User talk:Jarekt/2022

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

Dear Jarekt

The Officer you mention to be possibly "Reinhold von Mohrenschildt" is an unknown SS HStuF but definitely NOT Reinhold von Mohrenschildt. You can see pictures from Reinhold on Geni.com and you will see that there is no similarity! Please remove the naming of this Foto !

Hello, I do not know identities of any of the people pictured, I only included descriptions others added the identity of "Reinhold von Mohrenschildt" come from a page now archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20140608141642/http://collections.yadvashem.org/photosarchive/en-us/95116.html. However I also added a link to https://www.geni.com/people/Reinhold-von-Mohrenschildt/6000000014367894065 to support possibility of misidentification. --Jarekt (talk) 06:49, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi Jarekt
Adding false information from other sources does not make it better! This guy is definitely NOT Reinhold von Mohrenschildt and therefore it should be removed ( Also Reinhold never had glasses)
The Wikimedia should be a source you can trust...... this will misslead this!
So again: Please remove his name from this picture! 2001:871:19:D8B3:85B:AE89:B267:59DB 10:26, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
I am sorry but I am not going to do it. The role of Wikipedia is to document all the sources even if they have conflicting information, so if one source says that this could be him than we report it, and if there is evidence that it is likely not him than I will document it as well. Some of this philosophy was explained in en:Wikipedia:No original research. --Jarekt (talk) 03:35, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Jarekt, would you be willing to restore the history of Template:Flickr-public domain mark/subst, which is a page you deleted last year? It quickly got recreated - it actually gets substed every time a public domain image is uploaded from Flickr through flickr2commons. (Templates that are designed to be substed like this won't show up on a Special:WhatLinksHere search, so I don't blame you for thinking it wasn't in use.) I'm curious about the prior history of the page - I seem to recall it used some intricacies of template syntax in its prior incarnation. Thanks! --Alex Cohn (talk) 17:57, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Alex Cohn, I wrote this template in 2015 and it remained unchanged until 2021. The code was:
<noinclude>{{must be substituted}}</noinclude>{{Remove this line and insert a public domain copyright tag instead}}{{No license since|month={{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>CURRENTMONTHNAME}}|day={{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>CURRENTDAY}}|year={{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>CURRENTYEAR}}<noinclude>|category=</noinclude>}}<noinclude> {{documentation}} </noinclude>

--Jarekt (talk) 03:12, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! By the way, I recently opened a related discussion over at COM:VPC: I wanted to clarify if the existing consensus extended to using {{PDMark-owner}} as the default template for new "Public Domain Work" Flickr uploads. As the author of the template at the center of this issue, you might have insights that would add to that discussion. Alex Cohn (talk) 03:30, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

File:Stefania Turkewich.jpg

Hello Jarekt, Can you help stop the deletion of this photo? It is over a hundred years old. Stefania was born in 1898 and this photo is of her in her late teens or early twenties. Its difficult to find a precise date when a photo is this old. When you have time, could you take a look at this and intervene? Thank you for all your help with previous photo problems that I have had. Nicola Mitchell (talk) 14:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

How we will see unregistered users

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:11, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Jarekt, I hope you're doing well. People are adding more and more structured data to files, but at the moment it doesn't increase the quality of discovery of files that much. I was thinking about the different strategies we have to improve search:

  1. Adding the label of an item not only in English, but also in other languages
  2. Adding the description of items too
  3. Adding related items

At the moment I don't expect any development coming from the search team so I guess it's up to the volunteers to improve on this. The basic approach would be to add things to the search index so it becomes searchable. So for example for this file, this is indexed.

For the first two items (multilingual and descriptions) I guess the hardest part is how to get this included in the search index without completely cluttering the user view. Maybe do it like the POTD? When I look at the index of this file I see that the contents of Template:Potd/2021-12-07 (pl) ended up in the index, without me seeing it as a user.

Adding the related items is already done on a limited scale for Geograph images based on the location of creation (P1071). Thanks for that! I was thinking about starting small here. If a depicts (P180) contains an item that is not in location of creation (P1071) and has instance of (P31) and not subclass of (P279), include the instance of (P31) in the output.

Would this be something you're willing to add to {{Geograph from structured data}}? Multichill (talk) 17:42, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Multichill sorry for a slow reply, but I am traveling with family to see more family. I do not know about the searches and indexing but I could alter some template to add some invisible metadata to the wikitext that might help with searches. Also, I am expanding Module:License and can handle more and more cases, see Module:License/sandbox/doc#Examples. I am thinking about adding support for separate "artwork" license based on Wikidata linked through digital representation of (P6243) and separate photo license. --Jarekt (talk) 07:04, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
No worries. You're lucky that you're able to do that. Here it's all quite limited at the moment. Enjoy your time!
I guess we have to experiment a bit and see what ends up in the search index and what's useful.
Before using digital representation of (P6243) for licensing, we should probably do a bit of clean up. Maybe you can add some track categories for this in {{Artwork}}?
  1. Files that have digital representation of (P6243) and target has instance of (P31). Put these in tracker categories like Category:Artworks digital representation of painting.
  2. Files that have digital representation of (P6243) and the target doesn't have instance of (P31) or has subclass of (P279) (example)
Just to be sure, you're aware of {{Licensed-PD-Art}}? You can just fill that one. Multichill (talk) 10:55, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
My plans for the day fell through so I had some time to do this. Let's see how Category:Artworks digital representation of sculpture and related categories will fill up. Multichill (talk) 12:17, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Also implemented the main subject (P921) part. See for example File:2014-07-02 Wasserlichtfeldspiegel (G. F. Ris, 1977) am Stadthaus Bonn IMG 2040.jpg. Multichill (talk) 17:31, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Multichill, I am a bit afraid of using main subject (P921) as main subject can be for example a human, as in File:Katowice - Pomnik - Witkacy 01.jpg, then if you add {{Artwork}} to that file than it creates bizarre infobox. As for {{Licensed-PD-Art}}, yes I can use it and {{Licensed-PD-Art-two}}, but it would get trick for multi-licensed files where I would have to use "rawphotolicense" parameter. I am a bit afraid or writing custom codes for supporting large number of very specialized Commons templates, as using something like {{Copyright information}} might be much more general. --Jarekt (talk) 06:27, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
File:Main Hall of Palácio dos Biscainhos (5).jpg is a good case. Multichill (talk) 17:15, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Multichill, I believe that in most cases relying on P921 to link to Wikidata will work great, but I am worrying for the minority of the cases where it does not, then the only way to prevent incorrect infobox would be to remove P921 statement, and I do not want people to be doing it. It is a bit like a decade ago {{Creator}} templates were adding author categories, which worked for majority of artist except for the one with a lot of artwork where they were organized into subcategories of the author category. That resulted in people mass removing Creator templates. In cases of P921 whe could add more safety features, like P31 != "human", etc. but it might not be enough. --Jarekt (talk) 02:46, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Have a look at Category:Artworks digital representation of human before I update the module to make these categories disappear again. I'm done filling the other properties.
I'm thinking about making a lookup table for artworks like Data:Completely indexed painting collections.tab for obvious 2D works (painting), obvious 3D works (sculpture), obvious not artworks (human). Based on that we can make decisions in the logic on what properties should be present and what properties should not be present and also what to show. Multichill (talk) 22:00, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Multichill I like the idea of a table with groups of item IDs. I already have something similar in lines 760-787, but externally controlled table might be nicer. I was thinking to keep the P6243 logic as is but perhaps only use P921 when P31 is on a white list of 2D/3D artworks. --Jarekt (talk) 04:43, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

By the way, did you see Commons:Village_pump#Wikidata-based_category_redlinks_being_auto-added? I think it is time to remove those categories. We will still have Category:Artworks with wrong Wikidata item. --Jarekt (talk) 05:11, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Ha, that took a while before it got noticed! I created Data:Artwork types.tab as a start with examples of the different types. Given the huge list of types I wouldn't limit main subject (P921). I'll have look at updating the artwork template. 18:05, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Did some updates to the sandbox to get basics working. Currently at Module:Artwork/sandbox#L-934 wondering why File:Stuttgart Höhenpark Killesberg Graevenitz Steigendes Pferd 3.JPG ends up in Category:Artworks with main subject missing same depicts. Probably doing something wrong with the lookup table. Maybe you can have a look? Multichill (talk) 22:35, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Multichill I did look a bit but not enough to actually get into it. I mostly discovered that I have not looked at this module for a bit and forgot what was what. The code seemed to have grew a lot, so it might be time to split another chunk of code like Module:Wikidata art and maintain it separately. I might have more time in coming days. --Jarekt (talk) 03:46, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
I run into File:07Delphi Aghias.jpg page and I am not sure how to fix it. It has {{Artwork}} for the artwork and {{Photograph}} for the photo and they both call Module:Artwork and pick up P921. All the 50k+ files using {{Object photo}} might be in the same boat. --Jarekt (talk) 05:21, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Long term solution is to get rid of the awful {{Object photo}} construct. Maybe we should start with deprecation so at least the problem doesn't get bigger?
Short term solution would be:
  1. Make a copy of {{Photograph}} to {{Photograph of object}}. Which uses photograph_of_object as the entry function
  2. Copy p.photograph to p.photograph_of_object
  3. Completely ignore SDC/Wikidata if args0.infobox is set to photograph_of_object
I'll give it a try. Multichill (talk) 11:03, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Should be fixed now. I noticed you did a live update without updating the sandbox after I was done. Sorry about that. It's working on the same parts of the code. Can you check? Probably doesn't fix cases of no source like File:Andrea Mantegna 101.jpg too? Multichill (talk) 12:32, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Please wait with painting SDC 2D imports

