User talk:Mike Peel/Archive 3

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 → Archive 10

Licensing a photograph of yours for commercial catalog

Hello Mike Peel, I am representing an advertising agency in Taiwan that provide advertising and marketing communication works for our clients. we would like to use one of your photos (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Westfield_London.jpg) from the wikipedia to be printed (with some alterations on contrast and colors only) on one of our client's corporate catalog. The reason we choose this photo is because, according to our client, their product were used as building materials for this particular building. Their product is porcelain tiles. So this building is one of their successful cases. Please let me know if you have any objections on us using your photo for this purpose.

Thank you.

Darren Shiung Group Account Director — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 118.163.16.199 (talk) 09:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wesley Memorial

Hi Mike,

just to let you know that your image of the Wesley memorial is being used by me in a book i am writing about the history of Scunthorpe. you have been given full credit and when it is finished i will contact you to let you know!

thanks,

Morgan Broadbent — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.110.17.55 (talk) 17:25, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Morgan. Thanks for letting me know. Please see User:Mike Peel/Reuse for my guide on how to reuse my images, with correct attribution and license terms. Please let me know if you need any clarifications, and I look forward to seeing the final version. :-) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:21, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Zab-wiki.jpg

File:Zab-wiki.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!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Apocheir (talk) 18:58, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:B47onRunway.jpg

File:B47onRunway.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!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Jcb (talk) 16:06, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jodrell Bank

Jodrell Bank 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 gallery, 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!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Darwin Ahoy! 20:37, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Structured Commons focus group!

Hello! Thank you very much for signing up to the community focus group for Structured Commons :-)

How to organize ourselves?

This focus group is new and experimental, and I welcome your tips and thoughts on how we can organize this in the most convenient and productive way. For now, I have posted a few separate topics on the focus group's talk page. Please add your questions there too! If we all add that page to our watchlist, that's probably a good way to stay up to date with current discussions. Steinsplitter has also initiated a brand new IRC channel specifically for Structured Commons: wikimedia-commons-sd (webchat) which we invite you to join. Please let me know if you have other ideas on how to work together.

Current updates

Warmly, your community liaison, SandraF (WMF) (talk)

Message sent by MediaWiki message delivery - 13:34, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Structured Commons focus group update, Nov 21, 2017

Hello! You are receiving this message because you signed up for the the community focus group for Structured Commons :-)

IRC office hour today, 21 November, 18.00 UTC
  • The IRC office hour about Structured Commons takes place at 18:00 UTC in wikimedia-office webchat. Amanda, Ramsey and I will give updates about the project, and you can ask us questions. The log will be published afterwards.
Tools update

Many important community tools for Commons and Wikidata will benefit from an update to structured data in the future. You can help indicate which tools will need attention:

Warmly, your community liaison SandraF (WMF) (talk) 16:27, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hi Mike, please check on slack when you can, I've left a message to you there. Cheers, -- Darwin Ahoy! 14:46, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them, 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!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:41, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Structured Commons focus group update, December 11, 2017

Hello! You are receiving this message because you signed up for the community focus group for Structured Commons :-)

Later this week, a full newsletter will be distributed, but you are the first to receive an update on new requests for feedback.

Three requests for feedback
  1. We received many additions to the spreadsheet that collects important Commons and Wikidata tools. Thank you! Now, you can participate in a survey that helps us understand and prioritize which tools and functionalities are most important for the Wikimedia Commons and Wikidata communities. The survey runs until December 22. Here's some background.
  2. Help the team decide on better names for 'captions' and 'descriptions'. You can provide input until January 3, 2018.
  3. Help collect interesting Commons files, to prepare for the data modelling challenges ahead! Continuous input is welcome there.

Warmly, your community liaison SandraF (WMF) (talk)

Message sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) - 16:40, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Structured Commons - Design feedback request: Multilingual Captions

Hello! You are receiving this message because you signed up for the the community focus group for Structured Data on Wikimedia Commons.

The Structured Data on Commons team has a new design feedback request up for Multilingual Captions support in the Upload Wizard. Visit the page for more information about the potential designs. Discussion and feedback is welcome there.

On a personal note, you'll see me posting many of these communications going forward for the Structured Data project, as SandraF transitions into working on the GLAM side of things for Structured Data on Commons full time. For the past six months she's been splitting time between the two roles (GLAM and Community Liaison). I'm looking forward to working with you all again. Thank you, happy editing. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 15:09, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

hello?

