Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DASHBot 9


 * The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was Symbol keep vote.svg Approved.

DASHBot 9
Operator: Tim1357

Automatic or Manually assisted: Automatic

Programming language(s): Python (sorda)

Source code available: I will if you want it

Function overview: Rescale non-free media in Category:Non-free_Wikipedia_file_size_reduction_request

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Previous BRFAs 1 - 2

Edit period(s): Whenever there is a backlog.

Estimated number of pages affected: 10,000 maybe?

Exclusion compliant (Y/N):Y

Already has a bot flag (Y/N): Y

Function details:
 * 1) Get an image from the category.
 * 2) If its longest side is more then 400px, proceed
 * 3) If the aspect ratio is greater then 1/3, proceed
 * 4) Rescale the image so that the width is 325 px.
 * 5) Upload Image *.
 * 6) Replace Non-Free reduce with Non-free reduced

* I use Mediawikis scale algorithm to compress the image (the same thing that compresses an image when you put )

Discussion

 * I have no problem with this. harej  00:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Is there any reason not to run this continuously, on automatic? Josh Parris 12:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅ With the code Tim1357 (talk) 05:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

harej 05:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There was some opposition to the bot, so until we can figure things out, I have halted the trial. Tim1357 (talk) 06:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Where was the opposition expressed — in a subpage of this request? I'm only rarely at BRFA, so I don't know the way you guys work.  Nyttend (talk) 13:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I was contacted on IRC by some users that expressed concern. I encouraged them to comment here, but It appears that they have not. I will remind them again. Basically there concern is that some Non-Free Images are too complicated, and should not simply be resized to 350px as that size reduces the image's ability to illustrate the topic, and therefore require human decision. I respectfully disagree, as these images are almost never used in articles more then 200px, so reducing them has little effect on the experience of the reader. Tim1357 (talk) 02:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Tim basically covered our concerns. It's basically that images are varied enough in size and content that serializing the resize process could make some images near worthless. I understand that most images are not used at much more than 200px within the article -- but many images, like maps, or screenshots of programs, are really more of a "here's a thumbnail, click to actually see it" sort of deal. And on lots of those images, only a human can decide an appropriate balance between usefulness and making the image smaller. As such my suggestion is to have humans tag images with a destination size and have the bot come along and resize. RandomStringOfCharacters   [T]  03:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

D Tim1357, what's the status of this? Josh Parris 06:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems to be stuck. Ill find the time to make another request for comment at WP:VPR sometime. Tim1357 (talk) 14:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have one solution. In my opinion, there is way to many files in this backlog to not use a bot. Also, I believe that it is not wikipedia's job to host hi-res, non-free images. If the user wants to see a bigger version of the image in question, they may click the provided link to the original file (hosted off of wikipedia's servers). I propose that the bot check each image for a hyper-link to the original image, then (and only then) proceed with the re-scaling. Tim1357 (talk) 00:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Random that for the future, we should add a parameter to the nonfree reduce template that specifies a desired resolution. That way, the bot would know exactly what to reduce it to. In any event, I support the work of this bot as is. The deleting admin can see if the reduced image is still sufficient in resolution, and if a desired image is deleted, it always can be undeleted. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point Calliopejen1, the bot would, essentially, move the backlog from a rescaling job to a deleting job. Keep in mind, random, that each image will be reviewed by an admin, when the time comes that the previous revision should be deleted. It is much easier for them to revert to the full-scale image then to have humans go through and rescale thousands of images. Again, Just my opinion. Tim1357 (talk) 01:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I was BOLD . See the upload/untag log Tim1357 (talk) 04:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I ran into some trouble with .svg files. I think josh was going to give me another trial. Tim1357 (talk) 03:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Let's see if is fixed. Josh Parris 03:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * OK all done! I had one instance where the file was the exact same size that the bot would have resized it to, so the bot removed the reduce tag without uploading a new file. While it may be useful it is a subject for a different BRFA, so I added a patch to avoid those problems. Tim1357 (talk) 03:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * trial edits Josh Parris 04:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Josh Parris 05:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA.