Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DanhashBot

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was

Request Expired.

DanhashBot

Operator: Danhash (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 21:23, Monday March 26, 2012 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Initially supervised, then automatic

Programming language(s): AutoWikiBrowser

Source code available: Standard AWB

Function overview: Updating images in articles to use superseded versions, after I manually check that the superseded image is appropriate and better quality

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): {{PNG version available}}, {{Vector version available}}, {{Should be PNG}}, {{Should be SVG}}, and {{Bad JPEG}}

Edit period(s): Intermittent

Estimated number of pages affected: 100 per week

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Yes

Already has a bot flag (Y/N): No

Function details: The purpose of this bot would be to update articles to use superseded versions of images (for example updating articles to use a PNG or SVG instead of a JPEG). Yesterday I edited 52 articles with AWB to change references to File:Autodominant.jpg to File:Autosomal dominant - en.svg (example edit). For images used in a small number of articles this type of task is rather trivial; however, for images used in a large number of articles, running AWB in automatic mode (after several test edits) would be very helpful. As you can see from the description page of the original JPEG, there are two different superseded versions of the image: one in English and one in French. Also, sometimes a "superseded" tag is added to an image when the new version of the image is not better than the old one. For these reasons, I would check the new version of the image to verify that it is a better image than the original, and if there are multiple new images I would verify which is the correct one to use. I would start AWB in normal mode, checking each edit before it is made, and once I am satisfied that AWB is updating image references correctly with a descriptive edit summary, I would switch AWB to automatic mode. As far as I know, no other bot is doing this, and there are many images which have been superseded with much better images, but the original image is still used in articles.

Discussion

Two questions:

You state above you expect the bot to handle about 100 pages per week; do you have any estimates about how widespread these outmoded images are currently? Say, for example, you were to just shoot this off in automatic mode and ignore it until it finished; how many pages do you think it would hit? (No real bearing on approval as far as I'm concerned (unless the number is really small which I doubt), just curious ;-) )
You say the source code is "Standard AWB" - what settings would you be using? Am I correct in assuming you'd be manually configuring it for every image? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

100 edits per week is not based on anything specific; the instructions read "For open-ended tasks, estimate pages per some reasonable time period" and I thought I may as well try and come up with an estimate. I would be running the bot when I am at home and when I have time, and based on my current schedule I do not expect that to be too terribly often. I would be manually configuring AWB for every image. The setting I would be using (and the setting I used for my last AWB task to do this) is the "Files" section under the "More..." tab (described here in the AWB manual). Usually, with the superseded images I have seen, there are less than 100 articles to edit. My current intention is not as much to go looking for images to replace as it is to replace them when I come across them. I do not expect to try and write a fully automated bot to do this task, and if I ever did I would certainly come back for approval. My intention with this task is to set up AWB by disabling any edits besides file replacement, manually type in an edit summary (unless there is a way to generate one automatically from the file replacement settings), then start AWB running the task in supervised mode. I would check the first edit, save it, then open the diff in my browser and make sure everything is as expected. After I am satisfied that AWB is editing as expected, I would turn AWB on auto mode. If you look at my recent contributions you will see that I worked on this task with AWB recently (in supervised mode). The file replacement option of AWB does not handle images inside certain templates, such as {{double image}} (as used on Gillespie syndrome) and {{Infobox Disease}} (as used on Wallis Zieff Goldblatt syndrome), so until and unless I can write a RegEx or a script for AWB I will have to update these templates manually, though there does not seem to be very many of them. I do not have an estimate as to the number of superseded images needing replacement in articles. If and when this bot task is approved, I will try to organize information about superseded images and their use in articles in a more standardized format. From what I can tell, there hasn't been much of a push to use newer images in articles; this may be an oversight or it may just be a low priority to those who upload files. Many of these superseded images are on Commons, and some uploaders there may not care as much about the use of their images here. The task of gathering information about superseded images spans the policies, templates, and categories of both the English Wikipedia and Commons, so I probably won't put much time into gathering this information unless I know I can start to fix the problem once I quantify it. —danhash (talk) 14:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a fairly self-explanatory task, you have a clear idea of how you're going to do it, and I think that method should work fairly well. Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. – Please try to vary the parameters a bit (e.g. do five replacements for ten different files or the like). — madman 05:32, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The bot made six edits several days ago, and since then nothing. Is everything okay? Josh Parris 05:32, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I made 6 edits for one image and then started looking for a second image to update in articles. With the current state of templates and categories here and on Commons and even with the toolserver tools available, it has been difficult getting a list of superseded images still used in article space. I posted at VPT asking for help getting a list of images and was directed to database reports where I asked for someone to run a query. Without a bot account it would have been rather pointless for me to start to gather this information, since I couldn't have done much with it. The problem of images being superseded but not replaced in articles has gone on for a while and is, to me, a rather important one to fix, but it doesn't seem like many other editors have identified the issue or else haven't got around to fixing it, so I decided to fix it myself if possible, and this bot account is the first step. I didn't realize it would take so long to get a usable list of images to work with, but I am still working on it. A portion of these images will need manual attention (for example these images) and I am trying to work on these as well. —danhash (talk) 13:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know Wikipedia:File_namespace_noticeboard#Wikipedia:File_Database_Reports that thread where Fastily is asking for regular database reports tasks? mabdul 13:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't, thanks for bringing it to my attention; however, Fastily is taking a break. Nobody seems to really be using File Database Reports (as MZMcBride said on the talk page, it's essentially a duplicate of WP:Database reports#Files). I am still awaiting a reply at WT:Database reports. —danhash (talk) 17:14, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion over there seems to have stalled just short of resolution. I've poked at it. Josh Parris 23:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I just replied too. —danhash (talk) 16:13, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A user has requested the attention of the operator. Once the operator has seen this message and replied, please deactivate this tag. (user notified)It looks like this discussion is stalling too. Are you going to continue with the trial edits, or would you like this request to be marked expired/withdrawn? Rcsprinter (gas) 17:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a couple more AWB edits, but as long as the "uses" column in the database report is incorrect, I don't have a good list of files to work with. MZMcBride has been helpful in getting the report set up, however it seems that getting an accurate usage count of Commons images is rather difficult. I am relying on the database report for my AWB edits, so until the "uses" column gets fixed it's hard to find images with enough article uses to be worth fixing with my bot. —danhash (talk) 19:24, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still short of discussion and trial edits. Judging by your post above, do you want this to be marked expired/withdrawn, Danhash? Rcsprinter (talkin' to me?) 15:51, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request Expired. Feel free to reopen when the database report issue has been resolved. --Chris 03:37, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA.