Jump to content

User talk:Mike Peel/Archive 60

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 55←Archive 58Archive 59Archive 60Archive 61Archive 62→Archive 65

Wikidata weekly summary #449

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Other Noteworthy Stuff
  • Development
    • Due to the winter holidays, no deployment has happened for Wikidata in the last two weeks.

You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here. If you want to help, you can also have a look at the tasks needing a volunteer.

Administrators' newsletter – January 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2020).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

  • By motion, standard discretionary sanctions have been temporarily authorized for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes). The effectiveness of the discretionary sanctions can be evaluated on the request by any editor after March 1, 2021 (or sooner if for a good reason).
  • Following the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Barkeep49, BDD, Bradv, CaptainEek, L235, Maxim, Primefac.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #450

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Tool of the week
    • QueryGraph is a web tool for creating queries in SPARQL from graphs.
  • Development
    • Continued working on the Query Builder. We focused on making it possible to query for Item values and being able to limit the number of Items in the result. We also looked into how to query for quantity values.
    • Changed P920’s data type from string to external identifier (phab:T269205)
    • Finished working on the problem of Items that have the page prop wikibase:statements set to 0 but actually do have statements (phab:T145712)
    • Continued work on the “Publishing” step of the Wikibase release pipeline by building and testing three components of the software suite: Wikibase (phab: T267893), Query Service frontend (phab:T268025), and Query Service backend (phab:T268022)

You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here. If you want to help, you can also have a look at the tasks needing a volunteer.


This Month in GLAM: December 2020



Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Any solution to this?

Did you ever figure out a solution, or have any other suggestions, to the problem we discussed at User talk:Mike Peel/Archive 59#Commons cats? ww2censor (talk) 12:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@Ww2censor: I still think the obvious solution is to split the articles, but it sounds like that's a lot of debate away and a lot of work. So I've been getting on with the simpler cases instead for now (there are still quite a lot of them to tackle!). If you want to get rid of the red warning text, you could use {{Commons category multi}}, but that's just kicking it into the long grass for a bit. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 13:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: December 2020



Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

semi-automated edit concern

I saw this diff come up [1] which I think was triggered since the article page name did not match the Commons category name. However, the commons cat is clearly related to the page at had (its still about the game itself). A quick check of your contributions in the last hour show a mix of other similar removals that may be wrong, pages that aren't exactly the same name as the commons cat but which the commons cat would clearly be appropriate to include. Given the edit timings you're likely doing this semi-automated (AWB? not sure), but you may want to slow down and check that. --Masem (t) 20:46, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

@Masem: This is part of a long-term project to synchronise links between enwp and Commons via Wikidata. I'm using a Python/Pywikibot script to make the edits, but I'm checking them as I go. In this case, commons:Category:Fez (video game) should be linked from Fez (video game), but not from Development of Fez - if there was a Commons category that was for the development of the game, then it would make sense to link to that, but as it stands the Commons link is misplaced. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
As Masem points out, the Commons category is clearly related. Seeing closely related Commons categories saves the reader to find the related article and provides convenient quick access. I suggest the perceived need to have a strict 1-to-1 relationship between Commons categories and Wikipedia articles is restrictive and not in the interest of readers. If it were enforced, the {{Commons category}} might as well be deleted. Your proposal at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: What to do with category links to Commons? was restricted to categories, but you now enforce this on articles. Where was this discussed? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:23, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
There was an RfC at Category talk:Commons category Wikidata tracking categories. I don't think that the links I'm removing are useful to readers, hence why I'm removing them. Always happy to discuss individual examples if you want. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:19, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
And that RfC ended inconclusive. The authors of articles who put those Commons categories into closely related articles obviously think they are useful. Those articles often started as splits from their main articles, which demonstrates their relevance. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:49, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, Mike, you can hardly claim that very poorly-attended Rfc shows any consensus of approval. I'd dial it down, a lot. Johnbod (talk) 18:13, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #451

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Tool of the week
  • Development
    • Continued working on the Query Builder. We continued to set up tracking for the number of queries that result in an error, timeout, etc. (phab:T269224). We als made it possible to query for Item values (phab:T268814). You can always try the current state on the test system.
    • Finished fixing an issue with whitespace being stripped while typing when editing Lexemes (phab:T250550)
    • Worked on no error being shown when trying to save Lemma with invalid language code (phab:T265783)
    • Working on using Special:MyLanguage feature for more links in the Wikidata Query Service interface to redirect people to documentation in their language (phab:T267656)
    • Continued interviewing people to better understand how to best compare Wikidata's data against other databases in order to find mismatches that need the editors' attention

You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here. If you want to help, you can also have a look at the tasks needing a volunteer.

