Jarekt

Hi Jarek, thanks for the link to commons:template:Creator. We can take the property (parameter) "sortkey" from there. (Better label than "name_2".) --Kolja21 (talk) 00:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

We should also have a link to Authority control record, Wikipedia interwiki record, Wikisource interwiki record and in general it might make sense to just grab most of the fields from commons:template:Creator. As one of the maintainers of Creator templates on Commons, I am quite interested in work of Wikidata:Infoboxes task force since I think a lot of information being currently stored in commons:Category:Creator templates will be eventually moved to Wikidata. --Jarekt (talk) 03:44, 30 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Well I hope the developers of Wikidata take a look at pages like Commons:Creator:Caravaggio. It would be wise to transfer the infos from Commons to Wikidata by bot. --Kolja21 (talk) 05:16, 30 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

You might be interested in: Wikidata:Project chat#VIAF integration? --Kolja21 (talk) 15:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hej, mógłbyś zerknąć na User:Lazowik/słownik i dodać swoje propozycje? Lazowik (talk) 19:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Jarekt, it would be great if you could join this task force as well, since it is more specific in scope an touches several applications (commons, wikipedia infoboxes, wikisource...). Thanks!--Micru (talk) 21:51, 1 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for giving your input at Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Bot/VIAFbot. As suggestions started coming in, I thought it'd be nice to have a small IRC meeting planning the bot task specifics together. If you want to be a part of the meeting please fill out this doodle poll, and I'll set up the rest of the meeting. Tentative agenda:

• Which Authorities data to use
• What to do for Data Conflicts
• What should be written to Wikidata for maximum phase 2 re-use
• Programming details of the bot

Maximilianklein (talk) 19:50, 7 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

What communications would you prefer? We can do a multiple Video Conference, or I can get my company to pay for a toll-free international conference call? 132.174.183.8 21:08, 7 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

OK, I will make conference call. 132.174.183.8 21:38, 7 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

yes, it's a while from now because 1, I want a lot of people to attend. 2, phase ii is still not fully completed, and 3 pywikipediabot/wikidata is still in development anyway. 32.158.217.37 02:11, 8 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

32.158.217.37 131.196.163.169 13:32, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello, The doodle poll has spoken, please mark your calendars for Thursday 28th March 2013, at 3pm California time.

Let's have a discussion about how we'd like to discuss. The simplest ways are IRC or Skype, Google Hangout, Webex. I can also make a toll-free conference call. Please state your preference on the agenda, and add anything you want to talk about: d:Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Bot/VIAFbot/Meeting agenda.

Looking forwards to talking with everybody. Maximilianklein (talk) 16:43, 18 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks--Jarekt (talk) 16:52, 18 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Group consensus, is to meet on IRC. I've picked server: freenode, and channel: #wikimedia-glam . See you then and there. Maximilianklein (talk) 18:51, 21 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

I will try to connect there from home. --Jarekt (talk) 18:54, 21 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi! I started to contribute here. Can you please verify my edits. I am concerned mainly about

1. enwikipedia articles without the Authority Control template

In my en: contributions you may find comments at

{{Authority control}} without values; values via wikidata

I think this is sufficient to add similar changes to other pages at wikidata where I added AC values at wikidata. Thanks in advance! לערי ריינהארט (talk) 12:36, 8 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Wikidata:WikiProject Structured Data for Commons would like to build on the kind of work you've done with Jarekt bot. Come and join us! Jheald (talk) 14:37, 17 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello, i tried to clean up some mixed-up "hook" links. the only link where i am unsure is pl:hak. Could you look up please, if it belongs to hook (Q11649868) (the general item for all types of hooks, from fishing hooks to crane hooks), or to the more specific lifting hook (Q495451)? On plwiki the images and categories suggest it is an article about large lifting hooks, but the word "hak" and the Commons category link suggest it is about hooks in general. Holger1959 (talk) 10:05, 19 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Holger1959, I think current situation is correct: pl:hak goes with specific lifting hook (Q495451). pl:Hak_(ujednoznacznienie) disambiguation page connects with other Hak (Q404256) disambiguation pages for "hak"; however it is much closer in content to hook (Q11649868) as it only lists types of hooks and items related to hooks. --Jarekt (talk) 13:16, 21 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

great, thank you very much! Holger1959 (talk) 14:19, 21 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

 

The Wikimedia Foundation is currently running a consultation on the value and planning process of Wikimania, and is open until 18 January 2016. The goals are to (1) build a shared understanding of the value of Wikimania to help guide conference planning and evaluation, and (2) gather broad community input on what new form(s) Wikimania could take (starting in 2018).

After reviewing the consultation, we'd like to hear your feedback on on this survey.

In addition, feel free to share any personal experiences you have had at at a Wikimedia movement conference, including Wikimania. We plan to compile and share back outcomes from this consultation in February.

With thanks,

I JethroBT (WMF) (talk), from Community Resources 23:46, 12 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

 

Last December, I invited you to share your views on the value of Wikimedia conferences and the planning process of Wikimania. We have completed analysis of these results and have prepared this report summarizing your feedback and important changes for Wikimania starting in 2018 as an experiment. Feedback and comments are welcome at the discussion page. Thank you so much for your participation. I JethroBT (WMF), Community Resources, 22:47, 8 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry i am busy but I will definitely follow the discussion in the future. i have a pool of it-N local users I have "teached" with tools to update P!8 and P373 on wikidata (in general:image "maintenance"). As soon as as the rules are finally "clear" I can inform them as well.--Alexmar983 (talk) 04:37, 24 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi Jarekt,

What is your opinion on Wikidata:Property proposal/Commons creator? It seems to me that the alternate approach reached its limits and I don't recall seeing it being used by its proponent.
--- Jura 06:05, 9 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

If you are not interested, I will withdraw Wikidata:Property proposal/Commons creator.
--- Jura 13:37, 17 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

In this edit and probably many other edits you added imported from Wikimedia project (P143) as a qualifier instead of a reference. imported from Wikimedia project (P143) should only be used on data import from one of the wiki projects, never added later. Can you please revert your edits? Multichill (talk) 16:22, 30 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Multichill, That is very strange, as I was working on c:Category:Creator templates with Wikidata link: item missing P373 which is added by Creator template when the item does not have Commons category (P373). Than I used quick_statements tool to add missing P373 to the item using string like Q19270760 P373 "Alexander Marx (painter)" S143 Q565. The string specifies P373 and identifies Commons as a source. In some cases c:Category:Creator templates with Wikidata link: item missing P373 was added to creator templates linked to items that had P373, so then quick_statements just added the source. I will try to reverse those edits. as for adding imported from Wikimedia project (P143) as a qualifier instead of a reference, I am kind of confused about it. I am following exactly the examples at quick_statements documentation page on how to add statements like sourced as "imported from" "German Wikipedia". It seems like P143 property documentation changed in 2014 to use it in the Reference section only, however tools like quick_statements never changed, I will file bug report. --Jarekt (talk) 17:35, 30 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

On a second thought I might have been using "... P143 Q565" instead of "... S143 Q565", I will check. --Jarekt (talk) 18:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

I was using "... S143 Q565" and now filed a bug report. --Jarekt (talk) 12:42, 31 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Ai, that's a bummer. I made modified a query to find them, see

SELECT ?item ?itemLabel ?snak
{
	{
		SELECT DISTINCT ?item ?value ?snak {
			{
				?statement1 pq:P143 wd:Q565 .
				?item p:P373 ?statement1 .
				BIND("qualifier" AS ?snak) .
			} .
		} LIMIT 2000
	} .
	SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "cs,en" } .

Try it!

Looks like Wikidata:Database reports/Constraint violations/P143 will get a bit larger. Multichill (talk) 18:52, 31 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

I was just thinking about asking if anybody would set up a bot run to move P143 from qualifier to a reference, but it seems like it is already being done by User:KrBot / User:Ivan A. Krestinin. Thanks Ivan. --Jarekt (talk) 12:14, 1 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

You're right. That sure is nice! Multichill (talk) 16:00, 1 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Please check this edit to Q13099720. Is it correct? --Wintik (talk) 06:46, 2 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

I noticed that articles about actors in Polish Wikipedia contain links to http://filmweb.pl, http://filmpolski.pl, http://e-teatr.pl (see w:pl:Jerzy Stuhr as example). I think will be good idea to create ID properties for each site. As results links sections could be simplified and standardized.

ShinePhantom harvested IDs from links in Russian Wikipedia for warheroes.ru ID (P2943), so such experience may be helpful in case of Polish sites.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 01:09, 5 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

I agree that sounds like a good idea. I have my hands full at the moment with rewriting Commons infobox templates to LUA which uses Wikidata (see c:Module talk:Creator/testcases for example) and moving some of the metadata from Commons to Wikidata (like I did with {{Authority control}} identifiers), so I am not going to be able to undertake this project but I will ask around to see who might. Thanks --Jarekt (talk) 01:17, 5 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi, thank you for adding coordinates from Commons. But note that all coordinates from Commons are not suitable for import to wikidata. If is import still running, please try to avoid import coordinates for people (P31:Q5), company (P31:Q4830453) or disambiguation (P31:Q4167410) items, as in these cases coordinates are very unclear to what they apply. It these cases coordinates are stored is specific P625 qualifiers like P159 for hq coordinates for company items or P119 for coordinates of place of burial for people items.--Jklamo (talk) 14:55, 30 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Jklamo, I was imagining that the coordinates I am importing are for places only. The import is done in very low tech manner by looking at pages in c:Category:Pages with local coordinates and missing wikidata coordinates and copying their coordinates (in semiautomatic manner. All pages I see there by random sampling are related to places (buildings, cities, countries, geographic regions, etc.). I agree that people, companies , disambiguation pages, etc. are not OK. I will work on adding filters in the future to exclude them. Thanks for alerting me about this issue. --Jarekt (talk) 16:02, 30 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello. The template is el:Πρότυπο:Infobox football league (the Greek version of en:Template:Infobox football league). It is written in English.

I have 3 problems. Lets use as example Cypriot First Division (Q155965).

1) I need to have the current season. This can be done by has part(s) (P527). All seasons have the qualifier edition number (P393). I want module in the client to compare all edition numbers and tell which has the highest. (I can use rank=preferred but is not the best solution).

2) I need to have the first season. This can be done by has part(s) (P527). All seasons have the qualifier edition number (P393). I want module in the client to compare all edition numbers and tell which has the 1st one.

3) I want to show the team with the team with the most champions and the number of champions in brackets. Now I am doing this with rank=preferred but is not the best solution. It can be done by winner (P1346) and number of wins (P1355).

4) I want to shows the current champions with season. This can be done by winner (P1346). I want module in the client to compare all victories and tell which has the latest one. To show the team and the season. OK, I know this is toο difficult.

