Commons:Batch uploading/Minerals from Rob Lavinsky on mindat/Old issues

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

Minerals from Rob Lavinsky on mindat[edit]

Like it was discussed in the Commons Village pump, now my request to load all pictures from Rob Lavinsky from mindat. His gallery is on , but you have to control in every picture (about 29070), if there is the notice Photo Copyright © Rob Lavinsky & Then the pictures should be saved with the following terms:

Example picture on mindat (respectively File:Aguilarite and Stephanite - San Carlos Mine, La Luz, Guanajuato, Mexico.jpg on commons)
  • Picture title= Acanthite - San Juan de Rayas Mine, Guanajuato, Mexico.jpg (so it is the mineral name and its locality in short form)
    • Attention: Often there are more than one mineral on the picture like here (Acanthite, Stephanite). When it is too complicated, the title can be only the mineral name respectively mineral names with serial number.
  • Description= Same Description as the description on mindat. More specific description and translation only can come from human helpers, I think ;-)
  • Source= URL to the picture page on mindat
  • Date= only filled, when the source has a date, otherwise nothing
  • Author= Rob Lavinsky / photo
  • License= {{Self|cc-by-sa-3.0|author=Rob Lavinsky|attribution=Rob Lavinsky / [ photo] / CC-BY-SA-3.0}}
  • categories= one category for every occurring mineral name in the picture and the collectors gallery Category:Files by Rob Lavinsky from mindat

Rob Lavinsky gave his pictures on his own homepage , too, but I don't know, if it is possible to load them to commons with a bot. The pictures are in several sub galleries on and the description is in the sub gallery page, but not on the picture page. For example, first page on vault gallery shows first 10 pictures from "Tanzanite - Merelani Mine, Arusha, Tanzania" (first picture page). The next 3 pictures are "Euclase - Lost Hope Mine, Miami, Karoi District, Mashonaland West, Zimbabwe". I hope, that are enough infos to execute my request. Best regards -- Ra'ike T C 13:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm just about to scan the data and to get additional information (especially translations of the mineral names) from other sites. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 23:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I think, it's better to change the collectors category to Category:Files by Rob Lavinsky (without "from mindat"), because the pictures not only will come from mindat. Is that ok? -- Ra'ike T C 09:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
One more question: What is with the field Permission? Should we copy the permission-template or take a permanent link to that field? -- Ra'ike T C 13:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I would suggest changing the category to Category:Images by Rob Lavinsky and having a creator template or some kind of template to accompany all files so that category renaming would be easy. Leave the permission field empty, which will give "See below" and add the template {{PermissionOTRS}} below the file with the cc-by-sa template.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 13:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Here are my proposals for an image description page: User:Reinhard Kraasch/File:Aguilarite-Stephanite-122219.jpg and for a category page: User:Reinhard_Kraasch/Category:Acanthite, please feel free to modify it. -- Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 22:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Please set the author as his request "Rob Lavinsky / photo" like in the right picture File:Aguilarite and Stephanite - San Carlos Mine, La Luz, Guanajuato, Mexico.jpg. The remaining description in the example of Reinhard Kraasch and the new user category is very good. Thanks and greetings -- Ra'ike T C
This does not fit very well into the creator template - I have tried to adjust it this way, but have no idea regardig the rules of creator templates. Maybe we should use a separate template. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 12:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I added the name in the description [1]. Now it's ok, I think. -- Ra'ike T C 13:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
The category move is now complete, see Category:Images by Rob Lavinsky. The old category was changed to a redirect.
Another question is still open: Can the bot scan Lavinsky's homepage, too or is it better, to transfere that pictures as I wrote in Commons:Robert Lavinsky? -- Ra'ike T C 23:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
You mean I guess there will be a lot of duplicates... --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 09:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I mean and yes, there are sometimes pictures, that looked like duplicates ([2] and [3] for example). Ok, I think, it's really better to scan the pictures on by humans. I prepared it on Commons:Robert Lavinsky, but I want to go sure, before. greetings -- Ra'ike T C 10:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
(addition) Ok, you're right. There could be a lot of duplicates. I looked through the galleries and saw 2 of them staurolite on and here, aAguilarite on and here. -- Ra'ike T C 11:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Ist wohl doch besser abzuwarten, bis Du die mindat-Bilder geladen hast ;-))

I guess the creator category should be Category:Rob Lavinsky instead of Category:Images by Rob Lavinsky - the other creator cats also don't have a "Images by" or any other prefix: [4].

