Commons talk:Structured data/Archive 2022

Can anybody explain to me why the properties depicts (P180) and main subject (P921) are treated differently in the description of the image on Commons and its Wikidataentry Maria Salome und Maria Cleophae (Q109708676) itself? The Structured Data entry was initated by bot. --Wuselig (talk) 16:36, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

The statements here describe the file File:Alte Meister in der Sammlung Würth-Kat.-57b.jpg. In the file Maria Salome und Maria Cleophae (Q109708676) is depicted and the main subject of the file is Maria Salome und Maria Cleophae (Q109708676).

The statements on Wikidata describe the artwork Maria Salome und Maria Cleophae (Q109708676), so the depicts (P180) & main subject (P921) are about what we see in the painting. Multichill (talk) 22:12, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! I have fallen into that trap before. But Games like Suggested tags always lead me back into this trap. Because there we would also add as

depicts (P180)

ornament (Q335261), headgear (Q14952), game (Q11410), overcoat (Q337481), gold (Q208045), flower (Q506)

besides

mother (Q7560), child (Q7569), aunt (Q76507), son (Q177232), sister (Q595094), brother (Q10861465), cousin (Q23009870)

and of course

Salome (Q233067), Mary of Clopas (Q235377),St. James the Elder, Apostle (Q43999),John the Apostle (Q44015), James the Less (Q3245490), Simon the Zealot (Q12871), Jude the Apostle (Q43945), James, son of Alphaeus (Q44047),

because we see all this, and much more on this image.

Or am I again mixing things up?

I fell into the trap, because of the singular addition of the refernce to the artwork as the depicts (P180) of the image, while omitting all the others. Wuselig (talk) 11:19, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

hilft das?Oursana (talk) 11:32, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Answering in English, because the page is in English:

Yes and no! Because it doesn't real give a sense of where to really stop. If we look at the Commons Categories like Category:Nude or partially nude women facing right and looking left in art some users here like to go down to the last details. And I think Structured Commons was created to bring back images that have been burried deep down in such Category holes to the surface and make them findable again. With tags that is easier than having to follow all the branches of a category tree to an individual leaf. But how do we convey this to the common users, if even I as an old horse repeatatly fall into the trap? Wuselig (talk) 11:54, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Commons:Structured_data/Modeling/Depiction Oursana (talk) 18:11, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

After thinking about this for a while, I believe that, unlike creator or inception, “depicts” is transitive (at least for visual works). Thus ⟨photo of statue –(depicts)-> statue of Ganesha –(depicts)-> deity Ganesha ⟩ entails also that photo —(depicts)–> Ganesha. There is some cutoff point though, where the chained depiction needs to be sufficiently prominent, so that a photo of a museum interior depicts the room and the contained artworks but not the figures within the artworks. Pelagic (talk) 12:53, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

File:Aerial Heilandskirche Sacrow.jpg

Though I deleted the wikidatalink, this file still gets an automated cat which all files get, which I linked to wikidata. So how can I delete the red link Category:Artworks digital representation of church building which does not fit here and should not go with all (even formerly) wikidata linked photos--Oursana (talk) 11:59, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Follow up question: Why do we get red-linked categories at all? Shouldn't the programmer of such a feature create the categories that such images are to be moved into beforehand?

Here too, for a different image and category: File:Alte Meister in der Sammlung Würth-Kat.-57b.jpg which links to Category:Artworks digital representation of panel painting --Wuselig (talk) 12:54, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Both File:Андреев Макар макросъемка капрона.jpg and File:Chromatic aberration lens diagram.svg have depicts (P180) chromatic aberration (Q1087688) statements. It's definitely not the same kind of "depicting" and probably the statement on File:Андреев Макар макросъемка капрона.jpg should be removed? But how to express the existing of chromatic aberration (Q1087688) on it then? Do we have a property for that? Thanks in advance, --Marsupium (talk) 07:50, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

