Template talk:FlickreviewR

Edit request: categorize video

{{Edit request}} {{FlickreviewR}} Old

 |FlickreviewR  =[[Category:Flickr images reviewed by FlickreviewR|{{PAGENAME}}]]
 |FlickreviewR 2=[[Category:Flickr images reviewed by FlickreviewR 2|{{PAGENAME}}]]
 |#default      =[[Category:Flickr images reviewed by trusted users‎|{{PAGENAME}}]]

New

 |FlickreviewR  =[[Category:Flickr {{#switch:{{#invoke:String|sub|{{lc:{{PAGENAME}}}}|-4}}|webm=videos|.ogv=videos|images}} reviewed by FlickreviewR|{{PAGENAME}}]]
 |FlickreviewR 2=[[Category:Flickr {{#switch:{{#invoke:String|sub|{{lc:{{PAGENAME}}}}|-4}}|webm=videos|.ogv=videos|images}} reviewed by FlickreviewR 2|{{PAGENAME}}]]
 |#default      =[[Category:Flickr {{#switch:{{#invoke:String|sub|{{lc:{{PAGENAME}}}}|-4}}|webm=videos|.ogv=videos|images}} reviewed by trusted users‎|{{PAGENAME}}]]

{{FlickreviewR/error}} Old

<includeonly>{{Iffile|[[Category:Flickr images needing human review|{{PAGENAME}}]]}}</includeonly><noinclude>

New

<includeonly>{{Iffile|[[Category:Flickr {{#switch:{{#invoke:String|sub|{{lc:{{PAGENAME}}}}|-4}}|webm=videos|.ogv=videos|images}} needing human review|{{PAGENAME}}]]}}</includeonly><noinclude>

- Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 17:53, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

• @Alexis Jazz: This request is still open. Is there a need for the above changes still? If so, can you throw them in a sandbox and explain why the change is needed? ~riley (talk) 19:27, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

  @~riley: creating a sandbox for this will take so much time.. everything is linked. It will just categorize a file like File:Seattle election night 1018.webm into Category:Flickr videos needing human review instead of Category:Flickr images needing human review. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 19:37, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Took me two seconds to make one and test it, fyi. Test successful, going ahead with these changes. Thanks for the rationale, please originally include it in future requests. ~riley (talk) 19:41, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done Please go ahead and make the necessary categories. Thank you! ~riley (talk) 19:42, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Yes, when looking closer it was a bit less of a pain than I thought (half a year ago, no fresh memories..), at least for the main template. I was trying to see how Template:FlickreviewR/error is called and that's not immediately obvious. (I still don't see it, I'm just overlooking it) - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 19:44, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: /Doc says "{{FlickreviewR}} helper template for status=error case." - that is how I called it. ~riley (talk) 19:53, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I meant how {{FlickreviewR}} calls /error to adjust {{FlickreviewR/sandbox}} to use {{FlickreviewR/error/sandbox}} or something. I'm misunderstanding probably, it doesn't matter, the changes have been made so all is fine now. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 19:56, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: is it really necessary to categorize reviewed files? It's apparently contributing to database bloat (phab:T343131). —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 17:33, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Mdaniels5757, I'm not the one who introduced categorization of reviewed files, this edit request just split the review category in images and videos. But if you're asking for my personal opinion, I'd say yes. Imagine this use case: files from a particular Flickr user are found to be problematic and in need of human review, for example due to FoP issues. You'd have to search for files by that particular user that are reviewed by FlickreviewR to find those still needing review, even if only to categorize them into a maintenance category. Because some may already have been reviewed by a human and some files could be crops that don't need their own review. Having been reviewed by FlickreviewR is also (not sure if still true today) a sign that the uploaded file is the original. This can be useful for finding uploaded thumbnails (which should be overwritten with the original if still available) which was especially common before the dawn of tools like UploadWizard and F2C. This may still be possible without categories, but it's much easier and more reliable with them.
This is just my $0.02, consider asking COM:VPT for additional input if needed. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 21:24, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz and Mdaniels5757: In my opinion we do not need those maintenance categories. All files with {{FlickreviewR}} template end up with one of the categories. If needed we can always intersect files by a given user with files with the template. --Jarekt (talk) 20:44, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Jarekt, if you mass request (re-)reviews and expect a part of them to fail it won't be so easy. Sure you can work around that, but it's easier with the category. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 08:03, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Edit request: archive param

{{FlickreviewR}}

Old

 |6=<span id="flickr_upload_bot_reviewer">{{U|{{{6|{{{reviewer|FlickreviewR}}} }}} }}</span>
}}

New

 |6=<span id="flickr_upload_bot_reviewer">{{U|{{{6|{{{reviewer|FlickreviewR}}} }}} }}</span>
 |7={{{archive|}}}
}}

{{FlickreviewR/pass}}

Old:

 |en=This image was originally posted to '''[[:en:Flickr|Flickr]]''' by {{{1}}} at {{{2}}}{{#if:{{{7}}}|{{#ifeq:{{{7}}}|False||([{{{7}}} archive])}}|}}. It was reviewed on {{ISOdate|{{#time:Y-m-d|{{{3}}}}}}} by '''{{{6}}}''' and was confirmed to be licensed under the terms of the {{{4}}}.

New:

 |en=This image was originally posted to '''[[:en:Flickr|Flickr]]''' by {{{1}}} at {{{2}}}. It was reviewed on {{ISOdate|{{#time:Y-m-d|{{{3}}}}}}} by '''{{{6}}}''' and was confirmed to be licensed under the terms of the {{{4}}}.

@Jarekt: This is just to add to the English version on review pass cases only. There may be an easier way of writing it though. I am not an expert on using parser functions.--- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 04:10, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

@Coffeeandcrumbs:  Done See test image File:Clethra_acuminata.jpg --Jarekt (talk) 04:40, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Jarekt, I forgot a non-breaking space:

 |en=This image was originally posted to '''[[:en:Flickr|Flickr]]''' by {{{1}}} at {{{2}}}{{#if:{{{7}}}|{{#ifeq:{{{7}}}|False|| ([{{{7}}} archive])}}|}}. It was reviewed on {{ISOdate|{{#time:Y-m-d|{{{3}}}}}}} by '''{{{6}}}''' and was confirmed to be licensed under the terms of the {{{4}}}.

--- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 05:10, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Also, I was intentionally checking for False because the bot usesarchive=False to indicate when archiving fails. False can later be built into a function to highlight files where a user is needed to manually attempt to archive the Flickr page. The param is empty in past reviews to which |archive= can later be filled in by another bot task which I will request eventually. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 05:31, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Fixed --Jarekt (talk) 11:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Jarekt, would like to grant me template editor right? I think I can be trusted not mess with things I do not understand. I would like to make similar edits to {{FlickreviewR/pass-change}}, ^Done {{FlickreviewR/pass-change/en}} and so forth. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 12:23, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Retire some maintenance categories?

phabricator:T343131 lists some of the categories added by this template like Category:Flickr_images_reviewed_by_FlickreviewR_2 or Category:Flickr_images_reviewed_by_FlickreviewR as contributing to rapid expansion of the database tables storing Commons data. Is anybody using those categories? Can we retire them? Jarekt (talk) 20:32, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

i think these cats are as essential as Category:Self-published work Category:CC-BY-SA-4.0... RZuo (talk) 08:40, 13 August 2023 (UTC)