I just muse whether it is sensible to put the location descriptions into seperate templates. This would ease the translation job for the locations as well as other future jobs (e.g., georeferencing), but lead to some 4000 seperate and new templates. (The question is whether there will be a lot of manual postprocessing with these images at all, or if they will not just be as they are...) --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 17:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Comparison between pictures from mindat and[edit]

Duplicates on may be easily identified and avoided by a bot since it seems to me that their URL is always of the form<base_mindat_ID><index_letter>.jpg

which corresponds to the picture<mindat_ID>.html

with mindat_ID = base_mindat_ID + index_letter (a=0, b=1, c=2, etc.). For example, is the same as (242617c => 242617 + 2 = 242619). Moreover, there is a database behind Do you think it could be possible to have direct access to it, or (preferably) obtain a dump as a CSV file? — Xavier, 00:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Default file descriptions[edit]

I've edited the proposed default file description a bit. Notes:

  • description: the original and detailed {{en}} description should always be placed in the first line, {{de}} and others can follow
  • source: visual shortening of the URLs by adding brackets – [] – could be nice, but as the URLs in question seem to be rather short, it's not that important imo
  • author: the use of {{Creator:Rob Lavinsky}} is perfect :-)
  • date: please don't leave this field blank just because there's no data on the source page available, better use {{other date}} with "before|2010-03" or so (date when the images were downloaded from the site)
  • permission: this field has a subtitle "(Reusing this file)" for some time now, that was done for a good reason; so from a usability (reuser-friendly) point of view the license tag should directly go here, the OTRS template (which is only of internal interest) can follow – including the license tag in this field makes the whole description clearer and would also spare some space (and we can also leave out this pointless/redundant "see below" line)
  • int:filedesc/license headings: they both can be left out then

As we talk about thousands of files here, it might be sensible to not use {{Self|cc-by-sa-3.0|author=Rob Lavinsky|attribution=Rob Lavinsky, [ photo] – CC-BY-SA-3.0}} but something like {{Rob Lavinsky CC-BY-SA-3.0}}, so that changes in attribution method will be easier if needed eventually in the future (e.g. if irocks changes its URL or will be defunct, or if Rob decides that he only wants to be attributed by his full name without any web reference, dunno). Such a template could also include [[Category:Images by Rob Lavinsky]] btw.

Ah, and some further nitpicking ;-) I'm unsure if links to – currently written photo – should really include the singular word "photo". Just is sufficient and more accurate, or not? The same argument is valid for "", of course.

--:bdk: 08:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

My notes:

  • I would link to Commons:Robert Lavinsky instead of the Category in the Creator:Rob Lavinsky-Template.
  • I would also add brackets like [] to the URL at the source-tag.

--Orci Disk. 22:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

My notes:

  • The link in the Creator-Template now is changed. So we have both in this template, Commons-page and category.
  • filling the date should be ok, also the short form of the source-link, when it's not too intricately to programm that. But I don't see the convenience in this. Who disturbs a long link? -- Ra'ike T C 11:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Further notes:

  • I had a look at Category:Custom license tags with OTRS permission and found that it's quite usual to combine 1) a license tag and 2) the OTRS permission tag together with 3) a base category ("images by foo" or so). Perhaps we can also use this template scheme (I've already adapted the template "Rob Lavinsky cc-by-sa" a bit). Ok?
  • @Ra'ike: see above, I wrote "it's not that important", of course it's just a suggestion and a personal "distaste" for the http:// part :-) Anyway, is your question "Who disturbs a long link?" also applicable to the mindat/irocks links in the permission field then? Do you want them to be fully displayed as e.g. instead of just
  • @Reinhard: this revision isn't optimal yet and I guess I'm not the only one who's confused by the alternate en–de–en–de–en–de scheme within the description field. How will it look if we add three or four more languages? ;-)

--:bdk: 18:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Re: the back and forth with languages (yes, it's rather unsightly!), if this is something that can't be easily dealt with in the uploader program, surely a simple bot run could condense each language to a single field. Huntster (t @ c) 22:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I tried to keep the location info separate from the other info on one hand and the location template simple and easy to modify on the other hand. Now I tried another approach, this looks better, I think, but makes the template more complicated. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 12:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

There will also be language sections for "es", "fr" and "ru", according to my plans. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 12:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

@Bdk: Ich versuche es nochmal auf deutsch, da meine englische Übersetzung wohl nicht richtig ankam ;-). Ob der Link zur Quelle (egal ob die Bildquelle jetzt oder ist) nun offen oder versteckt in der Beschreibung steht, ist eigentlich nicht so wichtig. Ich denke nur, es wäre sicher einfacher zu programmieren und weniger fehleranfällig, wenn der Link nicht versteckt werden muss. Außerdem war meine Frage, ob es denn jemanden stören würde, wenn der Link in der Langform, d.h. nicht versteckt angezeigt würde?
@Reinhard Kraasch: Bezüglich der Fundorte würde ich kein Extra-Template setzen, sondern (wenn überhaupt) wie schon an dieser Stelle beschrieben, die Fundort-Interwikis und den Geo-Ref auf die entsprechende Category setzen und in der Bildbeschreibung nur die Category:Fundort setzen. Das erspart doppelt-und-dreifache interwiki-templates in der Bildbeschreibung. Die Locality-Categories könnte man aber auch später in einem einem zweiten Botlauf ergänzen. Ich habe das Gefühl, diese Diskussion verzögert den Start des Bilderuploads nur unnötig. Gruß -- Ra'ike T C 13:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Es ist halt die Frage, wie flexibel man sein will und wie viel Arbeit man sich bei der Nacharbeit machen will. Ich könnte auch die Bilder erst einmal mit einer vorläufigen Bildbeschreibung hochladen und diese dann per Bot nachbearbeiten. Schwierig wird's halt dann, wenn dann in der Zwischenzeit manuelle Nachbearbeitung erfolgt, die der Bot dann wieder kaputt macht. Andererseits ist die Angelegenheit ja so eilig nun auch wieder nicht. Ich habe die Bilder alle - die laufen uns also nicht davon. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 14:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Klar laufen die Bilder nicht mehr davon, aber inzwischen hat die Nachricht von der kommenden Bilderflut ziemliche Kreise gezogen und die Leute warten darauf, bei der Übersetzung und der Einbindung in die Artikel helfen zu können ;-). Aktuell sieht die Bildbeschreibungsseite aber imo sehr gut aus und die Fundorteinbindung und -category wurde ebenfalls gut gelöst. Fehlt eigentlich nur noch die Antwort auf die Frage, wie der Quellenlink einfacher per Bot einzubinden ist. Als reiner Link oder versteckt, wie von Orci und Bdk vorgeschlagen, dann könnte es eigentlich losgehen ;-). Gruß -- Ra'ike T C 19:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Summary of Current Description[edit]

