Open main menu

Wikidata talk:WikiProject sum of all paintings/Archive/2016

< Wikidata talk:WikiProject sum of all paintings

This page is an archive. Please do not modify it. Use the current page, even to continue an old discussion.


More paintings and painters

Hi everyone, I would like to give an update what happened over the last couple of months and maybe inspire people to help out here. In August we reached the 100.000 paintings, we're currently at about 112.000. Around the time we hit the 100.000 paintings we have about 25.000-30.000 of these paintings without a painter. I shifted my focus to matching, creating and improving painters. Quite a few people are helping out and currently the list is at about 7.800 paintings without a painter. That's already a huge reduction, but of course I would like to get the list to zero. To break down this still rather large number I created User:Multichill/Paintings without painter. Large parts of this list has been split off into separate lists like User:Multichill/MET missing painter. You can help by matching these paintings with the right painter.

Not all painters have items here on Wikidata, but quite a few do with a slightly different name on the painting than what we have as a label or alias. A list of these possible matches is at User:Multichill/Fuzzy painter matches. You can help by matching these paintings with the painters. If you like visual more, you might have more luck with User:Multichill/Paintings image no painter. Quite a few of the images on Commons have a creator template that links back here.

For the cases where the painter doesn't seem to have an item yet I created this tool. It seems to time out every once in a while, just retry. It will give a list of most popular painter names extracted from paintings that have "painting by <someone>" and combines this with the database behind Mix'n'Match. It will only show authority control suggestions that haven't been used (to prevent ducplicates). You click the first link to check if the painter doesn't exist yet. Not having any authority control links is usually an indicator that the painter might already exist. You can click on the "create" link to go to a pre-filled quick statements screen. Here you can submit it to create the missing painter. A bot will come along several times a week that picks up these new painters and connects the paintings to them.

Another thing I worked on is improving the quality of items about painters. First I wanted every painter to have occupation (P106) -> painter (Q1028181). This way quite a few links to incorrect people were filtered out. At some point User:Multichill/Paintings check creator was zero, but last week I created a bunch of new painters for Wikidata:Flemish art collections, Wikidata and Linked Open Data and we haven't finished adding statements to these items yet.

Having the right occupation is nice, but having authority control is even nicer. For this I created User:Multichill/Paintings creator no authority control and User:Multichill/Paintings creator no proper authority control. The goal is to have every painter have at least one authority control link. We're not going to reach that with the current state of authority control. This is because we have a bunch of Scandinavian painters who don't seem to be in any of the authority control systems we link to. You can help by either manually finding authority control links or by working on the relevant sets in Mix'N'Match.

This weekend I imported aliases from Union List of Artist Names (Q2494649) and Smithsonian American Art Museum (Q1192305) to make it easier to find painters. I might do this from other sources too and I might at some point use it to provide sources for specific statements like "date of birth". We'll see.

Finally some more lists. For every painting that has a list to the Dutch Wikipedia I managed to add a creator and the collection. To keep an eye on this I created a monitor page. This worked quite well so I expanded it to other languages. Please help by getting these lists to zero and by keeping an eye on them so they stay on zero:

Thanks everyone for helping out. Multichill (talk) 20:40, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

How to manage if we are not sure about the creator (P170)? ex: Saint Francis (Q15588902) (probably made by Cimabue (Q15790))--ValterVB (talk) 20:56, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
@ValterVB: creator (P170) -> anonymous (Q4233718) with qualifier attributed to (P1773) -> Cimabue (Q15790) [1]. The full list of these qualifiers is still on my user page and should probably be moved somewhere else. Multichill (talk) 21:20, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. --ValterVB (talk) 22:04, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
I addressed the qualifiers to anonymous (Q4233718) at Wikidata:WikiProject Visual arts/Item structure#Use of creator (P170) in uncertain cases closely following your wording. I hope you are okay with that. --Marsupium (talk) 23:43, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you very much Marsupium, that's one thing I can remove from my todo list :-)
In other news: The number of paintings without a painter dropped to 4700. Multichill (talk) 15:49, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