Xaris333 (talk) 13:22, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi Jarekt! This is a cactus not an insect, so something went wrong. :( The insect is Wilcoxia (Q16739290). --Succu (talk) 17:06, 15 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Succu I am running queries meant to catch bad matches I occasionally make as all BugsGuide entries are for arthropods. I guess it is time to clear them again. --Jarekt (talk) 17:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi Jarekt, I'm helping Pharos with the MET upload on Commons. One of the things we want to do is for works where we have more than 4 images, we want to put it in a separate category. As preparation I'm doing a bit of house keeping:

SELECT ?item ?commonscat ?sitelink ?lang ?site WHERE {
  ?item wdt:P31 wd:Q3305213 .
  #?item wdt:P195 wd:Q160236 .
  #?item wdt:P170 wd:Q41264 .
  ?item wdt:P373 ?commonscat .
  MINUS { 
  ?sitelink schema:about ?item .
  ?sitelink schema:inLanguage ?lang . 
  ?sitelink schema:isPartOf <https://commons.wikimedia.org/> } .
  }

This gives the paintings that have Commons category (P373), but no sitelink. You can remove the comments to just see it for the Metropolitan Museum of Art (Q160236) or only for Johannes Vermeer (Q41264). A bit of junk in there that needs to be removed, but most could easily be added as a sitelink too. I remember you were working on this in the past. What was the outcome/status/consensus? On the Commons side we have https://petscan.wmflabs.org/?psid=865074 . Probably a bit of overlap, but would turn up some new interesting links.

Next step for me would be to find the files on Commons from the MET upload that have a Qid, but are not in the Qid category. Creating the new categories for works that have 4+ images is probably something semi-automatic. Multichill (talk) 11:37, 8 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

I do not know what is the current status/consensus. It seems like some people adding categories as sitelinks and some do not, it is quite random. I am trying to rely on Commons category (P373) on wikidata and on templates with q-codes on commons, that way whatever I do works with and without sitelink. templates c:Template:On Wikidata and some others call c:Template:Interwiki from wikidata which adds interwikilinks to category pages based on wikidata. I do not mind people adding commons categories as sitelinks to article pages, but I am afraid to rely on them because it can change without warning, like when someone creates category q-code. Did that answer your question? I am not sure if that was what you were asking about? --Jarekt (talk) 02:32, 10 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Just remember to take care about the things you are doing. At least have a look at birthdates or professions (if you are working on people)...

The Rudolf Kramer on Wikipedia is not the one with the creator-template on Commons.

Best, PigeonIP (talk) 11:34, 5 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi I just wanted to flag that something went wrong in this edit and a few similar ones. The Creator templates had red categories but your script still harvested them and added them to Wikidata. /André Costa (WMSE) (talk) 13:46, 8 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

I noticed the same thing. I will change the algorithm to not do that if category does not exist. I can also go through c:Category:Creator templates with non-existing home categories and remove Commons category (P373), or create those categories (which might be easier). --Jarekt (talk) 13:54, 8 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Znaczna część stwierdzeń country of citizenship (P27) wprowadzonych przez pana wczoraj wieczorem jest widocznie nie poprawna - okres życia osoby nie spotyka się z okresem egzystencji dodanego państwa. To wzbudza poważne wątpliwości o całym zbiorze danych lub metodzie ich otrzymania. Prosze nie kontynuować tych zmian i powrócić zmiany już popełnione (widzę, że pan ma prawo rollbacku...)--Shlomo (talk) 22:56, 1 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Dziekuje za informacje. Juz zauwazylem i kasuke moje edycje. --Jarekt (talk) 23:36, 1 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi Jarekt,

I was reading your Wikimania pres and your call for help about Category:Pages using authority control without Wikidata link, so I had a look at it. And it seems there are many of them used in categories that are already linked to a Wikidata item, either through sitelink or through Commons category (P373) (or both).

Is there any reason why those haven't been automatically linked? Could it be possible that JarektBot would process them? This is pretty similar to the discussion we had back in June about Commons Creator templates. So here is a list of quite straightforward candidates that can be iterated by changing the start value:

The following query uses these:

• Properties: Commons category (P373)     

  SELECT (IRI(concat("https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/", ?category)) as ?categoryLink) ?categoryName 
    (IF(BOUND(?sortkey),?sortkey,?categoryName) as ?sortValue) (IRI(CONCAT(STR(wd:), ?sitelinkQ)) as ?catSitelinkItem) 
    ?commonsCatItem ?commonsCatItemLabel {
    SERVICE wikibase:mwapi {
       bd:serviceParam wikibase:api "Generator" .
       bd:serviceParam wikibase:endpoint "commons.wikimedia.org" .
       bd:serviceParam mwapi:gcmtitle "Category:Pages using authority control without Wikidata link" .
       bd:serviceParam mwapi:generator "categorymembers" .
       bd:serviceParam mwapi:gcmtype "subcat" .
       bd:serviceParam mwapi:gcmlimit "max" .
       bd:serviceParam mwapi:gcmsort "sortkey" .
       bd:serviceParam mwapi:gcmdir "ascending" .
       bd:serviceParam mwapi:gcmstartsortkeyprefix "A" .
       bd:serviceParam mwapi:prop "pageprops" .
       bd:serviceParam mwapi:ppprop "defaultsort|wikibase_item" .
       ?category wikibase:apiOutput mwapi:title  .
       ?sortkey wikibase:apiOutput "pageprops/@defaultsort" .
       ?sitelinkQ wikibase:apiOutput "pageprops/@wikibase_item" .
    }
    BIND(substr(?category,10) as ?categoryName) .
    OPTIONAL { 
      ?commonsCatItem wdt:P373 ?categoryName .
      SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE],en" }
    }
    FILTER ( BOUND(?commonsCatItem) || BOUND(?sitelinkQ) ) .
  }
  ORDER BY ?sortValue
  

Another nice trick allows to retrieve VIAF ids from authority templates and find the corresponding items. Sadly the API is limiting this to very small batches at a time (contrary to what is said in documentaion), so this has to be iterated many times to process all results and should only be used once the first is completed.

The following query uses these:

• Properties: VIAF ID (P214)     

  SELECT (IRI(concat("https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/", ?category)) as ?categoryLink) ?categoryName 
    (IF(BOUND(?sortkey),?sortkey,?categoryName) as ?sortValue) ?viaf ?item
    WHERE {
    SERVICE wikibase:mwapi {
       bd:serviceParam wikibase:api "Generator" .
       bd:serviceParam wikibase:endpoint "commons.wikimedia.org" .
       bd:serviceParam mwapi:gcmtitle "Category:Pages using authority control without Wikidata link" .
       bd:serviceParam mwapi:generator "categorymembers" .
       bd:serviceParam mwapi:gcmtype "subcat" .
       bd:serviceParam mwapi:gcmlimit "50" .
       bd:serviceParam mwapi:gcmsort "sortkey" .
       bd:serviceParam mwapi:gcmdir "ascending" .
       bd:serviceParam mwapi:gcmstartsortkeyprefix "A" .
       bd:serviceParam mwapi:prop "pageprops|revisions" .
       bd:serviceParam mwapi:ppprop "defaultsort" .
       bd:serviceParam mwapi:rvprop "content" .
       ?category wikibase:apiOutput mwapi:title  .
       ?sortkey wikibase:apiOutput "pageprops/@defaultsort" .
       ?cnt wikibase:apiOutput "revisions/rev/text()" .
    }
    BIND(substr(?category,10) as ?categoryName) .
    BIND(REPLACE(STRBEFORE(STRAFTER(?cnt,CONCAT("{","{Authority control")),CONCAT("}","}")), ".*\\|\\s*VIAF\\s*=\\s*(\\d+).*", "$1") as ?viaf) .
    OPTIONAL { ?item wdt:P214 ?viaf }
    FILTER ( BOUND(?item) ) .
  }
  ORDER BY ?sortValue
  

Would that be helpful? --Nono314 (talk) 19:18, 17 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi Jarek, as always it was a nice to meet you in person. The first part works. It will source existing dates when it's the same as RKDartists and it will replaced unsourced years with more precise dates sourced from RKDartists. I'm going to leave it running to clear out the first backlog. Next step is to tackle the items that have imported from as a source. This query currently returns 36754 results now, let's see how many can be removed.

SELECT ?item ?birthvalue ?birth WHERE {
  ?item wdt:P650 [] .
  ?item p:P569 ?birthclaim .
  ?birthclaim psv:P569 ?birthvalue . 
  { ?birthvalue wikibase:timePrecision "9"^^xsd:integer } UNION {
    ?birthvalue wikibase:timePrecision "10"^^xsd:integer } UNION {
    ?birthvalue wikibase:timePrecision "11"^^xsd:integer }
  ?birthvalue wikibase:timeValue ?birth .
  MINUS { ?birthclaim prov:wasDerivedFrom ?provenance .
      MINUS { ?provenance pr:P143 [] } 
         }
} ORDER BY DESC(?birth) LIMIT 40000

Multichill (talk) 22:06, 21 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Sources thing was a bit harder, but seems to be working. Multichill (talk) 20:19, 22 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

That is great. Sorry for being off line but I am traveling this week and have only occasional web access, but I will be back on Friday. Once you are done or done with items with creator templates let me know and I will touch bunch of pages on Commons. By the way, I was told by someone that a preferred way of referencing RKD would be using stated in (P248), retrieved (P813) and RKDartists ID (P650) like here. For me both forms are fine but the "proffered" way does look cleaner. --Jarekt (talk) 02:44, 23 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi there,

could you please explain who precisely is eligible for a Creator palette? I suppose not everybody who upload files on Commons... Thanks!

Nomen ad hoc (talk) 20:47, 27 August 2017 (UTC).Reply

Nomen ad hoc & Hsarrazin, Please see c:Commons:Creator for unofficial guidelines for Creator templates. Your question also inspired me to start this discussion. I do not know if that answers your question. If not please be more specific. --Jarekt (talk) 13:33, 28 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure if it is a good idea to set not externally sourced statements to preferred rank (like here) if there are also sourced statements, even if those are less precise. I've added sources for the precise dates from Commons where I could find them up to now and then set the preferred rank, in this process some dates from Commons also turned out to be wrong. I'd prefer both or the less precise but sourced dates to show up on Commons rather than only the dates without a source. What do you think? --Marsupium (talk) 23:01, 28 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

I did not want to leave both dates with equal rank, and I guess you are right, we should favor sourced dates oven unsourced dates even is unsourced dates are more precise. I will do it that way from now on. Luckely in most cases I can find sources to support high precission dates. --Jarekt (talk) 00:13, 29 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the reply! Indeed it's not attractive to leave both dates with equal rank. Sourcing is a bunch of work of course, but I think it's worth it and a good way to increase data quality here. The RKDartists activity of BotMultichill (like [1]) should alleviate this a lot. (Is the first bot run finished BTW?) After RKDartists ID (P650) of those I used the second best WD-linked source of day precision artist's birth and death dates is Benezit ID (P2843), third perhaps Bibliothèque nationale de France ID (P268) (just in few cases, not sure about quality there). Scraping their dates could also narrow down the cases for which higher-than-year-precision dates have to get manually sourced. --Marsupium (talk) 07:54, 29 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

One think I would love to veave is a tool to quickly add identifiers as references. I proposed phabricator:T172150 as one solution. --Jarekt (talk) 11:47, 29 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi Jarekt,

I just removed imports from Commons Creator on Lübeckische Anzeigen (Q1451582), which is the newspaper (Zeitung).

I don't understand why this Creator was added to this item as P1472… is this the creator of the Zeitung ? if so, it should be added to its own item, that would then be added as P112.

