< Commons:Bots‎ | Requests
This project page in other languages:

English | 日本語 | +/−

ボットの方針 · ボット使用申請 · ボット作業依頼  · Changes to allow localization  · Requests for batch uploads

コモンズでボットを動かすには、まずボット・フラグを入手することをお薦めします。 下記の手順に従い、ボット・フラグのリクエストを提出してください。


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.

Athikhun.suwBOT (talk · contribs)Edit

Operator: Athikhun.suw (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: The intention of this bot's task is to add category (See mw:Manual:Pywikibot/ to hundreds or thousands of photos submitted as part of our user group's photo contests including the Commons:Wiki Loves Earth 2016 in Thailand, Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments 2016 in Thailand, and future events. The sorting will allow for easier judging for both organisers and juries.

Update 22 July: The only remaining bot's task to be requested is to use it to send messages on usertalks, i.e., to notify the winners or as part of the contest campaign to engage more participants.

Automatic or manually assisted:Manually assisted

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

Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute): 30

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): Yes

Programming language(s): python (pywikibot as framework)

Athikhun.suw (talk) 15:05, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


Please make 10 test edits. --Krd 17:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Done. --Athikhun.suw (talk) 07:18, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
What do anatomy images have in common with WLM/WLE as stated in your request?
In those test cases, shouldn't the supercategory Anatomy be removed? --Krd 07:52, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
I tried to demonstrate by adding a category to those pages, which resembles the task we did for the WLE. For WLE, we used the listify script to list all the uploaded images then we divided them equally into three different groups (e.g., group A, B, C). A category was then added to each group using the add. Each jury would have to judge only certain groups to reduce workload. This is how we managed it. The category Anatomy should be removed too. I'm still figuring out how to do it, though. --Athikhun.suw (talk) 08:25, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Please see more bot's contributions. --Athikhun.suw (talk) 09:07, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Looks like you should replace two parents categories instead of just adding child one. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:52, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes. They will all be removed soon upon the completion of the judging. --Athikhun.suw (talk) 03:39, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

All categories used during the judging have been removed. --Athikhun.suw (talk) 07:50, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Any update? --Athikhun.suw (talk) 05:32, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Please elaborate which tasks are open and to be discussed here. Feel free to do 10 test edits related to the intended tasks. Thank you. --Krd 06:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
If you follow closely the bot's contributions, you will notice hundreds of edits related to the intended tasks. Do I need to make further test edit? Here's the commands that were used:

1) List all the pages under the Category:Images_from_Wiki_Loves_Earth_2016_in_Thailand. We have 422 files submitted, therefore, we got 422 lines of the list of pages.

python listify

2) Equally divide the pages from the list into 3 groups (A, B, and C), and put them in separate txt files. ~141 files for each txt.

3) A category was temporarily assigned to each group (A, B, and C in our case) using the following command. Each group was then sent to juries according to our systematic judging process.

python add -file:(txt file directory)

4) After the completion of the judging. The following command was used to remove images in the categories.

python remove

Done. --Athikhun.suw (talk) 06:21, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Dear Athikhun.suw, when I follow closely the bot's contributions I'm getting the impression that you already have been running the jobs at full scale and additionally are doing a lot of things that are not listed in this request, that's why I'm asking what is already done and what is left to be approved here. --Krd 15:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. Sorry that I did not report/clarify some of the additional tasks that the bot performed. I also run the bot to send messages to the contest winners using the following command. --Athikhun.suw (talk) 03:56, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
python -file:"(file directory containing list of winners' usertalk pages)" - text:”(text to be added to their usertalks)
  • Regarding the category related edits: Seems to be a temporary cat. Why not creating a page with all photos? Regarding this, why are there \n in the edit summary? --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:11, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out! That's a good alternative. I never thought of that before. :) Next time we'll just use listify command and from that we can create a page with all photos. No need to create a temporary cat.

The \n serves as "enter" or to create a new line in the command. Also, next time I will make sure to add edit summary.

Looks like everything has been consulted. Therefore, the only remaining bot's task to be requested is to use it to send messages on usertalks, i.e., to notify the winners or as part of the campaign to engage more participants.

Thank you again everyone. Cheers --Athikhun.suw (talk) 03:56, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Admins can send out mas messages using Special:MassMessage. So you can ask an admin or on AN to send them out for you. --Steinsplitter (talk) 08:50, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Wyangbot (talk · contribs)Edit

Operator: Wyang (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: Batch uploading Ancient Chinese character images for use on Wiktionaries (PD-ancient).

Automatic or manually assisted: Mostly automatic (supervised).

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

Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute): 30/min.

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): Y.

Programming language(s): Python (Pywikibot)

Wyang (talk) 01:44, 8 July 2016 (UTC)


  • Please don't make large batch uploads before this discussion end.
  • Please create bot user page (see {{Bot}}).
  • Please wrap all text English text in {{ACClicense}} in {{en}} (but this is not related to bot directly).
EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:57, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Setting aside the fact that the user has already run this script on their main account for a total of 4,256 uploads, and then proceeded to make a bot account only to do another ~4k uploads and ignore almost every instruction on Commons:Bots/Requests.. I am opposed to the only page content being one single template (i.e. File:ACC-j15190.svg contains only {{ACClicense|出|oracle|oracle|j15190||}}). Please improve the edit summary by giving a short explanation instead of replicating the page content in the edit summary. "See the date of uploads shown in the "File history" section." and "see contributor name shown in the "File history" section." are also not satisfactory to Common's standards. ~riley (talk) 20:12, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
    This is the default format for the Ancient Chinese character project; see for example File:馬-bigseal.svg. I'd love to write a separate summary but mw:Manual:Pywikibot/ does not seem to allow for customised edit summaries. Wyang (talk) 22:19, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
    Agree, the single line is the standard form for the ACClicense template. But see below. Michelet-密是力 (talk) 06:47, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Please help make this as prompt as possible - pages on the English Wiktionary are waiting for these images to be uploaded to display their contents properly (wikt:Module:zh-glyph). Newly uploaded entries are made to conform to existing formats. This is a one-time upload so even a temporary bot flag would be sufficient. Wyang (talk) 22:25, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Pages on the English Wiktionary are patient (supposing they have an inner life), and so are English Wiktionary users. If the new format is a problem, just revert to the previous one. Michelet-密是力 (talk) 06:47, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Any updates? It has been more than one week now. Entries on the English Wiktionary are being compromised. Wyang (talk) 02:10, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Discussion 2 - objectionsEdit

Some problems and objections, these uploads are not acceptable, at least in this format :

  • Massive uploads from public accessible databases are legally a problem. Any single character by itself is public domain, given its old age, but a database in itself is protected, even when publicly accessible, and cannot be copied as a whole. As said in Richard Sears's Agreement, the database owner has allowed extractions of characters one at a time, not massive uploads.
    Before doing something like that, it should be made clear either that Richard Sears agrees to it, or that there is no problem for such uploads (including diplomatic ones) whatever his objections may be.
  • (It seems I'm the only active ACC project contributor.) There is a problem with the ACClicense template, with respect to the ACC project conventions.
    1. Richard Sears has not given his agreement for such massive uploads. The mention «Courtesy & permission & Copyright from Richard Sears website © 2003 (see Richard Sears Agreement)» should not be used, it is usurped.
    2. To be usable with other wiki's models, within the ACC project, file names should be something like file:公-seal.svg, with the Chinese character in the first position of the name, not file:ACC-b01050.svg.
    3. If the files are to be used under the ACC project, they should rather be 300x300 px and the character should be 5 px from both edges (either vertical or horizontal, whichever is the longest dimension).
    4. Using the ACClicense template automatically gives some classifications, that mean that some more work is to be done on these characters, but they are unusable in that case. The category:ACC needing decomposition comes with characters whose decomposition have not been given (with the component1=... parameters), but no decomposition will be available for bot uploads. Idem, Category:-stroke ancient Chinese characters means that the "strokes=" parameter has not been filled (and counting strokes is obviously impossible for a bot). Using the ACClicense leads to clutter these categories with unwanted files.
  • With the upload format, there is no simple way to identify if a picture for a given Chinese character is available.
  • Richard Sears has indeed made a terrific job with his site, and thanks should be given to him for that, but the information he gives should be proofread before being used :
    1. His classification is not accurate and can be misleading. Characters may have composition variants, and the picture given on a page often relates to a variant, that is to say another unicode character (see for instance File:弈-bigseal.svg, found on the 奕 page instead of the 弈 one).
    2. There is no need ever to duplicate multiple instances of simple character (公 is an obvious example). Multiplicity is fine for Richard Sears' database, which intends to be exhaustive, but how can it comply with any of the Wikimedia project ?

