User talk:Mike Peel/Archive 8

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 → Archive 15

templates "Artwork" and "Object photo" vs "Wikidata infobox" and "Art Photo"

Hello,

I see that PiBot has been adding {{Wikidata infobox}} to a large number of categories that have a Wikidata-powered {{Artwork}} template — thank you for this!

The use of {{Artwork}} in this way reflects early attempts at importing information from Wikidata into Commons categories and images: the idea was to bring information from Wikidata into the category with {{Artwork}}, and then from the category into individual images using {{Object photo}}. This transcludes the information of the category into the image page. A more modern approach is to document the category using {{Wikidata infobox}}, which detects the "Other sites: Commons" field on Wikidata, and document the images using {{Art Photo}} and filling in the Q-number.

I was wondering whether it would be possible for PiBot to

  1. detect presence of {{Artwork}} in categories, and remove it so that {{Wikidata infobox}} would replace {{Artwork}} rather than add to it; and
  2. also visit the images contained in the category, and replace {{Object photo}} with {{Art Photo}} (this would entail getting the Q-Item number, and also double-checking the correspondence of the arguments of {{Object photo}} and {{Art Photo}}; for instance, I believe "author" in {{Object photo}} corresponds to "photographer" in {{Art Photo}}

This would also have the advantage of fixing a minor bug that PiBot introduces in these cases at the moment: in images, {{Art Photo}} tries to transclude the {{Wikidata infobox}}, which then fails to detect the relevant Q-Item and returns an error ("NO WIKIDATA ID FOUND!"). You can see examples at

In any case, thank you for your very useful work, and good continuation! Rama (talk) 05:48, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rama: Thanks for the message. I'm trying to encourage the cleanup/standardisation of those categories to use Wikidata more cleanly through the infobox, and I think having the infobox there already more clearly indicates that this needs doing than just having the Wikidata sitelink in the sidebar. I'll try to look into a script that can remove {{Artwork}} from the categories, but the problem is where additional parameters are also filled in, which need to be migrated to Wikidata (probably manually). Differing whitespace also makes it a bit tricky. The affected images are being collated in Category:Uses of Wikidata Infobox with problems - about a thousand so far - and I should be able to write code to migrate those over to {{Art photo}} fairly easily. I'll try to do that in the next few days, or at Wikimania next week (see you there?). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 06:50, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Set Wikidata Infobox not in onlyinclude

Moin Moin Mike Peel, here you can see that the bot has set the Wikidata infobox within "onlyinclude". I don't think that's good, because the files now all end up in the category with errors (Category:Uses of Wikidata Infobox with problems). I'm fixing that right now by setting the "onlyinclude" from behind the infobox to before it. Regards --Crazy1880 (talk) 14:23, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

categories should never be included in file pages! I’ll fix the file pages soon, using the tracking category, please don’t empty it before I get there. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:39, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the Category, what is included. The template art work is onlyinclude, but the Infobox was set into the onlyinclude and because of that, the Infobox is shown in the files and give an error. I cleaned the first 250 items. ;) --Crazy1880 (talk) 14:46, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Crazy1880: Aah, I see what you mean now. (Sorry, my earlier message was quickly from a phone.) I think the best thing to do here is to remove the onlyinclude tags (and any noinclude etc. tags) completely - and ideally also the artwork templates. For the plan of attack with the usage on file pages, see the section above. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:20, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Moin Moin Mike, is there any news for this topic? Regards --Crazy1880 (talk) 15:41, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I've been working on other things, I'm not sure when I'll get back to this. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:04, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No problem for me, so two days of work and the 1300 pieces are done. ;) Done. Regards --Crazy1880 (talk) 18:21, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thank you for taking care of it. Mike Peel (talk) 18:27, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome ;) --Crazy1880 (talk) 19:31, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Linking images from Commons back to Wikidata

Hi Mike Peel, how are you doing? Hope you are ok! I was talking with Joalpe about the Category:Uses of MonumentID with no picture on Wikidata and how to facilitate the process of linking the images back to their Wikidata item. Do you think this code (the example of utilization is here) could help? It generates a phrase with a link to Old Quick Statements passing to the command QID|P18|"Filen.ame" to the URL. It is still done one by one, though. Good contributions, Ederporto (talk) 21:06, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ederporto and Joalpe: It's interesting. I've added it to {{MonumentID/line/sandbox}} with some formatting modifications, it's now demo'd at User:Mike Peel/sandbox. My main concern is that it will confuse new editors who've just uploaded their photo, want to see it used, and then get taken to the different website that is QS. Is there a way that it could only be shown to experienced editors? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 06:09, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pages with DEFAULTSORT conflicts

