Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/NeuRobot

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. The result of the discussion was

Withdrawn by operator.

NeuRobot

Operator: — neuro^(talk)

Automatic or Manually Assisted: Automatic

Programming Language(s): AutoWikiBrowser

Function Summary: Making {{self}} contain the 'commons' parameter, which will later be used to make transferring images to commons easier and quicker. The ultimate aim is to eliminate manual {{move to commons}} tagging.

Edit period(s) (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): One time run.

Already has a bot flag (Y/N): N

Function Details: Making {{self}} contain the 'commons' parameter, which will later be used to make transferring images to commons easier and quicker. The ultimate aim is to eliminate manual {{move to commons}} tagging. The bot was requested by ShakespeareFan00, of whom I have already done smaller tagging work for manually in AWB, but this job is colossal. ShakespeareFan00 and Denelson83 will be able to explain what this change will achieve much better than I can, all I know is how to get it done.

Adding the commons parameter, in SF00's own words will help "eliminate manual {{move to commons}} tagging by auto tagging with appropriate licenses". He states - "Template:Self is not currently modified to pass on the parameter, but once the modification is made it can be adjusted so that moving images to commons is more automated".

Discussion

Oh, and as a note, if people would like to suggest an edit rate (I don't know what people would consider appropriate), that would be a good idea. — neuro^(talk) 19:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifcation on one point above, It's not automated license tagging, but automated tagging of license tags with a move to commons

note, and link to the 'helper' on toolserv. The above mentioned parameter is required, because of the need to pass it onto to image license templates which are supplied by name in the other paramaters to the {{self}} template invocation. Without this change the {{self}} template would need to be more complex, initial attempts to fix this without requiring the commons param have proven unsuccessful, whereas as the modifcation mentioned above has been..

The intended modification is to {{self|<blah>|commons= }}

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just as an example, this was my test edit, which worked. — neuro^(talk) 21:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure I understand what this does... So it adds a parameter to each use of a template that's used 68,382 times, but the parameter it adds will have no value and is currently not part of the template. Why is this necessary? Mr.Z-man 00:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's my confusion, too, for the record. I'm hoping SF00 can explain it. — neuro^(talk) 00:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The paramater addition is needed, because of the way embedded license templates now work, following edits to them,

A license tag like GFDL will now display an automatic Move to commons note via {{CommonsEncouraged}}, which is turned off by the use the commons param such as commons={{subst:ncd}} when an image IS on commons, Currently there is not a way to pass this down to license tags embedded by {{self}}.

An edit which did this was made to self,but required all in-vocations of {{self}} to include the commons param, or the ammended template broke. By adding the commons param as detailed, it will be possible to amend {{self}} appropriately without it breaking again.

The aim of amending the image license templates is to make manual {{move to commons}} , except in a few specfic cases, unnecessary, and thus hopefully speed up the move of images to commons from enwiki when appropriate. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't quite get it, I don't think I've ever seen a case where templates "broke" where a parameter wasn't defined in every usage of the template. If I had to guess, whoever made the change didn't know what they were doing:

To set a default value for a param, use it in the template like {{{commons|}}} to set it to be blank, or {{{commons|no}}} to set it to be "no" if not defined.
To do something if a parameter is set, {{#if:{{{commons|}}}|show this if it exists|show this if it doesn't}}

I find it very difficult to believe that this change is really necessary. Mr.Z-man 23:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a technical fix that can be made to {{self}} quickly and easily then this bot is not needed :)

Please get in touch as it seems you may have the needed information I was after:) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this is probably a supid question since it's very hard to follow every disussion going on, but has this goal of automaticaly flagging every image tagged with a free license template actualy been discussed somewhere? I only stumbled across this while looking for one after seeing the {{CommonsEncouraged}} tag beeing aded to a couple of license templates that I consider to be all too often misused. Personaly I'm a bit sceptical about this. Yes free licensed images should be transfered to Commons, but in my experience there are large numbers of images tagged as free licensed that are in fact not. So indisciminately putting a huge "Copy this to Commons" banner on thousands upon thousands of images will quite likely speed up the rade of images beeing moved to commones when not apropriate as well. I guess wether or not this is any better or worse than the track records of moves to Commons as it is can be debated, but that's just it. I can't seem to find any debates about this initiative, at least not in any of the obvious places. Nothing on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Moving free images to Wikimedia Commons or Wikipedia talk:Moving images to the Commons or Template talk:Copy to Wikimedia Commons or any such that I have checked so far... --Sherool (talk) 00:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Templates 101, with MZMcBride

I think a dichotomy would help here. I would generally use a lolcat or lolrus, but I'm quite lazy.

Option A: Change all uses of {{self}} using an undoubtedly poor regex to use a null parameter, adding thousands of useless revisions and invariably breaking things.

→ urdoinitwrong.

Option B: Fix the template.

→ Much better.

--MZMcBride (talk) 00:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close then :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 01:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I, like others above, am having trouble understanding exactly how this will be useful. You already said that the template does not contain the code that the commons parameter will activate, should this not be added and tested first? Also, as MZMcBride said, it's better to fix a template (if possible) than use a workaround. Could Sfan00 set out exactly why this is needed, in simple steps, and why it cannot be done by modifying the template in question (I would be willing to help with the modifications if necessary). If I have missed something obvious however, please tell me. Richard ⁰⁶¹² 17:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting BAG speedy close - My assumption was that I was simply missing something. It would appear that I was not. — neuro^(talk) 23:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by operator. See above. I doubt the usefulness of this task and recommend that changing the {{self}} template is looked into instead of using a bot to make lots of (currently) redundant edits. Furthermore, some images may not be appropriate for transwiki-ing, as the self template may have been used inappropriately. Richard ⁰⁶¹² 23:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.