Commons talk:Depicts/Archives/2022

Recent changes SDC

How can i configure the recent changes to display files only with changed structured data? Any idea? GeorgHH • talk   23:03, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@GeorgHH it doesn't look like this is possible, and I can't find an existing phabricator task, but it sounds like a sensible feature request. ·addshore· ^{talk to me!} 20:03, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Does not depict

Hi all, In the past year I worked on a tool called wikicrowd (tool). One part of that is suggesting depicts statements based on commons categories. Throughout the tools life so far it seems that there is some valuable data being collected that can't be represented on commons just yet, and I wonder if anyone would have any thoughts on the topic.

From the commons category tree, images such as File:Ted_Kennedy_at_ELAC_(2239898682).jpg end up being in the category for Category:Barack Obama. As part of the tools workflow, people end up stating that Obama is not depicted in these images. Could this be worth being noted in a statement?

I imagine this could be useful when the statement of what is not depicted relates to the commons categories that the images is in? But we certainly wouldn't want to end up in a situation where an image of a flower has 1000 statements saying it doesn't depict stuff.

·addshore· ^{talk to me!} 08:36, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Permalink

Fixing it Mrallwayswin123 (talk) 23:51, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

• @Mrallwayswin123: Fixing what? - Jmabel ! talk 00:02, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. GeorgHH • talk   15:34, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Almahby

Would someone please look at the contributions of User:Almahby? Based on the discussion above on my questions about how "depicts" should and should not be used, it looks like most or all of their contributions so far are misuses of "depicts", mostly for places but also for at least one person who may be related to an image but is not depicted in it. - Jmabel ! talk 00:21, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

•  Done GeorgHH • talk   15:35, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Depicts lexeme

Please add appropriate property. --Infovarius (talk) 20:00, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikidata:Property proposal/Depicts lexeme. Strakhov (talk) 16:59, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Page should probably mention QuickStatements in the tool section

Which in a way is also spreadsheet based I guess thibaultmol (talk) 09:44, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

They say that a picture is worth a thousand words. Here's proof.

If you want a very succinct way of conveying what "Depicts" is about, I found it while visiting https://isa.toolforge.org/ and saw the following image at the top of that page:

(click to enlarge)

That one photo really clarifies what "Depicts" is all about, at least to me. If such a picture were available through a prominent "See an example" button near where you type in "Depicts", I think that would help reduce confusion. Itsfullofstars (talk) 06:04, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Addendum to my comments above: Maybe a thumbnail of the image could be included on the Commons:Depicts page? Itsfullofstars (talk)

It is now added Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 07:53, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

West Amene wguneinea

West.Amene wguneinea 114.125.136.45 06:36, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

It is utterly unclear what you mean Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 07:52, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Is there a simple way to find featured/quality/valued images tagged as depicting something?

For example https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=haswbstatement%3AP180%3DQ190672&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1&ns6=1&ns12=1&ns14=1&ns100=1&ns106=1&searchToken=8cbts977odduwn73ih8k9nw9m finds images marked as depicting fire extinguishers. Is there a way to detect only premium images depicting fire extinguishers? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 07:55, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

@Mateusz Konieczny Quite easy with Special:MediaSearch. Search for Q190672 (or just "fire extinguisher"), select QI/VI/FP/all from the Community Assessment filters: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=Q190672&title=Special:MediaSearch&go=Go&type=image&assessment=quality-image El Grafo (talk) 09:47, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

@El Grafo: That is great! Pity that you cannot do search for multiple at once, but it is still really good. Maybe it is available via API? And something like that can be cobbled together manually. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:59, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

@Mateusz Konieczny: You can use Special:Search as well, although that still doesn’t allow ORing the conditions (it allows ANDing by simply adding both), and Special:MediaSearch seems to be smarter in finding fire extinguishers (probably it takes categories into account?). Special:Search has an API endpoint (docs), so you can just query one, than the other, and take their union. (I couldn’t find an API endpoint for Special:MediaSearch.) —Tacsipacsi (talk) 19:10, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Missing structured data tab

"On the file you wish to add information to, select the "Structured data" tab, located below "Open in Media Viewer" and to the right of "File information."" - I do not have it. Is it added by some enabled by default gadget that I maybe disabled?

Or missing in some skins like mine "Vector legacy (2010)"?

Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 07:56, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

@Mateusz Konieczny There's a Hide Structured Data Tab gadget in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets that you might have turned on at some point? El Grafo (talk) 09:50, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, this one. Maybe it would be worth adding to the main page? I though about doing this but there is scary warning about some weird translation system Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:58, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

@Mateusz Konieczny: You can boldly edit translatable pages, translation administrators will clean up after you if you got something wrong. (Such pages need to be pushed for translation manually, so they come up in a backlog for manual review anyway.) However, since it’s an opt-in gadget, I’m not sure if it really needs to be mentioned—it was you who hid the tab, we can’t mention all ways to customize the UI in all documentation. —Tacsipacsi (talk) 19:18, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

How much "overcategorization" (if any) do we want/need in "depicts"?

glider (Q2165278), sailplane (Q180173) or Nimbus-4 (Q3475327)? Some of them? all of them?

In the beginning there was some hope that marking a file as depicting Pōwehi (Q3841190) would be sufficient for the file to be found when searching for "black hole". Does that work now, or should we additionally tag the file with black hole (Q589)?

The reason I'm asking is that I noticed several of my uploads being marked as depicting glider (Q2165278), where sailplane (Q180173) would be more specific and items for the actual type would be available too. Or in other words, when adding Nimbus-4 (Q3475327) to the image on the right, should I keep the glider (Q2165278)/sailplane (Q180173) for people who are looking for sailplanes in general and not for this specific type?

