User talk:Jarekt/2019

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

Prefer templates before categories

If you want to add Files with inappropriate PDF format please add {{BadPDF}} as declared in the category:

 — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 16:43, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

18:29, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Structured Data - file captions coming this week (January 2019)

Hi all, following up on last month's announcement...

Multilingual file captions will be released this week, on either Wednesday, 9 November or Thursday, 10 November 2019. Captions are a feature to add short, translatable descriptions to files. Here's some links you might want to look follow before the release, if you haven't already:

  1. Read over the help page for using captions - I wrote the page on mediawiki.org because captions are available for any MediaWiki user, feel free to host/modify a copy of the page here on Commons.
  2. Test out using captions on Beta Commons.
  3. Leave feedback about the test on the captions test talk page, if you have anything you'd like to say prior to release.

Additionally, there will be an IRC office hour on Thursday, 10 January with the Structured Data team to talk about file captions, as well as anything else the community may be interested in. Date/time conversion, as well as a link to join, are on Meta.

Thanks for your time, I look forward to seeing those who can make it to the IRC office hour on Thursday. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 20:22, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Captions in January

The previous message from today says captions will be released in November in the text. January is the correct month. My apologies for the potential confusion. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 20:43, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Structured Data - file captions coming this week (January 2019)

My apologies if this is a duplicate message for you, it is being sent to multiple lists which you may be signed up for.

Hi all, following up on last month's announcement...

Multilingual file captions will be released this week, on either Wednesday, 9 January or Thursday, 10 January 2019. Captions are a feature to add short, translatable descriptions to files. Here's some links you might want to look follow before the release, if you haven't already:

  1. Read over the help page for using captions - I wrote the page on mediawiki.org because captions are available for any MediaWiki user, feel free to host/modify a copy of the page here on Commons.
  2. Test out using captions on Beta Commons.
  3. Leave feedback about the test on the captions test talk page, if you have anything you'd like to say prior to release.

Additionally, there will be an IRC office hour on Thursday, 10 January with the Structured Data team to talk about file captions, as well as anything else the community may be interested in. Date/time conversion, as well as a link to join, are on Meta.

Thanks for your time, I look forward to seeing those who can make it to the IRC office hour on Thursday. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 21:09, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
File:Samira Makhmalbaf-OIL PAINTING.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

84.62.84.34 23:10, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Metro Amsterdam Map.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Eriksw (talk) 15:44, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Dzień dobry.

Bardzo proszę o wyrażenie opinii ws. legalności ww fotografii.

Artur Andrzej (talk) 18:06, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done --Jarekt (talk) 20:28, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jarekt - Happy new year (belatedly)! Sorry I thought the above image was of Oliph Webb (a respectable actress), but it's Louise Webb. I've corrected the description and category, but please could you kindly correct the filename? Thank you. Storye book (talk) 21:30, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done --Jarekt (talk) 21:33, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. Much appreciated. Storye book (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Getting TestCommons's Lua scripts set up correctly

Hey there,

As you may know, Structured Data is coming to Commons very soon. As part of preparations, I created TestCommons, and copied across a lot of the core templates and modules that Commons uses using the MediaWiki trans-wiki import tools.

However, the big ones are not working yet, which makes https://test-commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Godward_Idleness_1900-dupe!.jpg and https://test-commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Guillom and all the rest pretty ugly. :-( I've tried debugging the Lua but it's not my standard environment, and I might be missing a key piece such as environment variables being set by default-on gadgets or some other edge case.

Would you be interested in working out where I've gone wrong? :-) Only if you're available, of course.

Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 22:24, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Jdforrester (WMF) Sure, I will do what I can. Can you make me an admin so I can import pages and edit MediaWiki. Also for starters we will need to set up MediaWiki:Lang on that wiki, as most modules and templates rely on it. --Jarekt (talk) 03:20, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Aha, Lang. It didn't get exported. Fun. (You're now a +sysop there.) Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 15:15, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

LicenseReview template

Hi Jarekt,
Please be aware of your bot's incorrect edits like this. Sealle (talk) 06:52, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I am no longer running that bot job. Thanks --Jarekt (talk) 13:52, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
and if NARA has more metadata which can be added to Wikidata, I can work on adding it to the regular {{Photograph}} template. I see User:Dominic/template accesses:
It seems we already display most of those properties. Others like donated by (P1028) or part of (P361) we should just add to module:Artwork as others might be using them. Some of the properties here I do not understand, so I would need to do some homework. Ideally NARA files would only need wikicode like {{Photograph|wikidata=Q3332083}}. However, if some parts like complicated cascading National Archives Identifiers would add too much bulk to generic code, than we can use "other fields" to add NARA specific fields. --Jarekt (talk) 17:41, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

17:06, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Template:BArch-image - Title display broken?

Hi Jarekt, it appears that the title bar on top of the file description has a small error: It always displays the text 15px|link=. After the title if there is one; by itself if none. Even visible in the usage example on the template's Commons page itself. Would you be so kind to look into this? 2.247.243.222 14:42, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Looking at the source code, it's from a call to Template:File. But, as far as I can see, Wikimedia's version of Template:File does not accept such input. It is meant for listing linked files only and takes only file names. 2.247.240.138 14:28, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
2.247.240.138, I am trying to figure out where is it coming from, but I am not sure yet. --Jarekt (talk) 04:11, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
I think, I just solved it: The opening "#if:"-statement in the title field sees the plaintext separator "|" in front of "15px|link=..." and thinks: "Ok, end of the "then" statement. Here comes the "else" statement.".
Apparently, the original intention for this part was not to have any "else" statement at all. A fix would make use of another way to display the little info graphic. Preferrably by use of a template, where any separators would be protected within its {} parentheses and thus ignored by the external "if" statement.
I have no account and can't edit to fix it myself. Could you do it, please? 2.247.240.8 23:22, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Structured Data - testing qualifiers for depicts

As you might have seen, testing is underway for adding qualifiers to depicts statements. If you have not left feedback already, the Structured Data on Commons development team is very interested in hearing about your experience using qualifiers on the file page and in the UploadWizard. To get started you can visit Test-Commons and chose a random file to test out, or upload your own file to try out the UploadWizard. Questions, comments, and concerns can be left on the Structured data talk page and the team will address them as best as they can. Thank you for your time. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 19:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Category:RCE suggested: Wijwatervat

Hello, The Category:RCE suggested: Wijwatervat is created by your bot. Items can be moved to Category:Stoups in the Netherlands and afterwards, the Category:RCE suggested: Wijwatervat can be deleted. Sorry, I can't... --Havang(nl) (talk)

