Commons:Bots/Requests/Highway Route Marker Bot (2)
Highway Route Marker Bot (talk · contribs)
Operator: Svgalbertian (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)
Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: In addition to existing tasks (see Commons:Bots/Requests/Highway Route Marker Bot) I am requesting permissions to do moves. The rational is that occasionally the signs change to a brand new format. The old signs have value so I do not just want to overwrite them. I want the new signs to have the same name as the old signs as to not break templates. An example that I want to do soon is Category:Alberta Highway shields which need to be updated to include File:Alberta wordmark 2009.svg.
Automatic or manually assisted: Manually assisted
Edit type (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): Intermittent
Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute): 6 per minute
Bot flag requested: (Y/N): N/A
Programming language(s): Perl (using MediaWiki API module)
Svgalbertian (talk) 18:01, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Discussion
- Ok, makes sense to me. I assume there is a consensus among you Highway sign folks? ;-) --Dschwen (talk) 22:53, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
- I think will be better to upload files under new name which includes year when changes come to effect and then change usage is better idea. I'm not sure about all possible usages, but article about freeways could definitely rely on Wikidata for sign image. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:31, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- The problem then is if a route is discontinued it would cause template to break when it looks for File:State route X.svg. It also makes it harder for editors to find the sign they need. Also it then makes the filename File:State route X.svg somewhat misleading. By renaming the old files, I could give them more meaningful names, e.g. File:State route X (1970s).svg. --Svgalbertian (talk) 16:25, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- I support the addition of file-mover to this bot. For a detailed rationale, see my comments at Commons talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads#Renaming shields explaining a scenario where and how it would be used. Imzadi 1979 → 19:57, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, questioning the procedures and consensus of the U.S. Roads Wikiproject is beyond the scope of this bot request. These people seemed to have put quite some thought into it. I suggest approving this task. --Dschwen (talk) 03:03, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- The problem then is if a route is discontinued it would cause template to break when it looks for File:State route X.svg. It also makes it harder for editors to find the sign they need. Also it then makes the filename File:State route X.svg somewhat misleading. By renaming the old files, I could give them more meaningful names, e.g. File:State route X (1970s).svg. --Svgalbertian (talk) 16:25, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- I suggest we go ahead and approve this task. If this is the consensus on the Highway projects how it should be handled it is fine for me. The advantage I see, is that templates in various projects all automatically get the updated images. That seems a lot simpler than updating templates across projects. This is especially true, if you have templates that use generated filenames (with route numbers as inputs), where a template change could not be made until every single image is uploaded in a new version first (and if you forget one, it stays broken, rather than get the old version as a fallback). --Dschwen (talk) 21:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
@Svgalbertian: I have added filemover status. Go ahead with 30-100 test moves, and if all goes well we can archive the request. --99of9 (talk) 04:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
- @Svgalbertian: , @99of9: it seems nothing has happend since filemover status was granted. Is this job still intended to be run? If not I'd suggest to revoke the filemover status. --Krd 18:03, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- As there is no more feedback, I'm going to close this as stale / not approved. Filemover status removed. --Krd 17:07, 11 June 2015 (UTC)