As I do not read German, and would not want to add more errors, I let you do the final cleanup, please :) --Hsarrazin (talk) 17:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

I do not speak German either, but I agree those do not seem to fit together. The q-Code was added (twice ) by a bot run by User:Zhuyifei1999. @Zhuyifei1999: could you tweak your bot not to add it again? --Jarekt (talk) 01:16, 5 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

What the bot sees: c:Creator:Gebrüder_Borchers => de:Lübeckische Anzeigen#Gebrüder Borchers => Q1451582. What should be tweaked? Ignore sections? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 01:40, 5 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Zhuyifei1999:, yeas ignoring subsections would be safer course. --Jarekt (talk) 15:23, 5 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

  Done, should work on next run. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 16:22, 5 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Zhuyifei1999, Jarekt: Big Thanks ! --Hsarrazin (talk) 12:35, 10 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi Jarakt and AndrewNJ, you have changed Zolo's use of human (Q5) for instance of (P31) on Pseudo Granacci (Q30581143). Were there any public considerations for the use of anonymous master (Q474968)? It does not seem to be widely used. I don't have (yet) a preference here, I just guess we should follow one line with this. --Marsupium (talk) 17:49, 24 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

I added Q5 to Pseudo Granacci (Q30581143). My edit was to fix P1472 constraint violation and have instance of (P31) which is some sub-class of people and anonymous master (Q474968) made sense at the moment. --Jarekt (talk) 18:03, 24 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

My edit, was actually automated by mix'n'match. Probably not the best place to discuss it. My fuzzy feeling is that a special P31 for this kind of case might be a good idea, but that we should settle on which one. I see that notname (Q1747829) is also used. It is more general (which I like) but it is also a subclass of name (Q82799) which sounds like bad semantics. --Zolo (talk) 19:43, 24 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your responses. You're probably right about the place, so I have copied the thread over to Wikidata:WikiProject Visual arts/Questions#Use of instance of (P31): anonymous master (Q474968) and responded there. --Marsupium (talk) 09:45, 26 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi Jarek, Wikidata:WikiProject sum of all paintings/Possible paintings has quite a few possible paintings for Polish. What to do is on the top of the page. Help appreciated :-) And if you ever get bored: Wikidata:WikiProject sum of all paintings/Wiki monitor/plwiki. Multichill (talk) 18:13, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Multichill, I will look through the list, but so far I spend 1 evening on first 2 and I still am not sure what is Our Lady of Katyn (Q11771538). --Jarekt (talk) 00:01, 25 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Some articles might not be about objects, but more about an artistic theme? Multichill (talk) 10:19, 25 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Yes, there is an definite object associated with Our Lady of Katyn (Q11771538) with an artist etc., but it is based on en earlier graphics of unknown origin, and there are several dozen other sculptures and plaques that use the same design, --Jarekt (talk) 20:37, 25 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Wikidata:WikiProject sum of all paintings/Possible paintings was broken for a while. I fixed it and improved it a bit. Could use a hand with the Polish part. Multichill (talk) 10:05, 26 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

English | español | français | العربية | Nederlands | русский | +/−

 

Congratulations! You now have the rights of administrator on Wikidata. Please take a moment to read the Wikidata:Administrators page and watchlist related pages (in particular Wikidata:Project chat, Wikidata:Requests for comment, and Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard), before launching yourself into page deletions, page protections, account blockings, or modifications of protected pages.

Please feel free to join us on IRC: #wikidata-admin @ irc.freenode.net. If you need access, you can flag someone down at @ irc.freenode.net. You may find Wikidata:Guide to Adminship to be useful reading. You may also want to consider adding yourself to meta:Template:Wikidata/Ambassadors, and to any similar page on your home wiki if one exists. (Check Wikipedia:Wikidata/Wikidatans (Q14964498).)

Please also add/update the languages you speak to your listing at Wikidata:List of administrators. You may also like to add your username to this list if you would not like that items you delete at RfD get marked as deleted automatically. Again, welcome to the admin corps!

Lymantria (talk) 17:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

  Comment Congratulations Jarekt --Alaa :)..! 09:57, 12 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

  Thank you. --Jarekt (talk) 12:33, 12 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi Jarekt, Congrats on recent admin rights! You recently deleted Bro. R. Jones-Bey (Q47208506) at another user's request. The deletion note (Empty item: content was: "Current Leader of the Moorish Science Temple of America, Inc.", ...) was enough for me to immediately locate a Moorish Science Temple of America (Q2400211) ref and a NYT ref. I don't know anything else about the individual to add other biographical data, but I will add these if there is "current leader of" property and you can restore it, as the subject is clearly identifiable, and appears notable. Apologies if I have missed a better way to request un-deletes! Salpynx (talk) 03:36, 13 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

User:Salpynx, I restored it. Please expand the item. --Jarekt (talk) 04:30, 13 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi Jarekt, in the module at c:Module:Wikidata_label there seems to be bug.

When people use it together with a qid that links to a category, the page is added to the category instead of a link to the category made. It needs a ":" somewhere after line 90.
--- Jura 15:09, 6 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

  Fixed Thanks for reporting Jura. The error only affected pages that had category sitelink to Commons. --Jarekt (talk) 15:48, 6 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello Jarekt, I see you had uploaded help pics for QuickStatements 2. I was wondering how to use it. For example, for these 3 commands (that work in #1)

• Q14418432 Dpl wieś w Chinach
• Q14418436 Dpl wieś w Chinach
• Q14418438 Dpl wieś w Chinach

What is the correct format to use for Quickstatments 2? Thanks. Artix Kreiger (talk) 00:35, 11 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Artix Kreiger did you tried the syntax outlined in Help:QuickStatements#Adding_labels,_aliases,_descriptions_and_sitelinks?

• Q14418438 Dpl "wieś w Chinach"

--Jarekt (talk) 17:13, 11 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Some time ago we created to above for imports from other items. Please use this instead of "imported from" (e.g. here). BTW, In ISO, I think "Pa" applies to all languages with Latin script, not just English.
--- Jura 07:18, 21 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I did not know about inferred from (P3452). I never heard about "Pa", but I do not think it would be usefull since multilingual terms are usually used with mw.language.getFallbacksFor and {{LangSwitch}} like templates to translate terms. "en" is the last language on all language fallback chains, so if all languages use the same symbol than we just have to set "en" version to that symbol and all the languages will fall back on that one. Setting it to "pa" would not have the same effect. --Jarekt (talk) 02:53, 22 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

I didn't know about the fall-back chain for monolingual strings. Is this new? Is there a Wikibase documentation for it?
--- Jura 04:18, 22 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

It is something that predates Wikidata. mw.language.getFallbacksFor does not have much. You can see c:File:MediaWiki fallback chains.svg for outdated diagram for old fallback chains. There is also some at c:Module:Fallback. Also you do not have to use fallback chains with monolingual strings, it is just the most logical approach used in templates like c:Template:LangSwitch for last decade. Lua version of the same template can be seen in c:Module:Artwork's LangSwitch function and is used in most Lua modules on Commons. --Jarekt (talk) 17:52, 22 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Cześć. Napisał do mnie na mojej stronie dyskusji użytkownik, któremu zdjąłem uprawnienie "zatwierdzonego użytkownika", ponieważ znajduje się w grupie "automatycznie zatwierdzonych użytkowników" i jego poprzednie uprawnienie jest dublem tego co posiada obecnie. On twierdzi, że przez to nie może edytować zabezpieczonych stron, np. Goel Ratzon (Q7189270). Czy jest to faktycznie możliwe? Mógłbyś to sprawdzić? Rzuwig^► 19:05, 13 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

It looks like you've entered information for a specific item called "Vest" in the ModeMuseum to the generic item vest (Q958210). Can you check? - PKM (talk) 21:02, 26 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Someone incorectly connected object in this image to vest (Q958210) and I become copying properties without realizing the mixup. I will clean it up. Thanks for letting me know. --Jarekt (talk) 03:09, 27 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Witaj. Zwróć uwagę, że game pie (Q5519964) dotyczy potrawy, a nie obrazu. Proszę, uwzględnij ten wyjątek podczas edycji. Z góry dziękuję. Nurni (talk) 17:02, 28 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Nurni Dziekuje, poprawilem File:Adriaen van Utrecht - Still Life with Games and Vegetables - Google Art Project.jpg i dodalem do Q23949213. --Jarekt (talk) 17:12, 28 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Temat powraca: https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q5519964&type=revision&diff=764775627&oldid=763573835 Nurni (talk) 19:57, 15 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

kilka stron trzeba przenieść z pola Mszał do właściwego, które te strony opisują. Czyli praktycznie prawie wszystkie. Z Missal (Q2004121) do Roman Missal (Q14943256). Ale problem nie tylko w tym. Z dodaniem nazwy w języku rosyjskim pojawił się taki problem, że ne mogłem zapisać zmian na stronie, więc udałem się na stronę ru danego artykułu, a tam w linkach językowych tylko: stwórz nowe dane, no ok. klikam to, bo myślę sobie, że mnie zapytają do czego chcę to podpiąć, a tu cóż kiepsko, bardzo kiepsko, Ferdek by się załamał. 81.210.72.131 21:44, 1 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Great public domain work. Thanks! You added public domain status to the manuscripts of Anne Frank. One thing to notice is that the public domain status of manuscripts is a difficult topic as the rulkes for unpublished works might apply (25 years after publication or 70 year after pma). Wikidata. Hannolans (talk) 00:46, 14 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

I was under impression that the manuscripts of Anne Frank was published in 1947 after some heavy editing by her father. There is a claim that 1947 copy was co-authored by Otto Frank and might still be copyrighted, however it seemed like original manuscript did not have that issue. Maybe the best course of action would be to ask at c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright. As discussed at Property_talk:P6216#Model_Item manuscripts of Anne Frank was intended to be one of the Model items, so I would like to get it right. --Jarekt (talk) 04:00, 14 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Not all sentences in the manuscripts were published. Otto Frank merged some sentences from different manuscripts and left some sentences unpublished (about sexual feelings). Most of those unpublished sentences were first published in 1986, and that will become public domain according to the Dutch court in 2036 in the Netherlands (due to a special postume works rule in the Netherlands). You can find the court ruling in Dutch here: https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/inziendocument?id=ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2015:9312 --Hannolans (talk) 22:12, 16 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hannolans, OK, so all manuscripts need to be corrected. We should not use applies to jurisdiction (P1001) = countries with 70 years pma or shorter (Q59542795) since that includes Holland. Is the manuscript in Public domain in Germany or France? It is also Copyrighted in the US.

I see you've been applying published more than 95 years ago (Q47246828) as copyright justification for a number of works.

I am not sure this is always the correct justification. In many cases where this is being applied, first publication was not in the United States, so arguably the correct reason would be "out of copyright in country of first publication before 1996".

Also, the description on published more than 95 years ago (Q47246828) is misleading. IIRC, works first published in the United States before its accession to the Berne Convention required their copyrights to have been renewed, if they were to last for the full period (now 95 years). The description text currently suggests that all works would be in copyright for 95 years, which is not true.

One issue may be that "published before 1924" is often used as a general backstop test for US copyrightability (which it is). But this doesn't mean that the work was necessarily first published in the U.S., nor that it was first published in compliance with US formalities. Jheald (talk) 19:15, 24 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

I'd also add that we may need to be quite careful with the "pma" assessments, because Wikidata may not yet be listing all the contributors to an edition of the work. Even if the main author died on a particular date, it is possible that the illustrator may have died later, or eg the writer of a foreword. So it may be that the copyright status of the edition only "applies to part", namely the text; and crucially for Commons it might not include the pictures.

