User talk:Taketa/Wikidata Images

Using wikidata images

Would there be any benefit in automatically using the wikidata images, if no image is specified? (Is this even possible?) Obviously someone would need to check every one for suitability. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MSGJ: Not speaking about is it good or not, but yes - it is tecnically possible to put automatically the Wikidata image. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 19:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Infobox settlement template to your list

There are many categories for towns, villages and places that have images on Commons, but no illustrations in English Wikipedia. Could you please add the Infobox settlement template to your list, so it starts appearing on Category:No local image but image on Wikidata ? Ziggyfan23 (talk) 16:49, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox book

I have been adding images to articles in this category and today ran across Annie Besant. It is in this category due to Infobox Book. Does this make sense? There is already Category:Books with missing cover. MB 05:04, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Taketa, are you actively involved in this category anymore? MB 02:33, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear MB, I am involved with this category globally, though I have not been actively involved for the past year. I intend to be more actively involved again starting in about half a year from now. An article that is in the category mistakenly due to a second template on the article can be removed from the category by adding |nocat_wdimage=yes to the infobox. Moreover the category is different from Category:Books with missing cover because that category is a list of articles without an image, whereas Category:No local image but image on Wikidata is a category of articles "without an image, but where an image does exist". So Category:Books with missing cover reports and lists a problem (and people can add non-free images). Category:No local image but image on Wikidata assists in solving a problem (and people can add free images). I hope this answers your question. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 04:07, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that makes sense. I am well aware of the nocat_wdimage parameter and have used it many times. In the last few months I have updated many articles (probably more than a hundred) with photos due to this category. I have some other thought on this subject. Can we discuss, or would you rather wait until you have more time in half a year? MB 04:45, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to hear that the category is being put to good use. Feel free to start a discussion. I might take a day to reply but that should not be a problem. All the best, Taketa (talk) 11:10, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No local image discussion

Hi again. Looks like it's been four months. I have been working on adding photos when they exist at commons. Sometimes the photos are already in the article and just need to be moved into the infobox. Sometimes the article is in the category because there are two infoboxes; if the first infobox has a photo then I add nocat_wdimage to the second infobox. But what I want to discuss is the number of articles that have a photo at commons but the photo isn't appropriate for the infobox. There are many cases where there is a photo of something related to the subject of a biographical article, but it isn't the person themselves and thus isn't appropriate for the infobox. I find this common with artists, authors, actors, architects, inventors, etc. where there is a photo of a painting, book, movie poster, building, patent, etc. and not the person. In sports people, there photos of the whole team or the player on a field where it isn't even possible to crop and get a clear portrait of the person. In other cases, the photo is just not clear, or the person is looking to the side. I know you are familiar with this and estimated 15% of the articles can't be improved. I'm wondering if we can improve the tracking and do something better with the "clutter". The category is presently at about 10,250. I don't know how accurate the 15% estimate is, but the percentage of clutter will increase as the list shrinks making it harder to find articles to improve. Can we do something like add subcategories, and add a method to change the categorization if an editor checks and finds the image unsuitable. Something like wdimage_nogood=Mar 2018. This way, the list shrinks as the ones that are "clutter" are checked by editors and re-categorized. Is something like this possible?

On [[1]] you say use nocat_wdimage, but I'm not sure when you mean to do that. I only do it if there are two infoboxes. If there is a photo in the article outside the infobox, I just move it to the infobox and the article is removed from the list. If the photo is not useful, I don't add nocat_wdimage because that will remove the article from the category indefinitely. If a better and usable photo is added later, it will never be added to the article by this mechanism if nocat is set.

I am not sure if I am explaining this clearly, talking would be so much easier. MB 03:56, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]