Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/VixDaemon 3


 * The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. The result of the discussion was Symbol oppose vote.svg Withdrawn by operator.

VixDaemon
Operator: KyraVixen

Automatic or Manually Assisted: Automatic and unsupervised running, manual list gathering with AWB

Programming Language(s): Pywikipedia framework

Function Summary: Replace GFDL/GFDL-self with GFDL-with-disclaimers/GFDL-self-with-disclaimers

Edit period(s) (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): Continuous for as long as it takes to finish the run

Edit rate requested: 6 edits per minute, higher if at all possible

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

Function Details: As other Wikimedia projects do not have disclaimers on the GFDL tag, it was proposed by Dragons flight that the current form of the GFDL/GFDL-self tag should be eventually replaced with GFDL-no-disclaimers/GFDL-self-no-disclaimers. This would bring the English Wikipedia in line with the other projects, who "never fell into the disclaimer trap". Dragons flight's reply to my inquiry if he was still pursuing this can be found here. Since he said he "basically abandoned" the idea when he became busy with other things, I'd like to pick up where he left off.

Obviously, a simple page/template move cannot accomplish this, as that would change the license applied to the image, and without the owner's permission, that is not allowable. A workaround for this is migrating the current GFDL/GFDL-self tag to GFDL-with-disclaimers/GFDL-self-with-disclaimers, and then copy the code from GFDL-no-disclaimers/GFDL-self-no-disclaimers to the main GFDL tags once they are depopulated. I'd also advise changing the license selector to update the current GFDL-self template it inserts with the no disclaimer version so new instances are not created during the running time. As of the time of writing, I have made an edit protected request, but it has not been fulfilled yet.

As to what the bot will actually change:

And if there is a need, or the desire to do so (totally optional):

The first set would depopulate the tag with disclaimers to its counter part, and the second would repopulate the tag with the no disclaimer version once all instances are bypassed, and the license in the source is updated. A redirect might work better, but it would keep everything in one spot. No other part of the page would be changed. Additionally, I am not sure if any other pages transclude the template, but I can set it up to only act on Image space pages if desired by filtering from within AWB at the time I create the page list (yhy anyone would be including an image tag on non-image pages is beyond me).

The last time I loaded the GFDL transclusion list, there were about 73,000 instances. There are about 57,800 instances of GFDL-self. If my math is right, at a consistent edit rate of six per minute, this will take about fifteen days to clear. I have already made three tests in a sandbox, and the replacement works perfectly with string literals: first, second, third.

Discussion
I'm not quite sure about this, but perhaps I'm just not understanding it correctly. You said "a simple page/template move cannot accomplish this, as that would change the license applied to the image, and without the owner's permission, that is not allowable". Then isn't what you're doing not allowable: changing all image pages to use GFDL-no-disclaimers instead of GFDL? — M ETS 501 (talk) 21:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, no. Since to transclude an image into a page, the template name is included within brackets, the code must be changed by a bot before any action can be performed on the original templates, as that is what would change the license. Only after all of the transclusions have been bypassed can the code in the current GFDL and GFDL-self taga be changed. I suppose you could think of it as a very large scale userbox migration, but nothing is deleted at the end. I'll try to clarify that:
 * All pages to change are gathered using AWB, and saved into a text file so replace.py can load it.
 * The bot is run, changing all instances of GFDL and GFDL-self to GFDL-with-disclaimers and GFDL-self-with-disclaimers, respectively. Since the respective counterparts have the exact same text for their license (including disclaimers), no change of license is occuring here.
 * Once the entire list is empty, then, and only then can the code from GFDL-no-disclaimers and GFDL-self-no-disclaimers be copied into GFDL and GFDL-self, respectively. Since the GFDL and GFDL-self templates now have no more transclusions of their template, the code from the respective no disclaimer version can be copied into its counterpart and be saved, since at this point no licenses would be changed due to all prior instances now being located at the "with-disclaimer" version.
 * After that, one of two things can happen. Either the bot can repopulate the two main tags by depopulating GFDL-no-disclaimers and GFDL-self-no-disclaimers, or a redirect could be created in those two tags to point to the original tags. I'd go for the redirect, as that is far more friendly to the server, but I am just disclosing all possible alternatives.
 * To clarify what I meant in that sentence you quoted, I am referring to the fact that actually moving the respective templates themselves into their new locations using the move tab cannot be done, as that would change the license. Only by physically updating the wikicode for the transcluded templates to the new "with disclaimer" versions, can the original templates be changed once they are fully depopulated. I hope this makes more sense than what is above. Kyra~(talk) 23:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, KyraVixen wants to replace all instances of the GFDL and GFDL-self templates with templates with identical wording, so that the original templates can be modified without modifying the licences on images. --ais523 09:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That's essentially the basic idea I am proposing. Excellent summary of the task, if I do say so myself. Also, is there any problem with bumping up the edit rate to about 8-9 edits per minute now that the maximum rate has been raised? Kyra~(talk) 23:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Why don't you just create a new template with the new wording, though, instead of changing all the pages to transclude a new template and then changing the old one? — M ETS 501 (talk) 23:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think that would work. Take GFDL for example. Right now, the transclusions that use it have disclaimers, and GFDL-with-disclaimers was created so that the text within GFDL-no-disclaimers could eventually be put into GFDL once it is depopulated. The same goes for the GFDL-self counterpart. Changing the text within the current GFDL template (the 'old' one as you put it) would change the license on the 70,000+ image pages that use it currently (50,000+ for the GFDL-self version). As far as I know, there is no way to change the current text of the GFDL(-self) templates without changing the actual license on the image pages before depopulating them. If there was a way to shift the license without changing any of the images' licenses, I'd jump on it in a heartbeat, believe me. If you want, I could do a small trial of the run, say 50 changes, 25 on the GFDL tag and 25 on the GFDL-self tag. Also, I can't change the tags myself, as the templates in question are fully protected; though if that would work Mets, believe me, I'd do it.
 * Or did I totally miss what you were trying to suggest? I am pretty sure I understood what you were suggesting, but feel free to correct me if I am wrong. Kyra~(talk) 00:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, you kind of missed the point :-). I'll explain clearer:
 * What you're suggesting (I think)
 * Change all transclusions of GFDL to GFDL-with-disclaimers.
 * Change the text of GFDL once this is done to use the same text as GFDL-no-disclaimers
 * What I'm suggesting:
 * Don't change any transclusions, and just have new images automatically use GFDL-no-disclaimers
 * That may not work though, and you can let me know if it doesn't for some reason. — M ETS 501 (talk) 03:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

(de-indent) Yes, that would work... it would be contingent on people using the license selector instead of manually typing in the license, however. It would be much kinder to the server if the license used during the upload was changed to the no disclaimer version. Speaking of which, could you take a look at this edit protected request and update the GFDL licenses within the multi-licensed selections to use the no disclaimer version if possible?

With this way, I doubt that we will get a huge influx of new GFDL licenses with disclaimers, perhaps just a small trickle from editors who type everything in. Your suggestion has won me over, and I'd like to withdraw this task. ^.^ Kyra~(talk) 04:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I've fufilled that edit request, and I will expire this bot request. Sorry for all the trouble! — M ETS 501 (talk) 05:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.