Thanks from me too James, I hope to give the Glamtools upload a spin of my
own soon with a mass upload, and reading about your experience has been
very helpful.
Cheers,
Craig
On 10 March 2014 20:07, Hay (Husky) <huskyr(a)gmail.com> wrote:
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(a)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_…
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(a)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_…
>
> 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_wi…
>>
>> 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glamtools
_______________________________________________
Glamtools mailing list
Glamtools(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glamtools
_______________________________________________
Glamtools mailing list
Glamtools(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glamtools