User talk:Schlurcher/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Bot

Hello Schlurcher. You have told me that I could ask you again if some bot for your work was needed. There are quite many things that could be useful and if that's stil fine with you, I'll let you know. I am thinkg of one thing that I think would be quite nice but would require quite many edits, this would be that ? These are mechanical edits, but there are quite a few of them :

• replace {{Information}} by {{Artwork}}

no problem

• replace russian name/English name by {{creator:English name}}

bit tricky, as the middle names must be removed

• replace the content of permission by {{User:Leningradartist/Permission}} and delete any use of this template outside the artwork template

no problem

• replace source = Blabla http://www.leningradschool.com/XXX.jpg by {{from leningradschool|XXX.jpg}}

no problem

• Replace description= {{ru|1=Painting "English text within quotes" by XX}} {{ru|1=blalbla "Russian text within quote" "other Russian text}} by {{title|Russian blabla within quotes|lang=ru|English blabla within quotes}}

If all pictures follow the convention. This should not be a problem.

It would be needed for all images in Category:Images by Leningradartist that are subcategories of Category:Paintings and do not have {{Artwork}} yet -I could correct some files afterwards. If this is possible, let me know: I would need to create creator templates beforehand. Regards, --Zolo (talk) 14:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I will have a closer look on your request at the weekend. --Schlurcher (talk) 16:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

If your done creating suitable creator templates, I will process your request. --Schlurcher (talk) 19:50, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok great. Actually I had not realized there were 80 creator template, which is a bit long to do manually. I have made a request for batch upload of these templates and I'll let you know when it is done.--Zolo (talk) 10:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, it was a bit long but I made all creator templates by hand if you are still interested.--Zolo (talk) 08:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I have still 6000 other edits in queue, but afterwards will do this task. --Schlurcher (talk) 17:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done --Schlurcher (talk) 18:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Very good thanks.--Zolo (talk) 02:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh just one thing actually. The parameter where the title is displayed should be called "title" not "description".--Zolo (talk) 02:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC) If you change it, you can also replace "author=" by "artist=" at the same time, I think it is a bit less ambiguous.--Zolo (talk) 03:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Nordiska

Hi Schlurcher,

Maybe you want to run your bot through Category:Images from Nordiska museet per my suggestion at Commons_talk:Nordiska_museet#Improvements. --  Docu  at 08:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. --Schlurcher (talk) 08:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Looks like there was no room for improvement. --  Docu  at 11:26, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Original upload log

Hi Schlurcher,

According to Template talk:Original upload log, the usual internationalization would be {{original upload log}}, not {{int:wm-license-original-upload-log}}. --  Docu  at 15:20, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

About File:Kampfläufer.jpg

Hi, I'm still sure that this file has wrong id. Correct species is Tringa totanus, not Philomachus pugnax. I'm about to move the image to the correct name. If you still think its a Philomachus pugnax, can you send the picture to the zoo curator etc where did you take this image? I think that he or she can verify the species. Best regards –Makele-90 (talk) 15:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I have no objections, when you want to move/rename the picture. --Schlurcher (talk) 12:19, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I moved it now. –Makele-90 (talk) 11:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Frankfurt Skyline von Deutschherrnbrücke.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Frankfurt Skyline von Deutschherrnbrücke 2.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

Bot edit rates exceed approval

Graph indicating your bot was running at 30 edits/minute today.

Hi Schlurcher,

Triggered by a discussion about bot edit rates I initiated some data analysis today to see what kind of load Commons is experiencing (measured in edits/minute) and the distribution of the load between normal user edits and bots by just looking through some recent changes data for this evening. In the graph I noticed that your bot was running at x5 the default maximum edit rate of 10 seconds for each edit (or max 6 edits per minute), namely at about 30 edits / sec. However, the bot is approved to run at a maximum of five edits/minute. Now, the 30 edits/minute may not be a problem in most circumstances (perhaps though if several such bots run concurrently in "rush hours", I do not know), but maybe you should get approval to run as this higher rate or lower the speed of the bot, such that there is consistency between the actual bot edit rate and the approval. Best wishes from Denmark --Slaunger (talk) 23:25, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, nobody ever pointed out to me that this is really a problem. I will follow the discussion on the talk page for more insight. Concerning my case, the view of the picture is very biased. My bot does not run on any server, but on my personal pc. Therefore, it is just active from time to time. To use my personal pc time efficiently I saw no reason to throttle the bot. --Schlurcher (talk) 18:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Ильин Николай Александрович.jpeg

File:Ильин Николай Александрович.jpeg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Andrei Romanenko (talk) 02:59, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Convert all interlaced JPGs

Hello, can you by any chance give a look at this bot work request? Thanks, Nemo 10:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the note. --Schlurcher (talk) 15:57, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Picture of the Year voting round 1 open

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2012 Picture of the Year competition is now open. We're interested in your opinion as to which images qualify to be the Picture of the Year for 2012. Voting is open to established Wikimedia users who meet the following criteria:

1. Users must have an account, at any Wikimedia project, which was registered before Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0000 [UTC].
2. This user account must have more than 75 edits on any single Wikimedia project before Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0000 [UTC]. Please check your account eligibility at the POTY 2012 Contest Eligibility tool.
3. Users must vote with an account meeting the above requirements either on Commons or another SUL-related Wikimedia project (for other Wikimedia projects, the account must be attached to the user's Commons account through SUL).

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year are all entered in this competition. From professional animal and plant shots to breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historically relevant images, images portraying the world's best architecture, maps, emblems, diagrams created with the most modern technology, and impressive human portraits, Commons features pictures of all flavors.

For your convenience, we have sorted the images into topic categories. Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you can vote for as many images as you like. The first round category winners and the top ten overall will then make it to the final. In the final round, when a limited number of images are left, you must decide on the one image that you want to become the Picture of the Year.

To see the candidate images just go to the POTY 2012 page on Wikimedia Commons

Wikimedia Commons celebrates our featured images of 2012 with this contest. Your votes decide the Picture of the Year, so remember to vote in the first round by January 30, 2013.

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

---

Delivered by Orbot1 (talk) at 11:22, 19 January 2013 (UTC) - you are receiving this message because you voted last year

Editor @ ar.wiki

Hello. I would like to inform you that I have granted you editor flag at the Arabic Wikipedia, all your edits there will be automatically marked as patrolled. Best regards.--Avocato (talk) 07:28, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

User:SchlurcherBot blocked

Please see Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Unapproved_bot_running_way_too_fast. Current duration is one day, but may be extended if the task runs again after the expiry, without a BRFA. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 17:02, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. --Schlurcher (talk) 21:04, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Spielwürfel.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good Quality. --99of9 11:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Alpsee Germany.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Ok. -- Smial 01:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Heidelberg-Affe.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments OK --Ianare 14:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Schlossbeleuchtung 10.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Lovely. Mattbuck 18:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Liebesschloss.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Schlossgarten Schwetzingen, aerial view.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment It would be good to add "Aerial view" in scope. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:10, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
•  Support @Schlurcher and Archaeodontosaurus: I just went ahead boldly and added "aerial view" to the scope. Setting to "discussed" though because I'd like someone to confirm my vote, now that I've directly been involved. --El Grafo (talk) 09:17, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Perfect now --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:25, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:54, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Heidelberg Altstadt Schloss Luftbild.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support OK IMHO. --C messier 18:21, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Bot bug

Hello, Your bot has a bug. For example here it isn't removing the redundant \n\n. Please see COM:Regex. Best --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:13, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I have activated the Cosmetic Changes Module within pywikibot. This will from now on take care of these instances. --Schlurcher (talk) 22:02, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I doubt that will help, please do all cleanups as described at COM:Regex. Hmm. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:58, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

It is intended to add two lines before categories to separate them from the main text. Any additional lines are deleted. I verified both behaviours. As code cosmetic changes are always difficult, I will stick to the standard of pywikibot. Please make your proposal there and I will naturally incorporate it after the update through a bot softwareupdate. --Schlurcher (talk) 19:55, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

You have to follow wikimedia-commons standards, not pywikibot standards. Standard for all bots is one line, i don't have to make a proposal for changing your bot because you have to follow wikimedia commons rules. And you bot is making such edits now, thus i had to block your bot for malfunction. Ich will wirklich nicht nervig oder kleinlich sein, sorry. Aber sowas war sicher nicht von deinem Bot vorgesehen. Solltest du java sprechen gibt es bereits ein ready-to-use script das man auch weiterentwickeln kann denn dann bräuchtest du nicht alles in pywikibot einbauen. Lg --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:54, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

In der Tat, die letzten Änderungen sollten nicht passieren. Ich schau mir das heute Abend einmal in Ruhe an. Sponstan würde ich sagen, das liegt daran, dass parallel ein anderer Bot die gleichen Seiten bearbeitet. Bei diesem Bot treten die gleichen 'Probleme' auf. Kannst du mir bitte einen Link auf die Diskussion für eine Linie schreiben? Ich war seit ca. 4 Jahren hier nicht mehr aktiv und damals war noch zwei Linien die Regel. Solche Diskussionen waren auch der Grund, warum ich generell keine kosmetischen Änderungen eingebaut hatte. --159.180.162.12 12:01, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Fast alle Dateien haben eine Zeile, alle neue Dateien (auch im UploadWizard und so). Das Python cleanup Script funktioniert nicht richtig auf commons, das hatte ich mal schon mal getestet. Aber immer besser nur die Kat entfernen als noch Zeilen zu ;). Bitte sag beschied wenn ich entsperren kann. lg --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:20, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Ich habe den Bot erstmal deaktiviert, gibt ja auch genug andere die das machen. Da ich das ehr aus programmiertechnischem Interesse heraus machen schau ich mir das heute Abend einmal in Ruhe an. Falls du ihn also im Laufe das Nachmittags entsperren könntest wäre das nett. --Schlurcher (talk) 12:48, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Nachtrag: Alte Dateien wurde mit zwei Leerzeilen [1] hochgeladen. Wenigstens trügt mich meine Erinnerung nicht ganz. Den Stilwechsel habe ich wohl verpasst. Das bringt mich ehr zum Dogma keiner Cosmetic Changes zurück. --Schlurcher (talk) 12:52, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Mass decat of Category:Uploaded with UploadWizard

Hey, are you running AWB for this? -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 00:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I was using pywiki framework for this task. Please note that AWB allows only a list of 25'000 pages. I normally use AWB for Bot Work Requests and to test regex'es. --Schlurcher (talk) 22:00, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

http -> https

Bitte mal prüfen warum der Bot dort das "Source" Feld in der Infobox übersehen hat. --Denniss (talk) 07:58, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Thank you. --Schlurcher (talk) 12:49, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Commons:File description page regular expressions

Regarding Special:Diff/285872503, as a patroller, I would like to let you know that common mistake is adding second "category" keyword, but without brackets, e.g. [[Category:Category:Some category]]. So you might consider changing the regexp or develop a new one. --jdx ^Re: 08:05, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

A search does not lead to any results [2] (but it times out ...). I'll have a look into this when I find a real example. --Schlurcher (talk) 05:22, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Verlinkte Jahre

