Commons:Requests and votes

This is the requests and votes page, a centralized place where you can keep track of ongoing user requests, and where you can comment and leave your vote. Any user is welcome to comment on these requests, and any logged in user is welcome to vote.

When requesting rights that do not need the support of the community (e.g. filemover) please go to Commons:Requests for rights‎!

How and where to apply for additional user rights on Commons

• Administrator: Commons:Administrators/Requests
• Bureaucrat: Commons:Bureaucrats/Requests
• Checkuser: Commons:Checkusers/Requests
• Oversighter: Commons:Oversighters/Requests
• Bot: Commons:Bots/Requests

All applications made on the above pages are automatically transcluded onto this page.

How to comment and vote

Any logged-in user is welcome to vote and to comment on the requests below. Votes from unregistered users are not counted, but comments may still be made. If the nomination is successful, a bureaucrat will grant the relevant rights. However, the closing bureaucrat has discretion in judging community consensus, and the decision will not necessarily be based on the raw numbers. Among other things, the closing bureaucrat may take into account the strength of any arguments presented and the experience and knowledge of the commenting users. For example, the comments and votes of users who have zero or few contributions on Commons may at the bureaucrat's discretion be discounted.

It is preferable if you give reasons both for  Support votes or  Oppose ones as this will help the closing bureaucrat in their decision. Greater weight is given to argument, with supporting evidence if needed, than to a simple vote.

Purge the cache. Use the edit link below to edit the transcluded page.

Requests for adminship

Watch

When complete, pages listed here should be archived to Commons:Administrators/Archive.

• Please read Commons:Administrators before voting here. Any logged in user may vote, although those who have few or no previous edits may not be fully counted.

Mathonius

Vote

Mathonius (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · SULinfo)

Scheduled to end: 08:41, 26 April 2012(2012-04-26) (UTC)

Hello again, community

Today, I'd like to present another good candidate for adminship. He has been a registered account since late 2008 and done good work globally with 68,640 edits. He is sysop at nl.wp and Meta (also 'crat in nl.wp) and he also holds global sysop tool, which shows more trustworthiness. On Commons, Mathonius has 4969 edits, mostly active in copyvio/vandalism fighting and sometimes file moving so it would be great if he could do them himself. Although his participation in DRs is rather limited, which can be a concern for some people, but I think it is not a real issue as he is very familiar with sysop tools and globally trusted. He has accepted to this nomination. Please support him. Regards--Morning Sunshine (talk) 08:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Morning Sunshine, I accept this nomination. Mathonius (talk) 08:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Votes

•  Strong support as the nominator--Morning Sunshine (talk) 08:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Support active and helpful user. No problems here. Jafeluv (talk) 08:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Do not see any problems--Ymblanter (talk) 09:18, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Trusted user --Sreejith K (talk) 09:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Strong support Worked with this user cross wiki for a while now and I have no hesitation in supporting this nom. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Support --Polarlys (talk) 10:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Support. Geagea (talk) 10:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Support, no worries, -- Cirt (talk) 14:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Why not? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Support--Trixt (talk) 19:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Finally! Good luck in advance. :) Trijnstel_talk 22:06, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Support - Your assistance is very welcome! Lymantria (talk) 08:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Support - yes please. MoiraMoira (talk) 08:47, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Support - Looks good. --Captain-tucker (talk) 16:03, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Support -- Achim Raschka (talk) 16:26, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Support - go for it! Marcus Cyron (talk) 21:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Support --Túrelio (talk) 21:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Support, trusted. Savh^ñ 04:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Sure! odder (talk) 14:49, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

AleXXw

Vote

AleXXw (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · SULinfo)

Scheduled to end: 19:35, 25 April 2012(2012-04-25) (UTC)

Hi there, I'd like to request adminrights for myself. I regristed on de.wp back in 2006 and I am active there until now. My first contact with commons was in february 2008, my first edits here was back in october 2008. Over the years I got filemover and OTRS-member. I'd use the special rights at beginning to help existing admins by deleting move-rests and by closing permitted deletion requests. After some experience I'd work in these areas mainly. Another helpful right would be to be able to edit campaigns for the UploadWizzard in the course of Wiki Loves Monuments. Some 'hard facts': over 25500 global edits, no locks globally, ~5800 edits and over 4000 log entries on commons. If you have any questions I would be pleased to answer them. --AleXXw 19:35, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Votes

•  Support --Hubertl (talk) 19:36, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Question Is this a {{support}} or an {{oppose}}? Trijnstel_talk 19:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks for clarifying! Trijnstel_talk 19:42, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Support No reason why not. Trijnstel_talk 19:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Support responsible grown-up knowing what he is doing. --Ailura (talk) 19:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Support, no worries, -- Cirt (talk) 19:42, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Support --Karsten11 (talk) 19:43, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose per first supporter - A.Savin 20:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

My God, as childlike. Not Hubertl is the candidate, it's AleXXw! The next one writes then, because of A. Savins oppose… --Steindy (talk) 17:29, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

•  Support --Geiserich77 (talk) 21:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose You mention you want to help close deletion requests, but you have only contributed to three such requests in all on the Commons since 2008. I remember seeing some crass decisions in that arena from unexperienced new admins so saying you want to gather "some experience" doesn't inspire confidence in me. I suggest you reapply at a later date with more experince in that department. Hekerui (talk) 21:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Concerns with limited experience in the administrative areas the candinate has expressed interest in working in -FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Fastily --Morning Sunshine (talk) 04:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Support qualified candidate. --Krd 07:29, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Fastily. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:33, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Bwag (talk) 08:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Support --ManfredK (talk) 08:50, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Support --Cirdan (talk) 09:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
• Trusted user, but per Hekerui only  Neutral --Leyo 09:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Fastily --Sreejith K (talk) 09:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Pfeifferfranz (talk) 10:53, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Support --Ralf Roleček 11:46, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Support --Anton-kurt (talk) 11:50, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Support --Gugerell (talk) 11:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Support AleXXw ist ein fixer Bestandteil von Wikipedia-Austria. Ohne ihn wären viele Dinge in letzter Zeit nicht möglich gewesen. Manfred Kuzel (talk) 11:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Support -jkb- (talk) 12:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC) experienced user
•  Support --Otberg (talk) 12:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Support --Häferl (talk) 12:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Support --Daniel749 •talk 12:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Support --E.mil.mil (talk) 12:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Support --Reimmichl-212 (talk) 13:26, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose I have no doubt that you could make a great Admin here. but I suggest you withdraw this and come back after you have more experience in the areas that are important to an Admin.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:06, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Support AleXXw has done great work to support the WLM Project with his tools. He has strong ambitions to support the commons project and I'm sure that he will do a good job. There is a lot of work to do here and people like him are rare. I really appreciate this request! --Peter Lauppert (talk) 14:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Support -- Hans Koberger (talk) 16:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC) BTW: Trollt der A.Savin eigentlich immer und überall?
•  Support --Mai-Sachme (talk) 16:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Support --Plani (talk) 17:06, 19 April 2012 (UTC) This is not a question of nationality of heritage of AleXXw and his supporters, even though some of the comments below obviously would like to provoke it.
•  Support trusted --Inkowik 17:27, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Support -- Sozi (talk) 17:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Support – The candidate is in the german Wikipedia an extremely friendly and competent user. Without him and his work it would not have been possible that WLM progressed so far. I am absolutely sure me that he will always considered use his rights. --Steindy (talk) 17:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Support - Yes!--Allander (talk) 17:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Support - Good guy for this job GuentherZ 20:25, 19. April 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose - Per Jim and Fastily.--Kiran Gopi (Talk to me..) 03:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Jim. --PierreSelim (talk) 09:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Support -- Achim Raschka (talk) 16:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Support --Herzi Pinki (talk) 19:17, 20 April 2012 (UTC) I know him personally (from the Vienna Stammtisch, from WLM). He is one of the main faciliators of the WLM project, not only in Austria. He does his work in a precise and calm way, always helpful. So anybody who complained about small number of edits on commons for some of the supporters, should also count mine.
•  Support -- trusted User. Marcus Cyron (talk) 21:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose - per Hekerui, Fastily, et al. But also, even with much allowance for English not being first language, the statement does not seem to be crafted with sort of care I would expect; I don't even know what "help existing admins by deleting move-rests" means. I don't know to what extent this is down to English level being only en-2, but I'd expect a good admin candidate with low levels of English to be able to organise some translation assistance, or at least be self-aware enough to say something about language and perhaps post in other languages as well as English. (Es gibt übrigens ziehmlich viele auf Commons, die deutsch sprechen.) So, echoing Jim, I trust the support from German colleagues means you are a trusted and valued user and could be a good Commons admin one day, but it doesn't mean that you're ready now. PS I would add that you can get the Commons:Upload Wizard campaign editors userright separately. Rd232 (talk) 21:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

  (In german: Wie würdest du Verschieberest übersetzen? Ich habe lange gesucht ;) ) With my sentence I meant: If I move a file there will remain a redirect-page. This page is often unused, so I could immediately delete it. Greets --AleXXw 22:05, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

  Verschieberest = redirect left behind after a move (wenn du nicht sicher bist mit ner Übersetzung, ist eine Beschreibung besser als ein erfundenes Wort). But that just raises more questions about your experience; I don't think deleting redirects left behind after a move is a big task on Commons - they're normally left in place, as far as I know. Rd232 (talk) 09:36, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

•  Support I can see no danger of abuse of admin rights --Tsui (talk) 02:52, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Support - per A.Savin - Zeitgeisterfahrer (talk) 07:35, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• Please enable the Special:EmailUser function in Special:Preferences. Trijnstel_talk 19:42, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

  OK Don't know why it was off, but now it's enabled again ;) Greets --AleXXw 20:01, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

•  Comment I get the feeling this request is being canvast in the German community, with lots votes of German people who aren't active here (anymore). The most extreme examples are these two: Otberg only has 85 edits and last editted in January 2012 and for Reimmichl-212 his vote was his first one on this project! Trijnstel_talk 15:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Now there's a bit surprise - some things never change --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:31, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Not only a feeling, but a fact. Most of the supporters are members of Vienna Stammtisch, as well as the candidate. - A.Savin 15:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• • If that is the case, would it not be be simpler, If the government simply dissolved the people and elected another? --Hubertl (talk) 15:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

    • I only count the really "new" guys, though there are more suspicious votes. So one more: Allander has only 39 edits here. Trijnstel_talk 20:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• And some of that Austrian guys simply cannot say something without personal offenses. For instance Hans Koberger in his voting comment: Trollt der A.Savin eigentlich immer und überall? which means: "Does this A.Savin actually troll always and everywhere?" Perhaps Mr. Koberger should take a look at my contributions here on Commons and compare them to his own ones, otherwise it is to assume that we have a heavy trolling in this candidature by Mr. Koberger himself. - A.Savin 16:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

  Yes I was going to ask what that said - maybe folk should be aware that we would consider blocking for such comments here I guess. I'm sure the closing 'crat will take into account the minimal contributions of some of those voting as I would expect to happen if I voted on a de RfA. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

  Based on this your vote would be striked out. --Leyo 17:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

@Savin, the "personal offenses" started exactly in... in... your vote! What a surprise... -- Hans Koberger (talk) 18:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

In my vote, I cannot read any personal attacks, but in yours; what a surprise. And my username is not Savin, in case you still don't know... - A.Savin 18:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I can. --Ailura (talk) 05:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Surely A.Savin will also see no attack in this edit and the edit summary of today... -- Hans Koberger (talk) 17:48, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

 Info Good evening! I just came home, so only some short words... I'm personally sorry that my candidacy triggers such strong conflicts. The cause of the many nice (thanks folks!) voices was probably my announcement on de.wp. The text there simply means something like "advertise for myself" followed by a link to this site. @A.Savin: I am sorry that you take your apparent dispute with Hubertl out on me, I don't think we ever met before. Needless to say I accept your decision and I am not hostile to you now ;) Good night & Greets --AleXXw 22:40, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Without this really impressive stammtisch show including personal offenses and slandering by some of the loudest comrades, I even had nothing against you as admin. - A.Savin 23:36, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

So why did you oppose the day before? --Ailura (talk) 16:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

The only person who attacks someone personally, without the slightest reason to Alexx, is you, S1 aka A.Savin. The only one who slanders, is You. I just remember, for what reason you have finished beeing administrator and at the same time changing your username, trying to hide yourself. And again, no one has to admit it, to be insulted as a Troll, neither here nor in de:WP! I told you already at your discussion page: If you have personal problems, try to resolve it outside, not inside this entire project. --Hubertl (talk) 00:57, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

 Question AleXXw, as you have an interwiki to :pt on your userpage, do you also speak somewhat Portuguese? A superficial scan through your edit history in 2012 did not show any participation in DR discussions/decisions, which is among the important admin activities on Commons. I would therefore recommend you to consider whether it might be better to first acquire some experience in this topic (by participating in such discussions) and then re-open your RfA — just my opinion. An additional admin with OTRS-access/experience would be surely welcome. --Túrelio (talk) 21:00, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Túrelio! I speak very little Portuguese, I learnd it half a year back in the nineties at school. To my experience: I added a permission-notice to a DR last month. Unfortunately nothing happened to this unambiguous request since then. That was one of the key reasons for my candidacy. I am sure I could immediately make such clear decisions and of course I would start slowly before I would make tough decisions. Greets --AleXXw 21:59, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

 Question What do you mean with "by closing permitted deletion requests"? --  Docu  at 08:34, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

 Question Why have you never made a request for deletion? --  Docu  at 08:34, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Though he has filed none, he has discussed in some DRs: [1], [2], [3]. --Túrelio (talk) 09:10, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Karsten11

Vote

Karsten11 (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · SULinfo)

Scheduled to end: 19:36, 25 April 2012(2012-04-25) (UTC)

I'm acting in the German Wikipedia as Admin since 2007. On Commons I've mainly done categorisation work (and uploading some thousand own photos of course). Sorry: My future focus will continue to be the work in the German Wikipedia. But if I can support a little on Commons, it will help.Karsten11 (talk) 19:36, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Votes

•  Support, also trusted as admin on de.wikipedia.org. -- Cirt (talk) 19:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Another good candidate. :) Trijnstel_talk 19:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Support sure! Grüße --AleXXw 20:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Well, even your introductory text makes clear how little access to admin tools would mean for your contributions, so why request them? It's not a trophy, its tools. You don't seem to need them and you can surely do just as much good work without them. Hekerui (talk) 21:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Neutral Trusted user, also from de.wikipedia. However, he has contributed only very little to deletion requests (two in 2011 and 2012). He might want to become a bit more experienced in this central field first. --Leyo 07:18, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Neutral per Leyo. --Krd 07:33, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Support --Geiserich77 (talk) 09:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Neutral per Leyo.--Sreejith K (talk) 09:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Support --Cirdan (talk) 12:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Support trusted --Inkowik 17:29, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Support -- Achim Raschka (talk) 16:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Support - really good man. Marcus Cyron (talk) 21:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Not enough DR experience yet for someone who wants to primarily work in DRs. --99of9 (talk) 00:59, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose per 99of9 --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:01, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose German WP is an empire of evil - A.Savin 12:17, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose per 99of9 --PierreSelim (talk) 20:19, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose per 99of9--Morning Sunshine (talk) 01:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• What do you plan to use the admin tools for? --99of9 (talk) 22:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

My focus in the admin work in the German Wikipedia are the deletion requests. There is a backlog of RfDs on Commons where support is needed. I´d like to help in this area. This work on Commons is often related to (potential) copyvios. Deletion requests in this field require knowledge on the legal situation. I'm familiar with the German copyright laws but not with the legal situation in other countries. Therefore I would concentrate on clean up activities for German media.Karsten11 (talk) 07:47, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Apart from non-free images, are there any restrictions under which a file can be hosted in German Wikipedia but not here? --Sreejith K (talk) 08:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Of course the better solution is to host images on Commons to enable other Wikipdias to use. But there are some cases, when we host files in the German wikipedia, which are not according to Commons policy. These cases are described in the German Wikipedia on this page. Points to be evaluated are e.g. "ohne Schöpfungshöhe" (Threshold of originality), "Wappenrecht" (coat of arms), "Logo", "Schutzlandprinzip" (Lex loci protectionis).Karsten11 (talk) 10:34, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

If you mainly want to help with RfDs, why don't you first get more experience helping with RfDs? (e.g. as well as nominating files, commenting on cases that others have nominated). It actually helps the process a lot if many editors have weighed in when an admin comes to make the decision. And it will help prepare you to use the admin tools when they are granted. --99of9 (talk) 00:57, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

 Comment Similar as with AleXXw, I would recommend you to first do some participation in DR discussions on Commons, as they rather differ from article-DRs on :de. Apart from that, every helping hand is welcome. --Túrelio (talk) 21:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Requests for bureaucratship

Watch

When complete, pages listed here should be archived to Commons:Bureaucrats/Archive.

• Please read Commons:Bureaucrats before voting here. Any logged in user may vote, although those who have few or no previous edits may not be fully counted.

Requests for CheckUser

Watch

When complete, pages listed here should be archived to Commons:Checkusers/Archive.

• Please read Commons:Checkusers before posting or voting here. Any logged in user may vote although those who have few or no previous edits may not be fully counted.

Requests for Oversight rights

Watch

When complete, pages listed here should be archived to Commons:Oversighters/Archive.

• Please read Commons:Oversighters before voting here. Any logged in user may vote, although those who have few or no previous edits may not be fully counted.

Odder

Vote

Links for Odder: Odder (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · SULinfo)

I have been meaning to nominate Odder (talk · contribs) for some time now, and am finally getting around to doing it. As it currently stands we only have four local oversighters. As one of those four oversighters, I have seen requests to the oversight mailing list go unanswered for days, and many of my requests for assistance have gone unanswered all together. Additionally, the number of requests to the list have increased slightly over the past few months. This has created a need for another oversighter. I feel that Odder is a good candidate for this position. Odder has been an administrator since 2006, and has had OTRS access since 2009. Odder is fluent in Polish, something that our current team lacks, and has an intermediate level of German comprehension. Overall, I feel that the addition of Odder to the Commons Oversight team would be a net positive. Tiptoety ^talk 06:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the nomination, Tiptoety — I am glad to accept. odder (talk) 11:02, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Votes

1.  Support - Tiptoety ^talk 06:10, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
2.  Support - of course! Multichill (talk) 06:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
3.  Support --Sreejith K (talk) 06:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
4.  Support Why not? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 10:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
5.  Support Pity there are idle ones - that should be sorted, however I am happy for Odder to have the rights. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
6.  Support Good choice. Trijnstel_talk 12:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
7.  Support Never heard of this user, but I trust Tiptoety, Multichill, and Fastily's judgements, so sure. Sven Manguard Wha? 14:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
8.  Support Absolutely. russavia (talk) 16:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
9.  Support MorganKevinJ^(talk) 17:49, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
10.  Support Definitely. Jean-Fred (talk) 21:43, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
11.  Support. Active, trusted, already identified, and endorsed by people whose judgment I trust. Jafeluv (talk) 13:29, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
12.  Aye. There you go! — [ Tanvir | Talk ] 15:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
13.  Support Sure. We haven't had a OV nomination for nearly 2 years and now we have found a good candidate--Morning Sunshine (talk) 15:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
14. yes --Ymblanter (talk) 19:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
15.  Support Never had any issues with Odder actions I observed. --Jarekt (talk) 19:36, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
16.  Support Seems legitimate, and seems to know what he's doing.  Hazard-SJ  ±  01:17, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
17.  Support Why not ? --Claritas (talk) 10:21, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• m:Revising history (permlink) tells us that

Page histories were also unalterable by anyone other than system administrators until May 2006 when the Oversight extension was created as a "temporary" hack while the revision deletion core feature was being developed. Oversight moves revisions to a parallel database table that is entirely inaccessible from the wiki software. A log is kept of oversights for transparency. Originally the log was open to the public, however in July 2006, it was made private.

m:Oversight policy says

At first, a MediaWiki extension called Oversight was used. Since it required database access to undo actions, a more complex system was written as part of the MediaWiki core code to replace Oversight. This software is called RevisionDelete and has mostly replaced the old Oversight extension by now. [4]

In your view, when is oversighting justified, as opposed to simply using revision deletion? Rd232 (talk) 22:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the question, Rd232; for some weird reason, I am not getting notifications from the mailing system in time, so I'll try to answer it in an hour or so. odder (talk) 10:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Answering your question, our Oversight page makes the difference between revision deletion and oversight (suppress) very clear, and that's what I've always been thinking about it since its inception: it should be used, in my opinion, for extremely sensitive cases.

