Joutbis

Hello.

Can you create these articles in Catalan:

es:Museo Estatal de Historia de Azerbaiyán
es:Universidad Estatal de Bakú
en:Telephone numbers in Azerbaijan
en:Azerbaijani Soviet Encyclopedia
es:Enciclopedia nacional de Azerbaiyán
es:Montañas de Azerbaiyán
es:Anexo:Museos de Azerbaiyán
es:Anexo:Museos de Bakú
en:Template:Administrative divisions of Azerbaijan
es:Categoría:Organización territorial de Azerbaiyán

Yours sincerely, Sondrion (talk) 12:21, 28 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

In this edit [1] the portrait you added is by an unknown artist of an unknown subject. Using a portrait of unknown subject and unknown origin is not a good choice for an image. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:04, 17 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

@EncycloPetey: You are right. It's the image we had in the Catalan wikipedia, but it is not suitable.--Joutbis (talk) 16:23, 18 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi. New images are being added to the image property when that property already has value and I don't see the utility of having 4 or 5 images (that's what Commons is for). Also, it's adding pictures in low quality, or even very similar to the ones that already exist. Thank you. --Vanbasten 23 (talk) 21:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Buenas Joutbis. Te escribo ahora en español, que supongo que me entiendas. He visto otra vez varias fotografías añadidas a Wikidata cuando no son necesarias y en ocasiones repetidas, como este caso. Hay herramientas como Harvester que ya controlan este tipo de introducciones para que no se repitan si el campo ya tiene información y creo que sería la mejor idea para no introducir más fotografías en el campo imagen. Gracias y un saludo. --Vanbasten 23 (talk) 17:08, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

This is a public forum and the lingua franca ist English, so I will stick to that. I really don't get the problem with images being similar (I do check for redirections). This is not commons, and we are not uploading full images, just indexing them. As far as I know, the goal of Wikidata is to collect as much data as possible in a meaningful way. The visual interface is probably the least important thing about it. Anyway, it isn't uncommon to see items with more than one image; certainly my bot wasn't the first to do it, and I've performed the same job with living beings and places for years. Sometimes a bug may arise because of that, like the one in wikisource that they have found in the section below, but it's good to find bugs, because then they may get fixed. Plus, I can even imagine some applications that may benefit from having different images of the same topic linked in a meaningful database like Wikidata. Of course, this is a wiki, bots may make mistakes, and everybody is welcome to edit and improve it. I do some quality control, and the list below shows the pages where I keep track of the images indexed in Wikidata, plus there's also the one where I update the daily runs. Feel free to check them out. Cheers.--Joutbis (talk) 22:04, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi -- You just added (via bot) another image to John Everett Millais's item; it was a nice and useful one. Just one note, though: these images are used on English Wikisource author pages, and in order for this to work correctly when there are more than one image, one of them has to be set to "preferred rank," otherwise there's an error. (No doubt this ought to be corrected, and it should default to the first image if none is preferred; I think the enWS developer is aware of the issue.) Anyhow, please try to be aware of this, thanks. Levana Taylor (talk) 18:37, 25 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Levana Taylor: The Catalan Wikipedia relies heavily on Wikidata, and as far as I know, when there are several images and none is preferred, it takes the first, so it can be done. As a matter of fact, I'm removing most of the explicit image calls in cawiki's infoboxes so they take whatever is on Wikidata (and yes, as a side effect, the image may change). The purpose of the bot is to feed Wikidata with whatever was on the Catalan wikipedia. Sometimes Wikidata had nothing, sometimes it already had one or more images. The new one may be better or may be worse. But the bot is blind and dumb, and it couldn't possibly tell which is which, so it can't set a preferred image. You need human eyeballs and a brain to do that. I don't know if it will help, but I'm keeping track of the images I am uploading. The purpose is to catch egregious mistakes, not to decide quality, but you may find them in ca:Usuari:Paucabot/Bot biografies/Imatges substituïdes 1, ca:Usuari:Paucabot/Bot biografies/Imatges substituïdes 2, ca:Usuari:Paucabot/Bot biografies/Imatges substituïdes 3 and so on. Hope this helps.--Joutbis (talk) 21:48, 25 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Yes, those lists are helpful, thanks. But what is really needed (I now see) is a SPARQL query, "Find all items with an enWS sitelink which have more than one image but none of them preferred." It's far beyond my SPARQL abilities, so I'm very thankful for the volunteer query writers. Someone from enWS would monitor this until the little bug is fixed--it shouldn't be allowed to affect other wiki projects. Sorry to trouble you! Levana Taylor (talk) 22:52, 25 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