Hallo Schlurcher, weil wir gerade so schön am Aufräumen sind... Was meinst du, sollte man verlinkte Jahre im Datum (Beispiel: File:Odet-Julien Leboucher (1793) Historia de la última guerra.png) rausnehmen? --Arnd (talk) 20:27, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Ich sehe zwar keinen Grund dafür die Jahre zu verlinken, aber ich sehe auch genausowenig einen Grund die Verlinkung herauszunehmen, wenn sie ein Nutzer extra gesetzt hat. Im Zweifel halte ich mich mit meinem Bot ehr zurück. --Schlurcher (talk) 05:24, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect marking as own work

SchlurcherBot make this edit, but it seems clearly wrong to me. The infobox is not filled out very well, but {{Own}} specifically says it's not for use on things like "repro from art book" and thus shouldn't be added to files that have that (or anything else SchlurcherBot doesn't recognize) in the source field.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:49, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

It's an own work from the author given on the picture, Ernst Ludwig Kirchner. Still, the bot should not do controversial edits. I stopped him for now, as actually quite some edits are like this. --Schlurcher (talk) 06:17, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I checked further on this, there are about 10'000+ cases for this. So in my opinion, this does justify a separate template: {{Repro from art book}}

Also it will make it way more easily to identify these later on. What do you think? --Schlurcher (talk) 06:40, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

User:SchlurcherBot

Congratulations! New task was approved. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:34, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks --Schlurcher (talk) 05:30, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

__NOTOC__

Hi Schlurcher, what do you think: could i remove this from these files? --Arnd (talk) 09:22, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Arnd, my Bot is currently working it's way through all files (slowly but gradually) starting from the first one ever uploaded and will remove them anyhow. The bot also processes all the new updates on a bi-daily fashion. So it will be anyhow done in about a month or so and then also be corrected for all new ones. The __NOTOC__ is simply not needed, as it is the default setting for the file namespace. So this is more to reduce unnecessary and potentially difficult to understand code. Still, if you want to do it directly, please go ahead, I will not stop you :-). The benefit of having it done by bot is simply that it will not spam the recent changes and watch lists of users.

This said and looking at your user page I saw that you also do a lot regarding the "Internationalization" of file pages. Keep on the good work! If you feel anything is missed by my bot, please let me know and I will add it. --Schlurcher (talk) 19:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

ok, i will tell you. Currently i am cleaning up dates. Since most of the work is at least semi-automated i often see other "problems" which i solve en passant. --Arnd (talk) 07:53, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Btw, what about NOTOC in galleries? Can we also remove it? [3] --Arnd (talk) 13:14, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge (and a short test on a random gallery) the is only applied to the file namespace. So it potentially makes sense to have it for some galleries. Thus, I personally will not touch this. --Schlurcher (talk) 17:43, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Interestingly almost all files with NOTOC come from xyWP e.g. File:Red Arrows at Farnborough Airshow (ca 2004).jpg with the summary "Transferred from xy.wikipedia". Do you know what this actually means? Seems not a bot, maybe a script. And why every time NOTOC is automatically added? --Arnd (talk) 22:03, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Commons is younger than some of the xyWP. At that time, pictures were uploaded to the individual xyWP. They were later transferred to Commons. Whereas __NOTOC__ is the default for the Commons file namespace, it was not the case for the German Wikipedia (there I know). So a lot of users added this to the German Wikipedia File descriptions. Thus, it was also transferred to Commons afterwards, where it is not needed. --Schlurcher (talk) 22:16, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

"Category cleanup"?

Hallo Schlurcher, diese Bearbeitung von deinem Bot habe ich wieder rückgängig gemacht. Die Straßenbahntypen L und l sind unterschiedliche Typen und es ergibt absolut Sinn, sie beide zu kategorisieren. Ich vermute, dass dein Bot davon ausgeht, dass Kategorienamen nicht case-sensitive sind? So funktionieren MediaWiki-Kategorien allerdings nicht. Tokfo (talk) 07:39, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Tokfo, ich werde dies später heute Abend zu case-insensitive ändern. Danke für den Hinweis. --Schlurcher (talk) 18:08, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done --Schlurcher (talk) 06:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Date and other housekeeping fixes

Do you have a published definition of which changes are approved, in particular formatting of dates? I'm wondering about whether to add more of these formats pre-upload in my batch upload scripts. --Fæ (talk) 12:38, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

The most comprehensive list is: Commons:File description page regular expressions. You can also peek into my unit test examples with give a flavor of the changes performed: [4] --Schlurcher (talk) 18:06, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

This is one of yours: [5]. You can also use {{unknown|date}} if you prefer. --Schlurcher (talk) 18:26, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I was unaware that the REGEX page existed and your unit test set looks comprehensive. I'll investigate when I rewrite one of my larger scripts and see what I can reuse. --Fæ (talk) 23:37, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Bot issue

This does not look to be an intended function. It moved templates to the bottom with edit summary "grouping categories at the bottom". The templates include categories, but no categories were actually moved (and the templates do not belong with the categories). — Rhododendrites ^talk |  20:10, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

The intended function is to collect all categories that are scattered throughout the file description and collect them at the bottom; both for readability as well as to reflect the occurrence on the page. The diff-highlighting of the Wikimedia software is here a bit misleading. If you look at the changed page, you will see that the bot moved all categories to the bottom of the page. The diff however suggest that the templates were moved up before the categories, which is simply another way of highlighting the change. --Schlurcher (talk) 20:23, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Ah. You are right. I misread the diff when I looked. Thanks. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  20:58, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

ISBN stuff

Initial sweeping of ISBN cleanup is complete last week. I'm running the script on the bi-weekly basis because (unaware) people keep adding old syntax. I think it's safe to go ahead with your proposal. — regards, Revi 12:47, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. Over the next weeks, I will add a more aggressive search for ISBN numbers (including lower case isbn) to my daily routine on new files. I will not touch the other namespaces (as I have less experience there and my bot is not approved there); so it will still be good if you continue your task on all namespaces with some frequency. --Schlurcher (talk) 04:48, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Corresponding unit test: [6]--Schlurcher (talk) 05:57, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Grouping categories at the bottom

What am I doing wrong that makes it necessary for SchlurcherBot to edit every picture I upload to perform the "Grouping categories at the bottom" task? How can I save the bot the trouble, time, and expense of this cleanup work? Thanks, Jeffrey Beall (talk) 18:43, 17 June 2018 (UTC).

Hi Denverjeffrey. The "Grouping categories at the bottom" performs two sub-actions: putting one category in each line and put all categories at the bottom. The bot performs these trivial category changes, as categories are almost exclusively handled now in commons with internal and external tools of questionable quality. So as long as you group all categories (one line per category) at the bottom the bot will not perform any further action. As I saw, you sometimes place the categories above the license information. --Schlurcher (talk) 04:43, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Okay, thanks very much. Jeffrey Beall (talk) 11:48, 18 June 2018 (UTC).

Moving comments

Hi Schlurcher, it would be great if your bot could avoid to unnecessary move comments as it did here. The categories are already grouped at the end. However, it should be possible to leave comments regarding individual categories. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 20:20, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Did surprise me a bit, as I actually did not use the en-wiki bot modul for this, but custom code to account for comment. As I learned now, my code broke, however, when there is a dash in the comment. This is now also fixed. --Schlurcher (talk) 04:13, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it! Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 05:11, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Bot doesn't like the default

I just saw this weird edit on my watchlist. It seems your bot wants things in a different order from the upload page default. Is that really what you want? I think that would result in a lot of extra edits. Ntsimp (talk) 18:18, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Bot edit

This edit appears to be unnecessary.[7] Good luck, Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:01, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Truely odd. So far I had no luck identifying which change was performed here. --Schlurcher (talk) 04:14, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Your bot seems to have removed the blank line at the bottom of the file page.[8] Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:44, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

The text I paste into the "Summary" box of the "experienced" upload form includes license and categories. That form adds a blank line at the bottom of the contents of the "Summary" box.[9][10] If this is undesirable, I wonder if it is possible to fix it there. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:13, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi, as far as I know, blank lines are automatically cut out by the Wikimedia engine. Thus, I doubt this is the problem. The strange thing is that this affects as far as I can se only your uploads. If you like, I can blacklist all you uploads, so you will not be bothered any more. --Schlurcher (talk) 16:58, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

SchlurcherBot and whitespace

Could SchlurcherBot please not make unhelpful edits like these: [11] [12] [13]

These are not "Grouping categories at the bottom" - they were already grouped at the bottom.

What they did do instead was that perennial favourite (because it's easy to code) of stripping all whitespace. This is bad for two reasons: firstly most 'bot policy (en:WP at least, I don't know Commons) is against any such "invisible" changes as pointless fiddling with no benefit. Secondly, white space is not an error. These are simple examples, there's not much either way. But when images are in many categories, white space between their groups and facets can be a valuable aid to future editors. Please do not remove it. If you must compress whitespace (to save a couple of bytes in the metadata of a megabyte image??) then condense it to a single white space, but don't remove it. Thankyou. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:54, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Andy, the bot should not make any changes to lines between categories any more. --Schlurcher (talk) 05:30, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Schlurcher, may I add to this. I have seen similar / same behavior here and many similar cases. I do not add the line break for structuring the list of categories (as Andy Dingley said above), but empty lines are created by the campaign feature of the Upload Wizard. So instead of correcting empty lines, wouldn't it be better to tackle the root cause and fix the behavior in the Upload Wizzard? best --Herzi Pinki (talk) 20:42, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Herzi Pinki, this should not happen any more. --Schlurcher (talk) 05:33, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for bot work

Removed duplicate headings just lovely! Palosirkka (talk) 10:45, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Uploadassisent und Schlurcherbot

Hallo, nicht das erste Mal, dass ich dieses Muster sehe: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Chirps151018-22NR.mp3&action=history - stimmt etwas mit dem Uploadassistenten nicht? Gruß, --Burkhard (talk) 17:41, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Wrong licence and categories on File:NASA Atmospheric river AsiaNA2017 10 26.jpg

Hi:

Your bot has wikified this image but some information in it are wrong and should be changed:

1. This image is from NASA and the licence should be {{PD-USGov-NASA}}
2. The categories on this image should ONLY be :
   • Category:Atmospheric rivers
   • Category:Satellite pictures of mid-latitude storms

All the others are unrelated and/or too vague.

Since the image is protected, I cannot do it myself. Do you know whom to contact for that?

