Commons:Bots/Requests/DifoolBot

DifoolBot (talk · contribs)

Operator: Difool (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: Add Structured data to files from the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam, specifically the files in these five categories:

1. Pen and ink drawings in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam
2. Postcards in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam
3. Tinted lithographs in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam
4. Wood engravings in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam
5. Engravings in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam

These are about 20,000 files.

Automatic or manually assisted: Automatic

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

Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute): Default setting, so about six edits per minute max.

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): Yes

Programming language(s): Python, pywikipediabot.

Difool (talk) 14:11, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

• Please make test run on several actual files from different categories. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:51, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

  I've changed 10 files. I reverted one file because it was renamed, something I hadn't taken into account. Difool (talk) 03:45, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

• Looks OK for me, but please take a look on duplicated instance of in File:Kinderspelen Prenten-magazijn voor de jeugd (serietitel op object) Kinderspelen (serietitel op object), RP-P-OB-206.377.jpg and File:Brakende man in bed, RP-P-1938-2030.jpg. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:20, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

  I've changed the code so it will remove redundant 'instance of' as in your first example File:Kinderspelen Prenten-magazijn voor de jeugd (serietitel op object) Kinderspelen (serietitel op object), RP-P-OB-206.377.jpg. But the second example File:Brakende man in bed, RP-P-1938-2030.jpg hasn't a duplicate 'instance of', right? The Rijksmuseum indicates that it's a 'print' and a 'book illustration', i.e. it is a print that is also used in a book as a illustration. Or should I only use 'print' as 'instance of' in this case? Difool (talk) 01:59, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

  It's fine to have several such statements in second case, but does description explain why? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:10, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

  No, not a real explanation; the description at [1]https://www.rijksmuseum.nl/nl/collectie/RP-P-1938-2030#object-data-section only has an explanatory note ('Toelichting') that the print is also used on page 243 of a book called "De Hollandsche Liis met de Brabandsche Bely". It's not the same print, but the printing plate that is used to make this print, is also used for that book to print a book illustration.

  Here is another print from this artist -but in the British Museum- that also uses the object types 'print' and 'book illustration'. Difool (talk) 14:28, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

---

Approved. --Krd 03:57, 6 July 2023 (UTC)