PD transfer 2016

Note that today a bunch of paintings went to the public domain. Many files are to be undeleted on Commons (commons:Category:Undeleted in 2016) and transferred to Commons from the projects, most notably Ignacio Zuloaga, but also a bunch of other authors.--Ymblanter (talk) 23:28, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I wish there was some way we could automatically flag these creators on commons so that their wikidata entries can be made (or if already available, updated with images). In order to enable this for next year, we probably need to work on Liam's idea of adding a "copyright status" to painting items. This way we can easily find out what items (if any) can be illustrated each year. --Jane023 (talk) 10:03, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Paintings with similar titles

Hello! I`m creating items for paintings by Johan Christian Dahl (Q164735) of images at Commons. It has been relatively easy so far and I'll add more info on them gradually. However, I've encountered a problem regarding paintings with similar name. An example is Q21993380 where the Norwegian title is Fra Elben, the English View over the Elbe Nasj.mus / DigitaltMuseum. At Commons there is a picture of another painting of the same title in Norwegian: Fra Elben, English title View of the Elbe Nasj.mus / DigitaltMuseum. Dahl also has more than one painting called Dresden i måneskinn, en: View of Dresden by Moonlight I have so far only made one item with this title Q18686613. I have tried to find out how to solve this, without luck. Could someone help me, please. --Anne-Sophie Ofrim (talk) 12:52, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I am not quite sure what the problem is. Ideally, every item should have an image attached. Different paintings, even if they share the same name, should have different items. (And I am sure for Dahl there will be dozens with the same name, and some of them have also very similar appearance but located at different museums).--Ymblanter (talk) 13:52, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, I created the element View over the Elbe (Q21993380) 7th of January. Some days later I wanted to create a new item with the same title, but it was not possible to save it, a sort of warning came up saying the item already exists. I thougt I could came around it by first saving it as Fra Elbe and then changing the name afterwards. ;-) But that was not possible, so I requested the item for deletion. --Anne-Sophie Ofrim (talk) 15:58, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
I would say adding some sort of ID to the title - for example, museum is the obvious choice.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:53, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • There is a software restriction that limits having the same combination "label"-"description" twice. So one needs to use a slightly different description for the second painting. BTW, there are about 90 paintings just called "painting" *.
    --- Jura 17:02, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you! I will try again with ID or different description. --Anne-Sophie Ofrim (talk) 18:49, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
@Anne-Sophie Ofrim: What I generally do when I have two paintings with the same name by the same author is "painting by someauthor in the somemuseum". If I encounter multiple paintings with the same title and painter in the same museum I include the inventory number in the description. Actually most of my time my bot is doing that. It just append "(<museum>, <inventory number>)" to the description to make sure the label-description combination is unique (example: Flowers (Q20539219)). Multichill (talk) 20:21, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
That is a good idea, I will sure follow your example! --Anne-Sophie Ofrim (talk) 21:37, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
You can also take a look at the paintings by Jacob van Ruisdael, of which there are over 50 `Waterfall' paintings. I just added to the title, so 'Waterfall with Shepherd and his Flock' and so on. This seems to be common practise for top auction houses as well, who keep all of their records in a database. Similarly, the museums will often come up with unique twists on the name. I am not sure if the Dahl titles are ones he used or were assigned by the owners anyway. In the case of Ruisdael the paintings changed titles very often, even from catalog to catalog in the 20th-century. --Jane023 (talk) 10:34, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

18th century British paintings with squirrels

I saw a tweet flow by with a question about 18th century British landscape paintings with squirrels and thought that this would be precisely the kind of thing that Wikidata should be good for. I thus gave it a try via paintings depicting squirrels, which gave zero results, so I went one taxon level up to paintings depicting rodents, which gave one. I also checked Commons, where I found Category:Squirrels in art with some relevant subcategories but still no 18th century British landscape paintings with squirrels therein. While I did not find what I was looking for, I learned a bit more about how paintings are handled here and got to know a few more painters and their subjects. I enjoyed the experience. --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 01:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the categorization in Commons is pretty advanced (for a very simple reason - there is a necessity to host a lot of images). For example, I enjoyed to see how the categories for this file, which I uploaded in 2009, were modified by users so that in the end it comes to a biological species in art). May be we can bot-import some of this information to Wikidata.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:27, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