Pierre cb (talk) 14:11, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

FYI: bot made useless edit

IMHO here. --Palosirkka (talk) 11:32, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Doppelte Kategorien

Hallo Schlurcher, kann man eigentlich Kategorien-Doppelungen irgendwie erkennen außer auf "String-Ebene"? Vor allem würde ich nämlich gerne Kategorien entfernen, die schon durch Templates hinzugefügt werden. Gruß, --Arnd (talk) 10:14, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Ich habe dazau leider auch noch keine Möglichkeit gefunden. Mein Bot entfernt nur doppelte Kategorien, wenn diese direkt auf der Seite eingebunden sind. --Schlurcher (talk) 20:56, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Bad edits by SchlurcherBot

Hi Schlurcher, mistaken edits like [14] or [15] should be avoided as they destroy tables. Thanks and kind regards, AFBorchert (talk) 05:58, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I will fix this. --Schlurcher (talk) 17:42, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

The page on Gautam Moitra on Wikimedia Commons

I don't know what you mean by bot operator but it contains all valid and authentic information about me and my works. Gautam Moitra (talk) 15:46, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

somewhat strange Bot Edit

See [16] - don't know if this int-description was ever correct at a time but it should have been replaced by the bot, not simply adding int-filedesc above it. --Denniss (talk) 11:59, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

That's correct. I will fix this. --Schlurcher (talk) 12:46, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Grouping categories at the bottom

Is that right? Categories ARE at the bottom, your bot is moving them out of the sections (commented).<!-- Metadata categories --> out of here <!-- Content categories --> and all in here Macuser (talk) 19:21, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Do you have a link? --Schlurcher (talk) 19:37, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

[17] Macuser (talk) 15:01, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

This should not have happened. I have corrected this now and it will not perform these edits any more. Originally, the bot ignored comments after a category. Now it ignores them before and after a category. --Schlurcher (talk) 18:06, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

👍Macuser (talk) 07:27, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

SchlurcherBot – adding missing summary header

The bot has a bug – in files with == {{int:description}} == it adds == {{int:filedesc}} == instead of replacing the old header, e.g. Special:Diff/346859761. --jdx ^Re: 16:11, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I think I had fixed this with an update of the code on 1st of May 2019. Did you see the same behaviour in a more recent file? --Schlurcher (talk) 18:11, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

No. I have noticed it while I was patrolling 30 days old (recent?) changes. Most of the files on this list have the same problem. --jdx ^Re: 18:38, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the further insight. The core issue should have been fixed already. I also confirmed that the bot is able to correct it's own mistake [18]. As far as I see the files affected were all uploaded by Arpingstone (talk · contribs). I'm currently checking all of his uploads to catch these incorrect edits. --Schlurcher (talk) 07:59, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Zarenkanone-Kreml-Moskau-2.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good focus to main object --Michielverbeek 21:40, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:21, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Schwetzingen-Schlosspark-9.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Manfred Kuzel 05:27, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vanillekipferl-Nahaufnahme.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Chenspec 10:01, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:27, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Heidelberg - Düwag MGT6D - RNV 3272 - 2019-06-01 17-00-34.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Heidelberg_-_D%C3%BCwag_MGT6D_-_RNV_3272_-_2019-06-01_17-00-34.jpg&curid=79441457&diff=353080643&oldid=352999236

Hier soll keine ]] bei {{Self}} sein. Zwiadowca ²¹ 13:15, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Danke für den Hinweis. Die beiden überflüssigen ]] bestanden schon vor dem Bot-Edit. Ich habe sie nun entfernt. --Schlurcher (talk) 12:17, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Dein Bot ändert auf tote links

Moin.

Wie in diesem Beispiel (File:Short 330 (DLT) at FRA 1983-02-28 (2).jpg) ändert Dein Bot meine vorherigen links (hier: [19]) auf tote links. Dies passiert zur Zeit immer öfter.

Der Sinn erschließt sich mir nicht; vielleicht habe ich ja auch irgend etwas nicht verstanden.

Falls dies keine plausible Erklärung hat, muss ich Dich bitten, alle solchen Änderungen in meinen uploads wieder zu revertieren. Viele Grüße --Uli Elch (talk) 15:43, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Hallo, danke für den Hinweis. Der Bot funktioniert hier wie programmiert: Falls möglich wird ein externer Link, der auf eine interne Seite zeigt, umgewandelt. Die MediaWiki Software ist allerdings so programmiert, dass interne Links auf die Seite auf der man sich gerade befindet als fetter Text und nicht als Link angezeigt wird. Dies ist hier der Fall. Insofern sind dies zwar funktionierende Links, die aber nicht als solche für den Nutzer erkennbar sind. In deinem Fall gibt dies nicht den gewünschten Effekt. Das sehe ich ein. Ich habe diese Bot-Funktionalität jetzt erstmal deaktiviert. Ich werde auch deine Dateien zurückkorrigieren; gibt mir bitte bis zum Wochenende, da ich früher nicht dazu kommen werde. Danach werde ich mir genauer ansehen, ob ich Selbst-Links bei dieser Korrektur ausschließen kann oder mir einen anderen Weg ausdenken. --Schlurcher (talk) 08:19, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Ich habe die Änderungen bei deinen Dateien rückgängig gemacht. Grüße --Schlurcher (talk) 13:36, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

SchlurcherBot edit

Hi, it would be better if bot removes == {{int:Summary}} ==, before adding == {{int:filedesc}} == in edit like this. Regards--Praveen:talk 16:00, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

The bot will now perform this change and work as expected. --Schlurcher (talk) 17:34, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorting categories by your bot

Hi. I want to ask something. Your bot sorting categories on every new uploaded file right after uploading. Isn't be better to change upload mechanism, so every uploaded file has correctly sorted metadata on upload, instead of making millions of senseless bot edits? MBH 16:36, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• Sure, this would be great. A corresponding request was made 2 or 3 years ago and never addressed. The good news is that the Upload Wizard is not affected; only the old Upload Forms are. If you feel strongly please try to change this; it seems, however, that mediawiki resources are spent on new features rather than solving issues they cause. --Schlurcher (talk) 18:00, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  • OK, but why this sorting generally needed? This edits seems pretty senseless to me. They doesn't affect visual appearance of file description page; bots and users also shouldn't have problems with editing this pages in version before your bot's edits. MBH 22:18, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

You are correct, code changes without affecting the visual appearance are discouraged. These category changes were at some point excluded from this general rule. Nowadays, most category chanes are performed by tools or VFC. These are sometimes sloppyly programmed or user use very simple regex to get things done. Having categories in a standardized way helps improve this and avoids errors. --Schlurcher (talk) 08:10, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the sorting: This is an error. Steak (talk) 21:22, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

The additional comma was part of the page before the bot edit. Sometimes the bot edits allow for easier identification of these issues. In this case, there is no issue with the bot. --Schlurcher (talk) 07:56, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

DEFAULTSORT

Hi! This edit separated the DEFAULTSORT from the categories themselves. Please modify your script to take care of it (defsort should be right before the categories). —Tacsipacsi (talk) 16:33, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I was not aware of this code standard. I will look into this matter and perform adjustments accordingly. --Schlurcher (talk) 20:35, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I have added an cosmetic change that places the DEFAULTSORT directly before the next category. This change will only be performed in combination with grouping the cagegories at the bottom. So combined this should address your concern. I think this is resolved. --Schlurcher (talk) 18:39, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

moving category

I wouldn't call this "grouping". They are still separated with a row break. Hope you can fix the bot. Thanks, – GeMet [talk] 03:01, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I will look into this. --Schlurcher (talk) 08:29, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I think I fixed this. I have added a new module for cosmetic changes (that will only be executed together with other changes) that should take case of these instances. --Schlurcher (talk) 19:35, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I think it does not work. Moving categories at end still happens without any other changes. An example: [20] BTW: My own bot is doing the same grouping and other modifications, but only for my own images. --XRay ^talk 13:09, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

The bot works as expected in this case. --Schlurcher (talk) 14:01, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Grouping categories at the bottom, and image notes

Hello, my question arises out of this edit.

Would it be possible for the bot not to make such edits on pages that need no other kind of edit if the only below-categories text is image-note code? By default, the code for an image note is placed at the bottom of the page. As a result, almost every time someone adds a note, the bot will have to come along and move it, which seems rather pointless ("clogging up watchlists", as en:wp calls it) unless the bot needs to make some other sort of edit as well.

If you were making these edits at en:wp, someone might threaten to have the bot task ended (en:WP:COSMETICBOT), so let me be clear: I'm not complaining or threatening. I think this is a useful bot task, and I don't want to see it stopped! I just want it to be tweaked a little. Nyttend (talk) 13:50, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Nyttend, thanks for sharing your thoughts. I agree that code edits are generally not wanted (and I do not perform them with this exception). In commons, categories are mainly added or removed trought tools or semi-automatic workflows. For this it is sometimes important that the categories are at a defined locations. Instead, I started a discussion, if image notes should not be better placed at the top of the page, closer to the actual image, see [21]. --Schlurcher (talk) 13:43, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I know where they're placed; I've been an editor for 13 years and an admin for 4 :-) I don't particularly care where the image note code goes, as long as we know that it won't end up in the middle of other stuff. I'll go and offer an opinion. Nyttend (talk) 01:52, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Beta tester SchlurcherBot

Hey Schlurcher, external link. -- User: Perhelion 07:24, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I fixed this in the meantime already. --Schlurcher (talk) 10:49, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Error by your bot

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Seattle_Bon_Odori_2007_152A.jpg&diff=371338074&oldid=371308440 : you may want to revisit a regex. - Jmabel ! talk 04:39, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I will look into this. So far my regex accounts for comments before and after the category, but apparently not within. I am actually surprised that this category code works as expected. --Schlurcher (talk) 09:41, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

It's more tricky than I though. It identifies the category within the comment. The bot will also re-edit the pages if I do nothing, which is a problem. So for now I decided to replace the category within the comment by a human- but not bot-readable category. --Schlurcher (talk) 18:58, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Important message for file movers

A community discussion has been closed where the consensus was to grant all file movers the suppressredirect user right. This will allow file movers to not leave behind a redirect when moving files and instead automatically have the original file name deleted. Policy never requires you to suppress the redirect, suppression of redirects is entirely optional.

Possible acceptable uses of this ability:

• To move recently uploaded files with an obvious error in the file name where that error would not be a reasonable redirect. For example: moving "Sheep in a tree.jpg" to "Squirrel in a tree.jpg" when the image does in fact depict a squirrel.
• To perform file name swaps.
• When the original file name contains vandalism. (File renaming criterion #5)

Please note, this ability should be used only in certain circumstances and only if you are absolutely sure that it is not going to break the display of the file on any project. Redirects should never be suppressed if the file is in use on any project. When in doubt, leave a redirect. If you forget to suppress the redirect in case of file name vandalism or you are not fully certain if the original file name is actually vandalism, leave a redirect and tag the redirect for speedy deletion per G2.

The malicious or reckless breaking of file links via the suppressredirect user right is considered an abuse of the file mover right and is grounds for immediate revocation of that right. This message serves as both a notice that you have this right and as an official warning. Questions regarding this right should be directed to administrators. --Majora (talk) 21:36, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

SchlurcherBot

This change does not seem to be correct: [22] --Amarvudol (talk) 11:25, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. This is a case of garbage in - garbage out. I have now corrected the page. --Schlurcher (talk) 12:13, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Bot edits

I'm not sure what the point of this edit was, but I have hundreds of them on my watchlist. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:17, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Bot error?

