Discussion

• I have made 10 test edits on my account (since my bot doesn't have AWB access) and the results can be found here. Riley Huntley (talk) 06:58, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
• See Commons:Bots/Requests/Ryan Vesey Bot, a bot request for the same task further down on this page. That one is waiting for community consensus. Please check up on the status of that discussion and give your opinion. --Dschwen (talk) 14:55, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

• Please re-read my request. The bottom part cleary states "This task was orginally requested by Ryan Vesey Bot at Commons:Bots/Requests/Ryan Vesey Bot but the user seems to have lost interest and the task needs to be done. Please see the comments left at Commons:Bots/Requests/Ryan Vesey Bot." - I also commented on that bot request before and after I filed this request. Riley Huntley (talk) 15:40, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

• Ha, sorry, I guess I was not yet properly caffeinated when I made that comment. I'll go ahead and close Ryan's request as stale. --Dschwen (talk) 15:51, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

• Ok, after looking at the test edits (looks fine) I am inclined to green light this. I'd suggest going ahead with all namespaces, since this is unconroversial enough and I haven't seen vehement opposition to performing the substitution in file namespace. --Dschwen (talk) 16:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

• Works for me. :) Riley Huntley (talk) 18:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

• I personally do not see the need for further testing. The edit summary also looks good. I will approve this if no objections are raised within the next couple of hours. --Dschwen (talk) 18:50, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Approved, this has been discussed on the Ryan Vesey Bot request quite a bit. So I'm closing this one quickly. --Dschwen (talk) 00:32, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

• I have substituted all the signatures listed at Commons:Deletion requests/Transcluded user signatures except for User:Upior polnocy/signature as it was striked. Should this signature be substituted as well? Riley Huntley (talk) 06:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Sigh, I see no reason not to substitute User:Upior polnocy's signature, and some people in the discussion agree. The verdict of the DR was keep but subst. And it seems to me that Upior polnocy was mostly opposed to the deletion of his sig template. I'm gonna say just go ahead. --Dschwen (talk) 17:14, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

I assume Sktooka is just a typo? And your bot code will be free of those ;-). And you will of course check if the word Shtooka is already linked? --Dschwen (talk) 18:46, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Are you seeking input from the community anywhere else? --Dschwen (talk) 18:47, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, saw it on Bot requests and commented there. I would approve the wikilinking to an on-wiki landing page about Shtooka (i.e. Shtooka). --Dschwen (talk) 18:55, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

And I also saw that the typo was intentional. Sorry for the confusion. --Dschwen (talk) 22:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

• My mistake, forgot to link Commons:Bots/Work_requests#Shtooka_typo_in_spelling_files. Please see there for more information. Riley Huntley (talk) 19:05, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
• Five test edits can be found here. Riley Huntley (talk) 01:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

  Bot edits look OK for me. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:40, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Approved. --Dschwen (talk) 17:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• Its going to take a few days to do this at the current edit rate, could I please raise the epm to 15? I see no harm in it nor has there been any errors. Riley Huntley (talk) 04:17, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Fine with me. --Dschwen (talk) 05:25, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• You know there's a bot that already does this automatically right? It's not immediate, but every file will get it eventually. --99of9 (talk) 11:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
• Yeah, I don't think it would be a good idea to have a second bot on that task. Imagine if bot A compiles a list of images to process and goes down the list one by one. In the meantime bot B coincidentally processes images that are on bot A's list. Bot A is still fetching those pages (and checking if the change is necessary), thus it saves no time (or electrons). --Dschwen (talk) 19:30, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

• Which bot currently does this task? Riley Huntley (talk) 20:32, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

• User:Emijrpbot --Dschwen (talk) 21:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

• Emijrpbot hasn't performed the task in months. Riley Huntley (talk) 22:28, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

• Right, then User:SchlurcherBot. --Dschwen (talk) 22:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

• My mistake! Please close as withdrawn. Riley Huntley (talk) 10:54, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Withdrawn. --Dschwen (talk) 16:19, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Looks OK for me. But I think will be good idea to combine such clean up with others, like section headers internationalization. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:57, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I am currently writing a bot for another cleanup task like this but in regards to section headers internationalization, there are bots that currently do that task. (I found that out in RileyBot 3) Riley Huntley (talk) 20:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Even if we have dedicated bot for this task, it's still good idea to make one clean up edit instead of two. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• I'm sorry to say this but I created this task page for this task, nothing more. And as a volunteer, that is all I am comfortable with doing at the moment. Thus, I am asking that you take this task into consideration, and not other tasks that I have not coded or have figured out (Commons:Template i18n/bot replacements is a mess, almost impossible to see who is doing what and what is already done. It definitely needs to be updated.) :) Riley Huntley (talk) 14:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
• How do you find pages with Permission = See below? --Dschwen (talk) 15:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

• I search dumps, put all the files into one text file and then have the bot run off that. Riley Huntley (talk) 15:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

• Ok, that sounds very reasonable. While I agree with Eugene that consolidation of bot tasks would be nice to keep the overall bot edit frequency down it is true that such a coordination seems very difficult at this time. I suggest we do a role call of bot operators in the near future and get an inventory of bot activities to see who is doing what and if they are still interested in doing their tasks. In the meantime I think we should not make you wait for that to happen. Why don't you go ahead and show us some test edits. --Dschwen (talk) 16:06, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

•  Doing… Playing around with the regex to get the best result [and no errors!] :P Riley Huntley (talk) 20:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
•  Trial done Made the regex 10x harder aswell Riley Huntley (talk) 20:55, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

