Open main menu

Wikimedia Commons β

User talk:Mike Peel

Welcome to my talk page. Please post new messages at the bottom of my talk page, use headlines when starting new talk topics and sign and date your entries by inserting -- ~~~~ at the end. I will generally reply on this page to keep conversations together; please watch this page for a short time after leaving a comment. Thank you.

Start a new talk topic.

If you would prefer to contact me off-wiki, then my contact details and a contact form are available on my personal website.

{{Wikidata Infobox}}Edit

I don’t think deploying just {{Wikidata Infobox}} (without arguments) is a good direction. Relying on Wikidata to obtain a Q number searching values of Commons category (P373) for the {{PAGENAME}}, first, depends on some kind of cache not actually controllable. Second, this mechanism can be subverted e.g. by a conflicting P373 value in a page protected on Wikidata. Commons should remember all Q numbers it uses for its content itself, not delegate to Wikidata yet another part of its security. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 22:18, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

@Incnis Mrsi: I'm not using P373, I'm using the sitelinks to Commons (and P401, if the sitelink is to a category page). If there are problems with that link, then they need to be fixed, not worked around... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:20, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
But you're right, we should keep an eye out for problems, so I've added tracking categories, in particular Category:Uses of Wikidata Infobox with problems. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
OK, you use the category's main topic (P301) from another Wikidata item, hence the stuff actually involves two items from Wikidata. Even greater supply of points of failure, and I wary of it. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 22:55, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
@Incnis Mrsi: Yes, sorry for mis-remembering the property number. The good thing about maintaining these on Wikidata is that they are shared between the different Wikimedia properties, so if something does go wrong then it's more likely it will be spotted and fixed if the values are there rather than here. If we try to manage the links directly here, then it's more work, and it's a lot more easy to become out of sync with the rest of the Wikimedia projects. So while the number of potential points of failure are a bit higher, the likelihood of those failures is reduced, and the likelihood of the failure being fixed increases. It's the same argument about why it's better to manage interwikis on wikidata rather than on all of the separate wikimedia projects - and commons has always been poor at interwiki links until we had them all on Wikidata (tbh, it's still poor, but this should dramatically improve them at the same time as showing the info about the topics). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 12:00, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
What sync are you speaking about? Q numbers are stable, and change only due to mergers (newer duplicates into older items), in which case {{label}} and similar things can operate through a redirect. Updates to data? They are expected to happen in the topic item, not in its respective(P910) category item. The danger of subversion by a rogue Wikidata user exists in any case, but having {{…|Qnnn}} we go straightly to d:Qnnn and repair damage (if possible) or remove a Wikidata device altogether (if irreparable). With argumentless templates relying on reverse site links and P301, in case of subversion, we will have first to solve a puzzle. What namely was subverted, was it the value of P301 or the site link (connecting categories page here and there) or, like in the case above, data in the topic item. Look at the diagram below: Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:46, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Commons   Wikidata
site link
{{…|Qnnn}} ⇃ ↾
I don't understand, sorry. I'll have to think about this. But from what I understand, I think this work is easier done alongside the interwikis rather than trying to have a separate system (and they mostly work through sitelinks), and requesting info through specified qids is more computationally expensive than using the data accessed through the sitelink, so we should only do that where needed (i.e., where we need P301 links in this case). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:56, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi. Related to this, I think it's useful having a "physical" reference to the Wikidata identifier here rather than relying on reverse sitelinks and.... Why? If they delete the item there, having here the ID allows everyone to contest that ("I want Q48134356 restored because it fills blablabla notability criterion and blablabla"). If not, people will be clueless. Maybe it's enough the history record, where the ID is printed, don't know... strakhov (talk) 21:35, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
@Strakhov: In that case, I thought that the delinking shows up in the watchlist, with the wikidata link/qid. I don't know how often/likely that is to happen? Maybe @Pigsonthewing, Multichill, Lydia Pintscher (WMDE): can comment on this? If you want, you can always set "qid=<nnn>"> as a parameter for {{wikidata infobox}}, although that may increase the server load. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:51, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi! it'd be an option. I just wanna know which item should be restored in Wikidata if I end up in a category with a non functional "Wikidata Infobox" (not necessarily a category created "by me" or "in my watchlist"). For now i'll try to record them in edit summaries if other methods increase the server load... Thanks! strakhov (talk) 22:53, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
@Strakhov: If this happens, please ping me and I'll look into it. The same goes for any problems with the template. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:59, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Sooner or later the deletionists will take Wikidata. And we have to be prepared for that! :) Wrt to the template it would be awesome following category's main topic (P301) not only with the Commons category's subject, but with "architect", "creator",...too, but I know nothing about the "technical complexity" of that change. strakhov (talk) 23:08, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
@Strakhov: I've been mulling this over, and ended up writing some code that auto-produces User:Mike Peel/WDI backup to there's a log we can look back at if needed. If that's updated once a week, do you think that solves this issue? On architect/creator - what are you thinking we could display from those entries? Date of their birth & death, or something else? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:33, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
With regard to the first point, I guess it would be mostly OK. The problem is... that list could become pretty heavy if the template is massively used... With regard to the architect/creator, I did not mean that. I didn't ask for extra fields, but for showing the "Commons Category link" in cases like this one (Luis Gutiérrez Soto's category is not linked in the infobox because Commons sitelink it's stored in a category id, not in the "architect id". Thanks! strakhov (talk) 22:52, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
@Strakhov: First point: that's true, but it's a lot less maintenance work for editors compared with leaving QIDs everywhere on Commons... I'll think some more, but I suspect that if this isn't going to work then we'll basically end up replicating Wikidata... ;-) On the second point, I'm not sure why the link isn't showing - @RexxS: sorry for asking you another technical question, but any idea why that's happening? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:06, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi Mike I'm sorry but I can't follow what the problem is from this discussion: I don't know what link isn't showing, so you need to give me some more information so that I can try to track it down.
As for the general issue, each page in our projects will usually have an "associated" entry on Wikidata. The software maintains the link between the page and Wikidata internally, so when you make a call for properties on a page, it will return properties from the associated Wikidata entry by default. That is the "cheapest" call that can be made, and is preferred. If you have to supply a Qid to fetch information from a Wikidata entry which is not associated with the current page, that is called "arbitrary access" and incurs a cost equivalent to making an "expensive" parser call as described at en:Wikipedia:Template limits - and becomes subject to the same limits. If you don't have to use a Qid, then please don't; the code is far more efficient without it. --RexxS (talk) 13:40, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
@RexxS: Here each "architect category" is linked in the infobox. Here it is not. Reason above. strakhov (talk) 14:41, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Aah, this is more complex than I thought. The problem is that d:Q3324260 is for the artist, but the commons category link is in d:Q20031636 (the category entry for the artist). So we either need to use P373 for the link from the artist entry, or follow P910 through to the category entry and then get the sitelink from there. Either way, it's messy... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:50, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Personally, I would remove the Commons category from d:Q20031636. It is useless for Commons, and only create problems. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:50, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Just use {{Wikidata Infobox}} without arguments. This a non-discussion. Multichill (talk) 22:00, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
@Multichill: was your opinion on merits of our discussion requested? If I understood correctly, Mike asked for your opinion on the scenario envisaged by Strakhov (and, to some extent, by myself). Incnis Mrsi (talk) 22:15, 9 February 2018 (UTC)