Before allowing such uploads :

  • Do not use the ACC license.
  • Clarify the legal status of the massive database transfer.
  • Clarify the use of multiple instances with respect of a Wikimedia project scope.
  • Create a license template that reflects the legal status of the upload and the purpose of the picture series.

Past uploads should at least be modified as for the license being used. Michelet-密是力 (talk) 06:47, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

With some chances, a bot upload for small seal character would be OK, though, since there is almost never a multiple choice for them ; and in that case the ACC file format can easily be satisfied. Michelet-密是力 (talk) 07:05, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the various comments. I set up Template:ACC-PD-ancient as the license template for the uploaded entries, which differs from the ACC license template in the following ways:

  1. Removed the courtesy attribution to Sears' website. The ancient script images are public domain images, as their creators have long deceased and what we and Sears' did was merely digitalising the script forms, similar to the case of Template:PD-chem for chemical structures.
  2. Removed the requirements for component decomposition and stroke number. This information can be automatically later by bots if so desired.

You are correct in saying that one image can be mapped to multiple characters and association of characters with images may not be correct. This is the reason the images are uploaded as their identifiers, rather than the tentative modern characters they represent. A separate system has been uploaded on the English Wiktionary to identify each of the images with characters (and vice versa). This is stored at wikt:Module:zh/data/glyph-data, and such method of storage allows easy rectification. Multiple correspondences of an image are faithfully preserved.

The reason multiple images for a particular script for a character are uploaded is because all the script forms are different, some significantly so, and some subtly so. Displaying all possible variants of a character paves way for credible character shape origin/evolution explanations on Wiktionaries and allows for completeness. The script forms are hidden by default. Please see wikt:公 for an example.

Please let me know if there are any queries. Wyang (talk) 13:57, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Discussion 3 - database protection & project scopeEdit

A/ With your creating Template:ACC-PD-ancient two of my four objections are answered. You could use that template on some of your uploads so the result can better be appreciated.

B/ Still two objections to go:

Clarify the legal status of the massive database transfer.

Remember that the characters being public domain is not the point: the database itself is protected as such. Indeed, Sear has “only” digitalized the pictures, AND his work is protected as such. You may legally copy part of a database (ie, some characters from time to time) but not all of it, as long as the database is protected. See w:Database Directive or here or anywhere there for information on legal database protection.

The comparaison with template:PD-chem is irrelevant, the pages thus uploaded on Commons are not a massive upload from an existing database. Most of these files actually appear to be "own works".

Furthermore, there has been a consensus within Commons to recognize Sear's work, both because it has been an awesome work, and because he authorized Commons to upload pictures from his database. This is why his pictures are given priority, even when equivalent pictures may be available elsewhere (the Chinese text project pictures come from an "ancient Chinese character" font, that has most probably been itself taken on Sear's database).

A massive upload would contradict this recognition and may appear as irrespectful. This is why I have a strong objection to doing such a thing. But if the Commons community changes its mind and thinks otherwise, my opinion could of course be outnumbered.

Clarify the use of multiple instances with respect of a Wikimedia project scope.

