User talk:Billinghurst/Archives/2022
|
This page is an archive. Please do not modify it. Use the current page, even to continue an old discussion. |
Hello Billinghurst, it seems a bit strange to me to demand a source for the unkown date and place of death but then adding unsourced statements yourself. Are you planning to add these? Regards, Dorades (talk) 12:14, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- Nope, I was removing an inaccurate and clumsily placed label that should never have been placed. Just because the person creating the data doesn't know the data, does not make it unknown. If you want to ref LibriVox author ID, then feel welcome to go for it. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:36, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- These "inaccurate and clumsily placed label" were added by me and of course I could source them (for example with the PLWABN ID http://mak.bn.org.pl/cgi-bin/KHW/makwww.exe?BM=1&NU=1&IM=4&WI=9810538444005606). Since you added a precise date of death, I don't see the necessity to keep the unknown date, which is also given as an example in date of death (P570) in case you did not know. For the place of death, I still think it should be added as unknown since none of the identifiers name any. --Dorades (talk) 12:47, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- Furthermore, the use of floruit (P1317) is not justified for this person anymore. --Dorades (talk) 12:49, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- That you don't know a date, does not make it unknown. That another source doesn't know it and poorly places such a statement does not make it a good way to progress. We are perfectly able to manage missing machine-readable data and produce reports for the absence of data without assumption. And quoting Victor Grayson (Q7925945) is misquoting the example as he is a person who actually went missing, and all the research for him clearly identifies an unknown date.
- With regard to floruit, they were still active in their artistic work so it is not irrelevant, though yes it can be argued that it is superfluous if you are talking about the death. If you wish to remove it, then go ahead, I mind not; I simply find the value in showing a period of activity in the life, though not to a point of argument. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:02, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- Maybe you did not understand that it is not about me but about identifiers and also secondary literature not knowing the date. Also, you don't seem to understand that there is a difference between "no statement at all" and "a statement claiming unknown". What is the problem of letting users know that the place of death is unknown so far?
- I would argue that unless you can demonstrate that there is exhaustive research that demonstrates that the data has not been found that it is best to leave it empty. Filling those fields with unhelpful data obscures that the data is missing and that is problematic when you are forcing it as machine readable data. I can give hundreds, possibly thousands of examples of cases where forced data with unknown or a vague placement within a century is simply inaccurate and doesn't allow me to readily identify that research is required. In this case the death date was known so the "unknown" date add is problematic unless you are going to make it hidden as machine readable data. I do the research and I fill the data, and have done so for thousands of authors, so please don't make it harder than it needs to be. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:26, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- Using floruit (P1317) in this case is clearly against its purpose. --Dorades (talk) 13:14, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- Asked and answered. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:26, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- "I do the research and I fill the data, and have done so for thousands of authors, so please don't make it harder than it needs to be." So you make the rules based on your opinions?
- I don't argue for keeping the unknown date, but since you deleted statements for being unsourced, the same applies for statements you added. If you are able to add the place of death, please go ahead, otherwise I would like to keep it as "unknown". --Dorades (talk) 13:37, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- But you don't know whether the place of death is known or not known, you just don't see it recorded, as the source doesn't record the places, just the dates. It is inaccurate for you to claim that it is not known, it is just not recorded. The system can manage missing data, and again as I said, forced data is a problem. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:45, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- Asked and answered. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:26, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- Maybe you did not understand that it is not about me but about identifiers and also secondary literature not knowing the date. Also, you don't seem to understand that there is a difference between "no statement at all" and "a statement claiming unknown". What is the problem of letting users know that the place of death is unknown so far?
- With regard to floruit, they were still active in their artistic work so it is not irrelevant, though yes it can be argued that it is superfluous if you are talking about the death. If you wish to remove it, then go ahead, I mind not; I simply find the value in showing a period of activity in the life, though not to a point of argument. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:02, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- That you don't know a date, does not make it unknown. That another source doesn't know it and poorly places such a statement does not make it a good way to progress. We are perfectly able to manage missing machine-readable data and produce reports for the absence of data without assumption. And quoting Victor Grayson (Q7925945) is misquoting the example as he is a person who actually went missing, and all the research for him clearly identifies an unknown date.
An example of how adding rough dates is just ugly per special:diff/1721550064/1721558077 based on assumption, or just as painful when "unknown". When a little quick research shows s:Author talk:Walter Brooks Sterrett ready data. What you are doing with your assignation is pushing the authors to poor classification at s:Category:Authors by date of birth. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:42, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- And with regard to referencing statements here, I can point you to many issues with referencing and the difficulty for accurate referencing at this site. These are also arguments that I have addressed at Wikidata on numbers of occasions and at numbers of places and they have chosen to not address these inadequacies, so typically you will find that I just put all data at enWS with proper references. I will not waste my time here at WD going through the impediments that this place puts down, when I can quickly just reference at enWS with more accuracy and relevance. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:51, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- Maybe that's the problem; you don't really care about Wikidata and the problems of en.wikisource are to be resolved there and not here.
- Since you are not willing to add references, please don't ask me to add any in the future. Thank you, --Dorades (talk) 14:03, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Dorades: A couple of things. I actually asked you to NOT add "unknown" unless it can be accurately referenced, in that it is truly unknown. You are adding the unknown data on the flimsiest of evidence where there is no evidence of quality research. Best to leave it empty has been my request the whole way along.
And it is inaccurate to say that I do not add references as I do by the bucket load. And please stop that rubbish claim about not caring. The whole reason to get accurate data here is so it can be used at Wikisources, by your adding rubbish data here we are seeing it at English Wikisource as we are truly using Wikidata for machine readable data, its exact purpose. I also have the editing history through Wikimedia sites as clearly caring about proper editing and quality data.
So I can equally argue, if not better argue, that you don't care about the true purpose of Wikidata as machine readable data that can be properly used at any source. You are adding inaccurate data with claims of unknown death date when it is not accurately researched at this time. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:39, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Dorades: A couple of things. I actually asked you to NOT add "unknown" unless it can be accurately referenced, in that it is truly unknown. You are adding the unknown data on the flimsiest of evidence where there is no evidence of quality research. Best to leave it empty has been my request the whole way along.
Why don't you move this edit? Matlin (talk) 14:39, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Matlin: Why did I? I removed the bot additions as they are incorrect to be applied to an version, edition or translation (Q3331189), those additions belong on the overarching work at Fables and Parables (Q5427942). See WD:Book — billinghurst sDrewth 03:25, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello Billinghurst, why did you remove my posting on that talk page? Regards, Dorades (talk) 10:41, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Oh sorry, this bloke has been xwiki spamming and undertaking xwiki disruptive editing. I have just been shutting it down and cleaning it up where he has been posting. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:49, 19 December 2022 (UTC)