User talk:Arcadialib

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Item duplicated


Hi Arcadialib, why did you create the duplicate for Gottfried Wilhelm Locher (Q65940451): Q65940448? --Kolja21 (talk) 03:32, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User:Kolja21, looks like my mistake - I was splitting the conflated Gottfried Wilhelm Locher (Q1539518) into Gottfried Wilhelm Locher (Q65940451) and Gottfried Wilhelm Locher (Q65940459) and must have made one more duplicate than I meant to (it's the first time I've used the duplicator tool). Q65940448 can be deleted. Arcadialib (talk) 03:47, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
✓ OK Thanks for the fast feedback. --Kolja21 (talk) 04:02, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Splitting? You mean instead of correcting an item (plus adding a new one) you make copy&paste? So 1+1=3? That won't work. --Kolja21 (talk) 04:10, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was following these instructions for resolving conflation, which say to create two new items -- which I did by duplicating the conflating item twice and deleting the inapplicable statements on each new item. Arcadialib (talk) 04:17, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. This is a new help page I didn't know of. It describes a very rare way to solve the problem. We don't have disambiguation pages on Wikidata. Deleting an item (if it is not spam etc.) is extremely unpleasant. Q1539518 was originally created for Gottfried Wilhelm Locher (1911–1996). Mostly the conflating is the result of a wrong merge or adding a wrong Wikipedia link which should be reversed. (I did not check what it was in this case.) @Jura1: Imho Help:Conflation of two persons should give a hint to solve this problem by a) restoring the original item and b) only if this makes no sense to follow the way which you describe. --Kolja21 (talk) 04:56, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can you check and tell us? (a) might be an option if the mess is recent. If you keep an item that is used to refer to two different persons, we can't be sure which one is meant and any mapping based on it can be incorrect and unpleasant for any data users. So splitting it into two new items is the clean approach. --- Jura 05:35, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the history and someone had recently (July 23) added information about a different person, using the same reference for all the statements, via OpenRefine and QuickStatements. It looks like restoring this version from June 1 and then re-removing the incorrect Library of Congress and FAST identifiers that were already on the item would be another possible solution. Arcadialib (talk) 14:36, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, it was @Sjoerddebruin: two days earlier (not sure why I missed that) .. yes in that case it's better to just revert that. I updated Help:Conflation_of_two_persons also per discussions on project chat last year. Thanks for spotting and fixing this one. --- Jura 16:35, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted Gottfried Wilhelm Locher (Q1539518), removed the incorrect identifiers, and merged Gottfried Wilhelm Locher (Q65940451) into it. Thank you for your assistance with figuring this out. Arcadialib (talk) 16:50, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To further improve this, I added two other people with the same name. --- Jura 08:00, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


I noticed that you flag wrong authority control links as deprecated. In theory, this is a very good idea. However, there is a big caveat: VIAF does not check for ranks so it considers the wrong links as valid. This causes all sorts of problems … --Emu (talk) 21:27, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. However, that seems more a problem with VIAF than with Wikidata practices. I used to delete incorrect identifiers and switched to deprecating after I saw some wrong identifiers get re-added to the same item later. I'd like to avoid a situation where remediation work gets undone because there's no record of it having happened other than being buried in the page history. Also deprecating allows distinguishing different reasons for the deprecation -- I could see someone with power to edit an external authority doing a "reason for deprecation" query for "conflation" (a problem with the external data source), but not being concerned with "applies to another person" (a problem in Wikidata). It seems to me the benefits of the deprecation approach outweigh issues with how external systems parse the data, especially as the latter may change over time. In general, I've found that following suboptimal data practices in order to cushion the quirks of specific system configurations rarely ends well, as the data usually outlasts the system setup. Arcadialib (talk) 21:56, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LCCN Updates without Values


Hello Arcadialib, if you perform LCCN Updates without Values, meaning no LCCN No. available, please leave it as it is. We get People in the DE-WP Normdata List [1] meaning LCCN is available in Wikidata but is missing in the Wikipedia article. Than after checking Wikidata finding LCCN empty - no value-, like here [2]. Many thanks in advance. Brgds --Stephan Tournay (talk) 19:33, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We sent you an e-mail


Hello Arcadialib,

Really sorry for the inconvenience. This is a gentle note to request that you check your email. We sent you a message titled "The Community Insights survey is coming!". If you have questions, email

You can see my explanation here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:45, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More about LCNAF identifiers


To know more about LCNAF identifiers, we would like to have a online call with you if possible. Kindly ping me here if you are in telegram. Akbarali (talk) 17:28, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]