Is PiBot still tending to Category:Pages with DEFAULTSORT conflicts? There are presently over 2,000 categories needing "defaultsort=no". Cheers, --Animalparty (talk) 00:46, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Animalparty: I temporarily disabled it due to a change in how the sort key is defined in the infobox, see Template_talk:Wikidata_Infobox#Removal_of_birth_and_death_categories. The change seems to have worked, so I've re-enabled it. The bot should clear out the category shortly. (Also @JuTa: for info.) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:23, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking into it. --Animalparty (talk) 03:35, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This File:Post box at Tesco, Frodsham Street, Chester.jpg is a classic case of someone not thinking deeply enough. It makes perfect sense to DEFSORT post boxes by their number within a postcode area. That way, they appear in numerical order within their categories, but only if you look at the full list and realise that some have three or four digits, so it follows that all must have three or four digits to preserve the correct ordering. I don't know how this conflict arises, but it shouldn't have. Rodhullandemu (talk) 10:33, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

defaultsort=no

Hi Mike, do you have a cleanup task for removing no longer needed defaultsort=no parameters of {{Wikidata Infobox}}? Example: Category:Carlo Balboni. Maybe it is enough to remove if from those categories: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?sort=relevance&search=insource%3A%2Fdefaultsort%3Dno%2F+-insource%3A%2FDEFAULTSORT%2F+-hastemplate%3APeopleByName+incategory%3APeople_by_name&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&advancedSearch-current=%7B%7D&ns6=1&ns9=1&ns12=1&ns14=1&ns100=1&ns106=1. What do you think? --Arnd (talk) 08:01, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Aschroet: I don't have a task that does that. The problem is that I don't know whether it would cause another defaultsort conflict again or not. Pi bot only adds it if the page is in Category:Pages with DEFAULTSORT conflicts. If your bot removes the DEFAULTSORT template, could it also remove defaultsort=no? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:05, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ok, i think that in most cases of the above search everything will be fine after the removal. For those few appearing in Category:Pages with DEFAULTSORT conflicts again your bot will re-add the parameter. Lets see what will happen. Sure, i will add the suggested behavior to my bot when removeing DEFAULTSORT. --Arnd (talk) 11:43, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox for HMS Elephant

Can you please sort out the Infobox for HMS Elephant (Q5237843) which needs to be transferred to HMS Elephant (ship, 1786). Thanks Broichmore (talk) 11:22, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Broichmore: Done, you can see how it's done at [1]. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:28, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Hour

Hi Mike, was nice meeting you in person again. I was looking at the date thing for structured data on Commons and I thought about a use case: I want to query for photos that were taken during the golden hour. Here is where your field of work comes in: Are you aware of any service that for any coordinate and date can give sunrise, sunset and those kind of events? Correct answer would be your phone, but here comes the catch: In SPARQL format? That way we could just do that with a federated query. Multichill (talk) 17:55, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Multichill: The only place I know that uses SPARQL is Wikimedia, sorry! There are Python packages that can calculate sunrise/sunset/etc., so you could probably code something up using those that outputs SPARQL, but it sounds like a very complex query given that it changes with longitude and time of year! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:29, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Media from ZooKeys

Hello, Mike. I come towards you because you are used to deal with the relationship between Commons and Wikidata. This is a long time that I think to that but this last discussion decided me to try to do something: species:User talk:Neferkheperre#Categories for Zookeys.

ZooKeys is one of the freely licensed scientific articles publishers, including for the images. Almost all (if not all) the articles have entries in Wikidata and as you can see in the category linked above, we have already a lot of images. You can also see that some subcategories are already existing and are linked to the relevant Wikidata items. But it is marginal as to the number of images concerned.

There is several advantages to have this kind of categories, the first is the possibility to quickly check if the images of a specific article have been uploded or not. In case it is yes then we can find them (and we can avoid duplicate), and if no then we can upload them if needed. Another advantage is the possibility of connectivity between the Wikimedia projects, e.g. in this category you quickly see that there is also an entry in Wikispecies, and therefore from the Wikispecies side you can also see if we have media for a specific article.