• Yikes, now i don't understand the regexp anymore. Will have to look up the <start> syntax. Anyhow. Last thing I would suggest is making the edit summary a bit more specific, since your bot performs exactly one sub task of cleaning up the file description. Namely: "Removing see below from permission data in file Information template". Then I approve, but let's give Eugene some time to comment on this first..--Dschwen (talk) 21:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

• Yea, the regexp is hard to understand now but basically the only difference is that when I had the old regex it would change lets say "| Permission = See below and blahblah" to "| Permission = and blahblah". So now, it will just skip a string like that and move on. In regards to the edit summary, thank you! I find the hardest thing about bots is finding the right edit summary. :P Riley Huntley (talk) 22:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

• While I still think that multiple clean-ups is better (aren't set of regular expressions could be applied), I don't want to force bot operator to do so. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:49, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Approved. --Dschwen (talk) 19:52, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• @Riley Huntley: As far i know this task is done by YaCBot (COM:Regex). --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • @Steinsplitter: The main task is, yes, however, the task is not being being done in multilingual form. Riley Huntley (talk) 18:41, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Trial complete; Contributions in question. Statistics: 2942 pages remaining in first list, 52 edits made, 65 pages skipped. Riley Huntley (talk) 22:41, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

  Appears reasonable to me. --Krd 09:40, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

  Looks OK for me, but will be good idea to mention original form in edit summaries. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:16, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

  Would the following suffice? (Bot: Removing "see below" (translation) from permission data in file Information template.) (Task 5) Makes it a tad easier for me :) Riley Huntley (talk) 02:00, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

  Sounds reasonable. At least those who interested may found origins of bot's decisions. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:15, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I think task should be approved. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:06, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Approved. --Krd 08:30, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

•  Trial complete Please see user contributions, 40ish edits made moving the smallest category (RileyBot moved page Category:Black and white photographic portraits of dancers to Category:Black and white portrait photographs of dancers) RileyBot (talk) 08:38, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

  Looks OK for me, but I rather mention old and new category in edit summaries. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:14, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

  As requested, edit summary will be made more detailed. Riley Huntley (talk) 01:47, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I think task should be approved. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Approved. --Krd 08:31, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

•  Bot trial complete: Contributions in question. Riley Huntley (talk) 22:27, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
• Just wondering, is this {{ISOdate}} done via regex, or is there some clever algorithms? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 10:13, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

  @Zhuyifei1999: I'm adding the template using regex, correct. Riley Huntley (talk) 16:07, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• Looks good to me, should be approved if no objections arise. --Krd 12:10, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
• Looks OK for me. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:29, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• Requesting speedy approval per above, if possible. :) Riley Huntley (talk) 06:50, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

  Approved for a test run at full scale. I'd suggest to keep the request open for a few more days just in case there will pop up anything. --Krd 07:45, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

  @Krd: ISOdate is totally redundant in the date parameter of {{Information}} template (and similar ones like {{Photograph}}). — TintoMeches, 12:37, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

  +1. I am inclined to revert such unnecessary additions since they violate the KISS principle. Please stop this task, at least for dates without a time. --Leyo 17:35, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

  @Riley Huntley: Please stop that task for further discussion. --Krd 18:03, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

  +1 I too see no need for this additional template. My experience with the information template that the date/time conversion for timestamps in ISO format works well. Raymond 19:23, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

  whats better now? IMO makes the code more difficult to edit and I cant see any benefit ...Sicherlich ^talk 22:06, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

• @Krd: Task is not running and won't be continued until further discussion. I'll be the first to admit I wasn't aware ISOdate was automatically added through the Information template. If the ISOdate task is completely unneeded, then I'm only seeking permission for the second part of this request as outlined above. Cheers, and thanks for the pings. :) Riley Huntley (talk) 02:48, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

  @Riley Huntley: I'm fine with the second part of this task. — TintoMeches, 13:58, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

  It'll be good idea to remove redundant {{ISOdate}} as part of such cleanups. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:14, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

  I concur. Riley Huntley (talk) 06:45, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

@Krd: I think this has been open long enough to determine that the requested task (due note the stricken text above) can be approved. Riley Huntley (talk) 04:29, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Again approved for full scale test run, but I suggest to keep this formally open until end of month just in case there will pop anything unexpected. --Krd 06:43, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Trial 2 complete; relevant contributions. Riley Huntley (talk) 05:48, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Looks OK for me. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:12, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Approved. --Krd 08:25, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

• Example contributions. Riley Huntley (talk) 03:54, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• Before anyone asks why add Category:Male Dutch pronunciation instead of just replacing Category:Dutch pronunciation, the reason is because Category:Dutch pronunciation is in desperate need of diffuse by subject, so replacement makes no sense at this point. Riley Huntley (talk) 04:55, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

  Looks OK for if bot identify voice correctly. But please make edit summaries like MediaWiki:HotCat.js.

  Just another idea. Could you use Wiktionary (or other online dictionary) to identify grammar type of word (noun, verb, etc), its meaning (number, name of plant, etc) or it's phrase? This is based on file name.

  EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• Edit summary will be as follows: "Bot: Added Category:Male Dutch pronunciation) (Task 10)

As for identifying the grammar type of the word, I am still learning about pulling content from other websites/wikis. That would be better suited for another task/operator or myself, but later down the road. Riley Huntley (talk) 21:43, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Its more the language barrier for me than anything that'd make this difficult. Different language wiktionarys/dictionaries result in a different structure and I'd personally like to leave it to someone who speaks the native language or has the time/patience for it. Riley Huntley (talk) 00:23, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

• Example contributions that I ran supervised on my main account reflect the above suggestion for a modified edit summaries. Riley Huntley (talk) 00:23, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

  Looks OK for me. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:15, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

+1. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:27, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I think task should be approved. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:09, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Approved. --Krd 06:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)