Open main menu

Shortcut: COM:BR · COM:BWR

Bot help and list · Requests to operate a bot · Requests for work to be done by a bot  · Requests for batch uploads

Filing cabinet icon.svg
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 7 days.


Tool that corrects erroneous dates, by extracting the right date from EXIFEdit

I noticed a large technical category in which the "date=" property's value is wrong due to a ancient bug (since resolved).

A solution would be for a bot to:

  1. Extract the real date from EXIF
  2. Compare with the date in "date={{According to EXIF data|____-__-__}}"
  3. Fix if erroneous, and also remove the "Hidden categories: Photographs taken on ____-__-__" if present

Is there an existing bot or combination of bots that could do that? Thanks a lot for any insight, and if you are interested in this task please contact me for details! :-) Syced (talk) 05:42, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@Syced: Do you have any example images that I could take a look at? What is the name of the category? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:41, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
@TheSandDoctor: The category is Category:Uploaded with Mobile/Android. Most files are actually OK, but here is a sample file with a wrong "According to EXIF data" date: Thanks a lot! :-) Syced (talk) 10:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
@Syced: I am fairly confident that I have a working solution, but will do some more (non-editing) trials with it today if possible and get back to you with an update over the weekend, okay? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 13:28, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
@TheSandDoctor: Wonderful, thanks so much! :-) Syced (talk) 15:28, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
@Syced: Sorry for the delay, I've been bogged down in finals. EXIF DateTimeOriginal is regarded as the "correct" version which should overrule date={{According to EXIF data|____-__-__}} should they disagree, correct? If so, I am basically ready to file a bot request for approval. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:17, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
@TheSandDoctor: You are correct, EXIF DateTimeOriginal is the correct value, and the value currently in date={{According to EXIF data|____-__-__}} is often incorrect. Thanks a lot and good luck with your finals :-) Syced (talk) 03:27, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
@Syced: Thank you for the confirmation and well wishes  . The BRFA has been submitted. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:48, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
@Syced: Do you know what template leaves the hidden category "Photographs taken on ____-__-__"? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 02:45, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
@TheSandDoctor: It is left by Template:According to Exif data (see at the bottom of that template's wikicode). Cheers! Syced (talk) 03:00, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
@Syced: Altering the date in Template:According to Exif data appears to update the hidden category as well. The only way I see removing it to be to remove the template? Or did you just mean to update it? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 03:05, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
@TheSandDoctor: The date in Template:According to Exif data is used by the hidden category, that is expected and good :-) Syced (talk) 07:22, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying Syced. I had been saving 2 test edits in case a change was needed around this, but have now completed them while writing this and will be reporting on the bot request momentarily. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 13:38, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
User:ArndBot? --2003:7C:2F39:CB89:790B:3B8A:B46C:E816 17:14, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
That bot seems to do similar things indeed, but it would have required a few changes: 1) ArndBot does not overwrite if there is a date already 2) The ArndBot description does not say that it can be restricted to a particular category. Syced (talk) 02:44, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Syced, i think i can update the bot accordingly. But i need some time since i am in vacation soon. Is it very urgent? --Arnd (talk) 16:42, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Just read that it is somehow done be another bot. Btw, instead of the category also a file list can be used generated by an appropriate search such as [1] or similar.- --Arnd (talk) 18:30, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Cool, you bot seems to be quite versatile. For the present task TheSandDoctor's bot is already ready to go, but I wish you a lot of successes with your future tasks :-) Syced (talk) 02:47, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

BBC YourPaintings -> ArtUKEdit

The BBC no longer host the "YourPaintings" project; some years ago it became independent, as "ArtUK".

We still have a number of links to the former (more here). These need to be updated, and, where that is not possible, converted to links, as done recently on en.Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:48, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to try my bot on this. It already did the same work on Enwiki. It's never worked in Commons so I will need to get bot flag. Also no guarantees this will even work, as it may be too difficult to adapt to Commons, but I suspect it will be possible. Will open a bot request soon. -- GreenC (talk) 15:52, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

http external file link replacementEdit

With the search insource:"" there is up to 10,706 results. In file space, with external links ending in .jpg .png .gif .svg please replace all of these with the correct wikilink.

