User talk:Betacommand/Commons

Approval process

What is the approval process? Do I need to demonstrate an understanding of the commons category/template system? John Vandenberg 03:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

the approval process once this gets operational will be me checking the username and making sure that you have support and know what your doing, (IE do I trust who added you to the list) because this is bot driven, and Im not using the live wiki for userlist storage when I approve you I will add you to the bot. Since I drafted this Ive talked with a few devs and Im waiting to see if what they are working becomes reality. if it doenst happen kinda soon Ill file for bot approval and get this rolling, this page is just a non functioning draft at the moment. β^_command 03:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I've been looking at the history of the page, and the approved user list appeared in the first version, and was already very long. May I ask what the approval process was to create that initial list? The current set-up implies that everyone on the list added themselves, and is supporting the process, when that might not be the case. The very existence of an approved users list also makes me slightly uneasy, in an Orwellian sense, but nothing I can put my finger on right now. It would be better to have a list of the people actually carrying out the tagging, so people can carry out random oversight if they want to. Carcharoth 01:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

the initial list was generated from en.wiki admins. I then took an knife to that list. in a perfect world there would be no need for a list, but alas we do have stupid/vandal users who would abuse such a tool. the list is only there as a sanity and safety check. β^_command 05:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

If I can provide a suggestion, I suggest to add a list of Wikipedia users, but are Commons admins, then take a knife towards that list. Since the list is in a beta phase, the bugs are still being worked out by BC. Once he feels it is ready, he will start a process to get approved for this list. Just relax. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Betacommandbot and the PD-US tag

One issue for this bot is the incompatibility between the similar-looking {{PD-US}} tags on Wikimedia Commons and here. Commons's version of this tag applies to images that were first published before 1923 in the United States, which are public domain in most of the world. The English Wikipedia's version also includes images published before 1923 anywhere in the world, which often are public domain only in the United States, and are not allowed by Commons's licensing policy. There have already been lots of problems with well-intentioned editors moving these images to Commons, where they are likely to eventually be deleted, and the bot could make things even worse.

There is an ongoing discussion at Template talk:PD-US about how to change our tagging so that it's clear which of these images can be moved to Commons, but in the meantime, it would be best if the bot simply refused to move images tagged {{PD-US}}. —Celithemis 21:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

And undid any PD-US moves that it has already done. Is reversal of moves a feature built into the bot? Note also the wider issue of whether en-Wiki images should be deleted after trans-wikiing or not - there are arguments that retaining images in both places is sometimes (always?) better. Carcharoth 01:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Automatically reversing it might be overkill, since many of those images will be OK on Commons. I thought the bot wasn't actually transwikiing anything yet, anyway.

{{PD-Art}} and {{PD-art-life-70}} are two more problematic tags, due to these restrictions on Commons, which we don't have to follow on English Wikipedia. —Celithemis 01:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not actually doing anything yet? Oh. I've just been reading Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BetacommandBot Task 7, and I see it is approved for a trial. I came here from WP:ANI, and used "what links here" to find out where else this is being discussed. I found the ArbCom thread and there seems to be an AN thread as well. Hang on, I'll go and read that. Apologies if I've jumped the gun here. Carcharoth 01:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Im just trying to get the ball rolling, the An and ANI threads were started by me, and the ArbCom ref I used in a discussion about a motion that is currently under arbcom discussion about re-sysoping me. β^_command 05:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for explaining. I think this bot could work really well, but it is a classic case of something that probably needed a little bit more discussion, and making clear that the AN and ANI threads were about a bot still in the testing phase might have helped. I won't have been the only person who read Neil's reaction and thought the bot was already running. Carcharoth 09:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Discussion about this?

The pages starts with "Since Commons is a repository for free images that can be used across wiki and cross-project, wikipedia should move all its Free images to commons." - some people would dispute this, or rather, would dispute the deletion of the Wikipedia image. Was there a wide discussion of this bot and how it should operate? Could you link to that discussion from the top of the page? Carcharoth 01:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

the content of the page is a personal essay and a simple description of what the bot does. It its been wikipedia's policy to delete images once they are on commons. My goal is to get images that should be on commons on commons, if en.wikipedia wants to keep a local copy then that is up to them. β^_command 05:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

It is an established criteria for speedy deletion that an Wikipedia images that get moved to the Commons get speedy deleted. If you feel it is not fair, then I suggest you head there and start a discussion. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I will do. Thanks. Carcharoth 09:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