Out of four standard revision deletion reasons we have, suppress/oversight is justified in just two situations (when removing inappropriate personal information and libellous information). The Meta policy also states that oversight/suppress could be used to remove copyright violation on an advice of a WMF counsel, but I don't recall this happening in the past; most of the time, the Foundation has been using office actions to remove copyright violations following DMCA takedown notices they had been receiving, and admins themselves have been very often removing copyvios using revision deletion, too.

Per the WMF policy, one can use oversight/suppress to remove blatant attacks from the logs, too, but I obviously don't have any information about that as I can't access the logs (and I have never heard of such situations, either).

To sum-up, oversight/suppress was introduced by the WMF as an additional layer of safety to protect some information that should not be visible to larger groups of people (even from the ever-rising groups of admins, hence the requirement for being identified to the WMF), and for me it's mainly the matter of sensitiveness of the information in question. I can imagine using revision deletion to remove some personal information, but most of the time it's a case-by-case situation. odder (talk) 11:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for your reply. I don't feel I know you enough to support the Request for this sensitive permission, but I see no reason to oppose - and since it looks like you'll sail through, I'll leave it at that. Rd232 (talk) 12:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Requests for permission to run a bot

Watch

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.

DrTrigonBot (talk · contribs)

Operator: DrTrigon (talk)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought:

1. Categorization (by Computer Vision) according to User:Multichill/Using OpenCV to categorize files
2. "SubsterBot" according to w:en:Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DrTrigonBot

(part 1 is new and part 2 runs already on a few other wikis, please see SUL)

Automatic or manually assisted: automatic (Categorization is in development and libraries are missing on toolserver, thus at the moment part 1 "manually assisted" but this will change finally)

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

Maximum edit rate (eg edits per minute): pywikipediabot default

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): Y

Programming language(s): python (pywikipediabot framework)

DrTrigon (talk) 20:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

Some more description for the 2 different bot parts:

1. Is in development and the main reason for this request; I would like to start (slowly! a few pages e.g. 5-20) editing pages in order to test the bot further. Some preliminary results can be see at User:DrTrigon/Category:Unidentified people (bot tagged). At the moment just "people" are categorized by face and eye recognition. The "reliable" mode would be just to categorize all images marked green there, the "hint" mode to categorize all ("is may be a person"). I would like to first remove the Template:Uncategorized and then add the Template:Check categories as well as the two Category:Unidentified people and Category:Categorized by bot. Furthermore add the detection results like e.g. "face at position ..." and "eye at ..." to the Template:Information by using Template:Information field. If this makes sense / is ok?!?
2. Runs already on some other wikis and could be useful here once, e.g. if there is a request by someone... (is not important for me at the moment - but should cause no harm too ;)

Thanks a lot for all feedback and greetings --DrTrigon (talk) 20:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Please make a test run with adding actual categories to images. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:42, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I thought Multichill is working on this. Unfortunately we have to use such categories like Category:Unidentified people (bot tagged) because our search is not capable recognizing the image's contents.

I wonder whether it would be also useful to add color-categories; once the file is downloaded, we should attempt to extract as many information as possible.

I have to admit that openCV sounds promising, but didn't read enough about, yet. It would be also good if it could distinguish photos from diagrams, ....

On the result-page it would be handy if the faces would be framed somehow, e.g. with ImageAnnotator (but this is not really important for categorizing or putting a <div style="position:relative;">[[File:...]]<div class="face-marker" style="position:absulte; left:$1*ratio; top:$2*ratio; width: ...; height:; border:2px solid yellow;"></div></div> container-around the image :-) -- RE rillke questions? 15:03, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

@EugeneZelenko: I am doing the first test runs that actually change image pages and categorize them - please stay tuned... ;)

@Rillke: Yes in fact Multichill suggested this one one the maillist - since I was working with OpenCV a little bit too, found that intressting and think python is a very good choice since it enables to easily embbed the pure C/C++ examples and code also - I started to work on this a little bit. More categorization based on BoW (Bag of Words) algorithm is planned for the future, but at the moment this is not stable enough (I can do a test run if you like, or you can check out some results from earlier runs).

Shall I use the category Category:Unidentified people (bot tagged) instead of Category:Unidentified people?

I agree completely with you; the bot should gather as much information as possible. So what do you exactly think of by mentioning "color-categories"? The idea with distinguishing photos from diagrams will be covered with BoW once this works (but needs training with a good dataset).

The faces and eyes detected are framed now on the result-page. What whould be the best and most easy way to do this on the file description page also?

Thanks so far and greetings!! --DrTrigon (talk) 20:36, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

• I think will be good idea to use regular wiki-markup for tables instead of template.
• Dark green background text is definitely not good for reading. May be small icon could be used instead of changing background for entire cell?
• Please use work category instead of cat.
• Please list added categories in edit summary.

I think Category:Unidentified people (bot tagged) should be used to distinguish human guesses from bot ones :-)

EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:51, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Smallbot (talk · contribs)

Operator: Smallman12q (talk)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: Upload of ~3500 72dpi images from the Oregon Historical County Records Guide of the Oregon State Archives.

See also: en:Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Oregon#Bot_upload and outreach:GLAM/Newsletter/March_2012/Contents/USA_report

The licensing template is {{Oregon Historical County Records Guide}}

Automatic or manually assisted: Automatic

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

Maximum edit rate (eg edits per minute): 5-10, depends on upload speed

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): Already have bot flag

Programming language(s): VBScript w/com using mshtml, msxml, and xhr Smallman12q (talk) 17:26, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

A copy of the images and metadata can be found at this xml file at dropbox (~220 MB)

Discussion

• I've listed a different source, as I couldn't get in touch with the ones listed before. See File:Beacon Rock View (Multnomah County Scenic Images)(mulDA0021a).jpg for a sample image format. They will automatically be categorized by county. Though the images are released under a free license which require attribution, the image descriptions, keywords are not. Can the descriptions be uploaded with the images?Smallman12q (talk) 17:26, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I think Source and Author parameters should be enclosed in {{en}}. Date field should be numeric.

Just wonder, may be images of better quality/resolution of same places are already available on Commons? In this case I don't think that such images should be uploaded.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I've uploaded a new image at File:Covered Wagon (Baker scenic images)(bakD0133).jpg, (the other one is further in the index) with your suggestions. Please let me know if there are any further changes needed or if the bot is approved.Smallman12q (talk) 19:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I think will be also good idea to add space between brackets of collection name and image code. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand where you want the spaces? Could you show me on File:Covered Wagon (Baker scenic images)(bakD0133).jpg? Do you mean a space in the filename between (Baker scenic images) and (bakD0133) ? (I've also updated the way the categories will be added to <Scenic images of <county> County, Oregon>.Smallman12q (talk) 21:13, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I meant (Baker scenic images) (bakD0133). --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:49, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay that'll be fixed (the space), in further uploads. Is there anything else...or is it good to go? Smallman12q (talk) 15:29, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

It all from my side, but there may be suggestions from other folks. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:38, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Is it approved? It's been listed for a week, and no one (besides you=D) has made suggestions. It got approval from WikiProject Oregon...so I think it's fine.Smallman12q (talk) 16:00, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to run the upload tmrw per Silence and consensus. These lengthy waits are not developer friendly.Smallman12q (talk) 02:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you could proceed with uploads. If somebody will have suggestions, you could improve things in process. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:54, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Upload complete. There are 36 categories with 4275 images. There is an error on their site here (File:Enterprise_Building_(Wallowa_County,_Oregon_scenic_images)_(walDA0006b).jpg) in that it says "Septeber 2008" which should be "September 2008". I'll post the source later in the week. The images need to be better categorized...could something be added {{Oregon Historical County Records Guide}} to detect if they have only one category. The images and category at Category:Oregon State Archives should be deleted once their newly uploaded counterparts are updated.Smallman12q (talk) 23:59, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Isn't {{Check categories}} is thing to be used in this situation? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:38, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

タチコマ robot (talk · contribs)

Operator: とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: double redirects, Flickr uplaods, category/image replacement, tag/retag all files in a category/gallery Automatic or manually assisted: Automatic (unsupervised for some tasks and supervised for others)

Edit type (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): Continuous for double redirects sporadically for other tasks (when needed)

Maximum edit rate (eg edits per minute): 1 edit/sec

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): No, already have it

Programming language(s):
Python/Pywikipediabot

• Redirect.py -double (unsupervised)
• Flickrripper.py -user_id:someid -autonomous -addcategory:some category (if applicable) (unsupervised)
  • Also marks the image as reviewed.

AWB

• Find and replace categories, images (supervised)
• Tag or re-tag files in a category/gallery (supervised)

-- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 18:08, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

• The find and replace tasks were approved a few years ago. I am only mentioning them here to verify if there are any problems. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 20:40, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
  • flickrripper.py seems to be ok and I think とある白い猫 can be trusted not to abuse the bot. Therefore the license-reviewer status should be added to the bot (and the reviewer in the template should be the bot) and とある白い猫 should be allowed to upload files from Flickr using this bot-account. -- RE rillke questions? 17:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
    • It seems like someone de-reviewed files from New Zealand Defence Forces' flickr account which FlickrReviewer then reviewed - so that issue is resolved. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 21:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

DarafshBot (talk · contribs)

Operator: Mamad ^TALK

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: Adding {{Assessments}} on files featured in fa.wp

Automatic or manually assisted:automatic

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

Maximum edit rate (eg edits per minute):40 per week (It's almost impossible)

Bot flag requested: (Y/N):Y

Programming language(s):Python, homemade but on base of m:PWB (amirobot's and Rezabot's works with that codes)

Mamad ^TALK 14:23, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

• Please make a test run. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:44, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

KobacBot (talk · contribs)

Operator: Kobac (talk)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: Adding categories; batch uploadings

Automatic or manually assisted: Manually

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

Maximum edit rate (eg edits per minute): 20 per minute

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): Y

Programming language(s): Pywikipedia

Kobac (talk) 02:26, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

I have some serious misgivings with Kobac, who already has real problems with incorrectly tagging images for deletion for lacking sources or similar. See for instance User_talk:Ragdoll8 for examples of images marked for deletion for "missing source", a seeming result of haphazard usage of visualchange.js. Only after I have responded on his talkpage has he instead listed the for deletion for copyvios. But the fact remains that Kobac plays fast and loose with deletion methods instead of following correct policies.

Other examples of careless usage include File:NissanGloria95.jpg which was tagged for deletion as part of a wave of deletion requests. Marked as having been uploaded by a user called Suland, who was editing a lot of Nissan Gloria/Cedric-related articles (and adding pictures) six years ago, the car in the photo bears a vanity license plate with his name on it. I have pointed out that placing incorrect deletion tags on images he suspects of being copyvios is not the right way to go about things, but he persists: a newer example of Kobac knowingly mis-tagging.

In the end, I don't see Kobac's grasp of the policies here being strong enough to trust him with a bot. Another example of troublesome use of categories is how he has populated Category:Automobile parts with several hundred incorrectly listed images of interiors and other detail photos of cars. Here are a few examples of such blatant miscategorizations, all made using visualchange. Mr.choppers (talk) 04:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

The Source of the material. If the uploader is the author, this should be stated explicitly. (e.g. "Created by uploader", "Self-made", "Own work", etc.) Otherwise, please include a web link or a complete citation if possible. Note: Things like "Transferred from Wikipedia" are generally not considered a valid source unless that is where it was originally published. The primary source should be provided.

Commons:Licensing#License information

If you transferred copyvio images from another source you can't mark them as {{own work}}. So any user can request a source by {{no source}}. Note that no comments from Ragdoll8 (talk · contribs) were received.

File:NissanGloria95.jpg was never published at English Wikipedia as NissanGloria95.jpg, so we had wrong source again.

All files without OTRS-tickets uploaded by Dontforgetthisone (talk · contribs) certainly was deleted by sysops.

Did I correctly understood that automobile badges, dashboards and lights are not automobile parts? Anyway, I'm planning to use KobacBot for categorisation by photographers and to categorize images uploaded by me. Cheers. Kobac (talk) 10:25, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

TechBot (talk · contribs)

Operator: Techman224^Talk

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought:

• Use as an AWB assistant for doing various repetitive tasks

Automatic or manually assisted: Semi-automatic

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

Maximum edit rate (eg edits per minute): 6 edits per minute

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): Y

Programming language(s): AWB

I have used it under my main account recently, but I want my AWB edits to appear in a separate account with the bot flag so that it doesn't flood Recent Changes. Techman224^Talk 02:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

• Could you please describe these tasks? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

For example, moving categories and adding delete notices to file description pages when there are lots of files listed in a DR. Techman224^Talk 05:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Which categories you think you should move ? --Foroa (talk) 15:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

HiW-Bot (talk · contribs)

Operator: Hedwig in Washington ^(MAIL?)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: plain old interwiki maintenance for now.

Automatic or manually assisted: automatic, unsupervised (first few edits supervised)

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

Maximum edit rate (eg edits per minute): about 5 / min

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): Y

Programming language(s): pywikipediabot

Hedwig in Washington ^(MAIL?) 06:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

• History of contributing on other projects seems OK for me. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • As the user seems to have almost 0 contributions to Commons, it's probably normal that they don't know about interwikis at Commons. --  Docu  at 20:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • RE: Bot has 0, User 2k (only, mostly images) :-)) What is it I don't know? :) --Hedwig in Washington ^(MAIL?) 07:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
    • 2k: sorry about that, I mainly noticed that your last 50 edits takes me back to 2007. The main point is that there are no "plain old interwiki" at Commons. You will probably notice that when you do a test run. iw at Commons are mainly meaningful in Category namespace. There they should point at Wikipedia articles. Standard py-bot doesn't support that. --  Docu  at 05:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

No problem at all, hope you saw the :) I actually didn't know that PWB iw doesn't support commons. Well, no big deal. I find something else for the script to crunch. Is there anything PWB could do and be helpful on Commons? --Hedwig in Washington ^(MAIL?) 00:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

If you want to try something different, you could attempt to match categories at Commons with articles at English language Wikipedia with identical titles. As link, maybe images categorized in at Commons in that category and used in articles can serve. Maybe there are none though? A toolserver query could help and output a list you could use for the bot. --  Docu  at 21:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I already applied for approval on enwiki for a second task. I use commonscat.py to find matching categories on commons for articles on enwiki. Another user applied for the same thing but wants to work on enwiki categories only, I get to work on the articles as soon as the task is approved. I don't think we need more delinker bots right now. So I guess we can close this BRFA for now? --Hedwig in Washington ^(MAIL?) 05:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

DcoetzeeBot (talk · contribs) de-flag / re-evaluation

Operator: User:Dcoetzee

• Original bot flag request: Commons:Bots/Requests/DcoetzeeBot

Request a de-flag / re-evaluation

• Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Blocks_and_protections#DcoetzeeBot (perm.)
• User_talk:Dcoetzee#revert_your_bot.27s_vandalism (perm)
• User_talk:Dcoetzee#PD-old-90-1923 (perm)

Bot flag is abused to hide controversial edits.

