User talk:Multichill/Archives/2018/July

NT vs Art UK for the really big collections

I know we discussed this before, but I guess I didn't realize there was a large group with the same ID for both NT and location. So Waddesdon Manor doesn't work (yet), but Upton House definitely does. I was triggered into making an item when I noticed someone had updated the Art UK image on Commons. It was only after creation that I could merge it to the proper item through the NT property constraint. This was because both location and artist were not linked in the item yet. The case where a painting on Commons is attributed to someone on Art UK but not NT is fairly common. If you could maybe make a pass for Upton House and add the location for those NT numbers that would be great. Here is the Q: An Unknown Woman (Q52300649). Also please check what should be in collection/inventory. I think location=Upton, collection/inventory=NT only? Thanks, Jane023 (talk) 05:52, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Found an older one for comparison: NT inventory, collection both, location Upton: View of Alkmaar (Q20971448). Jane023 (talk) 06:01, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I already have a bot for that so I just fired that up (example edit). You should keep an eye on this list. Multichill (talk) 07:05, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Hmm yes I get that it is possible to merge after the fact, but I am more interested in reducing the need to create items based off commons images. In your linked exampe, the artist was the same as Art UK, but in many cases from the NT they are not. Also, the image has a full-metadata record now so I could categorize the image and add it to the item. It is only through the enhanced image metadata that I could also add location. This should be semi-automatic though! I would especially like it for the paintings in Upton House, but of course smaller locations like this should be possible now (I think all Art UK venues are on Commons and Wikidata now, but am not positive about that). Jane023 (talk) 07:28, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

JotaCartas undos

I see that you have been undoing the moves from category to subject by User:JotaCartas. I noticed them earlier today and had no chance to properly address. I am going to assume that you have got them under control and leave them with you. If that is a false assumption, please let me know where you got back to. Thanks for your cleanup work.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:01, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@billinghurst: I noticed a couple and undid them (example), I didn't really have time to look further and leaving him a note so would be nice if you could follow up. I wonder if one of Mike's bots would have picked it up if I didn't undo the edit.

I guess not because Wikidata:Database_reports/Complex_constraint_violations/P910#Items_that_link_to_a_Commons_category is quite long. Quite a few items on that list where sitelinks to Commons categories have been moved in the wrong direction. Multichill (talk) 15:39, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Bot/Pi bot 6 would sort it out, if it's approved. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:18, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

The bot task has now been approved, so it's running. Let me know if you spot any issues / any cases that it misses. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:50, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

impossible to ping project sum of all paintings anymore :(

Because the project is now over 50 participants... It is impossible to "Ping project", or rather, it is indicated that participants are notified, but they are not :(

I wanted to warn the project about Wikidata:Property proposal/copyright status, but it did not work. (and we have the same problem with books).

Yours, --Hsarrazin (talk) 17:34, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Hoorah for having more than 50 participants, but it's a shame the ping doesn't work any more. That was always a bit of a hack and should probably be implemented properly. Multichill (talk) 21:32, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

One option would be to split the participants list in two, like Wikidata:WikiProject_Source_MetaData. Jheald (talk) 00:10, 28 July 2018 (UTC)