User talk:Multichill/Archives/2022/January

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


Forgotten deletion requests

Hallo Multichill, happy new year,
with the vandalistic mass deletion requests of J. Patrick Fischer, you have already left a suitable comment in most cases ("no wonder our deletion backlog is huge if people start dumping it full with useless deletion requests. Is this the purge of East-Timor? I contest all these nominations of these by now historic military photos"). Unfortunately you missed some deletion requests (see below). I have already commented there. But it is surely better if two users comment there for keeping.

--Ciao • Bestoernesto • ✉ 07:21, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Adding main subject (P921) to media that already has both depicts (P180) and digital representation of (P6243) does not make any sense.

Like this edit. /ℇsquilo 11:17, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

It does and you shouldn't be removing it (bot will restore it anyway). It's part of the effort to get digital representation of (P6243) cleaned up. Multichill (talk) 11:23, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

How we will see unregistered users

Hi!

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:11, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

questions about p6243

I remember you. I remember you every time I get that one warning when uploading an image that I don't need to upload. Your improvements to commons have made me more sloppy and carefree!

I was glad to see your software making changes to the structured data. I added p6243 to my files to keep that bot off them. It seemed that there was a relationship between the bot (not the author) and my real life involving free drinks and other crap like that. Of course, without actual evidence or anything real that would correlate this, I very well might be wrong. Putting my own structured data on my files could hardly be considered an over-reaction.

My relationship with p6243 is mostly via scans. Any "label" I use to link the files stru. data to the item will always feel like I am saying "red is red". Scans are weird things. They have duplicates sometimes at Internet Archive and/or Hathitrust and/or Library of Congress and/or other sources (colleges, governments, etc). Many times, the file here is not an exact duplicate of the source as some blank pages are removed, flaws in pagination are fixed, I have one that needs a whole section removed and a different scan used instead. I tried to link the p6243 to what that file was a version of and got complaints.

Wikidata has an item p996: "document file on Commons", it would be nice for my "red is red or 2 is 2" problem (self-definition is supposed to be avoided except in proofs where it is the goal) if there were a "Item on wikidata" for scans. It is a hair split, but wikidata seems to be a magnet for hairsplitters.

Okay, all of that being said, I am curious what the new requirements for the structured data are. I read here and there about "Main subject", which, for the current set of scans I am working on will be "childrens literature", I suppose. "Main subject" will be more of a challenge with novels and starts to border on "genre" which is such a nightmare and I avoid more anything else here other than the psychological profiles of fictional characters. Eek!

I completely understand that scans (pdf, djvu and other uncollated files) are a small portion of the files here and in many ways, a weird case. Also, if you are the same MultiChill, it is always nice to see your activity. If you are not the same, well, it is always nice to remember "smarter" times here.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 17:40, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at administrator noticeboard about User:BotMultichillT

Hi. Just to let you know, a user has started a discussion over at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections about your bot. From Hill To Shore (talk) 23:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Essential singularity

Hello I'm a mathematics student! I have a doubt about the graph plot under "Essential singularity". The hue represents the absolute value and the luminance represents the argument, right? It's given otherwise there. Kindly correct me if I'm wrong. Raina Mary Thomas rainamthom@gmail.com 2409:4073:294:4895:2C3F:2325:6A6F:727 14:15, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

File:Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima, larger.jpeg

Hi, What's the problem with these coordinates ː https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Raising_the_Flag_on_Iwo_Jima,_larger.jpeg&diff=622082751&oldid=622082442&diffmode=source Thanks, Yann (talk)

@Yann: nothing wrong with these coordinates, just the wrong location. The coordinates shouldn't be on M77731066, but on Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima (Q117693). That's where I moved the coordinates of depicted place (P9149). Just the template logic still needs to be updated to show the {{Object location}}. See also Commons:Structured_data/Modeling/Depiction#Works_of_art. 16:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Vervangen van RCE categorie-suggesties?

Je bot zet hier een (template) categorie-suggestie om in een niet bestaande categorielink. Lijkt me niet de bedoeling toch? Ciell (talk) 20:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@Ciell: dat is bewust om dit eindelijk maar eens weg te kunnen werken. Zie Commons_talk:Rijksdienst_voor_het_Cultureel_Erfgoed#Oude_templates_opruimen. Multichill (talk) 20:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

author = Creator not Category

Moin Moin Multichill from Germany, your bot did the following edit and not we have around 500 pictures in the Category:Uses of Wikidata Infobox with no instance of because the Category include the Wikidata Infobox. I think it will be better to use Creator like my diff shows, then they will not be displayed in the Issue-Category. Could you switch this? Thanks and Nog een prettige dag. ;) --Crazy1880 (talk) 10:26, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@Crazy1880: looks like I made a copy & paste mistake in {{RCE-author}}. I corrected that and ran the bot again. Should be all fixed now. Thanks for pointing out. Multichill (talk) 11:20, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, yes, looks good --Crazy1880 (talk) 11:23, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Something is not working

Hi! There is something after this edit Special:Diff/555269412 that makes the page crash. Perhaps you can have a look? --MGA73 (talk) 10:47, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Moin, its the parameter "author" its too long. Perhaps this has to be shown in the parameter title? Regards --Crazy1880 (talk) 11:26, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
@MGA73 and Crazy1880: User:Jarekt is working on Module:Artwork to do author parsing. I removed the code that is causing the template to explode. I'll collect some test cases in Category:Pages with script errors so we can improve the code. Multichill (talk) 11:32, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Sounds good. (And yes the author is not used correctly on this example) --MGA73 (talk) 11:40, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
See Module_talk:Artwork#line_1485:_attempt_to_get_length_of_field_'?'_(a_nil_value). Multichill (talk) 11:42, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

FYI: Geograph Update Bot now providing references with its SDC updates

Now that we have references in SDC, I've arranged for Geograph Update Bot, when updating an SDC statement, to also add a reference indicating that the information comes from Geograph. It follows the guidance at d:Help:Sources for referencing databases. For example, Special:Diff/623606324 is the bot's most recent SDC edit. I mention this in case you want to either suggest improvements or to adopt a similar scheme for GeographBot's uploads. --bjh21 (talk) 14:36, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@Bjh21: that looks nice. I'll see if I can update the upload bot to do the same. Multichill (talk) 18:20, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Creator templates maintenance categories

Hi, Category:Creator templates without home category contains 1,161 pages. Category:Creator templates with Wikidata link: item missing linkback contains 276 pages. I emptied the later manually a few weeks ago, and it is a tedious work. Would it be possible to fix these with a bot? Thanks, Yann (talk) 19:33, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@Yann: the instructions for Category:Creator templates with Wikidata link: item missing linkback are on that category. Jarek wrote that and might have some ideas. Multichill (talk) 20:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
I am sure it is possible to do with a bot, but the 3 step process outlined in the Category:Creator templates with Wikidata link: item missing linkback is quite quick. You touch every page, run this query and paste the results in QuickStatements. This "manual" process only takes minutes. Category:Creator templates without home category is more work. --Jarekt (talk) 02:42, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Multichill/Archives/2022/January&oldid=664631326"