This is the requests and votes page, a centralized place where you can keep track of ongoing user requests, and where you can comment and leave your vote. Any user is welcome to comment on these requests, and any logged in user is welcome to vote.
When requesting rights that do not need the support of the community (e.g. filemover) please go to Commons:Requests for rights!
Any logged-in user is welcome to vote and to comment on the requests below. Votes from unregistered users are not counted, but comments may still be made. If the nomination is successful, a bureaucrat will grant the relevant rights. However, the closing bureaucrat has discretion in judging community consensus, and the decision will not necessarily be based on the raw numbers. Among other things, the closing bureaucrat may take into account the strength of any arguments presented and the experience and knowledge of the commenting users. For example, the comments and votes of users who have zero or few contributions on Commons may at the bureaucrat's discretion be discounted.
It is preferable if you give reasons both for Support votes or Oppose ones as this will help the closing bureaucrat in their decision. Greater weight is given to argument, with supporting evidence if needed, than to a simple vote.
Purge the cache. Use the edit link below to edit the transcluded page.
Please read Commons:Oversighters before voting here. Any logged in user may vote, although those who have few or no previous edits may not be fully counted.
Please read Commons:Checkusers before posting or voting here. Any logged in user may vote although those who have few or no previous edits may not be fully counted.
Please read Commons:Bureaucrats before posting or voting here. Any logged in user may vote although those who have few or no previous edits may not be fully counted.
Please read Commons:Administrators before voting here. Any logged in user may vote although those who have few or no previous edits may not be fully counted.
Reason: Hello! I haven't been the most active user in Commons but I occasionally request deletion of copyrighted content and sometimes upload my own work. I am interested in helping out with the license review backlog. I have experience with copyright by being an Uploader in the Korean Wikipedia, and which now I am currently an Administrator.--Takipoint123 (💬) 09:23, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Scheduled to end: 09:23, 9 August 2023 (UTC) (the earliest)
Comments
Info[1][2] You can also check the requests I have processed in the Korean Wikipedia for the Uploader user right.--Takipoint123 (💬) 09:26, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong oppose , sorry but very low amount of edits, and "Edits in the past 365 days
While I do understand the basis of your comment, I disagree respectfully for opposing on basis of edit count. I do have relevant experience regarding licenses and file uploads outside the Commons network and would be willing to help out the back log if given the chance to do so. If there is anything I can do to ease some of your (or anyone else's) concerns I would be more than willing to do so. Thank you :) Takipoint123 (💬) 11:18, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We expect people who have some special right(s) to have some commitment to Commons. That means to be quite active, that's why we require some recent contributions. So get a few thousands edits, and come back. Yann (talk) 11:21, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Though I do wish to contribute to the review processes, I am more than willing to comply with Commons conventions. If need be, please close this thread if the request seems unfounded, since I wish I don't waste anyone's time :) Sorry for any inconveniences. Takipoint123 (💬) 11:27, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Modern Primat may have been a bit strong worded but it is true that more activity is expected from people who want to obtain these special user rights. I am not opposing but rather expect you to take more action here! :-) Bedivere (talk) 15:26, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Question: In general, Commons has three elevated levels of trust when it comes to dealing with image copyrights: autopatrolled status, patroller status, and license reviewer. Would you be willing to explain the differences between them, and your rationale for applying for license reviewer rather than either of the other two rights? — Red-tailed hawk(nest) 02:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Red-tailed hawk: Thank you for the question. These three user rights are very important and similar in the context Commons wiki as they help reduce the workload and make Commons a more reliable source of free content.
However, there are several key differences:
Autopatroll is generally the lowest clearance of the three user rights given that it does not allow the user to mark pages as "patrolled" but rather clear the workload for existing patrollers by marking their own edits only as "patrolled." Usually autopatrolled rights are given to trusted users to reduce the patrol backlog and other than marking their own edits as patrolled it does come with some perks like access to certain gadgets.
