Commons:Bots/Requests/Rkieferbot
Rkieferbot (talk · contribs)
Operator: Rkieferbaum (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)
Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought:
- Add {{GPS EXIF}} to files that contain valid coordinates in EXIF but no location tags;
- Add Category:Ambiguous location in EXIF to files that contain invalid location in EXIF;
- Add Category:Taken with <Camera> to files that don't have it but contain valid and identifiable Make/Model properties in EXIF;
- Replace {{GPS EXIF}} with {{Location}} tags after at least a week of a file having it and after manual review of files in Category:Media with GPS EXIF.
Automatic or manually assisted: Semiautomatic (supervised).
Edit type (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): Weekly (after an initial drive to clear backlog.
Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute): 12, usually fewer.
Bot flag requested: (Y/N): Y
Programming language(s): JavaScript for execution and python for building lists (until I'm comfortable and the logic is tested enough to run everything from python).
Rkieferbaum (talk) 16:49, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- Discussion
- Please make test run. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:40, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
- @EugeneZelenko: I already ran a few edits on the bot account, and the idea, at least initially, is to do pretty much what I've been doing in my main account, so feel free to take a look at my last few hundred contributions as well. Cheers. Rkieferbaum (talk) 16:35, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
- How many users are actually workung on manually checking {{GPS EXIF}}? How many cases have you seen where this was processed within a week? If nobody does it, the intermediate step would be just a waste of ressources? --Krd 07:09, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
- @Krd: I initially added location tags directly from EXIF, but this led to friction a few times. Either because other users thought a given photo belonged in Category:Location not applicable or because they knew the location information in EXIF was wrong. Users would sometimes remove the added location tag, but SchlurcherBot will sometimes have added that location to SDC, and not all users will correct that or remove it. So I changed the contents of {{GPS EXIF}} to invite watchers to indicate if one of those two situations applies, and that can be done before location is added. Since I switched to this two-step process, I've been following tagged photos and I'd say that on maybe 0.5% of them, watchers will either add a location tag, "Location not applicable" or "Ambiguous location in EXIF" tags. This is in addition to me (and whoever else wants to) manually checking Category:Media with GPS EXIF before running the script to add location to those. I feel like this is a good balance between prudence and efficiency, but I'm happy to make adjustments. Rkieferbaum (talk) 14:14, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
- How many are the mentioned "few times"? The whole request appears like a lot of manual work to me. Template:GPS EXIF currently has uncountable tranclusions, and Category:Media with GPS EXIF has 28k entries. I don't see that anybody really works on this. Either we can bulk place GPS EXIF by location template, or we cannot because there are too many false GPS data. Perhaps the last question should be answered in a village pump discussion. Am I mistaken? Krd 06:37, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- @Krd: As I said, I'm open to skipping the intermediary part, but I do feel the extra (machine) work is small compared to the reduction in friction. Some context: I've zeroed the backlog in Category:Media with GPS EXIF several times, and pretty much all the 28k images currently sitting there were tagged by me over a few days. The only reason I haven't worked on that yet is that I'm hoping to do it via bot and therefore make it easier for others to manage their watchlists. I've spent about two months analyzing photographs with location in EXIF and no location tags, and the process I'm proposing to automate through this bot is essentially the same that I have been doing using my regular account. So I feel getting hung up on whether the intermediate step is necessary or not here is a little beside the point. It's a matter of whether my estimated 0.5% of edits following a GPS EXIF template addition is worth the extra step of tagging them before adding a location. My experience says it is. The extra work is done by a computer anyway. I'm happy to run that through the Village Pump, but, frankly, I don't quite see where the controversy lies. Rkieferbaum (talk) 00:51, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
- I suggest you make an extended trial with the bot account. Feel free to run at full scale is you think it makes sense. If nothing arises after some time, I tihnk this can be approved. (Bot flag set.) Krd 16:44, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Krd: As I said, I'm open to skipping the intermediary part, but I do feel the extra (machine) work is small compared to the reduction in friction. Some context: I've zeroed the backlog in Category:Media with GPS EXIF several times, and pretty much all the 28k images currently sitting there were tagged by me over a few days. The only reason I haven't worked on that yet is that I'm hoping to do it via bot and therefore make it easier for others to manage their watchlists. I've spent about two months analyzing photographs with location in EXIF and no location tags, and the process I'm proposing to automate through this bot is essentially the same that I have been doing using my regular account. So I feel getting hung up on whether the intermediate step is necessary or not here is a little beside the point. It's a matter of whether my estimated 0.5% of edits following a GPS EXIF template addition is worth the extra step of tagging them before adding a location. My experience says it is. The extra work is done by a computer anyway. I'm happy to run that through the Village Pump, but, frankly, I don't quite see where the controversy lies. Rkieferbaum (talk) 00:51, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
- How many are the mentioned "few times"? The whole request appears like a lot of manual work to me. Template:GPS EXIF currently has uncountable tranclusions, and Category:Media with GPS EXIF has 28k entries. I don't see that anybody really works on this. Either we can bulk place GPS EXIF by location template, or we cannot because there are too many false GPS data. Perhaps the last question should be answered in a village pump discussion. Am I mistaken? Krd 06:37, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- @Krd: I initially added location tags directly from EXIF, but this led to friction a few times. Either because other users thought a given photo belonged in Category:Location not applicable or because they knew the location information in EXIF was wrong. Users would sometimes remove the added location tag, but SchlurcherBot will sometimes have added that location to SDC, and not all users will correct that or remove it. So I changed the contents of {{GPS EXIF}} to invite watchers to indicate if one of those two situations applies, and that can be done before location is added. Since I switched to this two-step process, I've been following tagged photos and I'd say that on maybe 0.5% of them, watchers will either add a location tag, "Location not applicable" or "Ambiguous location in EXIF" tags. This is in addition to me (and whoever else wants to) manually checking Category:Media with GPS EXIF before running the script to add location to those. I feel like this is a good balance between prudence and efficiency, but I'm happy to make adjustments. Rkieferbaum (talk) 14:14, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
Approved. --Krd 16:35, 8 July 2025 (UTC)