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 The result of the discussion was Withdrawn by operator.
Function details: Same as above: de-transcludes file
license tags from non-file namespaces by adding "tnull" in front of the template.
Discussion
The bot should have some kind of exclusion list (or even just follow {{bots}}), just in case there is a legitimate reason for a template to be transcluded (maybe its on a page showing examples or something). --
Chris11:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)reply
Looking at
User_talk,
File_talk, and
Talk for just one template - it appears that this template is occasionally transcluded as part of regular discussion. Would it make sense to exclude all talk pages (perhaps even 'just for now')?
SQLQuery me!13:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)reply
Indeed, but these templates were not intended for use in discussions. Image license tags inappropriately categorize non-file pages (i.e. category pollution) into categories intended for files. The bot will untransclude file license tags so that non-file description pages are not inappropriately categorized. -FASTILY(TALK)04:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)reply
I like the concept of making categorization namespace dependent, but IMHO, it lacks practicality. We have a
large number of license tags which would require the addition of a new parserfunction to each and every template. Furthermore, employing such a protocol would make creating new license tags unnecessarily complicated for non-coders. While a side goal of this bot is to help clean up license tag tranclusions in
Special:WhatLinksHere, the main purpose of the bot is to maintain and clean up categories pertaining to media file license tags. -FASTILY(TALK)04:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)reply
To be (possibly too?) blunt, I would greatly prefer to see the underlying templates corrected, over constantly having to maintain all the affected pages indefinitely.
SQLQuery me!08:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)reply
I have to second that. It may take a few days, but it'll solve the root of the problem, instead of chipping at the symptoms as they appear (if you pardon the House-esque analogy). —
HELLKNOWZ ▎
TALK09:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)reply
I went through the templates and made 3 changes. It looks like almost all the tags already employ {{file other}}. Do you by any chance have a list of templates that have caused mis-categorization? —
HELLKNOWZ ▎
TALK08:04, 7 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Trolling, not relivant to this request for approval
Please
I'll just chime in to say that Fastily is involved minor controversy. He and a few other has been converted to a novel interpretation of our guidelines-- specially he calls for us WP to effectively surrender our fair use rights in virtually all cases. This new 'interpretation' of guideline has proven to be very controversial, especially as Fastily has not always been careful to establish a consensus for this change.
I'll leave it to wiser minds to decide whether this bot would be worthwhile.
But this is a user we probably should be looking at restoring to editor for a wikibreak, not an editor we should be further empowering-- that will just cause more demoralization and discontent. Free Images only is a great idea, but it's not Wikipedia. Fastily missed the boat on this-- don't be giving him robotic minions to propagate his errors. :) --
Alecmconroy (
talk)
04:14, 2 August 2011 (UTC)reply
I have to ask, how is this relevant to the bot task? The task's scope is very precise and there is no ambiguity in function details. What harm (hypothetically) do you suppose this task can do? Does Fastily have history of misusing alternative/bot account? It's not like he is allowed run it for any other unapproved tasks. —
HELLKNOWZ ▎
TALK07:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Thirded. It would only impact on the assessment of this bot request if community trust in Fastily had been eroded to the the point that he called into question his/her competency in running a bot in line with
WP:BOTPOL. -
Jarry1250Weasel?Discuss.11:29, 4 August 2011 (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.
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 Withdrawn by operator.
Function details: Same as above: de-transcludes file
license tags from non-file namespaces by adding "tnull" in front of the template.
Discussion
The bot should have some kind of exclusion list (or even just follow {{bots}}), just in case there is a legitimate reason for a template to be transcluded (maybe its on a page showing examples or something). --
Chris11:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)reply
Looking at
User_talk,
File_talk, and
Talk for just one template - it appears that this template is occasionally transcluded as part of regular discussion. Would it make sense to exclude all talk pages (perhaps even 'just for now')?
SQLQuery me!13:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)reply
Indeed, but these templates were not intended for use in discussions. Image license tags inappropriately categorize non-file pages (i.e. category pollution) into categories intended for files. The bot will untransclude file license tags so that non-file description pages are not inappropriately categorized. -FASTILY(TALK)04:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)reply
I like the concept of making categorization namespace dependent, but IMHO, it lacks practicality. We have a
large number of license tags which would require the addition of a new parserfunction to each and every template. Furthermore, employing such a protocol would make creating new license tags unnecessarily complicated for non-coders. While a side goal of this bot is to help clean up license tag tranclusions in
Special:WhatLinksHere, the main purpose of the bot is to maintain and clean up categories pertaining to media file license tags. -FASTILY(TALK)04:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)reply
To be (possibly too?) blunt, I would greatly prefer to see the underlying templates corrected, over constantly having to maintain all the affected pages indefinitely.
SQLQuery me!08:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)reply
I have to second that. It may take a few days, but it'll solve the root of the problem, instead of chipping at the symptoms as they appear (if you pardon the House-esque analogy). —
HELLKNOWZ ▎
TALK09:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)reply
I went through the templates and made 3 changes. It looks like almost all the tags already employ {{file other}}. Do you by any chance have a list of templates that have caused mis-categorization? —
HELLKNOWZ ▎
TALK08:04, 7 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Trolling, not relivant to this request for approval
Please
I'll just chime in to say that Fastily is involved minor controversy. He and a few other has been converted to a novel interpretation of our guidelines-- specially he calls for us WP to effectively surrender our fair use rights in virtually all cases. This new 'interpretation' of guideline has proven to be very controversial, especially as Fastily has not always been careful to establish a consensus for this change.
I'll leave it to wiser minds to decide whether this bot would be worthwhile.
But this is a user we probably should be looking at restoring to editor for a wikibreak, not an editor we should be further empowering-- that will just cause more demoralization and discontent. Free Images only is a great idea, but it's not Wikipedia. Fastily missed the boat on this-- don't be giving him robotic minions to propagate his errors. :) --
Alecmconroy (
talk)
04:14, 2 August 2011 (UTC)reply
I have to ask, how is this relevant to the bot task? The task's scope is very precise and there is no ambiguity in function details. What harm (hypothetically) do you suppose this task can do? Does Fastily have history of misusing alternative/bot account? It's not like he is allowed run it for any other unapproved tasks. —
HELLKNOWZ ▎
TALK07:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Thirded. It would only impact on the assessment of this bot request if community trust in Fastily had been eroded to the the point that he called into question his/her competency in running a bot in line with
WP:BOTPOL. -
Jarry1250Weasel?Discuss.11:29, 4 August 2011 (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.