See Commons:Project scope : «The aim of Wikimedia Commons is to provide a media file repository [...] that acts as a common repository for the various projects of the Wikimedia Foundation». You can't upload things on commons unless it falls within the scope of a Wikimedia project - see Commons:Deletion policy#Out of scope.

The general purpose for the Wiktionary is given in wikt:Wiktionary:Welcome, newcomers: “We aim to include not only the definition of a word, but also enough information to really understand it”. The «etymology» section for a Chinese character is described in wikt:en:Wiktionary:About Han script#Etymology , its purpose is «explaining the development of the character form».

Your explanation saying that «all the script forms are different, some significantly so, and some subtly so. Displaying all possible variants of a character paves way for credible character shape origin/evolution explanations on Wiktionaries and allows for completeness» misses the point of justifying such inclusions: Sear's database collects all instances found in historical documents of such or such character, and the Wiktionary project has no need for such completeness. If differences are subtle, they are not needed for an etymology explanation; and if differences are important, they will be a source of confusion for the reader (and most of the time correspond to a different character and should relate to a different etymology).

What is needed for an etymological section is not to be exhaustive, but to provide the best selection of characters that will explain the original form and its developments along time. This is precisely what the ACC project is doing. Given the choice, the pictures for each kind of script are carefully selected according to their ability to explain the development of the character form, and the character decomposition is (normally) given to allow for comparisons within compound characters.

This is the system used on most Wiktionaries. This is the system that has been used so far on the English wiktionary. That is, before you modified the "Han etyl" template on the 8th of July, without ever discussing the opportunity of doing so. «A separate system has been uploaded on the English Wiktionary» - indeed, but it is your own work, made single-handedly, without any discussion nor consensus, and most probably outside the project scope.

Before arguing by yourself about the opportunity to force down your modifications to the English Wiktionary, please start a discussion and reach a consensus about your changes on the relevant English Wiktionary discussion pages - your arguments and my objections may be transferred there as well.

Michelet-密是力 (talk) 09:35, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. With regard to the license, Commons:Ancient Chinese characters/Richard Sears Agreement states that his images are released under the GNU General Public License (GPL), which is a free license guaranteeing others the freedoms to run, study, share (copy), and modify the original material. The Commons page notes:
"Please note: the images themselves are in the public domain and therefore not subject to the terms of the GPL. However, the GPL does apply to the database schema and Sears's methods of organizing the images. Additionally, as Sears has gone to a great deal of trouble to convert these ancient images into GIFs and is releasing his work under a free license, we should comply with his requests as faithfully as we can."
In other words, the GPL license cannot be applied to the images themselves - it is only the organisation of the images which can be subject to GPL. On the English Wiktionary, pages have duly noted the source of the images providing links to Sears' page. The template Template:ACC-PD-ancient can be modified to a GPL license too if that is needed.
Using one image from each script stage for a discussion on the evolution of character is simply grossly insufficient. There is so much variation even in a certain stage of characters which often invokes debates in the literature and difficulty in reaching a consensus as to what the character actually represents. Please have a read of the English Wiktionary's passage for our previous example of wikt:公#Glyph origin to see what is meant by this. Other examples include wikt:兮#Glyph origin, wikt:典#Glyph origin, wikt:共#Glyph origin, wikt:具#Glyph origin... plus many more, although I haven't got around to expanding on the explanations of the graphical evolution since it is halted by this. You would easily understand what I mean if you flip through any decent Chinese books on character origins; it's amazing how the ancient people only left us with these characters without ever clearly explaining why they drew them as such. The design may have been "obvious" to the original inventors, but the modern people simply have no idea, and the theories people put forth can be hugely divergent from one another.
In regard to the template change, I don't believe a discussion is very fruitful and necessary in this case. There is a betterment of the glyph origin sections and there is no opposition from the small Chinese-editing community on Wiktionary. There was no consensus for the initial format of the template "Han etym" on Wiktionary either. Wyang (talk) 13:10, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
You seem not to be willing to understand the problems, and you do not answer the objections :
  • Databases ARE protected as such, and a MASSIVE upload would BE ILLEGAL. See the references above and answer that point, without discussing the fact that glyphs by themselves are public domain, which is NOT discussed here.
  • Your examples (, , , , ) clearly demonstrate that in fact there is little variation on those examples, and that the pictures are presented systematically, without any selection. You do not need all instances for variation discussion. Contrarily to your sayings, your template is not meant to select or discuss variations.
If indeed your interest were to discuss graphical etymological variations, this is what you would be doing on the en:Wiktionnary, and you would quickly realize that the whole series from Sear's database is not needed for such discussions. See for comparison the French entries (, , , ) where the graphic meanings and possible variations are indeed discussed (for instance in ) without ever needing more pictures. The point is: When there is some variation, it can be discussed with a couple of pictures, and the whole picture series is not needed for that. Therefore you are not justified to upload the whole series using this (outstretched) "justification".
Michelet-密是力 (talk) 08:13, 23 July 2016 (UTC)