Your bot seems to be in error here; leastways, the edit is unnecessary. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:30, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I will look into this. --Schlurcher (talk) 09:39, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Grouping categories at the bottom

Hallo Schlurcher, dein Bot hat viel damit zu tun, die Kategorien nach unten zu sortieren. Ich benutze zum Hochlsden von Bildern immer den Hochladeassistenten, der das wohl automatisch falsch macht. Wäre es nicht einfacher, den Assistenten so zu programmieren, dass er die Kategorien automatisch nach unten setzt? --Milseburg (talk) 15:42, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Ja, wäre es. Dies wurde auch schon vorgeschlagen. Dies ist jedoch ein freiwilliges Projekt und die meisten Entwickler bearbeiten wichtigere Punkte. --Schlurcher (talk) 08:14, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

User:SchlurcherBot

Congratulations! Task 8 was approved. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:35, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

'Inception'

What does it even mean to add inception (P571) to File:"Largest book in the world", A-Y-P, 1909.jpg or File:"Illuminating flower," 1935 (18274346230).jpg? A photograph presumably has a date, not an inception. - Jmabel ! talk 17:09, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Hi, please see Commons:Structured data for a full reference on what my bot is doing. In short, the bot tries to add data in a machine readable form to files. The container inception (P571) is thereby used for the following understanding: date or point in time when the subject came into existence as defined. So for a photograph this would be the date of creation. --Schlurcher (talk) 13:48, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

So the "inception" is the date of the photograph? I think that is going to confuse the heck out of people.

Also, isn't that going to be even more confusing for photographs of works of art that haven't just been created at the time of the photograph? - Jmabel ! talk 16:47, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Please add a skip for hiddends categories

Take a look, the bot removed a fp cat. --Wilfredor (talk) 14:27, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Note that my bot performed this edit: [23]. It simply moved the two categories into two different lines. It did not remove anything. I cannot see anthing wrong with this edit. Please explain if you think otherwise. --Schlurcher (talk) 19:06, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Date of photography

Perhaps P2754 would be better than P571? /ℇsquilo 14:36, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi! Please see Commons:Structured data/Modeling/Date for the relevant discussion. There are some benefits in using one over the other property. Note that P571 is used for the work generated not the picture. In 95% it might be the picture itself, but for a picture of a painting, for example, it would be the time of the creation of the painting not the time of the reproduction. --Schlurcher (talk) 19:29, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

File:Aldus_leaf_-_Harvard_Oriental_Series.png

There is no evidence for this. Yes, the icon was printed in the book, but that doesn't make it the first publication of that icon. Most publishers of the time had a set of these that were recycled from book to book. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:02, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. The bot simply transcribes the information from the image description. So my suggestion would be to adjust the description and make it clear that the creation of the icon might have been prior to the publication of the book. --Schlurcher (talk) 09:02, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Bot edit of a redirect page?

I'm not completely sure, but it looks like your bot added claims to a redirect page. Can you have a look? Thanks, Jeffrey Beall (talk) 17:24, 29 January 2020 (UTC).

Thanks. I stopped the bot until I have a chance to look at this. --Schlurcher (talk) 17:31, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done --Schlurcher (talk) 19:42, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Multiple bot edits

Hi, your bot is doing nice job, but is making multiple edits to one file (like this). Could you add this set of statements in one edit? Now such changes fill up my wachlist. Also, something wrong is with the "Inception", as it shows to me as "Unsupported data type". Cheers, Nova (talk) 18:04, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for the general support. I currently use a wbsetclaim-API, that allows me to set a single claim only. So I am currently not able to add a set of statements in one edit. You could of course hide bot edits from your watchlist, but I assume you have valid reasons to not do so. The date parameter is expected to be released very soon, so the corresponding warning should disappear soon. --Schlurcher (talk) 19:36, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi, the wikidata API seems to be work in progress, so eventually will allow such calls, I hope. Thanks for checking. I've seen such multi-edits recently, made by BotMultichillT, but don't know the way it works. Cheers, Nova (talk) 17:03, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

BotMultichillT is using a different approach, but the downside is that his bot can add qualifiers that do not apprear in the structured data tab. In the edit you highlighted, he added Agnieszka Kwiecień, Nova as the author. However, this is not displayed anywhere (at least for now). During my bot request, I said that I will not do these kind of edits because I think this will add to the confusion. -- Schlurcher (talk) 19:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I recently rewrote the own work bot to do everything in one edit. You might want to copy some of that code. By the way phab:T239172 recently got claimed . Multichill (talk) 17:38, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. It would be great if the author field is soon properly implemented. I will then prioritize this implementation on my bot, so we are on par with the changes. I will also look into your code regarding combining all to one edit. Currently my code (more bash based with calls to python) is a bit appart from yours, but I will definetly see what I can use. I did also spot a few areas where I could contribute to your code direcly (like data regex could also handle dates that are only up to the month or year). I will send some push reqeuests once I have some time to properly look into this so you can decide what you want to use. --Schlurcher (talk) 10:36, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

My focus is currently the bulk of files uploaded for Wiki Loves Monuments and related files. These files files are generally quite consistent also in the dates. Maybe you can have a shot at the harder cases? For a couple of editions of WLM I'm getting to the point that I can not convert more. Multichill (talk) 19:45, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

bot edits

Your bot has been adding structured data changing the licensing from CC-by-2.5 au(ported in Australia) to cc-by-2.5 unported for my uploads. Can you please fix ASAP Gnangarra 09:54, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Bot has been stopped. The bot is actually not able to structure CC-BY-2.5 AU licenses and it generally skips them. The issue is something specific about your uploads, other uploads using cc-by-2.5 au get skipped as expected. I'll update once I know more. --Schlurcher (talk) 14:55, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

You also added the category Category:CC-BY-2.5 to these uploads which apparently confuses the API that I am using to extract license information: API. And actually this overcategorization is confusing and unnecessary if you want your uploads to be cc-by-2.5 au only. I will remove this from your uploads to avoid further issues. --Schlurcher (talk) 09:43, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Dates of postcard backsides

The date in the file description cannot always be trusted, as this has to be manualy changed to the historical date if known. In File:De Lualaba.achterkant.jpg I later corrected the date.Smiley.toerist (talk) 08:58, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. The bot will currently copy the information from the date parameter of the file description. Once this is finished it will then make sure that updates to dates are synced. --Schlurcher (talk) 19:06, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Inception ?

Hello,

Your bot has added wikidata information to several photos that I have uploaded.

I don't understand the reason for adding "inception" item.
I've read the definition => https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P571
Inception means "date or point in time when the subject came into existence as defined"

As far I understand it's the creation date of the item represented and not the time when the photograph was taken !
If look at all the synonyms I have : "creation | established | establishment date [...] founding date | date of founding [...]"

But your bot added the shooting date of the photograph. :-/

• "19 August 2018" for https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cadran_solaire_analemmatique_de_La_Chapelle-aux-Lys.jpg
• "19 August 2018" for https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cadran_solaire_%C3%A9quatorial_de_La-Chapelle-aux-Lys.jpg
• "21 August 2016" for https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cadran-solaire-vertical-La-Chapelle-aux-Lys.jpg

These sundials have been created quite long before these shooting dates !

And more, if I look the "Structured data"
For "inception" I have "Unsupported data type" written in grayed out

So ?

Best regards
Eric Brosselin (talk) 23:45, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Please see Commons:Structured data/Modeling/Date for an explanation on what is going on. According to this, inception (P571) is to be used for storing the time

• photograph was taken,
• document created,
• painting or other artwork completed.

As your information templates describe the photograph and not the work of art, the structured data will also capture information on the photograph. As your photograph is not a direct reproduction of the work, I think this is correct. The date type will soon be supported, so this grayed out highlight will disappear once properly implemented. --Schlurcher (talk) 19:10, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Bot flag

Hi, bin ich der erste, der freundlich fragt, ob du für Edits wie diesen [24] ein Bot-Flag setzen könntest? Danke und Gruß --dealerofsalvation 17:31, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Hallo. Ja bist du. Soweit ich das sehe sind alle Edits als Bot Edits gekennzeichnet. Ich hatte das auch gerade nochmal überprüft. Es gibt allerdings soweit ich das sehe keine Möglichkeit diese zusätzlich als Nur Kleinigkeiten wurden verändert zu markieren. --Schlurcher (talk) 18:44, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Okay danke. War mir nicht bewusst, dass man das "B" nur in der Beobachtungsliste sieht, nicht in der Datei-Versionshistorie. Und, ja, wahrscheinlich ahnst du es, es geht mir darum, keine E-Mail-Benachrichtigung über solche Edits zu bekommen. Und ich sehe erst jetzt, dass man von E-Mail-Benachrichtigungen nur "kleine Änderungen" ausschließen kann, nicht aber Bot-Änderungen. Also, trotzdem danke für deine Bemühungen. --dealerofsalvation 20:16, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Adding inception without time component

Re this type of change, is there any way your bot could add the creation time as well as the date when adding inception (P571)? I guess there's the possibility of not knowing what timezone the time is in, but you already have that problem (i.e. if the time of the above file was in wikitext as 16 January 2017, 05:03:25, then you would still have added it as 16 January 2017 with a 1-day precision, but actually in UTC it'd be the 15th). — Sam Wilson ( Talk • Contribs ) … 10:48, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

The field as currently available in the structured data field does technically not allow to add times. Thus, I'm simply adding the date. --Schlurcher (talk) 12:40, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

inception (P571) is of type time and definitely supports time. It might be worth holding off on populating it until it's properly supported on Commons. Also, are you taking timezones into account when calculating the date? — Sam Wilson ( Talk • Contribs ) … 01:37, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Time is not supported on Wikidata and here. Plans exist to implement it at some point in the future, but that might take years. See also tasks like phab:T231979. Multichill (talk) 09:03, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

@Multichill: oh, I see what you mean. Yes, there's no UI for editing time; sorry, I wasn't being clear (the time component can still be added via API can't it?). And what about the timezone issue? The date displayed in the date field of a photo's {{Information}} template is in local time, but should be stored in inception (P571) in UTC (so it might be a different date). — Sam Wilson ( Talk • Contribs ) … 09:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure this conversion would be any helpful. I think we would expect that the date in inception (P571) is equal to the date in the information template. If the time-zone is given in the information template, then my current code will ignore the datetime completely. In these cases, we can do better once properly implemented. In all other cases, we would need to estimate the timezone anyhow. Then, estimating UTC is as correct or incorrect as any other timezone. I feel this uncertainty is covered by the given precision of 1 day currently added to inception (P571). --Schlurcher (talk) 19:35, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Bot edits of dates

Hi. I've been adding the {{Date}} template to files as it says that it reformats the date into the user's language. However, your bot has been following behind me and partially undoing my edits with a claim of "internationalisation."[25] Is there something wrong with using the template (in which case either the template needs fixing or the guidance correcting) or is your bot being a little too zealous? From Hill To Shore (talk) 00:34, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for reaching out. Unfortunately, there is no short answer, so please allow me to explain some details. The data parameter in the information template is setup to transform all dates in the ISO standard format (YYYY-MM-DD) such that it is transformed into the user's language. This process uses the same engine as the date template. So from the looks, the results from your code and the code after the bot is identical. However, there is also automatic processing of these dates happening. These codes normally expect the ISO format, as it is the most common. Thus, whereas the use of date template (as you did) versus ISO format (the bot) does not change the page content or functionality, it hampers re-usability of your dates by other tools as well as within the Commons:Structured data-project. So the current style is to not use the date template in the information template. The bot enforces this strategy. You should still use the date template in other cases where dates are used, like in-text descriptions. --Schlurcher (talk) 12:45, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Bot, SDC

Hallo,

Dein Bot macht SDC-Bearbeitungen in Dateien auf meiner Beobachtungsliste. Auch BotMultichill macht das. Aber BotMultichill nimmt nur eine Bearbeitung vor, um mehrere SDC-Änderungsn vorzunehmen, während Dein Bot immer gleich direkt hintereinander vier oder fünf Bearbeitungen derselben Datei vornimmt. Obwohl ich bei meiner Beo bereits den maximalen Wert von 1000 eingestellt habe, bedeutet dies, dass ich bereits dann, wenn ich mal sieben Stunden offline war, Bearbeitungen auf meiner Beobachtungsliste nicht zu Gesicht bekomme, weil es in diesen sieben Stunden mehr als 1000 Bearbeitungen gab.