Hi, maybe I missed your mail but as far as I can remember, you are one of the few jurors who did not reply to me in the last two weeks. I have sent you a request for comment about the possible finalist of Singapore, than I need to train a last juror to the use of the tool Montage for at least two other countries. How are things in Brazil? Are you busy there? Let me know.--Alexmar983 (talk) 08:41, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexmar983: Hi, sorry, I'm aware I need to get back to you about Singapore, and will do so soon. I've been travelling, so I haven't got around to that yet. Is there anything else you're waiting for from me? I'm not sure what's going on with the Brazil judging. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:52, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know. I just wanted to be sure you are "receptive". So I can put you also in some long-term deadline with some countries when you are back :) Basically it's going to be India, Greece, Romania or rest of the world... I'll check which one has more astronomical images. About Brazil, I can tell you that in Commons_talk:Montage#Wiki_Science_Competition User:Chicocvenancio requested the campaign. Even if he forgot to send some email, or just asked other people to make the first trimming phase, as you soon as you enter montage you will see it listed. You seem expert, I'll just put you in one of "my" campaign soon and you will probably simply discover from the interface when Brazil is ready, because it will be listed there as well.--Alexmar983 (talk) 09:59, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexmar983: Yup, I'm receptive. I don't have much time to focus on this at the moment as I'm travelling, but that will change towards the end of this month, so I'll complete things then if I don't get to them before. I've just replied about Singapore. I've seen your India email, and will look at that next. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:40, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can always postpone one deadline if needed... but really the India task is less complicated that it seems. You can just open and put "yes"/"no" without thinking too much, few minutes here and there, it will be completed before you imagine.--Alexmar983 (talk) 10:43, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ok Mike I also need you in Greece, because is full of astronomical images. This is a fifth of the work in India. Is it going to be a problem? In the meantime, I have spoken to another Brazilian juror, it seems he was not contacted as well. I will try to do something there as soon as I have more free time.--Alexmar983 (talk) 07:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexmar983: I should be able to do that. I’ll have time this weekend to spend on this, if not before. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:09, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ok If so do first Greece, than India. One Indian juror there has not started yet so... plus if I complete all minor countries and the architecture of their pages, than I can finalize the "big stuff" with calm--Alexmar983 (talk) 08:13, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexmar983: I've just gone through the Greece ones. I'm not sure if I was overly permissive or not, though - is there a second round later? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:31, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
yes there is. In any case, bad is always better... I have no idea what is going on in Brazil, but with 400 images do not be tolerant. It's mostly a waste of time ;) on the long term--Alexmar983 (talk) 15:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexmar983: OK, I think I'm up to date. I've done India round 1 and Greece round 2. I can see Brazil in Montage, but it's not active yet. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:37, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That means that Chico inserted your name but did not "activate" it. That's why I am not "pushing" to help, if he did that too, it means it was very close to start! So, instead of stressing you with more international task maybe we can gently help Brazil this way. You have to revise the images in any case so you can start to make some clean-up. Go to Category:Images_from_Wiki_Science_Competition_2017_in_Brazil. take the pictures with no scientific information and put them in Category:Obviously ineligible submissions for WSC 2017 in Brazil removing the specific category and adding the "uns" (unsuitable) tag this way. Don't be too critical, just remove the obvious crap.
So this one is ok even if it is not very clear... this one totally lacks any scientific description and it is quite at the limit but maybe it can still be used in a scientific article if correctly categorized so I would be tolerant, this one is a cat... we have enough images of cat, remove... this one is a "thermal equilibrium" which is a scientific description but in the end it's a just a winter river... so it could go, this church logo can go too. And so on.--Alexmar983 (talk) 04:47, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexmar983: I've moved the logos into the unsuitable category, I didn't feel comfortable doing more than that at this point. I can no longer see Brazil in Montage, although @Chicocvenancio: sent an email to say it's been activated, so I don't know what's happening there at the moment. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:58, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well at least it's something, as long it's less work for all the jurors. If he thinks it's been activated and it's not there it could be a "newbie" mistake or a bug. Once for example I was sure that I activated a country but when they logged in it was frozen. It's strange that it has disappeared but I am sure he will fix it.--Alexmar983 (talk) 01:48, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexmar983: It now seems to be working OK, so I've now voted. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:51, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:At USP 2018 006.jpg, File:At USP 2018 008.jpg, File:At USP 2018 007.jpg, File:At USP 2018 005.jpg, File:At USP 2018 004.jpg, File:At USP 2018 003.jpg