You should try out some fur categories on commons. A tweet like that is probably triggered by the BBC's YourPaintings website where they have lots of taggers. We have lots on fur, though I guess squirrels don't have enough to trigger "Fur Man". Personally I like the commons category "Portraits with table carpets" but we have lots of other wacky categories that would be great to import to Wikidata (if we ever get something up and running that can upload the paintings to Wikidata first). --Jane023 (talk) 09:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

BBC Your Paintings is "Art UK" as of today

I have been updating the labels. --Jane023 (talk) 18:13, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


I have been working on Commons on catalogues raisonnés of Paul Gauguin. The two Wildenstein pages list almost all paintings by Gauguin. All files listed have essential data including template title with original title and some translations, template institution, and template Gauguin catalogues. I think they are ready to import to Wikidata, if there is any bot available. --Vriullop (talk) 19:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

That's nice! I created User:Multichill/List of works by Paul Gauguin so you can see what we already have here. Importing data from Commons is quite hard. @Jane023: you worked on several catalogues raisonnés. Any suggestions? Multichill (talk) 21:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Wow Vriullop, that is great news, thanks for your work on this. I must say I did notice that we have a lot of great Gaughins - have you been uploading too? I have done lots of work on catalogs (or catalogues). First you need to create the catalog and then you go through the existing painting items adding the catalog numbers to those first. After that it is easy to set up an "easy upload" workflow to add paintings one at a time. I suggest you start with the easiest catalog first that contains the least number of entries, because it gets boring really fast. As you go along you will probably notice as I did how shamefully bad some of the Commons templates are for some of the paintings. I find that it helps to set up the easy upload template for both, so that as you update/create the Wikidata item, you can update/create the Commons template at the same time. The key features we want for each painting besides creator (P170) and catalog code (P528) on Wikidata are the inventory number (P217) and collection (P195). Note also that the catalog code (P528) is where you put the catalog number, and you need to add a qualifier catalog (P972) on the statement that points to the catalogue. Also, the collection information should show up three times: as a statement in collection (P195), as a qualifier for inventory number (P217) (using P195 again) and as a location location (P276). For unknown collections (such as recent public auction sales records), just use private collection (Q768717). See for an example Adriaen Coorte: A Unique Late 17th Century Dutch Still Life Painter (Q21081340) and just click Special:WhatLinksHere/Q21081340 to see the painting items connecting to it. Jane023 (talk) 06:51, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Much has already been imported, either from Commons or from museum's websites. Catalogue references are missing though. We need to create items for them (I have already created Gauguin: I Catalogue (Q15088284)) and map them to the paramters of Commons:Template:Gauguin catalogues. Then I don't know difficult it would be to import that with a bot, but user:Poulpy seems to have some experience with this. --Zolo (talk) 08:04, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Great! I added it to the catalogs section. --Jane023 (talk) 17:06, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Europeana 280 - Art History Challenge

As (hopefully) anyone who follows the SoAP project already knows - there's a major WP translation and WD improvement competition that launched today - and many active SoAPies have been involved in setting it up. [thank you!].
The Europeana Art History Challenge!
Thiis associated with the launch of m:Europeana's new art history channel, and consists of 10 high quality artworks submitted by the Ministries of Culture of 30 countries across Europe. 300 artworks x 40 languages = a lot of Wikipedia articles about notable artworks! Importantly, this project "lives" on Wikidata and improving the quality and language-coverage of the associated Wikidata items is equally part of the challenge. Points are awarded, prizes to be won, datasets to query and (hopefully) visualisations to produce!
I believe this is actually the largest ever GLAM-related or Wikidata-based Wikimedia competition ever run, targeting over 10,000 language-artworks pairs. Head over to the homepage to investigate the works, the datasets, the participating countries, the FAQ page, and signup for yourself!
Yours in art-history, Wittylama (talk) 16:12, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Getting Van Gogh complete

I was talking with Spinster and Jane023 about getting the paintings of Vincent van Gogh (Q5582) complete here on Wikidata. Van Gogh works already have extensive coverage on Wikipedia and Commons. This would be a nice way to connect everything and also to show off the power of Wikidata. According to vggallery Van Gogh produced about 850 (oil) paintings and 150 watercolours. Let's say a thousand paintings. Van Gogh works are documented in two catalog catalogue raisonnés:

