Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SoxBot 17
- The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. The result of the discussion was
Denied.
Operator: Xclamation point
Automatic or Manually Assisted: Automatic
Programming Language(s): PHP
Function Overview: Modifying templates per this BOTREQ
Edit period(s): Bi-weekly
Already has a bot flag (Y/N): Y
Function Details: This bot will get all the transclusions of {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}}. For each one, it will see if {{Should be SVG}} is on it. If it is, then it removes both and adds {{Convert to SVG and copy to Wikimedia Commons}}.
Discussion[edit]
Why are there so many SoxBots and why is it seemingly impossible to figure out which do what? Is there a complete chart available somewhere? --MZMcBride (talk) 03:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- I've just edited all my config files to move them all to SoxBot. This bot request is for SoxBot, but its 17th task. Does that clear it up? Xclamation point 03:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Sort of, but the documentation on-wiki is now a mess. User:SoxBot lists a lot of different bots. If the bots are all functioning under the main account, the user pages (and user talk pages) should be redirected, as should the BRFAs. Though none of this addresses whether it's a particular good idea to put all your eggs in one basket. In fact, it's quite possible it's a particularly poor idea.... --MZMcBride (talk) 04:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- "all your eggs in one basket" encapsulates the problem neatly. SoxBot has a problem on one of its minor tasks reported here. Because there are so many eggs in this one basket the only response has been to prevent users stopping the bot. There are too many eggs in this basket. Bazj (talk) 22:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- Sort of, but the documentation on-wiki is now a mess. User:SoxBot lists a lot of different bots. If the bots are all functioning under the main account, the user pages (and user talk pages) should be redirected, as should the BRFAs. Though none of this addresses whether it's a particular good idea to put all your eggs in one basket. In fact, it's quite possible it's a particularly poor idea.... --MZMcBride (talk) 04:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
What's the purpose of this request? --MZMcBride (talk) 06:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I really don't understand why its so important that they be converted to SVG before being moved to commons. Surely as a "common" project specifically designed to host images, commons has at least as many, if not more people able to convert images to SVG than enwiki? Mr.Z-man 19:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Commons has asked that we not move images there that currently have problems, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Images and Media recommends fixing any problems before copying images over. But I'm not sure whether this counts or not. I'd recommend you ask at Commons:Commons:Village pump. – Quadell (talk) 15:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
- Have you asked at Commons yet? – Quadell (talk) 15:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what the problem is with the merging of templates. This bot is not moving images over, just merging two templates into one. Xclamation point 15:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
- If you use the Move-to-Commons assistant to move an image to Commons (which is the easiest and most common way to do it), the script keeps templates that also exist on Commons, but comments out templates that aren't extant in both places. So if the image has both the {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} and {{Should be SVG}} templates, the script will comment out the former and keep the latter, which is what we'd want. But if the image uses the combined {{Convert to SVG and copy to Wikimedia Commons}} template, then the whole thing would be commented out, and we'd lose the info (since such a template doesn't exist on Commons, and shouldn't). So basically, this bot task is only useful if it is preferable to convert pngs to svg before moving to Commons, but it's counter-productive if it's preferable to move them first and then convert them. And it's not at all clear which is preferable. – Quadell (talk) 12:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- In that case, maybe we should talk to magnus about it. But in the meantime, what about the hundreds of other images with {{Convert to SVG and copy to Wikimedia Commons}} on them? Xclamation point 20:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- If you use the Move-to-Commons assistant to move an image to Commons (which is the easiest and most common way to do it), the script keeps templates that also exist on Commons, but comments out templates that aren't extant in both places. So if the image has both the {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} and {{Should be SVG}} templates, the script will comment out the former and keep the latter, which is what we'd want. But if the image uses the combined {{Convert to SVG and copy to Wikimedia Commons}} template, then the whole thing would be commented out, and we'd lose the info (since such a template doesn't exist on Commons, and shouldn't). So basically, this bot task is only useful if it is preferable to convert pngs to svg before moving to Commons, but it's counter-productive if it's preferable to move them first and then convert them. And it's not at all clear which is preferable. – Quadell (talk) 12:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what the problem is with the merging of templates. This bot is not moving images over, just merging two templates into one. Xclamation point 15:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
- Have you asked at Commons yet? – Quadell (talk) 15:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Just to clarify the bot's purpose, and not to sound like I'm badgering you, but how many images are there that have both of these templates on them? Essentially, I'm wondering how many file pages this bot would change. An estimate is all I ask for. The Earwig (Talk | Contributions) 03:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Denied. No consensus, sorry. – Quadell (talk) 01:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.