@Marsupium: The has characteristic (P1552) property feels relevant to me here, though I’m not sure where I would put it – as a main statement, or as a qualifier on another statement… Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 00:03, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Recently I've added a lot of images from my slide archives dating to the 1970s by photographing them with a digital camera in a copy stand, so that they have the nominal property of being created with a Canon 7D II, but they're really slide duplicates. What kind of property or qualifier would be an appropriate annotation to indicate that the original was not in fact generated with a digital camera 40 years before the camera existed? An example: File:F-4N Phantom 150475 of VF-201 NAS Atlanta 1978 GA1.jpg Acroterion (talk) 18:50, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

That's a really good-looking conversion, @Acroterion! Using a macro lens instead of a slide scanner hadn't occurred to me, what do you use for back-lighting? Back on-topic, the only solution I can think of is somewhat kludgy and I'll be interested to see others' suggestions. Could you set digital representation of (P6243) = unknown/somevalue then add qualifiers to that (inception, author, captured with (P4082), instance of (P31), etc.? Strictly speaking qualifiers apply to the whole statement, not the object of the statement, which is why I feel a little uneasy about that approach. Pelagic (talk) 07:42, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

That was why I asked, every way I thought of doing it was kludgy. For that matter many of the same objections exist if a dedicated film scanner is used, it's just a little more obvious that it was a scan. Maybe some new properties should be set up to cover scans and duplications in some degree of variety?

I use a Canon EF100 2.8 L macro lens, with an extension tube to allow close focus, stopped down to f/10. I tried other cameras, including a Canon 5Ds, but I found to my surprise that the 7DII gave the best detail and could resolve the grain. The 5Ds was almost as good, but the extra resolution was not needed and just made the file size bigger. The 7DII is more of a sports-and-birds camera, so I wasn't expecting that. I used a 35mm slide/film holder on a Skier Pro Sunray LED light box. This setup is an order of magnitude faster than scanning, and the results were equivalent, and without the hassle of dealing with Kodachrome-versus digtal ICE conflicts. It does, however, show every speck of dust, which has to be removed in post-processing, which a scanner would mostly remove. Acroterion (talk) 14:20, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi all! I’d like to present a new Lua module I’ve created to access the structured data of a file (or a Wikidata item), since none of the existing modules did what I was looking for: Module:Statement. It’s intended for cases where you expect a statement to only be present once, and it returns the value as plainly as possible (in particular, for item ID values it gives you the item ID itself, not a link or an unlinked label like Module:WikidataIB or Module:Wikidata2 would). It can be used directly from wikitext (in a template), or from another module; using it in a module is likely to be more efficient, but you may find template usage easier to work with.

It’s motivated by my recent work on {{Lingua Libre record}} together with Nikki, where we wanted to use the value of three properties, each of which is only expected to be present once: language of work or name (P407), audio transcription (P9533), and Lingua Libre ID (P10369). (We also needed the ISO 639-3 code (P220) of the language of work or name (P407), which is why the modules that returned the language as a labelled link were useless to us.) Module:Lingua Libre record doesn’t currently use Module:Statement (since I wrote the specific module before the general-purpose one), but if Module:Statement works out, the other one should probably use it sooner or later.

This module isn’t intended to satisfy all possible use cases for structured data; in particular, it’s not very well suited for properties where you’d expect multiple values, like first and foremost depicts (P180). (I am thinking of creating a second module that selects a single statement based on a single qualifier, but I should probably wait a bit with that, do one thing at a time.) That said, I hope it can still be useful for other templates; Dominic has already been experimenting with it, and I thought it’s ready for some wider usage, hence this post :) Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 20:43, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I am trying to determine the best way to add the order for a sequence of related uploads (i.e. pagination). Often, a single conceptual item is uploaded across multiple files. Consider a case where each page of one document is a separate JPG scan. They may come from an institution and all have the same identifier and other descriptive metadata. Here is an example of a case like that: https://w.wiki/4xGX