Fixed --Jarekt (talk) 01:16, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

20:37, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Category:Stanisław Zarzecki

Witaj;) Proszę o pomoc w określeniu właściwej licencji trzech ostatnich zdjęć w kategorii [96], by nadal mogły być na commons. Zdjęcia te pochodzą z kolekcji rodzinnej rodziny pilota, która została mi udostępniona przy pisaniu artykułu o tym człowieku ([97]). Zala (talk) 07:38, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Zala, Problem w tym ze nie wiem nic na temat autorstwa oryginalnych zdjęć. w tej chwili opis twierdzi ze ty jesteś fotografem który zrobił te zdjęcia i ze ty udostępniasz je na licencji "Creative Commons". User:Masur poprawnie podejrzewa ze licencja nie jest poprawna, ale bez informacji na temat oryginalnych fotografów trudno jest to naprawić:
  • Jeśli ze zdjęcia były opublikowane w Polsce to moglibyśmy użyć {{PD-Polish}}
  • Jeśli ze zdjęcia były opublikowane przed wojna bez podania imienia fotografa to moglibyśmy użyć {{PD-anon-70}}
  • Jeśli fotografem był ktoś z rodziny to osoba która przesłała ci te zdjęcia mogla by udostępnić je jako {{PD-heir}}. Przypuszczalnie musiała by tez przesłać maila do com:OTRS (mogę z tym pomóc).
User:Masur, czy przeoczyłem jakieś opcje? --Jarekt (talk) 12:36, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Dziękuję za pomoc;) Zala (talk) 06:13, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

CatScan2-Gadget

Hi Jarek, there's a slight problem with the current version of MediaWiki:Gadget-CatScan2-link.js and PetScan - setting ext_image_data makes PetScan searches fail with a 502 bad gateway error (see also PetScan Issue #156). I don't have privileges to change the Gadgets source code, and i don't know who has those privileges. Since you were the last user to edit it, i suppose that you're able to help :-) - it would be great if you could check this issue. Thanks in advance! --Fl.schmitt (talk) 20:38, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Fl.schmitt, I can edit MediaWiki:Gadget-CatScan2-link.js, but since I do not speak java script, I only do very simple fixes. I will not be able to fix PetScan. --Jarekt (talk) 01:38, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Jarek, sorry, i didn't expect you to fix the 502 issue with petscan, my request wasn't formulated in a clear manner. I thought it would be sufficient for a quick&dirty workaround if you could remove the &ext_image_data=1 part of the URL that's generated by the Gadget code. This would make the 502 error disappear, at least as long as the user doesn't set this option in Petscan UI manually (but that's in fact a PetScan issue, not a Gadget issue). --Fl.schmitt (talk) 07:14, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
already solved, nor more action required --Fl.schmitt (talk) 09:15, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hi. I was following this thread because the CatScan links on Category:Meta categories and Category:Categories requiring permanent diffusion to zero haven't been working. I tried them again after you posted that things were working again, and they still aren't working. Would it be possible for you to take a look at those, too? Maybe the syntax or something has changed from what's coded on those category pages. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:28, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

@Auntof6: - the initial problem (502 bad gateway error) is in fact solved. If PetScan fails on the categories you've mentioned, it must have a different cause, and i assume it's a PetScan issue, not a Gadget issue. We should continue discussing that topic elsewhere - i think the PetScan issue tracker is better suited for this. @Jarekt: sorry for bothering you... --Fl.schmitt (talk) 07:46, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
OK, thanks for your reply. Where would I find the PetScan issue tracker? --Auntof6 (talk) 07:48, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

17:29, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Photo Challenge

Thanks again for all the work you do on the photo challenge. In previous years, you have asked for help while you are on holiday. So to let you know I will be on holiday from the 1st August for a week (and likely busy the evening or two before that). I hope our holidays do not clash, or we can find some work-around. -- Colin (talk) 10:37, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Colin Thanks for heads up. I will keep that in mind. --Jarekt (talk) 03:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

21:22, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Pics uploaded by Kudlaaaty

Hi Jarek, do you think you can have a closer legal look at the files uploaded by this User. Thank you. Boston9 (talk) 09:32, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Boston9, I wrote to User talk:Kudlaaaty and through OTRS to the firm of the architect Andrzej Chołdzyński. Mr. Chołdzyński firm was giving permissions to all uploads of Kudlaaaty, but the last permission was filed in 2014. --Jarekt (talk) 15:54, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Brilliant. Thank you! Boston9 (talk) 19:08, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Template:Book... always....

Hello Jarekt,

After this discussion, I waited for a "big button" back on the "Book template", because it is now really a problem to explain to wikisource contributors how they can create the Book on wikisource... they just cannot see it... it is too small, and looks like some small link, while it was our main tool to create the link between Commons and Wikisource...

I understand that for Commoners, it is not useful, but for wikisourcers who upload books occasionnally, it is really necessary...

Could you please add the button to "Index" space (link in the template) back where it was... big and really visible... Thanks ! --Hsarrazin (talk) 09:39, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Hsarrazin, The big icon was back (briefly), but new code created a weird issue that for some small number of pages the image on the right disappeared all together. I spend a while debugging, but never found the reason why it worked for some and did not worked for other pages, so the new addition was reverted. Lately I was prioritizing fixes that lead to "correct" edits at Wikidata when clicking on QS arrow for files in Category:Books with Wikidata item: quick statements. The issue with big icon is that it is a hack which is and always was, using different data organization than the rest of the template. Maybe we should rethink the whole data presentation. How about if we display "Wikisource" fields instead, with separated Wikisource index page URL (P1957) and sitelink(s)? That would be much more similar to the rest of the table. --Jarekt (talk) 14:21, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Adding mention after comment

Hi! I’ve just noticed you tried to ping me in this edit. As you may have already figured out from my previous sentence, you haven’t succeeded. This is because a fresh signature is needed for a mention placed in the page text. In such case, you have three possibilities:

  • Create a whole comment, like [[User:Tacsipacsi|Tacsipacsi]], I forgot to mention you. ~~~~.
  • Add the text you added now, but also link to my user page in the edit comment, e.g. /* ‎Decades formatting for Hungarian */ pinging [[User:Tacsipacsi|Tacsipacsi]]. Mentions in the edit summary work regardless of the signature; they are designed to be used in content namespaces, where there are no signatures at all.
  • Sit back and hope I’ll notice it anyway. Effectively this was the case now. :) —Tacsipacsi (talk) 21:14, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Maybe you would like to comment?