Patrolled rights come with all user permissions given with autopatrolled, but with the key difference in that they can also mark other pages as "patrolled." Patrollers mark new pages and other unchecked edits to make sure they are not vandalism and are appropriate under Commons project.
License reviewers also have the patrol and autopatrolled function, but they are generally given more emphasis and specialization in checking for the appropriate copyright tags from external websites (e.g. Flickr), rather than vandalism. They require more specialized knowledge regarding what files should, and should not be cleared into Commons. They also serve to give evidence on whether a file currently marked as non-free was ever free (if reviewed in advance).
Regarding my rationale on why I chose to apply for the license reviewer user right, I thought that it would best use my speciality before becoming an Administrator on KoWiki, where I was given the Uploader user right after being quized on basic license and copyright terms. I did work as an uploader there for a while, which is a user right unlike other wikis. I did find more interest in this narrower feild of checking copyright rather than patrolling for vandalism (which I would also love to do!) so I decided to apply for this user right.
Hope this answer satisfies you. Thank you! Takipoint123 (💬) 03:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We already saw your vote above. No need to vote twice. Bedivere (talk) 21:46, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I think this user could be a good asset. Their responses above are civil and okay. Bedivere (talk) 21:47, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
oh yeah? then we make all sysops in other wikis license rewiever here? just let them request it and see they are civil.
if this user(dont get personal) got promoted becuase he got some userrights and several thound edit in other wiki; and not even got 200 edits here in commons wiki: im gonna make a topic about this in village pump. ----modern_primatඞඞඞTALK 07:39, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
+ because that will be unfair decision for anyone who got declined because of low activity on commons wiki. ----modern_primatඞඞඞTALK 09:11, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Take it easy. It's not really a big deal and the worse thing that could happen is reversing their reviews and stripping them of the right Bedivere (talk) 14:54, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not promoted for now, consensus is that this user has inadequate Commons experience. I promoted to patroller, however: patrolling also involves looking for copyright violations, which this user is experienced with. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Reason: Hello, I am Robotje and I have been active on Commons since 2006. With 3000+ uploaded files (mostly manually uploaded but also with a tool like CropTool) I think I've a pretty good understanding of what files are allowed on Commons. In the past, no doubt, I have made some mistakes with incompatible licenses but over those 17 years I learned more and more about the process here at Commons. Recently I have been mostly active on Commons and Wikidata but other Wikimedia projects like the English Wikipedia have my attention too. Since there is a huge number of files here at Commons that, sometimes already for years, need a licence review I am willing to help reducing the backlog. Initially I would like to focus on files with YouTube as source, and later on also from sources I am less familiar with like Flickr. If you have any questions, please let me know. - Robotje (talk) 18:32, 10 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Scheduled to end: 18:32, 12 August 2023 (UTC) (the earliest)
Comments
Question. I'm seeing lots of experience uploading files to Commons. That is good work, and I see no immediate issues with the licensing status of any recent uploads. However, I don't really see much in terms of patrolling for copyright violations in recently, so I don't have much to go off of in terms of your ability to patrol files uploaded by others. I'm not opposed (in principle) to granting the LR rights, and your contributions have been very valuable to Commons. However, I would like to see you demonstrate understanding of some of the more complex rules regarding copyrights, as well as license reviewing more generally. Would you please let me know what you would do when faced with files uploaded under the following circumstances?
A user uploads a screenshot of Michael Smerconish from 00:00:00 of this YouTube video with the {{YouTube}} license, noting the YouTube video url as its source and crediting "CNN" as its author.
A user uploads a photograph of Donald Trump from 4:27 of this YouTube video] with the {{YouTube}} license, noting the video url as its source and crediting "Robert Reich" as its author.
A user uploads a photograph of Hikaru Nakamura from 2:27 of this YouTube video with {{YouTube}} license, noting the video url as its source and crediting "Mordimer's Chess Channel" as its author.
A user uploads a photograph of Wolf Blitzer from 0:00 of this video with the {{YouTube}} license, noting the video url as its source and crediting "United States Senator Lindsey Graham" as its author.