Hi Mike, as this image depicts a recent work of art, the freedom-of-panorama exception of Brazil is needed to make this upload legal. However, FoP of Brazil requires that "artist's work is properly attributed". Therefore, you need to add at least the name of the "sculptor" (and ideally also the name of the original work) to the description. --Túrelio (talk) 20:14, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Túrelio: Thanks for the pointer. I'm adding '"Sem Título" by Tomie Ohtake.' to the file descriptions, how's that? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:18, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. That's likely enough. --Túrelio (talk) 20:22, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh

Sorry for the Straw to Terracotta slip - no idea why. Thanks for reverting Icarusgeek (talk) 16:55, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Icarusgeek: No worries, thanks for working on the categorisation. :-) Although, I'm wondering if it might be better to have a subcategory for the straw sculptures rather than having the manufacturer included in the straw sculptures categories, what do you think? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're right. There are a couple of images that don't fit. I've written it on my todo list along with filtering out the meercat sculptures (but tomorrow) Icarusgeek (talk) 17:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Structured Data feedback - What gets stored where (Ontology)

Greetings,

There is a new feedback request for Structured Data on Commons (link for messages posted to Commons: , regarding what metadata from a file gets stored where. Your participation is appreciated.

Happy editing to you. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 22:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

Amazing work at Wikidata_infobox. I am using it exclusively now, simplifies so many things. I just added Category:Edward Shepard Wilkinson. I was skeptical of the vertical format, because the early versions created a block of whitespace, now I am hooked. RAN (talk) 14:27, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): That's great to hear. :-) BTW, there's a question about whether to keep the defaultsort code in this template, as it can conflict with existing defaultsort statements, see the discussion at Commons:Village_pump/Proposals#Proposal_to_bot-deploy_Wikidata_Infobox - any thoughts on that? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:32, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What is the holdup with Commons not having its own identifier box in Wikidata? Each other project has a box, Commons is "Other sites". RAN (talk) 14:48, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think the logic here is that all of the ones that have their own identifier box have multiple languages to link to; commons (and meta and wikidata) don't, so they end up in the 'other sites' box instead. Personally, I agree that it should have its own box (and ideally, allow multiple links, to categories + galleries), but it would take some pushing on Wikidata to make that happen. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:08, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your infobox does not add a surname category if it does not already exist in Commons. Can it add a redlinked category then add Category:Surnames to that redlinked category to make it blue? RAN (talk) 16:55, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): It could show the redlink (but not auto-create the category) if desired, but is that something that would work widely across Commons if it's bot-deployed? I can imagine quite a few redlinks being created... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:08, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think people would get upset by the redlinks unless another bot turned them blue with Category:Surnames. I have not created a bot yet, so I would not know how to do it. We need an online class on bot creation. RAN (talk) 17:12, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): I've coded up an option to show redlinks: if you try {{Wikidata Infobox/sandbox|test=y}} at, e.g., Category:Ángel Ganivet, then you should see the redlink in preview. Then you can create the category, and remove "test=y" before saving it. Would that work for you? I've also removed defaultsort in this version, given the issue raised at VP/P about it, but it could be added back later. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:32, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

