User talk:SlaungerBot/Fir0002

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

Bot task[edit]

Hi Fir,

I have just been enjoying a cold glass of Chardonnay from Southeast Australia, "Ed's Creek" while gathering some data regarding your photos and our job. The results are here (add to watchlist):

I guess these lists of files should define the scope of work more or less. I suggest we gather our work there and communicate back and forth.

Cheers (literally), --Slaunger (talk) 21:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How very appropriate :) How did you come by the bottle way out in Denmark? Anyway bot page is looking great, I've just added a small request on the talkpage. THanks again for your assistance by the way! --Fir0002 www 04:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Danes drink a lot of wine. Every household in Denmark spends an amount equivalent with 610 ASD on wine/year, and among the countries we import from, Australia is ranked fourth (after France, Italy and Chile). So not so unusal here... Concerning your small request, is it the one you placed on my talk page a few days ago? Do you want me to generate a list of all file pages, which are not geocoded? --Slaunger (talk) 07:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see, that is a considerable amount! I hadn't realised Australian wines were so popular overseas... Anyway It would appear I forgot to save the page -> I had actually written something on the bot talkpage. But yes, essentially what I'm looking for is a link beside each file on the list to directly edit the file description page (so eg http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Rooster_portrait02_dec08.jpg&action=edit). Also it'd be good if you could generate two lists for me - the files which you have done a batch geocode using default Swifts Creek values, and a second list with all other non-geocoded files. Thanks again for your help in all of this -> from now on as you suggested I'll continue the discussion on the bot talkpage... --Fir0002 www 05:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
AutoWikiBrowser could probably do this without Slaunger's direct input. JJ Harrison (talk) 05:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some new stuff on the bot page. Direct edit links. I also generated a list of all the files you have uploaded, but which do not transclude a user template. I guess most of them are edits of others works, but I compiled the list just in case you had forgotten to add the template on some of your own works. I also initiated a task list. A couple of ideas: I could let the bot check if a file page is geolocated, has the Information template, or needs categorization and mark it with letters, like G, I, C for your convenience. I have noticed many of your image pages do not have the Information template. I think it would be possible for me to add the info already in the file pages and embed it in an information template. Now that we are at it... --Slaunger (talk) 09:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good - GIC thing sounds like a good idea although I don't think I'll be rushing to add in the information template as it doesn't really gel well with my custom template and the information is still in the file description page just in a slightly different format (but of course please let me know if ther eis some particularly good reason why I should adopt...). --Fir0002 www 09:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As an informative note: I will be offline this weekend. I'll be back next week. --Slaunger (talk) 11:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Slaunger - when do you think you'll have a chance to run the script to auto-add the geocode for 'Swifts Creek'? --Fir0002 www 03:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This evening, I think, if nothing unexpected happens... --Slaunger (talk) 10:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Working on it. Am a bit rusty, so I am proceeding slowly to make sure not to ruin anything... --Slaunger (talk) 21:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Finding all Swifts Creek files now. Takes a while as every file page text needs to be downloaded to look for this substring, and the bot framework sets limits to the download traffic. --Slaunger (talk) 22:34, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Restarting.. I was almost done, but I encountered a redirected file page, and I had not taken that into account in the code, so it raised an exception and halted. --Slaunger (talk) 22:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now filtering out those few pics from Swifts Creek, which are already geolocated. --Slaunger (talk) 09:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Batch Swifts Creek geocode[edit]