A user uploads a photograph of the Milad Tower from Flickr under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 license, noting this Flickr image as its source and "ArdalShah" as its author.
A user uploads a photograph of Moses, Notre Dame from Flickr under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 license, noting this Flickr image as its source and "icfasntw" as its author.
A user uploads this photograph from Flickr under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 license, noting the Flickr image page's url as its source and "Bill Baldridge" as its author.
A user uploads this image from Flickr under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 license, noting the Flickr image page's url as its source and "Ron Frazier" as its author.
A user uploads this image from Flickr under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 license, noting the Flickr image page's url as its source and "David Orban" as its author.
A user uploads this image from Flickr under a Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 2.0 license, noting the Flickr image page's url as its source and "Loco Steve" as its author.
In this video of Robert Reich many photos and video clips are used. Some of them are old black-and-white (even 1930's) and others recent so it is very unlikely these are all his own work. Since the video clips are short that might be OK as fair use for publishing on YouTube but taking a screenshot of such a recent video clip and uploading it to Commons as a work of Robert Reich is not OK. → fail
I am not convinced that the thumbnail picture of Hikaru Nakamura is a photo taken by the person/people behind the Mordimers Chess Channel. Since it is a thumbnail it might be OK as fair use for a video on YouTube but that is not enough for putting it on Commons. → fail
Under the video it says "Senator Lindsey Graham appeared on CNN's The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer where he discussed the death of Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi." It is obvious this whole video is made by CNN and not that senator. It is unlikely that CNN has published this video under that free license. → fail
ArdalShah claims to live in Iran and I checked several of the pictures he has on Flickr and these are also in Iran so there is no reason to doubt he is living there. This photograph was released on Flickr under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 license and that license is mentioned on Commons:Flickr files as OK for uploading on Commons. On COM:FOP Iran it is mentioned that there is no Freedom of Panorama (FoP) in Iran. The main topic of this photograph is that tower (de minimis is not applicable here) so the image is not allowed on Commons. → fail
The image was uploaded on Flickr under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 license and "icfasntw" is indeed mentioned as the author of the photograph. So that looks good. According to the English Wikipedia page you linked it was made by the Croatian artist Josip Turkalj and "Owned by the University of Notre Dame and commissioned in 1962, ..." Here the 1962 year is also mentioned. Turkalj (1924-2007) was at that time working in the USA at the same university as where the statue is now standing outside. According to Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United States#Artworks and sculptures images are basically not allowed for sculptures in the USA. However you can read there also "... any public artwork installed before 1978 without a copyright notice is also in the public domain (unless the copyright owner actively prevented anyone from copying or photographing the work until 1978)." Since 2015 File:Moses, Notre Dame.jpg is on Commons and that is an indication the exception about a copyright notice is not applicable here. So uploading to Commons seems to be OK. I might consider leaving a thank-you note on Flickr for the uploader there (icfasntw) but at this moment I have no experience with Flickr so I would first need to look into how to do that.→ pass
The photograph is no longer available on Flickr (clicking on the link gives a 404 error) so the review fails. As a courtesy to the uploader on Commons I could try to find it. At the moment of reviewing the image is surely still available on Commons (in your question you did not provide one) so I might be able to quickly check if I can find it between the photos of him on Flickr. If so, it also needs the correct free CC license. I just randomly checked the license state of several photographs of him that are still there and none of them had been released under a free CC license. → fail
I am not convinced that this picture is really about a piece of art created by Ron Frazier himself. Here you can see another image of him on Flickr with the description "The Mighty Zeppelin. Graff Zeppelin ... from my collection of internet sourced material" and released under the same CC license. After searching images on Google [3] I found this page with the same picture.→ fail