Owner has unblocked the bot himself. log

--Saibo (Δ) 00:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

• Bot was unblocked only to revert own edits. Bot will be reblocked when it's done, which will be in a few minutes. I also promise to refrain from running any controversial jobs in the future without prior consensus, and apologise for my impatience. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Revert job is done and bot is now reblocked. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
• Isn't it a bit blown out of proportion? The bot operator seems fully cooperative, has voluntarily stopped the controversial edits, is cleaning up what needs to be... A little bit of patience and willingness to communicate would have avoided escalating this to a de-flag request, I think. Prof. Professorson (talk) 01:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • In the first place these controversial edits shouldn't have been done with the bot account most importantly since they are hidden from most watchlists and also due to the fast speed, of course. Yes, you name it communication and also cooperation - that is what I had expected from Dcoetzee. As we can see on e.g. AN/B and my talk page he has understood (a bit?) now. More tomorrow. --Saibo (Δ) 02:02, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose de-flagging. I am not familiar with the framework DcoetzeeBot uses but if it is anything like AWB than I have never found a good way to edit description and not edit "original upload log" section. That is because most bots use "find all and replace approach" which does not know what section it is. The best way I found so far was to just skip the file if "original upload log" section (or <nowiki>) is present. It is hard to avoid that problem, and at least in case of PD images it is unclear to me that "original upload log" section is necessary. It seems to me Dcoetzee was very responsive at stopping the bot and correcting the problem. --Jarekt (talk) 03:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • In this case I was using DotNetWikiBot, and was doing a blind regex replacement, because like AWB it doesn't parse wiki syntax into an AST. Skipping nowiki blocks is fairly straightforward though - split the string into a sequence of strings separated by nowiki tags, do the replacement on the strings outside the tags, then join them back together. Dcoetzee (talk) 03:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • @Jarekt: Just want to make you aware that that problem (such problems simply happen sometimes - more or less likely depending on checking and planning) is my minor concern. The main concern is the use of the flagged (=stealth!) bot to do controversial edits. --Saibo (Δ) 04:21, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

 Oppose deflagging. Whilst there were errors, and the bot task did not have a clear community agreement, it was in principle a reasonable task, and the operator responded reasonably once issues were raised. This deflagging request and associated hyperbolic accusations of "vandalism" and "attempts to break Commons" seems merely the latest expression of Saibo's recent frustration at how difficult it is for Commons to cope with the vagaries of US copyright law. That said, I'm sure the operator has taken on board that non-standard bot tasks like that one do need clear community support. It must be recognised that the original flag request, Commons:Bots/Requests/DcoetzeeBot, was very broad, but that does not mean carte blanche in developing and implementing new bot tasks. Rd232 (talk) 04:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, very kind of you. Nice part of the community that is ... </irony> Thanks for at least noting that (more) support is needed for such tasks like Dcoetzee has done. --Saibo (Δ) 05:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• Info: Dcoetzee started his "not-okay" bod edits with tagging all 3k files for deletion without having any discussion before. Result: the DR created much noise, much work and was not accepted by the community. 3k needless tags - he could have had this result with a simpler discussion instead of the DR with the bot-supported (again: flagged - so it even doesn't alert most/many people since those edits do not appear on watchlists) tagging. --Saibo (Δ) 05:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • As I noted on my talk page, I was following standard DR procedure in tagging these files. This step is essential to make sure people who are watching the files are aware that there is a discussion regarding them occurring, and I believe it benefitted the discussion. Another user even offered to use their bot to tag them if I wasn't able to. I will of course remove the tags when the discussion is closed, which is also standard procedure and a trivial job. Dcoetzee (talk) 07:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I oppose deletion discussion ("he could have had this result with a simpler discussion") without tagging files Bulwersator (talk) 16:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
    • I never said that a deletion discussion should have happend without file tags. --Saibo (Δ) 16:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• Info: I unblocked DcoetzeeBot. That is not meant as an end of this discussion about the bot flag. --Saibo (Δ) 19:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

•  Comment The permission was sought for 20 edits/min max. Now it does up to 30/min. When using the API as bots are supposed, not sending multiple requests at once, this is not possible. You should also set the maxlag parameter. Do you? For uploads, of course this makes no sense (would be just wasted bandwidth). -- RE rillke questions? 18:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I use the mwclient library out of the box, single-threaded (no concurrent queries), which also uses and respects the server's defined maxlag, as far as I know, unless it's buggy. Dcoetzee (talk) 06:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
    • This means 1 edit/2s. I am still confused how to achieve such an edit rate. When using JavaScript/JSON, not checking the protection level before (which mwclient library does) with an API query, I am able to do max.20/min. using max. 1 request at one time. BTW, the upload should switched to API and implement chunked upload for large files... -- RE rillke questions? 14:17, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Most likely the difference in edit rate reflects latency differences - I'm located in the US and you're located in Europe, which leads to longer roundtrip times for requests. When I did the uploads I was using DotNetWikiBot, which possibly doesn't implement API uploads. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:06, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

YarluFileBot (talk · contribs)

Operator: Yarl ✉

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: upload images

Automatic or manually assisted: automatic

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

Maximum edit rate (eg edits per minute): 1-6

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): Y

Programming language(s): python (upload.py @ pywikipedia)

Yarl ✉ 19:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

• This bot will upload CC-BY-SA, self-made images from website http://fotopolska.eu/. Example upload: File:Namysłów, Linia kolejowa nr 143 - 179492 - fotopolska.eu.jpg. Yarl ✉ 19:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Please add {{Licensereview}}. If you're going to upload a lot of images you might want to create a custom one like {{Flickrreview}}. Multichill (talk) 21:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

• Agree with Multichill about {{Licensereview}}. Other problem I see is the watermark, if they are frequent, can you crop them prior to upload? Are any images goecodded, and is so is there any way to capture that information? Can you upload few dozen of other images so there are few more examples. --Jarekt (talk) 03:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• Sure, I'll add {{Licensereview}}. Watermark is on every image and I don't want to crop them, because I upload them directly from Fotopolska server to Commons server. Moreover I think sometimes it's better to photoshop watermark instead crop image. I'll try to upload some images today. Yarl ✉ 12:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• If all images have watermark than {{watermark}} template should be also added. It does not have to be done at the upload time but it might be good to have a plan to remove those watermarks eventually, as not to add to 11k backlog of images with watermarks we have at the moment. --Jarekt (talk) 12:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• Exactly, maybe some actions on wikiproject in Polish Wikipedia? Yarl ✉ 15:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• I've uploaded some images, see Special:Contributions/YarluFileBot. Yarl ✉ 15:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
• City name is present in file title. Is it possible to extract (or copy) it to add category? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Sure, I just wanted to avoid too crowded cities' main categories. So, maybe I'll add city category and Category:Images from Fotopolska needing category review. This should be better? Yarl ✉ 16:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• I think the bot should add categories and get as close as it can, but it is better to add city main category than not add categories at all. Such categories often are used as "not yet categorized images from ..." anyway. However there is a bigger problem , see for example File:Wrocław - fotopolska.eu (58087).jpg. The source provides location of the image as "Polska / woj. dolnośląskie / Wrocław / Muchobór Mały / ul. Hiszpańska 12 / Hiszpańska 12" and coordinates as {{location dec|51.10798485657522|16.961064040660858}} while the only description copied to Commons was "Dom nr 12" ("House #12"). The bot needs to be able to capture the whole description and coordinates. --Jarekt (talk) 18:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• I don't have full access to database, only output from script made by Fotopolska administrator. However I'll try to talk to him and fill gaps in description. Yarl ✉ 19:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• You might be able to scrape them from the HTML of the page. For example closer inspection of the source code of the source of File:Lądek-Zdrój - fotopolska.eu (57918).jpg reveals that there are coordinates in the code : "... window.open('/Mapa.php?lat=(50.34610399248642, 16.871690154075622)&zoom=17&maptype=hybrid' ..." which can be copied to {{object location dec|50.34610399248642|16.871690154075622}} and added to the image. The addresses of the buildings can be harvested in a similar way and possibly added to {{Building address}} and added to image description. Hopefully that can be done with the blessing of the site administrators. --Jarekt (talk) 19:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Upload Bot (Rich Smith) (talk · contribs)

Operator: Rich(MTCD)^T|C|E-Mail

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: Image copying from *.wikipedia.org > Commons using a version of CommonsHelper on Wikimedia Labs

Automatic or manually assisted: Automatic

Edit type (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): Whenever requested from CommonsHelper

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): Y

Programming language(s): Perl

Rich(MTCD)^T|C|E-Mail 00:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

• I think will be good idea to place such images in categories for review. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do - Rich(MTCD)^T|C|E-Mail 22:58, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

RE ^: What category(ies) do you suggest? - Rich(MTCD)^T|C|E-Mail 00:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Something like Category:Files moved from en.wikipedia to Commons requiring review. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

The bot already adds to that category with the correct date, for example File:Cokedale.JPG, hope this is what you mean? - Rich(MTCD)^T|C|E-Mail 09:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

KrattBot (talk · contribs)

Operator: WikedKentaur (talk)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: various tasks on as needed basis: tagging images, expanding image descriptions uploading new images

Automatic or manually assisted: both

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

Maximum edit rate (eg edits per minute): pywikipedia default

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): yes

Programming language(s): pywikipedia

WikedKentaur (talk) 12:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

• Tagging looks OK for me.
• I think will be good idea to create template for historical images. It'll allow internationalization and also split data and it's representation. Is it possible to translate data to other languages (English, Russian, etc) to make images more useful in other projects?

EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:53, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Template would be good indeed. The table, e.g. in smf 3761 345, isn't really easy to use. --  Docu  at 11:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Switched to Template:Artwork --WikedKentaur (talk) 15:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

┌───┘
Actually with table I meant:

<table>
<tr>
<td>
Muuseumikogu </td><td> Maalikogu</td></tr>
</table>
<table>
<tr>
<td>
Autor </td><td> 
Köler, Johann</td></tr>
<tr>
<td>
Olemus </td><td> 
maal</td></tr>
<tr>
<td>
Kunstiese </td><td> </td></tr>
<tr>
<td>
Säilivus </td><td> rahuldav</td></tr>
</table>

Sample from EKM00457 M01783. I suppose it should be possible to map this to {{artwork}}. BTW, for photos, {{artwork}} isn't ideal. --  Docu  at 11:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• For paintings I would suggest also filling in the artist parameter to {{artwork}}, as you already add a correct author category. You could use an expression like {{subst:#ifexist:Creator:Johann Köler|{{Creator:Johann Köler}}|Johann Köler}} to automatically use a creator template, if one exists. Of course, deriving other {{artwork}} parameters, like medium (with {{Technique}}) template, you could use Template:Technique/et for translations) and dimensions (with {{size}} template) would be nice too. You could also add the date parameter to {{information}} based on the "Daatum" field. Don't feel pressured to add them, if it's too much work, though. One more thing: create a single table instead of multiple ones (looks a bit messy otherwise).

If you are interested in additional Estonian historical image sources, have you seen / considered importing from virtuaalmuuseum.ee? Anyway, nice work, I'm certainly glad to see someone write a bot to improve Estonian content on Commons. —Quibik (talk) 22:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

ErfgoedBot (talk · contribs)

Operator: Multichill (talk) (and some others)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: Work related to the heritage projects and Wiki Loves Monuments

Automatic or manually assisted: Automatic

Edit type (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): Continues and clean up runs

Maximum edit rate (eg edits per minute): Nothing special

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): Y

Programming language(s): Mostly python (build on pywikipedia)

The only task until recently was to update Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments 2011/Monuments database/Statistics. Now that I'm updating Category:National Register of Historic Places with known IDs a bot flag seems appropriate to not flood watchlists. Multichill (talk) 16:54, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

If you're going to insult the entire process by having the bot perform tens of thousands of edits before it gets the flag or is even marked as OK, then why bother to even place the request? Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• Looks OK for me, but I agree with Magog the Ogre. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:44, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
• Probably we should re-organize the bot-approval process for trusted users: If you go here and wait, you may loose a lot of time if you don't, you do something against the rules despite your bot is probably making everything correct. And: Bot-operators can change the code without any notice and proving that they've done so in case of errors is not easy. -- RE rillke questions? 00:46, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• I totally agree with Rillke. On ro.wp there are only a few people who both run robots and participate in the discussions and many requests were trailing for months. So at one time, we decided to approve the bot user the first time it runs and then only ask for the operator to announce the new tasks in another page, where anybody can comment. If nobody does so for a week, the task is considered approved.--Strainu (talk) 18:44, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• I stopped respecting the process after this joke (a change of policy to enforce enwp bot policy on Commons which I always opposed). I try to stick to this version. Multichill (talk) 20:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• One could block this bot according to Commons:Blocking policy just for formal reasons. Someone interested in a policy-change? Where to discuss it? Commons talk:Bots? Bot operators should announce what they (or their bots) are doing but as long as the task is uncontroversial, they should not wait, IMHO. -- RE rillke questions? 17:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• No objections against a bot-flag. -- RE rillke questions? 17:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
• There was a similar request some time ago for Austria related monuments. The comments made there apply here too. In the current way Commons works, it could be an advantage if the bot applied categories rather than templates to the images.
  On the other hand, the template could also be use to generate a dynamic database of images elsewhere (or here at a later stage). Given the limitations of current categories, maybe such templates are the way to move ahead. Thus "support". --  Docu  at 19:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC), edited 19:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
• I added subcategories to Category:National Register of Historic Places with known IDs. Images in these could probably use {{NRHP}} as well. --  Docu  at 06:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

TheStoneBot (talk · contribs)

Operator: Kaganer (talk)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: for mass image recategorization with using Cat-a-lot gadget and similar tools.

Automatic or manually assisted: manually

Edit type: one time

Maximum edit rate (eg edits per minute): 100-200

Bot flag requested: Y

Programming language(s): no

Kaganer (talk) 15:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

• Please make a test run. How naming decisions will be made in controversial situations? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

  See log. File set will be manually choosen, all from controversial situations will be resolved manually. --Kaganer (talk) 17:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

  For current test task - is first step for recategorization of SPB postcards. All these cards are to St. Petersburg, but not all - to the Russian Empire or SPB Governorate. Firstly, they must be removed in a "custom" category, then rearrange so as to extract "imperial" part. --Kaganer (talk) 17:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

  NB: I am actively using this gadget for a long time (under my main account), and I do not remember any conflict or dispute with my participation (about this my work). I need a boat to safer and faster to work with large sets, as well as to separate my "routine" contributon. --Kaganer (talk) 17:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

  Test run looks OK for me. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:32, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

rezabot (talk · contribs)

Operator: User:reza1615 (User talk:reza1615)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: Adding {{Assessments}} on files featured in fa.wp

Automatic or manually assisted: automatic

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

Maximum edit rate (eg edits per minute):40 per week (It's almost impossible)

Bot flag requested: (Y/N):Y

Programming language(s):Python, homemade but on base of m:PWB (amirobot's works with that codes)

Reza1615 (talk) 10:45, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

• Please make a test run. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Except that it inserts a new line, which is uncommon for this template, the edits look good to me. Why not? -- RE rillke questions? 16:20, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

MagulBot (talk · contribs)

Operator: Magul (talk)

Help cleaning up images and categories in the topic of European Union administrative division (especially coat of arms, flags and maps). That includes recategoring, inserting desired templates (e.g. {{superseded}}), etc.

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: inserting template {{superseded}} in maps of municipalities of Bulgaria created by Targovishtenec bg (Looks to mine previous edits).

Automatic or manually assisted: automatic, but with continuous supervision.

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

Maximum edit rate (eg edits per minute): 6/min

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): Why not? So Y.

Programming language(s): Python

Magul (talk) 20:16, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Edits have been made.--Magul (talk) 01:53, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Test run looks OK for me. But is there any agreement on subject of superseding? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:53, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know, there was no agreement about superseding this particular files, but (at least I guess) there are no controversial in mine (or rather mine bot) editions. Do You think otherwise? --Magul (talk) 15:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Please add notices such as the one on File:Flag of Zilair rayon (Bashkortostan).png to the end of the file description page. --  Docu  at 06:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

SDrewthbot (talk · contribs)

Operator:  — billinghurst sDrewth

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought:

• Upgrading/updating {{information}} on files, eg. adding repetitive descriptive text to files, especially upgrading derivative texts where extracted from .djvu files as used at Wikisource. Specific example would be adding illustrator details to files where that has been omitted. Generally would list tasks undertaken on talk page at time of operation.
• Recategorising and similarly adding categories to works, again examples would be derivative works that have been added for extracted pages from .djvu files
• Bot currently operates on ad hoc basis at English Wikisource, en:s:user:SDrewthbot contributions sulutil

Automatic or manually assisted: Manually assisted

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

Maximum edit rate (eg edits per minute): one per minutes, again note small batch, ad hoc

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): Not required, though may be worth consideration at some point in time.Yes Looking to progress to bot status.

Programming language(s): AWB

 — billinghurst sDrewth 05:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Previous discussion 

Please make a test run. --Schlurcher (talk) 17:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Please close as stale. --Schlurcher (talk) 14:09, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

---

Closed thread: stale.  Docu  at 10:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

---

Reinvigorate. Necessity calls.

• Requested to undertake simple text replacement of modifying the page to be transcluded. Currently running slowly. Task listed at User:SDrewthbot, 374 pages requiring text replacement.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

No objections. --Schlurcher (talk) 14:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Approved for this task. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 11:46, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

---

Updated

Looking to upgrade the status of the work being undertaken by myself with my bot in looking to get a general agreement to undertaking text replacements in the updating of {{Information}} text, and then the allocation of bot status. Allocating bot status will allow this to run semi-automated within AWB.

• Template fixes around Special:WantedTemplates/commonswiki, where template should not be created, that is the template is unnecessary it will be removed with parameters, where the template is broken, it will fixed to required state to be functional.
• Application of {{creator}} transclusion to the Author = field within {{information}} or {{book}} templates where the requisite Creator: namespace page exists, principally selecting worklist by the respective categories of the authors.

Typically this type of work is in batches of less than 100, as they are small repetitive tasks on small groups requiring fixes. Such batches are reviewed for passes and fails. Also happy to take requests for this type of work.

To note that SDrewthbot has an extensive edit history at English Wikisource for similar repetitive text replacements SUL. My current process is to list ad hoc tasks as they are undertaken on the userpage, where a more complex fix takes place to create a subpage with the detail, and to link to it specfically, adding the content of replacement, with regex, and then API query used, eg. s:en:User:SDrewthbot/trim trailing LF  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I think will be good idea to improve edit summaries (example). --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes I agree, though that edit was a point of difference as it had to be manual saves rather than semi-automated. I saw that it needed the template, and I cheated, rather than needing to do even more edit circles.<shrug>

Not sure if it's a good idea to insert empty information templates into file description pages. --  Docu  at 06:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

If that is all that it was, then I would agree, but it wasn't. I added {{subst:information/preload}}, and if you look closely you will see that the next edit was by me to complete the template. For those of using secure login, we cannot use the information load gadget.  — billinghurst sDrewth

Further edits happening with simple explanation summary of changes.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:24, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Now replacement information is duplicated in edit summaries. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:46, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

It was showing the applied label, and then AWB was applying the record of the actual action. I have changed it to just add a label. If there is specific guidance on what is the preferred edit summary, happy to comply. It is not something that we cover at Commons:Bots or Help:Edit summary.  — billinghurst sDrewth 20:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Were there further thoughts or requirements? Do I need to do more?  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

{{see below}} isn't needed at [5]. --  Docu  at 07:16, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

yep, it was hosed on some, and I added it, then stopped.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:50, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

ComboBot (talk · contribs)

Operator: Cmapm (talk)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: Automated edit interface, provided by pywikipedia. Don't plan to modify its code or use its API in a program so far. First test edits are: here.

Automatic or manually assisted: Manually assisted: to provide pywikipedia with lists of files to add a category and name of the category to add them to is the primary task in the nearest future.

Edit type (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): As far as I have time to run it.

Maximum edit rate (eg edits per minute): Don't plan to change default pywikipedia settings.

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): Y

Programming language(s): Python (pywikipedia)

Cmapm (talk) 23:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

• Test run looks OK for me. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:37, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Emijrpbot (talk · contribs) (Task 7)

Operator: emijrp (talk)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: Adding region info to coordinate templates like {{Location dec}} and {{Object location dec}} using GeoNames webservices to convert coordinates into a country code and a ISO number. See example.

Automatic or manually assisted: automatic

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

Maximum edit rate (eg edits per minute): 10

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): n

Programming language(s): python (pywikipediabot)

emijrp (talk) 16:38, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

 Question Why is that useful? I have seen it in some files, but never found case there it makes a difference. --Jarekt (talk) 02:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

It is metadata information useful for categorization, bots, dispenser's coordinates database, and other uses for sure. Being an available parameter in these templates, I think a bot doing the work instead humans is better. emijrp (talk) 13:44, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it's good idea to place this information into images description directly. May be combine with GeoCommons database and provide API access for bots? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The region info isn't added into images description but into coordinates templates (as allowed since ages in the 3rd parameter), did you see the diff? Regards. emijrp (talk) 16:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Bot reached my uploads :-) and I definitely don't see any value in such changes (adding country or USA state). May be this make some sense for uncategorized files (but why not in external database?), but definitely useless for files in relevant geographical categories. I don't think that existence of parameter should be only justification :-) --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:55, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

It is due to some strange quirks in history that some people have gotten it into their heads the region: is actually something useful. It was original used in the gis extension to show 'better' local maps. The flaw in this thinking is providers purposely limit coverage to a single geographic region, in the internet age. A better implementation would uses a polygon map of coverage and show only those which cover the areas. Using appropriate data structures the average search time is O(log n).