In the uploads, I have distinguished the files by using "(page X)" in the file name, incrementing the page number for each. But this is not reflected in SDC at this time; all of their structured data is the same. This is not the same concept as page(s) (P304), which would properly refer to the page (or total pages) of the of the depicted work, not necessarily of sequence of uploads. Also, not all sequential uploads from a single work are in a format to be referred to as "pages" anyway. It is also not file page (P7668), which is the opposite of this, in a way—for giving the page number within a referenced file, rather than the number of a file within a given set of files. We discussed this on Telegram, but there were not many existing examples or satisfactory ideas. I can think of a way to do this (which is modeled on the way we do creators in a creator (P170) statement with 'somevalue and author name string (P2093) qualifier):

I am using this approach because we are saying the file is part of a series, though the series does not have a Wikidata item, so uses somevalue and the series is being defined instead with the institutional item identifier in the qualifier. This allows us to use "series ordinal" for the page number, plus "number of parts of this work" for the total.

Is this a viable approach? Are there other ideas? Or should we just propose a new property for this that would allow us to apply the value to the file at the top level instead of in a qualifier, as it is somewhat complicated this way? Dominic (talk) 22:31, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Not sure if anyone already filed a ticket for it, but I filed phab:T301048 for this. Multichill (talk) 21:11, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Pretty much every my upload where I wanted to amend the structural data in the last month had this issue. Thanks for filing.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:31, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I have noticed this when added structured data with AC DC (Help:Gadget-ACDC). I added the structed data is not longer visible. I added it to the phab discussion. Caddyshack01 (talk) 15:20, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

It appears that we can "Mark as prominent" statements other than depicts. Was this always the case? Are there any instances where this would actually make sense to do? the wub "?!" 08:53, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello,

I am new to structured data and making a concerted effort to include it on uploads, but I am often confused by where the 'allowed qualifiers constraint' that comes up. For example, this image depicts a light tower, but using depicts for that apparently results in a potential issue: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Penn-North_Light_Tower_by_Woodbrook_Ave.jpg

If I see warnings like this, is it an error with how I added the structure data, or could it be an error with how the item being depicted is defined? --Middle river exports (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

When i added a new statements (example: File:Shark_antwerp_zoo.jpg) the structured data tab is empty. If i select the old revision of the file from the history the statements are there. Only latest wersion doesn't work. --Zache (talk) 08:17, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I have also experienced SD disappear with files edited in April, like with this image. Premeditated (talk) 09:02, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

#Structured data not visible in structured data tab on a lot of files. Multichill (talk) 10:21, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I have been looking at the Commons entities mediainfo JSON dump and while it is great that it exists, I wonder how to know which entity corresponds to which file. In the dump, JSON lacks title field, only id field is present. But that seems to be independent from any other identifier. Should we have a statement which provides a link to the file (using commonsMedia data type)? Or should we use a top-level sitelinks property to make a link? Mitar (talk) 00:28, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi, maybe you can explain your use case to help us understand what you are trying to achieve. For example, you can easily generate a link to the file with the entity concept URI: https://commons.wikimedia.org/entity/M41304415 --Schlurcher (talk) 08:26, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Note that the numerical part of the entity ID is always identical to the MediaWiki page_id of the page it is associated with. —MisterSynergy (talk) 09:56, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

@Mitar: the title like File:Entrance by the Harrow Way - geograph.org.uk - 3185722.jpg on Special:EntityData/M115001143.json is missing in the json dump? That sounds like a bug to me. Multichill (talk) 11:19, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, entities in the dump do not have a title field. So my use case is that I start with the dump and I would like to know for which file each entity in the dump is. Without the title field (which is returned from the special page, but is not in the dump) this seems ... hard? Or more hard then necessary.

Should I open a bug?