I hope, all updates are now in the description, so that the upload can begin soon. If not, add it in the description thereunder. -- Ra'ike T C 13:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

{{en|[[:en:Mineral1|Mineral1]](optional: , [[:en:Mineral2|Mineral2]] and [[:en:Mineral3|Mineral3]]) - description from mindat}}
{{de|[[:de:Mineral1|Mineral1]](optional: , [[:de:Mineral2|Mineral2]] und [[:de:Mineral3|Mineral3]]) – Übersetzung der Fundort-Beschreibung}}
|Source= or [ mindat]
|Author= {{Creator:Rob Lavinsky}}
|Date= {{other date|before|2010-03}}
|Permission= {{Rob Lavinsky cc-by-sa}}
{{Images by Rob Lavinsky}}

Hmm, as already suggested above, ist wahrscheinlich im Gewusel ;-) untergegangen: Why not add the current content of {{Images by Rob Lavinsky}}, which is only the base category [[Category:Rob Lavinsky]], directly to {{Rob Lavinsky cc-by-sa}} to simplify matters? {{Images by Rob Lavinsky}} could be completely left out then.
@Reinhard: The test uploads seem pretty fine, nearly perfect! I only noticed three minor issues, that could perhaps bother some of the "source code lovers" that we also have here on Commons ;-)
1) The second {{de|foo}} entry within the description field starts indented with a few blanks – deliberate?
2) After the last closing }} within the description field is a needless blank line.
3) There are rather unusal blanks in the category entries between [[Category: and Name]] – deliberate?
As with the URL display: all three issues are not that important … it's just a note :-) --:bdk: 21:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
All three issues are deliberate and to enhance readability. (E.g. #1 to left align the {{de|foo}} with the {{en|foo}} entry). I can change it of course, if needed. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 09:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
(3) should be fixed. It might interfere with some tools working on categories. -- User:Docu at 05:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
White space after the colon is completely within syntax - I don't think there is any tool that does not cope with that. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 07:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Mediawiki is fairly tolerant with syntax, but this isn't really a reason to output non-standard formatting by bot. If there is a general need for the suggested format, we could change the default used by all other tools. -- User:Docu at 09:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Test Upload[edit]

I have meanwhile run the test upload and wait for your comments:

I gave up the idea of the locality templates - I think they are too complicated for the users to handle - and decided to set a "Locality:" into the locality categories, since some minerals have just "Argentina" or "Turkey" as locality which would interfere with the existing Category: Argentina then. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 19:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

It would also nice if you would have a look on User:Reinhard Kraasch/mindat/Categories to be created - these are the categories which do not yet exist on Commons. The question is whether these categories (or rather: mineral classes) are correct this way, or if some of then should be rearranged by the bot - or later manually. Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 19:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I assume the Locality:.. categories are temporary. How are these going to be replaced by real categories? Do you have a list of the localities with number of images?
Do you have a list of the mineral categories which are going to be filled (also with numbers plz)? Probably useful to build the tree before you start uploading (to prevent over-categorization). Multichill (talk) 22:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
I have no idea how to resolve these categories and to match them with existing location categories (most of them are some quarries or mines with no other use and reference in Commons) - this can only be done manually - if at all. Maybe it is better to put the categorization in templates, then only 4000 templates have to be checked and changed and not all the 32000 articles. The existing mineral categories which will be used are in User:Reinhard Kraasch/mindat/Categories existing. I will give the number of references later (right now I'm a bit in a hurry). --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 09:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps the categories could be simplified..."Minerals of country" or somesuch? If further subcatting is desired, that could be done as well, but that's the only real solution I can think of for the locality issue. Huntster (t @ c) 09:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
At least the top level (country) is usable this way. I could maybe break it down to the second level (state or province). There would be a handful of cases that would have to be fixed manually then. But there is more locality information (e.g. coordinates) in that could be used or referenced (the question is where to put it). With mere country/provice categories it will be lost. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 15:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
There is a problem with some categories in the category list, I think. For example Category:Axinite and Category:Sulfur exist, but in another spelling or without serial-element. -- Ra'ike T C 22:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
If I have a reference list, I could match these with the correct categories or fix the spelling. This should be done before the actual upload, however. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 09:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Having the permission template in the permission field lengthens the summary template a lot and brings the other versions field too far down. It would be much better if the permission field was left empty which automatically gives "see below" and a new section with licensing as a header is created, under which the license is found.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 19:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree with this as well. Organising things by section just seems cleaner to me, even if it does lengthen the overall page. Huntster (t @ c) 21:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

