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) <hus...@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 <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 >
_______________________________________________ Glamtools mailing list Glamtools@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glamtools