I will look page table dump to see if I can find a mapping that way, but it is definitely more work than it should be. Mitar (talk) 18:48, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

@Mitar: yes, please do in Phabricator. I found the dump on Toolforge and had a look

tools.multichill@tools-sgebastion-08:/mnt/nfs/dumps-labstore1006.wikimedia.org/commonswiki/entities$ zcat latest-mediainfo.json.gz | head -2

This returns Special:EntityData/M76.json minus some of the fields like title. Multichill (talk) 20:06, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I made phab:T301104. Mitar (talk) 10:04, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

There is no progress on this on Phabricator. I think this is a really big limitation of JSON dump. How could this be pushed forward? Mitar (talk) 11:13, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikimedia Hackathon is coming in May. This could be a good place for pushing forward as it is likely that there are people with knowledge participating and this is something tangible and small enough to fix in the hackathon time. --Zache (talk) 17:39, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Great idea. I tagged it to be added. Not sure if I should also make a session for it or something. Or how to get other people involved to guide me a bit (e.g., where is the code relevant to this). Mitar (talk) 12:08, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I have done it during the Hackathon and the improvement to the dump script has been merged. This now has to be deployed and used for dump generation. API output will not match dump output. Mitar (talk) 12:27, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for pushing this forward. -- Zache (talk) 14:28, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

This has now been deployed. I checked commons-20220620-mediainfo.json.bz2 dump and it contains now title field (alongside other fields which are present in API). So this has been resolved. Mitar (talk) 12:49, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

So this project is adding structured data for files on Wikimedia Commons. What about files on Wikipedia itself, those which cannot be moved to Wikimedia Commons because of copyright reasons? Are there any plans to populate metadata there as well? I would especially be interested in having license information for those files as structured data. Mitar (talk) 09:19, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Does anyone know the long term plan for structured data and categories on Commons? Is the goal for structured data to replace categories at some point? Lectrician1 (talk) 16:44, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Afaik in theory yes, but that is too far a way currently to have practical ideas or plans for that. I think that currently, the practical level plan is to implement things is to either normalize the information which is currently stored in category structures and templates so that can be queried more easily (like licence and author information). The second is to save new information which is not handled in category structures at all. (like mass analyze photos add tags for them like "this is indoor photograph", "this is drawing", "this is photograph of object"). -- Zache (talk) 17:20, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

IMO anyone who thinks structured data will replace categories is deluded. (Though as delusions go, it seems to be quite widespread). IMO categories will remain, not least because they allow people to produce a curated presentation of content -- eg introduced by appropriate wikitext and templates, ordered in a particular way, with content grouped between categories in a particular human-useful way. This is particularly clear for eg presentations of content with a natural ordering from eg a particular atlas of images, or a particular collection, allowing people to browse in a way that reflects that original source or collection. But far beyond that, over the years users have put a lot of work curating content into structures that make sense to humans, with appropriate curation and contextualisation within those categories. People who assume SDC will solve everything are apt to overlook this, and also overlook just how much people like to build a concrete structure to which they can return to.

There are definitely people who do think that if SDC can be used to power a useful w:faceted search interface, that will make categories redundant. I am dubious, and think (a) it will be very hard to achieve; and (b) that categories will provide an interface for browsing and exploration that users will continue to find valuable, even if/when faceted search is available.

So despite people airily say that categories are a dead end and no more effort should be put into them, I don't think that that is true. I do think categories and SDC may become increasingly synchronised -- so that many SDC statements will be added based on categories; and categories for a file may be added or refined increasingly to reflect SDC statements (in the process making categorisation more complete). Unlike people who think categories will just wither and die, I think that the ease and speed with which categories can be made and curated and shared will continue to attract user interest, and that a more realistic view is that the two systems will continue to develop in parallel with each other, linked by a relationship between the two that will become increasingly symbiotic. Jheald (talk) 13:44, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Moved to Commons_talk:Structured_data/Modeling/Location#Adding_locations_as_properties

Is there any SDC equivalent of the "moveClaim" gadget on wikidata (or something like it), that helps you copy claims from one item to another?

