User talk:Azertus

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

See the /Archive for older threads

Billionaires[edit]

https://quickstatements.toolforge.org/#/batch/57433 HumanAFuser (talk) 10:21, 25 June 2021 (UTC) . Oops, I see you also run a batch and already with adding the new statement. Sorry. HumanAFuser (talk) 10:23, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HumanAFuser: No worries! I saw your edits removing instance of (P31)billionaire (Q1062083) and thought they were a good idea, since only instance of (P31)human (Q5) is valid for people.
The statements I am adding are of very low quality (very imprecise and essentially unsourced). But until better data gets imported, we can still query for all the billionaires we currently know about. --Azertus (talk) 10:37, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the high quality batch moving misplaced low quality statements to a better place. Another option would have been "role=billionaire", but that can be inferred from your helpful high quality networth-query. HumanAFuser (talk) 10:48, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Human P31=Q5 that has P31=somethingelse[edit]

https://w.wiki/3YHb - how to select each item that has P31=Q5 but also has some other P31 and list this other value? HumanAFuser (talk) 10:33, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You mean finding humans with an instance of something which is not a subclass of human? I tried, but I was not able to write that query... There's still some work to do with billionaires: https://w.wiki/3YJo I agree that object has role (P3831) or position held (P39) would be a good fit for many of these items (based on your query).
This query may be of interest. The items found there should be explored like this. It's possible that some of these situations are (currently) legitimate, of course. I'd suggest to tread lightly around the anonymous items, for example. There's still some low-hanging fruit left. --Azertus (talk) 12:34, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This query may also be of use. --Azertus (talk) 14:37, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Even "subclass of human" is always(?) a bug on an instance of a human. And https://w.wiki/3YSN shows subclasses of human: child, king, nation, noble title, ethnic group, Indigenous Australians, queen consort, fictional human formerly considered to be historical, geographic entity, oldest human, brother, jurisdiction, human fetus, hypothetical person, prisoner of a Nazi concentration camp, occupation, physician, nurse, nationality, inhabitant ... Re object has role: it should be subject has role on a human item. One is a human from birth to death, but only has a certain role ascribed by some process. https://w.wiki/3YJs - great query! "position held" can also be good in some cases, but I would leave this to others. I am mostly interested in cleaning P31=Q5 and the subclasses. Re anonymus Q4233718 - P31=Q5 and P279=Q5 : WD should be programmed to not allow such contradictions. But thanks to your count queries, it is visible that not that many human items are affected by problems in their P31 statements. HumanAFuser (talk) 20:36, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Usage of the property P2868 Subject has role[edit]

Good day! Have been reading your comment on "Flying Ace" on the discussion page. I have been using subject has role (P2868) on {Q|131572}} and on political prisoner (Q217105) . But at least the english user instructinon says that for persons position held (P39) should be used. do you have any comments on that? What about @Tagishsimon: and @Jura1: Pmt (talk) 09:54, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Contribution to {{SPARQL Inline}}[edit]

Thanks for your contribution to {{SPARQL Inline}}.

It would be interesting if you could take the time to explain your motivation for this change and how it will change the behaviour of the template in the talk page of the template.

PAC2 (talk) 18:04, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PAC2: will do! I've been meaning to do that and document my change ever since I edited the main {{SPARQL}} template. There hasn't been much response, although the change was picked up in a weekly summary. --Azertus (talk) 15:57, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Separate entities for websites[edit]

Hi, I'm somewhat intrigued by the website Vaph.be (Q107894105) getting its own, separate entity from the agency (Flemish Agency for persons with disabilities (Q3155127)) that is very much synonymous with it. Is there a reason why in this specific case a separate entity is warranted, or is it eventually the goal to have one entity for every website on the Internet (possibly only if notable)? Just curious, I'm interested in exploring data that links websites to their operators. Thanks! Victor LP (talk) 16:09, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Victor LP, I'm not an authority, but this is how I understand and see it. There's currently many items which conflate several concepts, but that's not necessarily a problem. I'm tired and can't think of good examples right now. But my personal rule is to split the item when there's a structural reason. In this case, I was planning to import data about organizations with the statement (reference) stated in (P248)Vaph.be (Q107894105). Since that statement doesn't make sense when linked to the agency, I created an item for the website.
I believe that, in many cases, splitting entities makes for a cleaner and clearer model. What I don't like about Vaph.be (Q107894105) is that the constraints don't allow using URL (P2699) instead of official website (P856). :-) You just gave me the idea to use statement is subject of (P805) to link the agency and its website, by the way.
I don't think there's a goal to create items for all (notable) websites, but I do have an interest in creating items for some websites. --Azertus (talk) 23:49, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for the clarification! And I guess you could (propose to) update the constraints to allow for URL (P2699)? :-) Victor LP (talk) 16:00, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Podcast episodes[edit]