Hey Slaunger - list is looking good, but the files in the batch list need to be removed from the subpages lists so that I'm not going to edit files which already have the template. In other words I had in mind two sets of lists: one list with the "swifts creek" files (which I would then go back and double check for correct geocode); and a second list (perhaps split up into the various subpages as you've done) with all other files which I would then need to manually geocode. Cheers, --Fir0002 www 22:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, OK. Will do. --Slaunger (talk) 22:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed I also alphabetized the listings and fixed a bug, where located files where marked with a 'U' instead of 'L'. Next, I will look at adding the default geolocation to non-located Swifts Creek file pages. --Slaunger (talk) 10:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Great - everything looks right now... I'll start on some manual location of non-SC pages myself tomorrow... After that's all done, we can proceed with the licence update yes? --Fir0002 www 03:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good :-) I have just test-geocoded five images from SC using the bot. Do the changes look OK? If yes, I will proceed with the batch geocoding.
Yes, licenses are next. I think that can be done in parallel with your manual work. One thing I would like you to do in that end is to make new subpages based on you existing user templates, but without the license in it. E.g. make a "/400 credits" derived from "/400" but without the license in it. --Slaunger (talk) 05:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yup first five are looking good to me - unleash the bot! Yup fair enough, I'll get those made up in the next few days... --Fir0002 www 12:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bot has been standing in the corner, drewling, scraping, chained. It is now Unleashed! --Slaunger (talk) 20:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ARRRGH I just realized I have added a decimal degree template using d, min, sec arguments. That means the template is invalid (but apparently you did not spot that either in the test edits...)!! I will fix that of course. But not tonight.... Sorry about that:-( I have (of course) stopped the bot, but it managed to geotag +200 files with the wrong template until I realized that. --Slaunger (talk) 20:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fix in progress... --Slaunger (talk) 07:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Error Fixed . Will geocode remaining SC photos properly this evening. --Slaunger (talk) 11:38, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you by the way aware of that you can add a camera heading as an optional argument in Location template using the "Swizz army knife" geolocating site? It has the nice effect, that when you click the Google map link on a Location template, the Commons icon arrow gets the direction of the heading. You can see a few examples in the Google maps view of "my" Swifts Creek; the little town Upernavik in North West Greenland. Most of those geolocated images does not have a heading because they are of plants, but for panos it is useful. --Slaunger (talk) 20:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated the status of the tasks on the task list ãs well as the entire "results" sections underneath. Seems like I can lean back for a while and wait for you for some new credits templates.... --Slaunger (talk) 22:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work - sorry about not seeing the decimal thing :) Well not to let you rest on your laurels for too long, I've made the new credit templates:
User:Fir0002/200 1.4 credits
User:Fir0002/85-5D credits
User:Fir0002/17 credits
User:Fir0002/400 credits
User:Fir0002/20D credits
User:Fir0002/400-5D credits
User:Fir0002/20D credits
User:Fir0002/150 credits
User:Fir0002/200 credits
User:Fir0002/150MT credits
User:Fir0002/85 credits
User:Fir0002/150-5D credits -> note that this one originally didn't have an embedded licence anyway so it will need a different script run over it.
User:Fir0002/5D 200 credits -> ditto above
Also note that files tagged with User:Fir0002/License, User:Fir0002/Scanner and User:Fir0002/Copyright won't need the NC bot run over them.
Let me know if that looks OK to you. --Fir0002 www 12:25, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, you are keeping me busy :-) the new templates look fine except that you explicitly mention GFDL as the only license. it does not seems to be so well aligned with GFDL or CC-BY-NC. Thanks for telling about the exceptions. What about the /Jon subpage? --Slaunger (talk) 12:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent poit - I'll give that a rework of the weekend - so you can rest easy for a bit long ;) Ah and yes, I thought there was one I forgot - /JON shouldn't be modified as the photos there were actually taken by User:Jjron (I uploaded his shots prior to him joining with his own account). --Fir0002 www 00:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I will await those fixes. Meanwhile, as an example of a new combined license template I have created User:Fir0002/200 1.4 license. This is the kind of template, which should replace the ones you have now, but in substituted form. I think the contents is alright, but the visual formatting is suboptimal in my opinion, partly due to the less than 100% width of the table in your credits template. Notice the "category" argument trick I have implemented in the credits template to avoid that the overlying license tempate is categorized as opt-out and taken with 20D in its noinclude section (If you subst it the categories will be there in the substed result). I propose that similar ...license templates are created on top of the other ...credits templates. Also notice that the GFDL 1.2 or CC-BY-NC template itself