It's probably important to try to identify references for where the copyright status is being quoted from. Jheald (talk) 19:23, 24 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Jheald, so far I was adding copyright statements to items published before 1800. All authors of such works should be dead for more than 100 years and according to c:Commons:Hirtle_chart all works published before 1924 (in and out of US) are PD, so we should be safe there too. My understanding is that published more than 95 years ago (Q47246828) describes c:Template:PD-US-expired and not c:Template:PD-US-no notice or any other PD-US template. We could just call it "95 years after publication", or "95 years since publication" and worry about 1977 part in 50 years from now when it becomes significant. --Jarekt (talk) 20:44, 24 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

That makes sense. I've changed the label and the description. Jheald (talk) 22:13, 24 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Jheald, as for your concern about "pma" assessments. Yes it is true that we might not be listing all the creators who might hold copyrights, or we might list them but have no date of death. I think it would be a rare false PD assesment, which would become a bit more probable in case of more recent publications. By the way I was planning to use this query to find candidate items. I guess one way to detect such cases would be to create database queries to specifically search for scenarios when as wikidata gets more data we can disprove PD claim. --Jarekt (talk) 04:26, 25 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

I ask you to protect one page User talk:OneLittleMouse from vandalism. 2001:AC8:25:36:0:0:0:2 06:03, 29 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Sure, now for 2 weeks only logged in users will be able to edit it. If it is still needed after 2 weeks let me know and I will extend it. --Jarekt (talk) 13:33, 29 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Great work on tackling the copyright status of published works. I am working on a similar scheme for newspapers and magazines by creating a field to hold the date that copyright protection begins based on whether there was a copyright renewal filed. I plan on using the data from http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/cce/firstperiod.html with their permission. It will be more complicated. --RAN (talk) 21:29, 8 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, if you are interested in copyright statements maybe you can look through Help:Copyrights and Wikidata:Hirtle chart and make sure text so far make sense. Also we might have to develop new properties and items to be used by P459 and P1001. I like your idea of adding copyright related data from sources like http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/cce/firstperiod.html. --Jarekt (talk) 03:18, 9 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Please give User:دلبر سنگراموی IP block exemption rights. Because he is un able to link his created article with other wikis. Like ur:عمادالدین نسیمی— Bukhari (Talk!) 14:13, 14 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Would it possible to create by bot all missing family name, and add that the people items? Regards, Yann (talk) 10:25, 20 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

I should be possible to run a query to find all missing family names, than use QS to create new items for them and add them to people items. There might be a way to make it into continuous bot task, but I never worked with those. --Jarekt (talk) 15:15, 20 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Why did you mark this as "public domain" outside the United States? The editor, Llewellyn Morgan Buell (Q59570140), who also wrote the Appendices and Notes, died in 1975. This will still be under copyright in most countries.

How many other works like this have you incorrectly tagged? --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:34, 20 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Both The First Part of King Henry the Fourth (Q59590118) and The Second Part of King Henry the Fourth (Q59590314) have similar issues. The editor died in 1958, and the volume contains notes and appendices written by the editor. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:40, 20 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

EncycloPetey, Editors usually are not considered authors and are not considered when calculating copyrights. Maybe in case of works with modern editors we should use applies to part, aspect, or form (P518) = body text (Q1378314). --Jarekt (talk) 20:02, 20 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

I don't know about EU copyright law, but US copyright law would disagree. Editors who add significant footnotes, endnotes, and appendices to a work can register for copyright protection of their creative works. There are also cases in which an editor selects from multiple copies of a text to assemble a specific edition; in such cases there is creative contribution on the part of the editor. It is not possible to judge a work solely by its "author", in the absence of editors, illustrators, or translators. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:32, 20 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

I consider author (P50), creator (P170), translator (P655), architect (P84), illustrator (P110) and designed by (P287) person when evaluating copyright. I agree that there could be a copyrights for footnotes, endnotes, and appendices, but edits to the text are generally not copyrighted. Diary of Anne Frank (Q6911) is a notable exception, where recent claims that editors also hold copyrights was met with a lot of criticism, where many people strongly disagree that editors are Anne Frank co-authors, especially since since the beginning the book was sold as her work alone. --Jarekt (talk) 21:52, 20 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

This is an interesting problem which I am not sure how to solve. I added an exemplar image to the item, but the item is about a lost painting (so there is no image). Is there a way to indicate that the image is not of the item, but illustrates the item? Thx. Jane023 (talk) 10:34, 3 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

I added instance of (P31) = artwork copy (Q23013246): faithful reproduction of an artwork, but it is breaking some constraints. May be there is a better way. --Jarekt (talk) 14:23, 3 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I also created an item for the painting that is linked in there - I don't know why I didn't think of doing that before. Jane023 (talk) 19:30, 3 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

• Hello Jarekt, I noticed that you had set copyright status (P6216) in this item, and in many others. Firstly, thanks you. When I saw that you had set this item in PD, I was at begining happy because this publication contains some old photos of species of which we have no illustration yet in W.Commons (example), but I noticed that the photos have been taken by Edward Alfred Briggs (Q43605996) who died in 1969. I understand very well that for this specific case the photographer is not listed as to be an author of the book, but have we defined a way to proceed in this case, text is free but photos/illustrations are unfree? and in the case that a book is in public domain but that contains photos from 5 photographers whose works of two of them are in PD but whose works of the three others are not yet in PD? or simply, do we want to do that, I mean, do we want to list all the potential copyrights that are involved in an artwork? Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:17, 9 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Per Wikidata:Hirtle chart text and photographs published before 1924 are PD in the US, but photographs by photographer who died in 1969 would be still copyrighted in other jurisdictions. For a while I was adding 2 jurisdictions at the same time, but now I am adding one at a time, whatever I can state with certainty based on database query. Additional copyright info should be added by hand. See Help:Copyrights--Jarekt (talk) 12:23, 9 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

.

Yeah, for this specific case, there is the same copyright status in USA for the text and for the images, and good news, I think that the copyright status is the same in Australia, though the rationale is here different for the text and for the images → if I understood rightly of what is written in Template:PD-Australia, then the photos are also PD in Australia because they were obviously taken before 1955.

I'm still curious on how to handle that in Wikidata, I guess that this is with with applies to part, aspect, or form (P518), but what part ? illustration (Q178659)? Christian Ferrer (talk) 14:38, 9 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

I asked though a little clarification to some experimented users about the wording of our template. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:31, 9 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi Jarek, you generally don't want to use title (P1476) on paintings. Look at the description of the property. It should be a published title of a work. That generally only holds for contemporary art where we know what title was given by the painter. For older works most titles were given by art historians. Multichill (talk) 19:49, 16 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Shoot, looks like you recently imported more than 5000 of these statements :-( Multichill (talk) 20:00, 16 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Multichill, Actually I did and than found out that something went wrong either with my QS codes or with QS tool and some fraction of my new additions were added to the wrong items. So I used first time Undo option on QS tool, so my last night additions should be all gone. Artwork template always used title (P1476) to populate artworks title field formatted by c:template:Title, so content of the c:template:Title used in the title field I am adding to title (P1476) property. Also if you look at old paintings like Portrait of a gentleman with a falcon (Q20537391) and the references like [2], they all seem to have Title field, and the logical place to add it seems to be title (P1476) property. I do not think others distinguish titles given by historians from titles given by artists, they are just titles the work is known under. --Jarekt (talk) 03:08, 17 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

The consensus is to not use the title property for this and you were part of the last conversation about this. You shouldn't be forcing this with an automated script.be forcing this with a robot.

You should either get consensus that this is the right property to use (for example at Wikidata talk:WikiProject sum of all paintings) or remove all the title statements you added. Multichill (talk) 09:24, 17 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Multichill: Looking at that discussion, if anything I would see the balance of opinion as being in favour of using title (P1476), especially if the title has been given to a painting in a published work.

I note in particular the contribution of Marsupium: "I definitely support the use of title (P1476) on artwork items as it allows the use of qualifiers and references", which I think is a very important point, and which you apparently found sufficiently convincing to restore the P1476 on Mona Lisa.

Both Jane023 and Kaldari seem to have considered that there was confusion; but neither wrote against either Module:Artwork drawing on P1476, or to have objected to P1476 values being added.

For what it's worth, I think Marsupium called this right. We need to be able to record multiple titles used for paintings, and we need to be able to reference who has used them. That seems to be clear that we need to have a statement, and title (P1476) is the obvious candidate.

Beyond that, I think Marsupium was also right that we need to review the single value constraint. IMO ideally there should be a single most-preferred value in each language, reflecting a title that is most customarily used (or no value if a fallback to another language is acceptable); with further values permissible at normal rank.

This leaves the question of how to indicate the painter's own name for the work (if any). That could perhaps be identified by a qualifier (eg "object has role") on the title statement, or possibly something like type of reference (P3865).

But on the key question, I do think that what Jarekt has been doing is appropriate and should continue; the population of title (P1476) with appropriate referencing should be encouraged. Just my 2c. Jheald (talk) 12:00, 17 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Multichill: I did not remembered about that discussion, and I was not trying to forcing any sides through scripts. My mass edits were, put in motion by this request to harvest titles for paintings from Artwork templates. And I just placed them where I expected to find them. If title (P1476) property is not appropriate for such titles than perhaps we should create new property to store them. Storing all titles in a single property would by my preference since most sources do not distinguish between titles for published works and titles for artworks and they just call it "title". However, I would be fine with either solution. --Jarekt (talk) 15:30, 17 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Zdjęcie z commons, które dodałeś (https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q60470960&oldid=886762714), nie odpowiada opisowi ze strony: https://clevelandart.org/art/1970.6 Nurni (talk) 13:25, 18 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Masz racje. To jest z powodu tego ze plik File:Clevelandart 1970.60.jpg zostal przeslany ze niepoprawnym zrodlem ([3]) dziekuje. --Jarekt (talk) 13:32, 18 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello Jarekt. Thanks for your edits to the many Wikidata items representing copyright law by country (such as Q5169277). You have added to "instance of" statements the value "statute (Q820655)", which refers to formal written enactments. I think the better value would be "law (Q7748)", which is broader and more generic. Your thoughts? -- Oa01 (talk) 08:55, 1 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Oa01, Yes it sounds like a better fit. --Jarekt (talk) 12:12, 1 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Glad to know you agree. Can you recommend a clever way to edit many Wikidata items at once, changing "statute" to "law" for example? Thanks. -- Oa01 (talk) 14:45, 1 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

The only way I can think of would be to use QuickStatements and create set of commands to remove "statute" and add "law". If you run into trouble, I can do it. --Jarekt (talk) 16:02, 1 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Revisions are done. I am new to QuickStatements so if you see anything odd about my edits on this batch of articles please let me know. Thanks. -- Oa01 (talk) 08:51, 2 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi Jarek, shouldn't a bot do that? Just this list is already over 75.000 paintings. That way you can also track on what creator it's based in the edit summary. Nice for cases where Jan Steen (Q205863) and Jan Steen (Q2483000) get mixed up. Multichill (talk) 14:32, 6 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Yes you are right. I was using QS to do small batches of edits for years, but this is much larger set of edits. As for edit summary I do not have any control over it in QS. At the moment I was adding them based on inception date so the identity of the painter was not certain. If you think such edit summary is required I would have to learn some other tools to do the job. --Jarekt (talk) 01:58, 7 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Custom edit summaries with QS are possible, see Help:QuickStatements#Comments, e.g. this edit. Cheers, --Marsupium (talk) 20:15, 7 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Marsupium, great I did not know about it. Thanks --Jarekt (talk) 01:05, 8 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