I like the work you did creating new . Do you take requests?--Trade (talk) 00:15, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! And thanks for looking over my test items and suggesting content deliverer (P3274). Feel free to leave a request. No promises, but I'll try and generalize my workflow. If I can get the time investment per podcast low enough, I might be able to do more. I'm planning to document my workflow as well, although it's pretty basic. --08:43, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Wishlist:

By the way why did you removed country of origin from the podcast episode? --Trade (talk) 21:20, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Trade: I felt country of origin (P495) was more at place on the podcast item (not the episode), but I don't feel strongly about it.
I'm taking a stab at the podcasts you asked for. I can move quite fast, but each podcast has some peculiarities and I'm encountering some open questions I'll broach on the Wikidata:WikiProject Podcasts talk page. Apparently some rss feeds on libsyn are capped at 100 episodes. The AskHistorians Podcast is complete, but Cemetery Confessions is missing the first 21 episodes. I think it's probably still useful to do the incomplete import and complete them later (or manually). If you feel differently, let me know (soon). --Azertus (talk) 09:27, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Trade: Can you create an item for Cruel Angel? Do you have an opinion on adding the incomplete podcast? --Azertus (talk) 17:10, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A Cruel Angel's Podcast: An Evangelion Rewatch Show (Q108604833) is done. And yes i agree on adding incomplete podcasts. --Trade (talk) 23:59, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please complete the rets of the requests? It's been two years since you said you would do it Trade (talk) 21:55, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding non-notable Wikidata tools[edit]

Hi, could you please refrain from adding more tools as items (e.g. you created this yesterday despite an open deletion request (see below) for a similar item) without providing the necessary references? See my reasoning here https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions#Q108422230. Please describe them instead in Wikidata:Tools where they belong, or create your own Wikibase and add them there.

If you are not happy with the current notability criteria, please try to get the whole community on your side first and then when you are in the right, you can create the items without ending up in a conflict. @gymnicus: for good measure.--So9q (talk) 10:41, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@So9q: Fair enough. I suggest holding off on further nominations while the discussion on WD:N is ongoing, as well. But I'll keep creating items like WikiShark (Q108474123) in the mean time. --Azertus (talk) 22:36, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, nice find of WikiShark (Q108474118) for that one :)--So9q (talk) 10:39, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject for Wikimedia?[edit]

There are several discussions about the creation of Wikimedia tools.

I see the interpersonal conflict but I think that will pass. Also I am less interested in trying to achieve any one outcome now, because I think the conversation takes time.

At the Project chat you said "Regardless of the outcome all of the above, I'd like to start a WikiProject Meta-documentation (or something of that nature) to discuss all the ways we can improve our meta-documentation." That part does interest me, because I think establishing a central forum for conversation is an essential part of the answer to this. My guess is that like with so many topics, the answer to whether Wikimedia tools can have items is sometimes yes and sometimes no, and a WikiProject is a place to sort the distinction.

I am not in a hurry to set up the WikiProject and things may be easier to set up if we wait a month to let these conversations settle. If you wanted to wait a month, then I would set up a WikiProject, following for example the pattern I used for Wikidata:WikiProject LGBT. Alternatively, you could start a WikiProject now. Thanks for the discussion. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:37, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

update of wikibase stakeholder group[edit]

Hi, it seems to have grown since https://editgroups.toolforge.org/b/OR/5b0de9361cd/. :) So9q (talk) 11:18, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So9q Thanks, I'll take a look. I see 10 new individual members (see source). Do you think we already have the right "James Baker" and "Ross Spencer" on here? Once I match those, I can run the import. --Azertus (talk) 01:29, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t know. You could ask them because they are not giving a lot of details as it is now. So9q (talk) 06:04, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Azertus&oldid=2013695843"