User talk:Taketa

The new categories related to local images vs. images on Wikidata

Hi. I'm wondering if we need these categories that you recently created. Especially:

Local image same as Wikidata: why is that an issue?
Local image different than Wikidata: shouldn't this be allowed?

Are these categories part of some Wikimedia project? Could you put something on each of them explaining what should be done with the entries in them? Also, these categories should themselves be categorized somehow, other than in Category:Hidden categories. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:35, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Auntof6, thanks for the feedback.

The categories are all part of my little project to get images on articles. See User:Taketa/Wikidata Images. Currently 8 projects (nl, da, de, pl, pt, fr, zh), images on 4000 articles in the last month, 10.000 images added to wikidata. Simple wiki has 14% of soccer articles missing images where one does exist, so I decided to start it here. I estimate we can add images to 5.000-10.000 articles on simple.wiki easily.

With these 5 categories I have all possible places an article can be in. Which is good since I edit tens of thousands of articles at a time with the template. Specifically, the category "local image different than Wikidata" will in the future be used to do a check if any good images are available that are currently not on the article. One image is good, two are better. For example some articles had images of tombstones and I added images of the people. Secondly, any image different then Wikidata, could be added to Wikidata, also on Wikidata two is better then one.

This wikiproject is new to me, and the categories are all new. Feel free to suggest categories to place these categories in, or if you are familiar with noinclude feel free to add them yourself.

Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 19:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. Having images in more articles would be good! A lot of our articles are adapted from articles on English Wikipedia, and for some reason people often don't include whatever images (and even infoboxes) are there.

Is your project only for articles about footballers, or will it expand beyond that? It looks like you can only find the need for images in articles that use infoboxes, is that right?

I haven't worked with adding images to Wikidata. Is one supposed to add only good images there, or any images that exist? If the latter, I imagine the list could get very long for some subjects.

I think our community might like to know about the improvements you're making to our articles. When you have a chance, maybe you can put something on WP:Simple Talk about your project. I'll figure out where to categorize the new categories, if someone else doesn't get to it first. Let me know if you have any questions about this Wiki. Regards. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those are good suggestions and questions. I started on soccerplayers but will eventually expand to all topics. You are correct that only articles with infoboxes are included, and moreover, only the images in those infoboxes are counted. It works to some extend.

As far as I know all images that are added to Wikidata are on topic. So for painters an image of the painter, but not of their paintings. I agree that would lead to alot of images. I haven't seen any problems so far, people can figure out what is usefull on their own.

Thanks for the link to the project talkpage. I will type a short introduction tomorrow or the day after, pending when I feel inspired. If I have any questions I will be sure to let you know. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 21:08, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

image and infobox sizes

I notice that some infoboxes on biog pages are swamping the written content. I think this is mainly because you have not defined the size of the photographs. You can limit them by adding a line "image_width = 200px" (or whatever). Although infoboxes are useful devices, it is the text which is primary. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:36, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Macdonald-ross, thanks for the feedback. Could you please give examples of what you consider too big and I will have a look to see what you mean. Currently I have no idea where it is too big. All images I have added have the same size as any image on simple wikipedia as far as I can tell, like the image on Bee-eater. There are some big infoboxes on articles, I agree, I have seen some, but those were big before I added the image and are big due to the text in them. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 08:45, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At a second look I see the sportsperson boxes are set much wider than usual, and are not determined by px size. This must be some setting in the infobox template. I look at sportspeople pages so seldom that I had not noticed this. They are definitely wider than our norm. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... I think the appearance and goals columns are causing the problem, and that may be something we can't easily fix. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:53, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back

These are special "Welcome-back cookies" baked fresh just for you!
_{<stage whisper>...will someone please get rid of the bag the cookies came in before Taketa sees it?</stage whisper>}
Etamni | ✉ | ✓ 05:35, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the welcome back Etamni. I appreciate it. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 15:08, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]