  1. J.-B. de la Faille: L'Œuvre de Vincent van Gogh, catalogue raisonné (Q17280421) - The F-numbers, I added "F-number" as an alias for easy finding (on Commons)
  2. The New Complete Van Gogh: Fully revised and enlarged edition of the Catalogue raisonné (Q19833315) - The JH-numbers, here I added "JH-number" as an alias (on Commons)

I already created quite a few of the paintings already. The two biggest collections (Van Gogh Museum (Q224124) & Kröller-Müller Museum (Q1051928)) were already added by me. Before we add more new items, we should first add the catalog codes to the existing ones. I already did quite a few, but I could use your help. The overview is at User:Multichill/Paintings by Vincent van Gogh. The way I do it:

  1. Open an item without the catalog ((Q24020427)
  2. Open the link displaying the paintings (
  3. Open vggallery and browse to the museum page (
  4. Find the work and check if it's the same one (
  5. Take the F and JH number ("F 470, JH 1582") and try to find an image on Commons (File:Van Gogh - Weg im Park von Arles mit Spaziergängern.jpeg)
  6. Add the image, the F number and the JH number (diff)
  7. You can add inception (P571) and location of final assembly (P1071) (diff) to make this map look more impressive.

When all the remaining catalog codes have been added, we can start adding the remaining paintings. Help appreciated! Multichill (talk) 18:33, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


