User talk:Multichill/Archives/2023/March

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Adding descriptions to files BotMultichill uploaded

Hi Multichill. A file, File:Anonymous - Landscape - 1985.111 - Cleveland Museum of Art.tiff, was brought to my attention at the Help Desk as lacking a description, even though the API your bot likely used (https://github.com/ClevelandMuseumArt/openaccess) has a description. I added the description manually, but is there a way to do this in bulk you're aware of? —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 20:19, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

@Mdaniels5757: catching up (I thought I replied to you already). The whole workflow described at d:Wikidata:WikiProject sum of all paintings/Automated image uploads is focused on having all the data on Wikidata. In this context I don't care that much about the description. If people want to read the description from the museum, they can click the link and read it at the museum website. We shouldn't just be copying everything over. If you look at current uploads, you'll notice it's even less wikitext. Next step is probably the copyright and license information in structured data to get to this point.

I'm still adding categories because that's still the way to find images and search based on SDC is still not very good. Multichill (talk) 12:30, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Photo stuck in category until when?

When can File:Taiwan district boundary sign comparison.jpg finally leave Category:Pages with local camera coordinates and missing SDC coordinates? I have removed all the conflicts. Thanks. Jidanni (talk) 06:30, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

@Jidanni: given the number of files in Category:Pages with local camera coordinates and missing SDC coordinates, I guess one of the bots is not running properly.

Manually it does work. I need to look into this to figure out what's wrong. Multichill (talk) 12:02, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Quality image based on template instead of membership of Category:Quality images

hi! i have a suggestion. your bot should edit based on {{QualityImage}} rather than the category, so as to pre-empt https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?diff=737496782 , because i have seen users adding the cat manually in the past. RZuo (talk) 06:22, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

@RZuo: I think it was discussed, but not actually implemented like that. See https://github.com/multichill/toollabs/blob/master/bot/commons/quality_image_add.py

It's probably because of the template soup like for example on File:Loewe frontal.JPG. It is a quality image, but doesn't have the template, instead it uses {{Assessments}}

The statement should probably be removed from these files. A bot removed the template, but statement is still on the files. Multichill (talk) 11:58, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Category:Stereo cards in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam‎

What exactly is your issue with Category:Stereo cards in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam‎ being in Category:Stereo cards by source? Like I said, it's a distinction without a purpose. You can go up more level to Category:Stereo images by source and there's plenty of categories in that one are exactly the same kind of categories. For instance Category:Stereo images in Boston Public Library. So what's the difference and why does it matter? Adamant1 (talk) 09:03, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

@Adamant1: See Commons:Categories#Major_categories. Category:Stereo cards in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam‎ is the topical category for stereo cards that are in the collection of the Rijksmuseum. So where they are.

Category:Stereo cards by source is in the Category:Media by source tree for who provided the files. That's a different angle. Not all images of stereo cards in the Rijksmuseum are provided by the Rijksmuseum.

I would create a category tree for the collection holder similar to Category:Collections of photographs by museum to group the different collections together. Multichill (talk) 11:42, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

I'll have to think about that. I'd appreciate it if you left the category alone until then. Or you can do it yourself, but repeatedly shuffling categories around for no reason isn't really helpful. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:53, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Creator QIDs for SDC

Hi, thanks for configuring BotMultichillT to add structured data to the files I've uploaded. Would it be possible to configure the bot to tag files I've created with creator (P170) Minh Nguyễn (Q69873076) instead of creator (P170) somevalue / Wikimedia username (P4174) Mxn, perhaps based on the presence of Minh Nguyễn (Q69873076) Wikimedia username (P4174) Mxn on Wikidata? Broadly speaking, when there's a Wikidata item about the creator, it would be more stable than a Wikimedia user name that could potentially change. Thanks! Minh Nguyễn ^💬 00:36, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't do vanity items and it also raises privacy concerns. So (still) not doing this. Multichill (talk) 11:30, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Category:California_Historical_Landmarks_in_Stanislaus_County,_California

California Historical Landmarks in Stanislaus County, California has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

2601:203:380:7C80:D1F6:9214:E37C:9A3D 04:31, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

I reverted the edit. Can you block the IP for troll editing and deal with the rest of it? --Adamant1 (talk) 04:35, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

It's impossible to communicate with ipv6 users. Closed the request. Looks like first error so I'll just let it be. Multichill (talk) 11:25, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. That works. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:50, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Upload CC-BY 4.0 images of CC0 paintings

Hi, a local museum has recently started uploading high-res pictures of paintings in their collection. Most of them are CC0 due to the date of death of the creator. However, the photographs of the pictures themselves are pulished under CC-BY 4.0. I am under the impression that your bot automatically flags the uploaded media as CC0 which, I think, should not be done for the images my this case. Is it possible to use your bot for such images? Thanks! FbrG (talk) 21:00, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

@FbrG: great that they are contributing to Commons! You seem to be mixing up copyright status and the license a bit. Happens all the time because it's quite complicated.

First we have the original work, for example a painting. If the painter died more than 70 years ago it's in the public domain in Germany and if it's published more than 95 years ago it's also public domain in the USA. So that's the combination to look for. So all the painters who died before 1928 are public domain and good to go here on Commons.

Second part is the license. When you take a photograph, you're the copyright holder of that photograph. Taking a photograph of a 2D work of art (like a painting) doesn't add new copyright in the USA, but might in other countries (like Germany) so we add a fallback license to cover that case. This is all described at Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag.

Let's take Half-length Portrait of a Man in Armor (Q117047976): painting by Wilhelm Trübner as an example. The original painting is in the public domain due to age. I updated the image and added the relevant PD-art tag.

If we take Portrait of J. Giessler (Q117048947): painting by Willy Oeser as another example. The original painting is still in copyright until 2037 because the painter died in 1966.

So that means that the underlying work of File:Bildnis von J. Giessler - Willy Oeser - Augustiner M Freiburg.png is still in copyright so the museum can't license it, because it's not in the public domain and I doubt they did a copyright transfer with the painter or heirs. Multichill (talk) 12:48, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Only https://w.wiki/6TSy are at risk of not being PD-art so that's not too bad. Multichill (talk) 13:49, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Looks like only one unlucky shot. Started Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bildnis von J. Giessler - Willy Oeser - Augustiner M Freiburg.png. Multichill (talk) 18:47, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your in-depth reply!

Regarding the artwork Portrait of J. Giessler (Q117048947): painting by Willy Oeser, the description on the museum page states that the painting was gifted to the museum by a heir of the portraied person. But i guess this has little to do with transferring the rights to the museum? Maybe its a mistake on their behalf for publishing it under CC-BY 4.0, as all other images where the creator died before 1953 are still copyrighted.

For the other image that shows up in your query, no date of death can be found for the creator Hermann Eder (Q95274189): German painter (*1863). However, given his date of birth and life expectancy at the time i would say it is reasonable to assume that he died before 1953. FbrG (talk) 10:57, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

File:Thaksin poster is cleared from Ratchadamnoen Nok.jpg

File:Thaksin poster is cleared from Ratchadamnoen Nok.jpg 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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.