Electoral results for the district of

I noticed that Pi bot has created a new wikidata page Electoral results for the district of Gough (Q104901950) to connect to Electoral results for the district of Gough, despite there being an existing wikidata page Electoral results for the district of Gough (Q99441926). Similarly 1892 East Macquarie colonial by-election where Pi bot created Q104855060 despite Q98908622. In both cases, all that was missing was the connection. --Find bruce (talk) 20:56, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

@Find bruce: Thanks for finding and merging them! This will happen occasionally, the bot now creates new items for pages that haven't been linked within 14 days of their creation so there isn't a big backlog of unlinked pages without matches, but sometimes that will cause duplicates. They are easy to merge when that happens, though, and easy to avoid by linking the article earlier. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Mike - any suggestions on how to find pages without wikidata links? From my perspective creating duplicate wikidata pages makes the data problems worse rather than better. --Find bruce (talk) 22:24, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
@Find bruce: Here there is Category:Articles without Wikidata item (but only for some types of articles) and Special:UnconnectedPages (all articles and more). There are also some tools: duplicity give lists, there is also a game ('Match new articles to items'), but I'm not sure if that's regularly updated. It's definitely better to avoid duplicates as much as possible, but it's also important to import new articles/concepts into Wikidata regularly, there's a balance point between the two that I'm trying to meet with Pi bot. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:09, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

William Swinden Barber

Forgive me, but removing all those commons category links from the above article is a disaster. Most people whom I direct to any of the articles created by me, to help the research of others, cannot find the commonscat link at the bottom of the article, even when I direct them over the phone. I don't know why they can't find it, because on my pc it is quite clear. I am wondering whether it does not show up on other devices. That is why I put the specific commonscat links below each of his buildings, and that seems to work for them. Some serious institutions have used that article, including National Heritage, which have used it when they agreed to my applications to list two of the buildings. I accept that you are responding to a general WP rule here, but WP also requires that common sense be used when applying those rules. Having those specific commonscats where researchers can easily find them makes all the difference. Please reconsider? I cannot yet write a separate article on all of them at the moment due to lockdown, and to do that job requires travel and photography - no chance a the moment. So for now we must make do with those paragraphs. Thank you. Storye book (talk) 21:18, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I've double-checked through the links I removed, and commons:Category:Stainland Cross wasn't in commons:Category:William Swinden Barber, so I've added that now. The Commons link is also in the left-hand sidebar, which might be easier for others to find? I think the article is improved by the removal of the links, since it's easier to read, although it would definitely be better if there were separate articles on each building. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Benjamin Burstall

Please stop doing this? I have explained the problem above. The way I have created this type of article, often a great deal of research is in the commonscats, and researchers need to be able to find them easily. Please don't do any more without discussion? Thank you. Storye book (talk) 21:23, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