Recently I used Commons:CropTool to create a crop of a geograph image. The original file had all of its metadata stored as SDC. Sadly CropTool wasn't able to copy any of this metadata over, other than the {{Geograph from structured data}} template, which then had no SDC to render. Copying across all the SDC statements from the original image by hand took a surprisingly long time, so I was wondering if there are any tools or scripts to help? Jheald (talk) 23:07, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, that would be useful to have. We would need to fork d:MediaWiki:Gadget-moveClaim.js. Maybe User:Matěj Suchánek wants to help out here? Multichill (talk) 16:33, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Actually, for this use case, I’d expect CropTool itself to copy the structured data, so that the user doesn’t need to think about it (and likely forget it). For other use cases, a user script (or even a gadget) would be useful, though. —Tacsipacsi (talk) 10:23, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, CropTool shouldn’t copy all the structured data directly – any depicts (P180) statements with relative position within image (P2677) qualifiers will likely need those qualifiers adjusted. I suppose CropTool has all the needed information to adjust those qualifiers, so in theory it could actually do it automatically? (And drop statements where the depicted area is outside the cropped area?) Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 16:04, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Also not clear how to indicate that a file is derived from another file -- based on (P144) expects a Qid as its object. Jheald (talk) 21:03, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Probably I have overlooked it. I am looking for a template to show a specific SDC statement on the image page. I.e. for File:Fritz Zapp, Rheinisches Bildarchiv, rba 720114.jpg the Iconclass statement? Thanks for your help Raymond 17:16, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

@Raymond: Module:Statement can do it, for example: {{#invoke:Statement|string|P1256|from=M109931507}} → 25I141. (I believe invoking Lua modules directly is discouraged, though, so hopefully you’re planning to do this in a template. {{Pronunciation file}} and {{DPLA metadata}} are two existing templates using this module.) Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 18:14, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

@Lucas Werkmeister Thank you. I think I will pimp the very simple Template:Iconclass. Raymond 18:37, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Sounds great! Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 18:39, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I've uploaded many images to Commons in the last week but I don't know if there's a way to query those with the Query service. I can only seem to find instructions of how to find images that were actually created by me thibaultmol (talk) 13:56, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

There is an uploads button on the top and left panels. Is this good enough, or do I misunderstand the question? Ymblanter (talk) 18:54, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

There is yes. But the special page for uploads isn't anything you can use in the Query service or even the regular search field.

There is no way from my understanding to use the Query service to get all the uploads by a user thibaultmol (talk) 18:56, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

You can use mwapi to access data from API generator queries (API:Allimages in this case).

SELECT * WHERE {
  SERVICE wikibase:mwapi {
    bd:serviceParam wikibase:endpoint "commons.wikimedia.org";
                    wikibase:api "Generator";
                    mwapi:generator "allimages";
                    mwapi:gailimit 1000;
                    mwapi:gaiuser "thibaultmol";
                    mwapi:gaisort "timestamp";
                    mwapi:prop "url".
    ?title wikibase:apiOutput mwapi:title.
    ?pageid wikibase:apiOutput mwapi:pageid.
  }
  BIND(URI(CONCAT("https://commons.wikimedia.org/entity/M", STR(?pageid)))  as ?sdc_item) 
}

Try it!

--Zache (talk) 11:53, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Perfect! That's exactly what I was looking for! thibaultmol (talk) 12:25, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

JamieF (talk) 16:46, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Are their plans to allow editing structured data when editing an image page? -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:12, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

The only known date for File:City Road, Winchester.jpg is when it was sent (as a postcard). I have recorded this in the file information with {{other date|before|1916-09}}, and now I'm attempting to do the same in the structured data. However I cannot find any obvious way of putting a 'before' construct into the Inception property. Can anybody help. -- Chris j wood (talk) 09:18, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Great question, I was thinking about that myself quite recently. {{Otherdate}} has a lot of useful options, most of them should be translated into SDC in one way or another and clearly documented somewhere. El Grafo (talk) 09:35, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Please see here: Commons:Structured_data/Modeling/Date --Schlurcher (talk) 10:30, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very helpful! Using sourcing circumstances (P1480) for accuracy feels very wrong, though, due to how much emphasis the label and description put on the word "source". El Grafo (talk) 13:58, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

