Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Image-req-proj-bot Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Image-req-proj-bot

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was Approved.

Operator: Traveler100 (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 09:03, Saturday January 7, 2012 (UTC)

Automatic supervised

Programming language(s): AWB

Source code available: Single operations from user:Traveler100/imagereqproj

Function overview: Sort out image request categories that currently contain large number of articles.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Will take place, as and when required.

Edit period(s): A number of one time runs.

Estimated number of pages affected: 20,000 talk pages.

Exclusion compliant (Y/N):

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

Function details: Moves article talk pages with image requests (either reqphoto template or need-image in project template) to more specific sub-category. See User:Image-req-proj-bot for details.

• I realise this is not a totally specific request but the process for authorising a bot take a long time and the tool is needed to make many medium sized lists of edits. I do not want to be every week creating a new request for a different reqphoto category. It will however be restricted to just categories under Category:Wikipedia requested photographs, most of which I have been maintaining for the past few years. Any substantial moves will be discussed in the appropriate WIkiProject pages.--Traveler100 (talk) 09:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• You didn't specify if this is an automatic unsupervised, automatic supervised or a manual bot. Is this exclusion compliant (it would be under AWB)? You don't need a different BRFA for each category, but you need to be specific about the rules the bot uses then. How do you determine which sub-categories the pages need to go into? Who asks/makes these requests? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 19:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discussion will be with specific WikiProject teams.--Traveler100 (talk) 21:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • For Category:WikiProject Cities articles needing photographs the category are obviously the state in which the settlement is, for Category:Plant articles needing photos discussion has been started.--Traveler100 (talk) 16:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (a few different categories). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. started on Sicily in Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Italy and Saskatchewan and Wisconsin in Category:WikiProject Cities articles needing photographs

One minor question: are the WikiProject Cities dudes ok with disabling/removing the needs-photo template argument (thus removing it from the general category Category:WikiProject Cities articles needing photographs)? Are people monitoring that category as a backlog indicator? --slakr^\ talk / 03:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was discussed, although little feedback, no objections. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities#Purpose of needs-photo ? --Traveler100 (talk) 05:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Approved. – Discussion and trial both look good, and removing the template parameter seems common-sensical as otherwise you'd be leaving the talk page in a general category. The task is clearly useful and the only edits that were undone later were ones where an image had been placed in the article since a request had been made but the request had not yet been removed from the talk page; that's not the fault of the bot. I'd recommend continuing to link to relevant discussions in the Notification section as you have been so editors can contribute. (And maybe note that the bot's exclusion-compliant since you're using AWB.) Cheers! — madman 06:10, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA.