Wikicrowd

I don't know much about Wikicrowd, and don't particularly care to, but is it actively encouraging edits like , or did this user just happen to do that? I suppose the edit is not actively harmful, but to take a picture of two people, at least one of whom has a Wikidata item, and say that what it depicts is a microphone seems really useless. It might as well say it depicts a wall and water bottle. - Jmabel ! talk 18:50, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

(Courtesy ping @Ranjithsiji, who made the edit, and @Addshore, who made the tool.)

The edit summary would seem to suggest that the statement was effectively copied from the file’s membership in Category:Microphones (or more specifically Category:People with microphones). I’m not convinced that depicts statement is significantly worse than the category, which has been on that file since 2021. Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 19:05, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Depicts says entity visually depicted in an image . In this image there is a Microphone and it is clearly visible. There are humans, May be people who has wikidata item. We can add more than one depicts into an image. So I don't see a problem here. THe microphone is not make prominent here. Ranjithsiji (talk) 19:16, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

I also believe the edit is fine, though of course I'm happy to tweak the tool to guide based on what the community in general wants and finds acceptable. My understanding though mirrors the above comment, which is the microphone is clearly depicted, and thus should likely be included.

Really, the unfortunate thing is that JessAnn Smith and pianist and music historian Eric Hung who are photographed don't have entries on Wikidata, and thus can not also be added as depicted. For the benefit of this conversation, however, I have gone ahead and said that they also depict "person" ·addshore· ^{talk to me!} 12:25, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

And this? - Jmabel ! talk 20:48, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Again, there probably isn't anything wrong with that image saying depicts trousers, likely it should also have other depicts statements also (which I have gone ahead and added https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:No_Kings_NYC_(October_2025)_41.jpg&diff=1140570455&oldid=1139705827)

It all really depends on what people want to be able to look for within the dataset of commons images. ·addshore· ^{talk to me!} 14:25, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Caption expand button is not usable, as it is barely visible

As shown in the image caption expand button is barely visible while using on Firefox 148.0 browser (image shown) or Google chrome Version 143.0.7499.169 (Official Build) (64-bit) on Ubuntu 22.04 Arjunaraoc (talk) 07:26, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

There are multiple gadgets that intentionally hide or minimize the SDC interface, because many people dislike the whole concept of SDC. Do you happen to use one of them? If yes, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mallavaram_Dam.jpg?safemode=1 should appear fine for you, as ?safemode=1 disables all gadgets, user scripts and similar. If that URL indeed appears fine, you’ll need to go through your gadgets and find the problematic one. —Tacsipacsi (talk) 19:56, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Search for capture date

How can I use SDC search to find all images in a category tree, captured at a specific date (e.g. March 16th, independent of year)? I failed with various values for haswbstatement:P571=. (Intersection of commonscat and SDC property)? best --Herzi Pinki (talk) 13:49, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

@Herzi Pinki: I would guess you would do better with deepcat:"6 March, by year" than with anything off of SDC. Neither will be comprehensive, of course, but I don't see a way to tease out day-of-year from date in a search based on structured data. - Jmabel ! talk 18:05, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, but to work this needs full categorization by date of all images. My focus was on finding images that where taken on a specific date constellation and do not have the by date categories at the moment of search, for example to set those categories or to find images without such categories. hoped that the automatic propagation of capture dates to SDC would help. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 23:24, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

@Herzi Pinki: It might be doable with a SPARQL query as long as the commonscat isn’t too large… which category are you interested in? Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 17:57, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

@Lucas Werkmeister: I see some eager people hiding images in those by-date-categories. If these images (by date) can be retrieved by a smart search, there would be no further need to hide the images deep down the category tree of these by-date categories. e.g. category:Großglockner.

sparql for regex date & depicts (P180), alas no Großglockner image has a suitable depicts (P180)

is there a way to mix sparql with incategory: search?

btw: dates BC with day precision - unbelievable! best --Herzi Pinki (talk) 19:19, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

@Herzi Pinki: Yes, it’s possible using the MWAPI service. (Note that, while that page has a find category members example, to get deep category members you need to use the search instead.) This query returns one result for 17 March. Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 20:58, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

AFAIK haswbstatement has never supported time values: phab:T238498. --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 09:31, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

date errors / BC / upload / ?bots

Hi, found some date errors and a consecutive misinterpretation by automated processes: See e.g. File:Our Lady of the Sacred Heart Church christmas 001.jpg with a syntactically wrong date, which is misinterpreted by the automated upload process regarding the SDC and is set to a BC date ().