The image has the description "Eric Drexler on Wikipedia - before" and was uploaded on Flickr in November 2007. It looks very much like the English Wikipedia article en:K. Eric Drexler at that time. That article was created in 2001 and in November 2007 already many wikipedians had edited that article. As you mentioned it was uploaded on Flickr under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 license, noting "David Orban" as its author. Until 2009 the license for Wikipedia was GFDL (GNU Free Documentation License) and later on CC-BY-SA 4.0 was added. So not only the wrong license was used in 2007, the author is not (only) David Orban but many wikipedians.→ fail (one might argue that after adjusting the license and author it would be OK for Commons but without these corrections the review for sure fails)
The description on Flickr is "Boris Johnson visits Leake Street London ... A brilliant mural of Bo Jo has popped up in Leake Street Waterloo.. Mi6 are currently in pursuit of Street Artist Irony" To me that seems to be a mural by an anonymous artist photographed by Loco Steve. Since he was most likely not the artist who made the mural and that mural is the main topic of the photo, uploading to Commons is not allowed. → fail
I hope the average file in the backlog is easier than the 10 of your test. - Robotje (talk) 09:47, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. Thank you for doing this, and I have confidence that you will perform well. (With respect to #9, one could adjust the license to {{Wikipedia screenshot}} and it would be fine, as you indicate in your aside.) — Red-tailed hawk(nest) 14:13, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support , but i wanna say something... besides most of my answers are correct too, i felt like these questions are hard(6 is kinda hard, 9 is hard) . if you asked same questions to me in my request i would got declined xd. thats why i dont review some files, that i dont sure about. ----modern_primatඞඞඞTALK 17:35, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
9 is hard, but it's by design. I like it because it ties together a bunch of Commons policies that relate to license reviewing and copyright, as well as the particulars of Creative Commons licenses. As such, it really allows the LR candidate to demonstrate their knowledge and understanding within the area of license reviewing. — Red-tailed hawk(nest) 02:08, 12 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
have you considered becoming sysop straightaway? RZuo (talk) 06:00, 12 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for pointing out to me that becoming a sysop (admin) at Commons is also an option. For now I am willing to help reducing the backlog of files that need a licence review. I don't see becoming a license reviewer as a 'career path' to one day joining the admins here. Future will tell if that might happen later on. - Robotje (talk) 08:28, 12 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Before making a bot request, please read the new version of the Commons:Bots page. Read Commons:Bots#Information on bots and make sure you have added the required details to the bot's page. A good example can be found here.
Any user may comment on the merits of the request to run a bot. Please give reasons, as that makes it easier for the closing bureaucrat. Read Commons:Bots before commenting.
Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: Archive COM:RFR as a replacement for UserRightsBot. Identical code to UserRightsBot, except 12 hour delay is changed to 72 hours per Commons talk:Requests for rights#Increase archive wait time. As this is a virtually identical replacement of an approved task, I'm running it without formal approval for now unless there are any objections.
Automatic or manually assisted: Automatic
Edit type(e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): 3x/day
Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute): PWB default
If this is about 400 edits in total, please consider to do the with your main account. --Krd 15:21, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There may be more, but yes, I can do that. How do I go about it, as I'm not authorised to use AWB on Commons? Thanks for your help here. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 15:29, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You should now bew able to use AWB. Please confirm. --Krd 05:22, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought:
Upload of public domain images of artwork and related metadata, using the Template:Artwork of artwork provided through partnerships with Danish GLAMS.
For the SMK contribution, the images are downloaded and metadata is mapped to the Artwork template, utilising the Statens Museum for Kunst, SMK API: entry KMS1 and the wikilabskultur Artwork template preprocessor.
Automatic or manually assisted:
The bot is manually assisted and will most likely be running from a stand alone computer
Edit type(e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): One time run (several batches)
When:
The bot operates at specified intervals (batches). Activity depends on the availability of new batches from GLAMs, it can be started on demand by the local operator, on a stand alone pc
Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute):
Most likely 10-50 edits per minute, but only in short bursts, and it can be set to a much lower rate. The first proposed upload will be in the form of approx. 500 files of 10-30MB in size, time to finish is not of the essence, the total size of the contribution from SMK currently is approx. 70.000 images, the collection is expected to be quite static.
Bot flag requested:(Y/N):
Y
Programming language(s):
The bot is written in Python using the pywikibot library
Could medium be internationalized with template or Wikidata item? If not, please use language tag. Same for object type like Blyant. Could bot add painting by or more detailed category? Please also make batch categories hidden. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:04, 20 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This file should have a default sortkey (Defaultsort) "Købke, Christen, 1838" as we generally sort items by the creator's last name.
It should have a category of "Paintings by Christen Købke in Statens Museum for Kunst" with a local sortkey of "|1838" (after the category name). I did that manually.
It should have a category of "Paintings by Christen Købke" with a local sortkey of "|1838" (after the category name). Is this not redundant? No, because those paintings will eventually be divided up as landscapes, marine paintings, portraits and so on.
It might have a category of "19th-century paintings in the Statens Museum for Kunst". Note: Here it is the Statens Museum for Kunst. Don't ask.
It might have a category of "Landscape paintings in the Statens Museum for Kunst".
It might have a category of "1838 paintings from Denmark".
Happy programming. Cheers Rsteen (talk) 12:54, 21 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for your comment, and the detailed example, it's very helpful, I can definitely improve on the categorisation along the lines you suggested WLKBot (talk) 21:00, 22 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Kim Bach: please don't use your bot account to make manual edits like the previous comment.
Please wrap the medium field in {{Da}} to make clear that this is in Danish. Makes it easier to later replace in internationalization.
I don't care that much about the categorization as long a you add some object type categories it should be fine.
Including the copyright and license template makes {{Artwork}} really big. Please create two sections example and put the permission part in the bottom section.
Please only use {{Creator}} if the template exists (or you're creating it) because otherwise we'll end up with broken links for years
Not sure if you plan to upload some 3D works, but in that case you can use {{Licensed-PD}}
@Krd I assume that the "?" means that you'd like an update :-). We're busy implementing the changes suggested by the community, and we will not run another test until we're confident in the changes we're making, this should only be weeks away. Kim Bach (talk) 13:59, 6 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please report current status and intentions. --Krd 15:12, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wraps the medium field in {{Da}}, will move to Wikidata items in test and production runs
We'll be adding structured data using QuickStatements after we've uploaded the images, we will add the Wikidata-item to the Artwork template when we have created the Wikidata-items or identified already existing Wikidata-items
We've created two sections for the copyright and permissions
We're no longer using Creator template, we've switched to using Wikidata items, and will not upload images that has no Wikidata item for creators. The idea is to add the ones that are missing to Wikidata as we go along, using QuickStatements
We've added ...by... categories, but we think that most of the might have suggestions by Rsteen are better handled through structured data, which we'll be adding using QuickStatements
Below is an example of a file that was uploaded manually, where the Wikitext was generated by our updated code, and used to improve the code, we'll perform a few more of these before doing a test run, but we feel like we're ready
Giovanni Battista Piranesi, Det indre af Pantheon, 1768, KKSgb9860-86, Statens Museum for Kunst
The intention is to resume testing, firstly by doing some more manual uploads, in the context of Kim Bach, in preparation of new test runs.
Pending approval we'll move slowly to production runs, the plan is to do that one creator at a time.
Please feel free to do a small test run. Krd 05:59, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Krd We've made a test run of 20 new media files. We're of course referencing a number of new categories, we should probably create those as well. Maybe as we go along, maybe at a later point in time.
We're referencing a number of object types that aren't created yet. It looks like this is done in LUA code. I do have all the Q item numbers of the object types we're using on hand, but we're also planning on adding structure data using QuickStatemenst, we're currently testing that.
Since you (EugeneZelenko, Multichill and RSteen) commented on our first test run last year, I’d like you to know that we’re completed our second test run, and that we”ve tried to address most of your suggestions. —Kim Bach (talk) 09:17, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
object type should be internationalized. Also excessive indentation for license tags and newlines between license tags and categories. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:10, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Had a quick look, nice images! My points
I see a lot of redundant white space. Please trim a bit more,
I'm not a huge fan of extra information fields. What's the point of adding "SMK record created", "SMK record modified" and the (broken) iiif link?
