User talk:Mike Peel
|
|
| Welcome to my talk page. Please post new messages at the bottom of my talk page, use headlines when starting new talk topics and sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end. I will generally reply on this page to keep conversations together; please watch this page for a short time after leaving a comment. Uncivil comments will be reverted without response. Thank you. If you would prefer to contact me off-wiki, then my contact details and a contact form are available on my personal website. |
Infoboxes
[edit]Hello Mike,
in the last few weeks I have connected Commonscats to (new or existing) wikidata objects, while so far no Infobox has been added by Pi bot in most cases.
For example, in subcategories of
- Category:Female sportspeople by country by sport
- Category:Male sportspeople by country by sport
- Category:World War memorials in Germany
- Category:Men of Germany by name
- Category:Men of Austria by name
- Category:Women of Austria by name
- Category:Women of Germany by name
- Category:Musical groups from Austria
- Category:Musical groups from Germany
- Category:Streets in Munich by name
- Category:Streets in Vienna by name
- Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Brandenburg with known ID
- Category:Churches in Germany
there should be Commonscats which are connected to a Wikidata object, but do not yet have an infobox. Maybe Pi bot could be started manually recursivly for these categories to add missing infoboxes.
Also see User talk:Mike Peel/Archive 10 - Infoboxes
Thanks a lot! M2k~dewiki (talk) 23:51, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- I guess these would be some of them: https://petscan.wmcloud.org/?psid=29194852 (subcats of Category:Streets in Munich by name with Wikidata item, but no infobox).
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 00:00, 2 September 2024 (UTC) - PetScan knows Q117155434:
- I try search for d:Q117155434 at quarry:history/85965/925666/898247 but it didn't return anything.
- Compare with d:Q30047942: quarry:history/85965/925664/898245.
- page properties for Category:Naupliastraße_(München) still has "unexpectedUnconnectedPage": quarry:history/85965/925666/898247.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 00:30, 2 September 2024 (UTC)- It will be a few days before I can set Pi bot running through these, as I'm currently traveling. Will be interesting to see if Enhancing999 can spot why they aren't showing up through the database query. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 05:15, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- It seems to be a bug in the database. phab: might get you a more detailed explanation.
- After doing an initial run of Commons:Report UncategorizedCategories with infobox, I purged all items on the list and this cleared maybe 200 of 4500. At this proportion 5% of 9,500,000 unconnected categories might have an item, or at least the ones that haven't been edited since being connected.
- Maybe there is way to query the Wikidata database with a different SQL (I will try to, but it might take a couple of days).
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 09:34, 2 September 2024 (UTC)- This query could work for some of them: it finds categories that use a single Wikidata item, but don't have any templates.
- When first run, it found 4647 categories in ca. 15 minutes. It included 120 streets in Munich.
- If a bot purges them, tomorrow the categories would likely get infoboxes.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 13:53, 3 September 2024 (UTC)- I've scheduled pi bot to try running that query tomorrow, and then running through the output to try to add the infobox to them. Let's see if that works, otherwise I should be able to try other things later this week. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:12, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if it's an adequate replacement for the candidates list, I'd just run "touch.py" on these categories.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 20:04, 3 September 2024 (UTC)- Pi bot is currently running the old and the new candidates list queries, but hasn't been adding infoboxes from the old candidate list at all, the new one has covered all of those cases. So I've swapped the old query out with this test query, while leaving the new candidate list query in place to cover the usual deployment. If it works, then the bot will go through the test query categories to see if it can add infoboxes to them directly, avoiding the need to 'touch' them. Those edits will be marked by "(legacy)" at the start of the edit summary due to the way I had it set up before. It's an approach that lets me point pi bot directly towards these new categories, before I'm back on the same local network as it for more detailed changes. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:09, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- It seems to have worked: the query is finding quite a few categories that Pi bot is now adding the infobox to. See the "(legacy)" edits at Special:Contributions/Pi_bot. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:27, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Nice. Also, none ended up in the infoboxes not having items category: [1].
- Maybe the query can be improved, to get more than these 4647 categories. The PetScan-query for Munich above still shows seven categories, including some that only have template {{De}}.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 12:57, 4 September 2024 (UTC)- Curiously, Pi bot ran through a bunch more today, again marked with "(legacy)" in the edit summaries. So it seems worthwhile keeping this query running, at least for a while. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:37, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- These seem to be relatively recent items: https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q130000881&action=history .
- I'm sure there is more. I need to take some time to come up with a better query.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 20:07, 5 September 2024 (UTC)- quarry:query/86096 finds another 800, but takes 1.5 hours to run. Most are fairly recently added links at Wikidata (sample). Also, quarry lost the results, so I have to re-run it.
- Anyways, do you want to include them in the bot? Shall I just do purge edit on the result? Would you want to file a phab ticket so someone investigates why this happens?
- A few variations on the query might give more.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 18:15, 6 September 2024 (UTC)- I think you should report these issues on phabricator. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:27, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- "(legacy)" still seems to work. The table it's based on might get updated before the other. The query we are using (quarry:query/86040) could probably be shortened to quarry:history/86196/928151/900660 (uses of more than 1 item seem to be mostly renames or mergers, another bug).