If I put the licensing information below the information box, we can put the content of template "Rob Lavinsky cc-by-sa" into template "Images by Rob Lavinsky" and use a single template then. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 21:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

That's an added bonus and an even better reason for such a change. Don't forget the {{int:filedesc}} and {{int:license-header}} internationalised section headers. Huntster (t @ c) 22:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I also suggest removing the website from the creator template, since it's already in the permission template and just lengthens the widths of the creator template too far. You also forgot to add Category:Images by Rob Lavinsky in the permission template, which would automatically categorize all his images to the category. Please run another test upload after applying all changes with the sections and so on. Would it also be possible to get an image of rob lavinsky to place it in the creator template or the permission template?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:10, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
All the modifications to the template contents can of course also easily be done later, but I will try to consider all the suggestions with the next test run. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 09:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
The date field
this seems to be filled by {{other date|before|2010-03}}. While this is accurate, I'm not convinced about its usefulness. Is there any chance to get a more specific date? -- User:Docu at 08:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
We could ask Rob (the images don't have EXIF information with them, as far as I have seen), but I hesitate to bother him with that (then we could also have asked him whether he would give us the images directly, which has not been done on purpose). By the way: Is the image date really relevant? Wouldn't the collection date be more interesting? -- Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 09:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Exif date isn't necessarily the best solution. I wonder if the year of collection or no date is better. -- User:Docu at 10:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Actually there is no date information with the images - so the question is basically "before 2010" or "nothing™" --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 11:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Other versions
How are the images selected? e.g. for File:Rhodochrosite-131596.jpg are these all images in Category: Rhodochrosite or just different views of the same "object"? -- User:Docu at 08:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
These are the "other views" from the page. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 09:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Seems to be the same object: good. -- User:Docu at 10:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
File names
Could we add "RL-" before the image number? This would make it easier to identify the set. -- User:Docu at 08:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
If there is a consent about the file name, of course. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 09:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I'd favor a template for the main description. I'm not particularly fond of seeing ("::") in there. Obviously, there are advantages of having plain text descriptions too. -- User:Docu at 08:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Docu on everything, we could create a {{minerals}} with parameters specific to minerals, since we have many minerals on commons already. The size and location found could be some of the parameters.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I see the advantages, but it would be not a minor job to create such a template, and to leave it open for descriptions in other languages (will say: in any other language). The main question is: Who will do this job? (I am more than busy with arranging the data for the upload). --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 09:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
One of the nice thing about templates is that one doesn't have to worry about layout/translation/info/wording etc. at the same time. e.g. the one on Category:Time 01:16 is now available in three languages and I didn't even design it with translations in mind.
Even if you decide against using a template, it might be worth wrapping parts of the description into blank templates, sample with {{3dsizetest}} e.g. using "Size: 4.9 x 3.0 x 1.4 cm" instead of "Size: 4.9 x 3.0 x 1.4 cm". This can make the text easier to rework later. -- User:Docu at 10:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
From the programmer's and wikipedia pro's point of view this is of course correct, but on the other hand templates make it very hard for people not accustomed to the template syntax to do any modifications at all, e.g. in this experiment. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 11:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
And of course it would be best to reduce redundancy and e.g. centralize identical descriptions as in File:Apatite-Arsenopyrite-Muscovite-119107.jpg, File:Apatite-Arsenopyrite-Muscovite-119108.jpg and File:Apatite-Arsenopyrite-Muscovite-119109.jpg in a single place. But if we did this, only specialists could find and modify these description templates, so my intention is to keep it as simple (and: legible) as possible. Even this has to be a compromise, since legibility of the resulting description page is not the same as legibility of the wiki-text of the page (the "::"-stuff is a mess) --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 12:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
I like your experiment. It goes much further than my "Size: 4.9 x 3.0 x 1.4 cm" suggestion though. -- User:Docu at 05:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Open questions[edit]
  • File name
    • right now: <Mineral1>[-<Mineral2>[-<Mineral3>]]-<MindatID>.jpg
      • Suggestion: RL-<Mineral1>[-<Mineral2>[-<Mineral3>]]-<MindatID>.jpg
  • Substitution of categories
I will process the category list (and the variety list) to generate substitution list in the kind of:
Sulphur --> Sulfur
Ferro-axinite --> Axinite
(It's not so good to edit User:Reinhard Kraasch/Mineral categories directly, since I need the original categories / mineral names to match the substitution) See below
  • Substitution of mineral names
    • the list should also reflect if the substitution is restricted to the categorization or if the mineral name in the description should be changed too (e.g. Bastnäsite --> Bastnaesite)
    • this also affects the file name
  • Mineral varieties
    • should they get separate categories?
      • if yes: should they only be categorized by these categories (which should then been set up as sub-categories of the original mineral - e.g. "Rose quartz" as sub-category of "Quartz")
  • Locality templates
    • should be there one for each (of the 4000+) localities?
    • or should we aggregate them (to which level)?
      • if the latter: Where to put the reference to the original locality information [5]?
  • Image descriptions
    • use special template "mineral"?
      • if yes, who builds it?
    • file date: Any chance to get a more specific date?

--Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 09:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello Reinhard,
File name: I think the last one RL-<Mineral1>[-<Mineral2>[-<Mineral3>]]-<MindatID>.jpg is better. I agree with User:Docu. It's easier to identify them in a big mineral category, when we want to compare them with the pictures on to find the missing pictures (view Commons:Robert Lavinsky#Images)
Substitution of categories: Sorry for that edit. I thought, that would be ok, because you made this page by yourself and not by bot. There where also some mistakes in the varity-categories, I corrected, but I will change it, how you show it above.
Locality-Category: For example
In this way, you can put the original locality description in it's own locality category, if it's possible. If it's too complicated, you can put the locality category directly in the country category (Portugal, South africa, United states) and other user have to correct it manually.
Image descriptions: No special template, please. The description is ok how it is. We shouldn't make it more complicated as needed. The date also is ok, I don't think, that we can get a better date. greetings -- Ra'ike T C 12:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I can rearrange and categorize the locality info as ever you want it - but I need a reference table for that. At least for the most used localities this should be aggreed upon before the actual upload starts, since it is an unnecessary overhead to replace the categories later. And it's always easier to aggregate than to separate data later. So I would prefer the 4000+ separate locality cats - the question remains how to (re)name them. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 13:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the file name - I don't see any advantage (but also no disadvantage) in putting the initials "RL" in front of the file name - a name is a name is a name. If somebody wants to access "all images by Rob Lavinsky", the creator category is fully sufficient and much more reliable than the file name. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 14:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I have meanwhile added some extra columns to the category list (and the variety list) as well as some explanations to the possible actions associated with each line. These lists can now be edited directly (but please keep to the scheme as I have set it up). I hope this will ease the processing of these lists a bit. -- Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 18:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
If they are synonyms or spelling variations, you might want to create category redirects for some of categories in the list. (Or take the steps to move the existing category) -- User:Docu at 10:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
This is what I made the category list (and the variety list) for - you will have to edit it and to tell me (and the bot) what is spelling variation, what is typo, etc., since I have almost no knowledge of the matter. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 12:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
The nice thing about the redirects is that once they are there, you don't have to worry about what it is. -- User:Docu at 05:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Doesn't Commons also have the rule: There should be no spelling (typo) redirects? By the way: Category redirects - do they work at all? (I never tried it...) But anyway: I don't think redirects are a good solution for this. When the category is "Beril", then in the image should be the categorized as "Beril" and not as "Berlin" or whatever. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 07:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
They work fine for most applications and we create them reguarly. Even if some administrators find it easier to delete than to create a proper redirect. In general, we don't create redirects for typos, at least unless they are so frequent that one would consider them a spelling variation. Thus there isn't really a problem to create a redirect from Category:Baryte to Category:barite (one of the red links on your list). Actually, I wonder why isn't already there. -- User:Docu at 09:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello Reinhard and Docu, have you seen my notice on User talk:Reinhard Kraasch/Mineral categories? Category:Barite is an old wrong named category and should be moved to the correct title. Another problem are mutated vowels like in Category:Hübnerite (correct name) or in Bastnäsite (correct name) instead of Category:Bastnaesite (synonym to avoid the mutated vowel). What is better to do? English and other keyboards don't have this special letters, so I think, it's better to create categories without them. -- Ra'ike T C 10:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Well - anyway: I will have to process the list in any case, so why don't you fix it there? It should be less hassle than to build these redirects manually. And besides this: When a mineral is misspelled, I will have to fix the mineral name in description in the first place, categorization is a secondary issue. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 18:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
At least according to Wikipedia, both Barite and Baryte are used (it's not simply a redirect, but mentioned in bold at the beginning of the article). Even if one was generally thought to be "correct", this doesn't mean we can't have a redirect for the other version. -- User:Docu at 06:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Docu here. It doesn't matter which is the most acceptable use; if Baryte is determined as the most acceptable form, a bot can be used to mass-move all the images to the new category. The name need not be anything that impacts these uploads. Regarding the name with umlauts, that shouldn't be an issue since Commons has the handy-dandy special character list below the edit window. All those umlauts, acutes, etc are just a mouse-click away. I'd suggest always using the internationally-accepted Latin-character name, regardless of any "special" characters involved. Huntster (t @ c) 06:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand why you all hesitate to do the handful of edits on the list and to get the things in order right away. I don't know much about minerals, but if it would be the case, I would rather spend the five minutes to correct the list instead of argueing here the pros and cons of doing it or leaving it. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 07:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I created a few redirects. This way everybody benefits from this and it will also take care of six images currently in red categories. BTW Wikipedia makes a difference between "Heliodor" and "Golden beryl" so I didn't create a redirect. Maybe it shouldn't be re-categorized through your list either. -- User:Docu at 08:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Again: This is not my list, this is the means to tell the bot what it has to do (and again: I don't have the knowledge, you will have to edit the list - respectively: As I understand it, you are no mineral expert either - so: where are the mineral specialists?) --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 08:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The Names of the Mineral-Categorys should imo be like on the official IMA-List (I have these list as an Excel-sheet, when you need it, write a Mail to me). When a redirect is useful, it can imo create later. --Orci Disk. 18:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
This Excel sheet would be useful, it would be nice if you could e-mail it to me. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 18:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
If you send me a mail, I can mail it back. --Orci Disk. 20:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Custom template?[edit]