CSD I8

Does the bot ensure that all the criteria of CSD I8 are met before moving the image? Or to put it another way, are those on the approved list doing the tagging, prepared to do the non-bot work descibed at I8, which I'm quoting here (version as of 18/08/2007, current version at WP:CSD#I8):

1. Images available as bit-for-bit identical copies on the Wikimedia Commons', provided the following conditions are met:
   • The image's license and source status is beyond reasonable doubt, and the license is undoubtedly accepted at Commons.
     • All image revisions that meet the first condition have been transferred to Commons as revisions of the Commons copy and properly marked as such.
   • All information on the image description page is present on the Commons image description page, including the complete upload history with links to the uploader's local user pages.
     • If there is any information not relevant to any other project on the image description page (like {{FeaturedPicture}}), the image description page must be undeleted after the file deletion.
   • The image is not protected, and the image description page does not contain a request not to move it to Commons.
   • The image has been marked with {{NowCommons}} for at least one week. Waiting one week is not necessary if it was the uploader who moved the image and marked it.
   • If the image is available on Commons under a different name than locally, all local references to the image must be updated to point to the title used at Commons.
   • {{c-uploaded}} images may be speedily deleted as soon as they are off the Main Page.

   This also includes empty (i.e., no content) image description pages for Commons images.

For example, are all Featured Pictures on Wikipedia already on Commons, or not? If the bot and its team of approved users mess up the Featured Pictures that aren't acceptable on Commons (there may be a few), that could cause problems. Carcharoth 09:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• Maybe you could exclude Featured Pics, and trust the Featured Pics team to do this manually themselves? The main problem being that Wikipedia and Commons have separate "featured pic" processes, hence the clauses above. Carcharoth 09:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

well the bot only moves the current revision of an image, and meets all the requirements for commons except Im having a few issues with categorization (ive got help from some commons users to help cat them properly) as for Featured images i havent come into that problem so im not sure what you mean exactly. β^_command 09:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Drop a note over at Wikipedia talk:Featured pictures, and someone will explain if I'm talking rubbish or not (I might be!). I'll drop the note now. Carcharoth 09:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

It's true that WP:FPs are selected according to different criteria (primarily, that they're suitable for encyclopedia use, which Commons FPs don't need to be) and I'm pretty sure WP:FPs are not automatically promoted as Commons FPs. I think they should be, although discussion a couple of years back on Commons FP talk showed many over there think the FPs over here should only qualify over there if they're nominated like any other image uploaded there. In other words, deleting a file here would remove that file's FP status here. So it needs to be avioded, at least until this is all ironed out. I'll have a chat with the regulars at Commons to see if this can't be retrospectively done, ie. "relocated" WP:FPs automatically become FP at Commons but are also automatically nominated for delisting. That way at least there is a rubber stamping process. Would this work with the bot? mikaul^talk 11:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I do think the bot ought to move all the revisions of the image over to Commons, as required by CSD I8 (second bullet point), with the onus being on the taggers not to tag images with inappropriate past revisions. (This also happens to be one of the parts of the process that would most benefit from bot assistance.) Otherwise we may end up losing useful information, such as original versions of images that have been retouched. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect table in File History section of moved files

I don't know what exactly is wrong, but the bot output bad table code in the file history section for http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Basic_price_ceiling.svg. I don't know if any others have this error. --Sopoforic 20:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't be a problem if the bot is still in trial mode. I only count 18 images transferred so far. See here. Carcharoth 21:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, the bot does not appear to translate wikilinks in the edit summaries correctly. Witness http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Petersen-as-Moore.png. --Sopoforic 01:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Safeguards to stop copyvios from being moved

I have a real concern about the potential for copyvios being moved. Can you implement something that would require anything less than digital camera resolution (say, less than 1024x768) to be confirmed by a second person? Anyone who spends ten minutes going through sports articles, for example, will quickly find news media photos and roster photos that are tagged with false licensing information. (By the way, I am listed by my old name (BigDT) on the approved users list.) --B 12:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Its just a simple matter of trust, the list started out with a list of admins, if admins cannot be trusted with spotting a copyvio then we have a bigger problem. Second tagging users should be responsible for their own actions, If there are concerns over a specific user I will remove them from the list other wise users on the approval list are to be trusted enough for this simple task. β^_command 23:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

It is perhaps a little outside the scope of what you're doing here, but have you seen the interface for the Flickr upload bot on commons? That allows users to add the appropriate templates and categories and descriptions to an image, and then it handles the process of uploading the image and verifying the license.