Hi Jarek, this isn't really helping. Let's get the structure stable before we do any large imports. Multichill (talk) 18:53, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Multichill, sorry about it. I only did files from Category:Paintings with structured data missing P6243 property as I did many times before. Usually paintings were not controversial and we want them to be connected to the Wikidata. However, something must have changed in the code logic and the inclusion condition ("The files in this category are paintings using {{Artwork}}, in this template the "wikidata" field is set but Structured data's digital representation of (P6243) is not set") for those files are no longer true (the example file does not have "wikidata" field). I will check the code. If the unwanted P6243 are more common we can undo the batch. --Jarekt (talk) 02:25, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
No worries. I found a couple of edge cases I updated and added to my watchlist. This is one of them. In some cases (like the example) 2D works shouldn't use digital representation of (P6243), but main subject (P921). I was thinking how to filter out these cases. Options:
  1. Change {{Artwork}} to {{Art Photo}} to make it clear it's two works. Module:Artwork can make use of that. This is probably the easiest solution, but will give some false positives and might bite us in the long run when we just want to do an empty template invocation.
  2. Change the rank of digital representation of (P6243) (maybe with reason for deprecation). Probably the cleanest solution although it might confuse some users and I have no clue how to do this in the user interface
  3. Look for copyright license (P275) and some combination of copyright status (P6216). This probably gets complicated.
For now probably best to check for {{Art Photo}} and copyright license (P275). If both are true, put the file in Category:Art Photo main subject 2D work with license instead of Category:Artworks main subject 2D work.
Category:Paintings with structured data missing P6243 property had a bug in the code causing every painting to end up in the category. If no wikidata item existed you set args0.wikidata to "CREATE" if the object type was a painting. Later on the check for args0.wikidata was always true. I updated the code to add either Category:Artworks missing digital representation of for 2D work or Category:Artworks missing main subject for 3D work. Multichill (talk) 10:37, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

01:22, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

19:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Problem in "Template:Specimen"

Hello Jarekt; I have a problem with the "Template:Specimen" which displays an error message and which blocks the display of the caption since this morning. However, this model is used daily and is spread over many images. Do you think the changes you made to the artwork model recently are the cause? Thank you for your opinion.

Cf. Isognathus scyron MHNT CUT 2010 0 497 PK36 Patawg, Guyane male.jpg --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:31, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

21:36, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Question about Category:Folk national costumes of Poland

Dear Jarekt, I see you are from Poland, I hope you can help me with a question about the Category:Folk national costumes of Poland. Some months ago I closed the discussion about Category:Traditional clothes by country and made a lot of the required changes. But there is still one question open about Folk national costumes of Poland, see Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/11/Category:Folk national costumes of Poland. Could you help me to find the answers to the questions:

  1. What is the difference between Category:Folk national costumes of Poland and Category:National costumes of Poland (the parent category, renamed to Category:Traditional clothing of Poland)? I saw that on the Polish Wikipedia there is one article for both categories.
  2. Can these two categories on Commons also be merged?

If you do not know the answer yourself, do you know someone else who might? --JopkeB (talk) 07:47, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello Jarekt, from Jeff G. I see you are a Module Architect . Can you take a look at Expression error: Unexpected < operator. There seem to be 916 of them right now and also in these. Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 06:55, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Fixed It was due to this edit by User:Gone Postal. --Jarekt (talk) 03:47, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks! Pinging @Lotje as OP.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 14:21, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

bot edits

Dear Jarekt, are you now doing your not-botflagged flood with your main account? I would like to point out again that this appears VERY annoying to me. My watchlist is unusable again today. --Krd 06:16, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I am so sorry, I forgot to switch accounts, before using the tool. --Jarekt (talk) 02:28, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Lua error fixing

Thanks Jarekt for fixing File:U.S. Soldiers and members of the Balkan Club pose for a photograph with Dr. Edi Shukriu, center, in Pristina, Kosovo, July 8, 2011 110708-A-LO580-014.jpg. Lotje (talk) 06:47, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Sure no problem. I try to keep Category:Pages with script errors empty. It is easier to see when I mess something up with one of my Lua codes. --Jarekt (talk) 02:31, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

17:40, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

21:14, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Please could you kindly delete the first (small) image upload from the above filepage, because it was uploaded in error? The large image is the correct one. Thank you. Storye book (talk) 18:43, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Storye book ✓ Done --Jarekt (talk) 22:24, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. Storye book (talk) 07:10, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

19:17, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Wrong geo coordinates

Jarekt, I have found some pictures with wrong location coordinates or camera location. What should I do, remove template with data or something else?-- MaGa 18:47, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

User:MaGa, The optimal thing would be to fix the coordinates, if you know where the photos were taken. If that is not feasible, than I would remove the template and the location stored in the structured data. --Jarekt (talk) 02:05, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Of course, to fix it if possible, I thought if there is some template for wrong coordinates etc. Thanks for your help.-- MaGa 06:27, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

19:10, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Jarekt, just want to know why do you add a hidden mark into unknown template. This cause some abnormal behavior when viewing image from Media Viewer. Also happened on complex date module. Could you please remove these lines? Thanks a lot. Stang 12:37, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Stang, many of the templates on commons have machine readable hidden marks like this, which are used to pass to other templates what the template is all about. For example {{Artwork}} might have "artist" field with {{Creator}} template, than such messages will pass to {{Artwork}} wikidata ID of the artist. The same with {{Unknown}} template where this hidden mark is used to exclude files unknown artists from Category:Artworks with Wikidata item missing artist maintenance category. Media Viewer always had issues and it is crazy that it is parsing (badly) Wikitext or html to get informations about files. SDC would b much better source of metadata --Jarekt (talk) 05:29, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

22:58, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi Jarekt,
After taking part in the Photo Challenge from time to time and being eager this time to vote for the villages and to see how my contributions will score, I thought it's time to just say Thank You for the time you spend on creating the pages and the work behind it! For us participants it is fun. For you it must be quite some work - and that is appreciated! --Tsui (talk) 10:13, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Tsui, You welcome. It is not a huge amount of work, as the task is mostly done through codes like Commons:Photo challenge/code/CreateVoting.cs, but it is quite boring, especially when you are in the middle of some other task you are working on. --Jarekt (talk) 01:41, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

21:14, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Translation help

I would like to translate in Croatian label "upload now!" on green button for uploading pictures at Wiki loves folklore, but I can't find where it can be translated. Can you help please?-- MaGa 18:01, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

File:Metolius Rock Rings - 01.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!

TheFlyingSnail (talk) 01:08, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

22:05, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Category discussion warning

Category:New_uploads_without_a_license has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!


A1Cafel (talk) 02:52, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

15:59, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

19:53, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Request

Hi Jarek, greetings from Warsaw. Could you please have a look at these uploads? I have a feeling that some of them are not compatible with the copyright law/Commons rules. Thank you. Boston9 (talk) 12:11, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Many of them were oK, but bunch will need VRT permission. --Jarekt (talk) 02:03, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

20:59, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Tech News: 2022-15

19:42, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

How is this not out of scope? Dronebogus (talk) 16:05, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Dronebogus it is quite possible that the Wikipedia article about the artist or the album would be out of scope on Wikipedia; however very few images on commons are deleted for being out of scope. Those are usually very low quality images of unidentified people, places or organisms. Decent quality images of known things we usually keep as they meet scope criteria. In the past discussions phrase "realistically useful for an educational purpose" was interpreted very broadly, for example this file could be "realistically useful" for illustrating en:Gangsta rap or some other type of music, depiction of latino men in the popular culture, Guide to Rapper Poses or plenty other stuff I have no clue about. --Jarekt (talk) 16:36, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Oil on panel -> wood

Hi Jarek, based on File:Radboud Castle in Medemblik by J. Farncombe Sanders Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed B2239.jpg a new item with wood as material. I assume this is based on the {{Oil on panel}} in the template. Can you change this to panel (Q106857709)? Any idea how to get the cases like this fixed on Wikidata? Maybe just a SPARQL query and add the right thing with petscan? Multichill (talk) 16:59, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

https://w.wiki/53xz returned about 600 items. That's almost all of d:Wikidata:WikiProject sum of all paintings/Top material combinations. Multichill (talk) 17:08, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Multichill based on your query I created some QS to replace "wood" with panel (Q106857709). And yes it was {{Oil on panel}} template that had the old value, which was already corrected in the {{Technique}} template. --Jarekt (talk) 04:07, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for getting that fixed! https://w.wiki/545m only has 17 items left which can be checked by hand. When I drop the qualifier I get this list of 2500 items. Probably some imports that need some attention. Always something to do here :-) Multichill (talk) 10:09, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
We need to be careful as some painting's sources say "Oil on wood" for example for d:Q1028282. --Jarekt (talk) 11:43, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
That's just panel. Same as how it's often indicated in German and French. Multichill (talk) 12:09, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Multichill, I feel like "Oil on wood", "huile sur bois" or "Öl auf Holz" does not have to always be equivalent to "oil on panel". I have at home some old religious icon that is painted on wooden board about 2-3 cm thick, and some artworks by my father-in-law who is a sculptor creating items out of wood and painting them. --Jarekt (talk) 13:02, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Tech News: 2022-16

23:09, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I have added an note in this ticket, please review it. Thanks —MdsShakil (talk) 13:41, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

MdsShakil I replied there. Thanks. --Jarekt (talk) 02:39, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Tech News: 2022-17

22:53, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Question

Hi Jarek, greetings from Warsaw. I have a technical question: we have categories Quality images by... and of course Images by... But do we have categories like Images improved/corrected by...? Many people add tremendous value by correcting the pics of other users. Is there a technical possibility to see what they did, i.e. see or create such a category, and if so - how? Thank you for your intelligence here! Boston9 (talk) 06:17, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Boston9, There are no hard rules about how to name categories, organizing user's contributions. See for example subcategories of Category:Photographs by Jarek Tuszyński. To create a new category, add it to a file, for example add "Category:Boston9 new category" to a file or any other page, and than click on the red link where you can add wikitext for it. Categories with user name should be subcategories of Category:User categories. --Jarekt (talk) 12:03, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Tech News: 2022-18

19:31, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Eggs are still waiting...