Maybe it's nice to have a custom template like the ones I put at User:Multichill/Custom license templates. Multichill (talk) 20:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The custom license template is right now Template:Rob Lavinsky cc-by-sa - it could of course still be enhanced, but Rob Lavinsky is just one of many contributors of (though one of the major contributors) and as such he does not have a logo or so (at least as far as I know). So the chances for a "real nice" license template are a bit limited, I guess. And, of course: This can also be done later, if needed or if the situation changes ... --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 21:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Additional reports[edit]

I have produced 5 reports to give an overview of the number of references and the kind of categories to be created

The locality categories are now of the type <locality name>[, <state in the US>], <country> (e.g. in Category: Meikle Mine, Nevada, USA) and to be found in the Localities list. Please leave your opinion below at "opinions". --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 07:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Quantity structure[edit]

  • 274905 images have been downloaded from
  • 274078 of these have a description
  • 256480 of these are images of minerals
  • 34951 images are copyrighted by Rob Lavinsky
  • 34918 of these have sufficient size and will be uploaded
  • 4005 different localities
  • 4370 different mineral descriptions in
  • 1274 of these are used in conjunction with Rob Lavinsky's images


  • File name
    • <Mineral1>[-<Mineral2>[-<Mineral3>]]-<MindatID>.jpg
    • Alternative: RL-<Mineral1>[-<Mineral2>[-<Mineral3>]]-<MindatID>.jpg
  • Locality categories
    • <locality name>[, <state in the US>], <country>
    • Alternative: <locality name>

Currently the images are put in the location categories directly filling them with minerals like Category:Tsumeb. Since the images are many it would be much better if the categorization would contain "Minerals in" as in Category:Minerals in Tsumeb which would be a subcategory of Category:Tsumeb. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 09:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

In Tsumeb we have minimum two localities, the "Tsumeb Mine" and the "Tsumeb West Mine" (view Mineralienatlas:Tsumeb), so the minerals are correct categorized in their special locality category like Category:Tsumeb Mine, Namibia and Category:Tsumeb West Mine, Namibia. From the other minerals in the category:Tsumeb, we have to control, if in the description the special locality is named. If not, the only way to categorize them is in the main category Tsumeb. -- Ra'ike T C 12:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Rob Lavinsky (or rather does not distinguish between "Tsumeb Mine" and the "Tsumeb West Mine", it's all "Tsumeb Mine".
BTW: there is no necessity to create these locality categories manually - the bot will do this with a final run (and then overwrite all categories that have been created manually). --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 14:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
It could be, that Rob Lavinsky only has minerals from Tsumeb Mine, but I'm sure, that he knows the difference and knows it, too [6] [7]. And there's also known a third locality in tsumeb which is named Tsumeb smelter (slag locality) ;-))
To create the 4 locality categories was easy and there are more mineral pictures on Commons, which have that locality, so I merged them in the categories. But I will wait for your bot run, now ;-) When do you start the final run? I looked over many of the pictures in Category:Images by Rob Lavinsky and all looked very well. greetings -- Ra'ike T C 17:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I just started the final upload (or rather the first 1000 images of it, I guess I will break it down to bulks of 1000s such that the bot will not run unsupervised for a longer period of time) --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 19:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Fantastic! :-) Only one question: What's about Category:Rob Lavinsky? Do you move the pictures later or is that category needless now? greetings -- Ra'ike T C 21:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Right now it is not used any more - I lost a bit the overview whether it should be Category:Images by Rob Lavinsky or Category:Rob Lavinsky now. But it can easily and at any time be changed by modifying Template:Images by Rob Lavinsky. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 08:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I have no preference, which category name is the better one. In my opinion, it can stay where it is. -- Ra'ike T C 00:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
(supplement) Because I saw it in that example, could the bot link the mineralname every time in the german description, even if the german article doesn't exist? It's easier to control that and we don't have to catch up that later, when the article is written. -- Ra'ike T C 21:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
OK, but this will take some time since I have to rerun the description generating program. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 08:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
It seems, that there is a mistake in the program, because often the links to the wp-articles aren't correct (view my last contributions). -- Ra'ike T C 00:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I think I have fixed this. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 08:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

(it is about categorization, so I put it here)
I have done the this edit and this one as I completely did not understand and do not understand the difference of the suffix , <country>. What is the difference between Category:Chamonix and Category:Chamonix, France? On first glance this is the same. Using HotCat to categorize will leave us with a choice which is not possible to answer without knowledge whats going on here. So I strongly propose to rename all the categories by adding the prefix Minerals of, e.g. Category:Minerals of Chamonix, France and make this one a subcat of Category:Chamonix. This will avoid a lot of categorization problems. regards --Herzi Pinki (talk) 15:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Open issues (Test 3) final run[edit]

Locality at - links

Is there any information that can be found there that wouldn't already be in the description? I don't think that link adds anything to the description, please remove it. -- User:Docu at 05:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

There is of course a lot more information, best you take a look. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 08:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
The sample I checked didn't have any additional information. As the link is also in the category description and can be found through the link to the image, please remove it. The description should attempt to link Wikipedia rather than external sites. -- User:Docu at 09:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Categories for locations