Create categories, add categories to images, link categories to the Wikidata items will be very very tedious to be done manualy. My main question is: is it possible with a BOT to find the correspondence between the images and the Wikidata items for the articles?, knowing that all the articles have a DOI (P356) value, and that the images have also this value (as string) at least one time in the source field example: DOI:10.3897/zookeys.433.8022 that is also available in A review of the primary types of the Hawaiian stag beetle genus Apterocyclus Waterhouse (Coleoptera, Lucanidae, Lucaninae), with the description of a new species (Q21188418). And of course, once the images found to perform the necessary operations listed above.

Regards, Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:28, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Christian Ferrer: If the DOI is in both the file and the Wikidata item, then it sounds like it should be relatively straightforward to do. I'm busy with other things at the moment, though, perhaps someone from Wikicite could help - @Daniel Mietchen? Otherwise, ping me at the weekend and I'll try to have a look. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:43, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jodrell Bank Mark II 5.jpg

Could you please make sure that you test does not take the file to all kinds of maintenance categories? Not sure how e.g. the source and author field could be filled with some placeholder? Castillo blanco (talk) 12:14, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Castillo blanco: Ah, sorry, I forgot about the maintenance categories. It should be out of them now. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:23, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Life Savers Building

Thanks for the Wikidata Infobox on the Life Savers Building in Port Chester, New York, but the coordinates are wrong. It's actually at North Main Street (US 1) just between Horton and Wilkins Avenues. Your box gives the coordinates at King Street (NY 120A) just south of Highland Street. I tried using AcmeMapper to fix the situation, but it didn't let me mark the correct location this time. ----DanTD (talk) 10:42, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DanTD: It looks like they were wrong on the English Wikipedia to start with. I've tried to correct them: [2] [3], does that look better now? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:00, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's still too far west. You've got it between Horton and Wilkins Avenues, but now it's at Locust Avenue. ----DanTD (talk) 11:04, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@DanTD: Aah, I see it now. It looks like OpenStreetMap has it wrong as well! I'll go fix it there, but it'll take a while for the grey box to update in the infobox, since Wikimedia has a cached version of OSM that is updated every so often. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:09, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OSM fixed. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:14, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

image licsence

Hello.

My name is yehuda ben zvi, a Jewish tour guide of temple mount.

Im intrested in using you're image in a booklet created for young boys learining about Memple Mount and the history of jerusalem before assecding the mount phisically.

Can I have you're agreament aftter noting it as asked in te booklet?

Hello. Can you let me know which image you are referring to, please? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:11, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gor_novels

Why did you create a new category when that means that the existing category (Category:John_Norman) contains no images now and won't in the foreseeable future -- only the new category as its sole subcategory?? It may satisfy some abstract sense of symmetry on your part, but it means that your addition has not provided any usefulness in categorizing images, which is actually the purpose of categories on Commons... AnonMoos (talk) 04:20, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AnonMoos: Because you reverted me at en:Category:Gor? Categories about people should generally contain content about those people, not unrelated content about other people (but putting those into a subcategory on that topic works). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:10, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what "other people" you're talking about, since Norman wrote all the Gor and Telnarian books. I indicated on the Wikipedia category its closest Commons equivalent, while you created a Commons category which removed from another Commons category its practical usefulness in classifying images, which is arguably not according to the best practices here... AnonMoos (talk) 21:35, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@AnonMoos: Category:John_Norman should contain media about the person, Category:Gor (novels) should contain the media about the novels. Or are the people that are shown in the media now in Category:Gor (novels) actually John Norman? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:46, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
15 out of 20 images transferred from Category:John_Norman to Category:Gor_(novels) do not show people at all, 1 shows multiple imaginary fictional characters, and 4 photographs show people where the focus is on their clothing and postures (in 1 of the 4, the face isn't even visible). I still don't see what purpose there was to most of this fuss... AnonMoos (talk) 04:24, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do any of them show John Norman? As a reminder, you started the fuss by reverting my removal of the commonscat at en:Category:Gor. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 13:25, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's because you removed a link to the then most closely-equivalent Commons category. Anyway, what's done is done, but I still don't see what the reason was for abrupt unilateral action on your part (without consulting anyone else). AnonMoos (talk) 07:52, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@AnonMoos: It's part of a big cleanup project I'm working on to sort out the links between commons and wikidata, and also enwp to commons, linked to the wikidata infobox deployment here. I didn't pick this category out specifically, it's just one of hundreds I edit each week. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:24, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomic categories

