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 <slowki...@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.he...@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