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

Smallbot (talk · contribs)

Operator: Smallman12q (talk)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: To do a batch upload of Chris's Acorns

There are roughly 2500 jpgs of Acorn Computers that will be uploaded under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license. The images consist of computer boards, computers, peripherals, and some screenshots (taken the old-school way with a camera=P). Flyers and other non-free images won't be uploaded. Images will be given a description extracted from their page, and categorized based on their page title (will create ~800 categories with 1-6 images each).

The images have been taken by Chris Whytehead prior to 2011. Chris may be found on the enwiki at Csj13Why. He will email a declaration of consent to OTRS prior to me commencing the upload. The date for the uploaded images will be 2000-2011.

For example images see

Images will be uploaded from the following directories:

The following template will be used on the images: {{Chris's Acorns}}. All images will be added to Category:Chris's Acorns.

Automatic or manually assisted: Automatic

Edit type (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): One time run

Maximum edit rate (eg edits per minute): 10...maybe less depending on how fast uploads are

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): Yes (approved on enwiki before)

Programming language(s): WPF (for supervising uploads)+ C# .Net 4

Smallman12q (talk) 02:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


I've made a small test run of 8 files (they will all be in Category:Chris's Acorns). Please let me know what you think. Sorry for the busy this week with thanksgiving and work.Smallman12q (talk) 00:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Your bot seems to be categorising nicely, although it looks as if you're having to create some more general categories yourself. Please feel free to restructure the existing categories (e.g. Category:RISC OS hardware) as you see fit. I've read through the advice on categorisation but my efforts so far have been rather a stab in the dark, I must admit. If you need any help/suggestions with this, please let me or WikiProject RISC OS know. (Probably one of the best informed is Chris Whytehead himself, of course!) Trevj (talk) 10:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
I think will be good idea to use more readable names, like 2MHz 6502 CPU Board. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:02, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
✓  Done - It will now give them readable names. However, the files won't have a gallery in the "other_versions" as I have to check the names (if needed galleries can be added later). Smallman12q (talk) 21:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
If the galleries (e.g. at File:Acorn 1MHz6502CPUA.jpg) were previously created automatically (perhaps I've misunderstood and they weren't), IMHO it would be a shame if this aspect were to be lost. Wouldn't the presence of galleries be more useful to users than amended (though arguably slightly more meaningful) filenames which cause the omission of galleries? Files added in the first batch at Category:Chris's Acorns appear to satisfy Commons:File naming in that they are meaningful and helpful. Chris's naming seems logical and must have been easily understood by him. It concerns me that a change to introduce the manual addition of galleries would lead to a time consuming procedure. There may not be the resources to complete this task. The category names would still add meaning, wouldn't they? -- Trevj (talk) 10:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
The galleries can be added at the end in a batch run by the bot (manual labor not necessary=P). It would simply scan all the relevant categories, and add a gallery of the images in the category to each file in the category. The description would be the first sentence (whatever text is up to the first period) in the description. You care correct that they were automatically generated. Now, the file names are generated from the bold description. Sometimes there isn't a bold desc, so I have to add a filename, hence the galleries have to be created after all files have names.Smallman12q (talk) 23:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
That's good news. Thanks a lot for the explanation. -- Trevj (talk) 14:44, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Date Would it be worth trying to replace the current date range used in the {{Information}} template with extracted EXIF metadata where present? -- Trevj (talk) 09:16, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
The exact date for all the images could be extracted from the directory info...but Chris said that 2004-2011 was fine. The dates aren't really too important as the the images were not taken during events... I'm still awaiting final approval for the bot run.Smallman12q (talk) 17:18, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks - I see what you mean about not being events and hope that all goes well with the final approval. -- Trevj (talk) 11:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

If there no objections, I think bot status should be granted. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)