For example on File:NH43901-enhanced.jpg

Replace with [[:File:USS_Macon_over_Manhattan.jpg]]

Many reasons for this will help:

  1. It will make each file description clearer. For example: File:Mineralized Tissues.JPG, File:2013-08-15 12 38 19 Panorama from the southern sub-summit of Jarbidge Peak V01.jpg, File:Pastry assortment from Vitrine de la pâtisserie L. Bourbon à Brive-la-Gaillarde, France.JPG
  2. Will render unicode characters correctly, see File:Новикова Клара - прима Аншлага.JPG for example.
  3. It will keep users on https version of website
  4. The linked to file will have Special:WhatLinksHere working
  5. It will add files Category:Files with broken file links or category within, which will list cropped or sourced to files since deleted that we can review.
  6. In the future, if a file sourced to a file is later deleted, it will also be added to Category:Files with broken file links for review.

Thank you.--BevinKacon (talk) 15:56, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Bot account misuse, revisiting COM:BPEdit

Raising this question here, as this noticeboard probably has the most bot-experienced and technically minded people occasionally reading it.

Rereading COM:BP for other reasons, I remembered my discomfort at the way this sentence is given as a rationale to block someone's account (whether main or a subsidiary):

Unauthorized or non-responsive bot accounts. Bot accounts not authorized by the Commons community are not allowed to operate on Wikimedia Commons, and questionable bot-like editing that cannot be explained by the user should be blocked until discussion takes place. Bot proposals can be discussed at Commons:Bots or Commons:Village pump. Bots may not be operated on Commons without advance permission (which can be sought at Commons:Bots/Requests).

The discomfort comes from the implication that any automation ("questionable bot-like editing") might become a rationale to block an account unless the user has "advance permission" from Commons:Bots/Requests. In practice this is factually incorrect.

  • Many users make extensive use of various tools like VFC or cat-a-lot, or write command lines with Pywikibot (which they are encouraged to do via MediaWiki help pages), literally making several thousand changes in a session.
  • Many users run non-controversial maintenance tasks using legitimate accounts which do not require a bot flag and have never required "advance permission".
  • Many user have a separate "project" account for things like GLAM related uploads, these do not require "advance permission", even when uploading 100,000 files.

I would like to consider rewording this paragraph in the blocking policy, and some thoughts about how far to go with trimming back the bureaucracy would be appreciated. I am aware of fringe cases, but where someone is making 10,000 edits or 10,000 uploads which are controversial, these are quite effectively covered by other parts of the policy for disruption, rather than failing to get a bot account authorized. Thanks -- (talk) 11:39, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that documented batch upload projects qualify as "questionable". OTOH, this is not a work request and there are more appropriate venues for discussing any trimming of COM:BP.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 11:55, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, raising here for initial thoughts. If there is enough enthusiasm, I or someone else can then put a proposed specific wording change forward on the policy talk page or VP. I believe that most batch upload projects are undocumented or only briefly discussed, i.e. without project pages, especially for GLAM related contributors with sub-100,000 file upload projects. This thread is also linked to at COM:BN. -- (talk) 12:01, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
What about those tools, tasks, and projects do you think might be considered "questionable"? Is someone questioning your edits? Please feel free to continue on Commons talk:Blocking policy.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 12:23, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
There have been past cases where this was raised, but it would be a tangent to dig in to those, when the mismatch between the specific wording of policy and what happens on the project in practice is as summarised. The discussion is here to benefit from "the most bot-experienced and technically minded people occasionally reading it". Let's give it a couple of days or more before suggesting wording at BP, there is no especial hurry. -- (talk) 12:32, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Ok, but would simply replacing "questionable" with "disruptive" suffice?   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 12:36, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
No, "bot accounts" really means accounts which are flagged as bots by a bureaucrat. These may be temporarily blocked without advance discussion if they start doing things outside their agreed scope, or the bot actions are in conflict with system changes, new consensus, or causing damage, and the operator is (or appears to be) unavailable to handle it themselves.
We should drop the "bot-like" stuff, as mass edits of any kind that are disruptive has literally nothing to do with policies for bots. This is old wording created before most of our most popular current tools existed and long before tools that may support large changes, like Petscan, became part of how we get stuff done.
The section on blocking bot accounts only needs to address bot accounts.
It might be more justifiable to change the "Unauthorized" section to wording that does not mention bots, but makes a very similar statement that any account making disruptive mass editing may be blocked. This then automatically includes anyone using tools, automation, or even persisting with large numbers of disruptive manual edits for which there is no consensus and the user is making no effort to establish a consensus before continuing. This then also would explicitly cover things like controversial mass category changes, or making mass edits that others cannot easily revert, such as those with complex interactions to unpick. Small numbers of edits like this may be contentious but not be blockable, however persisting with very large numbers of such edits would be. Non-controversial changes can safely remain at the "do what you will" level, though clearly when the number of changes become systemic, say more than a million, we might expect a consensus to be established but that's more of a positive norm than a block rationale. -- (talk) 11:54, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
The main rationale behind special requirements for actions performed under a bot flag is that they would be harder to spot (in recent changes), discuss and stop if needed, as well as tedious or even impossible to reverse: so this should be the criterion, if there is a way to formalise it. It's true that the same problem, or even worse, can arise with "ordinary" manual or semi-automated tasks, but the number or speed of edits is rarely a significant indicator. For instance, moving thousands of files from a category to another may be annoying and disruptive, but it's easily reversed with the same tools. Nemo 16:21, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Adding OTRS permissionEdit