Hi Jarek, maybe you would like to comment on this and inject some practical knowledge into our community? We need a brave man here:) Unfortunately our local Commons admins are slow to comment (actually, we do not have many). Boston9 (talk) 22:53, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done --Jarekt (talk) 16:42, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

20:12, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

15:29, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Structured Data on Commons - IRC office hours this week, 18 July

The Structured Data team is hosting an IRC office hour this week on Thursday, 18 July, from 17:00-18:00 UTC. Joining information as well as date and time conversion is available on Meta. Potential topics for discussion are the testing of "other statements", properties that may need to be created for Commons on Wikidata soon, plans for the rest of SDC development, or whatever you might want to discuss. The development team looks forward to seeing you there. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 18:51, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Over-ruling label value in Module:Wikidata label

Hi Jarekt,

For your consideration: I've added an additional parameter, text, in Module:Wikidata label/sandbox, to allow the generated label value to be by-passed, and a specific text used for the link label instead.

The specific application I'm thinking of this for is in eg the description of a file like File:LEWIS(1833) p1.028 MAP OF NORTH AND SOUTH WALES.jpg, in the 'Bibliographic data' section, where I would like to present the name of the book and the name of the author in the form as given in the library catalogue, rather than the Wikidata label, but still link to any Commons category or Wikipedia article we may have for them.

A downside is that terms like "the Elder" in the author name don't get translated. But I prefer to stick with the name from the source, so that that is still presented as found, even in a case where we might have matched to the wrong Q-item.

I've just made a fairly minimal hack, to put the override in at the last moment, diff, to make the change as small as possible, but you might prefer to do something more efficient and/or bulletproofed.

Hope this is okay,

Best regards, Jheald (talk) 10:18, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Restoring this from archive.
I don't have write permissions for the module itself. If you're okay with the change, could you copy from the sandbox to the live code?
Thanks. Jheald (talk) 14:05, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Jheald, Strange I remember writing reply to the original post. Maybe I did not press "save". Anyway the issue I have is that function p._getLabel is a part of the exposed interface to the module and the module is used on 7.7 M pages. I do not know if we can change number of parameters to the function without breaking something. I also do not see the need, If you want to link to "Commons category or Wikipedia article" but use your own label than just use link in the form [[link|label]], as I do not see the need for this module. --Jarekt (talk) 02:37, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

13:06, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Structured Data - testing other statements

You can now test using other statements for structured data on the file page on Test-Commons. Some datatypes are not yet available, such a coordinates, but further support will be extended soon. You can find more information about testing on the SDC talk page. The team looks forward to your feedback. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 16:41, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

21:42, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

No image on Wikidata

Shouldn't File:Alexander Thiele - Gezicht op het kuuroord Augustusbad nabij Radeberg - Gal.-Nr. 3709 - Staatliche Kunstsammlungen Dresden.jpg end up in some tracking category because View of the Spa 'Augustusbad' at Radeberg (Q50326641) doesn't have image (P18)? I would expect the file in Category:Artworks with Wikidata item missing image. Multichill (talk) 22:22, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I would expect it there too. Maybe I broke something with some recent edit. Adding |image={{PAGENAME}} to the file adds Category:Artworks with Wikidata item missing image. I will look into it. --Jarekt (talk) 01:55, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll leave it like this so you have an image to test with. I think quite a few pictures will turn up after you fix it. Multichill (talk) 12:42, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Bump? This would be quite useful to have fixed for images like File:0025 Boby 1907.jpg. Multichill (talk) 10:11, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Ping? :-) Multichill (talk) 17:17, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing, I see it's (slowly) filling up again. Multichill (talk) 18:53, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

13:24, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Topic of July Photochallenge is aquaculture

Hello Jarekt:

You are listed as the page editor for the July 2019 Photo Challenge. If you are not the right person for this message, please direct me.

When I entered the July 2019 Photo Challenge a couple of weeks ago, the topic was listed as "aquaculture". Now in voting, the topic name for this Photo Challenge has been changed to "fishing", a more restrictive subset of aquaculture.

I would not have entered the images I did for a fishing topic. Can the topic name for the July Photo Challenge be changed back to the original "aquaculture" so that voting can reflect on that topic?

Best - --GRDN711 (talk) 18:59, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

GRDN711, you are right, the topic was fishing and aquaculture. I corrected it at Commons:Photo challenge/2019 - July - Fishing/Voting. Thanks --Jarekt (talk) 16:05, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Okładki

Mam spore wątpliwości co do copywright kilku okładek. To jednak są kompozycje oparte na typografii, a ładujący je user raczej nie jest ich autorem: Special:Contributions/Danilas. Możesz sprawdzić? Sławek Borewicz (talk) 09:47, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Panie Sławeku, Masz racje ze Danilas nie jest autorem tych okładek. Danilas twierdzi tutaj ze "posiada niezbędne pełnomocnictwa" na udostępnienie tych plików. Zakładam ze jest to prawda ale nie ma żadnego dowodu. Moglibyśmy go poprosić o maila do OTRS, ale bardziej prostym rozwiązaniem byłaby zmiana licencji na {{PD-text}}. Wiec właśnie zmieniłem wszystkie licencje. --Jarekt (talk) 16:00, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

18:18, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits. I've reverted them for now as they caused an error - "Lua error in Module:Wikidata_Infobox at line 27: Tried to write global part2", and that module is already used in some categories. I've moved them to Module:Wikidata Infobox/sandbox - can you use that to test changes, please, and if you can spot the error please fix it? :-) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:20, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I think I got that one now, but there's a different bug at User:Mike Peel/luasandbox... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Mike, I fixed the problem with User:Mike Peel/luasandbox. Adding Module:No globals is a good idea while developing a new module as it allows you to quickly find badly initialized variables, which can make your life miserable latter on. All the other changes to the code I was trying to test with Module:Wikidata Infobox/testcases and Module talk:Wikidata Infobox/testcases to verify that my changes do not change the outcome of the functions. More tests should be added there, like for example I added your test from User:Mike Peel/luasandbox. --Jarekt (talk) 12:27, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! I'm trying to reduce the number of dependencies that the infobox has, so that it's easier to install on other wikis. I have no objections to including no globals, but I've added the code for it directly into the new module rather than the link to the code. This is the first time I've tried coding in Lua, so go easy on me please. :-) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:10, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Mike, Module:No globals (Q16748603) is well established on most of the wikis and I believe that in most the code is identical. So I would just link to it as it makes your code more readable. Hey, it is a great first start in Lua. I have a few additional thoughts:
  • Some of the functions like the code for stripping diacrits and string comparison might be useful for other projects and should probably be in a new module.
  • Most developers of lua code seem to follow w:Manual:Coding conventions. Your function naming does not follow it. It is not an issue, but it would be nicer.
  • Large number of dependencies is a big problem when porting to other wikis. My early lua codes often had many diverse functions but different other modules needed only this one or that one, it was easier to to split them into smaller chunks. That way, corrections to one function does not trigger refresh of so many pages and it is easier to test.
Sorry, if it feels like I am not "go[ing] easy on" you, I was stuck at an airport for 5 hours and had a lot of time to kill. A lot of operations you are writing were done in one for or another in other codes and we found simpler or more efficient ways of doing it. For example stripping diacrits code was discussed at length here and other places. --Jarekt (talk) 15:13, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
It's OK, I appreciate your changes, they mostly look good. :-) Reducing dependencies is the main aim of this work, though, so even if it's likely that the modules already exist, that shouldn't be assumed - particularly for the smallest wikis. The aim is to reduce the number of modules/templates required to run the Wikidata Infobox to an absolute minimum (probably circa 5-10) so it is much more portable / easier to keep in sync across wikis. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:48, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

