Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Ohms Law Bot 2


 * 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 The result of the discussion was Symbol oppose vote.svg Withdrawn by operator.

Ohms Law Bot
Operator:

Automatic or Manually assisted: Automatic

Programming language(s): C#

Source code available: No

Function overview: Add Copy to Wikimedia Commons to appropriate images in Category:NASA images

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): Periodic

Estimated number of pages affected: ~3,500 (For initial run)

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): No

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

Function details: Ohms Law Bot will add Copy to Wikimedia Commons to all pages in the File namespace that are in Category:NASA images. The bot skips pages that already include either Copy to Wikimedia Commons or  Do not move to Commons (although, why any images in NASA images would include Do not move to Commons is beyond me). The page must also include NASA, NASA logo, or PD-USGov-NASA. If the file already exists on Commons, with the same file name, then the bot removes Copy to Wikimedia Commons and adds ncd instead.

Ohms Law Bot will move all properly licensed images which are located in Category:NASA images onto Commons. After the move it complete, it will subst NowCommons to the image's page here on en.wikipedia.

See also commons:Commons:Bots/Requests/Ohms Law Bot

Discussion

 * I ran one test on File:A50.jpg. Just out of curiosity, would there be an issue with actually copying the files to Commons by bot? It seems as though there are something like 23,000+ files currently using Copy to Wikimedia Commons. — V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 23:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't see any problem with copying via bot, but you might want to ask here and at commons to see if there would be any problem others can foresee. Do you plan on adding that functionality into this task?
 * Will you be using a hash to determine that the file with the same name is the same file?
 * Why aren't you publishing your source code? Josh Parris 03:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The copying by bot question is more for future consideration, especially since I don't have any sort of bot approval on Commons, currently. I've never really thought about the question before now, is all.
 * Anyway, for this task I'll simply be relying on the MediaWiki install on Commons to tell me if the page exists or not. If Commons says that there's already a page with the same name there, then the page here is tagged with (NowCommons).
 * I might publish my code eventually, but right now it's a hacked to together mess, and I'd be ashamed to put it out there in public. It's all fairly standard stuff though, written in C#, and using the MediaWiki api as much as possible. There's nothing really special about it *shrug*. — V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 05:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I can generate a list of files on Commons for you, if you think that could save time. How are you making sure that they are the same file? Tim1357 (talk) 11:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, at the moment I'm just worried about getting the template on the page, here on Wikipedia. The goal is to go through and use the provided CommonsHelper link in order to manually move as many as possible. The logic is simply to reduce the possibility of adding a template where it most likely shouldn't belong. Even though myself (and, hopefully, others) will do the moves manually, it's still probably better to miss templating a couple, rather then needing to skip or remove a whole bunch, you know?
 * Anyway, my main concern is that I'll be adding a bunch of duplicate files to Commons. If the files are moved with the same filenames on Commons as they have here, then that's easy enough to track (and the bot can easily add NowCommons to the files... I think that there are already a couple of bots which do that, aren't there?), but if someone changes the name in the process, or if a third party adds the same image to Commons separately, and with a different file name... There's just no way that I can imagine to programmatically figure that possibility out. If it turns out that the people at Commons wouldn't mind possibly many duplicate images then I'd gladly just move them with the bot, but I'll need an answer to that first. — V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 19:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * What's the point of tagging 3,000 images that we know are PD/movable? The workload will be the same regardless of whether or not the files are stamped for moving. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, for me, getting the link to CommonsHelper is very valuable. Having to manually add that link somehow easily doubles the workload. The categorization given to the page by adding the template is an obvious benefit as well (to some at least. I can personally do without cleanup categories, but other people seem to like them). — V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 03:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

General move to commons bot?

 * As I said above, I'm able and perfectly willing to have the bot actually move the images, but I'll somehow need to get Commons' permission first I'd think, so this subject is really for future planning. Would anyone be averse to authorizing bot driven file moves to Commons? — V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 03:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As long as the bot is following standard move-to-Commons guidelines, I don't see permission is needed. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "standard move-to-Commons guidelines"? where? (I did look around, but I didn't see anything obvious. At least, not about bots) — V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 04:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Moving images to the Commons – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 13:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, yea, that's what I thought that you were talking about, but... is there approval for using that process with automated moves (assuming that the bot abides by the procedures, obviously)? I mean, if we're willing to trust the fact that the images are properly marked as PD, I'd gladly just have the bot move all of them. — V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 21:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Reboot

 * Rebooted this request in order to convert it into an automated move to commons task. Seeking reciprocal approval on Commons at: Commons:Commons:Bots/Requests/Ohms Law Bot. — V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 01:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * BAG on Commons is requesting that I do a trial run. Can I get approval to do a trial run here as well? — V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 03:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, why not? &mdash;  The Earwig   (talk)  01:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Should have a run of diffs available later tonight. — V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 22:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Trial ran from Midnight - 1 am EDT (04:00 - 05:00 server time) March 21, 2010. The edits here are marked with "Adding to image which has been transwikied to Commons (Task 2)", but it'll probably be easier to see them if you look at the Commons edits instead, since I've got the bot doing stuff here fairly constantly, in it's own user space. — V = IR  (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 04:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Back to original proposal
OK, since the folks on Commons have become totally non-responsive, I'm going back to the original proposal. What little feedback I did receive indicates that they're not particularly interested in having a bot actually move the images anyway, which is what I figured would be the issue anyway. — V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 19:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I was about to approve you for the previous task you did, following that trial, but noticed the strange consensus on Commons. I'll let this settle for a day or so, and if there aren't any objections, I'll approve you for a trial. &mdash; The Earwig   (talk)  19:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I have to say, it is a bit disappointing, but not at all surprising. Frankly, I was a bit shocked at the suggestions that the original proposal was too conservative. I agree that having a bot just move the images would be terrific, but considering the difficulties in cross-wiki communication and collaboration I'm not at all surprised at the resistance. — V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 21:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * enough waiting already. Josh Parris 14:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * (oops) I must've forgotten about this. Any updates, Ohms law? &mdash;  The Earwig   (talk)  20:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

What if anything will this bot do if a file is on here and Commons but under two different names?--Rockfang (talk) 09:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I might revisit this at a later date, but Wikipedia has kinda taken a backseat in my life, for now. — V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 20:45, 19 May 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.