{{Wikidata Infobox}}

I don’t think deploying just {{Wikidata Infobox}} (without arguments) is a good direction. Relying on Wikidata to obtain a Q number searching values of Commons category (P373) for the {{PAGENAME}}, first, depends on some kind of cache not actually controllable. Second, this mechanism can be subverted e.g. by a conflicting P373 value in a page protected on Wikidata. Commons should remember all Q numbers it uses for its content itself, not delegate to Wikidata yet another part of its security. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 22:18, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Incnis Mrsi: I'm not using P373, I'm using the sitelinks to Commons (and P401, if the sitelink is to a category page). If there are problems with that link, then they need to be fixed, not worked around... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:20, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But you're right, we should keep an eye out for problems, so I've added tracking categories, in particular Category:Uses of Wikidata Infobox with problems. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, you use the category's main topic (P301) from another Wikidata item, hence the stuff actually involves two items from Wikidata. Even greater supply of points of failure, and I wary of it. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 22:55, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Incnis Mrsi: Yes, sorry for mis-remembering the property number. The good thing about maintaining these on Wikidata is that they are shared between the different Wikimedia properties, so if something does go wrong then it's more likely it will be spotted and fixed if the values are there rather than here. If we try to manage the links directly here, then it's more work, and it's a lot more easy to become out of sync with the rest of the Wikimedia projects. So while the number of potential points of failure are a bit higher, the likelihood of those failures is reduced, and the likelihood of the failure being fixed increases. It's the same argument about why it's better to manage interwikis on wikidata rather than on all of the separate wikimedia projects - and commons has always been poor at interwiki links until we had them all on Wikidata (tbh, it's still poor, but this should dramatically improve them at the same time as showing the info about the topics). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 12:00, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What sync are you speaking about? Q numbers are stable, and change only due to mergers (newer duplicates into older items), in which case {{Label}} and similar things can operate through a redirect. Updates to data? They are expected to happen in the topic item, not in its respective(P910) category item. The danger of subversion by a rogue Wikidata user exists in any case, but having {{…|Qnnn}} we go straightly to d:Qnnn and repair damage (if possible) or remove a Wikidata device altogether (if irreparable). With argumentless templates relying on reverse site links and P301, in case of subversion, we will have first to solve a puzzle. What namely was subverted, was it the value of P301 or the site link (connecting categories page here and there) or, like in the case above, data in the topic item. Look at the diagram below: Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:46, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Commons   Wikidata
Category:……
 site link
←———————
category
item
{{…|Qnnn}}↘ ⇃ ↾
←———————
topic
item
I don't understand, sorry. I'll have to think about this. But from what I understand, I think this work is easier done alongside the interwikis rather than trying to have a separate system (and they mostly work through sitelinks), and requesting info through specified qids is more computationally expensive than using the data accessed through the sitelink, so we should only do that where needed (i.e., where we need P301 links in this case). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:56, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Related to this, I think it's useful having a "physical" reference to the Wikidata identifier here rather than relying on reverse sitelinks and.... Why? If they delete the item there, having here the ID allows everyone to contest that ("I want Q48134356 restored because it fills blablabla notability criterion and blablabla"). If not, people will be clueless. Maybe it's enough the history record, where the ID is printed, don't know... strakhov (talk) 21:35, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Strakhov: In that case, I thought that the delinking shows up in the watchlist, with the wikidata link/qid. I don't know how often/likely that is to happen? Maybe @Pigsonthewing, Multichill, and Lydia Pintscher (WMDE): can comment on this? If you want, you can always set "qid=<nnn>"> as a parameter for {{Wikidata infobox}}, although that may increase the server load. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:51, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! it'd be an option. I just wanna know which item should be restored in Wikidata if I end up in a category with a non functional "Wikidata Infobox" (not necessarily a category created "by me" or "in my watchlist"). For now i'll try to record them in edit summaries if other methods increase the server load... Thanks! strakhov (talk) 22:53, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Strakhov: If this happens, please ping me and I'll look into it. The same goes for any problems with the template. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:59, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sooner or later the deletionists will take Wikidata. And we have to be prepared for that! :) Wrt to the template it would be awesome following category's main topic (P301) not only with the Commons category's subject, but with "architect", "creator",...too, but I know nothing about the "technical complexity" of that change. strakhov (talk) 23:08, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Strakhov: I've been mulling this over, and ended up writing some code that auto-produces User:Mike Peel/WDI backup to there's a log we can look back at if needed. If that's updated once a week, do you think that solves this issue? On architect/creator - what are you thinking we could display from those entries? Date of their birth & death, or something else? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:33, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to the first point, I guess it would be mostly OK. The problem is... that list could become pretty heavy if the template is massively used... With regard to the architect/creator, I did not mean that. I didn't ask for extra fields, but for showing the "Commons Category link" in cases like this one (Luis Gutiérrez Soto's category is not linked in the infobox because Commons sitelink it's stored in a category id, not in the "architect id". Thanks! strakhov (talk) 22:52, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Strakhov: First point: that's true, but it's a lot less maintenance work for editors compared with leaving QIDs everywhere on Commons... I'll think some more, but I suspect that if this isn't going to work then we'll basically end up replicating Wikidata... ;-) On the second point, I'm not sure why the link isn't showing - @RexxS: sorry for asking you another technical question, but any idea why that's happening? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:06, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mike I'm sorry but I can't follow what the problem is from this discussion: I don't know what link isn't showing, so you need to give me some more information so that I can try to track it down.
As for the general issue, each page in our projects will usually have an "associated" entry on Wikidata. The software maintains the link between the page and Wikidata internally, so when you make a call for properties on a page, it will return properties from the associated Wikidata entry by default. That is the "cheapest" call that can be made, and is preferred. If you have to supply a Qid to fetch information from a Wikidata entry which is not associated with the current page, that is called "arbitrary access" and incurs a cost equivalent to making an "expensive" parser call as described at en:Wikipedia:Template limits - and becomes subject to the same limits. If you don't have to use a Qid, then please don't; the code is far more efficient without it. --RexxS (talk) 13:40, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@RexxS: Here each "architect category" is linked in the infobox. Here it is not. Reason above. strakhov (talk) 14:41, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Aah, this is more complex than I thought. The problem is that d:Q3324260 is for the artist, but the commons category link is in d:Q20031636 (the category entry for the artist). So we either need to use P373 for the link from the artist entry, or follow P910 through to the category entry and then get the sitelink from there. Either way, it's messy... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:50, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I would remove the Commons category from d:Q20031636. It is useless for Commons, and only create problems. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:50, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just use {{Wikidata Infobox}} without arguments. This a non-discussion. Multichill (talk) 22:00, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Multichill: was your opinion on merits of our discussion requested? If I understood correctly, Mike asked for your opinion on the scenario envisaged by Strakhov (and, to some extent, by myself). Incnis Mrsi (talk) 22:15, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata Infobox for films

Hi, I have added the template to a few categories for films. Do you know why the film director doesn't show up in the infobox? i.e. Category:Gadano Bel (1950). IMO this is the most important information for a film. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:49, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann: Great! The director property (P57) isn't currently included, but I've added it to {{Wikidata Infobox/sandbox}} - can you test it to see if it works as expected, please, and I'll roll it out to the main version soon (probably this evening). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:52, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah nice. I think we should also have the date. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:55, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann: OK, publication date (P577) is also now in the sandbox version. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:57, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann: Now deployed. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:15, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wikidata Infobox

The infobox is apparently adding Category:People by name to galleries in which it used. That is incorrect, as clearly stated in the category's header. See Andrew Lih and Cary Grant. Please make the necessary changes to the template to eliminate this nuisance. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:10, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jameslwoodward: done, thanks for the heads-up! Mike Peel (talk) 22:15, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Very quick work, thank you. However, Cary Grant has Category:Deceased people by name and looking at its Wikitext, I think the only place it can come from is the template. It might have come from one of the film categories, but that seems unlikely. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:22, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jameslwoodward: Ah, yes, that's done separately. also now fixed. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:25, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I also note that there are 25 people at the very beginning of Category:People by name that are not sorted correctly. I think -- not sure -- they are sorted with a comma at the head instead of their last name. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:27, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jameslwoodward: That should be due to an earlier bug that's been fixed, but the changes are still propagating. See Alexis's comments at Commons:Village_pump/Proposals#Proposal_to_bot-deploy_Wikidata_Infobox (in particular the big green box in the middle) for the story of what happened there. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:29, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I should add to this a very well done for the template -- it looks like it will add considerably to Commons. Is there a plan to fix the 25 that I noted? Or should I do it? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:44, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jameslwoodward: Thanks! The 25 should sort themselves out over time, or you can make a null edit like I just made to Category:André Langrand-Dumonceau and that should clear the cache for them. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:46, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hector Macpherson - Herschel (1919).djvu

File:Hector Macpherson - Herschel (1919).djvu 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!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:51, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lord thomas Darcy is my great great great greatgrandfather

Can't find this plaquer, where is this? — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 173.209.212.154 (talk) 08:42, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This one - File:Tower Hill scaffold location - Sign 3.jpg? It's located near the Tower of London. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:56, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First structured licensing conversation on Commons

Greetings,

The first conversation about structured copyright and licensing for Structured Data on Commons has been posted, please come by and participate. The discussion will be open through the end of the month (March). Thank you. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 17:26, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Use of {Wikidata Infobox}

Hello Mike Peel. I understand that you are heavily involved in this {{Wikidata Infobox}}-template. But is it for uses on category-pages or at gallery pages, and are there a need to create a small gallerypage for the probably best use of it, or should we wait until we have some more things to fill in on the gallery-pages before we create them.