@Storye book: I'll double-check tomorrow, but I think you're linking to Commons incorrectly, it's better to gather the categories for the buildings under the architect's category, rather than linking to each building in the architect's article. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:27, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Mike Peel: I think you are seriously interfering with editorial work. I agree with User:Storye book that having individual links to Commons categories for each building instead of just one at the bottom of the article to the architect is much more helpful to readers. This is not an infrequent technique in articles that consist of a list of subjects, like composition cycles, lists of streets, and similar. I suggest you revert your edits at both the above articles. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:44, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
I've double-checked, and all the categories are in commons:Category:Benjamin Burstall (in a subcategory though). As with the article above, I think it's better not to have all of the inline links. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:33, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you Michael Bednarek for your comment, you are quite right. Another thing that seriously worries me is that innocent errors or other interference on Commons can easily disassociate the list of buildings categories from the architect category. For example, currently we have an editor there who likes to put categories in alphabetical order, which is harmless enough, but they often accidentally lose some of the categories and sometimes they even lose the licence from the image filepage. Having uploaded thousands of images to commons myself, I am aware that when correcting a file page I too have been known to accidentally remove material from a filepage. Bots alert us to missing sources and licences, but not to lost categories. The commons links on articles like Benjamin Burstall and William Swinden Barber are really important. Those articles are really all we have on those subjects. You won't find it elsewhere, unless you count the mirror sites, and of course, sadly, those sites mirror the removal of commons category links too. There is another problem with compromising articles on Victorian architecture by removing image links, and that is the parlous safety-position of Victorian architecture in the UK. It is protected far less than architecture built up to 1800, and the more reliable information that we can contribute to WP, the better-educated the public will be on that subject. You have to know about it to protect it. Frankly, pictures do the best job. When I can visit a building at all, I take between 100 and 250 pictures of the structure and its architectural carving, and upload it to Commons. It is only reasonable that this should be easily available to the public. No casual reader, and (in my experience) few researchers even notice the media link at the bottom of the article page, and they will not think of searching Commons.
Mike Peel. Please would you kindly tell us how your edits are improving ease of research via Wikipedia? How are you making information more accessible to researchers? Storye book (talk) 10:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
And yet 99.9% of articles here cope fine without trying to duplicate the list of subcategories from Commons? BTW, if you restore the other one, double-check the links as some of the categories have been renamed. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Right. So because you are clearly not going to change your mind, I have reverted your edits on Benjamine Burstall so that I can see what I'm doing, then I've replaced the commonscats with notes, and finally removed the commonscates from the text. That was only seven commonscats, and it took me ages, because the copy and paste facility on this pc is delayed, and saving is delayed due to slow broadband in my village. Next I have to do William Swinden Barber, which has 40 deleted commonscats, which I must replace with notes. This will take me more than one day, I'm guessing, so I'm asking for your patience while I do that. It will be impossible for me to do without reverting your edits, because I have a small monitor and will need to be able to see what I'm doing. I'm seriously worried and distressed by this, because if you diminish any more of these articles, which I originally created, then some of the others have even longer lists of sections with commonscats. I am worried that the computer will break down and I won't get it repaired during lockdown. I'm worried that my tendency to break brittle bones will prevent me from doing it all promptly. So I'm asking you please if you do any more of these articles which I created, in this way, please would you kindly replace each commons category with a note in the way that I have done on Benjamin Burstall article. I shall of course be working through the rest of "my" articles to replace commonscats with notes, but with the best intentions and best conditions it will take me a long time. If as you say you have good intentions, then I think that you should do that. Destruction is easy because it's so quick. Repairs take longer. Thank you. Storye book (talk) 11:47, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #452

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Events
    • Past: Wikidata+Wikibase office hour happened on January 21st. See notes here (English).
    • Past: 2021 OpenStreetMap x Wikidata Beginner Teaching Workshop (in Chinese). Replay on YouTube 1, 2, 3, 4
    • Upcoming: Next Linked Data for Libraries LD4 Wikidata Affinity Group call: Wikibase, the Integrated Authority File (GND) pilot at the German National Library, and the WikiLibrary Manifesto, 26 January. Agenda
    • Upcoming: SPARQL queries and OpenRefine live on Twitch and in French by Vigneron, Januray 26 at 18:00 CET
    • Upcoming video: LIVE Wikidata editing #29 - YouTube, Facebook, 30 January
    • Upcoming: Online Wikidata meetup in Swedish #47, 31 January
    • Upcoming: The Open Festival of Persistent Identifiers starts from 27 January 2021. See schedule here.
  • Tool of the week
    • TAViewer is a web-based anatomy atlas viewer that cross-references Terminologia Anatomica terms with data from Wikipedia and Wikidata.
  • Development
    • Continued working on the Query Builder: made it possible to limit the number of results in the result set, made it possible to include results from subclasses when querying for Item values, worked on negating queries and started on sharing of queries via URL. As always you can try the current state on the test system.
    • Making links in the Query Service redirect to the proper translations of their pages on-wiki by using Special:MyLanguage redirects (phab:T267656)
    • Working on fixing an issue with displaying large numbers for quantity values (phab:T268456)
    • Fixed a case where no error message was shown when trying to save a Lemma with an invalid language code (phab:T265783)
    • Talked to a few more people about checking Wikidata's data against other databases to find potential errors
    • Continuing the Release Strategy project for Wikibase, with the following progress:
      • Created a “release pipeline” for Wikibase extension (phab:T267627)
      • Created MediaWiki docker images based off release branches (phab:T270133)
      • Defined format and contents of Wikibase suite components not maintained by Wikimedia Germany (phab:T271194)