Please make sure that minerals don't get filled into country categories (such as File:Quartz-22021.jpg). I agree with the proposal made by Diaa abdelmoneim above, to use "Minerals of .." categories. If the locality is a mine, this may not be necessary though. -- User:Docu at 05:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

This could have been fixed in table User:Reinhard_Kraasch/Localities which is there for about a week, but I did not get any comments on it and nobody modified the proposed categorization there. Regarding the "Minerals of" issue: I have put the category naming variants above under "opinions", but did not get any response there. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 08:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Above Diaa abdelmoneim noted that this should be fixed. I don't think he is doing the upload though. -- User:Docu at 09:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand what you want to tell me. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 09:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
The comment of Diaa abdelmoneim is the one above (09:05, 30 March 2010). -- User:Docu at 10:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I tried to control that localities, but it's too much to finish it in a week ;-) and in the list is no example, how to correct or move categories, so that the bot can read it out.
For example, Category:Tsumeb, Namibia could be renamed to Category:Minerals of Tsumeb, Namibia (for all minerals with no info about the special locality), otherwise it's redundant with Category:Tsumeb. -- Ra'ike T C 09:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I proposed "Locality: <locality>" - we had a lot of proposals, but nobody stated clearly what needed. So I made up the list and got no contradiction. I can only cite Matthew 5/37: "But let your word be Yea, yea - Nay, nay. But what is more than these is from evil". And Gorbachev: "He who comes too late is punished by life" (OK, it's not from Gorbachev). --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 10:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
File naming

File naming still needs to be updated. Please insert an identifier such as "RL-" in addition to the file number. -- User:Docu at 05:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I left this open above under "opinions" too, but did not get any responses either. So I left it as it is (and will leave it so, since I still see no reason for this "RL-") --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 08:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
It seems to me that others agree on this. Besides this is the usual way it's being done with batch uploads. Why don't you want to follow this? -- User:Docu at 09:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Until now it sounded to me that you just tell me what I have to do - in a not very constructive way. I hope this is just a language problem. I would be happy if there would be a few more opinions and of course some more arguments. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 09:46, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
It was discussed in "Open questions" and I agreed with docu, because I thought, it could be necessary for comparing the pictures with the pictures on But now I think, the actual naming is really ok, because you wrote on Commons talk:Robert Lavinsky, the bot can compare the pictures, too. -- Ra'ike T C 09:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I had made the first test upload, and got no contradiction, then the next 100 - again: no contradiction - and now, after 4700 images there comes a guy and says: You have to do it this and that way. This is not the way I can handle a discussion. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 10:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
We can ask for further input next week. It seems to be easy to fix this. BTW thanks to Diaa abdelmoneim to take the time and review the uploads. -- User:Docu at 10:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Imo it is not necessary, to change the file names. The mindat-number is a clear identifier, so there is no risk to confuse these pictures with others. --Orci Disk. 14:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
HTML comments inserted within categories on file description pages

Please remove the comment "<!--Loc:3279:-->" inserted within categories (sample File:Andradite-22975.jpg). -- User:Docu at 05:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

This is on purpose for a possible bot rerun, and does not do any harm to anybody. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 08:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
How do you plan to use this? Once someone fixes the bot upload (e.g. here), it just become stray information laying around. -- User:Docu at 09:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't plan anything (if I knew what to do I would do it in advance) - but If necessary, then I would have a reference to the original location info despite of renaming the file or whatever. -- Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 09:46, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
This comment don't disturb anybody and when the bot need it... -- Ra'ike T C 09:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
It might be better to leave it in the description with the location text. -- User:Docu at 10:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Link to country name

Please don't link the name of the country. It doesn't really and anything, e.g. at File:Aragonite-36963.jpg. -- User:Docu at 05:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

That would mean that I have to rerun the program which takes about a day. I also put this to discussion with the very first test upload on March 21 - couldn't you have made this comment a bit earlier? --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 08:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
What's the problem of linking the complete locality, when it's possible? So it's much easier to go to the wp-articles with one click and maybe correct or add infos there. For me it's absolutely ok. -- Ra'ike T C 09:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
The link on the locality is fine, even excellent. Linking the country is generally useless (unless you link a "minerals of country x" article). -- User:Docu at 10:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Repeated localities

In File:Aragonite-36963.jpg, Sefrou Province is inserted twice. -- User:Docu at 05:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

This is an artifact created by the fact that "Sefrou" is an redirect to "Sefrou (Province)" in en: --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 08:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Ok. -- User:Docu at 09:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Bot blocked[edit]

