User talk:Hanshandlampe

why no statue or medaillion portrait for people image ?

Hi,

You persistently remove image that I added[1] of persons taken from statues of medaillions, when there is no other available portrait.

Could you tell my why, as when no painted portrait (past centuries persons), a statue or bust or medallion, is the only way to get a portrait of the person concerned, and many wp or ws sites use them as portraits of the concerned person ?

Thanks for your explanation. --Hsarrazin (talk) 10:52, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Hsarrazin! That's always a very individual decision. I think it is important that you can recognize the person clearly. In some cases even a statue, bust or a medallion can do that (I'd say e.g. Q1703069), but in most cases they can't (your example above). It is important to keep a good data quality in Wikidata. Sometimes I am thinking about to apply for new Wikidata properties for all the statue, bust and medallion images of persons... --Michael Büchner (talk) 11:23, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

AFAIK, image (P18) is not intended as 'mugshot' - it's a way of illustrating an article. Would a cropped version of such pictures be better ? --Hsarrazin (talk) 12:54, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that this has a high worth. Not for the info boxes at Wikipedia (for which image (P18) is mainly used) nor for our portal. --Michael Büchner (talk) 15:12, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

There was some more discussion about this at Topic:Ttux0a59fxszev01. If the images are not suitable for "your portal", you need to find a way to filter them for "your portal". Do not remove/delete valid statements from Wikidata.
--- Jura 13:09, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

"Our portal" doesn't matter and should not be part of the discussion! My point of view is still the same and I'm pretty sure that any valid statement does not help to improve Wikidata. What we need is high data quality and without that less people will use Wikidata! --Michael Büchner (talk) 13:18, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Please do not use P18 on "your portal" if assume that only portrait photographs are being provided. The image of bust on the right is a suitable image. Do not remove valid statements.
--- Jura 13:27, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Jura1, we need to discuss if this example (in particular, but others in general too) is a valid - and high quality - statement or not. It doesn't help if you say it is, but others (like me) say it's not. Again, our usecase does not have any significant meaning for this discussion! --Michael Büchner (talk) 14:00, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Fritz Wotruba

You were right in reverting my edit. I just imported all images from the Dutch Wikipedia for Infobox Kunstenaar. In this case someone added one of his works to the infobox instead of a picture of himself. I altered the Dutch Wikipedia page as well. Mbch331 (talk) 07:18, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

That's a big mess, I'd say! :-( Could you please review all your image (P18) edits? --Michael Büchner (talk) 07:20, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Mbch331, I don't think that this was a good idea! The data quality of image (P18) worsened with your edits. What do we do now? Any suggestions? --Michael Büchner (talk) 14:44, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Jos Pirkner (Q89746), James Reineking (Q1681031) are examples which has already been corrected by me. Could you please check if the image is already used by any related property (P1659)-property, BEFORE you add it to image (P18)?--Michael Büchner (talk) 07:20, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm checking the edits now. That check you want isn't possible with Harvest Templates (Q21914398). That's the tool I used to add the images. Mbch331 (talk) 06:44, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

don't remove pics used by other projects, if you have no better pic to suggest...

https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q929141&oldid=prev&diff=376542060

You continue removing portraits in statue or medaillion, while no other portrait is available... this is a problem, because, at least on fr.wikisource, we use them to illustrate our author's pages... you broke it for us.

Please stop removing those, when it is a "portrait". If you don't like them, you can blank the pic in the template you use...

--Hsarrazin (talk) 11:56, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, Hsarrazin! Imao it would be better to create a new item for every statue or medallion (..), to link it with the original person item via depicts (P180). That'd be semantically correct! It's not nice to force others to follow the decision of the French Wikipedia community to show even abstract art as a illustration of the person within the info boxes. --Michael Büchner (talk) 13:26, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand. Creating an item for the artwork itself is a totally different thing than having a image (P18) on the item for the person and has no impact on it. By the way, the bust linked here may be hideous, but is in no way abstract. -Sylvain WMFr (talk) 18:28, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Sylvain WMFr, you're right! It is a totally different thing, but a clean solution for everyone. I think it is very important to have a proper solution/guideline for the usage of image (P18). The more I think about these problems I would say that we need a usage profile which is defining what kind of images we use in image (P18) for which kind of item (person, organization etc.) --Michael Büchner (talk) 15:08, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Here are two examples to illustrate what I mean: image (P18) of Wilhelm Lehmann (Q92066) or Franz Wilhelm Seiwert (Q89311). --Michael Büchner (talk) 15:24, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Qualität der Bilder auf Wikidata

Hallo Michael,

ich finde genau richtig, was du tust. Lösch bitte weiter Bilder zweifelhafter Qualität!--Kopiersperre (talk) 15:23, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Carlo Renaldini (Q2939244)

Hi Hanshandlampe,

I don't quite get why you remove the image from above item. It depicts the person and it's currently the only one available. Please upload a better one if you think it should be replaced.
--- Jura 08:36, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Aleksei Kruchenykh (Q721962)

Hi Hanshandlampe,

I noticed you also removed the picture from above item. The image is a suitable illustration. If you think another one should be added, please add a new statement. In this case, there are series of images to pick from. Merely removing content doesn't help building Wikidata.
--- Jura 08:45, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Please read my statements above. --Michael Büchner (talk) 07:25, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

This is indeed a boundary stone

The image on this article seems to be representing the topic of the article: https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q4888239&oldid=prev&diff=514480968

I don't quite get why you removed it. Teolemon (talk) 13:14, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh my, you're right! My fault. I'm Sorry! --Michael Büchner (talk) 13:16, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Ron Jeffery

How so? The image includes a portrait of the person. Sure, it is not an ideal, but it's the best we have. Could you possibly explain how is the illustration not relevant? Halibutt (talk) 22:41, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

IMAO we need to make a decision if this image is image (P18) or plaque image (P1801). It should not be in both properties. --Michael Büchner (talk) 07:23, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

RE: calle de Esparteros (Q29525561)

Mr Büchner, thank you for your explanation. Maybe not I have well spoken. Please excuse me, do not speak neither English nor German and I'm using an automatic translator robot. Apparently there is an elementary confusion. This image is not a plaque image (P1801) (picture of a commemorative plaque)... but the official sign of Esparteros Street, describing the origin of the name of the street, referred to the Guild of esparteros populated this place at the end of the 17TH century (formerly known as "Ascent of la Santa Cruz"). Personally consider it to be more 'descriptive and informative' that a simple and unremarkable partial photo of one-way with listings of shops, buildings, cars and people walking. I opened articles some 200 blocks of the historic Madrid and collaborated with the WikiProject Madrid in WP-es four years. These themes have been discussed already widely. I understand that it may not coincide with the official criterion of Wikidata. But which one? Yours or mine? However, if you sincerely feel so outlandish data, delete it. I see that it is essentially his work on Wikidata. And I respect that, but it doesn't always have to be right or lucky. Best regards. --Latemplanza (talk) 09:53, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Frage zu DDB (P4948)

Hallo Hanshandlampe, könntest du mir als Kenner der DDB bitte eine Frage zu DDB ID (P4948) beantworten? Momentan pflege ich die Datenobjekte zu Truppenteilen der Bundeswehr und habe bemerkt, dass es in der DDB passende Datenobjekte gibt. Meine Frage wäre nun, ob die DDB-Kennung an das das Subjekt beschreibende Datenobjekt in Wikidata gehört, oder an das des Archivbestands im Bundesarchiv? Konkretes Beispiel: Kommt DDB ID (P4948)375UMDGZV5HQQ2HQAFBC5UX5M56QPX4U an Panzergrenadierbrigade 19 (Q2050162) oder Q66779467?
Besten Dank --Nw520 (talk) 13:54, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Letztlich ist das eine Frage wie Wikidata das handhaben will, denke ich. So aus dem Bauch heraus würde ich es an Q66779467 packen. Das DDB-Item ist auf jedem Fall eine Hierarchiestufe in einem Findbuch. Darunter befinden sich Archivalien der Panzergrenadierbrigade 19. --Michael Büchner (talk) 12:18, 15 October 2020 (UTC)