15:20, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Tickets to the Polin Museum

Hi Jarek, could you have a look? It was tagged as the work without permission by one of my colleagues but then the User has removed the tag. Thank you. Boston9 (talk) 07:09, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I nominated the image for deletion. DR tag is harder to remove. --Jarekt (talk) 02:16, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Photo challenge/2019 - August - Doors and Doorways/Voting

Hello Jarekt,

as you are listed in the version history of 'Photo challenge/2019 - August - Doors and Doorways/Voting', I'll address my question to you: I think there is a bug in the triple listing of 'Old wooden medieval door in the old town of Kotor Montenegro' (Numbers 235 - 237) in the voting list. --PtrQs (talk) 14:26, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

PtrQs, thanks for pointing it out. I removed the duplicates. Apparently the file was added 3 times to Commons:Photo challenge/2019 - August - Doors and Doorways and the code that creates the voting page does not check for that case. --Jarekt (talk) 00:43, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

09:07, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

17:42, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

15:07, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Structured Data - computer-aided tagging

The development team is starting work on one of the last planned features for SDC v1.0, a lightweight tool to suggest depicts tags for images. I've published a project page for it, please have a look. I plan to share this page with everyone on Commons much more broadly in the coming days. The tool has been carefully designed to try to not increase any workload on Commons volunteers; for starters, it will be opt-in for auto-confirmed users only and will not generate any sort of backlog here on Commons. Additionally, the tool is highly privacy-minded for the contributors and publicly-minded for the third party being used, in this case Google. The implementation and usage notes contain more information about these and other potential concerns as a starting place. It's really important that the tool is implemented properly from the start, so feedback is welcome. Questions, comments, concerns are welcome on the talk page and I will get answers as quickly as possible as things come up. On the talk page you can also sign up to make sure you're a part of the feedback for designs and prototype testing. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 17:57, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Question

Hi Jarek, I have just uploaded this photo and now I have second thoughts. Do you think it is OK as far as our copyright Commons regulations are concerned? Jerzy Nowosielski died in 2011 but he donated all his works to Wesoła Roman Catholic Community (i.e. he did not take any money, this is what he often did for not very affluent local parishes). I have no idea whom to ask for the OTRS permission, if needed. Thank you very much for your Commons insights here. Boston9 (talk) 15:04, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Boston9, The policy that applies here is Commons:De minimis, and I agree that this image might be problematic, since the icons are the main subject of the photo. The permission to OTRS would have to come from the family/heirs of the creator Jerzy Nowosielski, a most likely impossible task. --Jarekt (talk) 16:18, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Very true. No idea where to start with the heirs. I will contact the parish, however, maybe they could help me out. If not, I will ask for deletion of these pics (there are more):( Boston9 (talk) 18:31, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

20:20, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Structured Data - blogs posted in Wikimedia Space

There are two separate blog entries for Structured Data on Commons posted to Wikimedia Space that are of interest:

  • Working with Structured Data on Commons: A Status Report, by Lucas Werkmeister, discusses some ways that editors can work with structured data. Topics include tools that have been written or modified for structured data, in addition to future plans for tools and querying services.
  • Structured Data on Commons - A Blog Series, written by me, is a five-part posting that covers the basics of the software and features that were built to make structured data happen. The series is meant to be friendly to those who may have some knowledge of Commons, but may not know much about the structured data project.
I hope these are informative and useful, comments and questions are welcome. All the blogs offer a comment feature, and you can log in with your Wikimedia account using oAuth. I look forward to seeing some posts over there. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 21:33, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Commons:Photo challenge/2019 - September - Horses has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this project page, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

37.150.217.9 15:24, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

16:50, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

?????

Can you explain this why you did this?

-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 20:45, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton, as you can see in the documentation of {{Artwork}} template it is meant for photographs of artworks and other museum artifacts, and in that context wikidata links to an wikidata item where properties of that artwork or artifact are stored. That link allow properties of such artworks/artifacts to be pulled from wikidata if missing here and for such properties to be copied from commons to wikidata if they are missing there. Your use of {{Artwork}} template for photographs of a road and a town and than associating it with wikidata item for "territorial entity" of Catas Altas Historial Centre (Q69031557) breaks all those assumptions and produces template with potential for some confusing metadata being pulled from wikidata and potential for wrong metadata beeing copied from here to there. Please do not misuse the current infoboxes. --Jarekt (talk) 02:06, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Jarekt,
This is a historical centre, it's a cultural heritage site as many others. This is not a QID for a city, this is a QID for the cultural heritage.
And you are make assumptions that are not correct.
-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 06:24, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton, I well might be a photograph taken in cultural heritage site, but looking at it it looks like it looks to me like a photograph of a car parked on a wide road. It makes no sense to use for it infobox designed for artworks to display statements pulled from wikidata. Please use {{Information}} template for such images. --Jarekt (talk) 02:19, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
No, I will do not put Information.
You are wrong on that matter.
What looks to you is not the utterly truth, the centre of the city is well represented by this photo. Bring the Wikidata information add a lot of education repertory for the image, and have no drop backs.
I have no more to add here. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 02:24, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton, But the photo is not of an artwork or any type of "object" so using template designed for artworks, which mentions "objects" in the field names makes no sense. People will start looking for objects in the image and the only object is VW Bug. There are other ways you can link to Wikidata item if you like. You can even pull the content of the wikidata statements for example {{#statements:P31|from=Q69031557}} will give you "old town". Just stop misusing, {{Artwork}} template. --Jarekt (talk) 02:42, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Next time I go to the parking car, and move it with my hands just to you allow the correct template that brings more information to the file.

