Open main menu

User talk:Jarekt


Contents

Wikidata:Infoboxes task forceEdit

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)

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

Tłumaczenia podstawowych terminówEdit

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

Wikidata:Books task forceEdit

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)

Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Bot/VIAFbotEdit

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)

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)

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

Wikidata Authority control meetingEdit

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)

Thanks--Jarekt (talk) 16:52, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
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)
I will try to connect there from home. --Jarekt (talk) 18:54, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Help requestEdit

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)

Invitation:WikiProject Structured Data for CommonsEdit

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)

pl help neededEdit

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 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)

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 Q11649868 as it only lists types of hooks and items related to hooks. --Jarekt (talk) 13:16, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
great, thank you very much! Holger1959 (talk) 14:19, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Help decide the future of WikimaniaEdit

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)

Towards a New Wikimania resultsEdit

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)

commons and wikidataEdit

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)

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

Qualifiers and referencesEdit

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)

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)
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)
I was using "... S143 Q565" and now filed a bug report. --Jarekt (talk) 12:42, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
You're right. That sure is nice! Multichill (talk) 16:00, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Commons category for podpolkovnik (Q13099720)‎Edit

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

ID for Polish movies/theater related sitesEdit

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)

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)

Coordinates from CommonsEdit

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)

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)

LuaEdit

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 (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 (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)

Wilcoxia (Q14955045)Edit

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)

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)

Commons category and sitelinks for paintingsEdit

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/> } .
  }

Try it!

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)

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)

Rudolf KramerEdit

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)

Commonscats to redlinksEdit

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)

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)

Anachronizmy w stwierdzeniach o obywatelstwieEdit

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)

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

Wikidata links for Commons Authorithy control templatesEdit

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)    
     1 SELECT (IRI(concat("https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/", ?category)) as ?categoryLink) ?categoryName 
     2   (IF(BOUND(?sortkey),?sortkey,?categoryName) as ?sortValue) (IRI(CONCAT(STR(wd:), ?sitelinkQ)) as ?catSitelinkItem) 
     3   ?commonsCatItem ?commonsCatItemLabel {
     4   SERVICE wikibase:mwapi {
     5      bd:serviceParam wikibase:api "Generator" .
     6      bd:serviceParam wikibase:endpoint "commons.wikimedia.org" .
     7      bd:serviceParam mwapi:gcmtitle "Category:Pages using authority control without Wikidata link" .
     8      bd:serviceParam mwapi:generator "categorymembers" .
     9      bd:serviceParam mwapi:gcmtype "subcat" .
    10      bd:serviceParam mwapi:gcmlimit "max" .
    11      bd:serviceParam mwapi:gcmsort "sortkey" .
    12      bd:serviceParam mwapi:gcmdir "ascending" .
    13      bd:serviceParam mwapi:gcmstartsortkeyprefix "A" .
    14      bd:serviceParam mwapi:prop "pageprops" .
    15      bd:serviceParam mwapi:ppprop "defaultsort|wikibase_item" .
    16      ?category wikibase:apiOutput mwapi:title  .
    17      ?sortkey wikibase:apiOutput "pageprops/@defaultsort" .
    18      ?sitelinkQ wikibase:apiOutput "pageprops/@wikibase_item" .
    19   }
    20   BIND(substr(?category,10) as ?categoryName) .
    21   OPTIONAL { 
    22     ?commonsCatItem wdt:P373 ?categoryName .
    23     SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE],en" }
    24   }
    25   FILTER ( BOUND(?commonsCatItem) || BOUND(?sitelinkQ) ) .
    26 }
    27 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)    
     1 SELECT (IRI(concat("https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/", ?category)) as ?categoryLink) ?categoryName 
     2   (IF(BOUND(?sortkey),?sortkey,?categoryName) as ?sortValue) ?viaf ?item
     3   WHERE {
     4   SERVICE wikibase:mwapi {
     5      bd:serviceParam wikibase:api "Generator" .
     6      bd:serviceParam wikibase:endpoint "commons.wikimedia.org" .
     7      bd:serviceParam mwapi:gcmtitle "Category:Pages using authority control without Wikidata link" .
     8      bd:serviceParam mwapi:generator "categorymembers" .
     9      bd:serviceParam mwapi:gcmtype "subcat" .
    10      bd:serviceParam mwapi:gcmlimit "50" .
    11      bd:serviceParam mwapi:gcmsort "sortkey" .
    12      bd:serviceParam mwapi:gcmdir "ascending" .
    13      bd:serviceParam mwapi:gcmstartsortkeyprefix "A" .
    14      bd:serviceParam mwapi:prop "pageprops|revisions" .
    15      bd:serviceParam mwapi:ppprop "defaultsort" .
    16      bd:serviceParam mwapi:rvprop "content" .
    17      ?category wikibase:apiOutput mwapi:title  .
    18      ?sortkey wikibase:apiOutput "pageprops/@defaultsort" .
    19      ?cnt wikibase:apiOutput "revisions/rev/text()" .
    20   }
    21   BIND(substr(?category,10) as ?categoryName) .
    22   BIND(REPLACE(STRBEFORE(STRAFTER(?cnt,CONCAT("{","{Authority control")),CONCAT("}","}")), ".*\\|\\s*VIAF\\s*=\\s*(\\d+).*", "$1") as ?viaf) .
    23   OPTIONAL { ?item wdt:P214 ?viaf }
    24   FILTER ( BOUND(?item) ) .
    25 }
    26 ORDER BY ?sortValue
    