The only other tool that usefully uses region: was a region: validator. The bad news, besides the occasional out of whack vertices putting part of Connecticut in the Atlantic Ocean, it doesn't match the boarder exactly (2 GiB limit). And unfortunately borders are a bit of a magnet for articles and photographs. The last I heard about GeoNames the were provide out of date Wikipedia geocoordinates, so they aren't likely to be using the newest ISO region code. Finally, GeoHack already has a point in region lookup, I'd put it into the ghel dumps if the daily processing didn't already take 3-4 hours. Dispenser (talk) 06:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Your database doesn't include the region info for all landmarks, can you add it? So, if region parameter is not useful, it must be marked as deprecated and deleted. emijrp (talk) 08:32, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Orbot1 (talk · contribs)

Operator: --Srikant Kedia

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought:

• To do, or.wikipedia work (any thing, when ever required)
• To Upload files from flicker (As or.wikipedia has started the project Wikifotowalk) eg. Bhubaneswar WikiFotoWalk, uploaded in flicker

Automatic or manually assisted: Automatic(Supervised)

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

Maximum edit rate (eg edits per minute):

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): Y

Programming language(s): Python (pywikipedia) --Srikant Kedia 17:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

KrinkleBot (talk · contribs)

Operator: –Krinkle^talk

Bot's tasks:

Currently I am running this script as a sysop on User:Krinkle/enwiki mainpage. Purpose of this script: Protect files used on English Wikipedia's main page on Commons (since Wikipedia's cascading protection doesn't rule here). The system works as follows:

• Periodically (every 10-15 minutes[1]) the bot looks which images are used on the main page of Wikipedia
• It prepares an edit with a <gallery> to be saved to Commons. If nothing has changed, edit will collapse as a null-edit (no revision saved). If something has changed, there will be a new revision thus updating the cascading protection
• The target page (currently User:Krinkle/enwiki mainpage, in the future Commons:Auto-protected images/wikipedia/en) must be cascading sysop-protected. Which is why the bot must have sysop-rights (that's what this request is for).

[1]: Originally I did this once a day (since the main page is per-day), however several parts (trancluded parts, such as DYI) change more often or at least not at the same time as the rest. Therefor I choose to run it every 10 minutes. In most cases, due to null-edit collapsing, there is not actually an edit made every 10 minutes. It only saves an edit if something actually changes which is only about 5 or 6 times a day

Automatic or manually assisted: Automatic

Edit type : Periodically (cronjob)

Maximum edit rate (eg edits per minute): Edits once every 10-15 minutes. Right now this would only be for en.wikipedia (so that's 1 edit attempt in 10 minutes - which, as described above, is about 5-6 actual edits per day). If more wikis request this (which I am planning), it would be a little higher.

Bot flag: Already have a bot flag. Requesting sysop.

Programming language(s): Python (fileprotectionsync.py)

–Krinkle^talk 18:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Was about to make one for zhwiki and realized there's already one running :P Jimmy Xu (talk) 11:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable to give administrator status, otherwise testing will be impossible. From other side it's good idea to run it for small amount of time (day-two) to check functionality before "production". --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

 Agree --Jarekt (talk) 15:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

This can be very beneficial if the bot is open for different projects to use. zh.wikipedia just saw the first case of main page image vandalism last week and this definitely is going to help. --Ben.MQ (talk) 16:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

---

If there is no objections, I think we sgould grant administrator status to bot for further testing. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:47, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Bot has administrator status. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I created Commons:Auto-protected files. Testing enwiki and zhwiki currently. –Krinkle^talk 21:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I think will be good idea to create copies o main pages with templates called in future time (like 20 minutes ahead) instead of main page with current time. So protection will be more reliable. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:53, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Is it possible to apply upload protection by using cascading protection? I tried to access reupload interface using my alternate account without admin flag, and it was possible to access the page, but I did not upload anything. I wonder this method would really work. Best regards. – Kwj2772 (msg) 04:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

You will receive an error message after clicking upload, I think. Bencmq (talk) 14:58, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

SebrevBOT (talk · contribs)

Operator: Sebrev (talk) 23:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought:

• To update interwikis.
• To put language template in descriptions.
• To move the category redirects to the good category.

Automatic or manually assisted:

• Automatic.

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

• Continuous.

Maximum edit rate (eg edits per minute):

Bot flag requested: (Y/N):

• Yes.

Programming language(s):

• python (pywikipedia).

--Sebrev (talk) 23:25, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

• Test run seems OK for me. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:51, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Redirected categories should have a cool down period.--Foroa (talk) 18:28, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

DougBot (talk · contribs)

Operator: User:Doug^{(talk • contribs)}

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought:

1. Categorization: I frequently run across categorization issues, such as overcategorization, undercategorization, and incorrect categories. As an example, Category:Nietzsche's_Werke has subcats for vols. III, VI, and VIII, but not for vol. I. Over 600 files (the jpg pages of the book) belong in Vol.I. Vols. III and VI were also incorrectly in Category:Œuvres de Nietzsche, a category best used for the french translations of his works; I manually fixed those as they were only a few. I will always investigate thoroughly before making changes. I will move a few of the elements of Vol. I to a subcat that as part of my test run. Later, after I have moved the entire group, I will set them up with a {{book}} template witha {{BookNaviBar}}, so that they can be easily navigated in jpg form - however, doing this to only a sample set would be problematic.
2. Tag maintenance: As an example, using the same files as above, most of the works in Category:Nietzsche's_Werke and it's subcats have the license tag {{PD-old-70}}, most of the works in German by Nietzsche should be converted to {{PD/1923|1900}} (or {{PD-old-100}}) to indicate world wide public domain status. Additionally, most have either {{info}} or no information at all beyond a license. I will (eventually) replace {{info}} if it's there, putting {{book}} with {{creator}} and {{BookNaviBar}} on each (via a custom template as was done by User:Inductiveload at upload on Category:Utopia,_More,_1518). However, only partially applying these would be problematic and would create a mess if it weren't finished in a single run for all 600 plus pages so I will do a smaller test replace run replacing only a small number of {{PD-old-70}} tags with {{PD-old-100}}. I will also plan to use the bot in a manual/bot assisted mode to replace {{info}} with {{book}} on other works after close investigation.

Most of these will be works that are in use or have been uploaded for use on a wikisource project. Because I frequently work with such files as part of my work on wikisource projects, I am well familiar with the normal set ups and I have been active in the improvement of {{Book}} and {{creator}}. I am experienced in copyrights. DougBot currently runs formatting jobs on several wikisources and is flagged on en.ws and la.ws. I also run a second bot, s:Interwiki-Bot, a wikisource interwiki language link bot that runs on all wikisource projects and is flagged on all wikisource projects that provide for such flags.

Automatic or manually assisted:Automatic/supervised

Edit type (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run):Intermittent. Bots runs when a job is identified.

Maximum edit rate (eg edits per minute):Approximately 2 edits per minute unless flagged/Approximately 6 edits per minute if flagged.

Bot flag requested: (Y/N):Doesn't matter to me; bot will make sporadic runs ranging from a few dozen to several hundred edits at a time - the example above is over 600 files. These may be infrequent but will be annoying in the recent changes and can be run much faster with a flag.

Programming language(s):Python (PWB)

User:Doug^{(talk • contribs)} 09:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

 Support, it seems to be ok. -- Basilicofresco (msg) 10:04, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• What did you base your comment on? The bot has 0 edits. --  Docu  at 07:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I read the proposal, but you are right a test run is needed. Doug, could you please make a mixed test run of about 20 pages? -- Basilicofresco (msg) 18:59, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, sorry. I got tied up on some other things after I had planned out a large project for the above and never executed a test. I had several in mind, let me see if I can remember where I was and run a test within the next couple days. Thanks for the poke.--User:Doug^{(talk • contribs)} 19:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I started to simply change the cat and template but then decided to combine the addition of {{book}}. I ran several careful tests both on a private test wiki and in userspace as well as making dry runs in file space and I found several bugs in replace.py (which I've reported and am looking at to see if I can figure them out - one was causing multiple matches even with dotall:true). At the same time, relooking at this reminded me that I wanted to create {{Nietzsche's Werke, I}}, which I did, and apply it to each of the pages which combines several of the issues above into a single edit. I am running the bot on the first 20 pages per request (pages 001 and 003-021; 002 was done manually to check the function of the template parameters), the first couple of pages were done twice because I had already started them with the lest robust solution; I need to write a new script to add the parameters to make the pages navigable, but I can finish the recatting and add the parameters later, depending on how soon I get that done. Running at 90sec throttle.--User:Doug^{(talk • contribs)} 12:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done Now that I have worked through this, I foresee this being the general solution in many such cases. There will be authors with individual jpgs or djvus that need copyright tags corrected and in some cases this may be appropriate for the bot but a lot of those will be just as well done by hand. However, for sets of jpgs like these the autocatting template will work best. I expect to process about 1500 pages of Nietzsche in the German version alone as even the properly categorized ones should need the correct copyright tag, a book template, and could be converted to autocat. I will then move on to the French and English versions noted above. Once these are autocatted, they will be much easier to rearrange, simply by changing the cat in the template.--User:Doug^{(talk • contribs)} 12:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Phe-bot (talk · contribs)

Operator: Phe (talk)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: Recat, specific replacement like [6]. This bot has bot-flag on fr.wikisource, en.wikisource and a few other, my oldest bot has bot-flag on fr.wp on the name fr:User:Badmood since 2004. Phe (talk) 18:53, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Automatic or manually assisted: Always manually assisted at least for the first changes in each run, automated else.

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

Maximum edit rate (eg edits per minute): pywikipedia default, depend on how lag the server, from one per minute up to 12 max per minute. A few changes at start of each run at a lower rate.

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): Y

Programming language(s): Python

Phe (talk) 18:53, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

• • I think will idea to replace plain text author information with creator template when doing similar license tags updates.
  • Could you pleas provide more information about categories changes? What is criteria to make a change?
  • EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Make sense to add a creator for these ~750 files.
    • Like this [7], the |Date= field allowed to cat in the right Books by year sub-cats. These was without bot flags as I needed to validate each change. Change was not the correct word when presenting the bot, here it's adding cat based on template parameter value. Phe (talk) 01:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

      How bot find out year of publication? It makes mistakes sometimes. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

      Right, I missed this one when looking the diff, the bot took it from the birth date because the Date = was missing. Phe (talk) 01:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Faebot (talk · contribs)

Operator: Fæ (talk)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought:

GLAM related batch uploads. For example:

Category:Anti-slavery manuscripts in Boston Public Library (600+ pages, completed)

Category:Chromolithographs at Boston Public Library (1,200+ prints, completed)

Category:Tupper Scrapbooks (continuing)

Category:Animal Locomotion (780 pages in 11 volumes, completed)

Category:New Mexico postcards by Tichnor Bros (180+ 1930s postcards)

Only considering one-off uploads at the moment, so should remain supervised.

Automatic or manually assisted:

Automatic (sample checks should only be needed as the images have been reviewed at source)

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

One time runs.

Maximum edit rate (eg edits per minute):

May need fast runs for larger uploads (such as 500 images).

Bot flag requested: (Y/N):

Y

Programming language(s):

Python (just started using) or my home grown JavaScript wrapper for User:Flickr upload bot. Fæ (talk) 07:50, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

• Please use language tags to enclose description. Author field is definitely wrong, since library just scanned images. I don't see any sense in Photos uploaded from Flickr by Faebot ID72157604192771132 categories. If bot can't deduce relevant categories from descriptions, something like Boston Public Library files needed categories should be used. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:02, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Note that I intend to get Flickrripper working (my install is falling over at the moment) and so some of the things you don't like will come out in the wash, though I have just added the 'en' template to the default description fields in my JavaScript. The images you have seen have not been loaded via python but just by shoving them through User:Flickr upload bot. As for the temporary category, this is part of the manual process I'm using as the Flickr upload bot has been flaky about whether images are actually loaded or not. Consequently I prefer to do a visual check using a non-existing category before using cat-a-lot to move them to the final category, which you can see from the file histories. --Fæ (talk) 17:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I have now used Faebot to upload a couple of hundred example images from Boston Public Library (mostly 19th century colour lithographs of popular landscapes), see Category:Chromolithographs at Boston Public Library of landscapes and created Category:Animal Locomotion which has some rare examples of the well known Eadweard Muybridge photographs (780+ image plates). These use the language tag as suggested but if the author field is to be improved, this would have to run as a second stage. Unfortunately I have not been able to use Flickrripper as this appears to need a payment to Apple for access to pre-Lion version XCode if I run it under OS 10.5 (I don't have a Windows machine handy at home and don't fancy the dubious value of spending $60 upgrading to Lion), so the uploads have continued to use my local JavaScript wrapper for Bryan's Flickr upload bot which is frustratingly limited to 24 images per hour and forces the author field to be the Flickr account name. If someone has access to Bryan's exemption list I would love Faebot to be added to it, things would go a lot quicker. --Fæ (talk) 10:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I still do not have the right libraries for Flickr-ripper on my OS, though I am trying out Python for other things and plan to help with a request on the Geograph tidy up in a few weeks time. --Fæ (talk) 16:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
• Faebot has been making changes to a few hundred corrections to licenses and attribution over the last 24 hours. --Fæ (talk) 09:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
• Faebot has made further improvements to the license terms on uploads of Category:Tupper Scrapbooks, 351 images, including a swap to PD-old-100 as Tupper died in 1898. Making some simple corrections to Category:Animal Locomotion, 780 images. --Fæ (talk) 16:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
• After a couple of examples of the bot upload template being removed when licenses are corrected, Faebot is adding its own hidden bot upload category to relevant files sourced to Flickr rather than relying on this being transcluded more obscurely via the template. --Fæ (talk) 00:47, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
• Faebot has made a couple of thousand changes to Category:Chromolithographs at Boston Public Library in order to improve the Author field using the data from the Library, improve dates where possible, clearer layout for permissions and move over from CC BY-SA to a suitable PD license. --Fæ (talk) 07:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

MatmaBot (talk · contribs)

Operator: Matma Rex (talk)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: work related to Polish Wiki Loves Monuments. First creating a category tree of Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Poland - there are over 2000 gminas (communes) in Poland and every one needs a category. Then, possibly, some recategorization work (I'll ask for permission for this separately, if necessary.).

Automatic or manually assisted: automatic

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

• category tree: a one-time job
• recategorization: on-demand, whenever necessary

Maximum edit rate (eg edits per minute): since I'm requesting bot flag - infinity? I can make the bot go slower if necessary.

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): Yes

Programming language(s): Ruby + Sunflower gem.

Matma Rex (talk) 12:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

•  Info Matma Rex (talk · contribs) has been working very closely with me on issues related to the Polish Wiki Loves Monuments contest and he's been advised to create this request page by myself; I have a complete trust in the user and hope that granting him the flag will be just a technical matter. Thanks, odder (talk) 12:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
•  Info I'll add that I'm also running a bot on pl.wiki (pl:user:MatmaBot), on the same software. As of now it's made over 45 thousand edits. Matma Rex (talk) 12:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

  Please make a test run. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

  Done, on some random pages. Matma Rex (talk) 16:43, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• Personally, I'd do these fixes, linking Wikipedia directly and sorting in Gmina Wodynie by category name.
  If you include a template in all categories, this makes it easier to standardize its contents. Similar to the one in here, it might be used to include the entire description.
  To avoid the categories get deleted while empty, the template should probably include {{part of structure}}.
  BTW "OdderBot" seems to create these too (sample). --  Docu  at 05:09, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
  • OdderBot was creating categories of powiats (districts), there are around 300 of them. I'll be creating cats of gminas (communes), which are smaller than powiats and part of them, and of which there are >2000. I think you have a point there, I'll consult somebody, but probably we'll do it the way you suggested. Matma Rex (talk) 09:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

WillieBot (talk · contribs) (Request 3)

Operator: theMONO

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: Talk page archival.

Automatic or manually assisted: Automatic

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

Maximum edit rate (eg edits per minute): Contingent on Toolserver load

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): N

Programming language(s): Pywikipediabot framework from the Toolserver

This task is currently being operated on another Wikimedia wiki. theMONO 01:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

How compatible this bot with other similar ones? Could it use existing archival settings? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

To archive, it uses a common template syntax - see User:WillieBot/ArchiveThisPage and should work with existing settings if necessary. theMONO 03:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Please make a test run. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

SreeBot (talk · contribs)

Operator: Sreejith K (talk)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: Transferring images from other Wikipedias to Commons. We already have Commons Helper for this task, but I have made my own custom scripts which seems to be doing a better job. Till date, I have uploaded a lot of media from regional Wikis to Commons using this tool, but under my own name. Now I am not able to distinguish between my own uploads and the ones transferred from other Wikis.

I will not be sharing the new commons mover tool with others unlike the commons helper tool, so every upload or edit this bot makes will be done by me.

Automatic or manually assisted: Semi-automatic. Its similar to Commons Helper tool. I will have to fill out a form manually and click upload. The rest of the tasks are done by the tool.

Edit type (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): Manually assisted. For every image to be transferred to Commons, I will have to fill a form and click a button.

Maximum edit rate (eg edits per minute): 1-2 per minute. Mostly the same speed as Commons Helper.

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): I am not sure. If I can operate this one without a bot flag, I am fine with that.

Programming language(s): Dot net. This is an executable which runs from my machine. I do not have a web version or a toolserver account. I can share the source code if its required.

Sreejith K (talk) 10:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

• Please describe files review process. There quite a lot suspicious images transferred with existing tools. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:48, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Like I said, the process of picking images is totally manual just like in CommonsHelper tool. I will not run this bot blindly in a category. I will check the file to be transferred for appropriate permissions personally and transfer the image. If possible, I will also do a bot review in Commons with my own account. Its just that I want the upload to be under a different account than mine since I am getting lost in my uploads when I try to find the images for which I have copyright. --Sreejith K (talk) 01:53, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

• The bot account has made thousands of transfers already and some concerns have not been addressed. See [8][9] and User talk:SreeBot where piles of DR requests have accumulated. --ZooFari 06:56, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Sven's concern was that my script was adding Transferred from en.wikipedia by SreeBot to the source field if {{Information}} template was not present in en wiki. But that's what all bots do including CommonsHelper. If there is no {{Information}} template, it is impossible to create one afresh with all the fields populated correctly. That should be done by the user who verifies the file move. Regarding the error with File:Sophie Lyons in Professional Criminals of America.png, the transfer was done on 6 August 2011 and since then the bot script has improved quite a lot. Now, I do not make that error. Regarding the DR requests on the Bots talk page, considering the fact that the Bot has made 7,000+ transfers already and not even 100 DRs has been raised so far, I think the Bot is doing a pretty good job. Also, I do participate in all the DRs raised and fix errors with the script every time I find one. Finally, for File:Gas-light-coke-lorries.jpg, if you use any available bot including CommonsHelper, it will do the same thing that my script did. It is impossible to automate fixing the license template. And thats why we have a bot review template added.

I think it's not fair to block the bot considering the fact that it never runs automated. Every single transfer it makes is done by me manually, by clicking on a transfer button in the tool. If there are errors with the transfers, its me who should be warned and not the Bot. If this block is used, me or someone else will use CommonsHelper to transfer the files and you will see the same output in Commons. So blocking the Bot will not help anyways. --Sreejith K (talk) 07:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

• I do not think that a bot needs a flag to move files from a Wikipedia to Commons. As for the quality of the move I agree there are problems. For example:
  • File:Railroad "S" Curve.jpg The link in the source does not work. It is very important that here is a working link to the source.
  • File:Philadelphia & Reading Railroad Terminal, Philadelphia, PA 1893.jpg. The author is not the uploader at English Wikpedia.
  • File:MEC Rockland Branch Map 1920.jpg. The author is not the uploader at English Wikpedia.
  • (same problem with a lot of the other transfers)
  • File:Planet HD 240210 b.png. Check the template on Commons "Template loop detected: Template:Self ..."