And object: a thing that you can see or touch but that is not usually a living animal, plant, or person [151].

I'll request the deletion of the file, as it do not represent what I wanted with my photo. Thank you for your great contribution. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 09:40, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

A request by a new user

Can you please delete this wikidata item? I created it when I wasn’t logged onto my account. I later realised that it has a duplicate.-VaibhavafroTalk 06:55, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Another user has already helped me with this. No need to bother you now. Regards, VaibhavafroTalk 15:08, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Structured Data - modeling data

As you may have seen, there are community discussions underway on how to best model structured data on Commons.

Direct links to pages created so far:

Please visit and participate in topics you might be interested in when you get some time. Thanks. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 19:39, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for heads up. --Jarekt (talk) 02:43, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

15:35, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Computer-aided tagging design consultation

The computer-aided tagging designs are ready for review. Thank you for signing up for advance notice; you may receive a similar, automated message tomorrow. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 20:59, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jarekt, you did a lot with the template {{Location}} so I suppose you are the right one to de asked. I intend an expansion to that template: often I got geodata in the format e.g. gg° mm′ ss″ N gg° mm′ ss″ E and needed to replace all the symbols by the pipe character. I am thinking that I am not the only one wishing a third input format.

I wrote a template {{Loca deg}} to convert the symbols to pipes, and to pass the the parameters to {{Location}}. It works fine, and it is documented with example at Location/doc. But IMHO it would be better to use the original template name. I expanded the /sandbox to enable it to work with all three input formats, and it works also fine - the user just enters one of the three formats without needing to use another template name, and the conversion occurs automatically.
Examples: File:Cimetière de Saint-Romain-d'Ay 00.jpg with Template:Loca deg, Cimetière de Saint-Alban-d'Ay 00.jpg with Location/sandbox
Now my question: Do you also think it a good idea to have that expansion? I want to use my possibilities as a template editor with responsability. In advance I am seeking a wider consensus with competent user(s). While ((T0|Loca_deg}} does not alter anything and is finally using Location, the other version will expand the code of the template. I am a bit hesitating to edit that template, it is transcluded 12.5 Mio times. The current functions are not influenced, just a third function is added. -- sarang사랑 15:42, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

sarang, I do prefer as little variation in {{Location}} inputs as possible, but this could be a fine change. I looked through Module:Loca deg and simplified it a bit in Module:Loca deg/sandbox. We would have to change both {{Location}} and {{Object location}}. --Jarekt (talk) 03:06, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you - as you can see, my LUA knowledge is rather poor, and your simplifications are fine.
I suggest to change the mode=camera in {{Location}} to mode={{{mode|camera}}}, so we can have a very simple {{Object location}} which just passes the parameters to {{Location}} with mode={{{mode|object}}}; but the “one-parameter-version” should default to object because the geodata string never will come from a camera but from wikimapia or other extern sources.
When attributes should be passed positional, it can be done as 9= with 8 parms, or 3= with 2 parms and also 3= with the new possibility of 1 parm.
BTW, there is no possibility to invoke a module with parameters from an invocation? I think on {{{#invoke:Coordinates| LocationTemplateCore| ... |lon={{#invoke:Loca_deg...}} ...}} but the parameter(s) are passed without solving the inner invocation before; it's only possible to transfer the complete work of the inner Loca_deg into the outer Coordinates?
It did not work when I tried it, but your version does. -- sarang사랑 06:52, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
For last decade or so {{Location}} was for camera location and {{Object location}} for object location and their behavior is very predictable. I would be OK with making {{Location|mode=object}} equivalent to {{Object location}}, but I do not think {{Location}} should switch to object location mode just based on the input format. I understand that string in the format gg° mm′ ss″ N gg° mm′ ss″ E is more likely for objects not cameras, but format and mode should stay independent. Another possibility is to keep (tl|Loca_deg}} as is and run a bot job every year or so to convert all files using that template to proper {{Object location}}. Another possibility is to expand Module:Coordinates to allow 2 parameter input in the form: {{Object location|gg° mm′ ss″ N|gg° mm′ ss″ E}}, that way there would be very minimal changes to the current code (I would just add a bit of code to function p.LocationTemplateCore(frame)) and the only change you would have to make to string like gg° mm′ ss″ N gg° mm′ ss″ E would be to add one pipe character.--Jarekt (talk) 11:59, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Ok, when you think that format and mode should stay independent. Location without the mode= parameter displays a neutral version (neither "camera" nor "object") which IMHO is in many cases sufficient, the mode-specification is not always such a necessarity. How about that:
  • {{Location}} defaults to mode=camera, if not specified otherwise
  • {{Object location}} switches to {{Location}} with the default mode=object, if not specified otherwise
  • in both cases it is possible to specify an empty parameter value mode= which will avoid the defaultings.
At the moment most of my locations got (erroneously) the “camera” prefix because I used the simple Location instead of the other one.
About the format version with one pipe I understand that it would minimize the needed coding changes; on the other hand, I think that input should be as easy (and self explaining) as possible, even when it is only one pipe that comes to a copy/paste action: the software should do the work, not the editor! So I am not so happy with this idea. -- sarang사랑 12:30, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
We had this template since 2006, and when I started working on it in 2009, the interface was mostly agreed on and unchanging, since a lot of images were already using it. Through all the changes since, the basics of the interface did not change, so I am weary to introduce too many changes now. I do not think we need "neutral" mode, especially since the difference between two modes is not just label, but also how images are interacting with external tools. I am a bit unsure about what to do about the fact that the last unnamed parameter was always "attributes"; we allowed at some point to use it as a named parameter, but the default is that it is OK to use it as unnamed last parameter. So we should expect to see some tags like {{Object location|gg° mm′ ss″ N gg° mm′ ss″ E|heading:N}}. May be the best way is to just leave it as is, and occasionally run a bot job to convert from {{Loca deg}} to {{Object location}}.--Jarekt (talk) 13:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
We do not need a bot, there are only very few images with the test version “Loca_deg” – I can do it swiftly and manually, even not needing VFC.
As far as I can see, we will need to distinguish whether parameter 4 exists, and if not whether parameter 2 is specified. So in the latter case, two pipes between the location string and the last, unnamed parameter seem to me not too bad, to have no parameter 2. The last parameter is either no. 9, or no. 3 in the other both formats.
Agreeing with all other aspects mentioned by you, I assume that the sandboxes can be brought to real use, und the test template loca_deg will become obsolete. Thank you -- sarang사랑 14:47, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Proposal: Object location can be simply that stub
{{Location
 | mode       = {{{mode|object}}}
 | 1          = {{{1|}}}
 | 2          = {{{2|}}}
 | 3          = {{{3|}}}
 | 4          = {{{4|}}}
 | 5          = {{{5|}}}
 | 6          = {{{6|}}}
 | 7          = {{{7|}}}
 | 8          = {{{8|}}}
 | 9          = {{{9|}}}
 | attributes = {{{attributes|}}}
 | prec       = {{{prec|}}}
 | lang       = {{{lang|}}}
 | bare       = {{{bare|}}}
 | secondary  = {{{secondary|}}}
 | wikidata   = {{{Wikidata|{{{wikidata|}}} }}}
}}<noinclude>
{{Documentation|Template:Location/doc}}
</noinclude>
instead of containing own code (at the moment would work only with Location/sandbox). -- sarang사랑 11:25, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Another possibility if you don't like the additional pipe to make attributes the third parameter and letting the seond empty: When there are two parameters, a (rather simple) check enables the decision. When p2 exists and it is numeric, it is the second location parameter lon, otherwise it is unnamed attributes following the one-parameter string format. It allows to code attributes as p9, p3 and also p2 – the unnamed parameter can always be the last one. -- sarang사랑 15:52, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Jarekt: as far as I understand everything is discussed – if you don't have objections I will transfer within the next days the well tested /sandbox, as it is now.
Because of the 12.5M transclusions, I will wait some days for the servers to calm down, and then change the Object location (another 3.2M transclusions), and then this template won't need further action to be able to accept all three input formats. Thank you for your competent aid! -- sarang사랑 11:30, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
sarang, sorry for the silence but I was quite busy lately and not spending much time on Wiki. I was experimenting with adding support for single input and 2 dms inputs directly to Module:Coordinates as much cleaner solution. Unfortunately I did not get it to work yet. As for your suggestion to simplify Object location, you might be right, It is done the current way in order to minimize number of indirect calls of calling a template that calls some other template that calls a module, etc. However extra complicating code that could be simplified might not be worth it. --Jarekt (talk) 04:09, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Jarekt: Of course will that be a better solution. To me, it is much too difficult, but if you want to try it I will wait and let you develop that solution. In the meantime I edited {{Location/sandbox}}, {{Object location/sandbox}} and {{Globe location/sandbox}}, all at the state of the art before coordinates-upgrade. -- sarang사랑 15:18, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Structured Data - computer-aided tagging designs

