2017 Community Wishlist Survey/Wikidata/Integrate Pattypan and Quick Statements

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

⬅ Back to Wikidata The survey has concluded. Here are the results!


Mapping Commons Artwork template to Wikidata painting item
  • Problem: Currently, GLAM organizers face some hurdles to be able to submit simultaneously to Wikimedia Commons and Wikidata. This is particularly true for itens that should uncontroversially be on Wikidata, such as paintings (check Wikiproject Sum of All Paintings). Pattypan is a tool for mass upload to Commons, which relies on a spreadsheet; Quick Statements is a tool for mass upload to Wikidata, whose code can be generated from a spreadsheet. These tools, that have common goals --to ease massive uploads--, do not work too well together, and may be require from massive uploaders the double work of using one then the other, wasting precious time for work that could be done simultaneously.
  • Who would benefit: Massive uploaders, from Wikidata and Wikimedia Commons; institutional uploaders.
  • Proposed solution: The integration of Pattypan and Quick Statements seem like a technical small step, that would certainly require the creation of new columns associated to parameters one needs to fill in when working with Wikidata. As a pilot, I would recommend to strictly limit the integration to paintings. I understand GLAMpipe has been proposed as a solution for the issue of integrating Commons and Wikidata upload, but I believe this integration can also be set up for Pattypan.
  • Proposer: Joalpe (talk) 10:32, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Endorse. This has been an issue since we started curating artworks on Wikidata. It is complicated by the ever-growing backlog of images of artworks on Wikimedia Commons that were uploaded with the default uploader, which includes an information template, but not an artwork or "art photo" template. Jane023 (talk) 11:11, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
    @Jane023: Hi, I wanted to let you know I've changed the {{support}} vote you added to "Endrose". The voting phase begins on November 27. Until then we don't want to confuse people into thinking votes will amount to anything. Sorry about that, and thank you for participating in the survey! MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 16:51, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I think the solution should be to rewrite c:Template:Artwork to pull most of it's data from Wikidata, and upload the metadata only to Wikidata. We do not need two places to store the same info. --Jarekt (talk) 13:45, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Agree. The doubled uploading of the same information isn't the way to go. Perhaps we should speed up at least the basic support for artwork data retrieval through c:Template:Artwork. :) --Marsupium (talk) 20:18, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Endorse. I have been working with Quick Statements recently, and this integration with the mass commons uploading tools has turned a job that is already laborious into a three or more step laborious job. Ederporto (talk) 16:57, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Endorse, as an author of Pattypan :). This idea is close to my heart as an avid Wikidata editor. Just to let you know, one of the things that is planned is early support for Commons' Structured Data. Yarl (talk) 19:32, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Voting