Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Bot/WikiLovesESBot
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- There having been no action here in a year and a half, and there being no response from the bot operator, I am closing this request, as a procedural, non-admin action. Anyone is welcome to reopen it at any time. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 23:59, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WikiLovesESBot (talk • contribs • new items • new lexemes • SUL • Block log • User rights log • User rights • xtools)
Operator: Discasto (talk • contribs • logs)
Task/s: Miscellaneous tasks associated to photo upload campaigns promoted by WM-ES:
- Assignment of commons categories to items handled in the campaigns (for example Wiki Loves Earth, Wiki Loves Folk, Wiki Loves Monuments, Photographs from Spanish Municipalities without pictures, and the like.
- Sourcing of statements for items handled in the campaigns...
Code: Global repository is in here. Bot code is here.
Function details: The bot takes as input a series of lists (so called annexes in the Spanish Wikipedia, see example here and extracts necessary information: mainly wikidata item and commons category. If found, the bot does as follows:
- Look up the Wikidata item.
- Determines whether "Municipality of Spain" statement is available in P31 claim. If not, it creates the statement. If available, the statement is sourced to Spanish Wikipedia.
- If the source (the list in the Spanish Wikipedia) provides a category, the bot determines whether a claim for Commons-category is available. If not, it creates the claim. If available, the claim is sourced to Spanish Wikipedia.
- Finally, a commons sitelink for the category provided in the source is inserted if not available. If a gallery was already provided as commons sitelink, it's not modified.
- Inconsistencies are logged during the process.
--Discasto (talk) 10:25, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I strongly support this request. --Rodelar (talk) 22:04, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I also support. --Harpagornis (talk) 15:00, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I support this request. Ivanhercaz (talk) 16:17, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I support this request. --Bauglir (talk) 16:28, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I support this request. --ElBute (talk) 16:47, 4 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Support I support this request.--Pedro J Pacheco (talk) 20:14, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support The bot operator is reliable and knows what he does Poco2 21:07, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I support this request. The operator has done a good work with other bots in different projects. --Millars (talk) 15:47, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I support this request. --Dorieo (talk) 17:41, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds like a good idea. It seems we already have more municipalities than there should be ([1] compared to 8122 on w:Municipalities of Spain). Obviously, it could include some former municipalities. We should only have 1 item per municipality. It could be that interwikis need to be fixed. What is the plan if P31 holds council of Asturies (Q5055981) or parroquia of Galicia (Q3333265)?
--- Jura 09:09, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, Jura, I missed your comment. I have to say that I don't fully understand your comment (mainly that part related to the amount of municipalities mismatch). With regard the second part, I will patch the code to consider also subclasses. However, parroquia of Galicia (Q3333265) does not apply, as a parroquia is a subdivision of a municipality. The lists we're handling have been reviewed several times by the WM-ES members and all the items are actually municipalities. Smaller subdivisions can be considered in next editions, but not now. Therefore, my only concern relates to the subclasses (I didn't actually consider that possibility). Best regards --Discasto (talk) 22:02, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- And I didn't notice your answer. There are several possible reasons for the mismatch in the number of municipalities: we could have already an item for the municipality, but it just isn't linked to eswiki. The easiest way to solve this would be to add the statements and then check the result for duplicates (it could also be done in advance, but this may be more complicated).
- As far as "concejo of Asturias" is concerned, you could add both or replace it. Whatever suits interested editors best.
- The "parroquia" question seems minor (11 items currently): If you look at the query result you will notice that some items have this in P31 in addition. This can mean that the article in some other wiki is about the parroquia or there is some other mixup. These items may need to be split.
--- Jura 08:42, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It'll be great if some active editors of Wikidata could give their opinions. Canvassing of users with a low amount of contributions doesn't help. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 14:55, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I took a look at contribs - it looks like a lot of entries have already been made, but the bot was blocked as unapproved. From my review of the entries made the bot seems to be operating reasonably. However, adding a reference of "imported from xx wikipedia" is barely better than no source at all, I'm not sure this is really helpful. If there's an actual es.wikipedia.org page that is the source of the information, providing that via "reference URL" and "retrieved on" properties would be more useful. An external source for this data would be much better. ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:42, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no strong opinion on this. I do agree on providing an external source if available. It's not the case in most of the situations we're handling. Therefore, I'll simply skip this step. In fact, the core functionality (which I'm currently doing by hand) was related to setting commons categories. As we're handling all the items in the list, it seemed sensible to add sources. If you feel it's useless (unless a proper source is provided), I'll skip this step. Thanks for providing feedback --Discasto (talk) 22:45, 12 July 2016 (UTC) PS: yes, it's been blocked in the middle of a task that nowadays I have to do by hand. I don't really understand this block. Seems to me the typical bureaucratic behaviour that harms more than helps[reply]
- I took a look at contribs - it looks like a lot of entries have already been made, but the bot was blocked as unapproved. From my review of the entries made the bot seems to be operating reasonably. However, adding a reference of "imported from xx wikipedia" is barely better than no source at all, I'm not sure this is really helpful. If there's an actual es.wikipedia.org page that is the source of the information, providing that via "reference URL" and "retrieved on" properties would be more useful. An external source for this data would be much better. ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:42, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I am going to approve the bot tomorrow provided there have been no objections.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:46, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be good to have an answer to my question. We don't want to end up with even more duplicates.
--- Jura 12:34, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be good to have an answer to my question. We don't want to end up with even more duplicates.
- @Ymblanter, Discasto: Please see my comment above.
--- Jura 08:43, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]- @Jura1: I saw it weeks ago (and I answered :-), see answer on 22 July... I assumed you had this page in your watch list) --Discasto (talk) 08:52, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Discasto: Well, generally I notice, but here I missed it. Bot requests aren't exactly my preferred stuff ; ). Did you notice my comment from today?
--- Jura 08:54, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Discasto: Well, generally I notice, but here I missed it. Bot requests aren't exactly my preferred stuff ; ). Did you notice my comment from today?
- @Jura1: I saw it weeks ago (and I answered :-), see answer on 22 July... I assumed you had this page in your watch list) --Discasto (talk) 08:52, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I drop this request. However, may I ask the account to be unblocked? It will not be active, but being blocked sincerely mean an overkill. Best regards --Discasto (talk) 21:50, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jura1:, @Discasto:: The task seems useful, is there any chance you can agree and proceed with the task?--Ymblanter (talk) 07:59, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's essentially a question of checking the result. This could be done after addition. A way to flag former municipalities needs to be determined (by end date and/or with some Q19730508 item). In the meantime, Abián is working with Spanish municipalities (Wikidata:Bot_requests#Mayors_of_Spain).
--- Jura 08:42, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's essentially a question of checking the result. This could be done after addition. A way to flag former municipalities needs to be determined (by end date and/or with some Q19730508 item). In the meantime, Abián is working with Spanish municipalities (Wikidata:Bot_requests#Mayors_of_Spain).
- @Discasto: This request is technically still open. Would you like to continue it, or should I close it? — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 17:23, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]