I've published a design consultation for the computer-aided tagging tool. Please look over the page and participate on the talk page. If you haven't read over the project page, it might be helpful to do so first. The tool will hopefully be ready by the end of this month (October 2019), so timely feedback is important. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 18:09, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Julien Bryan

If Julien Bryan is shown in the photograph File:Julien_Bryan_-_Expres_Wieczorny_-_50900.jpg, then how can the author of this photograph be Julien Bryan? (This is how you described the photograph.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:20, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Hoary, I do not know how he did it, but he is credited as the photographer for this and other photographs with him in it. Self portraits and selfies is not a novel idea. Some photographers are good at using tripod and time delay. Others might ask passerby to click the button after setting up the camera and telling the operator when to click. See https://photography.tutsplus.com/articles/100-seriously-cool-self-portraits-and-tips-to-shoot-your-own--photo-5689 for examples. --Jarekt (talk) 03:20, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

23:04, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Great work you did! Just a small request: at code line 816 you check whether parm2 exists; it should check whether parm2 is a numeric value – because in case of one single location string, parm2 can be an attribute. Thank you -- sarang사랑 08:53, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

sarang, I think I fixed the issue although had to do it differently as I also allow format with 2 parameters where both lat and lon are in the DMS format. --Jarekt (talk) 12:30, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I saw, it was a bit more complicated - but you did it well and now it is fine.
I tried too to simplify Globe location/sandbox but the parameter is not passed? -- sarang사랑 13:02, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
I would leave Globe location alone. Coordinates understands 3 possible configurations of unnamed parameters and Globe location would add 2 more. --Jarekt (talk) 14:41, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

14:34, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

File:Jean Metzinger - Soldier at a Game of Chess - 1915.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Coldcreation (talk) 15:40, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

16:15, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Can your bot do it?

Hi Jarekt, as far as I can see from the specifications of your bot, may be it can do the following:

  • change {{m| against {{t| in a great lot of pages

Because French users are accustomed to transclude template:{{M}} (m for modèle) they invented that template also in commons; where we have the template:{{T}} (t for template). It seems useful to have a template for the namespace Module, and to use the letter "M". I startet to create that template:{{M}}; currently it checks whether really a module is meant, otherwise it redirects to {{T}} and categorizes the page to Category:Deprecated M. This category contains still a lot of pages, after I had changed many occurrencies of "m" against "t". Such tedious work is more for a bot than for an editor, so I ask you whether your bot can do it.
It is very difficult to find out what the bots can be used for! When you must deny, can you tell me which bot is better for my request? -- sarang사랑 09:58, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

My bot was approved a decade ago for "Help with Jarekt's editing tasks. No scheduled tasks.", so this fits with in. I never noticed {{T}} as I though the template for that was {{Tl}}. I checked on both and {{Tl}} is more widely used, so I will replace with that. In general I never liked single letter templates as I do not know any of them. I would prefer to just stop using {{M}} altogether as it seems like there will always be a confusion with {{Tl}}. --Jarekt (talk) 12:12, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
I thought that {{T}} would fit better because it appears like the previous display of {{M}}, while {{Tl}} has this teletype style, IMHO a bit disturbung within the text flow. But when you like it better I will not care, it's up to you. Since long we have some One-letter templates, mainly for namespace links, with heavily usage. -- sarang사랑 13:20, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
sarang, I see so there is a difference between {{Tl}} and {{T}}. Anyway I replaced all I could find. However I still do not like any use of {{M}}: if we need some template for modules than lets give it some longer name. In the mean time most of the current uses of {{M}} strike me as wrong linking to a module when they are meant to link to a template, for example Template:Van_Gogh_Museum/doc has a link to {{Artwork}} when it is supposed to link to {{Artwork}}. Almost all modules I created have names indicating templates they are replacing. So, this will always be ambiguous and I would prefer to just retire {{M}} altogether. --Jarekt (talk) 15:44, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, now the deprated "M" is replaced by the more correct "Tl". Currently there is a proposal that soon we will get the possibility to write [[MOD: ...]] instead of doing it with a template, so {{M}} will become obsolete. Sorry about the difficulties with e.g. {{Artwork}}, I can check it whether there are still wrong links. -- sarang사랑 09:32, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Normally template names are linked with one of the {{T}} templates, just some users, in special from French origin, used {{M}}. With ever and ever copying a few "M" usages are multiplied; most of these are now corrected by your bot. The mentioning of {{Artwork}} in many /doc pages comes too from such a copying. AFAIK corrections with VFC are only possible at file descriptions? I can collect errors like that in maintenance categories, but cannot treat them with my possibilities, so I asked for a bot. The wrong links to Artwork in 250 documentations are now collected in Category:Commons Maint Artwork; a number of 250 I can do by hand, if it will be much work for you to prepare your bot. -- sarang사랑 10:19, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I replaced those. --Jarekt (talk) 01:15, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. Now there are anly a few translusions and links, which seem all correct for "module" -- sarang사랑 10:40, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