You are here to discuss whether Commons should authorize Wyangbot to proceed on massive uploads on Sear's database, that you started on Commons without discussion nor consensus, because you want to use it on the English Wiktionary through the "Han etyl" template, which you modified without discussion nor consensus on the English Wiktionary. On all projects it is bad practice to disorganize the project to prove your point. Your argument is obviously artificial and do not reflect the real use you intend on the English Wiktionary, and this goes way beyond the limits of "assume good faith". Given that you refuse to discuss the objections and oppose fallacious arguments to maintain your initial position, I change my Symbol delete vote.svg Disagree to a Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Veto.

  • If you really want to prove that you are interested in discussing the "hugely divergent theories" on the wiktionnary page, just do it, discuss the (, , , , )-pages according to what you pretend to be doing, and we'll discuss the result when you're done.
  • Before arguing by yourself about the opportunity to force down your modifications to the English Wiktionary, and your uploads to the Commons database, please start a discussion and reach a consensus about your changes on the relevant English Wiktionary discussion pages - your arguments and my objections may be transferred there as well.
  • If no consensus is seen on the Wiktionary on your approach, in a month or two a mass deletion will be asked on your previous Commons uploads, for lack of relevance.

Michelet-密是力 (talk) 08:13, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Let's be positive, though : the bot and the bitmap->svg transformation is a nice hack (wow), and it's indeed a pity not to use it. As said previously, uploadings limited to the small script characters would be without choices to be made between versions, OK with respect to project scopes, and OK legally and ethically, since these characters are found in various places such as Chinese Text Project or xiaoxue or internationalscientific or in the 北師大說文小篆 font. Michelet-密是力 (talk) 08:33, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
@Wyang: Please comment on the above suggestion. Thank you. --Krd 09:13, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Abbe98 Bot (talk · contribs)Edit

Operator: Abbe98 (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:

Update the Template:Map to a new version that can be previewed at This update is a part of the Wikimaps Warper Individual Engagement Grant project and the new Map template is supposed to be used at a workshop next week(at Wikimania). There is about 12000 pages that will need to be updated.

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): 50 edits/minute, (this number is based on simulation, I simulated the entire process, but with actual edits the rate might be lower).

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): Y

Programming language(s): Python(PyWikiBot as framework)

Abbe98 (talk) 11:11, 15 June 2016 (UTC)


  • Please make a few test edits. --Krd 12:06, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
It should be noted that such test edits will break existing applications such as the Wikimaps Warper witch depends on the template, those applications is supposed to be updated in parallel to this update. --Abbe98 (talk) 15:00, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
I have now notified the application owners and will await their response. --Abbe98 (talk) 15:15, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
@Abbe98: Is there any update? --Krd 17:23, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes the applications now support both the old and the new template and the update was delayed to after Wikimania, I will make the test edits the upcoming weekend when I got the time to watch them closely, pinging you once I'm done. --Abbe98 (talk) 17:42, 11 July 2016 (UTC)