Könntest Du also bitte Deinen Bot solange keine SDC-Bearbeitungen mehr machen lassen, bis Du das gefixt hast, und nur noch eine Bearbeitung für die Änderungden einer Datei benötigst? Und am besten darüberhinaus bis die Erhöhung des Limits von 1000 angezeigten Bearbeitungen an der die Entwickler ja gerade arbeiten, installiert ist? Und am besten noch darüberhinaus, bis es in der Präferenzen eine Option gibt, Bot-SDC-Berarbeitungen auszublenden (also solche Bearbeitungen, die SDC-Bearbeitungen durch einen Bot sind)? Danke.

--C.Suthorn (talk) 04:01, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Hallo, da sowohl meine Computerzeit als auch meine Entwicklungszeit begrenzt ist versuche ich momentan das Beste aus beidem zu machen. BotMultichill und ich arbeiten mit anderen Grundvoraussetzungen zur Identifikation der Dateien, deshalb ist es durchaus sinnvoll, dass beide parallel laufen. Die von dir vorgeschlagene Änderung ist nicht trivial und würden eine komplette Neuausrichtung bedeuten. Momentan warte ich auf eine Implementierung von phab:T239172. Danach kann ich endlich die Urheberinformation korrekt implementieren. Im Rahmen dieser Anpassung werde ich mir den ganzen Code nochmals ansehen. Die Beobachtungsliste gibt dir die Möglichkeit nur die aktuellste Version anzuzeigen, was dir etwas gegen die Flut von Änderungen helfen könnte. --Schlurcher (talk) 12:23, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Du hast beschränkte Zeit an Wikipedia zu arbeiten und daher ist es ok, mir aufzubürden, mehr Zeit aufzuwenden, und meine Arbeitsweise zu verändern, so dass ich zu schlechteren Ergebnissen komme. Danke für das Gespräch. --C.Suthorn (talk) 18:16, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Mittlerweile wurde das Autor-Feld implementiert und ich habe es heute geschafft alle ausstehenden Änderungen an meinem Code bezüglich zusätzlicher Features einzubauen. Als nächstes könnte ich mich dem zuwenden, dass alle Änderungen in einem Edit vorgenommen werden (das erforder allerdings ziemlich viele Änderungen und kann demnach dauern). Als Vorschlag zur Güte: Falls du mir eine Liste aller deine Dateien auf deiner Beobachtungsliste schicken möchtest (gerne auch per e-mail), so kann ich diese alle mit meinem Bot in einem Aufwasch erledigen. Dadurch würde deine Beobachtungsliste zwar punktuell komplett geflutet werden, danach hättest du allerdings Ruhe. --Schlurcher (talk) 10:52, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Mass Upload von HTSA

Ich bin immer ganz begeistert, was der SchlurcherBot so macht. Meinst Du, Du könntest ihn auch zur Reparatur der in Commons:Forum#Mass Upload von HTSA beschriebenen Probleme einsetzen? --NearEMPTiness (talk) 19:24, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Ich schaue mir das gerne einmal an. Könntest du bitte durch eine Beispieländerung an einer Datei aufzeigen, wie du dir das ganze vorstellst? Der angesprochene Fehler liegt daran, dass in der Beschreibung in senkrechter Strich vorkommt, wie er auch in Vorlagen verwendet wird. --Schlurcher (talk) 09:46, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Danke für die schnelle Rückmeldung. Ich habe die Änderungswünsche in File:500 Class Mountain Type Locomotive Engine at Islington(GN06908) (cropped).jpg Schritt für Schritt eingepflegt. Die Reparatur des Fuß/Zoll-Problems erscheint mir für einen Bot zu aufwendig. Außerdem weiß ich nicht, ob die Lemmas geändert werden sollen, oder ob das zu viele Redirects erfordern würde. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 10:59, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Ich merke gerade mit Freude, dass ‎Steinsplitter z.B. hier schon aktiv wurde. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 07:40, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Perfekt. Steinsplitter ist einer unser aktiven Bot Betreiber. Falls du in Zukunft weitere solche Anfragen hast, kannst du es auch gerne hier probieren: Commons:Bots/Work requests. Ich habe die Seite auf meiner Beobachtungsliste, wie auch andere Bot Betreiber. Die Wahrscheinlichkeit, dass dir dort schnell geholfen wird, ist recht groß. Ich z.B. wäre frühestens am Wochenende dazu gekommen. --Schlurcher (talk) 09:33, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Original upload date vs inception date

Hi! In this edit, your bot added 2010-08-05 as the inception date, but that’s only stated as original upload date in wikitext. The two are not the same, please don’t add statements based on such data (and please revert already-added statements if possible). Thanks in advance, —Tacsipacsi (talk) 11:12, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I have corrected this. --Schlurcher (talk) 11:34, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Commons:Bots/Requests/SchlurcherBot7

Hey Schlurcher,

Is this task operational? The category now has lots of files. It's not urgent, you can reply whenever you have time. // Eatcha (talk) 03:31, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. The job failed for some reason. I'll activate is soon again. --Schlurcher (talk) 09:08, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Failed again, but now I know the issue. It fails if the category to be added is already there. I need to add to the code that it then removes the not needed Category:Videos needing display resolution category. Will likely take till the weekend until I can fix this. --Schlurcher (talk) 15:25, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Should be fixed now. Will run now daily. --Schlurcher (talk) 16:16, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! //Eatcha (talk) 16:32, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

new edits

please don't overwrite human edits, that are made seconds before bot edit https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:AM_N06048.jpg&type=revision&diff=407972885&oldid=407972782&diffmode=source WikedKentaur (talk) 07:11, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi WikedKentaur, this is the first time that I am ware of such a chase. This edit is performed by the pywikibot-framework. It should normally take care of these cases. I will make sure that my installation is up to date. Otherwise, there is nothing more that I can do at the moment, I guess. --Schlurcher (talk) 11:08, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

photograph "inception"

Your bot marked File:Agnes Geraldine Grove.jpg with inception 1908, but there is no indication that the photograph originated in 1908. Rather, 1908 is the date of publication. It might have been taken earlier than 1908, not not later. Stating that 1908 is the date of inception makes a statement that is not supported by any data. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:36, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi, the bot simply copies the data parameter. So we would need to update the date parameter as well. I added {{Date context|published|1908}} to fix this. --Schlurcher (talk) 15:30, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Also, for photos a better property would be point in time (P585). --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 20:40, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Please contribute to the discussion at Commons:Structured data/Modeling/Date. This is not my preference of style, but a community consensus to use inception (P571). --Schlurcher (talk) 12:25, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

There is no active discussion there, and no clear means to contribute. I have questions about complicated situations that I cannot find the answers to, such as audio files where there is one date for the publication of the content of the recording, and another date for the release of the audio recording, and a third for the date of local upload. But your bot tags that whole thing with "date of inception" and picks one of those dates. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:35, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

The talk pages are the best place for these discussions. Simply start a new thread there. --Schlurcher (talk) 17:11, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Bot adding structured data

Hi there! I am confused by edits such as this. It appears you are applying structured data statements to the media file that actually apply to the depicted work. I don't know that there is community consensus about how best to describe such situations, but I don't think that it is the way you are doing it. We should not conflate when digital image was made with when the original work was made, or the creator of the work with the creator of the digital representation, and so on. Dominic (talk) 14:50, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for reaching out. Please see Commons:Structured data/Modeling/Date: "The most relevant property to Commons is inception (P571), which is equivalent to date field in {{Information}} template, and which should be used for storing the time

• photograph was taken,
• document created,
• painting or other artwork completed.

For your example it should be the time the document was created (same as the data parameter in the information template). --Schlurcher (talk) 17:16, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Baik untuk berita eksplorasi ruang angkasa komen Masdar bs dikebumen Jateng nkri

Baik mengenai pengetahuan alam di luar angkasa komen Masdar bs dikebumen Jateng nkri Budi Santoso Masdar (talk) 09:47, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Bad “parameter fix” by Schlurcherbot

Hi Schlurcher, I had to revert this one which is plain wrong. {{Own}} implies that this file is the (original) uploader's own work. It is not to be used in case of OTRS permission cases where the uploader is not the author. If a the uploader names the author in the source field, this is to be interpreted that the uploader received this photo directly from the photographer. We do not want to “fix” this. Regards, --AFBorchert (talk) 06:21, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I have cancelled this edit. I only made the update 2 days ago. I will check for other files impacted. --Schlurcher (talk) 08:40, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 09:24, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Reducing number of edits

Your bot seems to be doing a good job, e.g., at File:Bibury_2015_01.jpg - but it makes quite a few edits for each file. Any chance of combining them so it just makes the one edit, please? I think this is technically possible, as @Multichill's bot does this. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:54, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I think I shared https://github.com/multichill/toollabs/blob/master/bot/commons/own_work_sdoc.py#L149 before. Rewriting your code to that shouldn't take more than a couple of hours and will reduce the number of edits a lot and as a result of that, also speed up the bot. Multichill (talk) 19:14, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I am aware of Multichill's code and it should definitly be possible to do this. However, due to COVID-19 and loss of child care, I have basically no free time to look into this. So the bot is running unsupervised at the moment. Please let me know if I should stop it until I find time to solve this. --Schlurcher (talk) 13:38, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Might be worth putting the bot on pause now, rewrite the code later and resume. Is your code available online somewhere? Multichill (talk) 14:12, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I was only suggesting it as an improvement, I don't think it's a blocker to the bot running as-is until you have more free time. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:40, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for being patient. I think I figured it out during the weekend. Now the bot performs one edit to add all claims. I'll perform a QC on each edit so far and then return back to batch processing. I also have to fix that it adds multiple license text to the summary, in case it adds more than one license claim. But so far this is a major improvement. --Schlurcher (talk) 09:54, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