16:47, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

22:03, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Template:Information changes ?

First let me thank you for all your hard work .. ! I noticed, you changed the Information template. as of today there seem to be some problems rendering some other templates when included in the Information template: For example the {{Waarneming.nl}} and {{Waarneming.nlUser}} templates used in (for example) : File:Limnia unguicornis (Sciomyzidae) - (imago), Elst (Gld), the Netherlands - 3.jpg I'm not sure your changes are the cause of the problems but it seems to have started after de template update.. Could you please look into that ? Thanks Bj.schoenmakers (talk) 22:29, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Bj.schoenmakers, It does look like we are discovering a lot of templates with Wikitables Which for some reason occasionally do not render correctly. I am trying to see what templates are affected and if I can figure out the workaround to render them properly. Thanks for heads up. --Jarekt (talk) 23:51, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Polish

Hi Jarek, what do you think? 1, 2. Will this suffice for CC-BY S.A -4.0? Not to mention that the second pic is from the Senate, not Sejm. Thanks. Boston9 (talk) 20:13, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Boston9, I nominated File:LB1 1041.view.jpg for deletion. I can do the same with File:L1eUwmOfZlOY5YVUlA.jpg if it does not fall under {{Polish Senate partnership}} rules. --Jarekt (talk) 21:09, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
It does not. Our partership with the Senate was based on OTRS and was suspended on January 1st, 2016. Thank you Boston9 (talk) 21:14, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Computer-aided tagging tool testing is now available for you

You've been added to an internal whitelist (not available on-wiki) to test the tool over the next week. Commons:Structured_data/Computer-aided_tagging/Testing contains the information you'll need to try it out and leave feedback. Thanks for signing up to test the computer-aided tagging prototype, the team looks forward to hearing about it. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 20:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

LUA for structured data works

See Module talk:Sandbox/Mmullie (WMF)/my module. Now we can start doing cool things. If only I would be better at LUA ;-) Maybe a easy first step to update the artwork template? Multichill (talk) 08:34, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Multichill, The Artwork template should be mostly getting info from the Wikidata. Information template would be a better target. Years ago I developed Module:Information and tested it quite a bit. The idea was to roll it up before SDC rolls up. But I got a lot of opposition from SDC team back then and I moved on to other things. If we roll it put I could write it in such a way that it can get data either from wikitext or from SDC. Other likely target would be to start moving camera and object coordinates to SDC and then rewrite {{Location}} template to read it from there. --Jarekt (talk) 02:54, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
That's why I suggested the Artwork template. Take for example File:Caspar Netscher - De messenslijper - 67 - Sabauda Gallery.jpg. Here I still have to add the Q id in the wikitext. The structured data contains the digital representation of (P6243) -> The Knife Grinder (Q66437264). If you use that, I only have the source line left to drop.
Does your information prototype handle data formatted like this? I'm considering focusing on Wiki Loves Monuments images for the structured data conversion because the data is quite clean, we know what it depicts, etc. Yes, location data is interesting. Still need to propose a new property to handle the viewing angle (0-360 degrees). Multichill (talk) 09:55, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Ok I can add support for SDC digital representation of (P6243) to artwork. As for Module:Information, File:Chiesa_di_Santa_Maria_dello_Spasimo_foto_19.jpg uses it now. As for coordinates we will need probably new properties for "Camera location", and use coordinate location (P625) for "object location", and we will need the camera heading property. On commons we allow string like NNW or number (0-360), but it might be better to convert it all to numbers. --Jarekt (talk) 12:26, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the Artwork.
When I remove the author from the wikitext on File:Chiesa_di_Santa_Maria_dello_Spasimo_foto_19.jpg, I just get no author. Are you sure you support this way of modeling authorship?
For the location part, you probably want to join Commons:Structured data/Modeling/Location. My focus is currently with the basic properties and probably try to start the location discussion a bit later. Multichill (talk) 14:28, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Multichill, At the moment Module:Information does not interact with Wikidata or SDC, as it was written some years ago. I think the first step is to release "simple" Module:Information first so we can debug all the issues unrelated to SDC first, and once the code is stable it should be expanded to SDC support. I guess I should propose the change of the {{Information}} on Commons:Village pump/Proposals. --Jarekt (talk) 14:57, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
{{Artwork}} should probably use depicts (P180), not digital representation of (P6243) (context: d:Wikidata:Properties_for_deletion#Property:P6243) ... but it would be good to no longer need the "wikidata=" parameter, and to use the SDC info instead! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:07, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Mike The problem with depicts (P180) is that there can be great many of them for a single image. Also in case of a portrait, the depicts (P180) should indicate the item for the depicted person, not for the item for the painting. --Jarekt (talk) 02:38, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
So just look through the depicts (P180) values until you find one that matches an artwork? The depicted person should be the P180 value on Wikidata, not here, if there is a corresponding Wikidata item for the artwork ('depicts of depicts') - otherwise you end up with massive, unnecessary data duplication. I'll see if I can put something togther here... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 06:45, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Try {{Structured Data}} - that will auto-include artwork if instance of (P31)=painting (Q3305213), or show something more generic otherwise. It's easy enough to add other QIDs to check. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
@Multichill and Mike Peel: , I added support for SDC digital representation of (P6243) to artwork, we should be able to eliminate the need to wikidata parameter in the template. --Jarekt (talk) 15:21, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Excellent! Tested it on this file and seems to work just fine. I'll update my bot to no longer include the wikidata field in the wikitext. Next up is sorting out how to source so I can remove the last wikitext field. Multichill (talk) 15:50, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Strange, I had to add this change, otherwise Category:Pages with script errors was swamped with files with "MID" ID, which were OK after "touch" operation, just to be replaced with other files. --Jarekt (talk) 16:27, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
That sure is weird. Maybe you can add a tracking categories for files that have the wikidata field, but not the structured data or when it's different? Makes it easier to import the missing structured data.
I updated my upload bot to no longer include the Wikidata field in the wikitext. Multichill (talk) 16:55, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
I will add the relevant categories for detecting missing and conflicting wikidata fields, I can also add one for redundant ones. I wonder how structured data linking to Wikidata deals with merged items. Do they update automatically? I guess I need to check. --Jarekt (talk) 19:14, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Maybe wait a bit with the redundant one. On Wikidata we have a bot that resolves redirects after a while. We probably need something like that here too at some point in the future. Multichill (talk) 19:56, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
See Category:Artworks with mismatching structured data P6243 property and Category:Artworks with structured data missing P6243 property. Can you handle the "missing" category. I will work of checking "mismatching" category. --Jarekt (talk) 15:21, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Great. My bot is still working on Category:Artworks with structured data missing P6243 property. Will check back later to see what is left. Multichill (talk) 17:58, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Category:Artworks with structured data missing P6243 property will be filling in for a while, I assume that it will not be done for a week or so. --Jarekt (talk) 19:21, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
It appears that a structured data edit doesn't trigger a complete update of the categories. I'm doing some null edits to force files out of it. Multichill (talk) 21:15, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that is a big shortcomming of using categories for this purpose. I am using AWB to run touch tasks on categories and I am running it a lot. I also noticed that merge on Wikidata does not trigger wikidata item update here, see this example. That is a problem. --Jarekt (talk) 21:41, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Adding source to Artwork template

