Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Drinibot

User:Drinibot redux edit

Another task. When trying to work on the "Now commons" backlog, I see some images need to be moved (for instance Image:Glucose.png (at en:) is a dupe for Image:Glucose Haworth.png at commons.

So I'm requesting approval to run image.py to orphan local copies of images I manually check to be the same and to run nowcommons.py to clear the dupes.

The bot is replacing this image, Grapes.jpg local copy...

...with Grapes05.jpg found at commons, both exact file (but different name), exact image size...

I'll be running in test mode today so people can see what I?m doing. -- Drini 21:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will this bot be replacing free images with less-free images? — xaosflux ^Talk 03:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, approved for a very limited trial (say 10 edits or so) - then post some diffs and we'll take a look -- Tawker 06:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NO It will be replacing images with EXACT COPIES of them found at commons. I just pointed and example. The Glucose example was not good, since once I removed the local copy, it turned out that it was shadowing an image from commons, so they look different (the bot replaced local en:Image:Glucose.png with the EXACT COPY commons:Image:Glucose Haworth.png I'll point some other example

HEre are some diffs: [1] [2] [3] [4]

It is not enough, at least for me, to replace images with duplicate images if the description pages are not similar. In the glucose example the commons description page is not in English, making it less useful to our users. Dragons flight 19:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dragonsflight: Yes, but I'll do that manually if nowcommons.py doesn't automatically do, but first I need to run image.py. REmember Glucose.png was not a good example, since commons:Image:Glucose.png was NOT the same as en:Image:Glucose.png you need to compare commons:Image:Glucose Haworth.png with the deleted image at en:Image:Glucose.png and you'll se the descriptions were similar. In other words, the bots won't do all the work in order to clear the backlog, but they will lend me a hand moving around stuff so I just need to check and copy the important data manually -- Drini 19:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that mess, it was a bad example. Think of the grapes one, I haven't changed the description, I?m doing it at the moment. -- Drini 19:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

such cleaning up would allow to use this image commons:Image:Grapes.jpg (commons:Grape.jpg) on en: articles:, which cna't be done at the moment since it's shadowed by the local duplicate -- Drini 19:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bot would be moving Hamburger.jpg shown here, which is a local duplicate to...

... Hamburger sandwich.jpg from commons, and allowing useage of commons:Hamburger patty.jpg which is blocked unnecesarily now

Here's another example. Bot would change articles linking to Image:Hamburger patty.jpg to Image:Hamburger sandwich.jpg in order to remove the local copy (which is a duplicate) and blocks the usage of commons:Image:Hambuger.jpg which cna't be used at the moment due to the unnecesary duplicate that is shadowing it. Again, I will manually check and update descriptions so information os preserved. -- Drini 20:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support giving Drinibot this capability. I took a look at the Grapes.jpg and since it had been a feautured article it was all over the place. Bastique▼^parler _voir 20:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support since Drini is checking all of the images manually anyway for license/duplicate nature. The bot is good for replacing images that occur on many pages.Voice-of-All 20:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are basically two steps to this, relinking the images and merging the descriptions. I take it you are going to be doing the later in a manually assisted fashion? In most cases, image description pages are fairly simple and easily merged. In a few cases though, description pages can be complicated and multilingual. In general, I don't support eliminating the local page if the result is an image description that is much harder for our users to understand. For example, having a page with large blocks of text in several language is worse than keeping the local copy, in my opinion. Do you plan to verify that a description merge is reasonable before running your relinking script? And if so, what criteria will you use? Similarly, will your efforts adhere to the requirements of the Commons CSD? This includes verifying that the NowCommons tag is at least a week old, that the image description page contains no specific requests to preserve a seperate local copy, and that all freely licensed versions of the file have been made available in the version history of the Commons page? I notice that you apparently did not meet the last criteria in moving the grapes image. Dragons flight 21:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't the one moving the grapes image, it was already there, but yes, the last step will be done manually, checkign licenses and requirements, it's changing articles so they point at the commons image instead of the local one the step I need the bot. I'm aware in some cases it's not desired (as in, main page articles point to a protected local copy), so I'm not touching those cases. -- Drini 21:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And, in any case, the bot would not be deleting pages as the bot runs without priviledges, that is, what I?m asking for approval here is not for a bot to remove images or pages, is for it to change articles so they point to the commons image instead of the local copy. The bot would only retarget articles (since they are exact copies, articles won't change appearance either) -- Drini 21:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with this as long as you agree that doing the relinking requires keeping up with and appropriately managing the description pages as well. I consider the processes intrinsically linked in this request since I wouldn't want to see a bot blindly shifting image links to Commons if it resulted in description page content being lost or mangled. Dragons flight 21:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok how about I vow to relink to the ocmmons images , making sure the descriptions are preserved or merged into the commons one ? (again, bot would not be deleting stuff in any case) -- Drini 23:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is sounding good, my biggest concern is that we don't end up with a less free licences, such as replacing a public domain image with a ccbysa image. If this is being checked, no objection on that point. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now the burgers look different since the shadowing copy was removed (hopefully redirecting all uses first)

    * 08:51, 4 August 2006 Conscious (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Image:Hamburger patty.jpg" (Image:Hamburger sandwich.jpg)

So... can I go ahead with the redirections by myself? -- Drini 01:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And also.. could I finally get my bot flagged? It's been approved twice before, and I use it heavily, so Recent changes get really clogged. -- Drini 02:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One week trial run of this function improved, limit this to no more than 200 replacements during the trial. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Flag approved immediately based on prior approvals and useages. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This flag has been placed by Essjay, please post restuls for the trial of this new function when complete. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See trial report here (I'll keep updating it during the week): User:Drinibot/trial. -- Drini 18:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the update, these all look great, and they are all public domain images. Can you commit that this bot will ONLY replace images with images that have equal or more free licensing? — xaosflux ^Talk 00:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. I?m a strong adherent to the principle that free content should be used always, in particular, I'm against fair use, but that's more a personal thing that bot related ;) -- Drini 16:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it replacing images with ones on commons, and since commons only has free images... --pgk^(talk) 18:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to an instance of not replacing with a less free image such as (public domain)-->(GFDL). — xaosflux ^Talk 00:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As image replacement has been a touchy issue in the past, I'd like to give this a few more days for comment, but am inclined to approve at this time. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, mainly I'll be replacing images with copies of themselves (thus same-licensed) and only on special cases (like the ones mentioned on the page) with improved images (where improved also takes license into account, a public domain image is always preferred to a CC or GFDL one), in other words imagechanging would only be when the following 2 conditions hold: "new image is equal or better quality, same content" AND "license is freer or equal than the one being replaced" -- Drini 16:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BOT APPROVED — xaosflux ^Talk 01:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]