I notice that Pi bot added an infobox to Category:Blasiales. The added infobox was for d:Q876770, but the Wikidata item for that category is actually d:Q8302720. This has happened on multiple Category pages. For taxonomic groups, there is usually one data item for the taxon and another data item for the category, because Wikipedias have pages for the taxon and categories for the taxon. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:09, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@EncycloPetey: This looks correct to me. The Commons category is linked to the category item, but the category item links to the topic item via category's main topic (P301) (and vice versa with topic's main category (P910), so the infobox displays the content for the topic item, while the category is still linked to the category item. Or am I missing something? (BTW, for background on why Pi bot is only now adding the infoboxes to taxon categories, see Commons:Village_pump/Proposals#Adding_the_Wikidata_Infobox_to_Taxon_categories.) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:19, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Before Pi bot added the Infobox, the interwiki links allowed the user to visit the corresponding Categories on other projects. After adding the taxon Infobox, the interwiki links lead to Articles on some of the Wikipedias but Categories for some of the others. It is now a mix of two different kinds of interwiki, and breaks some of the links that were available before. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:27, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@EncycloPetey: Yes, the infobox uses code by @Multichill: to add article interwikis, on the basis that most users will want to visit the articles not the categories. I thought that was built in to some of the taxon category code already, so it shouldn't be a change - but perhaps it was in a different template from the taxon tree one. Either way, this brings it in line with how the infobox/interwikis work on all other topics. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:32, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So it's broken on purpose? Someone visiting Commons is looking for images or audio files, not articles. I use the category links on the side to find locally uploaded images. The broken links mean that I won't see some of the categories anymore. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:14, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Different people view Commons is different ways. It's not broken, it's different behaviour. There really shouldn't be many locally uploaded images nowadays, surely? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:36, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure any more when this was added, but quite some time ago. For a normal user it's more useful to browse to an article instead of a category. So yes, this is intentional behaviour and it's good behaviour. Multichill (talk) 20:25, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding Wikidata links until they can be user-disabled! Thanks - MPF (talk) 23:33, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MPF: They already can be, see the documentation at Template:Wikidata Infobox. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:40, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Seems to have worked :-) MPF (talk) 00:26, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Error in Wikidata: wikidata gallery item 'XYX' (Q123456) property 'Commons-Kategorie' (P373) should be 'XYZ' (not empty).

Hello MIke Peel,

I would like to take your attention to the fact that in quite some categories here on commons the following error message is displayed: Error in Wikidata: wikidata gallery item 'XYZ' (Q123456) property 'Commons-Kategorie' (P373) should be 'XYZ' (not empty). In order to allow you to have a closer look at this here are some examples of this:

there are most probably a few thousand categories where this error message is displayed.I t might be interesting to contact the author of the template generating this in order to clarify whether all items linked on wikidata to a categoryon Commons should as well have the property P373.

best regards Robby (talk) 22:49, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Liné1 and Hike395: could you have a look at this? The P373 property is hopefully something that will be deprecated on Wikidata soon, so perhaps this check can simply be removed? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:10, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sempervivum

Observo que el bot incluye en commons en este género como en otros muchos ((wikidata infobot)), lo cual (lo que al ser demasiado grande), rompe las páginas. Le agradecería que solo ponga ((wikidata|Q9116910)) que se ajusta a lo que desea y sigue los mismos parámetros que ((vs)). Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 09:37, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MILEPRI: El infobox es estándar y debe aparecer en el lado derecho de la página sin ocupar mucho espacio vertical. Hace mucho más de lo que {{Wikidata}} hace, y el plan es que reemplazará otras partes estándar de las páginas de categoría: {{Ws}} y {{VN}} se incluyen en el infobox automáticamente, por ejemplo. // The infobox is standard, and should appear down the right-hand side of the page without occupying much vertical space. It does a lot more than {{Wikidata}} does, and the plan is that it will replace other standard parts of the category pages - {{Ws}} and {{VN}} are included in the infobox automatically, for example. (Sorry if my Spanish is bad, I'm still learning it!) Gracias. Mike Peel (talk) 09:45, 18 December 2019 (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, — Huntster (t @ c) 18:30, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Meaningless wanted categories

Hello.There are two meaningless categories in Special:WantedCategories:1-2.If they really are, please empty them. If they are useful, please create them ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 07:25, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2: Hmm, they're not exactly wrong/meaningless, just a few thousand years out of date... @DarwIn and Joalpe: how do you want to handle these? They are photos from WLM in Brazil and Portugal, will they have been missed from your list of entries? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:07, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2, Mike Peel, DarwIn, and Joalpe: Hello, all, I took a look in this issue and find out what the problem is. Some monuments have more than the current country in the property P17 (country) at Wikidata with same ranking. I changed around 20 to obsolete, but I do not guarantee it was all of them. As the purging of the files pages occur (how long that will take, I do not know), they will be removed from those categories. Good contributions, Ederporto (talk) 17:00, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ederporto: Thanks for looking into this! I've run a script through the categories to make null edits, and there are now none left. The {{MonumentID}} code adds the image to categories for all country (P17) values, so hopefully this hasn't had any wider affects. @ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2, DarwIn, and Joalpe: for info. Thanks