Amazing work at Wikidata_infobox. I am using it exclusively now, simplifies so many things. I just added Category:Edward Shepard Wilkinson. I was skeptical of the vertical format, because the early versions created a block of whitespace, now I am hooked. RAN (talk) 14:27, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): That's great to hear. :-) BTW, there's a question about whether to keep the defaultsort code in this template, as it can conflict with existing defaultsort statements, see the discussion at Commons:Village_pump/Proposals#Proposal_to_bot-deploy_Wikidata_Infobox - any thoughts on that? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:32, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
What is the holdup with Commons not having its own identifier box in Wikidata? Each other project has a box, Commons is "Other sites". RAN (talk) 14:48, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
I think the logic here is that all of the ones that have their own identifier box have multiple languages to link to; commons (and meta and wikidata) don't, so they end up in the 'other sites' box instead. Personally, I agree that it should have its own box (and ideally, allow multiple links, to categories + galleries), but it would take some pushing on Wikidata to make that happen. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:08, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Your infobox does not add a surname category if it does not already exist in Commons. Can it add a redlinked category then add Category:Surnames to that redlinked category to make it blue? RAN (talk) 16:55, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): It could show the redlink (but not auto-create the category) if desired, but is that something that would work widely across Commons if it's bot-deployed? I can imagine quite a few redlinks being created... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:08, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
I think people would get upset by the redlinks unless another bot turned them blue with Category:Surnames. I have not created a bot yet, so I would not know how to do it. We need an online class on bot creation. RAN (talk) 17:12, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): I've coded up an option to show redlinks: if you try {{Wikidata Infobox/sandbox|test=y}} at, e.g., Category:Ángel Ganivet, then you should see the redlink in preview. Then you can create the category, and remove "test=y" before saving it. Would that work for you? I've also removed defaultsort in this version, given the issue raised at VP/P about it, but it could be added back later. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:32, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata Infobox for filmsEdit