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

Sourcing RKDartistsEdit

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

Try it!

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

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

Creator paletteEdit

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).

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)

Preferred rankEdit

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)

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)
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 BnF 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)
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)

Lübeckische Anzeigen (Q1451582)Edit

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)

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)
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)
@Zhuyifei1999:, yeas ignoring subsections would be safer course. --Jarekt (talk) 15:23, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  Done, should work on next run. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 16:22, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
@Zhuyifei1999, Jarekt: Big Thanks ! --Hsarrazin (talk) 12:35, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Use of instance of (P31): anonymous master (Q474968)Edit

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)

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)
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)
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)

Possible paintingsEdit

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)

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


Congratulations, Dear Administrator!Edit

Deutsch | English | español | français | italiano | Nederlands | português | русский | +/−

 
An offering for our new administrator from your comrades... (our gift is better than the one at Commons or Meta)

You have your gun; now here's your badge: {{User admin}}/{{#babel:admin}} and {{Admin topicon}}. Enjoy!

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)

  Comment Congratulations Jarekt --Alaa :)..! 09:57, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  Thank you. --Jarekt (talk) 12:33, 12 January 2018 (UTC)


Deleted not-quite empty itemEdit

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)

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

Bug in moduleEdit

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)

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

Request for helpEdit

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)

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)

inferred from (P3452)Edit

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)

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)
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)
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)

User:דגש חזקEdit

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)

VestEdit

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)

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)

Game pie (Q5519964)Edit

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)

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)
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)

W kwestii Mszał RzymskiEdit

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)

Anne FrankEdit

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)

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)
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)
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.

published more than 95 years ago (Q47246828)Edit

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)

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

ProtectionEdit

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)

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)

Great work!Edit

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)

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)

RequestEdit

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 نسیمیBukhari (Talk!) 14:13, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Family name missingEdit

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)

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)

Q59570050Edit

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)

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)
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 (P518) = body text (Q1378314). --Jarekt (talk) 20:02, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)

The Holy Infants Embracing (Q5237905)Edit

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)

I added instance of (P31) = copy (Q23013246): duplicate of information or an artifact based on an instance of that information or artifact, but it is breaking some constraints. May be there is a better way. --Jarekt (talk) 14:23, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
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)

Report on the sea-lilies, starfishes, brittle-stars and sea-urchins obtained by the F.I.S. "Endeavour" on the coasts of Queensland, New South Wales, Tasmania, Victoria, South Australia, and Western Australia. (Q60442328)Edit

  • 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)
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)

.

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 (P518), but what part ? illustration (Q178659)? Christian Ferrer (talk) 14:38, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
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)

Title property on paintingsEdit

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)

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

Flowers and Birds in a Spring Landscape (Q60470960)Edit

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)

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)

copyright law by countryEdit

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)

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

Mass adding copyright status to paintingsEdit

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)

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)
Custom edit summaries with QS are possible, see Help:QuickStatements#Comments, e.g. this edit. Cheers, --Marsupium (talk) 20:15, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Marsupium, great I did not know about it. Thanks --Jarekt (talk) 01:05, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── 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)

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)
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)

Advice neededEdit

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)

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)
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)
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)

Jean-Louis BeuzonEdit

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)

  Done --Jarekt (talk) 00:37, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you very much ! --Guise (talk) 00:36, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Jarekt".