Thank you Multichill, I've incorporated your suggestions and I'll be omitting the "other fields" in the future, they were meant for internal bookkeeping (created and updated timestamps of metadata from SMK)
I've updated the wikitext for this image, trying to take your and Eugene's suggestions into account Tobias Stimmer, Romerne indtager Satricum, 1574, KKSgb22345, Statens Museum for KunstKim Bach (talk) 22:22, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you EugeneZelenko, I can address your comments in this way:
Internationalisation of object type
I suppose you mean that I should use this:
object type={{en|Woodcut print}}
Excessive white space
I can beautify the wikitext along these guidelines:
Thanks, I’ll go for that, is at ends with the suggestion by Eugene (space after pipe, I guess that’s not to importerne.
Another possible issue is the new lines. They flush left, and it doesn”t look good. Is there a way to add indentation that doesn’t show up in the rendered wiki page, I suppose the List templates could be used for that purpose. Kim Bach (talk) 14:40, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've made changes that tries to accommodate your standard usage suggestion - this is a "bit" confusing because the Usage sample and the Multilingual sample differs :-/ - and the suggestion with spaces trailing pipes by EugeneZelenko. I've updated the wikitext for the Tobias Stimmer image to reflect the suggested changes :-) Kim Bach (talk) 11:09, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Title consists from two tags. Is it possible to merge title in two sentences in one tag? Also there is d:Q18219090, so will be good idea to use it instead of text. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:54, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Multiple titles
The reason we have two titles for this particular item, is that the museum DB can have several titles for an item.
The best thing to do, might be to limit it to one - since one of the titles is considered official by the museum. We could use that, and then, at a later point in time, add more titles to wikidata, we could also change it to one line, like you suggested.
Using wikidata
Wikidata, works fine for the medium tag wrapped in the Technique template, we can do that, since we've already mapped the Q-numbers.
Is it possible to use Q-numbers for the object type too?
We've tried it, with no luck in nailing the syntax. Kim Bach (talk) 22:24, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, yes, that was a general error in the code from last year, everything was a factor 10 off, as you noticed, we've fixed that since. I forgot to fix this manually in the batch from last year, so I'll do that. Kim Bach (talk) 15:57, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
An updated status. We're currently refactoring the category generating code, this will most likely not be ready until january 2023. We still welcome comments to the last test run. Kim Bach (talk) 16:10, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We've refactored the code, and are now ready to perform a new test. The main change is that we now try to create new category pages, if they don't exist Kim Bach (talk) 21:31, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, it looks like the procedure involves requesting an edit, I wasn't aware of that, I've added a comment on the talk page. Kim Bach (talk) 20:31, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can anybody please summarize what is the current status and what exactly is missing? --Krd 06:41, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed, as you might have noticed from the discussion above, what is missing is a (correct) mapping of the "object type" field.
We've been in discussion with the maintainers of the artwork template, unfortunately the field is not supporting Wikidata Q-items directly, so we'll have to add these to the mapping table, all are P31-tems.
Once we've done that - a few hundered - we're ready for at new test run.
I'll update you on the progress later this week. Kim Bach (talk) 14:11, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've drafted a version of the object type data table, where I've added the object types I was missing, you can find it here User:Kim_Bach/sandbox/object_type_data. I've asked the maintainers of the Artwork template to review it.