Hi, I have added the template to a few categories for films. Do you know why the film director doesn't show up in the infobox? i.e. Category:Gadano Bel (1950). IMO this is the most important information for a film. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:49, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

@Yann: Great! The director property (P57) isn't currently included, but I've added it to {{Wikidata Infobox/sandbox}} - can you test it to see if it works as expected, please, and I'll roll it out to the main version soon (probably this evening). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:52, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Ah nice. I think we should also have the date. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:55, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
@Yann: OK, publication date (P577) is also now in the sandbox version. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:57, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
@Yann: Now deployed. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:15, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Template:Wikidata InfoboxEdit

The infobox is apparently adding Category:People by name to galleries in which it used. That is incorrect, as clearly stated in the category's header. See Andrew Lih and Cary Grant. Please make the necessary changes to the template to eliminate this nuisance. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:10, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: done, thanks for the heads-up! Mike Peel (talk) 22:15, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Very quick work, thank you. However, Cary Grant has Category:Deceased people by name and looking at its Wikitext, I think the only place it can come from is the template. It might have come from one of the film categories, but that seems unlikely. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:22, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: Ah, yes, that's done separately. also now fixed. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:25, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
I also note that there are 25 people at the very beginning of Category:People by name that are not sorted correctly. I think -- not sure -- they are sorted with a comma at the head instead of their last name. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:27, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: That should be due to an earlier bug that's been fixed, but the changes are still propagating. See Alexis's comments at Commons:Village_pump/Proposals#Proposal_to_bot-deploy_Wikidata_Infobox (in particular the big green box in the middle) for the story of what happened there. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:29, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I should add to this a very well done for the template -- it looks like it will add considerably to Commons. Is there a plan to fix the 25 that I noted? Or should I do it? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:44, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: Thanks! The 25 should sort themselves out over time, or you can make a null edit like I just made to Category:André Langrand-Dumonceau and that should clear the cache for them. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:46, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Hector Macpherson - Herschel (1919).djvuEdit

  File:Hector Macpherson - Herschel (1919).djvu has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | Български | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:51, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Lord thomas Darcy is my great great great greatgrandfatherEdit

Can't find this plaquer, where is this? —Preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 08:42, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

This one - File:Tower Hill scaffold location - Sign 3.jpg? It's located near the Tower of London. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:56, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

First structured licensing conversation on CommonsEdit


The first conversation about structured copyright and licensing for Structured Data on Commons has been posted, please come by and participate. The discussion will be open through the end of the month (March). Thank you. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 17:26, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Use of {Wikidata Infobox}Edit

Hello Mike Peel. I understand that you are heavily involved in this {{Wikidata Infobox}}-template. But is it for uses on category-pages or at gallery pages, and are there a need to create a small gallerypage for the probably best use of it, or should we wait until we have some more things to fill in on the gallery-pages before we create them.

The reason I ask is this little edit-war I recently had on the subject of the new speed skating world champion from Japan Miho Takagi (gallery page, edit-history), Category:Miho Takagi (edit-history) and wikidata items edit-history for Wikidata-person Miho Takagi (Q444421) and edit-history for Wikidata-category Category:Miho Takagi (Q50739509).

Best regards Migrant (talk) 13:00, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

@Migrant: The template is primarily designed to be used on categories, but it should also work OK on gallery pages. Personally, I prefer categories to galleries, since galleries are often unmaintained and stale, while categories are generally more used. But in the case where both a gallery and a category are wanted, then you can have both an topic item and a category item on Wikidata, and then have commons sitelinks to both gallery and category. You can also then use the infobox on both (just make sure you set category's main topic (P301) in the category item to point to the topic item, and the template will use that to display the topic info rather than the category info). However, that's normally done for the wider topics, where categories also exist on Wikipedia, rather than a narrow topic like this - and see this ongoing Wikidata notability discussion. So I wouldn't include consideration of the infobox in the decision of whether a gallery is useful to have or not. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 13:17, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I just linked the discussion over to my small edit-war colleague talk page. Best regards Migrant (talk) 13:53, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Mike Peel".