Commons:Bots/Requests/US National Archives bot

US National Archives bot (talk · contribs)

Operator: Dominic (talk)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: This bot will be used to do automated uploads of the National Archives' digital files. To start with, we have a cache of over 120,000 TIFF master files which are ready for upload. The bot relies on slakr's toolserver tool to translate NARA metadata into Commons upload code. It will upload images using the custom {{NARA-image-full}}. Dominic (talk) 19:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic or manually assisted: Automatic, unsupervised

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

Maximum edit rate (eg edits per minute): Upload bot. As fast as possible (usually slow). Multichill (talk) 19:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): Y

Programming language(s): custom pywikipediabot script: sourceMultichill (talk) 19:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic (talk) 19:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

I moved the discussion to Commons:Batch uploading/US National Archives. We have two pages:

This page to discus if the operator is able to run a bot.
Commons:Batch uploading/US National Archives to discus the actual batch upload.

Why did I make this split? Because bot request take ages when we start discussing batch requests and a request gets closed when we actually want to provide more feedback. Can everyone please respect this? Multichill (talk) 19:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support I trust in User:Dominic ability to run the bot. --Jarekt (talk) 20:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem seems to be that he didn't actually write this himself and Multichill is known to be slow and emotional dealing with queries in relation to bots he writes. He even removes other users comments from discussion pages about them. -- Docu at 01:23, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think that is a problem. It is a simple upload bot. The real work was (1) getting it to map the file names onto the NARA catalog IDs from a table I have locally on my computer and (2) using the output from Slakr's tool as the upload text. It does both of these fine, as we can se by the fact that the uploads succeeded. All of the quibbles have been about the template on-wiki and how we're formatting the pages, neither of which relate to how well the bot performs. Dominic (talk) 04:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Upload bots are required to provide description, categories and obviously a file name. Descriptions include author information. We should make sure author attribution works. For file names, we should try to avoid requests like this Commons:Bots/Work_requests/Archive_5#Batch_rename. As file names are the hardest to fix, we should make sure to get these right. We still have hundreds of misnamed images lying around from one of Multichill's batches.
      Most points are actually quite easy to sort out (e.g. ".tif" instead of ".TIF"). -- Docu at 04:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think you missed my point. The script works. I was just pointing out that the descriptions are not generated by Multichill's script, since you seemed hung up on that. Did you actually have a complaint about the file names? (It's just using the titles from the catalog records, though it sometimes gets cut off due tot length.) Dominic (talk) 04:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Dear docu, I would appriciate it if you stopped attacking me on every chance you get. The only person who seems to have a problem with me is you. And yes. I have a problem with you. I consider you a borderline troll. You seem to be using every possibility to try and pull my leg. Multichill (talk) 16:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Other than that you have a problem with me and feel attacked each time someone comments on your bots, I assume you agree with the facts in my comment. -- Docu at 05:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I have no problems with well founded arguments about my bots or my other work. I do have a problem with your half truths and ad hominem reasoning. So no, I don't agree with you. Multichill (talk) 22:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per Commons:Bots#Permission_to_run_a_bot we still need to make sure the bot has the necessary functionality to carry out its task. Thus the need for reviewing the trial run. That discussion has been moved to Commons:Batch uploading/US National Archives. Currently there are at least three open issues there. -- Docu at 01:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have actually been continuing to run it for several hours now, to get a greater variety of documents tested, since the others all came from the same series. Let me know if I should shut it off. Dominic (talk) 04:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are a couple of points that should be fixed Foroa and I mentioned here earlier, but were deleted from this page. -- Docu at 08:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the purpose of this discussion is to decide if user:US National Archives bot should have a bot flag or not. Bot flag would allow other users to filter out this bot edits. The uploads of this bot seems fine and bot seem to have "the necessary functionality to carry out its task" just fine. I feel that if we dive into discussing every minute detail of the upload we will never finish and the result will be the same as what happen to Commons:Bots/Requests/BrooklynMuseumBot which is still not finalized year and half after the initial request, and long after bot finished its uploads. Lets discuse the details at Commons:Batch uploading/US National Archives. --Jarekt (talk) 01:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think Commons:Bots/Requests/BrooklynMuseumBot went rather well, the quality of the resulting upload was rather good IMHO. Not sure about the value of Multichill's participation in the discussion though.

In this case, it seems that the uploader thinks the categorization isn't need, though this is a requirement per Commons:Bots#Permission_to_run_a_bot. -- Docu at 07:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Commons:Bots/Requests/BrooklynMuseumBot went great, but why is that bot still being considered for a bot flag? Also I think this discussion will go much smoother without pointless comments about Multichill. Docu, I will be the first one to acknowledge that you are doing a lot of good work here on Commons, but occasional comments like the one above give you reputation of "borderline troll". As for categories, I think that temporary categories like "NARA artist - 123456" or "NARA period - 19th century" or similar categories could be useful. They can be added by the upload bot or by some other bot after the upload. --Jarekt (talk) 20:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there no objection, I think we could grant bot status. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]