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: FASTILY ^(TALK)

Time filed: 05:33, Sunday August 28, 2011 (UTC)

Automatic or Manual: Automatic unsupervised

Programming language(s): Java

Source code available: Not currently, but I will post a copy in my userspace shortly.

Function overview: Fairly straightforward task: bot tags orphaned, freely licensed files with ((Orphan image)).

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): Continuous

Estimated number of pages affected: 20k

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): yes

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

Function details: Presently, there is no existing method to categorize orphaned, freely licensed files. Employing the existing ((Orphan image)) to flag such files would be an effective way to locate useless media files (possibly for FfD) and identify useful files for transfer to Commons. If deemed necessary, I can also run a bot which untags files that are no longer orphaned. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 05:33, 28 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion[edit]

• I think this is an excellent idea. Two things though. First, It'll need a blacklist. I'll prepare one now, at User:Fbot/Blacklist5. Second, this should not be run until after the full initial run of Fbot task #2, because I intend on including ((Copy to Wikimedia Commons)) in the blacklist for this task. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:41, 28 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • What purpose would the blacklist serve? I can't immediately think of any reason why orphaned images shouldn't be tagged. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 15:30, 28 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @ Fastily: You haven't included any links to relevant discussions; have you advertised this BRFA anywhere? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 15:30, 28 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

((Orphaned image)) is intended solely for use on freely licensed files. A blacklist will be utilized to ensure that non-free files and any files that should remain orphaned are not tagged. I have not advertised this BRFA anywhere because the task is non-controversial, and has already been manually performed by individual users for the past four years. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:01, 28 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• We already have this tool, which works for people looking to deal with the orphan image backlog. I'm not sure exactly what the bot will add beyond this already-existing functionality (which is superior because it lists the uploader's contributions along with how long the file has been orphaned). I can't see that the bot would hurt anything, though. Calliopejen1 (talk) 03:17, 29 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • That tool is limited by the fact that it can only search through one category at a time. True, a great deal of junk can be found by using it and searching Category:All user-created public domain images, but having everything in one category with display thumbs (like what is seen here) will make sorting good stuff from the bad stuff much easier. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:51, 30 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• ((BAGAssistanceNeeded)) If it's not too much trouble, could a BAG member please review this request? If this bot is deemed acceptable, I'd like to have it running by the time the September 2011 Move to Commons Drive starts (in roughly two days). Thanks, FASTILY ^(TALK) 10:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Approved for trial (30 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Please still drop a few notes at some noticeboards before final approval. Blacklist seems fine as long as it's kept up-to-date. Redundancy to other tools is not a problem, when unambiguous cases can be faster done by bot and people can focus on other backlogs; no shortage there. Also, what is considered "orphaned", no transclusions? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Trial complete. Bot did everything it was supposed to: [1]. Our definition of orphaned is defined according to the text of ((Orphaned image)): "[any freely licensed file which] is not used in any articles, or is not widely used for a non article purpose". Please note that the ((Orphan image)) tag does not nominate a file for deletion (or mark a file as eligible for deletion), it only indicates the usage status of the file. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bot advertised at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#New_Bot_Task -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Speaking as a random passerby, I think this is a good idea and have no objection this bot task. There's been some drama in the general area of licensing, but simply marking orphan images should be unambiguous and uncontroversial. bobrayner (talk) 12:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• ((BAGAssistanceNeeded)) Again, if it's not too much trouble, could a BAG member please review this request? If this bot is acceptable, I'd like to have it running by the time the September 2011 Move to Commons Drive begins (in less than three hours). Thanks, FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While I don't see any issues, I would still prefer to keep this open, since you advertised it less than a day ago and BRFA has been open for less than 3.

So with that in mind – Approved for extended trial (indefinitely). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. The drive will be a good chance for feedback. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 20:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Great! Thank you! :) Cheers, FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think that it should be for 1 month, september. ~~Ebe123~~ (+) ^talk
_Contribs 18:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Why doesn't the blacklist contain an entry for ((Copy to Wikimedia Commons))? If a file is already tagged to be copied to the Commons, especially if that tag was added by a human, it seems to me that an ((Orphan image)) tag, which is less specific (it basically says "something should be done with this file"), is unhelpful. I undid a recent Fbot edit at File:NewHopeHennepin.PNG for this reason. But perhaps I'm misunderstanding something? —Bkell (talk) 10:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Added one. ~~Ebe123~~ (+) ^talk
  _Contribs 18:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(edit conflict) That behavior is intentional. ((Orphan image)) is not a ((Move to Commons)) tag. While the text of ((Orphan image)) does indeed suggest what could be done with the file, the primary purpose of the tag is to denote the usage status of a file and categorize it in Category:Orphan images. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Approved. Task is uncontroversial, orphaned images should be tagged as such, and trial was fine. Bot owner is expected to update and maintain the relevant blacklist according to good judgment and feedback, as all bot owners are expected of any bots they run. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[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.