< Commons:Bots
This project 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.

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

Requests for permission to run a botEdit

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.

BOT-Twm Crys (talk · contribs)Edit

Operator: Llywelyn2000 (talk · contributions · Number of edits · recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought:

Add one template to around 100 images uploaded by User:Llywelyn2000, in the Category:Llandaff Cathedral - interior.

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


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

One / 10 seconds

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): Y

Programming language(s): AWB

Llywelyn2000 (talk) 11:05, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


I don't thin there is a botflag needed for just ~100 edits. The main account can be used. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:19, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
EugeneZelenko If you are requesting a test run, please give access at Commons:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage. Riley Huntley (talk) 14:30, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
✓ Done --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:32, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
@EugeneZelenko: You want approve a bot for 100 edits? Seriously? --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:35, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
  • (Edit conflict) There is not enough here for a bot task, editing 100 images does not warrant going through the BRFA process. Operator can makes these edits themselves using AWB, VFC or various other tools on their main account. User can also request a bot to do it at Commons:Bots/Work requests. Bot userpage contains a redirect to another wiki in, local bot policy requests you "make sure you have listed all information before requesting bot permission." If this task very well warrants a bot, please expand the description of the task by specifically stating which template you wish to add to these pages and include a manual example (diff). Riley Huntley (talk) 14:30, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose per Riley, low amount of edits, for own ends only. Suggest speedy decline. --Krd 14:44, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose per Riley. -- Poké95 02:17, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Come on people. The 100 edits will hopefully be the first of many edits of this (for us new) bot operator. Bot has over 100.000 edits in another wiki so I'm sure by now Llywelyn2000 knows how to run a bot. No need to be overly bureaucratic here. Multichill (talk) 16:36, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
  • If the bot operator wishes for this task to be approved, they should folow my recommendations and further explain the task (which template and an example diff). In addition, they should run the bot trial before you support. ~riley (talk) 20:07, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose a botflag for 100 edits is not needed at all. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:41, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Just a reminder that this is the discussion section, not the vote section. For those of you wanting to drop votes, please go to the ongoing RfA (coincidentally mine, not canvassing, feel free to oppose). Otherwise, let's stick to useful comments and let the 'crats handle this. <!-- This is not a vote. It is a discussion --> is below the section header for a reason. ~riley (talk) 20:07, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Then I'll do it by hand. Thanks. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 05:06, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

BMacZeroBot (talk · contribs) 5Edit

Operator: BMacZero (talk · contributions · Number of edits · recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: Replace templates like {{PD-old-50}}, {{PD-old-50-1923}}, and {{PD-old-50-1996}} with {{PD-old-auto}}, {{PD-old-auto-1923}}, and {{PD-old-auto-1996}} respectively (including 'deathyear' parameter) where the page with the license also has a Creator template acting as an author with a readable death year.

This will usually be run at the same time as the task from Commons:Bots/Requests/BMacZeroBot 4. BMacZero (talk) 18:25, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Automatic or manually assisted: Automatic

Edit type (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): One big run for now

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

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): N (already has)

Programming language(s): C#

BMacZero (talk) 18:25, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


I did a test run of 30 - see bot contribs. BMacZero (talk) 18:25, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Looks good to me. --Krd 05:40, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
I think will be good idea to use link to templates in edit summaries. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:36, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
I refined the edit summaries (after a few small snafus), and ran more tests. I also fixed a problem with handling licenses inside {{PD-Art}}. BMacZero (talk) 06:43, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Looks OK for me, but it's seems logical to use Wikidata as source of death date (if creator template is available). --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:17, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Added and tested a few. BMacZero (talk) 04:51, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
But could be date of death queried without copying it to file description? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:13, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Oh I see what you mean. I hadn't considered that. I suppose it could be done with Arbitrary Access (eventually), though I don't think it can be done completely automatically - a bot would probably still have to go through and add the Creator's Wikidata ID as a parameter. Unless Scribunto can pull info from the Creator template on the page that transcludes the module? Maybe someone knows more. BMacZero (talk) 16:01, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
@BMacZero: Please advise what this is going to mean. Is this request obsolete per above comment? --Krd 09:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
@Krd: I started a discussion at Commons:Village_pump#Proper_implementation_of_PD-old-auto_with_Arbitrary_Access. BMacZero (talk) 16:57, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Both User:Jarekt and I (so far) feel that the current implementation of PD-old-auto is still the best one. That would mean that we should go ahead with this request (can give the VP thread more time if you like, though). BMacZero (talk) 20:46, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
The deathyear seems the simpler and most clear. It is also a system we have been using for a while. I am OK with creating new mechanisms of passing information around by "quering without copying it to file description" but at the moment I can not think of a way to do it (we could copy Wikidata Q-codes instead and add an expensive function to look up the deathyear). So I would stick to the old ways of doing businesses. --Jarekt (talk) 01:59, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
By the way Some comments about edits:
  • I would not do {{PD-old-100}} -> {{PD-old-auto}} conversions. {{PD-old-auto}} will do a lot of non-trivial calculations before calling {{PD-old-100}}. I think we should verify and even add unused deathyear for clarity. But {{PD-old-100}} is so much simpler.
  • Edits like this are not the best option. If there is PD-Art or PD-Scan than PD-old-uto should be combined with it. Multiple PD-old templates should be merged.
  • Could you test on tricky cases with multiple Creator templates. PD-1923 (or {{PD-1996}}) and PD-old templates, which should be combined, etc.
--Jarekt (talk) 02:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
All sounds good - will do it when I get a chance. BMacZero (talk) 21:01, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
We may need to put this request on hold. I'm not sure when the next chance I'll get to work on it will be. BMacZero (talk) 17:20, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Read in another language