Good morning and a little hint: the eggs are not yet open for voting. - Best regards your --Gordito1869 (talk) 06:42, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Gordito1869, Thanks a lot. I though I finished with both voting pages, but apparently I only started running the codes for eggs but never finished. --Jarekt (talk) 02:44, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Tech News: 2022-19

15:20, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Artwork template maintenance

Hi Jarekt, I've done some clean up work in Category:Artwork template maintenance and fixed some bots. Do you happen to have a bot to clear out Category:Artworks missing digital representation of for 2D work? Multichill (talk) 17:40, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

I do not have a bot for it but rather a process that starts with a database query that feeds into QuickStatements. I will clear it and write down the process. --Jarekt (talk) 01:31, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
@Multichill: --Jarekt (talk) 01:32, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks! Mostly photographs left in Category:Artworks missing digital representation of for 2D work. I wonder if the metadata of those should live on Wikidata. Oh well, don't feel like spending any effort on that. Can you link those too?
Does the same trick work for Category:Artworks missing main subject for 3D work? Just wondering, Sandra will do it using OpenRefine.
Maybe we should start substituting the templates in Category:Single artwork templates that are linked to Wikidata. Would remove yet another edge case. Multichill (talk) 16:36, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Multichill I am finishing 2D category, and I can easily do 3D one. As for files in Category:Single artwork templates, yes we should get rid of them, as they outlived their usefulness. I was also looking at Commons:WikiProject sum of all paintings/Individual painting categories/To link, grabbing a 100 and pasting to User:Jarekt/f after replacing "{{Q|" with "{{Wikidata_image|". Processing of those, although manual, goes quite quickly. --Jarekt (talk) 02:10, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Multichill, Strange but all the files in Category:Artworks missing main subject for 3D work seem to have main subject (P921). Will investigate. Otherwise I am done with 2D and 3D works.--Jarekt (talk) 12:43, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing that out! I don't see an obvious reason for the leftovers. Multichill (talk) 16:01, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Multichill, this fixed it --Jarekt (talk) 16:28, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Hmm, not sure if this makes something else break, but we'll see. We might need to refactors some of that code to make it easier to work with. Thanks for fixing it. Multichill (talk) 16:36, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Multichill, That change affects only the addition of Category:Artworks missing main subject for 3D work and Category:Artworks missing digital representation of for 2D work, so it should be safe. The only potential issue is that the files which have P921 (sdc.main_subject=true) but sdc.main_subject_accepted=false will not show up in "Category:Artworks main subject ...." categories and we will loose track of them. --Jarekt (talk) 16:47, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Main subject vs Depicts

Hi Jarekt, checking my watchlist this morning I see you've added a bunch of main subject (P921), e.g., to File:At Santa Cruz de Tenerife 2021 157.jpg, but shouldn't they be depicts (P180) values? Also, Category:Artworks with main subject missing same depicts seems to not-quite-exist and be included on them... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 06:18, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes they should also have depicts (P180). However I was processing Category:Artworks missing main subject for 3D work and Category:Artworks missing digital representation of for 2D work and do not know about their depicts (P180) status. I will see if I can detect it. --Jarekt (talk) 11:43, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
@Mike Peel: --Jarekt (talk) 11:44, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Ah, OK, thanks. So basically for the example image, they should have both P921 and P180, rather than just P180? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:59, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Yes an image can have great many depicts but should have one P921. P921 is used by Module:Artwork to link 3D objects to wikidata items, the way digital representation of (P6243) is for 2D objects. It is kind of a mess, but the consensus emerged to not use P6243 for 3D objects. So those 2 properties are of a special importance for us. --Jarekt (talk) 12:22, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
@Mike Peel: forgot to ping again. --Jarekt (talk) 12:22, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Tech News: 2022-20

18:56, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Deletion kills artwork template

See File:Jan van Eyck 004.jpg: Lua error in Module:Artwork at line 686: attempt to index local 'wEntity' (a nil value). OOps! Multichill (talk) 21:03, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Oh that is odd. I never delete wikidata items, as I prefer merging, but in this case it makes sense. The old value is in the SDC and I wonder if there is any way to detect it and figure out what item replaced it. --Jarekt (talk) 03:55, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Description Template with ambiguous inline parameter

Hey Jarekt. I noticed that a file I was working was added to Category:Description Template with ambiguous inline parameter. I can't find any information on what the problem is and how to fix it. Could you add information to the category on this? Thanks. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 14:01, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Specifically I was looking at File:The 1993 Presidential Inaugural Ball Compilation.webm. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 14:02, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Fixed Cryptic-waveform, That file is no longer in that category, and I am still working on description of how to fix affected files. --Jarekt (talk) 14:07, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

UDR

Hi, What happened here? You removed a big part of the page without giving any reason. Please restore it. Thanks, Yann (talk) 15:08, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Was about to say the same - looks like a version from May 6th was was restored accidentally? El Grafo (talk) 15:18, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
@Yann and El Grafo: , That is quite odd. All I did was to follow a link from Commons:Volunteer_Response_Team/Noticeboard#File:Promises_Film.jpg to Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests and added comment to a discussion there, but I guess I did not notice the link was to a historical page, that no longer exist. What is odd is that I thought I edited only that section, but now the only edit link I see is for the whole page. User:Thuresson thank you for reverting. --Jarekt (talk) 17:24, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Tech News: 2022-21

00:18, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Tech News: 2022-22

20:26, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Tech News: 2022-23

02:44, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Category discussion warning

Media without a license: needs history check has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!


A1Cafel (talk) 02:48, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Tech News: 2022-24

16:57, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

ISOdate

Hello Jarekt - {{Dead link}} has a rendering error that was first reported last month (see talk). It seems to be related to ISOdate, which I see you edited last month. Can you take a look and see what might be causing it? Many thanks. --Lasunncty (talk) 08:44, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello,

I am messaging you because a contest for a sound logo for Wikimedia is being developed and your opinion as a Wikimedia Commons admin is appreciated. My team would like to know if it is possible for the top finalist sound logos in the contest to have attribution temporarily hidden from public view until all the votes are final? The idea is to let the public judge the sound logo contestants based on the merit of the logo, not the person or people who made it. Again, any feedback is appreciated.

Thank you,

VGrigas (WMF) (talk) 17:46, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Tech News: 2022-25

