Commons:Bots/Requests/Reinheitsgebot

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

Reinheitsgebot (talk · contribs)

Operator: Magnus Manske (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: Adding statements (depicts (P180), initially) to MediaInfo items, based on reasonably reliable indication (e.g. image (P18) on Wikidata and page image on dewiki).

Automatic or manually assisted: automatic

Edit type (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): batches

Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute): Not set, but limited by dependence on API requests before each edit. Rate limit can be added if rate is too high.

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): Y

Programming language(s): Rust

Magnus Manske (talk) 14:50, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Please do not add statements based on usage in articles. This would provide to many bad statements. But based on usage as image (P18) is okay. --GPSLeo (talk) 15:39, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have some mild objections to the bot user name or edit summaries. Normally we expect all bot edits to be clearly identifiable as such by a) including bot in the username or b) clarifying in the edit summaries, normally by adding "Bot: ...". As a German native, I have to say that a) is not fulfilled. Reinheisgebot is a normal German word and does not clearly identify the user as a bot. Please consider to satisfy b). --Schlurcher (talk) 17:20, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Magnus Manske:  ? --Krd 15:38, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This, or simply throw in the word bot somewhere in the edit summaries to make it clear that this are automatic edits. I have no opjection to the bot tasks. --Schlurcher (talk) 20:05, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Krd: seems that folks seem supportive of the move, and your concerns have been responded to. Sadads (talk) 19:34, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds like the only potential issue is with the summary and or username?
Summary sounds like a non issue and I'm sure the summary could be altered with "BOT EDIT" if requested, or something similar.
As for the name, the bot will have the bot flag, so clearly identifiable IMO, and also it does have bot in the name.
I'd rather not see this sit here for another month for these 2 small reasons.
·addshore· talk to me! 13:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Source of data is another matter not decided yet. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:28, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see the main comment in that area is "Please do not add statements based on usage in articles.". From the task description I don't think that is being done? Perhaps @Magnus Manske: could clarify that? ·addshore· talk to me! 14:46, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think will be reasonable to have explicit list of source (and qualifiers?) as result of this discussion. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:26, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add references and qualifiers where possible, and also specify the current "mode" in the edit summary (I can also add "bot edit", incase the username and bot flag are too subtle). But for some things, there is no good machine-readble source; for example, the next task on the list is to add the Geograph IDs from the text description as structured data. I can put that into the summary though. --Magnus Manske (talk) 11:02, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that references like Imported from have too much sense. Qualifiers could be extracted from very populated categories, like male/female organism for species or architectural details (example: Category:Cathédrale Notre-Dame de Paris). --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:49, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@99of9, Ellin Beltz, EugeneZelenko, Jameslwoodward, JuTa, Krd, and Odder: Is this sufficient now? --Magnus Manske (talk) 12:44, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was waiting for a reply to EugeneZelenko's last comment. If there is nothing left open, I think it can be approved. --Krd 12:48, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's OK with me. Thank you, Magnus, for all of your work here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:53, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please answer open question. There is still no clear definition what bot will exactly do. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:33, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do not disagree with request, but do not understand its utility. When clarity is achieved, I can give opinion. Please answer Eugene's question, too. Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:14, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I thought I did answer it. The bot will add (and potentially edit) structured data for files. Some of it will be from Commons-external sources, such as Wikidata (not mere data dumping!), some of it will be from the Commons file description. For example, the next batch I work on is to add the {{Geograph}} IDs as structured data. If/when consensus is reached (and only then), the bot may also remove the wikitext if the corresponding SD exists, and is automatically displayed via template/module, but that's for the future. --Magnus Manske (talk) 09:29, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
IDs are fine. But please check situation when ID is set for complex object consistence from parts and parts are distinguished in both Wikidata and Commons. I think request could be approved for IDs, just not hold it. Other kinds of data deductions should be discusses in separate requests. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:21, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please also make sure that IDs relate to specific objects (buildings, statues, etc), but not districts. In later case objects may deserve separate Wikidata item and may have county/municipal notability. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:07, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Magnus Manske: Note that {{Geograph}} is unreliable. Uploaders frequently put in the wrong image number, and I'm pretty confident I haven't caught all of them. Adding claims of geograph.org.uk image ID (P7384) should probably be restricted to cases where you have other evidence that the image is identical to the one on Geograph (e.g. because it was uploaded by GeographBot or Geograph Update Bot). That would cover the vast majority of cases anyway. --bjh21 (talk) 16:27, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I will take that into consideration. OTOH, importing all stated IDs into Structured Data will not make things worse than they are, but add our ability (once live SPARQL is available) to quickly find duplicate IDs etc. I think starting with the user names you mentioned is a good approach though. --Magnus Manske (talk) 13:17, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Closing as stale, feel free to reopen at any time. --Krd 06:29, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Bots/Requests/Reinheitsgebot&oldid=389803501"