You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here. If you want to help, you can also have a look at the tasks needing a volunteer.

The Signpost: 31 January 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:11, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Boyhood (1951 film)

Hi, could you/your Bot tag this article as Wikidata item as you've done with some previous of my new articles? There are no foreign language entries for this. Please note that the Japanese entry for Shonenki is for the book this film is based on, not the film itself which my article is about. Thanks Robert Kerber (talk) 15:38, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@Robert Kerber: It looks like it is Boyhood (Q11464692), there's a Japanese article for it, which seems to cover the mix of the book, film, and TV series. The Wikidata item is focused on the film, though, so matches enwp, and it's now linked. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:14, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
OK, thanks Robert Kerber (talk) 16:19, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #453

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Tool of the week
    • Labelcleaner is a script by Andrew Gray used to clean up Wikidata labels/aliases/descriptions for a given language on a set of items.
  • Development
    • Continuing development on the first version of the Query Builder. It's starting to be able to do the first really meaningful queries now. Latest addition was the ability to negate conditions. Up next is the ability to connect conditions with OR instead of only AND as well as querying for quantities and ranges. You can follow along on the test system.
    • Exploring possible solutions for how to compare Wikidata's data against other databases to find and highlight mismatches automatically.
    • Added lexicographical data codes for a few languages: rkt, ctg (phab:T271589), and az-cyrl (phab:T265906)
    • Finished working on the issue of TypeError on a diff of a Wikidata talk page phab:T271402
    • Updated Wikidata unit conversion configuration (phab:T267644)
    • Fixed two last places where links in the the Query Service UI were not using Special:MyLanguage yet to redirect to the documentation page in the user's language (phab:T267656)
    • Pushing JSON dumps for Lexemes over the finish line (phab:T264883)
    • Working on showing an error when trying to save lemmas with invalid language codes (phab:T265783)
    • Wikibase Release Strategy
      • Investigated the release of Wikibase suite components not maintained by Wikimedia (phab:T271193)
      • Continued process of adding additional components to the Wikibase release, including OAuth (phab:T272580)


You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here. If you want to help, you can also have a look at the tasks needing a volunteer.

Administrators' newsletter – February 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2021).

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm wondering

Hi Mike, how are you? I hope you're feeling good. Anyway, I want to talk to you about structured commons, specifically in this file. If you see the categories, you can see that they are mentioning many "Edifícios", or "buildings" in English. in the structured data tab, depicts could (and I'm going to) mention each of them by their QID, since they are depicted in the image. What I want to ask, though, is if there is any bot that checks the categories of a image and, based on those categories, use them to add structured data to a file on Wikimedia Commons. If so, how we can improve it? Cheers, User:Tetizeraz. Send me a ✉️ ! 17:59, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

@Tetizeraz: At the moment there is no bot that does that. I've thought about creating one, but I haven't done so yet. The risk is that files in a category might not actually depict the topic of the category (e.g., views from an object)... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:04, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, there's this risk. But at least for the file I mentioned, there aren't QIDs for "Views from an object" of "Views from X", so I'd say we are safe. Alternatively, the bot could be selective, that is, it could specifically look for, in a string, the word "building" of "edifício", etc. This could be a bit more complicated since I'm sure this exists to buildings in other languages. But it's an idea :) Anyway, thanks for the speedy answer and cheers, User:Tetizeraz. Send me a ✉️ ! 18:08, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mike_Peel/Archive_60&oldid=1006664229"