Wikidata Infoboxes

Le agradecería que me indicase como ocultar infobox de forma que no rompa la página. Actualmente lo sustituyo por (wikidata|Qxxxxxx) para que el visitante que quiera, pueda acceder a ver los datos.--MILEPRI (talk) 23:29, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MILEPRI: Tu necesitas insertar $( "#wdinfobox" ).addClass( "mw-collapsed" ); o $( "#wdinfobox" ).addClass( "wdinfobox_hide" ); en el código en Special:MyPage/common.js. Gracias. Mike Peel (talk) 08:41, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dinizia

Hi Mike - your Pi bot keeps moving the Dinizia Commons link at wikidata from Dinizia (Q5278351) to Category:Dinizia (Q18283093) - this is very annoying as it leaves the Dinizia (Q5278351) item with no link to Commons. Could you please undo this, and stop the bot from doing it again. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 15:27, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MPF: That's wikidata:Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Bot/Pi bot 6 - the convention on Wikidata is for a Commons category to be linked from the category item (here, Category:Dinizia), rather than the topic item (here, Dinizia), unless the category item doesn't exist. If there's a gallery here then it gets linked to from the topic item. It's possible to find the category from the topic item by following topic's main category (P910) (this is how en:Template:Commons category works - you can also do this in SPARQL queries), and the infobox here follows category's main topic (P301) the other direction. Is it causing you an issue somewhere? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:02, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; Not sure I follow fully - like plenty of other categories, there is no gallery: is that what you meant when you said "unless the category doesn't exist'? I don't have the faintest idea what a 'sparqul' is, so that's no use. My main point is, that as there is no link in the box at the right at the Dinizia (Q5278351) item, it is no longer possible to reach the Commons Category from there; but instead there is a link from a "Category:Dinizia" item (Q18283093), which is no use as it only links to a few wikipedia categories. Seems to me, that since categories perform a different function in Commons (more like pages) to what they do in wikipedias, it ought to be made possible to link the Commons category to the wikidata page item, perhaps as well as to the wikidata categoty item. But trying to do so just gives an error message and it won't save. - MPF (talk) 16:38, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@MPF: Sorry, it's a bit complicated. By "unless the category doesn't exist", I mean cases like electrical conduit (Q1719631), where there is no 'Category:' item linked to via topic's main category (P910). There are two key restrictions on Wikidata: you can't have more than one sitelink (e.g., Commons category) to the same project in one item, and you can't have more than one item linking to the same sitelink. So there are essentially 'topic', 'category' and 'list' items, which are linked between each other to include both article/gallery and category sitelinks. It's not ideal, but that's the way it is, and it mostly works. You do have to look for topic's main category (P910) and follow that through when browsing Wikidata, but the infobox in Category:Dinizia and the commonscat link in en:Dinizia will do that for you. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:59, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Think I see what you mean; the problem is that the "topic's main category (P910)" is hidden deep down in the page, often needing scrolling halfway to Australia and getting repetitive strain injury as a result - could this bit not be moved to the top right to make it more conspicuous and easier to reach? - MPF (talk) 17:06, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree: I tend to just search the page for it. I don't know if it could be moved, that might be something to ask at wikidata:Wikidata:Project chat or wikidata:Wikidata:Contact the development team. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:09, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No new {{Wikidata infobox}} templates being added?