I requested for the bot to blocked until the remaining issues are addressed/solved. -- User:Docu at 09:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I take this as an unfriendly act. Besides the fact that the bot is not running at all, and you just could have given me a short note.
I will leave for Easter holidays shortly. You have then plenty of time to settle all these issues.
BTW: It was not me who was in a hurry. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 09:52, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Don't take it as such. It standard procedure with malfunctioning bots. As an administrator, you should know that. In general, we expect the bot operator to resolve open issues themselves. If you don't have time to do so, we will have to hold this for now. If you delete all previous uploads each time, we have to restart the entire discussion after each attempt, not really helpful. -- User:Docu at 10:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
OK, understood. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 10:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, ich komme da so schnell nicht mehr mit. Da passt es einem Benutzer nicht, wie die Bildbeschreibung aufgebaut ist und schafft es, die ganze Aktion zu stoppen? Schreibt gar von einem "Defekt" bei der Bot-Programmierung und lässt den sperren?!?
Soweit ich das sehe, geht es hier nur um ein paar Kleinigkeiten in puncto Links und Kategorien, die man ohne Probleme und schnell mit einem zweiten Botlauf lösen könnte. Außerdem läuft der Bot nicht unkontrolliert für die gesamten 35000 Bilder, sondern stoppt nach jeweils 1000 Bildern.
Und wieso kommt jetzt erst das Gemecker? Es war doch nach den ersten Testläufen Zeit genug, zu reagieren :-/ -- Ra'ike T C 10:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Ich verstehe es ja auch nicht und hoffe, dass es hauptsächlich ein Kommunikationsproblem ist. So gut ist mein Englisch nun auch nicht, die feinsten Zwischentöne und Befindlichkeiten zu transportieren. Es wäre auf jeden Fall hilfreich, wenn sich hauptsächlich und vor allem die Mineralisten an der Diskussion beteiligen würden. Aber wie auch immer: Mir reicht es jetzt erst einmal, ich ziehe mich in den Osterurlaub zurück. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 11:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I do tend to view this as an aggressive act, considering there was significant time allowed for users to comment on the proposed upload parameters, and not much came of it. Docu, please show me where it is required that batch uploads must contain some unique identifier in the file name. I don't want "convention", I want to see a hard rule written somewhere (I don't get involved with such things, so I don't know if it exists). Otherwise, this "malfunctioning bot" request was a highly inappropriate one, and I'll ask for the bot to be immediately unblocked. Everything else above is trivial and can easily be fixed with a future bot run if deemed desired. Huntster (t @ c) 14:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
My apologies, I took the bot block request in good faith, and was unaware of the issues - and blocked only where I assumed that a following admin would or could unblock where necessary. I apologise to all involved if I have complicated a process of resolving any issues - real or unintentional - by applying a block SatuSuro (talk) 03:17, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
It might help if the comments above would be translated to English, this makes it easier for everyone to comment on them. -- User:Docu at 05:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but in my humble opinion your last comment and action was really enough! And that, although you are the only one, who has problems with description and/or categorisation. Furthermore I'm also not good in english (en-1 to en-2) and I often must translate other contributions with or -- Ra'ike T C 09:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
You might be confusing last comment and initial comment. The bot is still listed as running on the status below. If you read the status, you will also notice that the bot does seem to operate as specified. Obviously you are free to change your mind on how it should operate (as you seem to have done on April 2).
Please ask for help if you need a translation of the comments by Diaa abdelmoneim. He followed numerous batches and took the time to comment on this one in detail. As you are not a casual visitor who discovered this page just recently, I think you should try to make use of his comments and thank him for the time he took. -- User:Docu at 11:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

You kind of lost me. What issues are so serious that the bot was blocked? Multichill (talk) 10:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Last summary of picture descriptions and requests for picture description[edit]

File name


  • consensus of Reinhard Kraasch, Orci and me: No need to change the name to RL-<Mineral1>[-<Mineral2>[-<Mineral3>]]-<MindatID>.jpg
English: Mineral1 (optional Mineral2 and so on)
Locality: complete locality description from with links to existing wikipedia articles and link to the locality description of
complete description of the showing mineral from
Deutsch: Mineral2 (optional Mineral2 usw.)
Fundort: Komplette Beschreibung des Fundortes mit Links zu existierenden WP-Artikeln und Link zur Fundortbeschreibung auf
no hidden link to the picture on
{{Creator:Rob Lavinsky}}
{{other date|before|2010-03}}
(see below)

== {{int:license-header}} ==

{{Images by Rob Lavinsky}}

  • [[Category:Mineral1]] (optional [[Category:Mineral2]] (and so on)
  • [[Category:Locality]] like shown in User:Reinhard Kraasch/Localities
    • Request of Herzi Pinki: Change all locality categories to "Category:Minerals of <first location name of the mindat locality description>"
    • Request of me: Change only that categories, which don't have the suffix "Mine" in the locality description to "Category:Minerals of <first location name of the mindat locality description>". -- Ra'ike T C 00:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
would be sufficient, I agree. Herzi Pinki (talk)
There ist one more reason to change categories without the suffix "Mine", to see in my example modification of the locality page. Actual we have lots of redundant categories like Category: Badakhshan Province, Afghanistan and Category:Badakhshan Province. Whith the pre-words "Minerals of ..." it's to avoid. -- Ra'ike T C 22:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for stepping in so late. I agree with the above. A couple of days ago, I tried editing User:Reinhard Kraasch/Localities, but it takes on my PC close to 7 minutes to open the file, so not very workable. In the mean time, it might be a good idea to delete the bot created categories as I have close to 2700 Special:UncategorizedCategories to clean up, which is a bit of a waste of time if they will be changed anyway. If the localities file gets a workable size, I am prepared to help to improve it. --Foroa (talk) 09:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)