Hi, I would like to ask someone to add the following wikitext {{PermissionOTRS|id=2019040310009792|user=Michal Lenc}} into all 6 390 photos (to the |permission= box) uploaded in this category Category:Renovation of the Old Town Hall Tower (Prague). A valid OTRS permission has been provided with number ticket:2019040310009792 (only in Czech and only for OTRS members) and as an OTRS agent (you can verify here) I can confirm that it´s ok. Thanks in advice, --Michal Lenc (talk) 18:39, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

@Michal Lenc: You can do that yourself with VFC.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 05:54, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Thanks for the link, done. --Michal Lenc (talk) 14:20, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
@Michal Lenc: You're welcome.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 16:40, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Achim (talk) 20:53, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Categorizing prints from the Cleveland Museum of ArtEdit

I’ve been categorizing a lot of files from the Cleveland Museum of Art with VFC, but could use some automated help in the following categories:

The task is to categorize the images in these categories, creating new categories where necessary, by reading the contents of the artist = field of the Artwork template.

Example: File:Agostino Carracci - Aeneas and His Family Fleeing Troy - 1963.456 - Cleveland Museum of Art.tif in Category:Engravings in the Cleveland Museum of Art. The field reads artist = Agostino Carracci. If that field is empty, skip the file. Next, check if the root category Category:Agostino Carracci exists. If not, skip the file (I’ll deal with these manually). Then check if Category:Engravings by Agostino Carracci in the Cleveland Museum of Art exists. If it does, edit the file to remove Category:Engravings in the Cleveland Museum of Art and add Category:Engravings by Agostino Carracci in the Cleveland Museum of Art.

If it doesn’t, create Category:Engravings by Agostino Carracci in the Cleveland Museum of Art, making it a subcategory of Category:Engravings in the Cleveland Museum of Art and, if this exists, Category:Engravings by Agostino Carracci (with the sort key Cleveland Museum of Art). If the latter doesn’t exist, check if Category:Prints by Agostino Carracci exists. If it does, make Category:Engravings by Agostino Carracci in the Cleveland Museum of Art a subcategory of that instead. If it doesn’t, check if Category:Works by Agostino Carracci exists. If it does, make Category:Engravings by Agostino Carracci in the Cleveland Museum of Art a subcategory. If it doesn’t, make Category:Engravings by Agostino Carracci in the Cleveland Museum of Art a subcategory of Category:Agostino Carracci. After creating Category:Engravings by Agostino Carracci in the Cleveland Museum of Art, edit the file to remove Category:Engravings in the Cleveland Museum of Art and add Category:Engravings by Agostino Carracci in the Cleveland Museum of Art

Note, in case this is not obvious, drop the of France or from France when creating new categories. In other words, Category:Lithographs by Adlophe Lalauze in the Cleveland Museum of Art not Category:Lithographs from France by Adlophe Lalauze in the Cleveland Museum of Art.

Bonus points: if {{Creator:Agostino Carracci}} exists, change artist = Agostino Carracci to artist = {{Creator:Agostino Carracci}}. Additionally, if the file has an associated Wikidata item, add the qid to the wikidata = field of the Artwork template.

Thanks! Rrburke (talk) 04:17, 14 April 2019 (UTC)