For quite some time (half a year?) I didn't see Pi bot (or any other bot) add {{Wikidata infobox}} templates to any categories I've created or linked to. For that reason I have manually added it a lot of times now. I recently noticed the bot "tidy" a few cases that had been messed with just a day earlier, which made me realize that the bot must still be "alive" after all though. I'm in the process of creating Wikidata items for a few hundred streets in Denmark, so I'd really like to know if I can do something extra to get an existing bot to do add those templates? Is there any other way to avoid having to do it manually? --Hjart (talk) 00:33, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hjart: You can see from Special:Contributions/Pi_bot that the last run was on 7 January (I'll do another later today). Can you point me to some examples where it isn't linking them, please? One thing it might be is that you need to use the sitelink (under 'other sites' on Wikidata) to link to the Commons category, if you're just adding Commons category (P373) then that won't work. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:41, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've added tons of sitelinks over the years, so I'm fairly familiar with how they works. Unfortunately I have also manually fixed practically all cases, including some quite old ones I've encountered along the way. I'll wait to see if it works for the batch of streets (including i.e. Category:Stoltenbergsgade) I added to Wikidata yesterday. Thanks --Hjart (talk) 10:18, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hjart: The other thing that might cause this is some missing metadata in the database, see phabricator:T233520 - but hopefully that's quite rare. The bot's running through the new categories now, if it doesn't get added in the next hour or so then let me know. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:21, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hjart: The run's finished, and it looks like it caught your example category. Let me know if you see it missing any others in the future? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 12:52, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Out of ~150 streets added in Copenhagen the same day, Henrik Harpestrengs Vej (Q81792970) is the only one that still doesn't have had a {{Wikidata infobox}} added to the associated Commons category by your bot. Any idea? --Hjart (talk) 09:51, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure, the last bot run was yesterday. I'm re-running quarry to get the latest set, then we can look to see if it's included there / if the bot adds it today. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:53, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hjart: It's not in the set for the next bot run, so I've mentioned it at phab:T233520. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:17, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Mike, in Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Bavaria same as Wikidata there are a lot of categories which have been recently linked to wikidata-objects, therefore they do not have an wikidata infobox yet, but they also do not show up in the quarry (yet?). --M2k~dewiki (talk) 00:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@M2k~dewiki and Hjart: It could either be the problem above, which has now been identified as a bug in MediaWiki at phab:T233520, or a new issue, the replication log on quarry is >70 hours for Commons at the moment (now phab:T243488). Fun times. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:55, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
After 3 months Category:Henrik Harpestrengs Vej still doesn't have a template. I just also came across Category:Danske Skoleelever, which after 1 month still doesn't have a template.--Hjart (talk) 14:30, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hjart: The bug was hopefully fixed last month. I'm not sure what happens with older edits, though, so I've made an edit to the first one, let's see if that then appears in the list. The second one is actually in my bot's list, but it's skipped as it's also in the previous list, so it must have been missed at some point. I'll do a complete run (rather than only running through the differences with the previous list) shortly. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:46, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hampton House (Nathaniel Rogers House)

Thanks for another Wikidata Infobox, this time for the Nathaniel Rogers House in Bridgehampton, New York, but the coordinates were off for this one too. The house is actually on the southeast corner of NY 27 and Ocean Avenue. The coordinates given place it on Lumber Lane just north of the northwest corner of NY 27 and Suffolk CR 79. Is this another case where Open Street Map got the location wrong, much like the Life Savers Building in Port Chester, New York? ----DanTD (talk) 15:07, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DanTD: I think it's just a case of an incorrect coordinate on enwp. I've fixed it on wikidata and then on enwp, does that look better now? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:25, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good enough for me. Thanks. ----DanTD (talk) 20:48, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pi bot at Category:Katharine Furse

Hi. Just reporting a little slip by Pi bot on 4 February. Rather than replacing a Wikidata Infobox at Category:Katharine Furse, it appears to have added a duplicate copy.[4] I've only crossed paths with this bot in the last few days but it seems very useful. Keep up the good work. From Hill To Shore (talk) 00:29, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@From Hill To Shore: Sorry about that, the bot doesn't know about that particular redirect. It has another task that runs every Friday and Monday to tidy up uses of the redirects, which should also remove duplicates like this. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:33, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Distributed Wikidata Game Commons category matches

Hi Mike, how you determine the candidates for the mentioned game? --Arnd (talk) 13:31, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aschroet: You can see the script at [5], basically it looks through Commons categories (randomly or through a given tree), avoiding things like redirects and uses Wikidata's search to find candidates. There's a bit of extra filtering that goes on later to remove bad matches (e.g., to journal articles). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:32, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
i wonder if we could use a petscan query like [6] to find the candidates? This is for dewiki but could be done for other languages as well. --Arnd (talk) 14:38, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Moin Moin Arnd, i have looked at the results from the dewiki query and they are not as great as you would like. Articles that point to BKL or are linked to other objects or to two objects. You should invest another two to three minutes before you take over unseen. Opinion on that? Regards --Crazy1880 (talk) 17:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Aschroet and Crazy1880: At the moment there are >100,000 candidates in the queue (out of 350,000 that I've loaded in so far), and the script I have can easily add more. So the main problem is working through the backlog rather than finding new candidates to add! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:06, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Moin Mike Peel, for more candidates, I think I have a idea. This Cirrus search delivers results where in an article there is a link to Wikipedia page. The committee is similar to that of the PetScan. Have a check ;) --Crazy1880 (talk) 16:20, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the problem now is too many candidates, I'll look at these options again when we start running out. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pi bot - When add Infobox remove interwikilinks