20:16, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Issue with naming

Hello. With some lithographs I uploaded today [82], a user @Demetrios1993 is requesting file move without justification and a page mover @KPFC is moving them without consulting the source at all in my opinion. The lithographs are uploaded without changes, directly from the source, the name and content are 100% as the source says, which in itself is based on data left by the author in his book. A simple google search you can find the same named lithographs using the same naming and info. Can you give me an opinion on how I should act? Thank you in advance. Bes-ARTTalk 15:37, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Bes-ART, please assume some good faith. I already replied to you in KPFC's talk page. These were not the actual titles of the lithographs. The ones i requested and are visible under the actual lithographs are the alternative titles by G. D. Beresford. The actual titles are also known and can be seen in this website. You have to press each image to see the original title and alternative title. The ones you originally used are certainly not the original. Also, the categories you removed were relevant. These regions were part of the Ottoman Empire, geographically at the time part of Albania or Epirus (depending on the author), and today part of Greece. Demetrios1993 (talk) 15:42, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
The one who is not using Good faith is you, because you did not even consider opening a discussion on TP before requesting changes in more than one file, and KPFC did the moves so fast that lets me think he did not check at all the source. The source clearly uses the names by using parentheses to give context such as (consequently Greece). It may be the wording of the Welcome Collection, I do not know, but the WC did not use anything "meaningless or ambiguous name" which you used for a move request because it isnt. Also Welcome Collection uses References Note such in here and I believe they are much more reliable than you and me. Bes-ARTTalk 16:13, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
When there is a title printed on the file itself, this is the most obvious one to use and without serious reason I would never use a different one. Also they were meaningless and ambiguous in addition to not using the seemingly correct name. I did not see it coming that this would turn out controversial, and I don't really care about this being reverted, but I maintain that the names on wellcome collection are worse. KPFC💬 16:57, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
You should care, at least as a file mover you should consider what the template itself says below: "Please check if the rename meets one of the valid reasons before you move the file." And on the other hand, all these works of the author are created in a certain time and context that still continues to create problems. As such, it would be wise to dwell on what the source says, given that in the eyes of the author Albanian cities are described and since it is a work of art, and not an article on Wikipedia to discuss how reliable a source is and whether there are other better sources, the naming should be put as the source says, giving the proper credits. The lithographers are taken from a book that according to the author, describes southern Albania... and the source also specifies Arta, Albania (consequently Greece), so there is no reason to change, much less the reasons used here. Bes-ARTTalk 17:02, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Please cool a tone down. I offered you a solution to this conflict, but you continue to attack me? I do think that the request was justified, that's why I executed it, but if you as the original uploader deem it wise to use some other name, so be it. Further I fail to understand your point regarding the view of the author. This view is better expressed in the current names which are the ones he used himself. KPFC💬 17:38, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Bes-ART, how am i not assuming good faith? Even when you made some other reverts i disagree with, did i revert you even one time? No. I was just being bold, per WP:BRD, hence why i made these initial changes. Are we not discussing now? Furthermore, Wellcome Collection doesn't cite the primary source that is relevant to this discussion, but a 1991 [1956] publication written by John Roland Abbey, and the titles it uses are either made-up by them, or by the author of the aforementioned book. I already forwarded you to a webpage that is more detailed in terms of the primary source, and includes both the original and the alternative titles. So, why don't we agree to use either the original or the alternative titles by G. D. Beresford? Demetrios1993 (talk) 17:00, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Because, the artist/author describes Albanian cities, at least in his POW. This is clearly stated in this file which, according to the author: Janina, capital of Albania. The work is called Twelve Sketches in double tinted Lithography of Scenes in Southern Albania published in London 1855. So why would you remove Arta, Albania from the name? It is in the source, and even better it its not a Primary source. Bes-ARTTalk 17:11, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Bes-ART, when you refer to "Albanian cities" i assume you know that "Albanian" in this case and period is a geographical designation, not an ethnographic or even a national one. Janina was the capital of an administrative division of the Ottoman Empire at that time, and even demographically had an ethnic Greek majority. But regardless of all that, "Janina, capital of Albania" is the alternative title used by G. D. Beresford himself, in the 1855 publication; hence why i changed it to that. You can see both the alternative and original titles used by G. D. Beresford, here. Namely:
Original Title: View of Ioannina. In the background, Mount Mitsikeli.
Alternative Title: Janina, the capital of Albania.
You seem to find Janina, the capital of Albania. ok. Why do you have a problem with the rest of the original titles? Demetrios1993 (talk) 17:25, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Because you didnt request only the renaming but you also removed it from the content below, and strangely only on that of Janina you did not remove it. This shows that you did not have any good faith in your edits. However, regarding the names we can choose to use the text inside the photo. For those who have only the name of the city such as in "Arta" we can add the name of the author. While in the content will we should use description of Wellcome Collection and also the description given by the primary source that can be found here. That would be fair to me. Bes-ARTTalk 17:38, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the summary box below the image is supposed to have the original title, hence why it also includes the original date (1855). I don't see what's controversial about my changes for you to assume bad faith, as you admitted above. If by "that of Janina", you refer to the "Janina, the capital of Albania" file, i did change it as well (diff), and you reverted me. Maybe you forgot it. It appears you view my edits as nationalistic, but if i had a nationalistic motive, why would i use the alternative title "Janina, the capital of Albania" instead of let's say the original, "View of Ioannina. In the background, Mount Mitsikeli."? Seriously. I just chose to use the alternative titles, as viewed below of the lithographs; there is nothing dodgy about my changes. Anyway, i do agree with your suggestion that the files should include the titles that are visible within the images; i.e. alternative titles by Beresford (1855). Ideally, the date of 1855 should also be included in parenthesis. However, the "title" parameter in the summary box should only have the original and alternative titles of the primary source. I don't understand why we have to include a modern title by Wellcome Collection, unless i misunderstood your suggestion. If your main concern is the inclusion of the word "Albania" in the summary box, then this will be visible in the title of the primary source; "Twelve Sketches in double tinted Lithography of Scenes in Southern Albania". This will be included in the "references" parameter. I was also aware of the descriptions shown in britishmuseum.org, and i do agree that we should use those for the "description" parameter. There is another issue we seem to disagree, which is the use of the following categories:

I personally see all three of these categories as relevant. First, all of these towns are within the geographic boundaries of modern-day Greece. Second, they were within the geographic boundaries of the Ottoman Empire. Third, some authors from the early 1800s did indeed extend the geographical boundaries of Albania, to the point of including most of Epirus. Maybe a third opinion would be able to resolve this. KPFC, can you please tell us whether the use of all three categories is appropriate, according to the guidelines of Wikimedia Commons? Demetrios1993 (talk) 19:17, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I have no problem with categories, I dont know when and where you saw that as a problem? Probably because I reverted one of your edits, which you cited only the changes in name and not in categories. I did include as much categories as I could find, you did well to put others. And yes, I am concern of removing the word "Albania" from works that clearly are about Albania, not because you are nationalist but probably because you didn't give the impression that you know the author and also to appreciate the contribution of others in the commons.wikimedia by opening a discussion before requesting changes. Bes-ARTTalk 19:42, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Actually, i did mention the addition of two categories in my edit summary (diff); then again you didn't remove them from the other files, thus i see that you didn't do it on purpose. As for opening a discussion before doing my changes, again, this is not really a requirement, especially when i thought of them as reasonable and didn't think you would object. I am only required to begin a discussion when disagreement becomes evident, which is why we are discussing now; though, we shouldn't have expanded this in Jarekt's talk page, being an uninvolved user. In any case, since we agree on this issue i will go and reinstate the categories from the one file they were removed, and also add them to File:The audience chamber of Ali Pasha.jpg, which i never edited. Furthermore, i see that you added the descriptions from britishmuseum.org, which we also agreed on. Now, the only remaining issues i see are two. First, the name of the aforementioned file. Do you agree with the following suggestion, which is in line with the rest that have been renamed?
Current: File:The audience chamber of Ali Pasha.jpg
Suggestion: File:Audience chamber of Ali Pacha (1855); lithograph by George de la Poer Beresford.jpg
Second, there is still the issue of the title parameter in the summary box. They still have the ones by Wellcome Collection. Again, these should be changed to the titles that the primary source used; namely the ones by George de la Poer Beresford in 1855. Do you object to that? Both the original and alternative titles by George de la Poer Beresford can be included, but we would also need to add the primary source as a reference. Here is the actual citation that can be included:
  • Beresford, George de la Poer (1855). Twelve Sketches in double tinted Lithography of Scenes in Southern Albania. London: Day and Son.
Demetrios1993 (talk) 08:00, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
If by "the ones by George de la Poer Beresford in 1855" you're suggesting putting the supposed names used in this website, then no. They are clearly made-up names because no other source supports those claims. Wellcome Collection and British Museum are way more reliable then some travel website or whatever it is. As BM suggests "A book of scenes of Southern Albania by George de la Poer Beresford, with no text other than a table of contents with descriptions of the plates and titles and production details." There are no Titles and Alternative titles but only a description on the back of the plate. Bes-ARTTalk 09:16, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

First of all, "travelogues" is a website that aims to archive texts and images handed down by travelers (i.e. travel logues) who visited the area of the Mediterranean and Southeastern Europe or who described the area in their work, from the 15th to the 20th century. It is run by one of the largest cultural foundations in Greece; the Aikaterini Laskaridis Foundation. The foundation is also known for running one of the largest libraries in Greece, with more than 450,000 books and archival collections. It is certainly not unreliable or a "travel website". Furthermore, let's make a distinction please. The titles given by George de la Poer Beresford are divided into two categories; the original ones that were used for the actual drawings (prior of 1855), and the alternative titles that were used for the lithographs published in 1855. At least the alternative titles of 1855, that also happen to be the most relevant, are verifiable beyond any doubt. How? Well, by looking at the uploaded files themselves which include these alternative titles. Indeed, the original titles (not the alternative titles), appear to be much older and not included in the 1855 publication. I was also not able to find any mention of them elsewhere, but this doesn't make them "made-up". They are obviously written in rare documents, or the original drawings of George de la Poer Beresford. I would have to contact them in order to find out. In any case, the actual pages of the 1855 publication are visible in the "travelogues" website, but can also be found in the following links, which forward you to "Psifiothiki" (lit. 'digital library' in Greek), run by the Library and Information Centre of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki; it includes digitized material consisting of manuscripts, books, newspapers, magazines, postcards, maps, photographs, works of art, and more. Here you can see detailed bibliographic information, as well as a copy of each page at the bottom (PDF files).

By the way, i couldn't find any additional page other than these 13, which brings into question how much valid the descriptions from the britishmuseum.org webpage are. You can try your own search as well. Personally, i searched the internet by including some of these descriptions within quotation marks (meant to refine the search), both in Google Search and Google Books, and the only thing that came out again and again, was the britishmuseum.org webpage shared above; nothing else. This hypothetical lack of a description page is also complemented by another digital library run by the Indonesian billionaire Sri Prakash Lohia, who is the world's second largest collector of colored lithographs, and has been digitizing them. He actually has a copy of the 1855 publication, and in the relevant webpage (here), even though it includes scanned images from the front cover to the back cover, there is no page showing any descriptions either. Now, i am not saying that such page doesn't exist, but it goes on to show that even if valid, the verification of such information proves difficult due to the rarity of the sources; thus, you shouldn't be so quick to judge the website of the Aikaterini Laskaridis Foundation mentioned above. In any case, as you saw above, there is no doubt that the actual titles of the lithographs are different from the ones shown in the Wellcome Collection website and should thus change; Wellcome Collection doesn't even present the whole work, but only 6 of the lithographs (here). By the way, have you managed to verify any of the details shared by the Wellcome Collection webpage? As aforementioned, a reference is mentioned – Travel in aquatint and lithography 1770-1860 from the library of J.R. Abbey (1991) – which you have also included as a citation within the summary boxes; all the more reason to verify.