@El Grafo: The German translation seems to fit the purpose. Do you have a better term that could be used for English so we can improve? --Schlurcher (talk) 12:31, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Please see Commons talk:Structured data/Reconciliation#Coordinates of the position cannot be changed. I just tested this again with File:Unterstmatt - Ochsenstall - panoramio.jpg. While I was able to delete (for test purposes) copyright license (P275), editing or deleting the coordinates was impossible, as there was either no "Publish changes" button at all or it wasn't active. The workaround I found was to change my language setting either from German to English of vice versa. Immediately afterwards, the buttons worked as intended and I was able to publish the change. --Sitacuisses (talk) 19:51, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Seemed to work with me but [1]. However, only after my test did I read the discussion on the reconciliation talk page. It seems that there is some kind of underlying problem which cases that it may or may not work. -- Zache (talk) 07:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

same for me, cannot resolve discrepancies between falsely copied object coordinates and SDC. Was suspecting, that we will be forced to fix manually the copies of wrong vales. Happy to read this is not a feature, but a bug. best --Herzi Pinki (talk) 22:14, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

still nor resolved, not even a reaction by someone feeling responsible? best --Herzi Pinki (talk) 11:10, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

@Herzi Pinki It's a known bug: phab:T313638. As a workaround, try temporarily switching your language (yes, I know, it's ridiculous). Another browser might work too - are you, by chance using Firefox? El Grafo (talk) 13:31, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Thx for caring. Yes it is Firefox. Changing the language works. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 13:41, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

In principle it is only by courtesy, that I try to fix coordinates copied by a bot without understanding. In principle I would expect a bot to keep copies in sync without user intervention. best --Herzi Pinki (talk) 13:52, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Should I use Depicts:Stockholm concert hall (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:EntityPage/Q653773) on a photo of an architectural model of the building, i.e. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ArkDes,_Stockholms_konserthus,_modell,_2018.jpg ? And/or should I use Depicts:Architectural models (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1352349) with a qualifier? Ambrosiani (talk) 13:30, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Made a cross reference to this question on Wikidata:Property talk:P180#Open questions on how to use this property on Commons talk:Structured data. -- Juergen 217.61.195.60 23:01, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Until today, I did not know this feature and was unable to find Commons:Structured data based on what I saw on image description pages.
I had to ask the German wikipedia helpdesk to find it so I guess it might be a good idea to link the text like this: Add a one-line explanation of what this file represents (and the equivalent in all the other languagaes). -- Juergen 217.61.195.60 22:31, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Hey there, I'm a volunteer developer on Lingua Libre, and I'm wondering if the MediaInfo Mxxx id remains immutable if the file gets renamed? If this id is constant, this might help us better handle file renaming on our end.   --Poslovitch (talk) 14:15, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

The Mediainfo ID ( M12345 number) is "M" + page_id so it will stay as same when the image is renamed. Cases, where page_id (and MediaInfo ID) will change, are when the image is first deleted and then undeleted. Page history merges may also change the MediaInfo ID. --Zache (talk) 16:43, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion to vote on Commons:Depiction guidelines. Please give your opinion here Anthere (talk) 14:55, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

At File:Bertrand Blanchard Acosta (1895-1954) obituary in the New Bridgeport Telegram of Bridgeport, Connecticut on September 2, 1954 by the Associated Press.png for structured data, I am not allowed to use "distributed by". Should I delete it, or should "distributed by" be added as a valid Property? It would be a way to find all the articles distributed the Associated Press or other news agencies. Or would you prefer "Associated Press" as an author/creator. --RAN (talk) 20:12, 28 November 2022 (UTC)