User talk:Gamaliel/Archive 1

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search


James Watt[edit]

Hi, I'm guessing you're aware of this? https://www.facebook.com/groups/wikipediaweekly/permalink/1636400693074422/ Andy Dingley (talk) 14:14, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kaywin Feldman[edit]

Gamaliel, Ms. Feldman will be the new director of the National Gallery but I don't see that she is employed there yet-- The news report cited at en.wiki says that will occur in March. I don't know if there is a a field that can handle that. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 18:21, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I didn't realize that. Why don't we use "start time" as a qualifier then? Gamaliel (talk) 18:29, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. Thank you. Kablammo (talk) 18:37, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

changing descriptions to "researcher"[edit]

Why are you changing descriptions to the less descriptive "researcher" from other more specific descriptions, e.g. Annemarie E. Pickersgill (Q56551123) which had "geochemist"? Trilotat (talk) 23:04, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strange, the SPARQL query I used was for items missing descriptions entirely. I'll reexamine the query I used to see what went wrong. Gamaliel (talk) 15:25, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Trilotat: I see what happened. I started the OpenRefine upload on Dec 30 or 31, before you added the description on Jan 2, so at the time I ran the query the description was blank. Hopefully this only happened with one or two items. I've reverted the edit and restored your description. Sorry! Gamaliel (talk) 15:30, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a good query. I haven’t figured out using SPARQL queries using SourceMD. I understand the queries, but not the application via SourceMD. Thanks and take care. Trilotat (talk) 17:14, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit groups war[edit]

Hi Gamaliel and Sjoerddebruin,

I think you need to solve this description issue by discussing it rather than undoing batches one after the other. Undoing large edit batches has a real cost for the servers, so edit warring via EditGroups is not acceptable.

If I can help to mediate this: I would say that Gamaliel's effort to add descriptions is welcome, but they should not have ORCID ids in them. The batch mentioned above with just "researcher" looks more consensual to me.

Cheers and keep up the good work! − Pintoch (talk) 13:34, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem modifying the descriptions whenever possible, this is just the first time that I've heard from anyone in what specific way they are unsuitable. I'm willing to omit the ORCID where I can and I'm willing to discuss any idea to make changes. The reason I placed them originally was because many of the names were duplicates and the items had absolutely no other way to distinguish between two identical names, so some of them will just have to have the ID numbers in them. Gamaliel (talk) 14:23, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Woman of the Century Wikisource links[edit]

pst, see also User_talk:Pigsonthewing#Woman_of_the_Century_Wikisource_links. i think a better way would be Property:P1343 for a "described by source" property, with a reference to the wikisource url. but no consensus for this. Slowking4 (talk) 21:00, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but I also want the Wikisource item to link back to Wikidata, so that's why I've been doing it the way I have been. No objection to doing it a new way but I'm really all about connecting everything to everything. Gamaliel (talk) 22:10, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
the linking as a property on wikidata is more wikidata friendly, making a query easier. i may go around switching, to avoid a straight deletion of the link without replacement, as you see with user:rosiestep. hope you don't mind. -- Slowking4 (talk) 12:22, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me, user:Slowking4. I'm in favor of linking everything to Wikidata. BTW, when I've written a Woman of the Century biography on en-wiki, and Jane Doe has a Wikisource author item, it's been my practice to place that link in the Wikisource section of her Wikidata item, and place the Wikisource link for her Woman of the Century article into the External links section of her en-wiki article; this is not the best place for it but I couldn't sort out a better option and I didn't want to ignore it. I think moving all the Women of the Century Wikisource links into "described by source" would be an excellent way to go. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:01, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Example: en:Martha E. Whitten. --Rosiestep (talk) 13:09, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My main concern is if there's a bio entry on Wikisource for a person who has no Wikipedia entry, where does it link to on Wikisource? Will we have to manually add Wikidata links now? Gamaliel (talk) 16:13, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All of these women's biogrpahies should have a Wikidata item. --Rosiestep (talk) 13:09, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I've been creating some manually. I just want to make sure that Wikisource links to those items. Gamaliel (talk) 13:26, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
agree, i guess we have to link manually, since no clear ontology for article subject. i tried an example of "described by source" at Q63497673. -- Slowking4 (talk) 15:19, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback[edit]

