actually, the {{Assessments}} template could even be adapted to spit out an old style separate QI/VI box (although I think this would be counterproductive). --Dschwen (talk) 21:12, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
  • But it has to support the needed parameters before consolidating in wikitext such that no information is lost in the transition, and currently I do not think the template does - at least it is not documented. If consolidated, I agree it should not spit out separate QI/VI/FP frames exactly as the separate templates does now, but I think some middleground in the layout needs to be found, otherwise the increase in uglyness, outweighs the decrease in clutter IMO.
  • So you are not concerned about the continued maintenance of this monster template? I would much rather solve the issue with composition (make the overall template call the (possibly adapted) individual templates) instead of the current very complicated logic. Will be much easier to maintain. It is fine if you are willing to adapt two of the bots of course. Greatly appreciated. --Slaunger (talk) 21:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
    • This template could be made into a well documented easy to maintain LUA module :-). Any takers? Which template parameters are you worried about preserving? --Dschwen (talk) 22:49, 3 September 2013 (UTC) P.S.: Oh, while {{Quality image}} has no parameters the {{Valued image}} template does take a few. Yep, those should be conserved somehow. --Dschwen (talk) 22:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
      • I have never tried coding in Lua, but I had a look at it as used for Mediawiki templates. I looks like it has a low entry barrier. It reminds me very much of Python, which I am proficient in. So as a matter of fact I am tempted to 'take' that task of making a well-documented, easy to maintain and easy to test Lua template, with sensible and logical parameter names and values . Considering how much I have been bitching about the assessments template I ought to take responsibility for improving . However, it will take some time, as I need to understand a couple of things, like how to do internationalization in the best way, how to best structure the code, how to make sandbox mockup templates for testing and evaluation of different possibilities such that extensions with new languages and support for FP programs on different wikis can be done most easily. I need to understand what the possibilities are for making things look visually consistent, with minimum clutter and  Awesome!. And most importantly, I will need to get consensus from the community about how this shall work, what shall be the scope of the template, by actually taking into account other users expectations and desires, unlike... I estimate this process will take the rest of the year 2013 given the limited spare time I have for this and the rigour with which I will approach this. If putting this bot on hold until then is acceptable, I will be happy to do that. --Slaunger (talk) 19:11, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
        • Alas User:Slaunger is on wikibreak. Would anyone else like to have a go at this? Otherwise I'm afraid we are not ready for this bot task. --99of9 (talk) 10:26, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
          • @99of9: I'm working on Module:Assessments, everyone is welcome to contribute. --Ricordisamoa 17:51, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
• Interesting discussion, even if a bit too technical for me. As a "basic" user, I think that current templates are not so bad, but it looks sometimes very "random" on the file page (my choice should be: description, assessment templates, before license). I think that awarded pictures are not visible enough in "Commons". And I notice that if FP or VI pictures can be "delisted", it is not the case for QI (QI for one day, QI for ever), this should not been forgotten in case of a "merging" is decided (a template for "former FP" exists too...). No further opinion for the moment. Only my three cents.--Jebulon (talk) 13:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

SamoaBot 2 (talk · contribs)Edit

Operator: Ricordisamoa (talk · contributions · Number of edits: · recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · SUL)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: detecting and logging (in a user subpage) SVG images without a proper xmlns declaration on the root <svg> element: those images aren't viewable at all in some browsers, and should be properly fixed (this can be done later, either manually or automatically)

Automatic or manually assisted: automatic, supervised

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

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

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): N (already flagged, see Commons:Bots/SamoaBot)

Programming language(s): JavaScript, with Ajax (own code, will be published soon)

Ricordisamoa 04:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

Here can be seen the log of all images detected so far.--Ricordisamoa 06:02, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• How hard would it be for your bot to fix them and reupload? --99of9 (talk) 23:42, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

  It is currently written in JavaScript (I plan to switch to Python in a few weeks), and Ajax upload isn't tested yet, but I will try to do as much as possible. In the meantime, it could however log these files. --Ricordisamoa 02:52, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I think will be good idea to add maintenance template to image page too.

Edit summary for log action could be just file name with a link, log page name is self-explanatory.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Does a proper template exist for these cases? (and I'll work on edit summary) --Ricordisamoa 06:14, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

{{BadSVG}} may be adapted for this purpose, or {{Cleanup image}} may be used. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:47, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

•  Info In Firefox, you can use the sendAsBinary() method of your XHR-instance to upload the SVG. This avoids encoding issues (while some SVGs also work with the send method, this will screw up others). Downloading is very easy through a GET since the cross-origin-issue is resolved.
• I created a sample that works with FF 19 (tested): User:Rillke/fastTransfer.js. It downloads and uploads a file immediately when invoked. You have access to the raw data in function _gotFile so you can manipulate that data. -- Rillke^(q?) 20:43, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• I had a look with Firefox 19. It displayed two of the nine files on the list.

(E)-pent-2-ène.svg does not display

(Z)-pent-2-ène.svg does not display

(±)-Ethyl-2-methylbutyrate_Structural_Formulae_V.1.svg has been re-uploaded several times; version of 13:06, 26 March 2013 does not display and Mediawiki did not generate a thumbnail for it; other versions okay

1-Chlornaphthalin.svg displays correctly

1-jpg.svg Mediawiki says there's an error in the file; does not display in browser

1025arud.svg Mediawiki says there's an error in the file; does not display in browser

10th_Panzer_Division_logo_1.svg has been re-uploaded, but both versions displayed correctly

1422_Zeta_in_the_Serbian_Despotate_after_death_Balsa_III.svg does not display

1885ArmenianFlag.svg has since been re-uploaded; original file did not display

Rybec (talk) 22:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, now I'm going to run a fixed version of the script; let's see... --Ricordisamoa 23:16, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• I tried to view the new additions to the list, with similar results: most of the files did not display, but one did. I don't know enough about the subject to say definitively that there are false positives.

