Commons:Bots/Requests/DodoBot

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

DodoBot (talk · contribs)

Operator: - EdoDodo talk

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: General cleanup of file description pages, such as Commons:Bots/Work requests#Changes to allow localization (i18n), file description pages cleanup. The first run that I would like to do would be to replace the several thousand instances of '|Source=Obra pròpia (own work)' with '|Source={{Own}}'. Later I would also like to do some of the other localization and cleanup tasks listed at that page.

Automatic or manually assisted: Automatic, semi-supervised.

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

Maximum edit rate (eg edits per minute): 10 epm

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): Yes

Programming language(s): AWB

I already have experience running a bot on Wikipedia, where I operate a bot with the same name, DodoBot. That bot is currently approved for WikiProject tagging, and also running a task that does not require approval (edits only in it's own namespace) of maintaing a list of frequently vandalized pages at w:User:DodoBot/Vandalism. - EdoDodo talk 20:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

If your doing i18n edits, could you do all i18n changes in one edit? Multichill (talk) 06:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, if a number of changes are applicable to one page I will do them all in one edit. However, because the vast majority of i18n changes apply to the same few things (source, date, etc.) I doubt there will ever be more than a few changes to do on each page. - EdoDodo talk 07:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do a test run.  Docu  at 07:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User added to the AWB CheckPage under Users as requested by the botowner on the talkpage. Once botflag has been granted may be added to Bots if the bot should be automated and high speed. –Krinkletalk 09:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To test AWB in bot mode, wouldn't the bot flag need to be granted already for the tests? BTW would you set it to autopatrol too?  Docu  at 09:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The bot flag isn't granted yet. So it can now be used "Automatic, semi-supervised." to make test edits. Since we dont systematically patrol edits from registered users it can only be an advantage to let them stay unpatrolled. In the event something would go wrong, we can easily track which are 'fixed' by the patrol status. Once botflag is approved the autopatrol right is granted as part of the bot-flag. –Krinkletalk 11:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's really slow in manual mode and if the purpose is to test it as a bot, this doesn't really help.  Docu  at 13:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a few edits to show you the type of things the bot would be fixing. How many edits were you think of in the test run? Would you like me to do some more? - EdoDodo talk 12:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd do about a 100, but w/o a bot flag, you'd have to wait for AWB forever. You could also attempt to assemble a variety of file description pages (with different templates, older and more recent uploads, with nowiki sections etc.), but it's probably easier to do a larger number of edits than to get a sample together. If a bureaucrat could grant you the flag you could do this test easily. Docu  at 13:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Docu. Bot flag granted to allow for test edits... I'll watchlist this page so I can keep an eye on any progress. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please not my comment on your disk, the bot flag will only complicate matters and does not solve the problem. --Schlurcher (talk) 15:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think will be good idea if edit summary will include reflection of actual changes. File descriptions page cleanup is too generic. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, I just finished the test run and completely missed this message. Sorry. Anyway, for future runs I'll make sure the edit summaries are more descriptive. - EdoDodo talk 14:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bot edits look ok, is the bot mainly designed for pictures that are paintings? --Schlurcher (talk) 15:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It might be worth testing it more on pages w/o the painting template. I checked most edits and only found two problems (1,2). The first page was already borked before the edit. BTW SchlurcherBot uses a somewhat generic edit summary too.  Docu  at 15:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just to keep the stuff on this page I'll describe those two edits; I see in the first link the bot edited the original upload log, indicated by the "nowiki" section. So one important thing would be to disable the bot to edit nowiki-sections. The second link shows that the bot didn't just replace all variations with "own work" with the multilingual template but the entire line. I can savely say this is not an exception. Many files have a source like "|Source = * [[:File some file.png]] * own work" in which case only the matched pattern (not the entire line) should be replaced. –Krinkletalk 15:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Should all be sorted. The bot will now only edit a parameter (be it source, technique, date, etc.) if it recognizes everything in it. If there are unrecognized parts it will simply leave it for a human to look at (I think this is safer than changing only parts of a parameter, which could cause undesirable results). The bot will also ignore content in nowiki tags now. So, if I ran the bot again now it wouldn't do anything for the first edit, and it would only make the first change (the one outside nowiki tags) for the second edit. - EdoDodo talk 08:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, please do.  Docu  at 04:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've done 30 more test edits, and none of the previously mentioned problems showed up again. So basically, to recap, these are the types of edits the bot will do:

When possible, the bot will do more than one edit (example). - EdoDodo talk 08:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just returning to question of summary. Is it possible to do summaries like: Internationalization: section headers, own work, tecnique? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I personally dislike edit summaries that list every single edit the bot made (Internationalization: |Source=Own work→|Source={{own}}, |Technique=Oil on canvas→|Technique={{Technique|Oil|Canvas}}, == Licensing ==→=={{int:license}}==) because they are overly complicated, and don't really help much (if someone wants to know the changes the bot did they can look at the diff). In my opinion, the edit summary should summarize the changes, and explain why they were done, not list every change. However, with that said, yes it would be possible and I am (reluctantly) willing to do it if there is consensus that it is necessary. - EdoDodo talk 15:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, that full replacement text like Source=Own work→|Source=Own work is overkill. However shorter form (see above) may be useful. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, that would be useful, but unfortunately that is not possible with AWB. - EdoDodo talk 15:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could please someone remove the bot flag as long as the request is running. This will give people a chance to notice the changes done by the bot and post suggestions. --Schlurcher (talk) 08:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is your opinion on the edit summaries? As I understand it your bot does similar edits with the edit summary that was criticized here.  Docu  at 20:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed the edits from July 24. They are ok. As far I'm concerned, I think it can be approved.  Docu  at 10:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no objections, I think bot status should be granted. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Bots/Requests/DodoBot&oldid=42019718"