Commons:Bots/Requests/Olafbot

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

Olafbot (talk · contribs)[edit]

Operator: Olaf (talk)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought:

  • uploading:
    • SignWriting symbols taken from www.signbank.org under CC-BY-SA 3.0 license - at least about 2000 symbols of Polish Sign Language (OTRS ticket:2010080810012501).
    • In the future perhaps videos and other multimedia connected to Sign Language

The upload is a part of a larger project of creating Polish Sign Language dictionary on Polish Wiktionary.

Automatic or manually assisted: Automatic, supervised

Edit type (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): A few series of upload.

Maximum edit rate (eg edits per minute): Max. 6 per minute

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): Y

Programming language(s): Java. Bot had over 36000 edits in Polish Wikipedia (first edition 2003-12-18) and over 236000 edits in Polish Wiktionary.

Olaf (talk) 11:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

  • Please make a test run. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Alright, in a few days. Olaf (talk) 15:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Done. I had a little problem (bad image names), but I fixed it, and now 20 images have been successfully uploaded. Olaf (talk) 02:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
In the test upload, e.g. File:SGN-PL SW wysiąść.PNG uses {{Polish SignWriting}}
{{Polish SignWriting}} includes {{Information}}, two section headers, {{OTRS}} and {{cc-by-sa-3.0}}.
Even if this can appear easier to build, personally I'd rather see it the other way round (the file description would use {{information}} and add the other elements into this).
In any case, I think at least {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} should be included directly on the file description pages.  Docu  at 09:07, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Done. {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} is now included on the description pages. Is it enough? I can create two templates, a custom infobox template, and a custom CC license tag, if this is the preferred way, but I can see no advantage over the current system. Olaf (talk) 10:08, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Please try to use standard templates and avoid custom ones. Multichill (talk) 11:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
May we discuss pros and cons of that solution? Custom templates have at least one advantage - one can add a new translation of the description and it will be shown in all places at once. There are many custom information templates in Commons, used for example with museum pictures. There are about 4000 images waiting for upload here (2000 SignWriting symbols, each in two versions: black and white, and color one). Fixing one single dot in all of them will be impossible, if the templates will be substituted. I thought custom templates were invented just for that case. Olaf (talk) 11:33, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Custom templates build on top of the standard templates are usually ok.
Please trim the source field
Move the Licensing into the Permission field of information, now it looks messy
Add attribution to cc-by-sa-3.0, like {{cc-by-sa-3.0|<author>}}
Don't use the template to add categories
If you move everything into {{Information}}, you can remove Summary and Licensing. Multichill (talk) 12:04, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Sounds ok to me, but Docu wanted the license template to be included directly on the file description pages. Ok, I think the best solution would be a custom infobox and a normal Licensing section with cc-by-sa, OTRS and categories. It is compatible with Docu request, your requests, and my needs... Olaf (talk) 13:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
That's fine too. Take a look at File:SGN-PL SW schować.PNG. Multichill (talk) 14:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
The (test) Template:Self-portrait with Felt Hat (1888) makes a lot of sense in terms of consistency across the file description pages it uses, but it makes it harder, e.g. if you want to add an additional description to some of the images.
The advantage of using {{information}} is that it makes it easier for re-user of a specific image and, e.g. PDF export can machine-read the data.
Obviously, I wouldn't want to be too complex and the set of images you are uploading are a bit of an island anyways.  Docu  at 14:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
There is always a clash between the freedom of edition (standard Information template) and the need of the uniform look and feel (a template like my original one, or Template:Self-portrait with Felt Hat (1888)). I think, we have reached a kind of consensus here. After Multichill's edits, it looks nice, descriptions are still uniformed, and I think PDF export and bots will be able to recognize the license and probably an author's name, because it is included in a standard way in the article. I may add a parameter to customize the image description, if you wish. I hope, you are satisfied as well, but if you aren't, please, let me know, I would like to know where I stand with this template. Olaf (talk) 15:39, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
One month passed, nothing changed. :-( Is there anybody around? Olaf (talk) 14:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Uploads look ok, own templates are not such a big deal. Ready to flag, imho. --Schlurcher (talk) 19:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Granted, flag set. Sorry for delay. ++Lar: t/c 01:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)