James, awesome that you went through the whole process of documenting
your whole experience and where things could be better. I think that's
a great resource for anyone still starting out and noticing all the
'known bugs'. Maybe it would be good to have a page on Commons as well
with all of these points? Not everyone that uses the tool is on this
list.
-- Hay
On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 6:37 PM, Jim Hayes <slowking4@gmail.com> wrote:
> nice work.
> one thing to think about is parts of the description field that could be
> broken out into the medium field, or title field
> (for example as i manually did in your example)
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3ABodyguard_of_Ranjit_Singh-_1838-1839_-_BL_Add.Or.1385.jpg&diff=118413205&oldid=118380423
>
> it's probably going to be different for each institution, how they input
> their metadata, and how we structure it.
>
> jim hayes
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 8:30 AM, James Heald <j.heald@ucl.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>> A quick update.
>>
>> I've been able to a find ways to help me clean up the layout of the
>> wikitext on the description pages using the semi-automated AutoWikiBrowser
>> tool; and also a less miserable approach to getting the page renaming done;
>> so that I am *not* now planning any longer to do a full re-upload of the
>> set, or indeed any re-uploading.
>>
>> (In fact my hands were tied, because people were already starting to use
>> and edit the pages, which a re-upload would have wiped).
>>
>> So the wikitext layout on the pages is now all pretty much corrected, and
>> I should have worked through renaming the remaining filenames by the end of
>> Sunday.
>>
>>
>> A typical diff can be seen eg at:
>>
>>
>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3ABodyguard_of_Ranjit_Singh-_1838-1839_-_BL_Add.Or.1385.jpg&diff=118380423&oldid=118137724
>>
>> From the top I have made the following changes:
>>
>>
>> * Added an =={{int:filedesc}}== header above the Artwork template
>>
>> * Re-ordered the fields in the artwork template, and added blank ones
>>
>> * Moved the gwtoolset fields into a separate template, {{Uploaded with
>> GWtoolset}}, which currently produces no output, but could be adjusted to
>> output whatever you wanted.
>>
>> * Added whitespace before and after the new {{Uploaded with GWtoolset}}
>> template
>>
>> * Split the categories directives each onto their own line
>>
>> * Added whitespace before the commented-out Metadata sections
>>
>> * I have also turned all instances of ' back into apostrophes.
>> (A single apostrophe has no significance for wiki-markup, and so does not
>> need to be escaped. A double apostrophe may well be intentional).
>>
>>
>> I didn't get the change perfect -- an extra newline got in at the top that
>> shouldn't have been there; and the artwork template is nicer with a single
>> space before the pipe character, which I forgot. But it's good enough, and
>> now feels to me like a proper WikiCommons page should.
>>
>>
>> A final thought about the inclusion of all the commented-out metadata.
>> It's not ideal, because it can lead to category information being split
>> between two places. The natural place for categories is soon after the
>> description, so that an editor can quickly read down in the wikitext from
>> the description to the categories.
>>
>> However, a lot of the visual tools to assist in adding and editing
>> categories tools assume that this will be at the bottom of the page -- so
>> simply add new categories at the end of the page.
>>
>> In this case, however, that would lead to the description page having
>> category information in two different places -- some above the big metadata
>> comment, some below it. It's not good for the information to be going to be
>> split in this way.
>>
>> So -- if the metadata is useful (which it may well be), a better place to
>> put it might be in a separate sub-page. On a separate page, it would also
>> be safe from automated edits -- for example my edits with AWB here.
>>
>>
>> My apologies that I got into a bit of a state about all this last night
>> (and my relief that it's not the blocker I thought it would be). These
>> issues may seem trivial, but in my view they are important (to me, a
>> difference between acceptable and unacceptable output), so IMO they are
>> things that *need* to be tidied up before any big launch.
>>
>> All best,
>>
>> James.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 06/03/2014 19:28, James Heald wrote:
>>>
>>> David,
>>>
>>> Thank you so much for this.
>>>
>>> For me the most pressing issues are:
>>> * allowing punctuation in the filenames
>>> * the layout of the Artwork, so that the fields occur in their usual
>>> standard order & missing fields are included
>>> * moving the 'gwtoolset-title-identifier' and
>>> 'gwtoolset-url-to-the-media-file' fields out of the artwork template, eg
>>> into a template of their own
>>>
>>> I hope these are all fairly small changes, almost cosmetic, that can be
>>> sorted out quickly.
>>>
>>> But they would make a huge difference -- I've already had a sharp note
>>> on my Commons talk page that the images have filled up the automatic
>>> "Artwork template with incorrect parameter" maintenance category,
>>>
>>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Pages_using_Artwork_template_with_incorrect_parameter
>>>
>>> making the category useless for identifying other user's genuine
>>> mistakes because it's full of the 430 images that I uploaded.
>>>
>>> As for the filenames, and the template fields, I really really want to
>>> get these sorted. Really the only sensible way for me to fix them is to
>>> re-run the entire upload, once the tool is patched.
>>>
>>> But until I've done the re-upload that's blocking me from doing a lot of
>>> essential plumbing -- eg properly categorising the images; wikilinking
>>> their subjects, adding them into articles (including swapping the new
>>> images in instead of a lot of existing inferior versions -- which are
>>> exactly the things that are needed to make the upload look good, if the
>>> upload is going to be cited in the official release at the end of the
>>> month. But at the moment I'm blocked, because there is no point in
>>> doing any of those things, if I know that I'm going to do a batch
>>> re-upload that will wipe all of those things out.
>>>
>>> So I hope these key things aren't big fixes, but if it could be possible
>>> to get a patched version of the tool up and running I'd be incredibly
>>> grateful.
>>>
>>> All best,
>>>
>>> James.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Glamtools mailing list
>> Glamtools@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glamtools
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Glamtools mailing list
> Glamtools@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glamtools
>
_______________________________________________
Glamtools mailing list
Glamtools@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glamtools