Last, you didn't address the renaming suggestion of File:The audience chamber of Ali Pasha.jpg. Demetrios1993 (talk) 13:42, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

All you said basically confirmed that those are made-up names by the websites "travelogues" while the new source you provided, especially the Artstotle University of Thassaloniki, are legit and they are confirmed here to. The names now are ok, and you can request renaming for the last one too. In my research, I found that those name came first from a public exposition (in Athens, if im not wrong) some years ago and it is understandable taking into account the public to which they were exposed... Unlike Edward Lear, from which we have a book describing his art and the journey itself, from Beresford we have only the 12 plates lithographs and the sources cited. Bes-ARTTalk 14:22, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
What i wrote is that i wasn't able to verify these titles, not that they are made-up. Likewise, i wasn't able to verify the descriptions provided by britishmuseum.org; regardless, i didn't claim they are made-up either. Both the British Museum and the Aikaterini Laskaridis Foundation are well-respected institutions, and thus reliable. However, it would be ideal to have additional verification. For example, the new website you shared (here), includes four of the lithographs along with the descriptions provided by George de la Poer Beresford himself. All four happen to be different from the ones claimed by the britishmuseum.org webpage. Specifically:
Janina, the capital of Albania (1855)
  • By British Museum: A view of the city and lake of Ioannina seen from the ruined palace, minarets above the houses of the town, mountains beyond and Albanian men in conversation to the right in the foreground[.]
  • By King's College London: The broken arches of this now ruined Palace form a bold frame to the magnificent external view of the fortress and lake of Janina. Beyond is the island so celebrated in Ali Pasha's history, and the scene of his tragedy. In the far distance, rising perpendicular from the lake, is a high mountain, one of the first ridges of the mighty Pindus. The Mosques, adorned with their minarets and cypresses, add a rich finish to this charming scene.
Audience chamber of Ali Pacha (1855)
  • By British Museum: A view of the audience chambers of Ali Pasha, the room bare but with an ornamental ceiling, groups of Ottoman Albanian dignitaries standing about or seated on the low stone benches running along the right wall[.]
  • By King's College London: In this Chamber was enacted one of the bloodiest tragedies of crafty and well-devised vengeance ever conceived by man. The village of Garduchi had offended Ali years and years previously; indeed, had almost earned the fearful retribution they met with by cruelly ill-using his mother and sister, whom they had taken prisoners in an affray. Ali's mother, upon her death-bed, made her son, who was then rising rapidly into notoriety, swear 'to remember Garduchi;' and truly he did so. Years rolled on, but he waited until he could accomplish his vengeance fully and decisively. The time arrived, the Beys and celebrities had been invited to a grand banquet in Janina, and the village of Garduchi, miles distant, was surrounded with his soldiers. At a fixed hour these soldiers butchered every inhabitant, and, from the tapestry in the Audience Chamber, the Beys were shot to the last of them. The marks of the bullets are still seen in the walls at the present day.
Remarkable venetian bridge, near Arta (1855)
  • By British Museum: A view of the Bridge of Arta with an enormous plane tree to the right with spreading branches, Albanian bandits with their weapons drawn and a wounded man to the foreground with a horseman to the right looking towards them[.]
  • By King's College London: A mile distant from the town is a curious specimen of architecture, affording a striking recollection of the power of the Venetians. It is in tolerable preservation, but yet issufficiently ruinous to cause some nervous sensations in crossing over the highest arch, which is at an acute angle, and sixty or seventy feet in height; besides, the rugged pavement and inequality of the arches form a very rough causeway on a wet day. A magnificent plane tree, the trunk of which measures thirty-six feet in circumference, on the town side, yields the most agreeable shade to the traveller in the hot season.
Philiates (1855)
  • By British Museum: A view of the town of Filiates with houses surrounded by plane and cypress trees, a mosque beyond and mountains in the distance[.]
  • By King's College London: Distant about ten of twelve miles from the sea, at Sayades, the station of a British vice-consul, and the general port of embarkation for Corfu and Janina, is situated near a mountain gorge of unsurpassed beauty. Every British or French traveller that has passed through Philiates must be able to testify to the hospitality of the widow of Dj'ammer Bey; she is a celebrated person in her way; and settles disputes and administers justice in the village. She sits unveiled in her Divan. Her son is a Pasha, and is now fighting against the Russians. As a Turk, she eats not with Christians, but keeps a bountiful table, where travellers can ever obtain welcome board and lodging. It is a remarkable fact, that the storks, who build their nests in Turkish chimneys, invariably avoid the Greek residences, even in a mixed village, where it is difficult to distinguish any difference between the houses; and at Philiates, you can thus know a Turkish dwelling by this strange discrimination of these birds.
So, which are correct? You see what i mean about the importance of verification. Anyway, at least in terms of the titles, as aforementioned, the ones from 1855 are the most relevant, as they are the titles of the actual lithographs that were uploaded. This means that even if we could verify the disputed ones, it could be argued that they are irrelevant. Regarding the 1855 titles, can you please confirm that you are ok with the correction of the titles in the summary boxes? It's not clear from your last comment. Last, i will make a request for the renaming of File:The audience chamber of Ali Pasha.jpg; as agreed above. Demetrios1993 (talk) 10:24, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Hello Bes-ART. A week has passed since my last comment. What do you think of the above? The titles in the summary/information boxes will have to change to the original ones. As for the aforementioned differing descriptions, they can be researched a little more and if possible find additional verification to support either of the two sources (British Museum and King's College London); for the time being they can remain as they are. Demetrios1993 (talk) 12:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
The names have been changed according to the British Museum. There is no better resource than BM in the field of art. In terms of summary/information, both paragraphs are linked and anyone is able to go and read it for themselves. One is the interpretation of the original source from where the uploaded images were taken and the other is the largest museum in the world that has the collection in its inventory. I don't think there is a better source/reference than these two, so deal with it. Bes-ARTTalk 17:12, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

The original titles i referred to in my last comment pertained to the ones that are visible under the lithographs themselves. You actually changed the remaining ones yesterday. By the way, the British Museum website doesn't mention the original titles. As for whether the descriptions provided by their website are accurate or not, allow me to have my reservations. The website of King's College London, which is a reputable institution, also claims to present four of the original descriptions, and they differ from the ones provided by the British Museum. I only said that it would be ideal to verify the sources, i didn't say that you have to remove anything. After all, my main issue was with the titles, not the descriptions. Demetrios1993 (talk) 18:20, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Tech News: 2022-26

20:00, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

File:Alain Robert climbs Tour Franklin in 2002 - 01.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!

Adeletron 3030 (talk) 17:31, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Object locations

Hi Jerrect, your last modification https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Module:Coordinates&action=history made hundreds of object location entries dsyfunct. Pleas revert it. --Ulamm (talk) 10:14, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

@Ulamm: , Thank you for reporting this issue. It should be fixed now. --Jarekt (talk) 11:59, 30 June 2022 (UTC)


PD-WH

Hello dear Jarek!

We have sometimes questions about using {{PD-GermanGov}} {{PD-BW}} and {{PD-Germany-§134}} for files in Category:Military documents of Germany and subcategorys. While {{PD-BW}} is widely accepted, there are other times (1945 and before) and areas (former GDR/DDR) which can not correctly be tagged with {{PD-BW}}. Legally this parts of miltary and depending documents are subject to {{PD-GermanGov}} and corresponding predecessors. However, the current German state emblem is not politically correct, when it comes to documents before 1945.

Unfortunately, I had already started with the creation of some analogue templates[86][87][88] to PD-BW, when I noticed, that you had already deleted the Template:PD-WH/de in 20:18, 19. Okt. 2015. I hope it's okay for you if I finish what I started and enter the template in some files sparingly as preliminary tagging. Please be so good and take a look.[89] I would appreciate to read your positive feedback concerning Template:PD-WH. Best Tom (talk) 17:18, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

@Tom: The template which was deleted 7 years ago (See Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-WH) had several issues:
I am OK with restoring this template, after we fix those issues. So lets look at the name: the most clear name would be Template:PD-GermanGov-Wehrmacht or Template:PD-Germany-Wehrmacht, and we should rename Template:PD-BW to Template:PD-GermanGov-Bundeswehr or Template:PD-Germany-Bundeswehr. As for the claim that those images are in the public domain, there must be some German law that addresses it, otherwise it is date of authors death + 70 years.
By the way the original text of the template was:
  • Deutsch: Dieses Bild stammt aus einer offenen zentralen Dienstvorschrift der Wehrmacht (H.Dv., M.Dv., L.Dv.). Da diese Dienstvorschriften als amtliche Werke gelten, ist es gemeinfrei („public domain“). Dennoch kann es auf Grund sonstiger gesetzlicher Bestimmungen in seiner Nutzung beschränkt sein.
  • English: This image is part of publicly available service regulations ("Heeresdienstvorschrift", "Marinedienstvorschrift", "Luftwaffendienstvorschrift) of the armed forces of Nazi Germany from 1935 to 1945 (Wehrmacht). Images from these official service regulations are in the public domain.
--Jarekt (talk) 01:23, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Also once those issues are fixed we should drop a line at Commons:Village pump/Copyright and make sure other experienced users do not see other issues to address. Oh, one more thing: the best practices is to also add inclusion criteria to clearly specify which files it applies to, you already have information about who created it, but I think we should narrow down the years of creation and possibly the types of files. I assume it should apply only to government issued military documents. --Jarekt (talk) 01:34, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Hello dear Jarekt!
Im happy to see, that you take most of the points. To move to someting like Template:PD-GermanGov-Wehrmacht sounds reasonable to me. About legal use this templates should go along with {{PD-GermanGov}} as we handle it actually for {{PD-BW}}. Concerning the contents we should not get too narrow. The handling like for en:United States Army Field Manuals or Technical-Manuals-Contents like for en:TM 31-210 Improvised Munitions Handbook or partually in de:Dart_(Fahrzeugmarke)#Militärfahrzeuge. Additional i see Army-Maps, official realeased strategic Surveys and other papers of the US-War-Ministery and en:Category:United States Department of Defense publications etc. would be sufficient. BTW we should keep in mind the international UNO- & UNESCO-papers. When we are going to discuss some more about it we should have in mind that we have to cover GDR/DDR also. Most cases of older files concerning military maps and documents f.e. for the german Kaiserreich have no urgent need for a PD-Flag. Nevertheless it could be helpful, to tag them with the same systematic scheme.
Well, dear Jarekt: as i am not so well trainend to handle these questions for templates, as i feel you are ... i think it is the best way if you can take the management for this case. Best Tom (talk) 02:11, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Deletion of Location Templates

Hello,

could you kindly explain why you deleted the location templates of various categories calling them inappropriate

Greetings Hans G. Oberlack (talk) 21:54, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

@Hans G. Oberlack: I was deleting location templates from categories where a location coordinates make no sense, like categories for people, views of places, collection of places, interiors and exteriors of buildings where the building already has a location template, etc. --Jarekt (talk) 02:57, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello,
to me it doesn't make sense to delete them.
First: If somebody searches for "interior krewelin church" she will be lead to "Category:Interior of Church in Krewelin". When she wants to find the place on the map, she has either to click back to "Church in Krewelin" and start the call for the map from there or she has to call the Wikidata item, and start the call for the map from there. But, worse, the wikidata item for church interiors does not display a clickable map button. So the user has to make another click until she reaches a map item. This is all inconvenient. So it is helpful to keep the location templates.
Second: If I followed your logic I would expect that you deleted the heritage templates and the infoboxes as well, because they too appear in the general category of the buildings. So why didn't you delete them as well?
Please restore the deleted items. Greetings Hans G. Oberlack (talk) 12:01, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Tech News: 2022-27

19:30, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

June-voting still closed

Good morning, just for your info: June-voting is still closed: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photo_challenge?uselang=de#June_2022 - best regards --Gordito1869 (talk) 07:54, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done --Jarekt (talk) 19:58, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Tech News: 2022-28

19:22, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Object photo

Hi Jarekt, now that Object photo is finally gone (many thanks for that) ... I wonder if it's worth bringing back? But in a different form! Using "Art Photo" is somewhat specific, since it's just supposed to be artwork, but there are many cases where I'd love to be able to say "this is a photo of this building" and bring in all the relevant info from Wikidata, in exactly the same way that Art Photo works. What do you (and @Multichill: ) think? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:38, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Mike, Currently {{Object photo}} template redirect to {{Art Photo}}, so you can use either name. That should help if the issue is that "Art Photo" term is too specific for some files. Was that what you had in mind? Or there should be some differences? --Jarekt (talk) 22:31, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
I was more worried about the tracking categories rather than anything else, TBH. For example, Category:Artworks with Wikidata item would get rather polluted with non-artworks, and I don't know how it would affect auto-imports to SDC... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 06:15, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
@Mike Peel: I think we talked about this before, but didn't follow up on it. My use case would be:
On File:Haarlem, Grote Kerk.jpg we have several depicts (P180) and one main subject (P921) statement set to Grote Kerk (Q1545193). A template should pull the relevant data about Grote Kerk (Q1545193) from Wikidata and display that in a user-friendly way. We probably want to add domain specific logic based on what the main subject is. We already have domain specific logic for artworks, logical next step would be buildings (everything covered by Wiki Loves Monuments). Later we can add other domains like taxonomy. Multichill (talk) 19:33, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
@Multichill: That's a good example. I'd prefer if we could approach this generally, without assuming artwork/building/taxonomy. But whatever would work. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:35, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
The approach should definitely be generic (general), but in a modular way so it's easy to add domain specific logic. Multichill (talk) 19:39, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
@Multichill and Mike Peel: Sorry I was not around last few days. Most of the logic {{Artwork}} uses seems to be valid for other items. We do have small differences between {{Artwork}}, {{Book}} and {{Photograph}} which are all powered by Module:Artwork. Some other infoboxes like {{Map}} had very large number of other fields and was just too hard to add to already bursting Module:Artwork codebase. I feel like next template to add could be something to support artworks found in books (there were already some discussions about it) and maybe something for archival documents (like stuff here. --Jarekt (talk) 01:17, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Tech News: 2022-29

22:58, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi Jarek, I just noticed this category. quite a few files in it still use {{Information}}. Any reason why these haven't been replaced like this? Otherwise I can have a bot do that. Multichill (talk) 21:08, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

We did talk about it couple years ago here. I think I created it in order to work on SDC data, but forgot about it. A lot of files there need help: Some are still using {{Information}}, and a lot are using {{Artwork}} with wrong fields. Many of those photographs could be added to Wikidata's image with frame (P7420). If you want to convert {{Information}} templates I can look into {{Artwork}}s. --Jarekt (talk) 21:15, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
@Multichill: --Jarekt (talk) 21:16, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Bot is done with conversion of {{Information}}. Multichill (talk) 19:48, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
@Multichill: Nice. I will start converting {{Artwork}} templates.--Jarekt (talk) 02:19, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
@Multichill and Sailko: It took a while but all the files in Category:Photographs of paintings by User:Sailko have {{Art Photo}} template separating photograph and artwork metadata and licenses. Now it would be nice to connect more of them to Wikidata. Also a lot of them could also be used as image with frame (P7420). --Jarekt (talk) 03:42, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
I just want to thank you again for fixing and connecting more deeply my photographs. I wish I could fix directly the template easily in Upload Wizard, but this feature is not available yet, and I really appreciate your work ad support. --Sailko (talk) 14:21, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
A good way to make it easier to connect paintings to Wikidata is to add missing {{Creator}} & {{Institution}} templates (manual example).
I've been using Petscan (creator example & institution example) to find files to add templates to with a robot. Could use some help with that.
This is the input for reports like User:Multichill/Same image without Wikidata/Wikidata creator, institution and inventory number match & d:Wikidata:WikiProject sum of all paintings/Image suggestions/Creator, institution and inventory number match. Multichill (talk) 16:08, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
@Sailko: Multichill is spearheading d:Wikidata:WikiProject sum of all paintings, I maintain {{Artwork}} and other templates and you provide ~220k of photographs of Artworks, including ~43k paintings. I am not aware of anybody else who contributed more high-quality photographs of Artworks to Commons. Improving metadata of files on Commons is often hard, because so many different people where finding unique solutions while doing it in the past, but it is much easier when you focus on a single uploader, as there is less variations, so your photographs are ideal candidates for metadata improvement. --Jarekt (talk) 20:56, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Tech News: 2022-30

19:25, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi Jarekt, it would be nice to have this category populated by {{Artwork}} if it links to a Wikidata item and the Wikidata item doesn't have genre (P136) set. No other local fields to check for. I want to intersect it with categories like Category:Religious paintings to add the missing statements. Multichill (talk) 22:59, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I will look into it. --Jarekt (talk) 00:49, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for adding it. I'm getting some strange results because categories also end up in it (for example Category:Frescos in Cappella degli Scrovegni (Padua) by Giotto). Can you filter just for files? Multichill (talk) 09:42, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Will do. --Jarekt (talk) 01:22, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Tech News: 2022-31

21:19, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Tech News: 2022-32

19:47, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Tech News: 2022-33

21:06, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Tech News: 2022-34

00:09, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

{{NKC}} template

Hi Jarek, I was wondering if you could take a look at Commons:Village pump/Copyright#{{NKC}} template for review and see if you had any thoughts. But, in particular, I put together the basic design for this template, but I know you have a lot of experience putting together the layout and localization setup for highly used templates, and wondered if you might be willing to take a look at getting this one ready for actual use (assuming there are no objections). Thanks! Dominic (talk) 15:29, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Mediawiki request

Can you process this request, please? MaGa 16:13, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Tech News: 2022-35

23:02, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

File:Vintage black doll.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!

A1Cafel (talk) 05:11, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Once more {{Information}}

Hi Jarekt, before I address the Commons:Village pump/Proposals I want to know your estimation. It is well known that any expansion (and much more any change !) affecting the Information template is unwanted – by good reasons.
Due to my fault, on Nov. 14 in 2019 we had for some hours the parameter image activ in Information; and it worked well. This parameter is also working well in pre_templates invoking Information, as e.g. COAInformation (35K times transcluded), Map (70K times) and Inform (now 1K times), to enable the use of Image generation (590K times).
But due to the lack of an own, better suited parameter finally always the parameter other fields has to be abused, and a field name needs be be generated with Information field.

Yes, it is possible to live without the wanted parameter, using some deviations; but I do not think that it is a good solution. The image description, mainly for SVG but also for other images, has IMHO not less importance and significance as e.g. author or date, and should not be dependent on program crutches to declare it. There should be an easy and understandable way for its declaration, without abusing other parameters. There should be the parameter sequence description, date, source, author, image and then, when needed other versions, other fields. Image should be close beneath of the author, currently it comes with other fields below of other versions, or with other fields 1 too far above.
Coming generations of wikipedians will like it more when it's less complicated, we should not bequeath such a mess as it is now. I understand your hesitation to expand Information by adding another parameter, but IMHO there are convincing reasons to make an exception. Please, tell me your opinion ! -- sarang사랑 11:05, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

@Sarang: , You are right, I do not like the idea for the exact reasons you mentioned. First I think image is a bad variable name, as it does not tell me anything about what I should use it for, when I see wikicode like "image = JAREKT/2022 development
InfoField
 
This W3C-invalid vector image was created with Inkscape, or with something else.