• see SDC query for more cases

• Can somebody please fix the wrong dates? Experience with also fixing SDC is also needed.
• Can someone fix the upload process to check for invalid / questionable dates?

see also images with BC dates

best --Herzi Pinki (talk) 12:36, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

More efficient SDC query; note that some of these dates are arguably not wrong, e.g. File:Aiease 1767709691935-removebg-preview-removebg-preview.png where 105 BCE refers to the depicted coin, rather than the photograph. Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 14:57, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

thanks for the more efficient one. I know, that some of those dates might be correct. But without individual checking it is difficult to judge. See

• File:Silver tetradrachm of Antimachos I of Bactria, 185-170 BC - Sackler Museum - Harvard University - PXL 20250722 152610494.jpg, where the date 185-170 BC is plausible, but the SDC date derived is 16. Juni 0185 BCE.  Done
• File:Tetradrachm of Antiochus, son of Seleucus IV.jpg date known by day precision?
• and we have 7600 images with SDC date > 2026-04-00 (=in the future).

So let's talk about those having date problems (luckily there are only 229 206 BC cases). best --Herzi Pinki (talk) 13:32, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

You may all know what I'm about to say here, but just in case someone reading this does not: Wikibase is rather limited in its ability to express a date range. You can see an example of both the issue and a workaround in Column Capital in the form of a Bes-image (Q116249017), property inception (P571). The actual value is marked as being accurate only to century; it is qualified by earliest date (P1319) and latest date (P1326). Honestly, it is horribly clumsy, especially for a short date range around the turn of a century (where the value as such ends up having to indicate only a millennium!) but it can be, and has been, made to work. - Jmabel ! talk 05:11, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

EXIF ↔ SDC mapping

Do we habe any listing of SDC properties equivalent of EXIF (and analog) atributes? I guess I'm talking about every attribute you can extract with API:Imageinfo. —Ismael Olea (talk) 19:29, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

It's here: Commons:Structured data/Modeling/Meta --Schlurcher (talk) 10:35, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

@Schlurcher but there is not equivalency to EXIF/XMP/... :-m Is this information elsewhere? Maybe you have it hardcoded in one of your scripts? —Ismael Olea (talk) 16:35, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

I thought the table included on that page under the Heading "Modeling various types of metadata and exif(-like) data related to Wikimedia Commons files" was exactly what you are looking for. My bot extracts the imageinfo and matches it according ro that table. Otherwise, I am misunderstanding your question. --Schlurcher (talk) 06:44, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

(Side note: the “Data in RDF” table on that page also points out that WikibaseMediaInfo already emits much of this metadata automatically, making your bot edits redundant and, in my opinion, an enormous waste of resources. Queries should generally prefer e.g. schema:height over wdt:P2048, because the former is automatically kept up to date by WikibaseMediaInfo if e.g. a new version of the file is uploaded.) Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 21:21, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Just a +1 on the side note that I think we should bring up again somehow. What would be a possible way forward to stop this waste or resources? Ainali (talk) 07:44, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

This would be my way to go: Commons:Requests for comment/Technical needs survey/UploadWizardSDC --Schlurcher (talk) 13:46, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Does the Structured Commons have a future?

When the Structured Commons started, the expectations were that it would replace the system of categories. Now, if I get it right, we are not there, and the WMF stopped developing the Structured Commons. Is the project useful in its current stage? Is it going to survive (I mean not to be closed as having no future)? I am specifically asking because I add to every image I upload two properties, d:P31 and d:P1071 (as well as d:P571, but this is mostly done by bots, sometimes incorrectly). It would be useful for me to know whether I am just wasting my time, but I would be also interested in a broader perspective, for example, an answer to the original question - it is a possible, perspective replacement of categories? Ymblanter (talk) 16:58, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

That there is no development is a political decision of the WMF. This can change any time. We can not do more than demanding things and hope to be heard. We do not know what happens in the near or far future. GPSLeo (talk) 17:35, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

To me, structured data has a value in itself now, and for me, replacing categories could happen or not. Structured data is still great in search, SPARQL queries and working with APIs. So I don't think you are wasting time, you're making Commons better. Thanks! Ainali (talk) 19:34, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

I think it's pretty useful for what it is. I also think it is not on track to replace categorization, probably ever. - Jmabel ! talk 04:34, 27 March 2026 (UTC)