Sadly I have no idea how to put this forward. Any additional ideas welcome. Krd 11:25, 6 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, I had some good suggestions from the community and I will work along those lines. I’ll post an update when the changes are made. Kim Bach (talk) 10:00, 7 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Kim Bach: sorry, I completely lost track of this. I thought we had some minor points left and the bot was ready to go. I updated the module. Is that the last thing? Maybe do some test edits now as a final check? Multichill (talk) 16:39, 8 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, and that is understandable, it has been a long process, and I have been very cautious. I just had help from MGA73 and I'm compiling a new list, that isn't such a mess when trying to apply a diff. Kim Bach (talk) 12:44, 10 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Kim Bach: . The module has been updated so hopefully it should include the things you suggested earlier. --MGA73 (talk) 13:04, 10 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Once again thank you for the great effort, I'll check and add items that might be missing, but we should be good to go! Kim Bach (talk) 13:18, 10 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've checked the updated list, and all the additions I wanted are indeed present! Kim Bach (talk) 14:09, 10 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Kim Bach: Great. Then you could perhaps upload some files for final test? --MGA73 (talk) 17:54, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've just completed a test run with 20 images Kim Bach (talk) 20:53, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Test of 2023-04-27
There was an issue with the "object type" property, I've corrected the error, and updated the new images, so they should reflect the changes in the code--Kim Bach (talk) 07:21, 28 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've updated the code, and I'm ready for a new test run Kim Bach (talk) 18:50, 29 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you assign categories automatically, you need to follow the general naming convention for categories more closely. Take File:Tobias Stimmer, Gaius Duillius sejrer i et søslag over kartaginienserne, 1574, KKSgb22331, Statens Museum for Kunst.jpg. It is categorized as Woodcut prints by Tobias Stimmer in the Statens Museum for Kunst. The normal category would be Woodcuts by Tobias Stimmer in the Statens Museum for Kunst. It is also categorized as Graphics by Tobias Stimmer in the Statens Museum for Kunst. That category is not necessary and represents overcategorization. The category Woodcuts by Tobias Stimmer in the Statens Museum for Kunst should lead to Woodcuts in the Statens Museum for Kunst, which again should lead to Prints in the Statens Museum for Kunst. Try and take a look at how it is done at the Rijksmuseum, which is more or less the gold standard. Take Category:Prints in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam. Here all the different types of prints are gathered and you can go to subcategories by artist, by century and so on. We should attempt something similar. Cheers Rsteen (talk) 11:51, 1 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. @Rsteen: What we need to do, is to look much closer at the category mapping, as you suggested, it might not be that diffocult. Do you understand JSON format? Kim Bach (talk) 04:01, 2 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Absolutely. And thank you for your work. There is a goldmine of artworks at Statens Museum for Kunst. Cheers Rsteen (talk) 05:05, 2 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So...The strategy would be to create categories similar to the ones the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam has created, and then create a mapping table between those categories and the data returned by SMKAPI. Taking into consideration that some existing categories are not using the naming convention. I'll propose something.
Statens Museum for Kunst uses a total of 128 unique categories, Rijksmuseum Amsterdam has 38 main categories in their navigation box. I will work on some kind of consolidation, like the 38 categories in the navigation box. I'm sure the art historians at SMK can be helpful in grouping the categories. Kim Bach (talk) 11:50, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for your kind assistance, I can see that I'm creating a lot of work for you. I'll be more careful before updating in production in the future. Kim Bach (talk) 21:36, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've been working with User:Rsteen on the categorisation, and we've come to an agreement on how to proceed.
So I hereby request permission to perform a new test upload. Note that the new version of the bot will create artist and object related categories on the fly, if they're missing. --Kim Bach (talk) 14:21, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support votes or 
Oppose ones as this will help the closing bureaucrat in their decision. Greater weight is given to argument, with supporting evidence if needed, than to a simple vote.
Info [1][2] You can also check the requests I have processed in the Korean Wikipedia for the Uploader user right.--Takipoint123 (💬) 09:26, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Strong oppose , sorry but very low amount of edits, and "Edits in the past 365 days
Question: In general, Commons has three elevated levels of trust when it comes to dealing with image copyrights: autopatrolled status, patroller status, and license reviewer. Would you be willing to explain the differences between them, and your rationale for applying for license reviewer rather than either of the other two rights? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
_-_Charles_Hodder_(1835%E2%80%931926),_Artist,_Self_Portrait_-_PG_1441_-_National_Galleries_of_Scotland.jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
Centralized discussion