For me, the most useful thing about your commons-moving bot is that I needn't download the image and then re-upload it, a process which can be very time-consuming. I still have to add the information template and things, though, and this bot doesn't make that any easier; perhaps a combination of your bot with commonshelper would be more along the lines of what I'm looking for.

Of course, if this isn't what you envision your bot doing, feel free to ignore this. --Sopoforic 17:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Request minor tweak

Would it be possible for a user to specify a new image name for the Commons upload? Sometimes the image and license are good but the name is crap. I understand this complicates things, in that the image name would need to be replaced in whatever articles the image is used in. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 18:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, seconded. :) The Evil Spartan 18:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

We would need to create a new template, Modifying BCBot shouldnt be too hard. β^_command 03:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I suggest an input box a la Howcheng's image delete script for Commons duplicates. If you want the name to remain the same, you just click 'OK', if you want a new name you enter it in the box. Unfortunately there will need to be some function to check if the image name is already in use at Commons. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 03:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

BCBot already does a check for images on commons with the same name. see {{commons conflict}} As long as we move it to a separate template I can have BCBot not only move the image to commons but also change the name on pages where its used. β^_command 03:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm - could {{commons ok}} be modified to include a parameter for a suggested name? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 03:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I would rather not, optional template parsing via bot is not fun, (using a specific template would make it soo much easier). β^_command 03:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe if we modified the {{ifr}} template, per the discussion on the bot request page. If you're able to code a bot to do the image renaming, that function could be performed first, then the image could be moved to the Commons. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 03:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Like I said give me a week or so for that. β^_command 04:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll leave you alone about it. Get those beakers boiling in that mad scientist laboratory of yours! Set up the lightning rods to energize the monster! "It's alive! Alive!!!" :) Videmus Omnia ^Talk 04:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Not to bolt a kitchen sink onto this thing, but a user notification would probably be in order to pre-empt any bitching about people not being able to watch "their" images, per the thread at WP:ANI a while ago. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 03:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Shouldnt be too hard. β^_command 03:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Flickrreview

Hi Betacommand. Could you make this bot recognize whether flickr is mentioned on the license tag in the en version of the image, and if so, mark it with {{flickreview}}? This is an important step for images on the commons, though it's not practiced on en. Thanks. The Evil Spartan 18:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear. One other thing: probably want to remove the {{move to commons}} template. The Evil Spartan 19:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

not sure how to do this. β^_command 03:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

1) if(indexof("http://www.flickr.com/photos/")>-1)

2) if(indexof({{move to commons}})>-1) The Evil Spartan 05:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Note

If users want to add categories for commons, BCBot sees commons links and treats them as such [[commons: β^_command 03:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Finding good categories

(perhaps some suggested help text??)

---

Why categorize? Why the requirement that you supply a topic category?

Images on Commons do no one any good if they cannot be found, especially if they are orphans. Adding images to good categories makes them much more likely to get used in a wide variety of applications across multiple projects, which benefits everyone. However, the commons category system is not the same as en:wp. It can be a bit confusing to find the right category. Commons:Categories has more on the category structure and is a good read in general.

There are tools to help find good categories. One good one is CommonSense While intended to categorise images already on commons, it does equally well for images that are on other wikis, just tell it which wiki. Consider the tool used to search Ma06_109.gif (an example image currently on en, no comment on whether it should move or not). The tool gives suggested categories for the image. Inserting some keywords will give even more. Try experimenting to get the hang of it. The tool depends on the toolserver which is not always 100% operational.

Another way to find categories is to browse for them. A good starting place if you know the topic(s) is the top of the category tree commons:Category:Topics ... walk down the categories and get specific. Another good starting place is the tree view of the categories you can get here (using Massachusetts as our example] This can be good if you are not sure if you want buildings of Mass or Churches of Mass. There is also the brute force approach, visit all category pages and put a guess in the "starting at" and see what you get, or view it in ranges to narrow down your scan.

Commonists will thank you profusely if you do a good job of categorization, as it cuts down work they have to do, and members of other projects will thank you as well, when they find a nifty image because you did a good job of categorizing it. Thanks for your efforts!