I see you're using User:JarektBot now. Just like any other wiki, this one has a bot policy too. You probably want to review it. Multichill (talk) 19:36, 15 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

In some previous discussions on the subject, I recall that adding statements through QuickStatements and PetScan and similar tools did not require pre-approval, like on Commons use of Cat-a-lot or VisualFileChange tools does not require any pre-approvals. However I see you point that the volume of my edits is such that I should get approval. I will ask at Wikidata talk:Bots. --Jarekt (talk) 20:20, 15 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Looks like you're making good progress. I was wondering, how are we going to model the US copyright part again? Take for example Q43095491. This is public domain in the countries with 100 years pma or shorter (Q60332278) countries. On Commons we also have a part for the USA. We should also cover that part here. https://copyright.cornell.edu/publicdomain has some good pointers. Basically everything before 1899 is all clear in the USA. So maybe reason "works created more than 120 years ago"? That would cover all the unpublished parts and also the 95 years for published works. I see at Wikidata:Hirtle chart and Wikidata:Hirtle chart individual items for the different cases. Having one umbrella item for the old stuff would be really convenient to cover most works. Multichill (talk) 17:21, 2 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Multichill, My interpretation of Wikidata:Hirtle chart, is that for old works you need to have date of publication ("published under the authority of the copyright owner") to establish copyright status in the US. I was reading about some paintings whose copyright was argued in courts and the definition of "publication" as applied to paintings is also very unclear. It seems like in the US you can publish something created much earlier, like "ancient works" (mentioned here) and get copyright protection (if you publish it at the right time, like in years 1977-2003 ). So, I will first explore all the "easy" cases where works are clearly in PD in the US, like published before 1924 or anonymous works created more than 120 years ago, etc., before jumping into more murky cases. One avenue of inquiry would be to find oldest still copyrighted works in the US (see here and here) and claim that anything older is most certainly in PD. We could create item for such case and use it as determination method. By the way, I am heading to my first Hackatron in Prague this month. Will I see you there? --Jarekt (talk) 16:31, 3 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

That looks like the fun Hanno likes to solve.

Yes, I'm going to be in Prague too. Great to hear you're coming too! I'm looking forward to the event. You can see the full list of people at mw:Wikimedia Hackathon 2019/Participant List. Multichill (talk) 16:38, 3 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

As publication date might always a bit unknown, we could write assumptions. At the moment in Commons we make the assumption that pre1923 works are PD. Probably we could add that PD-status with an assumption. Other option is that we will work with catalogs or check when a work became part of a public collection. With all those methods we should write the assumptions we made.--Hannolans (talk) 22:54, 5 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hannolans in US copyright law everything revolves around if something was published or not and if so than when. And to complicate things even more, it is quite unclear what it means to publish something like a painting: c:Commons:Publication#United_States has some definition and c:Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US has more. It also made difference if pu In case of old paintings (where painter died mode than 100 years ago and artwork was created more than 120 years ago) it was either:

• published during painter's life time, so before 1924 -> published more than 95 years ago (Q47246828)
• never published: many sub cases here but all result in public domain
• published by painter's estate in years 1924-1978 -> might still be copyrighted

I am not aware of any still copyrighted old artworks, however you can never be sure why something is in public domain in the US. On Commons we ignore US copyrights in case of 100 pma works, but we do not assume anything. c:Template:PD-old-100 lists "You must also include a United States public domain tag to indicate why this work is in the public domain in the United States" requirement which in most cases is impossible to fulfill. So unless we can create some "determination method" for old artworks with unclear publication details, I would not add anything about US copyrights. Wikimedia legal department did research leading to c:Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US. Perhaps they could look into this case or we could find some writings of someone else that did look into it. Than maybe we could find some determination metchod we could use. --Jarekt (talk) 03:55, 6 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Wwe could create statements like 'public domain because displayed in a public space (museum, park) without copy restrictions before 192x', 'public domain because published in a catalog before 192x'. We should know which artworks are acquired before 1923 by a museum, and which one were on display (before a certain date all artworks were on display as no depots existed). Basically, we need to know from each museum when they no longer displayed all the new acquired works, or from every museum all the exhibitions before 1923. For this, we could start with a shortlist with important national artmuseums that existed before 1923 and verify if it was possible to copy the artworks. Do some artmuseums already have the exhibition information in the API? --Hannolans (talk) 07:32, 6 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Hannolans, Lets look at Statue of Liberty (Q9202) it uses published more than 95 years ago (Q47246828) determination method and I think we should add additional explanation, like "Publication date is assumed to be 1886, when statute was placed in the public location without restriction on making copies" as a free text. I was thinking about using comment (DEPRECATED) (P2315), but in this discussion I was convinced to create ne property for it. So I started Wikidata:Property proposal/copyright clarification. --Jarekt (talk) 02:54, 8 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Alternatively we could add publication date (P577) to Statue of Liberty (Q9202) and a qualifier and/or source? publication date (P577) Will we add publication date (P577) to all artwork in Wikidata and all photographs in Commons? --Hannolans (talk) 06:28, 8 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hannolans, I have two concerns:

• That we are concept of publication date as applied to things like paintings, sculpture, handwritten manuscripts, etc. for which there is only one copy might be foreign to other users of the item, they would also show up in infoboxes, like c:template:Artwork confusing even more people.
• publication date for Statue of Liberty (Q9202) follows US legal definition of concept of publication. Other legal jurisdiction might have different definitions.

Otherwise I think it would have been a great to add as many publication date (P577) as we could if we could dig out enough facts to support such claim. My general philosophy on adding copyright statement to items would be to add as many as we can, based on external data or facts stored in the wikidata, but not to expect to be able to do it for all items for artworks or photographs for which we have images on Commons. Especially US copyrights for old artworks, with our current understanding of US copyright laws, I do not expect to be able to tell with certainty if the works where published or not, especially since publication only counts if it happen "under the authority of the copyright owner". --Jarekt (talk) 12:32, 8 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello.
We had several intersections on Wikimedia Commons. Can you give me some advices with respect to Wikidata? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:18, 4 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Incnis Mrsi, I am not sure what do you want to know. If you want to learn more about Wikidata, I would look up items for some articles you know a lot about and care about and see if you can add more properties based on other items for similar topics. I will be happy to answer more specific questions if you have any. Cheers. --Jarekt (talk) 20:36, 4 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I am a bit upset and my posting above looked incoherent. My specific question is: who may be interested in me here? Which qualified job is valuable for Wikidata? Where to go? You may understand it as my request for “regular” employment on the site, while I know little about opportunities here for people with strong abstract imagination and debugging skills. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Incnis Mrsi, One think I am working on, where I could use some help is modeling of copyright information on Wikidata. Most people that spend time on Commons are familiar with Copyrights and the way we deal with it there. I am working on adding copyright statements to items on Wikidata, for things like books, paintings, photographs, or other artworks and works in general. I wrote Help:Copyrights describing the approach and use SPARQL queries you can find at Help:Copyrights/maintenance for finding items to add things to, or items where something seems wrong. My main tool for adding stuff is QuickStatements. If you want to put some of your imagination and debugging skills to use you are welcome to help. If you are interested I would read first and than try some of the queries, maybe develop new ones or verify that current ones are as efficient as possible and return correct results. Other thing you can always help with is to look into fixing flagged issues. See User:Jarekt#Properties_related_to_Commons and click on any "constraint violations" link. I can explain mode if you are interested. --Jarekt (talk) 21:49, 4 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Jarekt.

"Jean-Louis Beuzon" doesn't exist : "J. L. Beuzon" is the common signature of the brothers artists Joseph Beuzon (1864-1940) [4] and Louis Beuzon (1872-1949) [5].

Could you change the Wikidata and Wikimedia Commons pages, please ?

Best regards. --Guise (talk) 11:08, 14 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

  Done --Jarekt (talk) 00:37, 16 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much ! --Guise (talk) 00:36, 18 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello (excuse my english : I'm French and I can read english but it's more difficult to write). Jarekbot made some mistake on Il est minuit (Q25397342) , Le Manoir des Fantômes (Q25397347) and Choc (Q25397294). It added :

• statut des droits d'auteur (P6216): domaine public (Q19652), #quickstatements; #temporary_batch_1559142680556; Based on 1901 publication date
• then juridiction concernée (P1001): États-Unis (Q30), #quickstatements; #temporary_batch_1559142680556
• and at last méthode de détermination (P459): publié il y a plus de 95 ans (Q47246828), #quickstatements; #temporary_batch_1559142680556.
• These 3 comics began in 1975, 1975 and 1959 and disappeared in 1982, 1983 and 1983. So they are not in public domain. I delete the action of Jarekbot but I don't know if the same mistake wase made on others elements. I hope it will not again add these errors. With kindest regards, --Olivier Tanguy (talk) 20:49, 29 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Olivier Tanguy: ceci est dû à la date de publication en siècle... qui est donc 1901 pour la machine. Il faudrait éviter ces dates séculaires, ou aller chercher la "date de début".

@Jarekt:

apparently, this was done because of century date, but the qualifier start time (P580) gives the right publishing date :)

could you modify your bot behaviour, so that it does not add copyright status (P6216) on items with century publication date (P577), or looks for the qualifiers, please ?

thanks for the great job you do on this... \o/ --Hsarrazin (talk) 22:23, 29 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Hsarrazin, Olivier Tanguy: Thanks for reporting this. Using queries like

SELECT distinct ?item  ?dop {
	?item p:P6216/pq:P1001 wd:Q30 .
	?item p:P6216/pq:P459  wd:Q47246828 . 

    ?item p:P577 ?statement .
    ?statement psv:P577 [
                wikibase:timePrecision "7"^^xsd:integer ;
                wikibase:timeValue ?dop ;
              ]
	FILTER (?dop > "1900-01-01T00:00:01"^^xsd:dateTime) 

}

I managed to find a few more examples, which I reverted. I will build in a check for date precission in future queries or run queries afterwards to search for problematic copyright statements. --Jarekt (talk) 02:23, 30 May 2019 (UTC) LIMIT 200 Jarekbot continues with the same problem.--Olivier Tanguy (talk) 17:14, 30 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi Jarekt,

I just discovered Help:Copyrights and Help:Copyrights/maintenance - that's great, thanks !

I work on wikisource, and import many publications and written works on wikidata. Generally, I work author by author, which means I know the copyright status, and it's generally the same for all works I add a the same time.

Could you please help me build a query to systematically add copyright status on all items linked to a specific author when I work on them ?

Thank you very much :) --Hsarrazin (talk) 08:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

SELECT distinct ?item   ?itemLabel 
where { 
  ?item wdt:P31/wdt:P279* wd:Q7725634 . 
  ?item wdt:P50 wd:Q45765 .
  FILTER NOT EXISTS {?item wdt:P6216 [] } .            
  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE],en" }
}

Try it!