The reason I ask is this little edit-war I recently had on the subject of the new speed skating world champion from Japan Miho Takagi (gallery page, edit-history), Category:Miho Takagi (edit-history) and wikidata items edit-history for Wikidata-person Miho Takagi (Q444421) and edit-history for Wikidata-category Category:Miho Takagi (Q50739509).

Best regards Migrant (talk) 13:00, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Migrant: The template is primarily designed to be used on categories, but it should also work OK on gallery pages. Personally, I prefer categories to galleries, since galleries are often unmaintained and stale, while categories are generally more used. But in the case where both a gallery and a category are wanted, then you can have both an topic item and a category item on Wikidata, and then have commons sitelinks to both gallery and category. You can also then use the infobox on both (just make sure you set category's main topic (P301) in the category item to point to the topic item, and the template will use that to display the topic info rather than the category info). However, that's normally done for the wider topics, where categories also exist on Wikipedia, rather than a narrow topic like this - and see this ongoing Wikidata notability discussion. So I wouldn't include consideration of the infobox in the decision of whether a gallery is useful to have or not. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 13:17, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. I just linked the discussion over to my small edit-war colleague talk page. Best regards Migrant (talk) 13:53, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I discover Wikidata Infobox today and I adore it. I annonce it to members of FR Wikiproject Cycling. Thank you. Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick (talk) 09:22, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata Infobox

Hi, It put people in Category:20th century deaths instead of Category:20th-century deaths. I looked at the code, but it remembers me of obfuscated Perl. ;oD Yann (talk) 16:26, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann: Thanks for letting me know. I've modified the code to check that the category exists before using it, which avoids this. It's a shame about that dash in the category name, as that's difficult to predict, so the code won't auto-add that category. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:39, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Can't it add the right category instead? Regards, Yann (talk) 16:55, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann: I had to think about this a bit, but it should now add people to Category:20th-century deaths and similar [1]. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:48, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey

Hello! Sorry for writing in English. The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now

You can find more information about this survey on the project page and see how your feedback helps the Wikimedia Foundation support editors like you. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement (in English). Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through the EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys to remove you from the list.

Thank you!

--WMF Surveys (talk) 01:32, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pi bot & Wikidata Infobox

Hello Mike,
I saw Pi bot add a lot of {{Wikidata Infobox}}.
In the very few categories were I saw it, this infobox did not provide useful information (See Category:Phyllotheliinae).
Looking at the code, I understand that it can be useful for persons, monuments..., but not for all other kind of categories. Of course its usefullness will improve in the future.
I think that User:Pi bot should add this template only when the wikidata item has more than 3-4 properties managed by {{Wikidata Infobox}}: P157 (killed by), P119 (place of burial), P569 (date of birth)...
This list of properties should not contain media stored in wikicommons (P18 (image), P154 (logo image), P94 (coat of arms image)...) as we already have them under our eyes ;-)
I you don't do that, we risk a war of people reverting your bot addition.
Best regards Liné1 (talk) 14:05, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,
I discovered your discussion User_talk:Josve05a#Wikidata_Infobox. Your solution is fine for me.
But to avoid contribution fight, you perhaps should also implement my idea ;-)
Best regards Liné1 (talk) 14:17, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Liné1: Thanks for the message. Were the cases you spotted all taxonomy articles? The infobox has been designed so that it will work with all topics, but specialist parameters need to be added - in this case, taxonomy properties aren't yet included. That's straightforward to add to the uinfobox, but as per the discussion you linked to, taxonomy categories will probably be excluded, at least to start with.
Personally, I'd prefer to add the infobox even when it's not displaying that much information, as that shows where information on Wikidata needs improving, and might encourage people to then do so. But a minimum number of properties would be another way to go. I'm not sure it would affect too many articles, though - if you look through Special:Contributions/Pi_bot you'll see 500 randomly-selected categories, and in most cases it seems to include a reasonable amount of information. That was the test run for Commons:Bots/Requests/Pi bot 1, where the wider discussion is happening. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:10, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
Yes, I saw only taxon categories. Cheers Liné1 (talk) 19:39, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative Wikidata infoboxes?

