sent from a phone
> On 25. Jun 2020, at 19:59, pangoSE <[email protected]> wrote: > > image=File:* -> commons_file=File:* image=Category:* -> > commons_category=Category:* image=https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:* > -> commons_file=File:* image=https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:* -> > commons_category=Category:* splitting commons into files and categories (different keys) seems to be an improvement, although neither of these keys are existing at the moment. Following what we have so far, “wikimedia_commons_file” and “wikimedia_commons_ category“ would fit better, although a bit unwieldy. From a datauser perspective, does it really improve the situation? Right now you have to check for 2 “main” keys: image and wikimedia_commons (leaving wikidata out for the moment), and then you can see what you find in the value (url, file: category: etc.) after your proposed edit you would have to check for more keys but could hope that the values would be better standardized. And you’d have to run a bot frequently to keep things “clean”. Btw, there are also a few images tagged with a “flickr” key (~1200) While it could eventually make sense to make an exception for wikimedia commons, I do not believe we should create a new key for every image hosting service. Cheers Martin _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