Hey, I saw you reverting vandalism - thanks for helping out! Would you like rollback permissions? -- Ajraddatz (talk) 02:21, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ajraddatz Sure! I'm seeing a lot more vandalism lately and I'd be glad to help. Gamaliel (talk) 02:28, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done :-) -- Ajraddatz (talk) 02:38, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

== SNAC ARK ID (P3430) ==

Hi, you have added this property to many disambiguation items, e.g. John Burke (Q1270112) or Jim Carlson (Q20815098), which also caused a lot of unique violations (see Wikidata:Database_reports/Constraint_violations/P3430#"Unique_value"_violations). Would be nice if you could revert and clean up your changes. Steak (talk) 08:04, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like I used the Mix and Match tool to make these edits. I'll take a look and see if I can figure out what went wrong. Gamaliel (talk) 11:44, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Steak: I just ran a batch in quickstatements and removed P3430 from 269 items that were disambiguation pages. That should catch all the errors added by me and others. Gamaliel (talk) 14:54, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Steak (talk) 08:24, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Community Insights Survey[edit]

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Gamaliel/Archive 1,

The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with Wikidata and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 17:38, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Labels do not have have to be unique[edit]

When adding labels please note https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Help:Label#Labels_can_be_ambiguous As an example see Albæk (Q12300912) which you touched earlier today. --Hjart (talk) 19:54, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to catch most of the parenthetical stuff in the large dataset and move it to the description field but I missed a bunch it looks like. Gamaliel (talk) 19:56, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: Community Insights Survey[edit]

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Gamaliel/Archive 1,

A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 19:54, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Two people[edit]

This seems to have been a mistake; I'll revert. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:21, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll make an item for the suffragist. Gamaliel (talk) 18:24, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New page for catalogues[edit]

Hi, I created a new page for collecting sites that could be added to Mix'n'match and I plan to expand it with the ones that already have scrapers by category. Feel free to expand, use for property creation. Best, --Adam Harangozó (talk) 19:02, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What a great idea! Going to share this with some folks: @Rosiestep: @Fuzheado: Gamaliel (talk) 19:08, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nice! Thanks for creating it. I'm particularly interested in Victorian Women Writers Project; wow. --Rosiestep (talk) 13:58, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Description[edit]

  • Not all people listed are peers or immediate relative. e.g. Osama bin Laden is not.
  • They are many people with same names. Adding same description will cause conflicts. Reinheitsgebot is importing date of birth/death about many of them.

--GZWDer (talk) 07:09, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could you add descriptions with your mass imports instead? Having no descriptions causes other conflicts with searching, reconciliation, etc. Gamaliel (talk) 13:16, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Batch with "British peer or relation" description still running[edit]

Your batch is still running. I thought you wrote on project chat that you'd hold it. What's happening? --- Jura 09:32, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agreed to stop adding descriptions if GZWDer would stop mass adding duplicate items. They don't see the duplicate Wikidata items as a problem. Gamaliel (talk) 11:55, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

please cease adding "British peer or relation" description[edit]

Please see Wikidata:Administrators'_noticeboard and discuss this on Project Chat before adding more of these defective descriptions. --- Jura 14:44, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What's the clean-up plan for the descriptions? --- Jura 11:47, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All fixed. Thanks! Gamaliel (talk) 14:22, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All 4 or all 200,000 ? --- Jura 14:25, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I will gladly correct any inaccurate ones you find. Gamaliel (talk) 14:28, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's for you to make sure that data you add is accurate. Going forward, please make sure you do so.
If you are overwhelmed by the problem we need to fix, I'd be happy to help. --- Jura 14:53, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course. While we disagree that they are inaccurate, as per our project chat discussion, I have fixed and continue to fix every single item that I have found that I feel might be ambiguous, inaccurate, or deemed inappropriate by you. If you have any suggestions on facilitate that process I welcome them. Gamaliel (talk) 17:32, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Inverse relation[edit]

When adding a family relation please also update the target page. Otherwise this will result in constraint violation and possible duplicates (see Q61660686 as an example).--GZWDer (talk) 17:21, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gamaliel/Archive_1&oldid=1123617454"