SDC & authorship

Your bot made this edit; but this is better. Would it be possible to detect such cases, perhaps by checking if the user name is used on an item in Wikidata? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:37, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Pigsonthewing: Thanks for your comment. You are correct, the second edit is of course better. I do not want to rely on a text match to a Wikidata item, as this might lead to mismatches. What I could do would be to implement some kind of look-up table. Ideally, users would directly use the wikidata item in the author parameter and then I could assign the SDC accordingly. Independent of an overall plan, that I have to develop when I have some more time, do you want me to match your contributions to your Wikidata item? --Schlurcher (talk) 19:57, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

You can match mine to the Wikidata item about me. Thierry Caro (talk) 18:51, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@Thierry Caro: Done in my development script. Could you please check the outcome in File:Artothèque-Réunion.JPG. Thanks --Schlurcher (talk) 11:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

OK. Thank you. I wish there was a way for anyone with a Wikidata item to benefit from this, though. Thierry Caro (talk) 11:48, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Any idea how I could get such a list? I would need both the exact string in the author field (likely the signature) and the corresponding wikidata item and it hast to be error proof. --Schlurcher (talk) 11:50, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Apologies for the late reply. You may be able to solve this programmatically - an certainly can do so for my images - by matching (parent) categories (e.g. Category:Andy Mabbett) or creator templates (e.g. {{Creator:Andy Mabbett}}) to Wikidata; but in the interim, please do match my works to the item about me. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:25, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll update soon to have your contributions matched to the corresponding Wikidata ID. I'm fine to match Creator templates to the underlying Wikidata items. However, they seem rarely be used by individual contributors more by institutions or batch uploaders. --Schlurcher (talk) 16:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done --Schlurcher (talk) 19:18, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Bot's Wikidata edits

Hi. Thank you for the SchlurcherBot. It automates so many tasks and makes life easier. I noticed the bot made this edit to one of my uploads. It has tagged copyright status as Public Domain, while in fact, it is CC0 1.0. Could you please update the settings of the bot that it tags CC0 work as d:Q6938433 and not d:Q19652? Public Domain dedication is not the same as Public Domain after all (depending on the jurisdiction). Thank you for your time.
acagastya 18:54, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

@Acagastya: you might want to have a look at Commons talk:Structured data/Modeling/Copyright. Multichill (talk) 21:40, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

@Multichill: Copyright status depends on the jurisdiction. If a jurisdiction does not allow the author to relinquish all their rights, in that case, Public Domain Dedication is not the same as Public Domain, as there are some rights (for example, moral rights) reserved.
acagastya 22:24, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

@Acagastya: you missed the point. The discussion on how to model this is far from done as you can see on the talk page. Schlurcher is using the classic wiki approach: Just do it and if it's wrong, people will complain and we can improve. Your message was the complain part, let's revive the topic at Commons talk:Structured data/Modeling/Copyright so we can go to the improve part. Multichill (talk) 16:17, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@Multichill: I will do it tomorrow. Thank you for pointing out!
acagastya 21:51, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I am looking forward to your contribution to the discussion regarding this topic. Thank you. --Schlurcher (talk) 11:41, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

High SchlurcherBot login rate

Hello!

Your bot is logging into Wikimedia projects over 36K times in a 48H period, which is excessive, and shouldn't be necesssary.

See https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T256533#6261565

Can you do anything about this?

https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/API:Login#Additional_notes

>If you are sending a request that should be made by a logged-in user, add assert=user parameter to the request you are sending in order to check whether the user is logged in. If the user is not logged-in, an assertuserfailed error code will be returned.

Reedy (talk) 14:19, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I have to look into this. Currently, I prepare the edits outside of python and then send the requests to the API via python. --Schlurcher (talk) 10:00, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

@Reedy: I have switched to OAuth authentication removing the necessity to log-in prior to each request. This should take care of the vast majority of my login requests. Currently my bot is operating at ~10% of it's normal speed. Could you please check within a day or two if this resolved the issue. If so, I will resume normal operation. --Schlurcher (talk) 17:56, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

SchlurcherBot does not respect wikilinks

See this edit, which I have reverted for now – the wikilinks were totally stripped from the description for some reason. --Rohieb (talk) 14:24, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I see now why this edit was made: the links were missing a colon in front of Category… my bad! I accept that this is maybe an edge case, but I think the behaviour of the bot could be improved regarding the spacing around the category links here. Or it could notice when the category links occur in running text and make correct [[:Category]] links out of them instead? --Rohieb (talk) 14:28, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. This is the first instance that was brought to my attention, where the category links were meant to be in-text. In all other cases, the categories were intended to be categories but just scattered everywhere in the wikitext. I can confirm that the bot will not edit your revised version, which I think was also the intended way in the first place. So based on my current unterstanding I will not change bot behavior for now. --Schlurcher (talk) 08:43, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Koordinaten

Hallo Schlurcher, ich denke, wir können deutsch reden. Ich beobachte gerade, dass Dein Bot serienweise Bilder von mir mit Unsinnskoordinaten versieht. [26] schickt einen nach Berlin, nicht nach Parchim; [27] nach Landshut, nicht nach Neumarkt-St. Veit, [28] nach Barby, nicht nach Nedlitz usw. usf. Da ich sicher auch mal an den Plätzen war, wohin die Koordinaten zeigen, sieht es so aus, dass das GPS meiner Kamera (sollten eigentlich verschiedene Kameras gewesen sein) da falsche Daten liefert, die man nicht einfach so dem Nutzer zumuten kann.
Weiß nicht, ob ich der einzige bin, den das so betrifft, aber einfach exif-Daten -> Beschreibung funktioniert zumindest bei mir so nicht. Grüße, --Global Fish (talk) 12:30, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Hallo, wir können gerne deutsch reden. Der Bot kopiert eigentlich nur die GPS Daten aus der Bildbeschreibung in die Strukturierten Daten, also genau das, was bei {{Location dec}} angegeben ist. Der Bot verwendet nicht die EXIF Daten aus den Dateien. Falls Du also der Meinung bist, dass der Bot falsche Daten kopiert, so möchte ich Dich bitten, die entsprechenden Änderungen rückgängig zu machen und die Information in {{Location dec}} zu korrigieren. --Schlurcher (talk) 07:20, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

File:Morning, just after sunrise, Namibia.jpg

Hallo Schlurcher, gibt es einen Grund für die Entfernung der structured Data aus obiger Datei? Liebe Grüße --Olga Ernst (talk) 19:10, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Ich sehe keinen Grund. Kann auch versehentlich passiert sein. --Schlurcher (talk) 05:44, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Koordinaten (2)

Hello Schlurcher, just a question: why does your bot not copy the camera location, each time it is editing my files (example), whereas it does this otherwise (example)? Thanks. --A.Savin 13:23, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Savin, so far my bot is only able to handle coordinates in decimal format. I will include other formats later. --Schlurcher (talk) 18:37, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

My name is A.Savin. If possible, please prevent your bot from editing my files, as long as the other formats are not fixed (my files are in subcats of Category:Photographs by A.Savin/by year). Thanks --A.Savin 19:54, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

A.Savin, that is not directly possible. The bot currently works on a list of all pages that exist and performs each SDC addition it is capable at this time. --Schlurcher (talk) 05:17, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Mistaken structured data

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Names_for_tea.png&curid=75946680&diff=431832762&oldid=367720050 Please stop your bot from making edits like this. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:36, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Simply correct the data parameter in the information template yourself. Thanks. --Schlurcher (talk) 14:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

It shouldn't be using d:Property:P571 at all. If anything, it should be using d:Property:P577. Why is it using this property? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:27, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Why are you adding these data?

How is this an inception? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:47, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Looks to me like a work of art that was made at a particular time. Jim.henderson (talk) 14:50, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi, please see Commons:Structured data/Modeling/Date for context. Especially: There are many properties related to time which are shared between Wikidata and Commons, and they are all listed in d:Wikidata:List of properties/time. The most relevant property to Commons is inception (P571), which is equivalent to date field in {{Information}} template, and which should be used for storing the time photograph was taken, document created, painting or other artwork completed. --Schlurcher (talk) 15:02, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

SchlurcherBot (Grouping categories at the bottom)

Hi! I noticed special:diff/437056980 places the template next to eachother. I wonder if it would be better to insert a line break between the templates. Just like with the categories where there is only 1 per line. I love what the bot does so it's not a complaint. It's very helpful that the bot clean up!!! --MGA73 (talk) 11:03, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Agree, the bot could have done better here. I'm not sure there is an easy fix for this, however. Contrary to Categories, Templates can also be nested, so this quickly can lead to a lot of errors. --Schlurcher (talk) 11:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah it is not always easy. Personally I would for example like {{Information}} to be cleaned up too. I move files from other wikis to Commons and if possible I try to make it look more pretty before I transfer the files. A few examples here and here. I think adding spaces to make the "=" stand on a line should be "easy". I would also like that the fields came in the same order on all files and that all fields are there. Having the bot do that would be be much harder. Also I do not know if it is possible to agree on how a template should look :-) --MGA73 (talk) 13:03, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Panoramico SDOC coordinates

Hi Schlurcher, I noticed on File:"Altstadtsanierung" - Kahlschlag am Landgrafenschloss - Eschwege Ecke Schildgasse-Schlossplatz - panoramio.jpg that you added structured data, but no coordinates. I assume it's because of the source tag in {{Location|51.18854|10.05363|source:Panoramio}}? Maybe you can update your regex so that you can also catch these templates? Multichill (talk) 11:31, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

@Multichill: Thanks for highlighting. I have fixed this already in around June 2020. So these location are now added. Actually, I'm currently focusing new features around the following 4 categories:

• Category:Pages with local camera coordinates and missing SDC coordinates
• Category:Pages with local camera heading and missing SDC heading
• Category:Pages with local object coordinates and missing SDC coordinates
• Category:Pages with local object heading and missing SDC heading

Currently my edit rate is around 80% and I will try to add additional coordinate variantes as I see them. But currently there are still to many to tacke the remaining ones. Another issue is that the categories do not get refreshed after a SDC change, so these tracking categories may not be up to date. --Schlurcher (talk) 08:29, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Ok. Great! Do a page.touch() after you did the SDC edit. This will trigger the update. Multichill (talk) 11:17, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Beobachtungsliste entlasten

Hallo Schlurcher, wäre es dir allenfalls möglich, meine Uploads in deinem Botlauf automatically adding structured data claims mal am Stück durchzugehen? Dies würde meine Beobachtungsliste entlasten. --Leyo 12:28, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Hallo, kann ich gerne machen. Ich denke ich komme am Wochenende dazu. --Schlurcher (talk) 12:53, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Danke! --Leyo 07:38, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

File:Bernardino da parenzo, adorazione dei magi, 1475 ca..JPG

I was looking at SDC for File:Bernardino da parenzo, adorazione dei magi, 1475 ca..JPG added by your bot and I think we will have to model the copyrights better in this case, as it is not clear if CC license is for the painting or for the artwork. Maybe for time being your bot should avoid photographs of artworks which have their own copyright statement. --Jarekt (talk) 04:14, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

You are correct. Last time I checked the bot did skip these artwork templates. As far as I understand, the self licence should be part of the photo license and not be applicable to the general page. I will make sure to be more restrictive on these cases. --Schlurcher (talk) 08:48, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