has a notice, that if you want to use the photo commercially, you have to use the GFDL 1.2; else free to use either. So maybe you do not have to repeat that in the credits template...?? Well, it is up to you. --Slaunger (talk) 10:50, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Slaunger - let me know what you think of User:Fir0002/85 license - I know it repeats a bit with the header of your dual licence template, but the point has to be stressed as most non-wiki people pay no attention to the licence templates as they consider everything from wikipedia to be equivalent to in the public domain -> completely free of copyright. So I think its worth explicitly stating that even with a NC licence they must provide suitable attribution etc. I know you're not keen on the 80% but I actually think it looks better that way! Btw, super excited by the 5D III -> finally it has pro AF!! --Fir0002 www 23:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think your new dollar/no dollar pictograms look pretty cool. And the colour scheme and style is much more coherent with the license templates. Looks overall more professional. I like that you have split your template into a pure credits template and an equipment specific one. That is a good idea in order to avoid maintenance of redundant data. I understand your point about stressing the use in the template. I have implemented a "hack" in the {{GFDL 1.2 or cc-by-nc 3.0}} template, which allows overriding the introductory two lines of text with something else - in this case your credits template. See the test edit I have made in your template. Just revert if you feel your version was better. In that manner I think we solve the redundant text issue. Agree? Another thing (besides the 80% width), which is a matter of taste is the use of extra formatting, like boldfacing and underlining and different fonts. You use a different font in the equipment template, which looks odd (dare I say ugly? ). And I think the quite extensive use of different ways of formatting to emphasize different portions of the text is a little excessive. You know, a little like when you have to confirm that you agree to some long license text when installing a computer program, which is all set IN CAPS. It feels like being shouted at, and is generally a turn-off. Anyway, this is just a personal opinion I am offering you. You and others may feel differently. --Slaunger (talk) 18:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you liked the pictograms - if I had more time I'd probably design the whole licensing template as an image in Photoshop to look super pretty but I think this will be good enough - I've made a few layout/font modifications (as you raised some very valid criticisms), let me know what you think. I know what you're saying about the bold/shouting thing, but unfortunately I think it's a card I have to play to get the message visible (otherwise it's ever so easy for an "outsider" to simply ignore the footer as standard wiki jargon...). Hopefully it's not too objectionable ;)
The hack works perfectly! Was actually thinking of asking you if such a thing would be possible... :) I think we're getting pretty close! --Fir0002 www 04:05, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the layout has improved significantly. And I only feel mildly shouted at now;) I agree we are getting pretty close. Will you make the rest of the templates? --Slaunger (talk) 11:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Glad you approve :) Anyway all the other templates have now been updated with the new style (the 400mm ones look a bit sad at the moment as I haven't gotten around to uploading a shot of a 400mm lens, will have to do that at some stage (I assume the bot is only transcluding the credits templates? i.e. I will be able to modify those templates fairly painlessly?) --Fir0002 www 11:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and just as a note, I've check over all the auto-geo-tagged Swifts Creek images and made a few corrections (95% of them were good though!). --Fir0002 www 12:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good news then. Yes, you are right that it is not a hindrance for us to proceed if some equipment/credits templates still needs some tweeks. They will be transcluded anyway on the file pages. So are you ready for me to do some test template replacements on, say, five file pages, just to check that the edit summary and everything else is as you would anticipate? I was thinking of an edit summary like
"Add CC-BY-NC license to existing GDL 1.2 license on request from the creator. Align templates with user license template policy."?
Since the same edit summary will be put on 2000 file pages, some thought on the edit summary is justified. I also think the edits should not have the "minor" flag set. --Slaunger (talk) 13:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you're quite right, we do need to think about the edit summary - amazing the things you need to consider when making a big change like this! Go ahead with teh first five and we'll see how it looks! --Fir0002 www 04:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the recent lack of progress. Been busy.. But see here. I did the same five file pages three times, as first time I had forgotten to set the default minor edit flag to False. Second time I notic the edit summary was too long to be rendered. Third time I think I got it right! Shall I proceed? --Slaunger (talk) 20:23, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah no worries - I think it looks good to proceed! --Fir0002 www 03:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I did the rest of the replacements of User:Fir0002/85 with a subst of User:Fir0002/85 license. But then I noticed that the license template for the other substs had not yet been made. I have now tried to make the following ones. Please check that they are alright before I run the script.