1969_draft_lottery_scatterplot.svg file has been replaced; old version did not display in Firefox

1988_Illinois_Constitutional_Convention_Vote_pie_chart.svg file has been replaced; old version did not display in Firefox

1st_Panzer_Division_logo.svg displays correctly in Firefox

2-propil-amine.svg does not display in Firefox

201globe.svg file has been replaced; old version did not display in Firefox

250x250Feld.svg does not display in Firefox

2NOGCMOS.svg does not display in Firefox

Even with the possible false positives, the usefulness of this list is apparent. If making the list is all that this request covers, I fully support it (if the request is also about automatically fixing the problems that are found, I don't support that part: some unneeded changes might be made, and test edits fixing the SVG files haven't yet been done). Rybec (talk) 23:55, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

After 1st_Panzer_Division_logo.svg I changed the code, so it should work well now. --Ricordisamoa 10:54, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I  Support this request, but I'm leaning against applying the bot flag. If it's only editing one page, and even that only once per minute, I don't see it as necessary. Am I missing a reason you need the flag? --99of9 (talk) 11:10, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

The purpose of the bot flag is to avoid flooding RCs (if the bot's speed is out of control)... anyway, there's also the first request. --Ricordisamoa 13:57, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

What is final functionality? Will bot re-upload fixed files, or only log problematic files? If last is true, will be clean-up template added to file page? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:26, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

In case it is only logging, I can try to write a JavaScript-Bot which fixes the issue that does not need any other host than a compatible browser to run. IMHO a logging-bot does not need a bot-flag but it would be great if we could combine this functionality (detection and fixing). Then, we also do not need to log each occurrence or adding a template. -- Rillke^(q?) 09:16, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

You get my {{support}} --Ricordisamoa 11:15, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I need your source code. -- Rillke^(q?) 09:54, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

→ User:Ricordisamoa/XMLNSense.js --Ricordisamoa 10:23, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Thank you. → User:Rillke/MwJSBot.SVGXmlNSFixer.js. Log and continue-params are written to my user space by default but this can be customized by creating an own instance of window.SVGXmlNSFixer. Detection of svg root in its own svg namespace like for this file has to be fixed.

• Files processed so far by the script:
  • File:A-weighting, ISO 226 and ITU-R 468.svg
  • File:5 inch floppy.svg
  • File:2NOGCMOS.svg
  • File:(E)-pent-2-ène.svg
  • File:(Z)-pent-2-ène.svg

-- Rillke^(q?) 20:35, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

So could you operate a real bot for this task? --Ricordisamoa 20:52, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I've no dedicated server/computer for this task, if that is your question. But I think if I or someone else continue(s) running this JavaScript over all 666,540+ SVG files, it would be a good idea to ask whether other issues with SVG files should be considered as well. Also the speed/bandwidth is not really sufficient… -- Rillke^(q?) 16:58, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I meant "a flagged bot account"; BTW, I got the flag (for another task). --Ricordisamoa 18:47, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I've no flagged bot account where the task would be appropriate to run under. -- Rillke^(q?) 20:18, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Would your script work on Chromium/Chrome? --Ricordisamoa 21:16, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

It seems so. At least the loop runs and the parser does its job. Not entirely sure whether the upload will work but it's very likely (it's using the usual XHR.send() as SVGs are UTF-8 encoded). -- Rillke^(q?) 22:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Should I continue running the script (e.g. under RillkeBot (not flagged)), would you like continuing running it, or do we want to split the load, are there questions left? -- Rillke^(q?) 20:44, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

For me it's ok, but you should get a bot flag; I'm thinking it may be better to swich to Pywikipediabot, though. --Ricordisamoa 13:30, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

How many files are we approximately looking at? If it is of the order of a hundred or less then I suggest to just go ahead with it. --Dschwen (talk) 21:26, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

It would have to check all files on the Commons, and upload at least several hundred images... However, I have PWB installed, and will starting coding something tomorrow. --Ricordisamoa 21:54, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

First of all you'll have to check all SVG files. Secondly, when you code please make sure to do a http range request! Try downloading just the first kilobyte of each file you are analyzing. This should speed things up. Let me know if you need help with that in python, I've implemented it before. --Dschwen (talk) 22:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

---

Update: I finally succeeded in uploading a fixed file with PWB: T Third Street logo.svg; presently, I'm not going to run it unsupervised until it becomes stable. However, I'd like to have some DB reports about missing XMLNS attributes. Thanks, --Ricordisamoa 16:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Great! Are you using a SAX parser? -- Rillke^(q?) 17:03, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

The bot's version of File:T Third Street logo.svg displays correctly in Firefox 23, whereas the previous version does not. Rybec (talk) 18:44, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Great. Can we close this as good to go, or are you hoping for further feedback? --99of9 (talk) 13:06, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I think will be good idea to have Rillke question answered and wait for couple more days for other possible comments. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:09, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Ping @User:Ricordisamoa. Can you answer Rillke's question. --99of9 (talk) 03:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

@99of9: I found that "Simple API for XML" doesn't appear so simple to me... and again: could we get a database report about all SVG files missing that attribute? It would be very helpful to me, and it shouldn't be very hard to obtain it via WMFlabs. Then, I could make some tests and improve the current code. --Ricordisamoa 01:24, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I know nothing about this sorry. Back to you User:Rillke or User:EugeneZelenko. --99of9 (talk) 02:43, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Pinging @Rillke and @EugeneZelenko again, as they can provide some professional advice here :-) odder (talk) 15:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)