There are 4098 similar cases. I will revert them accordingly. Probably over the next week or so. --Schlurcher (talk) 11:33, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I have further looked into this. Apparently ~2000 of these cases are from my bot and ~2000 from @Multichill: . All I checked used a licence for the complete page description, none used the photo license field. So technically it is hard to identify these cases and almost impossible to sort these out in an automated run. I'm now ignoring all files that do not use an information template, which will effectively skip all art related files. --Schlurcher (talk) 14:52, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I will try to develop and document a way to model such copyright statements and try to come up with automatic ways of finding such files. In the mean time concentrating on images that use {{Information}} template only is a great way to exclude those. I would also concentrate on Own work works first. Also it would be good to skip files that have digital representation of (P6243) statements, as I was adding those lately to paintings that did not have them (no matter what template they use). Also we could develop some word filters, maybe file description with terms: painting, sculpture, book, bust, statue, oil on canvas, etching, Sailko, etc. "Sailko" is for files in Category:Photographs by User:Sailko, as he has >230k photographs of mostly artworks. That way we can concentrate on such files letter, so we have time to reach some consensus on how to model them. --Jarekt (talk) 16:14, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

SDC author when wikitext is not linked

Hi! Your bot skipped adding author here, probably because there’s no link in the {{Information}} parameter. However, it clearly refers to the user named btr, as this user is the uploader of the picture (see upload log). Is it possible that, whenever it finds an unformatted author, the bot compares it to the uploader of the file? (Please note that the first letter of the user name may be lower case in the information template while it’s always upper case in the actual user name, and the actual user name may have a ~commonswiki suffix that isn’t present in the information template.) Thanks in advance, —Tacsipacsi (talk) 14:27, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I will look into this. As the bot is currently running in a very high edit rate I have programmed it very defensively, so the edits might be incomplete rather than wrong. --Schlurcher (talk) 17:55, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi and I love your bot

I was wondering if this info can be added to all the maps I made recently?
Is that something your bot can do?
|source=

• PR GIS data from http://www.gis.pr.gov/Pages/default.aspx
• Downloaded version, once unzipped reads, "barrios_2015_geold_corrected_16_nov17"
• using gvSIG desktop 2.4.0.2850 final
• Own work

Regards, --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 18:22, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Should be possible. Do you have a list of all your maps? Please also perform and link an example edit, so I can be sure what you expect. --Schlurcher (talk) 07:22, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi.
anything in here: Category:Locator maps of wards of Puerto Rico
created by me: The Eloquent Peasant
from this date: August 1, 2020 to present
Example of edit requested can be seen in this dif: diff link
Please let me know if you need a list better. If you would like a list I can make one.

Thank you! It would be a great help. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 15:35, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Should be done in an hour or so. --Schlurcher (talk) 17:53, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

You are very kind. Thank you! --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 19:39, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Also, I didn't know we could use AWB to update files on commons. I'll have to check out the manual. Thanks again and have an easy weekend! --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 20:29, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Botfrage

Hallo Schlurcher, wie kommt der Bot bitte auf diese Angaben? Da steht etwas völlig anderes in der Box. --Ailura (talk) 09:09, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Hallo! Das von dir verlinkte Beispiel verwendet leider die Vorlage {{Own}} falsch (Use this to say that you personally created the entire original image by yourself). Während mein Bot aufgesetzt und geprüft wurde, wurde bereits festgestellt, dass man sich nicht direkt auf diese Vorlage verlassen kann. Mein Bot prüft zwar noch weitere Bedingugnen, beispielsweise ob der Uploadername mit dem Namen im Autorenfeld enthalten ist und nimmt dann erst an, dass die Vorlage richtig verwendet wurde. Ich muss das hier allerdings noch restriktiver einstellen, was ich machen werde. Deine Datei sollte allerdings eine andere Vorlage verwendetn. Grüße --Schlurcher (talk) 19:22, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Botfrage

Hallo Schlurcher, ich hätte gern gewusst, welche Sinfälligkeit in der Massenbearbeitung Deines SchlurcherBot in den Bilddateien liegt. Beinhaltet der Einsatz des Bots ‎SchlurcherBot die Funktion eines Auftragsbearbeiters (Auftragsverarbeiter) nach DSGVO? Könnte es sein, dass auf diese Weise personenbezogene Daten agglomeriert werden? Die Zweckbeschreibungen auf der Bot-Seite erscheint mir leider als unzureichend. Freundliche Grüße --Lysippos (talk) 16:32, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Bezüglich der Zweckbeschreibung siehe bitte Commons:Bots/Requests/SchlurcherBot8 sowie Commons:Structured data/Modeling.

Bezüglich Datenschutz siehe bitte den Link unten auf der Homepage (https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Privacy_policy). Ich zitiere hier ohne Anspruch auf Vollständigkeit aus der Übersetzung (für die offizielle, rechtlich verbindliche Version dieses Dokuments, siehe bitte unter dem Link das englischsprachige Original):

• Die Wikimedia Foundation ist eine gemeinnützige Organisation mit Sitz in San Francisco, Kalifornien, mit Servern und Datenzentren in den USA. Wenn Sie sich für die Nutzung von Wikimedia-Websites entscheiden, sei es innerhalb oder außerhalb der USA, haben Sie verstanden, dass Ihre personenbezogenen Daten in den USA erfasst, übermittelt, gespeichert, verarbeitet, offengelegt und anderweitig verwendet werden, wie in dieser Datenschutzrichtlinie beschrieben. Sie haben auch verstanden, dass in Zusammenhang mit der Bereitstellung der Dienste für Sie Ihre Daten von uns aus den USA in andere Staaten übermittelt werden können, die ggf. andere oder weniger strengere Datenschutzgesetze haben als Ihr Land.
• Wenn Sie Fragen oder Anregungen zu dieser Datenschutzerklärung oder den im Rahmen dieser Bestimmungen erfassten Informationen haben, schreiben Sie uns bitte eine E-Mail unter privacy@wikimedia.org (...)

Grüße --Schlurcher (talk) 19:29, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Meine Frage nach der Sinfälligkeit in der Massenbearbeitung Deines SchlurcherBot in den Bilddateien ist damit leider nicht beantwortet. Da Du der Programmierer und Betreiber des Bots bist (nicht die Wikimedia Foundation), damit persönlich verantwortlich für dessen Einsatz und seine Funktion, frage ich Dich hiermit. Zwei weitere Fragen: (1) Wie wählt SchlurcherBot die Reihenfolge der von ihm bearbeiteten Dateien aus? (2) Wie begründest Du dessen Einsatzzweck? --Lysippos (talk) 21:17, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

1) Siehe Special:AllPages.

2) Siehe Commons:Structured data. Bei Fragen zur Sinfälligkeit des Projekt ist dies hier nicht der richtige Platz, dafür gibt es Commons talk:Structured data --Schlurcher (talk) 08:06, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Flickr

Hi Schlurcher, did you already make something for files in Category:Flickr images reviewed by FlickreviewR? I guess not based on this edit, but wanted to check. If not, I might have a shot at it. Multichill (talk) 16:47, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I covered Panoramio, not Flickr. All yours. --Schlurcher (talk) 17:02, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

@Multichill: I have added the structure of my panoramio processing to Commons:Structured data/Modeling. The structure was borrowed from your Geograph uploads. So it should already ensure some concistency. --Schlurcher (talk) 08:07, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Just noticed your comment. The ping didn't work because you didn't sign the reply in the same edit as you pinged me.

I just implemented the Flickr part and it uses the same logic. I'm currently focusing on bulk processing a lot of files and doing as much as possible in one edit. Multichill (talk) 19:50, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Please do null edit after SDoC edit

Hi Schlurcher, I noticed File:Struhařov (okres Benešov), chalupa.jpg showing up in a tracker category after your bot edited it. This is probably because a structured data edit doesn't properly trigger an update. Can you please do a null edit after the SDoC edit to make sure the page gets updated? In pywikibot it's just page.touch(). Thanks, Multichill (talk) 20:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I do this for all the maintenance categories that I am monitoring, but always as a speparate process afterwards. Same for the batch process on all pages. But this touch process fails every now and then. I find the pywikibot framework honestly rather unreliable when it comes to hundredths of files. I have restarted it now, but it will take some time to catch up. --Schlurcher (talk) 09:08, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

You're probably hitting phab:T261050? Just tagged you on it. Multichill (talk) 16:14, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Affected:

• File:Moskau-U-Bahn-5.jpg

And also:

• File:Moskau-U-Bahn-2.jpg
• File:Alexander-III-Moskau.jpg

Yours sincerely, VLu (talk) 12:24, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

date de la photo représentant Mme Léon Bertaux (UFPS)

Merci d'avoir ajouté la date de création de cette photo https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Anonyme-1889-Madame_L%C3%A9on_Bertaux_(1825-1909).jpg

--Thinouss (talk) 05:40, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

GFDL item

Hi Schlurcher, I noticed that you used GNU Free Documentation License (Q22169) instead of GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.2 or later (Q50829104) on quite a few files. Maybe something you want to fix. Multichill (talk) 20:25, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

SchlurcherBot

Hallo Schlurcher, da [29] ist wohl noch etwas Finetunig nötig... Gruß, Achim (talk) 10:35, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Sieht nach einem Problem des Pywikiframework aus. Ich werde mal wieder ein Komplettupdate durchführen. --Schlurcher (talk) 11:54, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

General exclusion of e-mail notifications for bot changes: Bots cause a lot of e-mails

Hallo Schlurcher, die Tätigkeit des Bots SchlurcherBot ist aus meiner Sicht sehr wichtig und hilfreich. Danke dafür. Gleichzeitig würde ich mir wünschen, dass ich über die Änderungen, die die SchlurcherBot nicht per E-Mail informiert werden würde. Dabei möchte ich aber nicht grundsätzlich auf Benachrichtigungen über Änderungen an den Dateien verzichten. Ich weiß, dass ist ein Spagat. Hättest Du eine Idee, wie das möglich wäre? Danke für Deine Arbeit. PS: Eine ähnliche Anfrage habe ich hier gestellt. Viele Grüße --Molgreen (talk) 11:33, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Leider habe ich darauf keinen Einfluss. In den Einstellungen ist es jedoch möglich, diese E-Mails als tägliche oder wöchentliche Zusammenfassung zu erhalten. --Schlurcher (talk) 20:26, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

1555 Gregorian ?

I notice that SchlurcherBot added "structured data claims" to File:Brussel 1555 Deventer.jpg, including a "foundation or creation date" of "1555 Gregorian". However, the Gregorian calendar only came into force in October 1582. So are any dates until 1582-10-04 to be regarded as both Julian and Gregorian, or should any mention of "Gregorian" at or before that date be replaced by "Julian", or (maybe better) simply omitted? — Tonymec (talk) 21:12, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I have fixed this now. --Schlurcher (talk) 14:47, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Coords additions

Your bot is meanwhile adding coords' claims to my pictures too, yet there is still something wrong with it. The smaller problem is, that the seconds are not precise: for example here, that should have been 48.9 and 56.6 respectively. The more severe problem is, when you look at the same file, just as example. If I go to SCD coords' map and try to zoom in/out, this just throws me to the top of the page -- no chance to see the map! What would you say? --A.Savin 10:24, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

By the way with yesterday's similar edits on few other files this problem has not appeared. --A.Savin 11:44, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi, the structured data coordinates are stored with the decimal layout and not the hour,minutes,seconds layout that you use in your pictures. So, the observation you made is due to conversion and within the rounding error and precision given in the statement. So, I'm leaning to accept this behavior. Regarding your second observation: I experience the same behavior in Chrome browser, but not the Internet Explorer / Edge. So this seems to be a browser issue and not an issue with my bot. Have you checked another browser? --Schlurcher (talk) 19:31, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't understand how this can be a browser issue, if other files (for example, the Berlin-Niederschöneweide file I named above, or my recent uploads where I add SCD coords myself) are OK. And why please shall I switch to Opera or (God forbid) Internet Explorer just to see the SCD map on some of my files, if I use Firefox and I am perfectly fine with it? --A.Savin 19:56, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand how this can be a browser issue either, but it seems to be, as the experience differs in the different browsers. For this to be resolved you would need to reach out to the Wikimedia developers or Browser developers. A good start might be that you make a ticket at https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/ --Schlurcher (talk) 12:35, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with Phabricator.