" I actually have no clue what is that code trying to do as it is totally unreadable without diving into documentation or experimenting with the code in a sandbox. I also feel like very small fraction of the images would benefit from it: almost all fields in Information template could or should be used by majority of files, while 590K Image generation uses is about 0.8% of 73M files using Information template. That said, I am totally supportive a adding the parameter (maybe after changing "image" to something else, maybe "generated_by") to templates like Information2, etc., which often serves as "Information" with extra parameters people like. Also I agree that the current "other fields" and "other fields1" are quite clunky and antiquated. There might be a way of integrating Information field more closely with Information template, so that Information field could also pass to Information where given row should be added to. That would require some rewriting but it could be done. --Jarekt (talk) 00:58, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Tech News: 2022-36

23:19, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Re: Wystawa "Witkacy. Sejsmograf epoki przyspieszenia"

Hej, jasne. Jeżeli chodzi o książkę to z możemy zrobić to bezkosztowo, korzystając ze wsparcia stowarzyszenia Wikimedia Polska (WMPL). Wypełnij proszę wniosek o wikigrant na tej stronie, podając, że chcesz napisać nowe hasło, i ew. dodać przypisy z tej książki do innych haseł, czy też zeskanować zdjęcia dzieł Witkacego. Zerknij na inne wnioski, to zajmie chwilę. Kwota 180 PLN książka i 81 PLN wysyłka do USA. Rozmawiałem z Grzegorzem Kopaczewskim, kierownikiem biura WMPL w Warszawie, że wyśle książkę z biura, natomiast ja ją kupię i razem z fakturą przekażę mu (pracuję niedaleko). Po rozliczeniu faktury zwrócą mi 180 PLN. Warto działać szybko, bo ponoć nakład tego katalogu jest na wyczerpaniu (Grzegorz skontaktował się z księgarnią w Muzeum). Natomiast daj mi proszę znać, czy katalog wystarczy, czy też mam zrobić zdjęcia na samej wystawie. Jakby coś, tutaj jest mój e-mail, może będzie wygodniejszy w komunikacji. Złożenie wmniosku o wikigrant jest także bardzo mobilizujące:)− musisz rozliczyć wikigrant, czy podlinkować utworzonelub poprawione hasło/hasła na podstawie książki. Pozdrawiam serdecznie z Warszawy. Boston9 (talk) 12:09, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

@Boston9: Zostałem dziś powiadomiony ze mój wikigrant został zaakceptowany. (Zobacz poniżej) --Jarekt (talk) 03:04, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Dzięki, podjadę dzisiaj do pracy do Muzeum Narodowego. Dam znać:) Boston9 (talk) 06:15, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

WG 2022-19

Miło mi poinformować, że Komisja Wikigrantów rozpoznała twój wniosek o grant i zdecydowała o przyznaniu dofinansowania. W imieniu Komisji, Ankry (talk) 14:23, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Tech News: 2022-37

01:47, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Gift

Bonjour Jarekt, Pour le sujet du défi photo "cadeaux" le lien ne fonctionne pas, il renvoie vers les photos abstraites. (Je l'ai déjà signalé sur la page de discussion du défi photo). Je ne sais pas réparer le lien. Peut-être que vous savez le faire ? Merci. Bonne journée. Hello Jarekt, For the subject of the photo challenge "gifts" the link does not work, it refers to the abstract photos. (I already reported this on the photo challenge talk page). I don't know how to fix the link. Maybe you know how to do it? Thanks. Have a good day. -- Céléda (talk) 14:07, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for letting people know, I fixed the issue --Kritzolina (talk) 19:28, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, you.
-- Céléda (talk) 07:12, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Question about creator templates

Hi. I was wondering if you would be willing to share your opinion about something related to creator templates. Mainly, do you think creator templates should be created for people who have only created a single work? I guess I could see the utility of doing it in some instances, but then again the guideline says "works" multiple times and there's the whole thing about how creator templates are meant to be transcluded in many files. So it seems like using the template for someone who only created a single work isn't part of its purpose. I'm interested to know what your opinion is though. Thanks. Adamant1 (talk) 10:49, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

@Adamant1: , If work is in public domain, based on the year when the author died, ({{PD-old-70}}, etc. ), than we should have a record on file of who is the author and when they died. In the old days that record was the Creator template, now it is mostly Wikidata and Creator templates serve as easy to remember redirect to Wikidata. So yes you should definitely have Wikidata item about the author (if there is sufficient information). Creating Creator template is fine but not necessary, as you can just add {{Creator|Wikidata=Q.....}} to the author field (or sometimes just Q....) to have the same effect. --Jarekt (talk) 12:16, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
OK. That makes sense. Wikidata is a better place to store the information anyway. Is there a way to exclude a creator template from the maintenance categories? That's really my main issue with having a creator template for everyone under the sun. It already takes a lot of time and effort to sort through the maintenance categories and maintain things as it is. A lot of the overhead would be reduced though if there was a way to exclude templates for creators of singles works from being added to the maintenance categories. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:50, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
@Adamant1: , At the moment the only way to skip some maintenance categories is to have "type=commons user". Generally creating Creator template for yourself is discouraged, but I got tired having fights about it, and if those templates did not show up in the maintenance categories they bothered less people. There are no other mechanisms for skipping them. If some templates are not used at all we can probably delete them (I can help with that), so single file templates which are unlikely to get more files can be switched to {{Creator|Wikidata=Q.....}} format. --Jarekt (talk) 02:30, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Comment removal

Hi Jarek, why did you remove this comment? Multichill (talk) 16:13, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Multichill, the template showed 2 {{Object location}} templates. I changed the code to show only one and after the change this comment was no longer attached to any lines of code. --Jarekt (talk) 16:40, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
The comment was related to coordinate location (P625). That property shouldn't be used here anymore. Not sure how the migration is going. Multichill (talk) 16:48, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Multichill,Should we just remove check for P625? --Jarekt (talk) 16:56, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Probably better to first complete the conversion before dropping it from the template. I think that's why we left the comment in the first place. Multichill (talk) 16:59, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Tech News: 2022-38

MediaWiki message delivery 22:13, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Photo of Ewa Kozanecka

HI Jarek, I have a great request to make: do you think you could delete this pic? I should not have uploaded this in the first place, it is not very favorable for Ms Kazanecka. We have arranged today that she will send a new photo and the author will send VTRS permission in a few days. Thank you. Boston9 (talk) 06:19, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done --Jarekt (talk) 16:05, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Thank yo! New, much better pic coming soon! Boston9 (talk) 17:24, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

SDC_statement_exist logic changed?

Hi Jarek, I noticed a lot of categories in Category:Rijksmonumenten missing SDC depicts. Pretty sure it used to be only files and looking at this change, you remove the namespace filter. Can you restore this filter? Multichill (talk) 09:12, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

@Multichill: , I still have the namespace filter in line 37 as you only set entity if it is a file or you are doing testing, with "item" parameter. However you are right that The code was not handling missing entity correctly. Should be fixed now. --Jarekt (talk) 22:19, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick fix! Did you do null edits on Category:Rijksmonumenten missing SDC depicts? That one is clean now, but plenty of other subcategories of Category:Structured Data on Commons tracking categories are not. Can probably use some of these to expand User:ErfgoedBot/Depicts monuments.js. Multichill (talk) 17:29, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Yes I did null edits. It is supper easy with https://hub.paws.wmcloud.org/ just open a terminal and run "pwb.py touch -subcats:Rijksmonumenten_missing_SDC_depicts". I will try to clear the other ones too. --Jarekt (talk) 18:54, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Tech News: 2022-39

MediaWiki message delivery 00:27, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

FYI author photos

IA "Evacuation" of Public domain resources...

See Commons:Village_pump/Proposals#Mass_"Evacuation"_copy_of_Public_domain_resources_from_Internet_Archive_to_Commons. IS this something one of your Bots could assist with, given the scripts F%C3%A6 was using to do User_talk:Fæ/CCE_volumes#Forks?

Tech News: 2022-40

MediaWiki message delivery 00:21, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Tłumaczenie dla MediaWiki:Relgen.js

Cześć! Przejrzałem i skorygowałem polskie tłumaczenie generatora zgód do VRT (pierwotne notabene nie doczekało się wdrożenia od 2020). Według instrukcji muszę tylko poprosić administratora interfejsu o przeniesienie tłumaczenia do przestrzeni MediaWiki. Czy mógłbyś w wolnej chwili w tym pomóc? Polska wersja znajduje się tutaj: MediaWiki talk:Relgen.js/i18n/pl. Pozdrawiam, Msz2001 (talk) 14:27, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Msz2001, ✓ Załatwione --Jarekt (talk) 19:35, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Tech News: 2022-41

14:06, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Tech News: 2022-42

MediaWiki message delivery 21:43, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Rendering date of birth/baptism and date of death/burial

Hi Jarek, I was untangling Creator:Gerrit de Broen. I created Creator:Gerrit de Broen (1659-1740) and Creator:Gerrit de Broen (1692-1774). For both we know what month they were born and what month they died. Exact date is unknown, but we do know the date of baptism and burial. Currently it just says something like "before 19 January 1659". I understand we have to keep it short, but this is a bit confusing to me. Maybe something like "January 1659 (baptism 19 January 1659)"? Any ideas? Multichill (talk) 22:26, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

