Commons:Bots/Work requests

Shortcuts: COM:BR· COM:BWR

SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 7 days.

Archives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15

#	Title	Status	Replies	Participants	Last editor	Date/Time (UTC)	Last botop editor	Date/Time (UTC)
1	Flying1004's upload	Done	19	4	Minorax	2020-02-18 04:38	Eatcha	2020-02-18 04:33
2	Batch crop and overwrite		1	1	BevinKacon	2020-02-18 21:23
3	Rename request: Category Gazeta de Caracas files		1	1	Jamez42	2020-02-25 17:16

Legend
In the last hour
In the last day
In the last week
In the last month
More than one month
Manual settings
When exceptions occur, please check the setting first.

Flying1004's upload

Large number of uploads are from YouTube but do not have {{LicenseReview}}. Kindly add it in with a bot. Minorax^talk _{(formerly 大诺史)} 03:25, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Also maybe add all uploads into Category:Files uploaded by Flying1004 for easy tracking. Minorax^talk _{(formerly 大诺史)} 03:26, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

This is about 426 files: https://paws-public.wmflabs.org/paws-public/User:AntiCompositeBot/Flying1004.ipynb --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 04:55, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

@Minorax: Should it not be {{YouTubeReview}}? --MGA73 (talk) 17:28, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

If I’m not wrong, the one you’ve mentioned is for videos. Minorax^talk _{(formerly 大诺史)} 18:18, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

@MGA73: Minorax^talk _{(formerly 大诺史)} 18:19, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

@MGA73, Minorax: I don't see anything about {{YouTubeReview}} that would prevent it from being used on images extracted from videos, other than the fact that the bot can't review them. That said, {{LicenseReview}} isn't wrong either. I think I'd go with YouTubeReview. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 20:07, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I forgot that my bot no longer have a bot flag. So I will let someone else fix it :-) --MGA73 (talk) 20:43, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Generally, screenshots should use LR instead of YR as different parts of the video might have different issues such as FOP and DW which can’t be checked by the bot. Minorax^talk _{(formerly 大诺史)} 00:17, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Also “confirmed” by bot owner that YR is for videos, see [1] (second last thread) Minorax^talk _{(formerly 大诺史)} 00:29, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes but humans can do YR review too. We have the same issue with Flickrreview. The bot fixes 99.9 % but the last 0.1 % humans need to check. I think it would be nice if the YR bot is changed so it verify the license even if it can't tell if the screenshot is from the video. That way we are sure the license was ok when the bot checked the file and if uploader change the license later the file is safe if a human can verify that the screenshot came from the video. I think that is what the flickrreview bot does when the license is good but the image does not match. --MGA73 (talk) 07:23, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Actually I just need to add the category but do you guys think it's fine for the bot to review them cuz it's sometimes hard to tell if a picture was ever part of a video if the video is lost. I don't have any problem in handling images. If most of the community is in favor, I can start handling images now. -- Eatcha (talk) 11:06, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

PS: It's legally worse than videos, there are various hidden factors in a YouTube source page that proves that the videos are same but it's not always true for images cropped out of YouTube video. I can use our user hierarchy system for more appropriate reviews. -- Eatcha (talk) 11:32, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@Eatcha: Yes I think the bot should work on images too. If the license is unfree then we should add "no permission" or start a DR. If the link does not work or the video is deleted then we should add "no source" or start a DR. If the license is good then we are half way through the review because then we know the license is good and we just need to verify that the still image came from the video. Personally I think it would help us a lot if bot could check. It is much easer to work on files from the same source and the same problem. --MGA73 (talk) 16:23, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@Eatcha: Hello again. I think you can fix this request any way you think is best per other discussions about review. --MGA73 (talk) 19:07, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

MGA and Minorax  Done -- Eatcha (talk) 09:55, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
@Eatcha: the LR script is not compatible with {{YouTubeReview}} (see Special:Diff/395469289, Special:Diff/395469558 & Special:Diff/395469591), Majora seems to be busy IRL so I'm not gonna bother them about it. I would appreciate if you can revert back everything to {{LicenseReview}}.

cc. @MGA73: Minorax^talk _{(formerly 大诺史)} 15:28, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done Minorax SideNote: Commons doesn't have enough users maintaining JS user scripts, there are at-least 5 important user scripts I can remember that lack volunteer developers. Anyone knows how can we encourage more developers to contribute ? -- Eatcha (talk) 04:33, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

To be honest, I suggest moving core user scripts to MediaWiki namespace (i.e. make it a gadget). Minorax^talk _{(formerly 大诺史)} 04:38, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Batch crop and overwrite

• Special:Search/insource:24215253 filew:1100 fileh:864
• All these need cropping and overwriting, 50 pixels removed from top, left, right. 150 pixels removed from bottom. 130 files in total.--BevinKacon (talk) 21:23, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Rename request: Category Gazeta de Caracas files

I would like to request, as the uploader of the files, the move of all the files in Category:Gazeta de Caracas. The request consists in changing the format from "Gazeta de Caracas [date]" to "[date] Gazeta de Caracas" in order to have a chronological order and to make the search of the files easier. For example, the original title of "Gazeta de Caracas 13 de enero de 1809.pdf" to "13 de enero de 1809 Gazeta de Caracas.pdf"

The reason why I making this request in the noticeboard is because the category currently contains 86 files, and I think a centralized request would be better than requesting each one of them individually. --Jamez42 (talk) 17:16, 25 February 2020 (UTC)