Moin Moin Mike Peel, would it be possible that when Pi bot sets the Wikidata Infobox, that it immediately checks which Wikipedia links exist on Wikidata and removes them from the Commons article? (Insofar available!) Just an idea. Regards --Crazy1880 (talk) 16:27, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the bot of @Aschroet: does that already. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:42, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
From time to time my bot removes obsolete categories and templates. Interwiki links are not included so far. --Arnd (talk) 19:12, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Moin Moin Arnd, wäre da irgendwas möglich, dass du auch Interwiki-Links abprüfen könntest und diese entfernst? Das würde mir in einigen Kategorien echt helfen. mfg --Crazy1880 (talk) 20:24, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, sorry, I think it was the bot script by @Zhuyifei1999 and Gabrielchl: . Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:23, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah? It should be running Special:Contributions/Gabrielchihonglee-Bot --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 22:56, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Though, the bot only starts every Sunday. Maybe if quick removal is desired we can expose an API for Pi bot to invoke Gabriel's bot on a single page? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 23:05, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! At Barcelona 2019 092.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Cayambe 17:35, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logic behind Pi Bot's adding of Wikidata infobox to vehicle-related categories on Wikimedia Commons

Hello Mike, I'm contacting you as I try to understand the logic on which Pi Bot adds the Wikidata infobox to vehicle-related Wikimedia Commons categories. There are instances when the infobox is added to the (superordinate) Commons category named "...vehicles", while in other instances the infobox is added to a (subordinate) category named "...automobiles" or "...motorcycles" or the like. For better understanding I'll give an example: The Commons category "Imperia vehicles (B)" as yet contains one subcategory "Imperia automobiles". Pi Bot added the infobox to the superordinate vehicles category. The Commons category "Imperia vehicles (D)" as yet contains one subcategory "Imperia motorcycles". Pi Bot added the infobox to the subordinate motorcycles category. Please allow me a bit of background info on this subject: Both homonymous (but completely unrelated) vehicle manufacturers built automobiles as well as motorcycles. But as yet there are neither images of Belgian Imperia motorcyles nor of German Imperia automobiles on Commons (which may well change in the future). Currently, the structure of the Commons categories "...vehicles", "...automobiles", "...motorcycles" etc. is far from consistent. There are many automobile makes that only have a category "name-of-make vehicles" on Commons (no "name-of-make automobiles"); vice versa there are many others that only have "name-of-make automobiles" (no "name-of-make vehicles"). Consequence is that both the category "vehicles by brand" and the (subordinate) "automobiles by brand" are far from complete - and any Commons user in search of images of a particular make has to cope with this inconsistency. It is my aim to change this bit by bit by consistently categorizing the images as "automobiles", "motorcycles", "trucks" etc. and giving each make a superordinate "vehicles" category. But I'm wondering if in doing so I'll get in conflict with the infobox adding logic of Pi Bot. And what if someone submits an image of - let's say - an "Imperia (D) automobile", thus creating the respective subcategory of "Imperia vehicles (D)"? May the Wikidata infobox then be manually transferred from "Imperia motorcycles" to "Imperia vehicles (D)"? I hope you can give me advice on how to act properly when handling this subject in the future. Cheers, --Purzelbier (talk) 14:23, 27 February 2020 (UTC) P.S.: I accidentally made this entry at first on your Wikimedia talk page but then transferred it to your Commons talk page. Sorry for that.--Purzelbier (talk) 14:36, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Purzelbier: Thanks for the message. This area is a bit of a mess, and I've been doing some fixes, but something more rigorous would be good. It's also a bit complicated. The infobox works through the sitelinks to Commons from Wikidata (under 'Other sites'), of which there can only be one per Wikidata item, but there are both topic and category items. Most of the sitelinks have been imported from the links to Commons on other wikis (in particular, English Wikipedia), or added directly to Wikidata. There's a bit of a summary at wikidata:User:Mike Peel/Commons linking.
Ideally, there would be a root category per manufacturer, which includes both the vehicles as a subcategory, and anything else about that manufacturer (retail outlets, logos, people, etc.), like Category:Bristol Aeroplane Company - that's often missing here, particularly for lesser-known manufacturers. That should be linked to the item about the company (either a topic item with links to Wikipedia articles, or a category item matching the Commons one). The 'vehicle', 'automobiles', etc. categories then normally get linked to a category item that links to the matching category on the Wikipedias. Like Category:Bristol vehicles, except perhaps that should be at Category:Bristol automobiles, or those categories should be merged - not being a subject expert I'm not sure the best way to model them. What do you think?