This is one the major questions that keeps me from going through my uploads and adding SD to my uploads. El Grafo (talk) 09:36, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Hey hey @El Grafo: ! I'm guessing that some of the tags as depicts glider are coming from the wikicrowd tool that I created (as glider is one of the current categories there). https://wikicrowd.toolforge.org/

Due to this, I have a few opinions :)

Thinking about Pōwehi (Q3841190), I believe and think that an image depicting it should only be marked as depicting Pōwehi (Q3841190) and not also black hole (Q589). Otherwise you put yourself in the position where you should end up adding depicts tags for many other things as the chain is Pōwehi (Q3841190) -> supermassive black hole (Q40392) -> black hole (Q589) as the very least.

This chain of possible depicts statements is even longer in other topics.

On to sailplane (Q180173). sailplane (Q180173) is a subclass of glider (Q2165278). Wikicrowd for example would not allow a user to tag an image as glider (Q2165278) if it was already tagged as sailplane (Q180173). And I believe this is what we want. Going the alternative route (more tags) results in about 5 things that could be tagged.

So, if you are confident that it is indeed a sailplane (Q180173) tag it as such. And if an existing tag is less specific per the Wikidata ontology, then remove that depicts tag.

Of course this is only my opinion.

I was also thinking of adding another form of question to wikicrowd specifically for cleaning up redundant (from my perspective) tags. For example, if its tagged as Canon 5D, but also camera, then camera is redundant and could in my opinion be removed.

·addshore· ^{talk to me!} 20:01, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

The text around this that is currently presented on this page clashes with the recommendations over at Commons:Structured_data/Modeling/Depiction#Level_of_detail. In short the higher level tags are needed for the image to be picked up by search. I'm not arguing for either direction but having them conflict isn't great. /André Costa (WMSE) (talk) 08:42, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

This whole mess is just another instance of typical problems we have at Commons: striving for perfection getting in the way of being useful, and caring more about ourselves than about the people who come here to find media files for them to use. Wikivoyage has a principle called "The traveller comes first" - something we should maybe consider adopting here. We can add both Pōwehi (Q3841190) and black hole (Q589) to an image if that information is useful for re-users looking for media files. And we do not need to add supermassive black hole (Q40392) and other things in-between if that's not something a re-user would search for. We also don't need to add sky (Q527) to File:Almudaina Dos at Santa Cruz de Tenerife (2).jpg just because it's visible. Quite the opposite: somebody actually looking for "sky" would probably be annoyed to find this image. El Grafo (talk) 10:36, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

In order to be useful for the most people then, every value of depicts should be added between the high level mostly generally useful, as well as the most specific useful. This however introduces large burdens on people editing / interacting with depicts, as they have to think about a whole tree of things rather than just the 1 thing they see in the image.

Looking at File:Canon_EOS_60D.png for example, this is tagged with **Canon EOS 60D** which makes a lot of sense, that is what it is, however this seemingly will not help it appear in search? Perhaps the most generic then is **camera**? but you can't remove the first tag either. Instead you end up recreating the relation tree that already exists on Wikidata again on commons, duplicating it between every image, and if it changes on Wikidata, you end up with data that likely needs to be fixed on thousands or more images on commons. Other tags for this image would end up including **digital camera**, someone might find **single-lens reflex camera** useful, to be specific though we would need **digital single-lens reflex camera**. Depending on how you look at depicts you might end up adding **Canon EOS** too.

It sounds like I should go and stop wikicrowd from removing more general depicts statements! But on the hole it would make a lot more sense for this to be solved via technology in search, but I guess thats probably harder than keeping the verbose depicts statements.

·addshore· ^{talk to me!} 14:29, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I guess if the endpoints Canon EOS 60D and Camera are known, bots could do the rest and fill in the gaps. But that would be just another workaround and hugely annoying. Because you're right: of course it would make more sense to just tag as Canon EOS 60D and have the software do the rest. But apparently that doesn't work. So I suppose the questions are: is somebody working on making it work? If not, do the makers of SDC and/or MediaSearch even intend to make it work? Or should we just give up on the hope that it will ever work, shrug, and just tag with anything that fits? Or something in-between? El Grafo (talk) 14:48, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, you identified the issue right there an then, if it is possible for bots to do it to an acceptable standard, then it should be possible for some code somewhere else to do it to an acceptable standard. Otherwise it needs to be a primarily human effort driven task, even if facilitated by tooling.

I'd love to hear more about what does and doesn't work around media search using depicts to get a better understanding. ·addshore· ^{talk to me!} 18:46, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Another issue is that meanwhile there are tools out there that encourage users to add depicts statements to random files in a gamified manner. Most of the time the people playing those games will add Camera-type statements, not Canon EOS 60D. Computer-aided tagging goes into the same direction. So resistance might be futile anyway. El Grafo (talk) 11:00, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

"Depicts aerial photography (Q191839)"

File:Des Moines, Iowa aerial 01A.jpg Surely there is a better property for this than "depicts". - Jmabel ! talk 18:44, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

@Jmabel: aerial photography (Q191839) is a photography genre (Q3100808) so you can consider using genre (P136). Multichill (talk) 15:39, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Done. Yes, that is much better. - Jmabel ! talk 19:49, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

The "depicts" data someone added for File:Aerial 10 km SSW of Bayard, Iowa 01.jpg seems differently, but equally, absurd. - Jmabel ! talk 23:36, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Adoption of guidelines

There is an ongoing discussion to vote on Commons:Depiction guidelines. Please give your opinion here Anthere (talk) 14:53, 8 November 2022 (UTC)