So I suggest that that Sreejith K checks the files allreaady uploaded before new files are moved to Commons. --MGA73 (talk) 09:27, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks MGA73 for the comments. I checked the files linked above. The source link in the first image had a double quote which I should have encoded. Its a small one which I never noticed and one which I will fix before my next upload. In the rest of the files, CommonsHelper also does the same thing which I did. If there is no {{Information}} template in the source wiki, thats the only thing a script can add in the author field. In the last one, CommonsHelper adds a lot of redundant license templates than mine. But it still is a problem and is an easy fix too.

With these small errors already committed and which I promise will not occur again, if I am not allowed to run this script ever again then I feel that's an unfortunate decision. I hope I had a choice than accepting the decision reluctantly. --Sreejith K (talk) 12:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

No Commonshelper adds a "Original uploader <username>..." and that tells us that the user mentioned there may not be the author but just the uploader. "Original uploader" should only be removed if we think that the uploader is the author.

Multichill made a script called imagecopy_self.py and it works similar to your script however it only accepts transfer if there is a "self-template". That scripts work both with and without an information-template. I think that the trick is to have different stripts/bots for own work and works created by other.

I agree that almost every problems can be fixed but it require that bot operator checks transfers, fix errors on the files moved, modify the bot, transfer some more files, checks new transfers, fix errors on the files, modify bot etc. --MGA73 (talk) 17:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose request and keep account indefinitely blocked - When this bot transfers files over, information is lost. That's not acceptable, period. When concerns are raised, the operator ignores them. That's also not acceptable, period. Look at this file. Not only was the original authorship information lost, but inaccurate information was put in it its place. There are a half dozen in just that series of images, and dozens more with the same issue. This isn't trivial, the bot is broken, and should remain blocked. Sven Manguard (talk) 14:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

That's actually quite rude for you to say that I do not respond to your concerns. The only time you left me a message for me was on my talk page and I replied within a day. --Sreejith K (talk) 07:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose You should not be moving files fast enough to need the bot flag if you are checking them in the way that you should. There are too many possible errors of botlike transfers --Guerillero 20:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

 I withdraw my nomination - My intention was not to get a bot flag, but to let BAG team know that this is not a bot but a tool like AWB. Now with this amount of opposition, I am no longer interested in using this tool. --Sreejith K (talk) 06:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• " it is impossible to create one afresh with all the fields populated correctly. That should be done by the user who verifies the file move."
  I disagree, it should be done by the user who's moving the file. After all, that's the user convinced the file is eligible for a move, so provide the essential information. So who's gonna fix those 1000s of files uploaded now? –Krinkle^talk 00:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Feedback

Revision of File:Philadelphia & Reading Railroad Terminal, Philadelphia, PA 1893.jpg

Since this bot did upload 100s of files, I'll leave a bit of feedback based one of the uploads. Changes I'd do, which are perhaps better done by the bot in the first place so that users checking these only have to remove {{BotMoveToCommons}} in most cases.

• Remove Commons-transfer note from "Source". The transfer nor "Wikipedia" is a valid source. See also Commons:Essential information. This field should be left blank if not known, or rather, if there was no Source-info on the Wikipedia file page, it shouldn't have been moved here in the first place!
• Removed unrelated date from the file information. Upload date is not related to the file itself. If there is no value in the "date" field on the Wikipedia file page, I'd either: 1) Query the user to enter it manually (it's usually in the description or filename, extractable by a human being), or 2) fallback to {{Original upload date}} indeed. Note however that for files with a license "public domain" due to age, a creation date is required! So files with that kind of license must not be transferred if there is no valid date.
• Replaced author with {{Unknown}}. Upload is already mentioned in the "Original upload log"-section. Tools that extract author/attribution information will yield false information if uploaders are mentioned in Author (regardless of whether is says in English "Uploaded by", they should simply not be put in the Author-field)
• Reduced/Eliminated hard-coded English phrases (looks really misplaced between other translated stuff, other than description and "Original upload log", there oughta be no hardcoded English at all.

–Krinkle^talk 00:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

If these were notified on the bot talk page or mine, I would have made sure these would not occur again. Now that this bot is no longer operational, I will take care of the things noted here while doing a transfer review of the files already transferred. Thank you for your effort in reviewing the bot transfers. --Sreejith K (talk) 13:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

NillerdkBot (talk · contribs)

Operator: Nillerdk (talk)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: Upload of 1200 photos of orchids. To fill out description, categories, authors and license (in the same action as the upload).

Automatic or manually assisted: Automatic and supervised.

Edit type (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): Few manual runs, each time uploading around 1-100 photos.

Maximum edit rate (eg edits per minute): 5

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): Not really as a maximum of 100 photos with maxium 5 uploads per minute are performed at a time.

Programming language(s): Python (Pywikipediabot)

Nillerdk (talk) 16:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

• Would you do a test upload? --  Docu  at 17:35, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Now done. Nillerdk (talk) 19:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The uploads look fine to me. --Jarekt (talk) 20:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks fine to me as well. Personally, I'd do this change, but that's just a minor tweak. --  Docu  at 03:02, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I've adapted the alternative way to present the date (thanks). I also tend to agree with you regarding the categorization: Categories like Category:Arne and Bent Larsen - Sophrolaeliocattleya are actually just the intersection of Category:Orchid photos by Arne and Bent Larsen and Category:Sophrolaeliocattleya and are therefore theoretically superflourous. Our MediaWiki software does not support intersections directly unfortunately. However, we needed an easy way to review the photos after bot upload and User:Orchi asked me to create like Category:Arne and Bent Larsen - Sophrolaeliocattleya becaus he feels comfortable with that during to review process. It is important to me that User:Orchi feels comfortable because I couldn't do the review myself - I'm relying on his knowledge of orchids. Nillerdk (talk) 19:02, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Should make it easier indeed. Many users keep such categories. Maybe we could have both, but keep the user categories as "hidden categories" and just Category:Photographs by Arne and Bent Larsen visible. --  Docu  at 06:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

All photos have been uploaded by the bot. Sorry that I didn't wait for formal permission. User:Orchi has taken care of the categorisation. The request can be closed. Nillerdk (talk) 13:49, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

GameOnBot (talk · contribs)

Operator: GameOn (talk)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: Fixing errors flagged here as syntax errors.

Automatic or manually assisted: Automatic, supervised although I only check occasionally during a run

Edit type (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): Semidaily, depending on when I've got time to run it

Maximum edit rate (eg edits per minute): 6 edits per minute, 1/minute during testing

Bot flag requested: (Y/N):Y Programming language(s):C# GameOn (talk) 12:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

• Looks OK for me. But if you use error code in summary, I think will be good idea to use a link to page with explanation of their meaning. For articles linked to them selves, I think will be good idea to add itself. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Will do so before relaunching the bot here, thanks for your input. GameOn (talk) 18:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

After a few mishaps with the external link in the comment the bot is once more up and running, although on another type of syntax error. Exactly how "picky" are you about the job that the bot is doing? Is a general "Will fix some of the syntax errors listed on this link" ok? Or should I specify which errors the bot are supposed to fix? In total I think there are around 900 more edits that the bot should be able to do (when I'm finished with all the programs) divided among nine different types. GameOn (talk) 11:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Now bot provide link to page commons for all projects, but since it operates on Commons, more specific link is good idea :-)

If bot will fix several types of errors on one shoot, I think will be good idea to list them all in edit summary.

I think couple of error types are fine for test run.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Bot looks good, but I'd like to see some more error types. --Schlurcher (talk) 07:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The bot currently can fix six types of errors, where type 79 is the most important one for most language versions, commons currently only has 176 places with this error. I'll combine the types of errors into one program so more can be fixed in one run if there are more that can be solved. GameOn (talk) 09:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

---

If there are no objects or comments, I think bot status should be granted. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:47, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, please don't. The edit on Seymore_Butts and most other pages is an error. It's standard pratice to use a space a sortkey for the article with the same name the category. As gallery's aren't categorized anywhere else, this is just a disaster. --  Docu  at 03:07, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of this practice here and will of course fix any errors I've introduced if the bot has done something wrong. Are there any problems with the other types of edits the bot has done? GameOn (talk) 08:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Is this edit also incorrect? In this case there are more than one category. GameOn (talk) 08:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not needed as the gallery should only be in Category:Cao Xueqin. There is a lot of cleanup to do in article namespace. Given that there is no difference to the category, one could even consider redirecting there. --  Docu  at 11:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I really appreciate that you've taken the time to inform me. I'll fix these errors that my bot introduced. Are there any problems with the other types of fixes that the bot has performed? GameOn (talk) 12:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

This and this is what should be done if I understand you correctly. GameOn (talk) 12:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

This would be ok.

"There is a lot of cleanup to do in article namespace." wasn't specifically meant to discuss your bot's edit. Gallery (article) namespace isn't used that much any more and is thus somewhat neglected. The few edits your bot did wont change it much. I don't think it should be doing more of such edits though.

If you are interested in doing cleanup on Commons Commons:Template i18n/bot replacements listed a few tasks. --  Docu  at 05:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, and the link. I'll fix the errors I've introduced and take a look at the list above when I get back, I'm going on vacation for a few weeks so I'll take care of this when I get back in August. GameOn (talk) 06:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

WillieBot (talk · contribs)

Operator: theMONO

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: Category moving accomplished by re-catigorization upon request.

Automatic or manually assisted: Automatic

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

Maximum edit rate (eg edits per minute): 5 second adjustable delay between edits

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): N

Programming language(s): AWB

theMONO 02:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

• Please make a test run. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:38, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

• Done. --theMONO 00:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Is it possible to mention source and destination categories in edit summary? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure. Replaced Category:A with Category:B (Bot) theMONO 22:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

 Comment User has not a lot of experience with categories. All his "trial bot run" moves have been reverted sofar. --Foroa (talk) 12:56, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

FrescoBot (talk · contribs)

Operator: Basilicofresco (msg)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: first of all I'm planning to upload these images (+1800). Moreover I can run simple boring tasks like fixing wikilink syntax and satisfing requests inserted in Commons:Bots/Work requests. I daily operate FrescoBot for several tasks both on it.wikipedia and en.wikipedia. Global stats.

Automatic or manually assisted: supervised automatic on selected tasks.

Edit type (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): one time run / monthly (wikilink syntax)

Maximum edit rate (eg edits per minute): 6

Bot flag requested: Y

Programming language(s): python

Basilicofresco (msg) 21:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

• Please make a test run. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

There are some problems with the ocr extraction of the image captions. Can I downgrade this authorization request to the link syntax fixing task? I will open a new request as soon the captions will be ready and reliable. -- Basilicofresco (msg) 05:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if the "Flat Broke Blues Band Photo Album" sample listed on fixing wikilink syntax should be fixed, at least when it's being used as an image source. Generally, random images found through Google are deleted. --  Docu  at 05:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, it is (was) a way to create a url redirect and should be avoided. Example: [10] -- Basilicofresco (msg) 22:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that these images likely need review. If it's just removed, we loose trace of that. --  Docu  at 14:56, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Here is the list of images that contain this kind of link: User:FrescoBot/Lists/Google's gallery redirect. I can log them there for future reference. The point is: this kind of link hide the true address and often break the hyperlink, but does not usually/necessary mean that the image has invalid license informations. Hence: it can be logged, but it should be fixed. -- Basilicofresco (msg) 05:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you need an additional test run? I wish to receive the authorization just to fix the links. -- Basilicofresco (msg) 16:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Does anybody think the above fixes should not be applied? There are about 16k pages with middle to severe link syntax problems waiting for a reply. -- Basilicofresco (msg) 20:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Personally I think the two flatbroke ones shouldn't be done, at least not in file namespace. Maybe you should ask some of the admins that frequently delete copyvios for feedback.

The other fixes can be helpful. --  Docu  at 20:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I will exclude this pretty rare fix. -- Basilicofresco (msg) 18:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

So... can I start? I see no objections. -- Basilicofresco (msg) 07:17, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Six months are passed and the community is still waiting for the approval of this issue-free task. After 3 months of silence I invoke at least en:Wikipedia:SILENCE. -- Basilicofresco (msg) 08:57, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

File Upload Bot (Jarry1250) (talk · contribs)

Operator: Jarry1250 (talk)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: uploading files created using the SVG translation tool I now operate. At the moment, users have to download and then reupload the file themselves, discouraging new translations. With this bot in place, TUSC authenticated users would be able to upload files directly, much like MoveToCommons and similar tools.

Automatic or manually assisted: Automatic

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

Maximum edit rate (eg edits per minute): To start with, one or two a day tops. Hopefully it'll grow.

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): Y

Programming language(s): PHP / Peachy framework, interfacing with standard Perl script for uploads.

Jarry1250 (talk) 21:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

• As an aside, on the English Wikipedia I am both an admin and a member of the Bot Approvals Group. Note that I have neither registered the user, nor created its userpage, nor performed a trial run, since it's on the user blacklist. Hopefully an admin / accountcreator can sort that for me? Thanks. Jarry1250 (talk) 21:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Just login at the enwp and create the account yourself. That way it's linked to you. Multichill (talk) 23:21, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Ah, okay, strike the above then. Thanks, going to proceed with some test uploads. Jarry1250 (talk) 09:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
      • If it is only a few uploads I think uploading without a flag would be best. How many files do you plan to upload? --MGA73 (talk) 21:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
        • No idea but I would like to get up to a hundred a month. That's the ambition, anyway. Jarry1250 (talk) 21:52, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Good idea.
I'm not sure if the date should be the current date or the date of the original file.
BTW {{Translation possible}} is useful, but I wouldn't place it above {{information}} (diff). --  Docu  at 15:07, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

As of the latest build both current date and original upload date to commons are given. I would also include the old "|Date=" field but I worry about a recursion effect when you translate files repeatedly. As for the template, I've now put it below {{Information}} but left he copyright template where it was before. Regards, Jarry1250 (talk) 20:10, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

RobotMichiel1972 (talk · contribs)

Operator: Michiel1972 (talk)

Automatic or Manually Assisted: depends on my project, while adding cats:automatically

Programming Language(s): pywiki, commonist (java)

Edit period(s) (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): depends on project

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): y

Functions: mass upload (user created) maps or diagrams; additional categorization

Bot's maximum edit rate (eg edits per minute): depends on project

Discussion

Previous discussion 

Could you please describe planned tasks for bot? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I expect to add categories as main task. Michiel1972 (talk) 15:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

As the first bot request following an update of Commons:Bots, could you please add to the bot's userpage the following information?

• • Who the creator/operator is and how they can best be contacted
  • Details of the bot's task or tasks
  • Whether the bot is manually assisted or runs automatically
  • When it operates (continuously, intermittently, or at specified intervals)
  • The bot's maximum edit rate (eg edits per minute)
  • The language and/or program that it is running.

Also, could you please fill in the new section I have added above (the bot's maximum editing speed)? Thanks. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Declined. No reponse to queries for a week in spite of two requests on user's talk page (user has been active during that period). --MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Reopened the request. Trusted user, won't break Commons. Just flag the bot. Multichill (talk) 19:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

A bot flag is wanted in order not to overflow the recent changes list while uploading large numbers of 14kb files. Michiel1972 (talk) 12:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Bot's uploads looks OK for me. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

(1) What do you plan to upload ("mass upload (user created) maps or diagrams")? How many?

(2) Are they all going to look like File:Population - Municipality code 68205.svg ?

(3) Not too long ago, we nuked thousands of similar diagrams.

(4) Why don't they include the name of the municipality? (5) Could you add a description in French? --  Docu  at 06:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

(1) This project contains 36.000 svg of which 6000 to do yet. Michiel1972 (talk) 12:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

(2) Yes (for this project).

(3) I prefer simple svg graphs instead of ugly timeline-based graphs. Note that the actual size of the 36.000 graphs is less than 10 high resolution pictures, so it 'costs' almost nothing. In addition, the reason for starting this project is that the graphs include an update of the 2008 population values which are not available yet on the (Dutch) wikipedia. So it serves as an update of the degraded timeline graphs together with 2008 census values. Michiel1972 (talk) 12:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

(4) The municipality name is included on the svg (although very small, since they are placed directly on municipality articles itself). The dedicated description is not possible for me (now). Michiel1972 (talk) 12:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

(4) I hadn't noticed that, e.g. File:Population - Municipality code 68205.svg included "Meyenheim", but could you add it to the description as well as Special:Search/File: Meyenheim doesn't find the image.

The description would need {{en|1=}} around the English part. I'm sure you could find someone at Commons:Bistro to translate that one line. --  Docu  at 12:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I know how it ideally should be, but it is for me technically not possible to include that in the commonist upload description automatically at the moment, sorry. I can add that later if needed. Michiel1972 (talk) 10:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Please use a valid dateformat so that it is automatically recognized as a date and translated in all other languages. This means using YYYY-MM-DD (or YYYY-MM) where possible, and otherwise {{other date}}. Otherwise non-English readers will see "february 2011". It would be awesome if you could apply this retroactively for the files already uploaded. Thanks, –Krinkle^talk 19:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

•  Support --MGA73 (talk) 21:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

• In one way or the other, the file description pages should include the name of the municipality. You might want to use pywikibot instead or find another bot operator that would fix the file descriptions after upload. --  Docu  at 15:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

How long will it take to process this request? It is unbelievable, such a bureacratic process for a voluntary task. Michiel1972 (talk) 19:56, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

 Support, the name of the municipality would be useful, but it is not strictly necessary since these images will be added/updated via bot and the municipality name can be added in the future, along with the municipality category, using the municipality code. -- Basilicofresco (msg) 09:20, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

esby-mw-bot (talk · contribs)

Note: this was previously requested, I am reopening the request as I had forgotten to perform Multichill request at this time.
Operator: Esby (talk)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought:

• Updating textual error in descriptions of pages.
• Performing substitution in description of pages.

Automatic or manually assisted: This will be done by the mw tool. Basically, the tool is able to retrieve pages to disk,which can be edited with the appropriate tools (eg: using sed for text replacement) and committed back with the appropriate mw command.

Edit type (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): One time run. Launched when task are needed to be performed.

Maximum edit rate (eg edits per minute): Right now, the public version of mw has no throttle, but a throttle can be added easily if needed. The version I have tested on a few edits used a 5s throttle for instance.

Bot flag requested: (Y):

Programming language(s): the mw tool is using python Esby (talk) 00:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Previous discussion 

• Please make a test run. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I will do so, but they are bugs/issue that will need to fixed before I'll plan to do anything serious with it, I'll limit the tests to my user space until those are fixed.

• There is a bug with pagename with special chars: the page can be retrieved from the wiki, but they cannot be diffed locally or uploaded back. I don't think this cause a problem for us here, that's an issue for me, since it forbid me to work on such pages.
• There is no taking in account of changes performed between the retrieval and the commit on the wiki page: There is a risk of erasing someone contribution. Imo, this is the main issue that stops me for now from using it on the main space.
• Contribs marked as bot are supported theorically, now I haven't test it yet.
• throttle is implemented, althought the way I did it with my patch is not ok yet.