---

Hope that is of some use, please let me know if I can be of assistance. ++Lar: t/c 20:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Any comments? Should this text NOT be incorporated? ++Lar: t/c 14:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Fixed a typo, go ahead and make it pretty and add it to the page :) (sorry for not saying that sooner)β^_command 19:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Which page? this one? or create a subpage and reference it? Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 20:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Main page is good β^_command 03:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Done... Shuffle it around as needed but I stuck it right below the description of how to do it. ++Lar: t/c 03:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Images tagged with Template:Multilicensefromownerviewed

What to do with images tagged with this template? Change them first to a similar (but with the exact same license) template. Since the template does not exist on commons. Also, mentioned earlier but as a reminder, could there be an option that the bot also moves the talk page (when requested). See Image talk:JustinGuarini concert screencap3.jpg as an example where that might be handy. Garion96 (talk) 20:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Commons allows multiple licenses, so that template could be replaced with the separate templates for the various licenses mentioned in it. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 21:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

That's what I thought. Ever hoping of a lazier way. :) Garion96 (talk) 21:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

We could nominate that template for deletion and replacement with existing license tags, and then have a bot replace them all - you think it's a good idea? For free licenses, Wikipedia really should be standardized with Commons, since all free images should be migrated there anyway. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 21:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

As long as it doesn't mess up (or make more complex) the Wikipedia:Fromowner procedure, fine with me. We don't actually need the fromowner viewed anymore. We can just tag it for the bot as soon we are satisfied it is not a copyvio. Garion96 (talk) 21:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Commons has a similar, but different, multiple license carrying template in Commons:Template:Self which could be used as the target of the liceses carried within Template:Multilicensefromownerviewed perhaps. Also, talk pages in my view should be brought over by default (and their edit history copied in somewhere, perhaps at the top of the talk??? ) rather than as an option. The option would be to NOT bring them. Agree that long term standardization of licenses is goodness but that's a separate issue. ++Lar: t/c 21:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Ive been meaning to add that functionality, just havent had the time :) β^_command 22:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Does the bot assume the templates match always? Seems like commons doesn't have {{PD-USGov-WH}} (commons:Image:TiborRubin.jpg), and doesn't like {{PD-LOC}} just from looking at some random ones. Might be a good idea to explain to people familiar with the transwiki process how this bot works, what you need to do etc. You just add the tag to images ready to go, make sure there are commons categories, and that's it? Nice idea btw! :) - cohesion 01:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It doesnt check templates,(there is no easy way to do that.) What needs done on the wiki side is get it ready for commons (make sure templates are ok, and that it has categories, and is in fact free). All the bot does is copy the image to commons while maintaining GDFL. β^_command 02:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Commonsok

Is your bot still transwikiing images? It has no transikies in over a month. The Evil Spartan (talk) 13:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Ive Been slacking, BCBot is now moving all the images. β^_command 01:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Userboxes

Anyone have one going yet to say something along the lines of "i'm a betacommand wikimedia commonser!" or something to that effect? :P Timeshift (talk) 02:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

No, how dare you support the evil BetacommandBot??? β^_command 02:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Custom userbox on my userpage amended. By the way, what is the average waiting time at the moment before the bot acts upon a commons ok tagged image? Timeshift (talk) 02:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

there is no average time, I used to run the bot daily, but it got so little action I stopped for a month, and then only moved ~30 images. β^_command 02:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah so it's manual. Well i've just tagged dozens of images :) Timeshift (talk) 02:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Hm, it's my first try with this so bear with me, the bot is failing to transfer the images. The categories exist on wikimedia (ie: Trade unionism images and Images of Australian people) and have been added to the image page. What have I done wrong? Timeshift (talk) 02:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

/me points to big red box Images now require commons categories Please add [[commons:category:NAME OF COMMONS CATEGORY]] β^_command 02:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah... I read it, but misread it :-) Timeshift (talk) 02:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's try that again shall we? Timeshift (talk) 03:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I've added some more (incase your bot only does what is in the queue at the beginning of the run) Timeshift (talk) 03:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Timeshift (talk) 04:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I've added some more, whenever you can run it again would be good. Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 13:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I've added some more, whenever you can run it again would be good. Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 08:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not pestering you to run it sooner than you wish but can you confirm you have received this message for my own benefit? Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 06:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Ive been waiting on the toolserver to get caught back up after its recent crash, it should be back up within the next few days. β^_command 16:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

What happened with this one?

Image isn't on commons but is tagged... Timeshift (talk) 08:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[1]. The Evil Spartan (talk) 13:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh great... will this be removed because it contains a TV image? Timeshift (talk) 22:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)