I also need to look at the two special cases. You know, after we are done, and when the old templates are not in use anymore, they can be deleted and then these new ones can be moved to /XXX license -> /XXX (your old names). Then it will just be business as usual in the future, except you will have to subst it instead of transclude it. --Slaunger (talk) 19:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK yup fair point - these all look good, I've also just made up User:Fir0002/400-5D license to replace User:Fir0002/400-5D. And yes, after it's al done we can do a replace and delete with the /XXX templates. Cheers, --Fir0002 www 12:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I Did a test on a single replacement on all the templates and it looked fine. So, I have turned the big handle now . It will take a while....while I sleep. --Slaunger (talk) 21:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done. Only need the two special cases now, I think. May have a look at that later today. --Slaunger (talk) 07:21, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! Thanks again for your efforts in this transition, I think it is much cleaner and definitely more friendly to NC users. Cheers, --Fir0002 www 04:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

400mm photos dual licencing[edit]

Hey Slaunger,

Sorry I didn't pick up on this earlier, but it appears that for some reason these photos haven't had the new licence applied by your bot: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:SlaungerBot/Fir0002#User:Fir0002.2F400

Also some of the 150mm (both the non MT and the MT shots) have randomly not had the update (eg File:Jumping_jack_dragging_pebble.jpg, File:Banana and cross section.jpg, File:Sawfly larvae - Pergidae sp.jpg, File:Orb weaver spiderlings.jpg

Cheers, --Fir0002 www 05:01, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fir. You are right. Something is incomplete there. I might have a chance to look at this during the weekend. Cheers, --Slaunger (talk) 20:19, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I now understand what the source of the problem is. Besides the old user templates in user space you also have quite a number of templates defined in main template space, such as {{Fir0002 400}} and these redirects are transcluded into the affected file pages. I was not aware of the presence of these redirects and have not checked for them in the code. I am am now using my bot to refresh the list of which templates are still in use (takes about two hours) and I can use that to identify redirected templates in template space and replace those with the old ones. Once identified I can batch process a replace of the redirected templates into the dual licensed ones. Stay tuned. --Slaunger (talk) 09:05, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think I got them all substituted now (see the updated lists of transcluded templates). A few files remain, which deviate from the norm somehow. You might want to make the license change on those yourself manually (I do not like to change other peoples licenses logged in as myself)
I would now propose that you (or I can do it) nominate for deletion the following redirects in template namespace (none of them are transcluded anywhere now)
Once you fix the aforementioned two files, I would also propose to make moves like "User:Fir0002/nn license" -> "User:Fir0002/nn" to replace the now outdated license/text templates with the new ones meant for substitution. That would also shorten the text you need to subst when uploading new files.
--Slaunger (talk) 18:20, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Have a nice evening. (I have, again, enjoyed a nice cold glass of Swifts Creek Chardonnay from South West Australia while making these final adjustments, as I thought that would be appropriate).--Slaunger (talk) 18:29, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah of course, forgot about the redirect thing - nice work tracking it down and thanks as always for your efforts, you well and truly deserved the Chardonnay, hope it was to your satisfaction ;)
I agree that deletion of the templates would be a good move -> do we actually need to nominate for deletion or can you go ahead and be bold and delete them now they're not in use? If you're at all uncomfortable with that though am happy to run it through the deletion process...
I have left the Brown & Black goat file as this has been apparently migrated over to CC 3.0 and I'm not willing to open that can again for the sake of that one file ;)
Cheers, --Fir0002 www 13:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SlaungerBot/Fir0002&oldid=76733610"