Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Images and Media/Tools

A bot is currently seeking bot approval at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SVnaGBot1 to add a notice to talk pages of articles that use pngs when svgs are available. – Quadell ^(talk) 03:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
Another bot is seeking bot approval at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/NeuRobot 2 to scale down non-free images that are too large. Discussion seems to have stalled, and could use reinvigorating. – Quadell ^(talk) 03:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
Should User:AWeenieBot be on the list? (See Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AWeenieBot and Special:Contributions/AWeenieBot.) – Quadell ^(talk) 03:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
Should this subpage also include Toolserver apps (such as Move-to-Commons assistant) and user scripts (such as FileScripts) which are image-related? – Quadell ^(talk) 03:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
And I made a request here for a bot to remove {{puic}} tags from captions where it's not applicable. – Quadell ^(talk) 04:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
- AWeenieBot makes sense to me. I think there's a fine line between tools and bots; any editor can use a toolserver app or a user script, but a bot is under the control only of the bot operator. An additional "Tools" tab would make sense to me, though. Tim Pierce (talk) 05:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
  - I propose moving this to Wikipedia:WikiProject Images and Media/Tools and including bots, toolserver tools, and scripts. Thoughts? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 16:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
    - I'd prefer to have tools and scripts on this page, but in a separate list below (not mixed in). – Quadell ^(talk) 17:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
      - Sorry if I was unclear... I meant that they'd be on the same page, but definetely not mixed in. That would be a bad idea (although separating the tools and scripts into separate tables might also make sense). What about the move? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 17:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
        Oh, I see. Yeah, "tools" is probably a better name. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
        Done. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 19:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
  - And having proposed bots, marked as such, would probably be a good idea here just to help make those discussions more visible. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 16:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
    - Good idea. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
I don't know if User:Neurolysis/tineye.js is worth including or not. Any thoughts? – Quadell ^(talk) 03:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
- If it's an image-related tool, I think that it should be included here. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 12:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
- Ha! I just ported the tineye gadget this morning from Commons, at a suggestion from Sfan00 IMG (talk · contribs). My version is at User:Twp/tineye.js. It looks like the chief difference between Neurolysis's version and this one is that the version from Commons will search TinEye for a scaled-down version of the image if it's larger than 300px. Maybe they found more matches that way? Tim Pierce (talk) 12:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
  - Sounds good. It'd be nice if we could add that to EN WP's gadgets. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 17:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
This page is looking AWESOME! The cool thing is, even if the excitement over the project dies down, all the work that's being done will still be useful. Active or inactive, these pages of resources will be helpful to new (and old) editors. Neat! ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 17:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
- Exactly! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 17:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Add topic