@Multichill: , We have date of baptism (P1636)/date of burial or cremation (P4602) on Wikidata side, which is used by {{Creator}} which than calls Template:Lifetime date template. So the currente code should work with P1636/P4602. --Jarekt (talk) 00:06, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
Both Gerrit de Broen (Q18701443): Dutch engraver (1659-1740) and Gerrit de Broen (Q18701440): Dutch engraver and painter (1692-1774) are using date of baptism (P1636) & date of burial or cremation (P4602), but that isn't showing. Multichill (talk) 08:01, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
@Multichill: , I think the logic is to use it if regular DOB and DOD are completely missing, which I guess is rare because you should know a year or decade. Is there a better way to do it? --Jarekt (talk) 02:14, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
How about this logic: If an item has both date of birth (P569) and date of baptism (P1636), date of birth (P569) is less precise than a day, date of baptism (P1636) has day precision, than show the date of baptism instead of date of birth. Multichill (talk) 10:34, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
@Multichill: , let me look into it. --Jarekt (talk) 13:04, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Tech News: 2022-43

MediaWiki message delivery 21:20, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Tech News: 2022-44

MediaWiki message delivery 21:13, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Russian texts for the MediaWiki:Relgen.js

Hi! I'm complete of MediaWiki talk:Relgen.js/i18n/ru. You may transfer this into MediaWiki:Relgen.js/i18n/ru? I seen, that User:FDMS4 is inactive from 2 feb... --Kaganer (talk) 11:18, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Kaganer Sure no problem. --Jarekt (talk) 23:56, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. I still don't see russian text in the Commons:Wikimedia_VRT_release_generator (with uselang=ru). But, maybe, some cache must be purged soon for this? --Kaganer (talk) 16:00, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Kaganer, I am sorry but I do not know how to help. I do not know much about javascript, as I am more of a lua and template guy. --Jarekt (talk) 01:31, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
Maybe this is needs magically action. Please make "null edit" in MediaWiki:Relgen.js/i18n/ru. --Kaganer (talk) 13:51, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Generalize Artwork template to also support films and other creative works?

Hello @Jarekt, I hope all is well.

I am promoting the {{Artwork}} template because it uses SDC so well. It allows people to use simple Wikitext; and that makes batch upload tools like OpenRefine easier to use. I have recently been trying the Artwork template on various types of creative works, including films. See this example file. Could the template be extended so that it also shows film-specific fields (like director, cast members, country of origin, publication date)? Thanks for considering this. Spinster (talk) 19:01, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Spinster, Yes, that would not be hard. Can you give me a full list of film specific fields. Also country of origin, publication date) are already displayed. I am a bit weary of cast members as there could be items with large number of them. I would probably cap them at 10-20 and not show any if more than that are present. --Jarekt (talk) 22:23, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello @Jarekt, thank you for your very quick and positive answer!
I am not much of a film specialist but let me give it a go. The WikiProject Movies on Wikidata maintains a list of important properties here and I'm picking several ones I see frequently. Some may indeed already be supported by the template:
I agree that the list of cast members can become really long and capping it sounds like a good idea. Mike Peel does that too with the Wikidata Infobox template, example here. That example also shows quite a few film related fields that are usually displayed there.
In general, it seems you are on board with the idea that the {{Artwork}} template can be generalized for many types of creative works (not just paintings, sculptures, drawings)? I personally like that idea a lot and I may come back with you with requests for other types of creative works if I encounter them. I hope that's OK! Thanks for all you do, Spinster (talk) 08:10, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Spinster, About expanding Module:Artwork and variety of templates that serve as interface Artwork/Book/Photograph/Art_photo: I am ok with expanding it if the expansion does not add a lot of code and complexity to the current code. Module:Artwork is already a bit large and I do not want to add a lot of new code that is no use for the current files using the template. Thanks for the list. --Jarekt (talk) 02:18, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
@Jarekt I fully see your arguments.
Would it make sense to discuss this (one big SDC/Lua-driven Artwork template vs multiple smaller ones) in a different place where more people can chime in? If so, what would that place be?
I'm also pinging @Multichill as he may have opinions. Spinster (talk) 06:58, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Square brackets in {{Artwork}} titles

There is a longstanding bug in the Template:Artwork display that makes titles with brackets in them (not uncommon in archival/library collections) show up incorrectly. You can see an example here: File:(Stock bookplate) - DPLA - 9b6041e20bf23c7c320e32a71145e3fa.jpg, where "[Stock bookplate]" is rendered as "bookplate" in the header. Would you be able to take a look and see what's wrong? Dominic (talk) 18:34, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Dominic, That is odd at File:(Stock bookplate) - DPLA - 9b6041e20bf23c7c320e32a71145e3fa.jpg I see title field "[Stock bookplate]". --Jarekt (talk) 18:53, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
The title field is fine. Just to clarify, I meant at the top of the template, where it also says the title as well (in the purple area). Dominic (talk) 00:24, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Now I see it. Yes, that title is quite wonky, as I have a lot of code to strip any potential marking by {{En}}, {{Title}}, {{LangSwitch}} and number of other templates people might use to display the title. I also strip wikilinks and links to external websites which usually follow the pattern [url text] which I convert to just text. I just Fixed that. --Jarekt (talk) 02:20, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Looks great, thanks! Dominic (talk) 20:38, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Tech News: 2022-45

MediaWiki message delivery 00:29, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Tech News: 2022-46

MediaWiki message delivery 21:52, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Old postcard licence

Can you take a look on copyright licences on File:Kula Norinska razglednica.png please? I'm not so familiar with copyright acts, so any help with licences is appreciated. I would upload more old postcards, and I want to be sure that licences are OK. MaGa 14:27, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

User:MaGa, On one hand I feel like most pre World War I material should be OK to publish, but I also do not like when my uploads are deleted and that happen several times with stuff over 100 years old. In case of File:Kula Norinska razglednica.png the US license is fine but {{PD-Croatia}} is harder to verify. The photographer and the copyright holder is presumably "V. Stein". he is not anonymous so to use {{PD-Croatia}} we would have to know that he died before 1949. If you can not provide the proof of his death someone can argue for the deletion of the file. If you want to upload more postcards I would stick to either knowing the author and his year of death and using {{PD-old-70}} or sticking to photographs with no author info and using {{PD-anon-70-EU}}. --Jarekt (talk) 01:46, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
In case of postcard of Kula Norinska I'm not sure that the photographer and the copyright holder is V. Stein (and it's not clear on given source). In my opinion, V. Stein is publisher only, but it is my guess. The authors/publishers of other postcards I would like to upload are other persons (not V. Stein) and I don't know did they died before 1949, and I also don't know are they photographers and copyright holders or publishers only. So, you suggest {{unknown|author}} for author and {{PD-anon-70-EU}} for licence? MaGa 09:45, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Maybe I will complicate, but I forgot this. Given source (Nacionalna i sveučilišna knjižnica/National and University Library in Zagreb) states that postcards are public domain (javno dobro in Croatian means public domain). Does it change anything we talk about? MaGa 09:59, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
MaGa invited me to repeat my argument, since I was the one who proposed the Croatian template on his talk page. The template states that "photograph or a work of applied art published before January 1, 1974" is PD (until 1999 the protection lasted for 25 years from the time the photograph was first published, *no matter when the author died*), so I think he's fine with any of these photographs. Ponor (talk) 10:40, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
@Ponor, sorry I didn't mentioned you. My apologies. MaGa 12:34, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
@MaGa and Ponor: I see so for File:Kula Norinska razglednica.png I think it would be OK to use
  • {{PD-Croatia}} under the "photograph or a work of applied art published before January 1, 1974" rational. I missed this option because I misread "or" as "of" what creates totally different meaning. It would be good to give a clue which one of many possible cases applies.
  • {{unknown|author}} for author and {{PD-anon-70-EU}} for license would be fine too
  • For cases where source , which is a reputable institution states that the work is in Public Domain, or has "no known copyright restrictions", we often create a PD tag template, like one of those and use it instead.
Any of those options would be fine. --Jarekt (talk) 03:03, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Tech News: 2022-47

MediaWiki message delivery 23:19, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Tech News: 2022-48

MediaWiki message delivery 20:00, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

File:Witkacy - Portret Macieja Jastrzębskiego - syna Wincentego Jastrzębskiego - 1934.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!

Wojteksz12 (talk) 14:10, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

JarektBot: VRT SDC claims

Hi! Would you be willing to run JarektBot to add SDC claims to files in Category:Files with PermissionTicket template but without P6305 SDC statement again? It seems to have stopped working due to a database schema change. However, replacing the line of quarry:query/47062 beginning with "join templatelinks" with "JOIN templatelinks ON page_id=tl_from AND tl_target_id = 242 # Template:PermissionTicket" fixes this. Best, —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:17, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Mdaniels5757, sure I can do it and thanks for the fix to the query. By the way, tat query produces QuickStatements code that anybody can run, as there is no requirement for bot accounts to run QuickStatements. I often use my bot account for that, because it is a mass edit, but there is no need for it. --Jarekt (talk) 01:58, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Tech News: 2022-49

MediaWiki message delivery 00:39, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi Jarekt, could you take a look what's happening here? An IP tagged it for speedy due to "permission not given". --Túrelio (talk) 20:10, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello. I sent in a message asking that all images of my work on wiki commons please be removed. These are low quality images of works from earlier in my artistic journey, and at that time that wiki contacted me saying that I had to give permission for the images to appear wherever I had placed them, I thought that I was only confirming that I was in fact the creator of the images. I did not understand that I could possibly be relinquishing any rights to my own work- and I do understand that ignorance may not be a good enough excuse but I am begging now for some help and compassion. Please help me to fix this. If they can’t be removed, can we fix the permissions for use? Or watermark the images? Anything? PLEASE. I could really use some help and expertise. I only know painting. Not this tech world stuff. Can you please help me? Reneschuler (talk) 05:16, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Tech News: 2022-50

MediaWiki message delivery 23:32, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Tech News: 2022-51

MediaWiki message delivery 23:57, 19 December 2022 (UTC)