Esby (talk) 12:53, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Considering there are bugs to debug and fix, I'll just require permission to run it under my user space. Esby (talk) 12:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Another permission request will be done when those bugs are fixed. Esby (talk) 12:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

test edit performed, see contribs. Esby (talk) 14:09, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Test run looks OK for me. But bot purpose is too wide for me. I think will be good idea to use it on specific request with possible additional discussions. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:20, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

btw, there is a possibility to provide a diff over every change planned before doing a comit, so things can be discussed if necessary.

The bugs have been fixed. (Issues with accentued chars / collision detection implemented / issues with blanking page). Could it be possible that I do a large test run:

I have a few intervention to peform on files i had uploaded:

• some old files description File:Luc_Lefèbvre_(Ptitluc)_00.jpg to File:Luc_Lefèbvre_(Ptitluc)_50.jpg could be enhanced, the filename are wrong, at the author nickname is Ptiluc and not Ptitluc, I'd wish to add the rename template so i can do the rename by hand after the bot and check that the description were properly updated. ( ~ 50 files).
• there are things I need to fix around a template I created: {{Festival Template}} The parameter author needs to be replaced by depicted person, I also want to feed the values of this parameter when it is possible in the description using this template. More information here: Template_talk:Information Now this concerns 820 files, I'll probably split the work to check that there are no unexpected issues. The overall planned change can be seen here

Esby (talk) 23:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Please do a(nother) test run. Multichill (talk) 20:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

 Not done, not responding --Schlurcher (talk) 18:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, had been busy around this time, forgot to reply to Multichill request. Esby (talk) 20:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I am re-opening the request: I am going to perform a few tests modifications with the bot. I am aiming for two kind of tasks:

• Maintenance of the french chapter image categorization - The images using {{Supported by Wikimedia France}} to sort the image per theme in the chapter categorization scheme.
• substitution / correction of defective textual description like this one [11].

Esby (talk) 20:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Test edits performed. Special:Contributions/Esby-mw-bot - Any abuse filter warning will stop the bot from performing any further edits. Eg [[Here the bot could not perform a blanking on my user page I don't plan on fixing this for now, as it acts as a safeguard. Esby (talk) 21:52, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Can you do test edits in file namespace that look like what you plan to do? --  Docu  at 06:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Performed 10 description changes in file namespace with a throttle of 10s. Esby (talk) 20:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

any update? Esby (talk) 15:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

No concerns on my end. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 11:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

•  Support --MGA73 (talk) 21:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Would it be possible to get the bot flag? Esby (talk) 15:41, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

---

As far as I understood, only {{Supported by Wikimedia France}} maintenance is task of the bot. If so, does anybody has objections to grant bot status? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The bot can do 'other things', depending of what is needed, this ain't really a bot but an offline editing tool... This mainly involves batched text processing... Currently I have a 'request' to replace and reformat the description of some files with some others... See User talk:Esby/Archives/2011/September#automated_copying_of_image_descriptions for more details... Esby (talk) 14:53, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Can we get some progress? To have the bot allowed for bot flag for its main maintenance task (french chapter related). Other tasks shall be performed without the bot option activated? Esby (talk) 15:22, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

If the process of download, edit, and upload takes more than few hours, than the risk of unmanaged edit conflicts rises. Are you able to deal with it? (eg. fast download-edit-reupload, a check for recent/new changes to the page, etc.) If so I support this task. -- Basilicofresco (msg) 09:48, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Changes will not be performed if a page was changed after it was downloaded locally by the mw tool. Esby (talk) 15:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Very good.  Support -- Basilicofresco (msg) 18:41, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

SLQbot (talk · contribs)

Operator: John Vandenberg ^(chat)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: Uploading 50,000 images and adding categories to existing uploads based on community provided categories.

Automatic or manually assisted: supervised for the first three days

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

Maximum edit rate (eg edits per minute): as many as allowed

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): Y

Programming language(s): Python

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:41, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

I had look at some of the initial uploads and I think they look quite good. The main thing I'm missing is categorization. One way to add them could be to use the current subject tags and add them in the form "SLQ subject <subject tag>". You might want to add them to Category:Black and white photographs as well. --  Docu  at 05:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm building the capacity for SLQ dc:subject to be mapped to commons categories on collaboratively edited Commons wiki page which the bot periodically reads. See Commons:State Library of Queensland/Subjects

Almost all of the images are black and white, however a few are not, and there are B&W newspaper clippings as well. Would it be OK if I added :Category:Black and white photographs for everything, and let the community remove the category for the odd photo which isn't ?

A lot of the images do not have author and date metadata. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I explicitly asked you not to run your bot before consulting the community. Blocked the bot pending this request. Besides the incomplete metadata, the lack of proper categories, there's also the problem that the titles of the images are bad. Multichill (talk) 10:22, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• I think Multichill is exaggerating. We would have asked you to do a test upload anyways. Even if the number is fairly high, it's still manageable. It's not like you uploaded 10000 images just to test as Multichill did .. --  Docu  at 10:04, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks; I will do any renaming required. It is easy to do. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

• Category:Black and white photographs: An occasional non B&W wouldn't matter. --  Docu  at 10:04, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Great; I've added that as a category for all uploads. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I have not run the bot since the initial trial, which was before your email. Please explain your concerns, and note that the lack of categories is being handled with Commons:State Library of Queensland/Subjects. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I also think that title is bad. Library code could be kept for reference purposes in {{Information}} or dedicated template for files come from this library (like {{Fotothek-Description}}). Draft categorization is also good idea. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I am afraid I have to agree with Multichill and Eugene here. Titles are bad, and it can be a real mess to fix (renaming and delinking 350 images, needs filemover rights, etc.). Though crowdsourcing categorisation looks like an interesting idea, I am quite skeptical that absolutely no categorisation can be inferred from the 124Mo (!) of metadata supposedly available. I18n templates, such as {{Other date}}, are also missing. Jean-Fred (talk) 01:07, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

The categorisation can be inferred, however it is important that we build the mapping between SLQ subjects and Commons categories, to aid in future collaborations. I will provide more information about the titles shortly. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

i18n templates are used. Could you explain what is missing?

The bot converts the dates provided in the metadata into w:ISO 8601, which are localised according to user preference. I can use a template if that is preferable. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:17, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

In regards to the titles, it is a simple matter for me to append a cleansed dc:title field to the asset ID. The image on the right shows the lengths of the dc:title. IMO, the average length (47) is too long for Commons filenames, but I welcome feedback on that. There are a large percentage of titles which will need to be shortened, either before upload or afterwards. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:02, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Commons file names can bear fairly long titles. The limit is rather high. On the other side, if you want to keep the naming scheme used in the test upload this isn't that big a problem, as we have other series named in a similar way. If the images already have titles, it's preferable to use them. You could append them to the current format.

For the subjects: you could map any ship name to "<shipname> (ship)". Any persons name or "lastname, firstname (Portrait)" to the form "firstname lastname". --  Docu  at 10:04, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer to use just the asset ID as the filename.

A large percentage of the images have a dc:title that would need to be manually revised. dc:subject could be used for titles in some cases, however each image has many dc:subject, so I need to create rules to pick the best one, where possible. If the community insists on descriptive titles, I can create rules to skip images which have titles which will need to be manually revised. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:57, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Could you please explain why these titles need to be manually revised? Multichill (talk) 00:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I see that Multichill has now started a poll to prevent these images from being uploaded without descriptive titles. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

You make it sound like I started the poll because of this request. This edit triggered me. Having descriptive filenames has always been a requirement here. This poll is just a way to formalize things. Could you please explain why these titles need to be manually revised? Multichill (talk) 01:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

There are a lot of reasons why the provided titles would not be the best names for the files. I am not going to answer your every question before I can start uploading again. If descriptive titles are necessary, I will ensure that the bot only uploads images for which I can derive appropriate descriptive titles. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:49, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

The dc:titles are now being used where they are less than 40 characters long. Longer dc:title result in the record being skipped. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry I pissed you off John, that was not my intention. Unblocked the bot.

As for the title, just copy one of the title functions from https://fisheye.toolserver.org/browse/multichill/bot/ . The way I should do it: Set a max length (n for now). See if dc:title is not longer than n: "<dc:title> - StateLibQld<id>.jpg". If dc:title is longer than n, try if you can find the first sentence ("^([^(\.\s)]+)\.\s" or something like that) and if that works, call the title function again. If that didn't work just truncate at n and you'll get "<truncated dc:title> - StateLibQld<id>.jpg".

Is the metadata accessible somewhere online?

How do you parse the date, see for example this edit. I got this from the website you're linking to (love the handles btw). Is the date in your metadata? If so, if you can't parse it could you please just insert the unparsed date?

Could you make a list of top authors with number of occurrences? Would be nice to make {{Creator}} templates for the top authors.

I really wonder if the category approach will work. I hope it will, categorization is always a problem. You make a list of top subjects? That's what I did with the Tropenmuseum and that really helped to get categorization started.

Do you have the source code online somewhere?

Multichill (talk) 16:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I have created Commons:State Library of Queensland/Creators for creators with 10 or more images, and Commons:State Library of Queensland/Subjects/Common for subjects with more than 10 uses.

The metadata is not available. I am waiting for Tim Starling to install a new ssh key so I can check in my code.

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:35, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Were all photo's taken around Queensland? Some topics in the list link to main categories and other to Queensland specific categories. Would be good to all do it the the same way. If you can somehow make a distinction between location categories (Brisbane) and topic categories (Houses) you can use the deep intersection toy I made for Geograph to put the images in the right intersected category at upload (Houses in Brisbane). Multichill (talk) 10:28, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

A high percentage of images were taken from around Queensland. Commons doesn't have categories for the vast majority of these topical areas. That is why the bot will need to go back and re-categorise these images as new categories are created. I am currently skipping any image which does not have at least three categories in addition to "B&W photographs" (and now "portraits" as it is so common). John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:44, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I updated most of the top categories. This isn't that hard. You're currently flooding main categories. You don't want to do that. Multichill (talk) 11:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for identifying the date ranges as in File:StateLibQld_1_101052.jpg. That date range is in the metadata. 'YYYY-YYYY' and 'YYYY-YY' are two date formats I was not picking up. That has now been corrected. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:54, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

And what happens with dates you can't parse now? Multichill (talk) 10:28, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I am now skipping images which I can't parse the date for, or where the date is explicitly Undated. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:34, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

My thoughts:

• Can the text stored in the {{Handle}} be localised ?
  • We can build a template for the common case, "Item is held by John Oxley Library, State Library of Queensland." John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
• « ca. 1902 » should be {{Other date|circa|1902}} → « circa 1902(1902) »
  •  Done
• If the date is unknown then it should use {{Other date|unknown}} → « Unknown date »
  • I am currently skipping all images that have an unknown date. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
• If the author is unknown, then it should use {{Unknown}}
  • Could we defer this until we have a larger sample to analyse? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
• Shouldn’t the files use an institution template, namely Institution:State Library of Queensland ?
  • I don't know. Where is this documented? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
• Shouldn't we use a Category:To be checked category ?
  • I can add that. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
• I noticed that one where the date parsing seems to have failed
  • Thank you; fixed. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
• I see the description field concatenates « Title » and « Description » − maybe that should be kept separate.
  • I expect that humans will merge them in due course. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
• I see that some images have Geoloc information − this definitely needs to be parsed and mapped in {{Location}}
  • Not yet. The geocodes need a lot of work before they can be added.
    • This seems to work just fine. Multichill (talk) 11:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
      • You have a sample size of one. I am not going to add geocodes for tens of thousands of images until I have analysed the data. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:49, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
      • From the metadata that I've seen (which is not the complete set), a lot of images have a rather useless "Brisbane" coordinate set that is right in the middle of town. It's useful I suppose if you don't know where Brisbane is, but not every image is on Queen Street, outside the GPO. Some of them may be useful but there's no easy way to work that out without checking, I suppose. Lankiveil (talk) 06:25, 21 December 2010 (UTC).
• We could expand {{Technique}} to render « Black and white photograph »
  • The images are not all of the same type. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Because you don't elaborate on what you need to do a lot of work on I guessed it was the syntax. Apparently it's something else. Is the data incorrect or don't you trust it? Multichill (talk) 23:29, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
• Consider using date information to add Category:1933 in Australia & al categories.
  • That is a good idea, however due to the code structure, I would like to defer that until a bit later. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Actually, it was easy enough to fix, and it will be a very useful categorisation, so it is  Done. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:39, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
• Overall, if metadata is sufficent, please consider using the multi-purpose {{Artwork}}
  • I don't think it is sufficient; I have not seen any that would call for that template. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Jean-Fred (talk) 10:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I see you started uploading again. Could you please address the concerns raised before starting to upload again? Multichill (talk) 11:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Of course. I am doing small batches at the moment, and fixing any issues that arise. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:13, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

The use of Category:Architectural elements in Australia by this bot needs addressing. The bot has flooded what should to my mind be a meta-cat Unless the specific architectural element is identified (veranda, balustrade, fence, facade etc.) I don't think this is a useful categorisation for these images. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 04:29, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

This category was being added because subject "architectural features" is mapped to "Architectural elements in Australia" at Commons:State Library of Queensland/Subjects/Common. I have removed this mapping.[12] Would you like me to remove the category from all of the StateLibQld uploads? (The code to remove a category is ready; I just dont want the bot to interfere with your work). John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea to remove this category from the already-uploaded pictures. I suspect that many of the "architectural elements" are verandas (not surprising historically in Queensland) which are generally picked up in the sub-category, and most of the other photographs are of whole buildings or streetscapes (rather than elements) and generally the image descriptions don't allude to elements (doors, columns, arches etc). Melburnian (talk) 07:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done cat removed John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. You may wish to take a look at Category:Views as well. Again, this is too vague a category to be useful for individual images. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 22:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Top populated categories. Multichill (talk) 10:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

During the Upload patrol, I came accross a lot of SLQbot's uploads because the account doesn't have a botflag and isn't autopatrolled. Seeing the issues that had to be resolved first this is not a bad thing, since it shouldn't be autopatrolled untill it's good and ready. However, what about the 3,000 uploads that have been made so far. Are those going to be fixed retroactively ? For example the filepage mentioned here (and others like it) are still broken. And the ones before {{other date}} came in the picture and have "Contributors:" hardcoded in the author field: [13], [14], [15]. For now I've added a temporary exception in Commons Upload Patrol to pretend "SLQbot" is autopatrolled so that they dont have to be patrolled/fixed by humans. –Krinkle^talk 15:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The lack of {{otherdate}} applies to the first 350 uploads, and the date range parsing problem is limited to about 200 uploads after that. I will go back through the first ~800 and fix any issues (inc. renaming the first batches of images).

There is a lot of variance in dc:creator vs dc:contributor, and I have added 'Contributor(s):' so that the distinction between the two is visible on the Commons pages. We'll need to investigate this in more detail, and talk to the library staff where we would like more information than is contained in the metadata. The most common set of contributors is major Australian newspapers, and these should probably go through a separate workflow in order to have these images located in the newspaper pagescans (which are being brought online by the national library[16]).

As a general rule, I will be retrospectively applying any improvements that the community recommends. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 20:53, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

One of the open items on Commons talk:State Library of Queensland/Subjects#Patterns is the question about the approach to use for the many subjects for portraits, e.g. the approach used on Subjects/M. --  Docu  at 05:05, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

• Please change the black and white category to "State Library of Queensland Black and white photographs" which should be a subcategory of the black and white category.Thanks.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 22:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Please don't intersect source (State Library of Queensland) with topic (Black and white photographs) categories. Multichill (talk) 10:18, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Moving right along

It's been a number of days since there was any update here; have all concerns been properly addressed? Lankiveil (talk) 02:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC).

The bot is still not able to find super/sub-category relationships reliably, as the category tree is a frightful mess (mostly circular). I will continue to solve this riddle (by adding stop categories), but as a temporary measure I am doing pattern matching to guess supercat/subcat relationships, which is working quite well. Category:Media from SLQ Public domain needing categories has been emptied out except for cases where the subject headings don't provide useful categorisation, and humans will be far better at addressing the problem. I am manually controlling the recategorisation task to limit the number of times the bot works against the humans (re-adding categories removed by humans). Adding in useful geocoords data is an important 'todo', but I still have analysis and coding to do before this is ready to roll. I hope that thse are not impediments to being able to run with the 'bot' flag, as it should be obvious that this iterative process will be a net positive and not result in excessive human labour (other than my own). John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I think until you get things sorted you should continue to test, without a flag, so we can find your tests marginally more easily... Advise of any change in things ok? ++Lar: t/c 18:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Any new news? ++Lar: t/c 23:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Category:Lattices versus Category:Trellis

Hello, this bot mixes up Category:Lattices used for mathematical/cristallographic lattices; and Category:grilles or Category:Trellis used for architectural grilles and garden trellis. Both have parent category:Grids. Can you clean up Category:Lattices and train the bot to differentiate? --Havang(nl) (talk) 15:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

In Australia we call architectural grilles and garden trellis as lattice, you would find the bot is using what is in the meta data. Bidgee (talk) 07:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC).

That's like in many languages so.Clearly the photo's are not about crystals; the bot should be trained to label lattice to be directed to Category:Grilles which will do for grilles and trellis. --Havang(nl) (talk) 11:05, 19 April 2011 (UTC).

No need to be aggressive about it. I'm sure John will fix it. Bidgee (talk) 11:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

??? May-be I'am not sufficiently good in english to sense aggression in my texte. --Havang(nl) (talk) 11:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for reporting this. It is now fixed[17] Sorry about the delay; I've been traveling.--John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, and have a good Easter. --Havang(nl) (talk) 07:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

SundarBot (talk · contribs)

Operator: Sundar (talk)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: I intend to use this bot to upload audio files derived from existing audio files in commons. The first task that I want to take up is to concatenate pronunciation files of individual words to generate files for phrases. Tamil Wiktionary has thousands of such phrases in its technical glossary wanting pronunciation help. The bot will use my custom Perl script to download and concatenate the files offline. Will later use Pywikipediabot framework to upload files. I'll be polite leaving an interval of 2-3 seconds between each upload.

I use this account on English Wikipedia and Tamil Wikipedia as an interwikibot with bot flag. I have used the account to bulk upload 100,000+ entries to Tamil Wiktionary.

Automatic or manually assisted: Automatic

Edit type (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): one time run (spread over a couple of weeks)

Maximum edit rate (eg edits per minute): 25

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): Y

Programming language(s): Perl for download, Pywikipediabot framework (Python) for upload

Sundar (talk) 16:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

• Please make a test run. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks Eugene. Will do next week. -- Sundar (talk) 07:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Please check the test edits that my bot has made. -- SundarBot (talk) 17:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

      Looks OK for me. Just couple audio-related questions:

      • I think will be good idea to merge only pronunciations made by same person, otherwise results may be weird, because of different voices (like mixing man and woman).
      • What is pause you added between words? (I'm not specialist in this area, but other may comment on this.)

      EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

      • Thanks for the feedback, Eugene. I'll merge files by the same person in the future. In the recent run, I haven't added any pause, only the default pauses in the original pronunciation files are retained. I tried creating a short pause file to be added in between two words, but couldn't do anything less than 2 seconds. -- Sundar (talk) 09:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC) P.S. I'll be offline until December 16.

I can only hear the first word of the two in all of your uploads. Idea why? --Schlurcher (talk) 18:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Schlurcher. I just found that it has a different behaviour based on the machine I use to concatenate the files. Will fix that and upload afresh. -- Sundar (talk) 10:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Any update? --Schlurcher (talk) 07:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry that I couldn't follow up. Will try to get other volunteers to take this forward. -- Sundar (talk) 03:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Innocent bot (talk · contribs)

Operator: Lavallen (talk)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: Adding {{BookNaviBar}} and maintanance of {{Information}} in pages related to Wikisource. (Begin at Swedish Wikisource.) Maybe in the future: adding links to Wikisource, when it is suitible to do so with a bot.

Automatic or manually assisted: Supervised automatic in simple cases, manually in others.

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

Maximum edit rate (eg edits per minute): 6 edits/min (I know I accidently exceed that limit sometimes on w:sv when running manually.)

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): Yes

Programming language(s): AWB

Lavallen (talk) 16:15, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Looks generally ok, but a few example edits would be nice. And, I love it's name--DieBuche (talk) 16:20, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

On hold! I have requested AWB-registration for the bot.

My username was earlier Innocent bystander. I could not SUL that name, so I had to change. -- Lavallen (talk) 17:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

100 edits made, some conflicts with the abusefilter, I guess. I think I have to find other ways to do some kind of edits. Replacing {{Information}} with another template, which I later substituted was not a good solution. -- Lavallen (talk) 08:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Could you try to do everything in one edit? And which template are you subst'ing--DieBuche (talk) 11:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

First I introduced the pagenumber (000-950) by writing {{subst:PAGENAME}}. I hide that code for the public by putting it within a dummy-user-namespace-template: User:Innocent bot/Noop. Thereafter I removed the Information template and removed the code around the pagenumber and put it within: {{subst:User:Innocent bot/BookNavi}} which introduced {{Fjellstedt-I-BookNaviBar}}. Therafter I substituted that template, which gave the Information-template back.

Instead, I can do this within two edits. I have to introduce the PAGENAME in some way first to get the correct pagenumber. The rest can be done in one edit. What I have to do, is making a better User-namespace-template. -- Lavallen (talk) 13:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's good idea to expand book information template, since similar changes will require to edit many pages.

Is it possible to check correctness of {{BookNaviBar}} usage (navigation from begin to end of book should be same in opposite direction)? However, {{BookNaviBar}} may be nested.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

There are books where the "information template" is all and the same in all pages in a book. There is no need to have separate "information templates" in each page then. But in this case, the book contains some illustrations. (Not many for Biblia Fjellstedt, but Illustrerad Verldshistoria contains hundreds.) Then it could be of use to reach the parameter: other_versions in a simple manner on all pages. -- Lavallen (talk) 16:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

FYI: Since this Request was made, I have been granted botflag at sv.wikinews. -- Lavallen (talk) 12:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

@Lavallen, I don't think that the {{subst:PAGENAME}} bot and the workaround is really needed. You could also use %%title%% and AWB will insert the title directly. A little adjustement of the order of processing the AWB statements will then do the trick and you can get the same result in one edit. --Schlurcher (talk) 16:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I will try that later. It's to hot, running a bot, in this weather. -- Lavallen (talk) 18:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks like that made it much simplier! - Thank You! -- Lavallen (talk) 08:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Ready to flag. --Schlurcher (talk) 18:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

My activity on WMF-sites has been low during a period because of ISP-problems. But now I have good IP-access again and is ready to be more active. -- Lavallen (talk) 18:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

BrooklynMuseumBot (talk · contribs)

Operator: BrooklynMuseum (talk)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: This bot will upload all Brooklyn Museum object images and Library & Archives images that have "No known copyright restrictions". Initial page content will include as much metadata as we have for each image (using {{Information/multi}})

Automatic or manually assisted: The current iteration of this bot will be manually assisted. If we ever run this thing automatically we'll resubmit the request.

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

Maximum edit rate (eg edits per minute): Bot won't edit more than 10 pages a minute.

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): N

Programming language(s): PHP. Built on [BotClasses.php]

BrooklynMuseum (talk) 21:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

• Please make a test run. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Uploaded 10. Please let us know how these look: contribs. Thanks! BrooklynMuseum (talk) 17:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

    I think will be good idea:

    • to format information template properly (each parameter in own line, space after pipe sign, etc.). It's very hard to edit it in current state.
    • to use Creator templates for authors.
    • to add author category.

    EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• Template:Painting seems more suitable for these images. Despite being named painting, it's not meant to be limited to paintings, but applied to any work of art. See below for a sample for one of the uploaded images. The sample might needs some edits though.
  {{Information/multi}} is rarely used and I suggested at Template talk:Information to retire it. If only one language version is being added, {{information}} could be sufficient anyways. -- User:Docu at 16:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Template Painting sample for File:Brooklyn Museum - Mrs. Robert Lowden - Henry Inman - overall.jpg 

Artist	Henry Inman (1801–1846) Description American painter Date of birth/death 20 October 1801(1801-10-20) 17 January 1846(1846-01-17) Location of birth/death Utica, NY New York
Title	English: Mrs. Robert Lowden
Date	circa 1840(1840)
Medium	oil on panel
Dimensions	83 × 63.5 cm (32.7 × 25 in)
Current location	Brooklyn Museum, Gift of Mrs. W. W. Thayer,
	New York
Accession number	11.549
Notes	object record Template:Painting-signature
Source/Photographer	Brooklyn Museum Online Collection; Photo: Brooklyn Museum, 11.549_transp6061.jpg
Permission (Reusing this file)	This image was uploaded as a donation by the Brooklyn Museum, and is considered to have no known copyright restrictions by the institutions of the Brooklyn Museum. Note: While the Brooklyn Museum cannot make an absolute statement on copyright status for legal reasons, it supports and encourages the Wikimedia community in researching and applying the copyright status tag that is most appropriate for their purposes.

I agree, that {{Information/multi}} is a rather bad choice. {{Painting}} is the better template. But I made some additional improvements to the example above. These include:

• use of {{Size}} for the size
• use of {{Technique}} for the technique
• use of {{Other date}} for the date

Additionally the "Gallery" parameter could use {{ProvenanceEvent}}: {{ProvenanceEvent|type=gift|oldowner=Mrs. W. W. Thayer|newowner={{Brooklyn Museum}}}}.

And the "Source" parameter should be a template too, so the text "Brooklyn Museum Online Collection; Photo: Brooklyn Museum" can be localized. --Slomox (talk) 16:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• Source should probably link the "object record" directly.
• {{Size}} would be good, even {{Technique}} and {{other date}}, but I skipped these in the sample as it might be easier for the uploader if these are done by one of the other bots (e.g. SchlurcherBot) after upload. If it can be done initially, obviously that would be better.
• I wasn't sure about where to place provenance. Maybe it should be in "Notes". It could hold "markings" and "signature" as well. For the later two, we could create {{painting-markings}} and {{painting-signature}} to wrap the text provided.
• We might want to include current tags as well. -- User:Docu at 17:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for the help everyone. Painting does seem like a much better template for these uploads. I modified the bot to incorporate most of the suggestions above. (See File:Brooklyn Museum - Mrs. Robert Lowden - Henry Inman - overall.jpg) A few questions:

• Is there a {{Size}}-like template for 3 dimensions? BrooklynMuseum (talk) 15:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
• Are negative integers the best way to indicate BCE years? BrooklynMuseum (talk) 15:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
• Frequently works have no known creator but are attributed to a culture (e.g. http://www.brooklynmuseum.org/opencollection/objects/120500 ). Is there a better place than "Artist" for this info? (There's maybe a more general question about how to represent constituent "roles". An "artist" may be designer, architect, calligrapher, and a number of other roles including "culture". See this object for example, which has both an artist and poet. When multiple artists are attributed to a work this info becomes especially interesting. If there's a way to retain this info, please suggest.) BrooklynMuseum (talk) 15:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
• The "Gift of __" line shouldn't be taken to imply provenance. That's just a "credit line", which may include donor or other details about the acquisition but we can't provide proper provenance info. BrooklynMuseum (talk) 15:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

{tl|Size}} only supports two dimensions at the moment. But it's no big deal to expand the template to support three dimensions.

Our date functions do not support dates BC at the moment. "-44" or "-44-03-15" would be my preferred format for dates BC, but I don't know whether the software is able to handle this. Perhaps we need some special template to handle dates BC. I will look into this.

The "Artist" parameter is the right place even when the work is attributed to a culture and not to a single person.

I didn't take the "gift of _" line as proper provenance info. I suggested the template {{ProvenanceEvent}} cause it allows localizing the text without creating yet another new template. Perhaps there are other ways to provide the info in a way that as many people as possible can read it. --Slomox (talk) 17:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean now. That's a good point about localization. This is a really tough one for us because we see the benefit of structuring data in that way. But ultimately we're obligated to leave the credit-line as is - even if that hinders accessibility. Shall I just wrap in an {{en}}? Thanks BrooklynMuseum (talk) 20:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

You could wrap "gift of" into a specific template (e.g. {{Painting-provenanceorcl}}). This would make it easier to re-use it.
Personally, I'd make this change to link your source record at the place where people are more likely to look for it and include the tags for the image. The tags could either remain red or hidden (sample, to view see here) until we merge them into existing categories.
If all images are "overall" views, we might want to skip this in the filename. -- User:Docu at 11:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• The solution for credit-line sounds good. I'm afraid we can't release object tags though. That text is CC-By-NC, not CC-By. See our copyright. BrooklynMuseum (talk) 13:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I updated the bot to incorporate the current set of suggestions and ran it on the current set of contribs. I like the idea proposed by EugeneZelenko of adding artist names as categories. Is there consensus on that? I wasn't sure if that would be appropriate. One note on object titles: I had to remove the {{en}} wrapper because far too many of our objects have non-English titles and we don't have adequate data on languages used. BrooklynMuseum (talk) 21:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Adding the category of the artist is useful. To some extent, this fills the requirement that the bot's uploads be categorized (in topical categories, not just Category:Images from Brooklyn Museum). As with other metadata, we (at least I) would like to see as many useful categories as possible, but I can understand that there may be a licensing issue on your side. Additional categories you might be able to generate from the description could be a subcategory for Category:Paintings by year and one of the main subcategories of Category:Brooklyn Museum (e.g. Category:Paintings in the Brooklyn Museum, but you could also create additional ones that follow the general way your collections are organized). Maybe the specialists have additional suggestions. B&W images (identified in the source image name) could also go here.

I see. I updated the bot to attempt to add a few extra categories based on the image data. If the classification and date are both available I attempt to add something along the lines of "Paintings from 1888". Similarly I attempt to add some refinement of the Art-by-location categories. I'm also adding some refinement of "Art from the Brooklyn Museum". See contribs BrooklynMuseum (talk) 16:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I will add a category for B&W images after upload based on this. -- User:Docu at 19:31, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

For images of 3D objects, the question about the size template is currently being sorted out (here - maybe a new template {{3dsize}} needs to be created). In addition, I'm not sure if an additional licensing tag should added to these.

If a corresponding creator template doesn't exist yet, e.g. Creator:Gaines Ruger Donoho used here, it needs to be created at some point. BTW, {{Creator:artist's name}} would only be used if the creator is a person.

We have very limited data about artists. The best I may be able to do is - in the absence of an existing creator page - add Birthdate and Deathdate params to the Creator template. We only have year data - nothing more refined. And as for location, we often have a "nationality", which may map best to "Workloc", but may actually mean "Birthloc" depending on the artist. So I'm not sure we have a lot to offer here. Thoughts? BrooklynMuseum (talk) 16:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Creator pages are created so as we learn more about an artist we can update all files in using this template in a single edit. Any information in addition to the name could be useful to someone. Date of death is especially useful in case of European artists whose works are added based on {{PD-old}} license (PD due to 70 years after death of artist). Dates of birth/death and nationality is a great start. "Nationality" is usually used in "Description" field, for example "{{NationAndOccupation|m|GB|painter}}" would give "British painter" to english speaker or "britischer Maler" to German speaker. See Template:Creator for details.. --Jarekt (talk) 19:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I updated the bot to create stub Creator records for artists that don't already have one. I'm setting Birth- and Deathdate and adding the nationality to the Description. We don't have gender or profession information so I can't use {{NationAndOccupation}} unfortunately. Hopefully some other bot can help out by filling in missing details from other wikis. Let me know if these stubs aren't useful and I'll disable their creation. See contribs BrooklynMuseum (talk) 15:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

If you do not have profession and sex than please use "{{NationAndOccupation|m|GB|artist}}". Sex will be unverified but hopefully it will be corrected by hand. By the way I rewrote {{Size}} to allow 3D dimensions--Jarekt (talk) 15:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC).

Cool. Thanks, Jarekt. BrooklynMuseum (talk) 17:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind about nationality. Your examples are fine and we can correct the templates latter by a bot. --Jarekt (talk) 15:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The creator templates look ok. If the empty fields are added as well, it will be easier to fill them in (manually) later. -- User:Docu at 16:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I updated the bot to include all parameters currently supported by {{Creator}} even if blank - and I updated the handful of stub records thus far created. Anything else? Can we upload another small batch? Thanks. BrooklynMuseum (talk) 17:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, please do, even a larger one. -- User:Docu at 17:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

30 more images uploaded. How are we looking? Changes? contribs BrooklynMuseum (talk) 19:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

It looks like if the category for the artist doesn't exist, it doesn't add it. Personally I wouldn't mind if it would add it even if it doesn't exist. Overall, personally, I think it looks good and I'd start uploading. (BTW there is a 100MB limit on uploads (per file). If you want to upload larger files, we would have to ask staff to enable this for you.).
To view how the template looks in various language versions, I added a set of links here. -- User:Docu at 21:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

That is the case, yes. I only apply an artist category if the category exists. We have a lot of unique artists that may never be categories in the Commons, so I assumed that was the right approach. I can revise if the consensus is that artist category references should be added even if the category doesn't exist. I just don't want to create a bunch of dead-end links..

I don't think anything slated for upload comes near 100M, but that's good to know. Thanks. BrooklynMuseum (talk) 22:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

If there is a creator template for an artist, I think there should be a category too. -- User:Docu at 03:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Docu ideally all creator templates will belong to a category with the same name. Same goes for images they should be in by author categories as well. If the category does not exist I would add it anyway, since those categories will be created shortly. --Jarekt (talk) 03:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Bot has been updated to add artist category regardless of category existence. I'll re-run to update all contribs to date as soon as the signature template question below is sorted. BrooklynMuseum (talk) 16:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

BrooklynMuseum, FYI, I went through all the creator pages you have created and added whatever info I could find about them based on English and German wikipedias. I 2 or 3 cases commons already had categories about the authors but using slightly different version of the name. I renamed 2 creator pages to match name already used, but left redirects so call using either version of the name will work. --Jarekt (talk) 19:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. I added logic to suppress adding an artist category if it appears to have already been added by someone else with a different spelling.BrooklynMuseum (talk) 15:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

That being said, the 10 initial uploads look good to me and I'm looking forward to see more of them. -- User:Docu at 11:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Another possibility is to use a custom template similar to Template:Fotothek-Description with highest granularity possible and we can map it to a proper fields in {{Painting}} and other templates. BTW, BrooklynMuseum please add {{Babel}} to your userpage, so other people can see what languages you speak. Also may be mention your official association with the museum. --Jarekt (talk) 19:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I thought about it some more and IMO ideally bot can create pages similar to Slomox examples. However if some of the data parsing gets too complicated second best solution would be for the bot to create templates like

{{Brooklyn Museum Description 
|Artist name= William Jacob Baer
|Artist nationality=American
|Artist DOB=1860
|Artist DOD=1941
|Medium= Oil on canvas
|Date= 1911
|Dimension1 cm=76.1
|Dimension2 cm=30.2
|Signature= Signed lower right: "Wm. J. Baer/ 1911"
|Collections= American Art
|Museum Location= This item is not on view
|Accession Number= 11.523
|Credit Line=Gift of Walter H. Crittenden and William A. Putnam
|Title=Daphne 
|Record Completeness= Good (75%)
|Link = http://www.brooklynmuseum.org/opencollection/objects/5/Daphne
}}

(this one was filled with File:Brooklyn Museum - Daphne - William Jacob Baer - overall.jpg info) and we can write {{Brooklyn Museum Description}} in such a way as to create something looking like Slomox example. The parameters to the template can closely reflect internal data structure of the database which likely is storing this info at the moment. --Jarekt (talk) 20:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

This other approach seems ok to me as well. Please choose it, if it's more convenient for you.

For the tags, you might want to use [[:Category:Images from Brooklyn Museum, tag <tagname>]]. No need to create the category description pages though, we can merge them into existing categories (or remove them) after upload. -- User:Docu at 10:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Template:Painting-signature

I saw Template:Painting-signature is used for the uploads. In the form {{Painting-signature|Signed lower right: "Wm. J. Baer/ 1911"}}. That should rather be {{Painting-signature|Wm. J. Baer/ 1911|lower|right}} with the position as two separate parameters. That allows further localization. --Slomox (talk) 01:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and now that I wrote this: we actually have this already: {{Signed}}. (The problem sounded kinda familiar to me ;-) ) --Slomox (talk) 01:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm aware of the template, but it might be easier to do this after the upload. -- User:Docu at 03:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Judging from the discussion so far I'm impressed how well BrooklynMuseum was able to deal with integrating all the obscure Commons templates we asked him to integrate. He seems to be quite skilled. So I'm positive he'll be able to adjust the bot. Of course handling it with a bot afterwards is okay too. --Slomox (talk) 10:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you should attempt to write a documentation for the template before asking for that. -- User:Docu at 10:40, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I can attempt to parse signature text and location from our 'signed' field and place in either of the mentioned templates. Our "signed" data is pretty irregular - with lots of different conventions and exceptions - so I may not be able to parse all perfectly. Just let us know which of the two mentioned templates is best. It doesn't look to me like {{painting-signature}} displays the position info I pass in..

While I'm at it I'm going to remove the signature entirely if it reads "unsigned" or similar, but let me know if the verified absence of a signature is actually interesting data. BrooklynMuseum (talk) 15:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Please use {{signed}}.

In my opinion the verified absence of a signature _is_ interesting data. Please include it. --Slomox (talk) 17:41, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. But how should the lack of a signature be communicated? {{Signed|signed=Unsigned}} is a troublesome convention as it only makes sense for EN speakers and presents a problem for any artwork actually signed "Unsigned". (Some artist is bound to do it.) Is there some other template param I can use? BrooklynMuseum (talk) 15:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

With a #switch-statement we can parse a value like "|signed=Unsigned" so it will also make sense to non-EN speakers.