I am wondering how we should administer locations. For example, I created a Q for the room Nachtwachtzaal where the painting The Night Watch is located. That room is part of the building Rijksmuseumgebouw that is part of (or hired by?) the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam. I changed the location to the room. but could I create all other rooms as well for paintings on display? And if it it is not on display, should we create a Q for depot? --Hannolans (talk) 08:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes I think a Q for depot per large museum is a good idea and Q's for display halls as well. I have thought about how to model the whole eregalerij of the Rijksmuseum and am still not sure how to do it, but it would be well worth doing in my opinion. I don't think you should remove the location Rijksmuseum however. The way the Wikidata properties work is a bit different from categories and for ease of queries I think the collection as location should remain, no matter what other locations are added. Not sure how others see this though. Jane023 (talk) 08:17, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
So we should add in location both 'Rijksmuseum Amsterdam' as well as 'Nachtwachtzaal'? We already have collection: Rijksmuseum Amsterdam. Or should I administer somehow 'Nachtwacht' is lent to 'Rijksmuseum Amsterdam', that seems the more exact situation, but I can't find out how to administer that in Wikidata. --Hannolans (talk) 08:29, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
We don't have a property (yet) for loans. You can see the status though in the fact it is also still in the collection of the Amsterdam museum. The point about location is that it is used by geographical queries that use simple logic rather than asking for all subclasses of a property. The location and collection properties seem obviously similar to you, so as a reader I understand you think it is overkill, but think of things like mapping paintings per city or so on. A query might use something like location based on museums per city (and thus may lose the more specific value). It's not a problem to have two values in their, with one being more precise than the other. Jane023 (talk) 09:31, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
the difference between collection and location is not overkill as a painting can be in collections of multiple entities. We could in the future differentiate between own collection and 'bruikleencollectie' instead of 'loan'. --Hannolans (talk) 11:30, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
further, I created a Q for the main building of the Rijksmuseum besides the Rijksmuseum as a foundation. So a painting will stay in the same organisation collection, but location can change over time as a museum moves to another building. --Hannolans (talk) 11:35, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm following your discussion with great interest as we are in the process of mapping the data from the Swiss GLAM Inventory. We noticed that Wikidata often uses a very "flat" structure, e.g. having the same entity for an institution, the building, and the collection. On the other hand you have other approaches to modelling (e.g. the Library Ontology, where the (Library)Building, the (Library)Organisation, and the (Library)Collection are different classes. - In the case of the Rijksmuseum (Q190804), there seems still to be a mix: it is instance of museum (Q33506) and of ensemble (Q1497375), which is a subclass of building complex (Q1497364). As a consequence, it has a chairperson (organization), an architect (building), and a collection or exhibition size (organization). It also has an inception property (1800) that implicitly relates to the organization (that was actually founded under a different name); but according to the definition, the inception property could also relate to the date when the building was created - there is no way to tell from the data which one is meant here. To complicate things further, it has the property "replaces" (Nationale Kunst-Gallerij), which is not true if the inception is set to "1800". And finally, there is no reference to a separate entity representing the collection of the Rijksmuseum; how is the collection modelled? - So my question is: Should we expect that this mix of different classes will persist (as we can assume that the same Wikipedia article will continue to cover the institution, the building, and the collection, or can we expect some differentiation in a near future. And if yes, who should drive the differentiation? Should we move ahead and model the concepts in more detail (in this case making a clear distinction between building, institution, and collection), or should we ingest our data as indiscriminately as has been done so far? --Beat Estermann (talk) 13:47, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
My gut feeling would be to ingest the data with as much granularity as possible. The only reason we have the situation as it is now is because Wikidata was created from Wikipedia and there we had an article on Rijksmuseum, but the one for Nationale Kunsnt-Gallerij came later. At some point all the data points will be filled in, but there is nothing that will change for the collection called Rijksmuseum, because the other ones are all historic. The Rijksmuseum also has historic collections on loan that have since been absorbed. To show the earlier collection, it just gets added and the start and end times for the inventory numbers get updated. So theoretically the items that are there will not change and that is indeed by design. Jane023 (talk) 14:12, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
When you are talking about the collection called "Rijksmuseum", where is it represented in Wikidata? - Is it the same Rijksmuseum (Q190804)?? You could of course argue so, as museum (Q33506) is defined as a sub-class of "tourist attraction", "cultural institution", "architectural structure", and "collection" – which goes counter any differentiation of the different concepts, by the way. I'm asking, because we do have GLAM data that are explicitly related to the institution, while other data (e.g. regarding the protection status) are explicitly related to the collection. --Beat Estermann (talk) 14:45, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Well in this specific case, the name refers to a term that is generic, and just means "National museum". There are several other Rijksmuseums in the country, but when we talk about those we always include the city name because this one refers to the popular building and collection housing the Nightwatch. That said, it is technically just one collection with a purpose-built structure owned by the City of Amsterdam. I had assumed that the base collection would always be housed there but I have discovered that is not always the case: objects are sometimes "returned" to the Amsterdam Museum. We of course have GLAM data that refers to the building, which includes the gardens with temporary sculpture installations and so forth. I still see no reason to introduce another Q number for the collection or location. There are however many objects that include both the Rijksmuseum inventory number as well as the collection inventory number that was absorbed by the Rijksmuseum. It's always more accurate to include all the data we have, whether or not it overlaps in terms of dates or place. Jane023 (talk) 17:10, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
The situation Rijksmuseum has historic reason. Two weeks ago I started an article Rijksmuseumgebouw, the main building, as this has a history of his own, and housed several other institutions as well. Besides that, it is alos registered as a national monument with four registrations, one for the main building, as well as one for the complex as a whole. I was already checking if I could move the building data to the building itself, to overcome the issues that this item is both an organisation as a building, then I noticed the Nationale Kunst-Gallerij item that makes it even more complex as I would have thought that item belongs to the history of the Rijksmuseum and should have the same Q. Anyway, I think we should always split organisations from buildings, as multiple organisations can be housed in one building and organisations can move. But most Wikipedia articles deal with them in one article. For the Dutch situation I already split up relevant articles about governmental organisations into organisations and buildings. For location, I think we should always refer to a physical location in a building, and define every building of a museum as an entity. That would mean we should do a replace to the building for all the paintings that are on display --Hannolans (talk) 18:22, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for that work Hanno! I was working on a castle in Sweden that is part of a regional museum with its own category on Commons so I created an item for it, and this sparked my query here: Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_Museums#Museum_as_organization_vs._Museum_as_location. I still don't think we should change the Q number for the Rijksmuseum collection, but thinking over what is posted here, maybe we should for location. In any case we should probably continue this conversation there and put any conclusions on the main page there. Jane023 (talk) 06:18, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
I checked yesterday how Louvre deals with this. That is pretty well done You have the building Louvre Palace (Q1075988) and that has had several occupants including the museum Louvre Museum (Q19675). All paintings, for example Mona Lisa (Q12418) are located in rooms and that rooms are part of wings. Paintings are part of a collection of the painting department Department of Paintings of the Louvre (Q3044768). --Hannolans (talk) 07:27, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes and I think we should leave the term "Rijksmuseum" as the Q number for "Department of objects of the Rijksmuseum". Currently there are very few items that link specifically to the Rijksmuseum building instead of the collection. If we start to add the sculpted reliefs on the outer walls or the stained glass windows (which I think are notable enough for item numbers), then I suggest we do that together with the Rijksmonument numbers. The Louvre btw is actually quite messy, as their inventory numbers are doubled up all over the place unfortunately. Like the Rijksmuseum, they are a national collection that has objects spread around the country. The Rijksmuseum has at least made sure their numbering system is pretty secure. Jane023 (talk) 10:54, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Probably all items with a SK-A number can be added to the department of paintings, but in the API documentation you can't split the collection by department. I guess it's nowadays one collection. --Hannolans (talk) 12:27, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Well Esther knows for sure but I believe the A just means ownership and C means loan, where some loans are still labelled C and some "A"'s have been restituted or otherwise moved to other collections, so no definite painting vs sculpture. I have their manual for collection documentation somewhere, let me know if you are interested and I will dig it up and send it to you. I recall Esther explaining that the database can never be truly "clean" but they do try to keep it up to date. Jane023 (talk) 06:42, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
SK means Department of Schilderkunst, there are PRK that is Prentenkabinet and also a code for the History department. Not sure if this is only there for historical reasons or that there is still an 'ownership' by department. Yes, I am interested. If we want to describe their collection on Wikipedia we also should know. --Hannolans (talk) 12:28, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