I'll start a new topic for this. The last remaining wikitext field in {{Artwork}} is the source field. Maybe you can update the module to look for source of file (P7482) set to file available on the internet (Q74228490) with qualifier described at URL (P973) and show that in the source field? I expect to run into some encoding problems with url's. Let's see how that works out. Multichill (talk) 16:55, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Example edit for source. It's not on an artwork, but you get the idea. Multichill (talk) 21:05, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
I will look into it. --Jarekt (talk) 19:26, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
File:Arvid Frederick Nyholm - John Ericsson - NPG.66.54 - National Portrait Gallery.jpg is a good example. Multichill (talk) 16:00, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
File:Godefridus Schalcken - Venus aan haar toilet in gezelschap van Amor - GK 306 - Museumslandschaft Hessen Kassel.jpg is better because it got the operator part. Multichill (talk) 16:44, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Other versions in Template:Artwork based on Wikidata

Hi Jarek, File:Leonardo da Vinci (Kopie nach) - Mona Lisa - 1340 - Bavarian State Painting Collections.jpg is connected to Mona Lisa (Alte Pinakothek) (Q29946540) and that item has based on (P144) -> Mona Lisa (Q12418) which has image (P18) -> File:Mona Lisa, by Leonardo da Vinci, from C2RMF retouched.jpg. Wouldn't it be nice to use this to fill the "other versions" in {{Artwork}}? Multichill (talk) 13:17, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

yes that makes sense. --Jarekt (talk) 13:56, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Table problem?

Hi Jarek, some days ago we talked about the boxes realized with wikitable, which made problems. AFAIK there are at least three possibilities to display such a box. Old fashioned is the wikitable method – among many others the {{Created with}} (transcluded > 1Mio, often multiple times in one file description) uses it. After the troubles with the {{AutVec}} I converted it from wikitable to the <div>/<span> method, and it works fine. Others, e.g. {{Mbox}} use the <table> method.
I do not know which will be the best method; but I suppose that <span> cannot be bad? Do you think that I should convert the {{Created with}} – or not touch it, because it works since many years? Of the very similar {{Taken with}} (wikitable) I made a sandbox version with the <span> method. But I cannot estimate whether that will be preferable. -- sarang사랑 17:21, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

sarang, Not long after the issue was discovered, someone come up with the solution (add \n before and after each field) and that was quickly deployed. That solution had some unpleasant side-effects (extra space around fields and some downstream tools not working right), so we figure out the fixes to those. I will try to deploy it this weekend. So I would not worry about template conversion, as it is no longer necessary. --Jarekt (talk) 23:47, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
I understood the problem – the “{|” for wikitables needs to start at a new line; and I saw the solution and the suggestion by Tacsipacsi. My questions are:
  • will it be useful, or worth the effort, to converse existent boxes? I understand that your answer is "no".
  • when new boxes are needed, how should I write them - which method will be the best one?
Ok, I will wait what you are working out for that theme. Thank you -- sarang사랑 07:58, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
The new templates with tables, I would write using html tables. That is how all infobox templates were written. --Jarekt (talk) 04:10, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. I will do it when new boxes are needed -- sarang사랑 10:06, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

20:17, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at Wikimedia Commons.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 22:04, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Duplicate category

Hello, I write you this message to inform about the latest edit by the account JarektBot, that is adding categories that is already set for the files (example). Its not a big deal, just clean up when you have time. - Premeditated (talk) 07:57, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

16:52, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

16:58, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

16:38, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Lua error in Module:Wikidata_label at line 24: attempt to call method 'getSitelink' (a nil value).

Hi Jarek, I'm getting it at File:John Theodore Heins - Portrait of George Frideric Handel (c.1740).jpg. Any idea what is causing this? Multichill (talk) 18:22, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

See Module_talk:Wikidata_label#Lua_error_in_Module:Wikidata_label_at_line_24:_attempt_to_call_method_'getSitelink'_(a_nil_value). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:28, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

00:16, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

20:06, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jarekt. There has recently been a bit of a muddle about a deletion request regarding the above file. Please would you kindly take a look at the file and discussion and check whether the discussion can be closed now? Thank you. Storye book (talk) 20:59, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Storye book It looks like someone beat me to it. --Jarekt (talk) 02:52, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Ah, thank you. I had thought that it needed an admin to close down the discussion template - but I guess you are saying that removing the delete template from the image page was all that was required? Thanks for looking at it, anyway. Cheers. Storye book (talk) 09:03, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Storye book actually I did not look close enough. The proper order of operations should have been: admin closes the discussion (I did it now) and than a script cleans up everything (that you did). I think it is ok now. --Jarekt (talk) 22:06, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I thought. Thank you for clearing it up. Compliments of the season! Storye book (talk) 22:09, 24 December 2019 (UTC)