See for instance: s:en:Author:Edwin Ray Lankester. This really causes troubles. Apart from that, I don't see the use of having more than one image in Wikidata. Greetings, --Dick Bos (talk) 11:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

When I started this bot, there were already thousands of items with multiple images. Isaac Newton (Q935) has two, none of them by my bot, and I found one item (don't remember which) that already had four. It's not as if this was something I started. I am sorry that Wikisource has a bug, but it can be fixed, I am sure. I don't make the rules in Wikidata, but it seems to me that properties with multiple instances are quite frequent: see occupation (P106), field of work (P101) and even sometimes place of birth (P19) when there is a confusion. As for the usefulness of that, it really depends on how you define image (P18): if it's "the absolute best image for the item", I guess you could push for a rule that only one image is allowed. If it's "any image that illustrates the item", then you can have many. Personally, it seems to me that Wikidata's goal is to collect as much structured information on an item as possible, so multiple images are even desirable. Wikisource itself could display a gallery if it finds several images, why not? And if bugs appear, well, they should be fixed.--Joutbis (talk) 15:00, 10 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

I can understand not liking the critique of your work, though lots of defensiveness, and not a lot listening is not helpful for resolving the valid concerns brought here. There are definitely thousands of items with duplicate, and we had probably been through and performed maintenance for preferred image. Adding multiple lower quality images is problematic, especially without looking to manipulate the ranking of the values, and if you are wishing to do it, then you probably should be considering looking to manipulate the preference.

A defence that there are multiple items with multiple values for fields is avoiding the issue. A person can have multiple occupations, these can be accommodated, whereas we don't need multiple primary images. We may also wish to have the best image available, not the first image available. Wikidata does look to maintain as much data, though it also wishes to have the best data available and usable by the sites, and the methodology of the current process is not allowing that to occur, it is simply instilling more requirements for maintenance.

Can I also note that there have been multiple occasions where the bot has not been images of the person, it has been adding other variations to P18. If you could look to review such additions prior to applying that would be great. Thanks for your consideration.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:10, 11 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Let me see if I understand. So the problem is not multiple images per se, but only multiple images where the preferred one hasn't been set. Or, to put it more bluntly, the problem is anything that triggers a bug in English Wikisource. Well, as a developer of code, I can't sympathize with that. When I write buggy code and some new piece of data makes it crash, I just have to fix the code, not the data. Several major wikipedias use images from Wikidata without any problems, so it can be done. I am not familiar with the Wikidata module, but I would look into the line [[File:{{#invoke:Wikidata|getValue|P18|FETCH_WIKIDATA}}| in the Author Template, and experiment with getImages instead of getValue. From what the module's documentation says, replacing the previous line with {{#invoke:Wikidata|getImages|P18|FETCH_WIKIDATA|<br>|250px}}|, removing the leading [[File: might even do the trick.

You need a good reason to set a preferred value in Wikidata. If I was updating population values, I could set the newest value as preferred from the bot. But choosing the better image is not a task a bot can do in 2020. It would probably create worse problems. As for multiple images, you may not need them, but someone else might. I guess that's why Wikidata hasn't limited the number of instances in image (P18).

And lastly, all the images I am uploading used to be in Wikipedia; so in general they are not too much off the mark; certainly mistakes can be made, some editors are more accurate than others, and indeed one of them got way too creative when choosing images. We have culled quite a few of these images ourselves (I'm not alone in this project, I just run the bot). But that's the nice thing about the wiki projects, if someone finds a better image, he will replace it and that's fine with us.--Joutbis (talk) 21:48, 12 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Sure that code can be written to take the first image, however, if the preference is to take the preferred image as it is usually a quality issue, and where later images are uploaded of a better quality, we would prefer those to some 100px squared image from 2009. [Thanks for your thoughts on the improved access that is now available to summon the image, will look to play with that.] I am not taking any issue with the multiple images matter, I agree with you that it is perfectly legitimate to do so. I do feel that the issue about quality of images, and setting a ranking should still be a WD issue, and I think that it should be part of the bot operation, rather than a manual process afterwards (which I have been undertaking). Re mistakes non-person images, I hope that the feedback is something that you can pass on, we can only see you as the operator as the point of contact for the bot's edits.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:18, 14 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

In this edit, https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q333366&diff=next&oldid=1145229909 , you added another image of the same print with a much lower quality. It's hard to see the interest of such edit. You should maybe do more control on the edits of your bot. By the way, it would be nice to do the oppposite and to add the image indicated in wikidata to ca.wikipedia.org. I did it: Francesco Primaticcio. Best regards --Shonagon (talk) 12:38, 19 September 2020 (UTC)Reply