Commons:Village pump#{{User:Rama/Catdef}} userspace template Commons:Bots/Work requests#Add links to Wikidata based on template here

*expects loud rant in 3..2...*

Also, w:d:Q30028327 did include a link to the Commons category, but {{Wikidata infobox}} did not work. I had to add the Commons category as a sitelink for that to happen. Maybe a bug or missing feature? - Alexis Jazz 14:16, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexis Jazz: Yes, I'd spotted that template. My approach was going to be to avoid it for now, but I can also auto-replace it with Wikidata Infobox during the bot roll-out of it if there's consensus for that. I'll reply at the threads you linked to.
With regards Q30028327, the infobox relies on the Commons sitelink, as that provides the link from the Commons category to the Wikidata item. If only P373 is set, then it's very difficult to do a reverse look-up to find the Wikidata item that has the correct value of P373, hence why the normal approach there is to specify the QID manually. The best thing to do is to sort out the Commons sitelinks on Wikidata, which also brings other benefits here like interwiki links. I've proposed d:Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Bot/Pi bot 2 to copy obvious P373 values to commons sitelinks to reduce the number of cases where this might happen by ~600,000, and it's ready to run when appproved - support/comments there are welcome. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:35, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia survey

Every response for this survey can help the Wikimedia Foundation improve your experience on the Wikimedia projects. So far, we have heard from just 26% of Wikimramedia contributors who Wikimedia programs like the Education program, editathons, or image contests. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes to be completed. Take the survey now.

If you are not fluent in English, I apologize again for posting in English. If you have already taken the survey, we are sorry you've received this reminder. We have designed the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone.If you wish to opt-out of the next reminder or any other survey, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement. Thank you! —WMF Surveys (talk) 17:18, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: Wikimedia survey (corrected link)

Every response for this survey can help the Wikimedia Foundation improve your experience on the Wikimedia projects. So far, we have heard from just 26% of Wikimramedia contributors who Wikimedia programs like the Education program, editathons, or image contests. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes to be completed.Take the survey now.

If you are not fluent in English, I apologize for posting in English. If you have already taken the survey, we are sorry you've received this reminder. We have designed the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. If you wish to opt-out of the next reminder or any other survey, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement. Thanks! —WMF Surveys (talk) 17:24, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File source is not properly indicated: File:James L Green.jpg

العربية ∙ asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:James L Green.jpg, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted.

If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work.

If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

Sealle (talk) 05:24, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Boo! ✓ Done - Alexis Jazz 08:03, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexis Jazz: Thanks for sorting it out! Mike Peel (talk) 23:14, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey

Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 23 April, 2018 (07:00 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

If you are not a native speaker of English, I apologize for writing in English. If you already took the survey - thank you! We will not bother you again. We have designed the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. To opt-out of future surveys, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement. Thank you!! --WMF Surveys (talk) 05:54, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ English ∙ español ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ +/−

An offering for our new administrator from your comrades...

Mike Peel, congratulations! You now have administrator rights on Commons. Please take a moment to read the Commons:Administrators page and watchlist related pages (in particular Commons:Administrators' noticeboard an it subpages), before launching yourself into page deletions, page protections, account blockings or modifications of protected pages. The majority of the actions of administrators can be reversed by the other admins, except for history merges which must thus be treated with particular care. Have a look at the list of Gadgets (on the bottom there are the ones specifically for admins – however, for example the UserMessages are very helpful too).

Please feel free to join us on IRC: #wikimedia-commons-lr webchat on irc.freenode.net. There is also a channel for Commons admins, which may be useful for more sensitive topics, or coordination among administrators: #wikimedia-commons-admin webchat.

You may find Commons:Guide to adminship to be useful reading. You can find the admin backlog overview at COM:AB.

Please also check or add your entry to the List of administrators and the related lists by language and date it references.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:23, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I didn't even see your nomination. Congratulations! Yann (talk) 15:04, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! It's nice to have a new mop - I'll have to make use of it this evening! :-) Mike Peel (talk) 17:22, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mike_Peel/Archive_3&oldid=372757667"