Will find all the literary works by Jack London (Q45765) which do not have copyright statement. --Jarekt (talk) 03:19, 31 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

 

This Finnish work Q52147429 has been categorized by JarekBot with 80 years pma. Finland has however 70 years pma. I have not checked whether there are more errors of the kind. Both statements applies to jurisdiction (P1001) countries with 80 years pma or shorter (Q61830521) and determination method or standard (P459) 80 years or more after author(s) death (Q29940641) are incorrect. Cheers, Susanna Ånäs (Susannaanas) (talk) 06:09, 1 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

It says 80 years or shorter. 70 years is shorter than 80 years. The most often used one is countries with 100 years pma or shorter (Q60332278) now (see for example on The Night Watch (Q219831)). Of course the Netherlands has 70 years, so 100 years is more than enough. This is in line with the templates Template:PD-old-80 and Template:PD-old-100 on Commons. Multichill (talk) 09:36, 1 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Yes, but why would you not use the 70 years or shorter, don't you think it's misleading? The Commons template could be changed IMO. –Susanna Ånäs (Susannaanas) (talk) 11:19, 1 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

"Countries and regions with copyright protection for authors' lifetime plus 80 years, or less, after their deaths" is the description. Can you explain what you consider misleading? Multichill (talk) 11:48, 1 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

I agree it's not incorrect, but I assume 80 pma would not be the recommended way of stating the copyright duration for a Finnish work, right? –Susanna Ånäs (Susannaanas) (talk) 07:50, 2 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Susanna Most countries follow 70 years pma, but not all, also many apply it retroactively to older works, but some (like US or Spain) do not. So Q52147429 could be in Public Domain in Finland but it might not be in other countries like US, Mexico, or Spain. We always try to provide copyrights that apply to the most countries we can. On Commons we have internal requirement that work needs be be PD in US and in country of origin, so it matters on Commons that is the copyright status specifically in country of origin. But on Wikidata we do not have such requirements for items ( we have items for copyrighted works), so we do not need to track what is the copyright status specifically in the country of origin. --Jarekt (talk) 01:34, 3 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

OK, I will be interested in following the work on copyright modelling on Wikidata and following the best practises. Cheers, Susanna Ånäs (Susannaanas) (talk) 18:40, 3 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Could you please explain this edit? Did you use a bot to add this information? Could you please check that this was not also added elsewhere? Thanks, Yann (talk) 07:46, 8 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Yann, The issue is File:Albert Lebourg, c. 1895, Notre Dame de Paris.jpg which was associated incorrectly with Mont Sainte-Victoire seen from Bellevue (Q3210778) item. Q3210778 was missing a title and The file had c:template:title my module detects that and creates QS command and add the file to c:Category:Artworks with Wikidata item: quick statements. --Jarekt (talk) 11:13, 8 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hey Jarek, I noticed [6]. Here you use start time/end time instead of earliest/latest date. See this query for more paintings with the same problem. We should probably get this fixed. Any idea how? Multichill (talk) 12:44, 8 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

At the moment, c:Module:Artwork uses use start time/end time to model c:template:Other date's "from-until" option and earliest/latest date to model "between" option. c:File:Hendrik Willem Mesdag - Kalme zee.jpg uses "from-until" option. I could place some code so inception is always earliest/latest date. Once that was fixed I could use QS to remove such inceptions which were added by me, and c:Module:Artwork will regenerate QS commands. That would be the simplest way I know. --Jarekt (talk) 03:06, 9 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Would it be possible to add automatically (with QS or a bot) every work in c:Category:Montagne Sainte-Victoire by Paul Cézanne in Mont Sainte-Victoire (Q3494409) as has part(s) (P527) (and conversely adding part of the series (P179) for each item}? It is very tedious to do it manually. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:18, 9 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Idem for

• L'Estaque (Q64500298) and c:Category:L'Estaque by Paul Cézanne
• Baigneuses (Bathers) (Q64214461) and c:Category:Bathers by Paul Cézanne

Yann, I guess the crux of the issue is to harvest all the unique item numbers for all the artwork items from those pages. Once you have a list of item numbers than it is easy to do all kinds of operations adding part of the series (P179) to all or adding all to has part(s) (P527) of the series item. In the past I used this AWB module to scrape item numbers, but I suspect there might be easier ways to get them. Anyway with that module I got following items

• Q64239490
• Mont Sainte-Victoire (Q64214826)
• Q64280962
• Q64256137
• Mont Sainte-Victoire Seen from Les Lauves (Q64255035)
• La Montagne Sainte-Victoire vue des Lauves (Q64252234)
• Q64253294
• Mont Sainte-Victoire with Large Pine (Q6903108)
• La montagne Sainte-Victoire (Q3823217)
• Mountains Mont Sainte-Victoire Seen from the Bibémus Quarry (Q682750)
• La Montagne Sainte-Victoire vue des Lauves (Mont Sainte-Victoire Seen from Les Lauves) (Q28778014)
• Mont Sainte-Victoire (Q19911958)
• Hameau à Payennet près de Gardanne (Hamlet at Payennet, near Gardanne) (Q64139096)
• Mont Sainte-Victoire and Château Noir (Q18688303)
• La Montagne Sainte-Victoire vue du bosquet du Château Noir (Q64240845)
• Mont Sainte-Victoire and the Viaduct of the Arc River Valley (Q6903107)
• Mont Sainte-Victoire and the Viaduct of the Arc River Valley (Q6903107)
• Mont Sainte-Victoire (Q19911958)
• Mont Sainte-Victoire 1886–1887 (Q23940181)
• La Montagne Saint-Victoire (Q17494319)
• Montagne Sainte-Victoire, from near Gardanne (Q20189870)
• Montagne Sainte-Victoire 1890 (Q18685993)
• Mont Sainte-Victoire (Q20808604)
• Mont Sainte-Victoire (Q20808602)
• Q64263230
• Q64262379
• Mount Sainte-Victoire (Q64273202)
• Q64297924
• Mont Sainte-Victoire seen from Bellevue (Q3210778)
• Q64299997
• Château Noir and Mont Sainte-Victoire (Q18688318)
• Mont Saint-Victoire (La Montagne Sainte-Victoire) (Q28126505)
• Mont Saint-Victoire (La Montagne Sainte-Victoire) (Q28126507)
• Mount Sainte-Victoire (Q60517723)
• Toward Mont Sainte-Victoire (Vers la Montagne Sainte-Victoire) (Q28126451)
• Mount Sainte-Victoire (Q21730727)

Could you verify that all of them are part of that series? If you want I can add properties to them using QS or you can. Either way. --Jarekt (talk) 17:02, 10 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Yes, this list looks OK. I am still very much a newbie about using QS here, although I like to learn ;o). Regards, Yann (talk) 09:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Yann, Do the following steps:

1. Grab the Q numbers above and copy them to column A of a spreadsheet, then use find and replace to remove ":*" AND ""
2. Copy "P179" to column B and "Q3494409" to column C for all the rows that have Q numbers
3. Copy one row of columns A, B and C
4. Open https://tools.wmflabs.org/quickstatements/#/batch and paste
5. press "Import V1 commands" (upper one)
6. You will likely have to go through login at this stage and might have to redo last 3 steps
7. if it works do the same with the rest of rows
8. rearrange columns and commands and do Q3494409 Tab P527 tab Q64239490 set

Let me know if it works for you. --Jarekt (talk) 02:35, 12 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Do you think pl:Autoportret (obraz Edwarda Hoppera) and https://whitney.org/collection/works/6008 are the same? I'm not sure. If yes, please add Whitney Museum of American Art artwork ID (P6738) 6008 to Self Portrait (Q25415587). Multichill (talk) 10:55, 9 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Yes they seem to be the same. --Jarekt (talk) 04:07, 10 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello Jarekt, I noticed that JarektBot added the claim

⟨ x ⟩ copyright status (P6216)   ⟨ public domain (Q19652)      ⟩
determination method or standard (P459)   ⟨ published more than 95 years ago (Q47246828)      ⟩

to a lot of films that where made in 1924. But according to http://www.publicdomainsherpa.com/copyright-restoration.html films stay copyrighted for 95 years, so a film made in 1924 is copyrighted till the end of 2019 and enters the public domain in 2020 (see also en:Public domain film). I know quite little about copyright in the US, but according to those sources these statements seem to be wrong and should be probably removed from films made in 1924, again. Regards, - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 10:52, 17 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Valentina.Anitnelav, you are right, I thought I was adding it only to items with date of publication before 1924-01-01. I will look into it. --Jarekt (talk) 12:04, 17 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

I've been working on items for early fashion houses that have redlink Creator templates in Commons (example: Lucile (Q64833663). The Creator template doesn't pick up "inception" and "dissolved" as beginning and end of work period. is it better to also add "work period (start)" and "work period (end)" to these businesses in WD, or to just add those fields manually in the Creator template? It seems like "work period (start)" and "work period (end)" are intended for persons, not companies. - PKM (talk) 20:31, 28 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Creator templates were meant for people. It is fine to extend Creator templates to cover fashion houses, but I would not be adding fields to Wikidata that make no sense for particular subject. It is better to model it as well as possible in Wikidata even if those fields are not picked up by Creator template than just add it manually on Commons. --Jarekt (talk) 21:55, 29 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Okay, thanks. - PKM (talk) 23:49, 29 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi Jarekt,

I noticed that you did some QuickStatements on Q2105660, the Amsterdam Public Library Foundation, adding an image (P18).

I'm running this project on public libraries in the Netherlands (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:WikiProject_Netherlands_Public_Libraries), where I'm working on data modelling both library branches (such as Q50413436) and library organisations (such as Q2105660), where a library organisation typically has multiple branches (see P527 on Q2105660). In the Q-items about library organisations I'm trying to avoid including an image of (P18) a library building, as I feel a single building is not typically representative for the entire organisation.