It seems to be, that it's the "heading" qualifier that causes the problem. Here your bot added the coords+heading, and there is the map problem. Here I reverted your bot and added the same data by hand, but still the same problem. And here I reverted myself and added just the coords w/o heading, and now is fine. Another file, your bot added just the coords (as there wasn't any heading info added), and all is fine too. --A.Savin 13:29, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Structured data

Danke SchlurcherBot für das unermüdliche Zutun der structured data zu allen Files ! Grüße --Olga Ernst (talk) 18:36, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not glad with the bots making mass edits (changed an entity, adding structured data...) of my uploaded photos, including the bot of yours. For this reason, it is difficult to notice the relevant information. What I personally need to change in the description of the newly uploaded pics so that the bot no longer needs improvement. Thanks for your understanding.--Vilensija (talk) 10:20, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Taken over dates from post cards

Some times the date is the scan date not the date the picture is taken. see: File:Stomer uit Harwich briefkaart.jpg. I corrected this to before WW I (educated gueswork). Can you set a filter for the bot, not to accept postcards less than 70 years old? Younger post cards have licencing problems and should not be there.Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:29, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I can try. Can you help me with a reliable way to identify postcards? --Schlurcher (talk) 16:18, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

There is no cure for sloppy uploading. Some images are later to be discovered, as postcards due to the content. However there are two filters wich can easily be applied:

• All files in categories wich have 'postcards ' within the name. Most workers put a file in a 'postcard' category as soon as one is discovered. I also put the template 'postcard' in the source description. Some uploaders put 'private collection' in the source description or just wrongly upload it as 'own work'.

• All files wich have an PD licence depending on the age of the work (mostly 70 years) should never have a date in the digital time period. Digital pictures or scans of old images (postcards) are by definition in the digital age. The widespread use of digital started in the 1990's. This is a broader criterium than only postcards. Files coming from GLAM projects have their own dates, from their research. Quite often they dont identify the image as a postcard, but that does not matter.

It would be usefull to have checklist of the flagged files, so they can be manualy checked. (when we have time and capacity for this. There are other priorities).

I have one question: Does the script work the other way if a date is removed or replaced? I usualy update Wikidata when I change dates, but other editors are not that carefull.Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:42, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Adding location in structured data by bots

I notice that the zoom out and zoom in button dont work in many locations. (they put you back to the homepage) I see no location on a map. What is going on? example: File:Vlaamse schouwburg in Antwerpen.jpg

Greetings,

Smiley.toerist (talk) 14:11, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

That's a browser issue with Chrome. So you should report this to the Chrome support. --Schlurcher (talk) 20:00, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

SchlurcherBot adding coordinate location to image

Just a general question for SchlurcherBot and the was coordinate location is added to the structured data. The file uses {{Object location dec}} and has P180 (depicts) info for structured data. It seems that the bot prefers to use the location data from wikidata over the location data provided in the image. Is there any specific reason why? This is just a small park so it doesn't matter a whole lot, but I can imagine this beeing a bigger problem in larger areas.
--D-Kuru (talk) 12:56, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi, the bot is currently only copying information from the file description page to the structured data. In structured data the location is however displayed with one additional decimal place. Thus, it looks the same as the one on wikidata. --Schlurcher (talk) 19:59, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

New property for object location

See d:Wikidata:Property proposal/Coordinates of depicted place. Multichill (talk) 16:09, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Could you give me another hint once this is final, so I can update all my coding. --Schlurcher (talk) 16:16, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, will do, have to do that myself too. Multichill (talk) 17:12, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

a task for a bot, perhaps

First (and foremost) I love that your bot puts the cats at the end.

Second (maybe third and fourth now that I think about it) there has been an upload of pdf here. Rumor is that there are 800,000 of them. They lack template items which could be there but blank, for human use.

|Wikidata = |Wikisource = |Image page =

I have been putting them under the oclc but that was for my ease.

My personal big mistake, which brought me here is that all of my Wikisource entries over the past week or so are wrong. They should be s:en:Index:{{PAGENAME}} I forgot "Index".

And more, there are cats that can be determined from the existing information. Category:YYYY books PDF files and maybe Category:PDF files in language but that one is en = English fr = French, etc. And I am not certain of the format of the language cats.

Yes, even more. The pdf were uploaded even if a djvu file had been uploaded either by IAUpoad or manually. The IAUploads were well documented and there is a template entry for dups, I think. I'd like to see a list of them, maybe a new cat! Whee!

File:The school law of Michigan (IA schoollawofmichi00hamm).pdf a pdf I added things to. File:The school law of Michigan.djvu the djvu I uploaded via IAUpload. Category:Uploaded with IA Upload for your ease at poking around.

Thanks for your perpetual clean up and your consideration of these new tasks.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 17:55, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

SchlurcherBot categories issue

Greetings. I am facing a bit of an unintended issue with the bot moving notation away from the category it is intended to be next to and placing it up by the licensing. It has done this on several files now. You may wish to look into this. Fry1989 ^eh? 16:07, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for the hint. I have updated the code such that these changes will not be performed any more. --Schlurcher (talk) 18:31, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Unwanted E-Mail notification

I get a lot of e-mails from SchlurcherBot, even though I entered the preferences on my user page under notification as an muted user.
--F. Riedelio • Diskussion • ✉ 06:55, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry to hear this. You may want to double check your settings and/or remove and re-add my bot as a muted user. If this does not help, please consider to contact the technical support: Commons:Village pump/Technical. --Schlurcher (talk) 09:44, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

SDC edit summary in French

Why is your bot adding some SDC data with an edit summary in French? [30] O Still Small Voice of Clam 17:12, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I assume your interface is in French. This is one of the benefits of structured data: The structured data component is automatically adjusted to your local setting. By the way, the part you are referring to as in French is in Germany for me. --Schlurcher (talk) 18:07, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

No, it's British English. O Still Small Voice of Clam 19:30, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Ok. But as British English was not available for this structured data claim, it used your second babel language. In the meantime, I think you should see the British English text, as I just updated the claim accordingly. --Schlurcher (talk) 21:27, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

That makes sense - I didn't realise that Babel was so powerful. I might take it off, as my school-standard "Ou est la gare, s'il vous plait" is unlikely to be much use on Commons O Still Small Voice of Clam 21:37, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For your contributions in getting structured licensing into Commons media files, thank you. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 18:17, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

		The Commons Barnstar
		Thank you for your efforts to add structured licenses to many Commons files. It's very helpful. RIsler (WMF) (talk) 19:28, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@RIsler (WMF) and Keegan (WMF): . Thank you for the recognition. My bot has recently completed a full run on all media uploaded to Commons and the vast majority of images have now copyright, date and license information. Self-made fotographs also have source and author information. For other typ of fotographs it is more difficult to add source and author information. I am currently mainly working on pictures with missing coordinate information. Are there any structured data components that are of particular interest to you or WMF, as they might be used downstream in tools under development? If so, please let me know and I can prioritize these accordingly. --Schlurcher (talk) 10:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Bearbeitete Koordinaten und der Bot

Hallo Schlurcher, auf der WikiMiniAtlas Weltkarte sehe ich viele offensichtlich falsch verortete Bilder (meist Ost-West oder Nord-Suer Vertauscher). Das Template kann ich blitzschnell bearbeiten, aber die Structured Data nervt etwas. Das interface dort mit der kleinen Karte ist toll wenn man eine neue Koordinate sucht, aber unbrauchbar wenn man nur schnell ein Vorzeichen aender will (hast Du da einen Tip?). Dazu die Frage, updated Dein Bot auch manuell bearbeitete Koordinaten? --Dschwen (talk) 23:22, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Ich loesch den entsprechenden SDC claim einfach mal und hoffe auf Deinen Bot :-) ... --Dschwen (talk) 23:23, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

@Dschwen: Ich habe deine Ankündigung auf der Diskussionsseite von SDC gesehen und war sehr begeistert. Dann hat es sich gelohnt dass ich seit gut einem Monat fast ausschließlich Koordinaten mache (und dabei gefühlt schon hunderte unterschiedliche Möglichkeiten implementiert habe, wie man diese in den unzähligen Loctation templates darstellen kann). Zurück zu deiner Frage: Momentan konzentriere ich mich auf Category:Structured Data on Commons tracking categories. Wenn du nur die Beschreibung updatest, dann landen die Dateien in Category:Pages with local camera coordinates and mismatching SDC coordinates. Langfristig werde ich auch das angehen, aber das wird dauern (ehr Monate als Wochen). Falls du die SDC komplett löschst, dann landen die Dateien in Category:Pages with local camera coordinates and missing SDC coordinates. Dies bearbeitet mein Bot gerade und sollte mit einem Komplettdurchlauf in einer Woche fertig sein. Das ist also der schnelle Weg. Noch ein Tipp: Momentan funktionieren die Tracking Kategorien nur nach einem Purge. Wenn du also zuerst die SDC löschst und dann das Template änderst musst du keinen manuellen Purge durchführen. --Schlurcher (talk) 06:44, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Du hattest auch geschrieben, dass du Informationen in SDC vermisst, wie Dateiformat, Größe, etc. Kann man das nicht über die API abfragen? Zumindest scheint dies ohne SDC bei Special:MediaSearch zu funktionieren. --Schlurcher (talk) 06:44, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

API ist nicht so prall wenn man mal eben 16 millionen Bilder verarbeiten muss. Meine extraktion braucht via SQL DB etwa 5 Stunden. Viel laenger sollte es nicht daueren, damit man oft updaten kann. Mit meinem derzeitigen Ansatz werde ich wohl die SDC daten vom dump parsen und in eine SQL datenbank fuettern. So kann ich dann alle table joins machen und auch Bildgroesse etc. bekommen. Schoen waere es jedoch, wenn der 'globe' parameter in SDC auftauchen wuerde (fuer bilder von der Mond, Mars, etc. Oberflaeche). --Dschwen (talk) 17:08, 30 January 2021 (UTC)