Template talk:Wikidata image

This template was considered for deletion on 2017 January 24. The result of the discussion was "keep".

Rationale

What was the rationale for creating this template? Should we monitor a special category to add data from wikidata to templates? Can't we just include an image directly? --Vanuan (talk) 16:34, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See the edit summary for the creation - it links to User:Taketa/Wikidata Images. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:10, 2 October 2016 (UTC

Disabled

As this template generated way too many false positives in Category:No local image but image on Wikidata to be useful, I have disabled it. You can see this at articles like C. Yarnall Abbott, Stephen Albair, Carlos Albán, Charles Aaron, Rowena Meeks Abdy, Fuad Abdurahmanov... where our articles already have an image of the subject (the same or a different one). And articles like Al-‘Abbas ibn ‘Abd al-Muttalib where the "image of the subject" is not an image of the subject[1]. Or where the image is so poor that we are much better of not using it[2]. Basically, this template fills a maintenance maintenance category with way too much pages that don't need this maintenance to be actually useful. Fram (talk) 10:45, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For your information, the category had 6580 articles in it at the time I disabled this template. Fram (talk) 11:04, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You did not "disable" the template, you blanked it; you even removed its documentation. You did this despite it being a protected highly used template, with no prior discussion, much less any consensus, which is an abuse of your privileged status. In cases such as those listed above (which are not quantified, as a proportion of the full set), where the image is outside the infobox, this draws the attention of editors to the fact that an remedial edit is likely needed. As such, your edit was unwarranted, disruptive, and - especially given the pattern of your recent anti-Wikidata edits and comments - breaches WP:POINT. I've therefore reverted it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:11, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been pointless to let the documentation visible on a template that doesn't do anything, would it? The template is not admin-protected but template-editor protected, so no abuse happened. And no, I am not going to count how many of the 6,000 articles were incorrectly listed. "the fact that an remedial edit is likely needed." Not true at all. There is no rule that an image should be in an infobox, and often a good reason why it isn't. For none of the articles listed above "a reemdial edit was needed", and even less one involving Wikidata. Fram (talk) 12:34, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unwarranted, disruptive ... breaches WP:POINT -- Pigsonthewing, I did not see those. Esp the 'POINT' is an accusation, but not substantiated while Fram did describe the ration here. 'Disable' is the correct word too, because it 'disables the automated categorisation'. -DePiep (talk) 15:18, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram: The template is not admin-protected but template-editor protected, so no abuse happened. You are an admin, but since the admin package includes the template-editor right, you are not exempt from WP:TPE#Use, particularly the bullet at WP:TPE#Wise template editing. Can you indicate where your blanking of the template was discussed - or even merely proposed with no response by others - before you carried it out? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:07, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Realize it's been a while, but the issues that @Fram: tried to fix are still just as bad, if not worse, five years later. I've been trying to clear out some of the incredibly backlogged maintenance categories at template:Infobox person and while looking into Category:No local image but image on Wikidata, which now has over 7000 pages on it, of the half dozen articles I looked at, every single one was a false positive that had a perfectly good image in the infobox. Either I don't know what this template is supposed to be doing, it is utterly failing to do what it is supposed to be doing, or the maintenance categories it generates are so badly named that they are functionally meaningless. This needs to go or be fixed. Van Isaac, MPLL^cont_WpWS 20:43, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

False Positive

Aoba Island

Agathoclea (talk) 09:24, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Main only?

Does this template list mainspace page only? If so, can this be noted explicitly in the documentation?

If not, add option to documentation (or better: add as default in the module). -DePiep (talk) 08:47, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

this crap template appears in my mediawiki site

when i was adding infobox person this crap template appears at the wiki how do i get rid of it? man i wish this template doesn't exist 112.209.33.235 (talk) 10:22, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Add parameter for tracking category?

I propose adding a third parameter to this template, which would be a name of a category, specific to the calling template, that would be a subcat of Category:No local image but image on Wikidata. Right now, {{Infobox person}} and {{Infobox sportsperson}} know the name of the template that wrap them, via |template_name=. For the templates that wrap {{Infobox person}} and {{Infobox sportsperson}}, it would be nice to have a tracking subcategory (e.g., Category:Pages using infobox scientist with no local image but image on Wikidata) so that participants in WikiProjects can concentrate on adding images to infoboxes relevant to them. I think this will make cleanup more likely.

Implemented the proposal in the sandbox. What do other editors think? — hike395 (talk) 19:47, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]