If "Unsigned" could be an actual signature, we could either use something like "|signed=-" (or any string of characters that would never be used as a signature) or we could add another parameter "|unsigned=1". I guess the second solution is simpler. I'll implement it in the template. --Slomox (talk) 08:44, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. I updated all unsigned objects uploaded to date to use the new unsigned=1 switch. --BrooklynMuseum (talk) 21:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, when do you plan to upload? -- User:Docu at 04:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

How about I start uploading 1000 at about 1330 GMT tomorrow (Wednesday 28th)? --BrooklynMuseum (talk) 20:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. --Jarekt (talk) 20:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

It sure does. -- User:Docu at 05:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

1000 uploaded. I'll wait to upload more until some of these can be reviewed. --BrooklynMuseum (talk) 14:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

See Bottom of the page. --Jarekt (talk) 15:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

If the artist is unknown, you might want to use "|Artist={{unknown}}". Currently the line seems to be skipped (e.g. here). -- User:Docu at 10:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, current uploads leave the Artist field blank if no suitable constituent is available. I've revised code as suggested - to go into effect next update. --BrooklynMuseum (talk) 21:15, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

All contribs to date have been updated to use {{Signed}} template with location and date info passed in as parameters where available. BrooklynMuseum (talk) 17:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Thoughts from afar

I'm very impressed with ambition and scope of this project, and everyone's commitment to make it work, in particular the Brooklyn Museum's willingness to put so much content into Wikimedia Commons.

I'm very much a non-technical expert when it comes to understanding how bots and templates work, and therefor enter this discussion with trepidation, but perhaps my outside perspective would be of use.

I'd like to point out that this seems like an ideal time to not only solve the necessary issues required to make this bot work for the Brooklyn Museum, but also to clear the way for institution to do a similar thing. You all have done a great deal of this by making the painting template so that it can handle the standard museum practice of measuring in 3 dimensions (HxWxL). It was only recently that a similar change was made to the WP Template for artworks.

I wonder what it would take to change the name of the template you are using from "painting" to something like "artwork." As a museum professional, I know a lot of people are very particular with how artworks are named. It would be more straightforward to generally describe them in the template rather than name an etching a painting. A more generalized template would also recognize that the Commons is interested things other than just paintings, which for so long have been at the top of the Fine Arts food chain.

Likewise, I think the more specificity the better when considering the credit line of artwork. Sometimes artworks are actually given to museums by specific people, and then other times pots of money are given to a museum which are then used to buy artworks (sometimes this is done very specifically, with certain funds being allocated to very specific kinds of artwork purchases).

Credit lines rarely relate to a significant amount of provenance information, and since it says the word "provenance" in the template, this might confuse some people.

Further, the name or info in the credit line might actually make an interesting category--in this way one could easily see groups of artworks from particular donors. I think putting this in the "notes" section is a bit to general. Museum folks spend a lot of time making sure gifts are properly credited. In my opinion, a notes field would be best used for other information and a specific credit line field should be created.

In the same way I think the ID field could be better described. The acquisition number of an artwork is not only the control number we use to track artworks in museums, but usually relates to the year it was acquired by a museum. The general system now is to have (year acquired.sequential item number). Though it's not always the rule the year acquired can also mean the year the artwork entered the museum. This too might make an excellent category. It would be interesting to be able to group artworks by their accession years.

I hope you'll take my suggestions in the good way I mean them. Here's to you all and the excellent work that you are doing. --Richard McCoy (talk) 12:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

From a technical point of view renaming {{Painting}} to {{Artwork}} is no problem at all. Can be done in a minute. But if it is done we should take the opportunity to review the template and have a look what kind of additional data needs to be included (a statue or installation might have different data requirements than a painting).

I have no knowledge about museal standards at all. If IDs with the scheme "year acquired.sequential item number" are indeed some kind of common standard, we should create a template for it. --Slomox (talk) 17:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

These suggestions generally make sense to me. In particular, it would be great if the template was named {{Artwork}} and a credit_line parameter was added.

As for accession numbers, I agree that calling out acquisition year would be interesting, but I think this would be best handled separately from the museum id. Most of our ids follow the pattern [year].[number], but many do not and I think it would be unwise to assume too much about other museums'/collectors' conventions beyond that they use some kind of "id". So, ultimately I think "ID" is adequate as is.

To enable grouping by acquisition year, perhaps something like "As of date" could be added to Current Location, from which other bots could derive categories like "Artwork acquired by museums in the 1970s". --BrooklynMuseum (talk) 17:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Organizing Bot uploads

It seems like as promised Bot is active uploading numerous images and creating creator pages. Help is needed to further categorize the uploads and verify category/creator names.

1. Categories: I created Category:Brooklyn Museum categories to check and its subcategories based on names of new Creator pages. Those categories need to be verified that they are not alternative names of people-categories we already have. They also need [[to be added to categories like category:Painters from the United States. Afterward Category:Brooklyn Museum categories to check can be removed.
2. Creator pages: Most of BrooklynMuseumBot creator pages have only very minimal information. I added Sortkey and Homecat fields to most of them, I will add it to the other ones in Category:Creator templates without key information. All Creator pages need to be verified that they are not alternative versions of the pages for authors we already have creator pages for. It is also useful to link this page with English or other Wikipadia article about the artist (by adding link in the name field), and see if the article need any aditional samples of the author's work, and if the image of the author is available.
3. Files: Could use additional categories.

Now that 1000 have finished uploading I'm going to go back and see if there are more categories that I can auto generate based on technique. If there are other types of categories that anyone thinks I should be able to generate based on metadata, please suggest. Thanks --BrooklynMuseum (talk) 14:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

--Jarekt (talk) 13:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• I will try to fetch data from en_wiki for these categories  Done
• I think overall this turned out well. Personally, I think we could move ahead with the remaining ones. Later, we might want to announced the upload on VP/Main page to invite users to categorize the files further. -- User:Docu at 10:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I am (very slowly) checking those categories as well many of them are parallel to already created categories and/or Creators. In those cases I am creating redirects. I agree with Docu that this run went quite well. Some thoughts and comments:

• This edit was quite destructive, but it looks like one-of-a-kind.

Ouch. That was nasty indeed. I believe this arose due to a connectivity failure that my code interpreted as page nonexistence. I've revised my code to look specifically for the 'missing' flag to verify the nonexistence of pages. --BrooklynMuseum (talk) 20:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• As someone mentioned before most files end with "- overall", may be it can be trimmed.

That suffix is the image view - something to identify the image from other images of the same artwork. But since we're only uploading one image per artwork I'll remove it from subsequent uploads. --BrooklynMuseum (talk) 20:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• I found it surprising that a lot of images of paintings are in black-and-white. In case you have access to Color and B/W versions a color version would be better

I wish more of these were color too. We're uploading the best image we have. You can verify this by clicking the Online Collection link, which shows all images available for the given object. --BrooklynMuseum (talk) 20:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• May be you can use {{NYC}} instead of {{city|New York}}. {{City}} is a big lookup table and it looks-up {{NYC}}.

Sure thing --BrooklynMuseum (talk) 20:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The last 3 point are quite minor and I would not worry about them if they are not easy. --Jarekt (talk) 15:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Some remarks

I changed the template to make it look like the other templates. I added {{PD-art}} to all of the paintings and removed the redundant Category:Images from Brooklyn Museum (is added by {{Brooklyn_Museum-no_known_restrictions}}). Could you add a placeholder template to new uploads ({{Brooklyn_Museum-Replace with Commons license}} or something like that?) so it's easy to track which images still need a Commons license template? Also adding Category:Images from Brooklyn Museum to new uploads is redundant.

It all looks very good. Would you be willing to share your work so other users/institutions can benefit from your work? I'm especially interested in how you mapped fields in your database to fields in our templates.

I also like to concept of seeding creator templates with information from a museum database. This is something we should probably look into some more. Multichill (talk) 19:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Could you double check the {{PD-art}} you applied? It seems you added this indiscriminately to all uploads, e.g. also at File:Brooklyn Museum - Landscape - Owen Cullen Yates - overall.jpg. Please be more careful. -- User:Docu at 12:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Because Brooklyn Museum was supposed to be only uploading public domain works. How is this work public domain? Multichill (talk) 22:06, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

It's really for you to tell us, as you tagged it. You might want to re-read this request, their template, and the discussion here. At least, this file was of a 2D-object. -- User:Docu at 11:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I removed {{PD-Art}} from all the files where author died less than 70 years ago. Also should {{PD-Art|PD-Old}} be used for US artists? US does not recognize {{PD-old}} rule. For most Brooklyn Museum uploads we should use {{PD-Art|PD-US}} is applicable. Does anybody know that "published" means when referred to paintings? --Jarekt (talk) 03:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I saw one such file in one of the categories I was watching, and I raised a similar question at COM:VP#Brooklyn Museum-no known restrictions (about 55 files seem to remain copyrighted in the USA as unpublished works). Teofilo (talk) 10:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Lets not call those files "copyrighted" (people have bad reactions to those) and I trust {{Brooklyn Museum-no known restrictions}} assertion as much as I would {{Flickr-no known copyright restrictions}}. I was only commenting that {{PD-Art}} = {{PD-Art|PD-Old}} might not be a correct license for majority of Brooklyn Museum uploads which are works of US painters. --Jarekt (talk) 13:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Few more suggestions about Creator pages

Hi as I am still checking Category:Brooklyn Museum categories to check and merging with existing categories. I noticed 2 things which may be can be improved prior to further uploads:

1. If no information is known about a creator other than name than lets not create a page for him/her. I deleted about 5 of those.

Looks like you also deleted a creator page that had only one year (J. Hall, active ca 1850). I've added logic to skip creator page creation if only one date is known. -BrooklynMuseum (talk) 16:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

1. Occasionally Brooklyn Museum do not know dates of birth / death of an artist but knows what years was he/she active. Put those dates in Workperiod field instead of birth/death dates, for example for creator:George Hayward. For example here.

I've added this logic and I'm currently applying the change to all creator pages uploaded to date. -BrooklynMuseum (talk) 16:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Other than that uploads look great. Thanks--Jarekt (talk) 03:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Few more comments:

1. Few creator pages I deleted can be characterized as not having enough detail to pinpoint someone's identity with much certainty. For example I deleted "J. Hall, active ca 1850" mostly due to lack of first name and no birth/death names. Even if I have a second image claiming to be by "J. Hall, active ca 1850" it would be quite uncertain that they are the same person. As a result the category would have only this one image and there is no way to properly categorize it.
2. Many of your recent changes to creator pages were not right. For example, this change was incorrect, since your page lists "American, 1727-1791, active in America 1746-1776" as author description. The correct change is this. Also at this point I verified all the Creator pages by hand, in most cases based on the other sources (like en wikipedia), so please verify changes to those creator pages by hand as well.
3. Another detail I noticed is that if one of your dates say "ca. 1900" than it is better to use {{other date|ca|1900}} instead of 1900.

While verifying those new creator pages and their categories, in a few cases I fixed your dates, added places of birth/death, added categories and pictures of the artist and merged creator directories with existing directories we occasionally had for each creator. I also verified interwiki links between creator categories and wikipedia articles added by a bot; to my surprise large fraction of those were linking to an incorrect person this the same name. In few cases when I changed the name of creator page or category I kept redirects from the names you used. So you can keep on using the old ones. In case of creator pages we just will have pages with several versions of the name pointing to the same single creator page, and in case of categories if you add an image to a redirected category than this image will be at some point moved to a correct one. Greetings --Jarekt (talk) 19:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

More uploads?

Are there going to be any more uploads or is it all that Brooklyn Museum can share at the moment? --Jarekt (talk) 17:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi all. Sorry for the delay. I'm getting my head back into uploads now and doing my best to incorporate the above suggestions. I'll write again when I have a batch to share. Hopefully this week. Best. BrooklynMuseum (talk) 21:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Page Deletions

Am I mistaken, or have a number of bot uploaded pages been deleted? Should action=history tell me whether or not a page was deleted (e.g. [18]) Is there a way to determine whether this page ever existed or I just mistakenly logged an upload that actually failed? (And if the page did once exist, how do I determine the reason for the deletion?) Thanks BrooklynMuseum (talk) 16:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Normally you should be notified if a file is nominated for deletion. It seems that wasn't done here though.

Red links on the upload log show images that were deleted.

The following seem to have been deleted:

• File:Brooklyn Museum - Self-Portrait - Eastman Johnson - overall.jpg
• File:Brooklyn Museum - Study for 'The Wounded Drummer Boy' - Eastman Johnson - overall.jpg
• File:Brooklyn Museum - Sharpening the Scythe - Eastman Johnson - overall.jpg
• File:Brooklyn Museum - Not at Home - Eastman Johnson - overall.jpg
• File:Brooklyn Museum - Self Portrait - Eastman Johnson - overall.jpg
• File:Brooklyn Museum - Captain Folger of Nantucket - Eastman Johnson - overall.jpg
• File:Brooklyn Museum - The Savoyard Boy - Eastman Johnson - overall.jpg
• File:Brooklyn Museum - Portrait of a Child - Eastman Johnson - overall.jpg

Probably these were deleted by error and an administrator, e.g. Jarekt, could easily restore them. The deletion log displayed when clicking on the above links should explain why they were deleted, but the log for the ones I checked wasn't helpful.

• File:Brooklyn Museum - Silver Light Hudson River - Leon Dabo - overall.jpg

was deleted as a duplicate of File:Dabo - Silver Light Hudson River 1911.jpg. -- User:Docu at 16:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

In the meantime the ones from Eastman Johnson were undeleted. -- User:Docu at 20:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Strange I can not find any info about deletion or undeletion of the Eastman Johnson files. Probably just my inability to use the admin tools. :) --Jarekt (talk) 21:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The "log" link is now folded behind the right to "view history" (nothing admin about that). -- User:Docu at 21:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks --Jarekt (talk) 02:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Categories

I've categoriseg many of the paintings of the musuem by genre. I'm aware this can't be always relevant, but given the number of paintings, I thought smaller categories could be useful. Since the works of the museum seems to be organised by collections I wonder if it wouldn't be a good idea if the bot added categories like "American arts in the Broklyn Museum", "Arts of the Pacific Islands in the Brooklyn Museum", according to the museum's name of the collection to which the item belongs--Zolo (talk) 09:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

If there's consensus that this would be useful, we're game. --BrooklynMuseum (talk) 13:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

 Support --Jarekt (talk) 20:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure, Multichill (talk) 16:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Ditto. Jean-Fred (talk) 16:23, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks. New uploads are now being tagged with collection categories. --BrooklynMuseum (talk) 19:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Some other remarks

Though I followed from afar the discussions of this last months, I am kinda new to this discussion. So first of all, thanks Brooklyn Museum for sharing all this content, and congratulations for managing to make so much metadata fit into our myriad of templates!

I would have two remarks:

• I noticed that the Source field does not use a template. Though there is not much to internationalise, this hinders this possibility. It could also be helpful in the case the URLs of the BrooklynMuseum change in the future.

Interesting. Are you suggesting a new template be created? If guidelines are provided, we can adapt new uploads.--BrooklynMuseum (talk)

I think it would be interesting, yes ; but I would appreciate some comments from other, more experienced users before (hint, hint). Jean-Fred (talk) 19:49, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Would something like {{sourceBrooklynMuseum}} do? Visually, it doesn't change much. You have to fill a template with

• address (page address less minus "http://www.brooklynmuseum.org/opencollection/objects/")
• ID=blabla.jpg
• date=date (given)

For an example, see File:Brooklyn Museum - "Eh Bien monsieur le marquis de Guizot..." - Honoré Daumier.jpg. I've considered that the photographer is always the Brooklyn Museum, if it is not the case, and if the template suits you, I can change that.

• Many artworks are categorised in Category:Oil paintings, but this category does have sub-categories for the type of base (eg Category:Oil on panel, Category:Oil on canvas). I believe either these categories are not relevant and then we need to trim our category tree, or they are and it would be great if the BrooklynMuseum could sub-categorise them in future uploads (previous uploads could be fixed by bot based on the {{Technique}} used). I guess this decision is in the hands of folks who know best the practices of artworks categorisation :-)

It may a be a somewhat tricky question. Actually, artwork categories of commons don't really follow any consistent rules. On the whole, it seems better to categorize files in the most precise category available. However it should be noticed, that, unlike "category:oil on canvas", "category:oil paintings" has thematic subcategories (Category:Oil paintings by subject) I am not sure it perfectly logical, but that the way it is for now. Thus when a painting is put in "category:oil on painting", it presumably has a greater chance to end up in a more precise thematic category than when it is categorized in "oil on panel". One solution would be to categorize the files in both categories, but that would be considered redundant. An alternative is to keep things as they are and run a bot later to categorize files in catgories like "oil on panel" (I think it's quite easy to do and would probably be useful for files from other sources as well). Personnally, I don't hold any strong opinion on that question.--Zolo (talk) 22:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Jean-Fred (talk) 11:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

New uploads-new suggestions

I have seen that uploads had resumed this is great news!

Since template have changed a bit since last time, I would like to suggest a couple of minor changes:

• We now have a "location" field meant to be for "location within the museum". I propose to create a template:Brooklyn Museum location where we could put curatorial department and the number of the room (except if it changes to quickly to be maintainable here). Maybe it could even be used for automatic categorization, the name of the department is not always that intuitive, if it was automatically added, it may prevent good faith mistakes from users.
• As Jean-Fred mentioned above, it may make sense to have a template for the source. Would something like {{From Brooklyn Museum}} used in File:Brooklyn Museum - "Eh Bien monsieur le marquis de Guizot..." - Honoré Daumier.jpg do ? Since there also is a link in the accession number field, maybe it would be a good idea to have a template there two.
• two really minor changes, if new uploads are to be expected: {{painting-provenanceorcl}} is now called and |Institution={{:museum:Brooklyn Museum}} can now be written |Institution={{Institution:Brooklyn Museum}}

--Zolo (talk) 18:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I also noticed that BrooklynMuseumBot is creating new Creator pages. This is great but the format of the creator template changed slightly since last uploads: we now have more fields which should be added even if empty. See Template:Creator "Copy and paste section". Ideally bot can fill some of those new fields. I can also offer help uploading new creator templates if you can provide spreadsheet with authors names and fields. --Jarekt (talk) 18:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• If I may suggest images of reliefs of TT34 for upload? --  Docu  at 19:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

---

Summary

I think approval of this bot is way overdue, especially since most of the uploads are already done. Despite of the lengthy debate, or may be thanks to it, I consider uploads of this bot to be much more clean than the most other bot or manual uploads. Unless there are some specific issues or reservations I think this discussion should be closed. --Jarekt (talk) 17:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Requests for comment

Centralized discussion
Request for comments on handling offsite discussions (19 April 2012(2012-04-19)) Commons:WikiProject Public Domain has been created to organise and review PD files (10 March 2012(2012-03-10)) Request for comments on making Commons:Grandfathered old files an official Wikimedia Commons guideline. Please discuss this at this subpage. (4 March 2012(2012-03-04)) Request for comments about how to reduce the need for Commons and other Wikimedia projects to comply with US copyright laws. (1 March 2012(2012-03-01)) Request for comments about how to improve Commons' Search. (28 February 2012(2012-02-28)) Request for Comments on the OTRS system. (9 January 2012(2012-01-09)) Please help by translating these messages into other languages. Note: inactive discussions, closed or not, should be archived.
Archive  • Discussion • Edit • Page history • Watch