My suggestion would be to work through some examples together, and see how they go. Perhaps you can suggest some? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:16, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Peel: Thanks for your instant reply, your explanations and the offer to work through some examples together. I have to admit that the subject of how the category system related to vehicles should be structured hierarchically is quite complicated and prone to potential controversy, so it won't be easy to do some ad hoc work on it. I'd like to give you some information / thoughts of mine:
Your thought that there should be a root category for every manufacturer that is superordinate to the respecting vehicles subcategory is sound yet not unproblematical. The reason is that vehicles as well as their subcategories automobiles, trucks, motorcycles etc. generally are categorized by their "brand" (i.e. a marque) - not by their "manufacturer" (i.e. a company), while the root category you propose should be linked to a topic item about the company. But it's quite common that one and the same "brand" is used by separate companies - and I don't talk about historically unrelated homonymous brand names like Category:Imperia vehicles (B) and Category:Imperia vehicles (D) I mentioned upthread, but of historically one and the same brand name with genesis in the same historical roots. I'll give you a very prominent example:
"Triumph" is a (quite legendary) brand that was (and partially is to date) used on amongst others British-built cars, British-built motorcycles and German-built motorcycles - by different manufacturers that all evolved out of the same British bicycle manufacturer. The respective Commons categories Category:Triumph automobiles, Category:Triumph motorcycles and Category:Triumph (TWN) motorcycles are all subcategories of Category:Triumph vehicles which itself is a subcategory of Category:Triumph Motor Company - the latter relation being only partially correct, as the "Triumph Motor Company" (speaking simplified) is the manufacturer of the cars and has only a historical link to the later production of British as well as German motorcycles of the same brand name. Same situation of "same (not homonymous but really same) brand - different manufacturers" goes for Category:Maserati automobiles and Category:Maserati motorcycles and quite a few more. But not all of these cases currently share a superordinate category; two examples:
Both Category:Bristol vehicles (with subcat automobiles) and Category:Bristol Commercial Vehicles (with subcats trucks and busses) historically share the same (not just a homonymous) brand as both manufacturers evolved out of "British Tramways and Carriage Company", but at the time of respective motor vehicle manufacture the companies were separate. These two cats currently stand completely separate on Commons, even though the historical situation is not so far from "Triumph" or "Maserati".
Both Category:Daimler Motoren Gesellschaft vehicles and Category:Daimler Company vehicles historically share the same brand as the British Daimler Company initially was a licensee of the German Daimler Motoren Gesellschaft. But they're treated as completely separate entities on Commons which does in no way match the "Triumph" or "Maserati" precedents.
I hope you can see from these examples that any attempt to make the hierarchical structure of vehicle-based categories consistent and standardized is not only a really, really huge undertaking that easily could take years of work but could very likely arouse much controversy on how to achieve the task. But the status quo simply is a big mess - and it starts with many lesser subordinate issues, like the category names of "Bristol Commercial Vehicles" (wrong capitalization + the term "commercial" shouldn't be part of the cat name; at least it isn't done with other "commercial vehicles only" brands like Category:MAN vehicles), "Daimler Company vehicles" and "Daimler Motoren Gesellschaft vehicles" (mingling the brand name "Daimler" with information on the respective manufacturing company; there never was a car branded "Daimler Company"...) are all non-standard and need some kind of change anyhow.
I think the only way to handle such a task would be to start some kind of community thread on how to put a uniform structure to all this. There is a platform called Commons:WikiProject Automobiles that basically lay dormant for the recent years. Currently, I contemplate about attempting to revive it and ping all users I know to be interested in vehicle history and discuss the task and how it could be done. But to be frank, as yet I'm not prepared to start this due to other obligations outside Wikimedia...
For now I have to stop as I'm heading for the Stuttgart historic motor vehicles show this weekend. But I'll be back on Monday and curious about your thoughts on all this. Have a nice weekend.--Purzelbier (talk) 13:23, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mike_Peel/Archive_8&oldid=430258376"