In Q2105660 I instead refer to the branch that is the headquarters (P159) of the organisation, and show an image there, as you can for instance see in Q50413436. This is the reasons why I removed the image https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Biblioteca_em_IJburg.jpg from Q2105660. I hope you now understand my reason for doing so. (ie for reasons of data consistency)

Kind regards, --OlafJanssen (talk) 10:37, 17 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Olaf, I do not know much about public libraries in the Netherlands or many other items I am editing, but I work on exporting data people contributed for last 15 years on Commons to Wikidata. That has inherent danger that if data contributed hare has issues than I coly those issues to Wikidata. The image come from c:Institution:Openbare Bibliotheek Amsterdam page you created and linked to Q2105660. If the link is wrong or the image is wrong please correct that page on Commons as well. --Jarekt (talk) 12:52, 19 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Ok, thanks for clearifying I'll check on Commons as well. --OlafJanssen (talk) 16:47, 24 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello, another Dutch person here. I prefer items to have images. To quote image (P18): "image of relevant illustration of the subject". Adding a nice photo of the main building to Amsterdam Public Library Foundation (Q2105660) seems like an relevant illustration and a improvement to me. I would add media legend (P2096) as a qualifier to avoid confusion. What do you think of this edit Olaf? Multichill (talk) 17:12, 19 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Multichill: I'm struggling with this new image, as Q2105660 is really about the (abstract) library organisation itself, rather than the headquarters and/or the main building of the organisation. The item dedicated to the HQ of the organisation Q50413436 does have an image. If Q2105660 should carry an image, it should be the logo of the organisation imho --OlafJanssen (talk) 16:47, 24 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

But for that we have logo image (P154). Multichill (talk) 20:28, 24 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

You re-added false VIAF and GND values for Jürgen Herrmann (Q1310121). They apply to Jürgen M. Herrmann (Q65934932). I’m sure it was by accident, maybe you could check why you added them? Thank you! --Emu (talk) 18:01, 4 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Emu, I just moved VIAF and GND values from c:Category:Jürgen Herrmann. GND value is definitely for Jürgen M. Herrmann (Q65934932), but VIAF links back to Jürgen Herrmann (Q1310121). I send en email to VIAF to correct it. --Jarekt (talk) 16:27, 17 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! Generally, there seems to be no need to contact VIAF as its algorithm should change the link to Wikidata within one or two months once a more suitable Wikidata item is available. --Emu (talk) 16:46, 17 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Done --Emu (talk) 07:59, 29 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi Jarekt, thanks for doing the imports from Commons. Generally, it seems to work out quite well. I couldn't quite explain myself this one. --- Jura 07:23, 10 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

• Oh .. similarly Q66124120,Q66377918. Labels seem to come from Q66378093 or Q66378149 these include labels from other paintings. Likely a problem with the quarry-query. --- Jura 07:47, 10 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

An undo with https://tools.wmflabs.org/editgroups/b/QSv2T/1566219037193/ probably fixes it. --- Jura 08:11, 10 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Jura yes something went wrong and I will undo the whole batch. Thanks --Jarekt (talk) 10:42, 10 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

RMaung (WMF) 17:37, 10 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Ukrainian Wikipedia (Q199698) have both official name (P1448) and title (P1476). Why? Please remove title (P1476), thanks!!! --2001:B07:6442:8903:C4AD:B849:2AF8:ED72 15:51, 20 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

I ask you to protect this page User:OneLittleMouse for an indefinite period. Reason; harassment vandalism attack. 85.26.165.60 13:11, 7 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

I protected User:OneLittleMouse for a month, if there is more vandalism afterwards I will extend it. --Jarekt (talk) 13:36, 7 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I created a new page where I started collecting sites that could be added to Mix'n'match and I plan to expand it with the ones that already have scrapers by category. Feel free to use, expand. Best, --Adam Harangozó (talk) 09:59, 17 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi Jarekt,

some of your new items about paintings have no "instace of" statements.

Kind regards, --ChristianSW (talk) 11:00, 22 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

  Fixed thanks --Jarekt (talk) 13:16, 30 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi Jarek, Can you merge these two duplicate pages? Thanks. Ecummenic (talk) 02:35, 28 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

  Done --Jarekt (talk) 13:17, 30 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi Jarekt. Five years ago, you made an adaptation of the Template:Date on Wikimedia Commons. It works very well, I test it with different languages, with different alphabets and different figures.

With an user from CA Wiki, we are discussing on the French bistro of Wikidata of the idea to create infoboxes and tables shared on different Wikipedias, including small Wikipedias. Ideas were written at this subject here yesterday. Today, I made a test with country of citizenship (P27) and Template:Statement+ on this talk page. All is good, and works. Different tests were made with languages. But I just have a problem with Template:Date from Wikidata : it display only in English and when I want to display July 2011 with 2011-07 I finally get 1 July 2011.

Can you make an adaptation of this template to have the same level of translation we have on Wikimedia Commons ? Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick (talk) 10:46, 2 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

User:Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick What you are proposing sounds very similar to some of the infoboxes I created on Commons like c:template:Artwork, or c:template:Book. They are fully multilingual as Commons is multilingual project. --Jarekt (talk) 03:26, 3 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Yes, on Commons we have a good Template:Date able to adapt to a very big number of languages, here on Wikidata it is again basic. I propose the development of Wikidata Template:Date because I am not a programmer. I am better to write documentation. Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick (talk) 09:18, 3 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thank you Jarekt, the result is perfect. You can see an example here for BN language. Figures are also different for farsi, more generally it is very interesting to have dates in our language. Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick (talk) 11:57, 3 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello, could you please merge Q56293060 and Q48961500, thanks. 2A02:2168:A00:44CB:0:0:0:1 09:05, 3 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Also on Philip K. Dick (award received): «Science Fiction and Fantasy Hall of Fame» and «Science Fiction Hall of Fame» — duplicates. 2A02:2168:A00:44CB:0:0:0:1 09:14, 3 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

It seems to be fixed now. --Jarekt (talk) 19:17, 10 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

I ask you to protect this page User talk:OneLittleMouse for an indefinite period. 94.245.135.225 16:01, 10 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Are you User:OneLittleMouse? if so please log in and leave me a message when logged in. Should I protect that page so only loged in users can leave messages? --Jarekt (talk) 16:12, 10 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

View history and protection. 94.245.135.225 16:15, 10 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

please protect this page User talk:OneLittleMouse for an indefinite period. Reason; edit warring. 94.245.135.225 16:38, 10 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

I will if the request comes from User:OneLittleMouse. Can you log in and leave me a message? --Jarekt (talk) 16:43, 10 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

User:OneLittleMouse Not active in wikidata. 94.245.135.225 16:46, 10 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

This User:OneLittleMouse Not active in wikidata. Please protege User talk:OneLittleMouse edit warring and spam. 94.245.135.225 16:52, 10 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

One does not have to be active on Wikidata to be able to log in. Usernames are global so all users have a username that moves from project to project. --Jarekt (talk) 17:11, 10 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi Jarekt, this one needs some serious untangling. Looks like the lost painting and several drawings got mixed up. Multichill (talk) 13:11, 17 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

ouch, it is a mess, We had some other lost paintings and they were a mess too. I will clean it. --Jarekt (talk) 13:55, 17 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi Jarek, can you run this job again? Maybe set it up to run on a regular basis? Multichill (talk) 17:24, 28 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

I can try to run it again. I rely on SPARQL queries and some of the were timing out for me last time I tried. As for a set up to run on a regular basis, I have never learned how to do that. --Jarekt (talk) 22:18, 28 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

I will start soon with a bot to regularly set the copyright status for artists as soon as that property is created. Based on that status, I can schedule a second bot for works. --Hannolans (talk) 23:02, 28 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

As you probably know the queries I was using are at Help:Copyrights/maintenance. --Jarekt (talk) 23:44, 28 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Can you do this again? Multichill (talk) 17:28, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Sure --Jarekt (talk) 01:57, 4 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

I've made Wikidata:WikiProject sum of all paintings/Top collections by number of paintings with public domain image based on the data you added. Adding the copyright status finally gave me a way to track what collections are in need of images. Multichill (talk) 15:44, 4 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

We currently have about 450.000 paintings of which 222.000 have copyright status (P6216) of which 220.000 are public domain (Q19652). Maybe also interesting to start adding copyrighted (Q50423863) to paintings we know are still in copyright? Did you already look into that? I added it to Wikidata:WikiProject sum of all paintings/Property statistics to have an easy overview. Multichill (talk) 18:36, 4 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Your bot marked this as PD because it was published more than 95 years ago, but it was published in 1925. It was not published more than 95 years ago. The reason it's in public domain is that the copyright was not renewed. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:41, 3 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

The query I was using only picked up dates prior to 1925-01-01, but Q43805301's date is "1925-00-00". I did not think one can add a date with incorrect month and day. I will search for those and correct. Thanks for alerting me. --Jarekt (talk) 03:52, 3 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

This also was not published more than 95 years ago. It looks like the parameters set for your bot are wrong, and you'll need to check everything. "More than 95 years ago" would be 1924 or earlier, not works published in 1925. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:44, 3 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

I see you created heading (P7787). Can you please do all the steps described at Wikidata:Property_creators#Steps_when_creating_properties? Multichill (talk) 18:02, 14 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Altar Frontal with Man of Sorrows and Saints (Q29385415) has five “depicts” statements in wikidata but only two of them appear in Commons c:File:Altar Frontal with Man of Sorrows and Saints.jpg - can you help me understand what’s happening? The two in Commons are the least important ones...do I need to mark some of them preferred rank? Thanks - PKM (talk) 04:03, 20 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

PKM, I guess the relevant code is c:Module:Wikidata_art lines: 425-426 and 64-86. Especially "entity:getBestStatements" in line 67 is causing issues. I think that currently only instance of (P31) statements with the highest rank are identified and I am only accepting items with instance of (P31)=human (Q5). So it seems like because there is a mix of ranks only 2 entities have Q5 among the highest rank. I will try to fix that. --Jarekt (talk) 04:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Awesome, thank you! - PKM (talk) 04:34, 20 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

PKM, Should be   Fixed now. --Jarekt (talk) 05:16, 20 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

That was fast! Perfect. Thanks so much. - PKM (talk) 05:27, 20 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Witaj! Przepraszam, nieco wiem języka polskiego oraz źle - angielskiego. Ponieważ tutaj edytuję stosunkowo niedawno, nie znam wszystkich szczegółów. Jednak proszę Ci jako administratora o zwrócenie uwagi na najpoważniejsze błędy, które piszę dalej @Infovarius:, pomimo mojej prośby, by tego nie robił [7]. Naprzykład, tutaj. Dziękuję za uwagę oraz pozdrawiam ! --Бучач-Львів (talk) 12:13, 23 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Бучач-Львів, Ja nie znam faktów na temat Ivan Beley (Q12081730), wiec mi trudno sprawdzić, kto ma racje. Widzę ze zmieniłeś country of citizenship (P27), zdaje mi się ze poprawnie jako ze ta cześć Europy, oraz Voinyliv (Q550556) i Lviv (Q36036), były pod kontrola Austrii podczas jego życia. Twoje zmiany, były by dożo lepsze jeśli byś dodał źródła, by udowodnić ze fakty które podajesz nie są twoją opinią tylko faktem popartym źródłem. Jest to zwłaszcza prawie konieczne jeśli poprawiasz dane podane przez innych. Przeczytaj Help:Sources / Help:Источники (polska i ukraińska wersja nie jest do końca przetłumaczona). Ja się zgadzam ze User:Infovarius także nie powinien dodawać informacji bez źródeł, zwłaszcza kontrowersyjnych danych jak Rosyjskie obywatelstwo dla osób narodowości Ukraińskiej. Wikidata na troch problem z narodowością: mamy country of citizenship (P27) oraz mamy ethnic group (P172) ale nie mamy deklaracji dla narodowości. Zobacz Wikidata:Property proposal/Nationality gdzie zaproponowałem utworzenie takiej deklaracji. Pozdrawiam. --Jarekt (talk) 03:09, 24 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Now błędy, najpoważniejsze, jak sądzę, celowe 1, 2 3. Pozdrawiam! --Бучач-Львів (talk) 11:46, 27 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Do you know of a tool that will take the data at c:File:Wandtapijt_met_Venus_als_personificatie_van_de_Lente_Portières_des_dieux_(serietitel),_BK-1953-55-A.jpg and make an Artwork template that can be exported to Wikidata, or otherwise export this data? Thanks - PKM (talk) 23:23, 28 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

No not really, That file has totally unstructured format as far as I can tell. If you have a lot of identically formatted files, you can scrape it and manually map to wikidata statements. If you have nicely formatted Artwork template you can create empty item, pass ID to Artwork template and use QS to transfer data. But here I do not have any ideas. --Jarekt (talk) 23:31, 28 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Okay, thanks for the info. Looks like I’ll end up copy-pasting from the existing template to an Artwork template and then use QS to pass to wikidata. PKM (talk) 03:28, 30 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi, maybe the name of the item should be changed to "person depicted in Sha-có-pay"? The Wikipedia page uses the name "Sha-có-pay" for the painting, so I thought there was made a mistake. [8] - Premeditated (talk) 19:20, 31 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

The problem was that someone associated item about a person with article about a painting, which was the source of the confusion. We do have Sha-có-pay, The Six, Chief of the Plains Ojibwa (Q20540320) for the painting and I moved all the sitelinks there, so I think it is fine now. --Jarekt (talk) 19:56, 31 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi Jarekt. Today, I see the label doen't display on Wikidata:WikiProject Supertemplates/Translations and Wikidata:WikiProject Supertemplates/doc/P710/Case 1 (Giro d'Italia 2019), and I can't explain this. I never encounter problems before. I have a look on templates, but I don't find where an edit was made. Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick (talk) 16:26, 6 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Jérémy-Günther-Heinz, That is puzzling I can see that {{#invoke:Wikidata label|getLabel|item=Q75820373|lang=en}} also gives "Q75820373" (trying again: "WikiProject Supertemplates"), while it should return the label. Something must have changed. I will investigate. --Jarekt (talk) 03:21, 7 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Jérémy-Günther-Heinz, see ticket:T244529 --Jarekt (talk) 04:58, 7 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, now it seems to work again. Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick (talk) 08:32, 8 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Please add the page in English Wikipedia (Las Labradas (Sinaloa)) to item, to me not works and that very strangely. Wikidata show it to me:

Could not save due to an error.
The save has failed.