- Both show categories where the item is no longer associated with it.[2] The bot seems to skip those.
- My attempts to improve further tend to end in OperationalErrors. Eventually, I might get it to work.
- BTW, would you link the item in the bot's edit summary (sample: "current Wikidata ID is Q5")?
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 13:35, 10 September 2024 (UTC)- Changes made to link to the QIDs and update the query, let's see how those go. I've also changed from "(legacy)" to "(query 2)" since it looks like this one will be around for a while. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:01, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- Looking at some of the higher qids in the "(query 2)"-additions of today, there does seem to be a stack of otherwise unconnected categories: [3] (2 weeks delay).
- One would need to find another way to match the links in Wikidata with Commons. A way could be to make the SQL table of Wikidata pointing to Commons also available in the Commons database. An alternative, could be to ask WMF to periodically resync the Commons table of page properties with Wikidata.
- A solution for @M2k~dewiki could be to purge the Commons category after creating an item at Wikidata. (He could run a script once a day).
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 13:19, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Changes made to link to the QIDs and update the query, let's see how those go. I've also changed from "(legacy)" to "(query 2)" since it looks like this one will be around for a while. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:01, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- Curiously, Pi bot ran through a bunch more today, again marked with "(legacy)" in the edit summaries. So it seems worthwhile keeping this query running, at least for a while. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:37, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if it's an adequate replacement for the candidates list, I'd just run "touch.py" on these categories.
- I've scheduled pi bot to try running that query tomorrow, and then running through the output to try to add the infobox to them. Let's see if that works, otherwise I should be able to try other things later this week. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:12, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- Moin Mike, Moin Enhancing999, only as question as question. I looked at Commons:Report UncategorizedCategories with infobox and see, that many there is not connected to other Wiki or Wikidata, is that right in this way? When you connect more, its easier to fill the maintain-categories from the Infobox and we can fix more!? Regards --Crazy1880 (talk) 17:40, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- None of those are connected to a Wikidata.
- They are a selection of Category:Uses of Wikidata Infobox with no item where the category isn't a subcategory of any other. In other words, it's a category from Special:UncategorizedCategories where somebody added an empty infobox.
- If you connected it to Wikidata, in the next update it will disappear.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 20:09, 7 September 2024 (UTC) - BTW, the categories on this report shouldn't be affected by the problem M2k~dewiki reported. I purge the categories when I update the lists.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 20:28, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- @M2k~dewiki: Returning to your original question ... I've set pi bot looking through subcats of those categories, but excluding '[Men/Women] of Germany by name' as those categories are huge. Let's see if that finds more categories to add the infobox to, or if the changes above have already fixed them. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:17, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- @M2k~dewiki: if you have a few samples that don't have infoboxes yet, that could help. [4] did get added just today (by query2).
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 10:03, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- @M2k~dewiki: if you have a few samples that don't have infoboxes yet, that could help. [4] did get added just today (by query2).
Cato (town), New York vs. Cato (village), New York
[edit]Your Wikidata Infobox for the Village of Cato, New York, was incorrectly added to the Town of Cato, New York. I tried to correct this by moving the infobox to the appropriate category, but I accidentally blanked it. --DanTD (talk) 11:17, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- @DanTD: Corrected on Wikidata [5] [6] - infoboxes in both categories should work now, but you may need to purge the page caches. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:50, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
[edit] |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! At Dunham Massey 2024 062.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! At Dunham Massey 2024 071.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! At Dunham Massey 2024 072.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! At Dunham Massey 2024 073.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! At Dunham Massey 2024 103.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
--QICbot (talk) 05:33, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
[edit] |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! At Katowice 2024 276.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! At Katowice 2024 277.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! At Katowice 2024 278.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! At Katowice 2024 282.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! At Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew 2024 577.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! At Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew 2024 579.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
--QICbot (talk) 05:34, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
[edit] |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! At Katowice 2024 239.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! At Katowice 2024 279.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! At Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew 2024 586.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! At Rio de Janeiro 2019 204.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
--QICbot (talk) 05:46, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
[edit] |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! At Tokyo 2024 358.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! At Tokyo 2024 359.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! At Tokyo 2024 378.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! At Tokyo 2024 679.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! At Tokyo 2024 681.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Morro Bay 2015 010.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
--QICbot (talk) 05:21, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
[edit] |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Monument to Mario Cermenati, Wikimania 2016, MP 004.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! At Rio de Janeiro 2019 047.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! At Santos, Brazil 2017 045.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
--QICbot (talk) 05:26, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
[edit] |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! At São Paulo, Brazil 2019 024.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! At Rio de Janeiro 2019 048.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! At Rio de Janeiro 2019 125.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! At Sardinia Radio Telescope 2019 052.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! At Chicago 2024 001.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! At Chicago 2024 007.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
--QICbot (talk) 05:30, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
[edit] |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! At Swindon Steam Railway Museum 2024 255.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! At Chicago 2024 008.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! At Rio de Janeiro 2019 127.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! At Sardinia Radio Telescope 2019 061.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Paróquia São Sebastião, Cachoeira Paulista 2017 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Brazilian Decimetric Array 2017 09.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|