General response: I think it's conceptually most correct to create separate items for the museum, the collection(s) and the building(s) indeed. A drawback would be that it becomes harder to create queries to find stuff related to the museum in the general sense, it is probably more confusing to laypeople, and it will cause the same kind of problems as the Bonnie&Clyde issue on Wikipedias. Spinster 💬 15:41, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I think so too, but it's a chicken-and-egg thing. We have a bunch of museums on wikidata linked to institution templates on Commons, and structured data on Commons implies this is the collection. It will take a long time on a case-by-case basis to sort these out. I think the best approach is to keep the basic category title on Commons as the collection name and make separate new items for the buildings & museum organization, since the organization is not the thing on Commons. Jane023 (talk) 07:15, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata:Property proposal/recovered by

The above proposal was expanded to include paintings. You might want to comment on it.
--- Jura 04:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Help dealing with adaptations

Hey All, could use some feedback on the use of Property:P144 (Based on) to represent the concept of adaptation in creative works: Property_talk:P144#Splitting_.22adapted_from.22_from_this_property, Sadads (talk) 17:21, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

URL fors in the Musée National D'art Moderne's database.

Does anyone know what URL format can be used to link to the French National Museum of Modern Art database ? sounds rather far-fetched.

Perhaps @Shonagon: ? --Zolo (talk) 08:24, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello Zolo. There is a canonical URL for this page : . It can be found explicity in the HTML source. The URL corresponds to the permalink accessible via the share button (button that doesn't work on my Firefox and in that case, yes, the URL becomes indeed hard to find - bug reported to the museum). Best regards --Shonagon (talk) 12:58, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Wiki monitor

Hi everyone, I'm restructuring and cleaning up my user pages related to this project. On Wikidata:WikiProject sum of all paintings/Wiki monitor you'll find a list or reports split out per wiki for paintings that miss either creator (P170) or collection (P195). Please help by cleaning out the list of your home wiki and adding it to your watchlist to keep it to zero. I've done so for Wikidata:WikiProject sum of all paintings/Wiki monitor/nlwiki for quite some time and it doesn't take a lot of effort if you understand a language. Thank you, Multichill (talk) 11:17, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Return to the project page "WikiProject sum of all paintings/Archive/2016".