--Urbanuntil (talk) 10:53, 28 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

  Done --Jarekt (talk) 13:25, 28 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanx for the correction. I was confused because also the website of the Guggenheimer Museum has the wrong title for the image. I suggest renaming file:GUGG Lion Hunt After Delacroix.jpg and indicating on the file description page that there in an error on the source URL. What do you think? --Bjs (talk) 14:52, 28 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

It is confusing and I am not sure if the website is wrong of maybe it is alternative title of Q52086981. So https://www.guggenheim.org/artwork/2780 either got wrong image or wrong title or it uses alternative title. --Jarekt (talk) 23:13, 1 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Since there really exits a woodcut by Franz Marc titled Lion Hunt After Delacroix (in German: Löwenjagd nach Delacroix, see Q19912462) which shows a woodcut copy of the original oil painting (see Q18600240) by the french painter Eugène Delacroix, it appears to be much more probable that it is an error than that it is an alternative title. It is not clear whether the Guggenheim webpage got the wrong image or the wrong title. However, since the indicated dimensions are in portrait format, while the woodcut after Delacroix is in landscape format, it appears that the title is wrong. --Bjs (talk) 11:53, 3 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Bjs, The two paintings you merged:

•  
  Grazing Horses IV (Q52086955)
•  
  Grazing Horses IV (Q52086826)

are not the same artwork. All we know about Q52086955 is image, painter and title. File:Franz_Marc_-_Red_Horses.jpg and Q52086955 might be someone else's painting inspired by Franz_Marc's painting, but it might be his. It also seem to be painted on tiles. See also [9] --Jarekt (talk) 04:34, 4 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

I first was in doubt, too. I thought it might be a further development of the Grazing Horses series. However, I could not find anything about it in the literature, and it doesn'r fit into Marc's style at that time. It therefore appears not to be an original painting by Marc, as indicated in the sources. It rather apepars to be a reproduction of Weidende Pferde IV by an unknown artist, maybe as street art on a tiled wall. Since no source indicates the author, I doubt whether the image is notable enough for a wikidata item of its own. If we restore the item, it should imho be indicated that it is a work of an unknown artist after Franz Marc.--Bjs (talk) 07:45, 4 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

You removed the wikidata parameter from the template on the image description page. However, there still appears the description of Grazing Horses IV (Q52086826) to which Grazing Horses IV (Q52086955) redirects, even after purging the page. How can that be? --Bjs (talk) 08:02, 4 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Wikidata item ID was still in SDC. --Jarekt (talk) 13:16, 4 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! --Bjs (talk) 15:17, 4 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Please also have a look at possible 1912 duplicates under User:Bjs/Marc#Unclear (I'm still working at 1913). --Bjs (talk) 08:32, 4 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Bjs, I am not going be much help with Franz Marc works, as I do not know much about him. I run into your edits when I am fixing c:Category:Artworks with redirected Wikidata link which result from item merges, and I often check if I agree with the merge. --Jarekt (talk) 13:24, 4 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I'll go on with the cases that appear to be clear and maybe ask you when I'm in doubt. --Bjs (talk) 15:17, 4 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

•  
  Green Horse in Landscape (Q19912460)
•  
  The green horse (Q52087001)

Most of the duplicates were imho clear, and you appearently did not see an error in my further mergings. Howether, I'm not sure about these two. They are not exactly the same, but quite similar. The first one is a Franz Marc painting in the Guggenheim Museum. The second one has been photographed by an Italian in a commercial art gallery in Munich. It is not clear whether it is a painting by Franz Marc himself or by another one after Franz Marc. I left them both and referred by the property P460 from one to the other. Do you think that is ok? --Bjs (talk) 19:00, 11 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Bjs, Those are two separate works at two separate museums. Guggenheim piece looks like sketch for the the other one, which seems like usually resides at Franz Marc Museum. I used different from (P1889) to join them. I wonder if there is some reference catalog of his works, to use as base of such cataloging. --Jarekt (talk) 03:26, 12 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

You are right, thanks for finding out about Franz Marc Museum. There is a catalog of his works, I'll have a look at the Bavarian State Library. --Bjs (talk) 06:03, 12 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Template:Q doesn't work the same as it did, and it seems to be because of a change to Module:Wikidata label; see Module talk:Wikidata label#Recent change to module. Peter James (talk) 12:37, 16 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

See c:File:Rest on the Flight into Egypt, from the Life of Christ, Barberini Tapestries, Rome, 1644-1656 - Jordan Schnitzer Museum of Art, University of Oregon - Eugene, Oregon - DSC09436.jpg. Is there a way to group like “applies to part” sections when the items were added to Wikidata out of order? I've used Anton’s tool to sort the display of the creators on wikidata, but it seems that what is used is the order in which the statements were added. (In this case, I got a better resource after the base items were created.) Thanks for checking. - PKM (talk) 21:08, 11 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

PKM, I did not run into other artworks with so many creators that order becomes an issue, so it is hard to design a good strategy. I do not know how many creators use “applies to part”. Commons users always have a secret weapon, that whoever you put in "artist" field it will overwrite Wikidata. So one way to fix this file is to add "artist" field. By the way, I spotted some red "Edit at Wikidata" in the top bar, that is some new bug. --Jarekt (talk) 02:23, 12 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for looking. I’ll figure something out. - PKM (talk) 03:37, 12 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

I just saw what you did with the "Art Photo" template on c:File:Rest on the Flight into Egypt, from the Life of Christ, Barberini Tapestries, Rome, 1644-1656 - Jordan Schnitzer Museum of Art, University of Oregon - Eugene, Oregon - DSC09436.jpg. I'm not used to using "Art Photo" but it's clearly better than what I've been doing with separate Artwork templates (see c:File:Rest on the Flight into Egypt, from the Life of Christ, Barberini Tapestries, Rome, 1644-1656 - Jordan Schnitzer Museum of Art, University of Oregon - Eugene, Oregon - DSC09436.jpg. I suppose I'll update them all again - soon! - PKM (talk) 03:27, 16 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

All changed over to "Art Photo". Much better, thanks for the pointer. - PKM (talk) 20:54, 16 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

I am glad you found it. We had it for almost a decade but it kind of stays in the shadow of the Artwork template. I especially like to use it for photographs of sculptures and other 3D objects. --Jarekt (talk) 00:43, 17 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hey Jarekt,

for a current research project we are looking for active community members in Wikipedia, Wikidata and Wikimedia Commons who are interested in filling out a survey and participating in an interview. The aim of the research is to identify opportunities for participation and access for new volunteers in the Wikimedia projects. For this purpose we would like to learn from the experiences of the already active community members and find out success factors for participation in the projects. Participation includes filling out a preliminary survey, a self-study and an interview.

If you are interested in participating, simply fill out this survey. The participants in the interviews will be selected on the basis of the answers in order to be able to consider as many different perspectives as possible.

All selected interview partners will receive a book or photo voucher of 25 euros as a thank you.

Feel free to forward this call to other people you think might share interesting experiences about Commons. If you have any questions you can of course contact me or check the project page :) On the Project Page you can also find more information.

Regards --Merle von Wittich (WMDE) (talk) 09:54, 18 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi Jarek, Iphigenia (Q192673) has already been cleaned up once, but got mixed up again. Can you have a look? Multichill (talk) 16:56, 12 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

I think it is fixed now. It seems like artworks Sacrifice of Iphigeneia (Q12877588) and On the Seashore (Modern Iphigenia) (Q63221736) sometimes used that item-ID creating confusion. --Jarekt (talk) 03:48, 21 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi Jarek, JarektBot produced mistakes , the cropped is from another picture! Adelfrank (talk) 22:38, 27 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Adelfrank , That was because of [10] this edit, but I think I cleaned it up. Thanks for alerting me. --Jarekt (talk) 01:12, 28 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Is the Wikidata upload from Commons Artwork template one of things you built?

The function to upload data from the Commons Artwork template to Wikidata fails to populate QuickStatements correctly. I get a blank screen with the message “Your token”.

The data is in the URL sent to QS and can be manually cleaned up (copy URL, paste into a text editor, strip header, replace %09 with |, replace %0A with ||, paste resulting text blob into QS) but this is really tiresome.

I asked about this problem on Telegram in June when it first appeared, but it's never been fixed. I hope you can help. - PKM (talk) 22:45, 21 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Yes I build the infrastructure for moving data from Commons to Wikidata using QuickStatements (QS), which is used by Artwork, Creator, Institution and few other templates. Originally it worked with QS V2, but when it was updated to new interface it stopped working. It still worked with the "old" interface of QS V2, but with the resent tool migration to quickstatements.toolforge.org User:Magnus Manske did not get the old interface tool to work. I reported the error, but the tool is still broken. I just noticed that the QS V1 (https://wikidata-todo.toolforge.org/quick_statements.php) works so I can see if I can downgrade my templates. Although broken, I find QS commands still very useful. Every couple months I clean up all the issue categories in c:Category:Artwork template maintenance and than run quarry:query/24753 to get all the QS commands into Excel. A bit of data massaging and I can get them all converted to proper command I can use with any QS tool. I am actually right now cleaning the issue categories in preparation for another mas migration. --Jarekt (talk) 02:09, 22 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the update. PKM (talk) 06:13, 27 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi Jarekt, thanks for your efforts. When you modify or add "material used" (P186), do not write "wood" (Q287), but "panel" (Q1348059). Panel is the right term. A panel is a painting surface made of wood. All the best --Edelseider (talk) 06:09, 24 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Edelseider, I am copying information from Commons files and if that file says "oil on wood" than I copy oil on wood to Wikidata. I agree that in case of flat paintings a better term would be "panel", but I just mass copy missing information from files, and do not know if it is flat or not. --Jarekt (talk) 02:10, 25 September 2020 (UTC)Reply