Dear @BrokenSegue, Thank you for your message! You told me that one of my recent contributions seemed to be a test and have been removed. It's true that I tried modify the wikidata to add an info in the wikibox - child of Gabriel de Broglie (the surname of his daughter: Priscilla) but it was not a test... even if I did a lot of mistake and you are right : before to publish I should use the sandbox! I will! But can you tell me what I have to do to respect the rules if I just want to add the surname of his daughter (and do I have to source my new info?) Why we can see the name of his son and not the name of his daughter (may be because she doesn't have any wikipage (the son has one)?) Thank you a looooot for your help and have a great day!!!--Tropdecran (talk) 08:54, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
About this board
Previous discussion was archived aton 2022-09-20.
|This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current talk page.|
|This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current talk page.|
Welcome to Wikidata, BrokenSegue!
Wikidata is a free knowledge base that you can edit! It can be read and edited by humans and machines alike and you can go to any item page now and add to this ever-growing database!
Need some help getting started? Here are some pages you can familiarize yourself with:
- Introduction – An introduction to the project.
- Wikidata tours – Interactive tutorials to show you how Wikidata works.
- Community portal – The portal for community members.
- User options – including the 'Babel' extension, to set your language preferences.
- Contents – The main help page for editing and using the site.
- Project chat – Discussions about the project.
- Tools – A collection of user-developed tools to allow for easier completion of some tasks.
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.
If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask on Project chat. If you want to try out editing, you can use the sandbox to try. Once again, welcome, and I hope you quickly feel comfortable here, and become an active editor for Wikidata.
Gabriel de Broglie (Q697183)
Hi, yes thank you for reaching out. To add a child to an item you have to make a new item for that person (if the item for the child doesn't exist, try searching first). You instead linked Priscilla (Q7165927) as the child. Which is equivalent to making the non-nonsensical assertion that "the child of Gabriel is the concept of the name Priscilla" instead of "the child of Gabriel is someone named Priscilla". Generally yes references are prefered for any non-trivial statement added to wikidata. Also your use of name in native language (P1559) is wrong as you marked Gabriel de Broglie (Q697183)'s name in native language as "Priscilla" which is surely not what you meant. Hope that helps
Thank you a lot for your answer @BrokenSegue! I m going to try my best (hoo my English is not so good... I apologize!!! I was a bad student :) ) Have a good day!
Appropriate illustration of biographical articles
Hi BrokenSegue, the IP is right: These comic style drawings are not an appropriate way to illustrate biographical articles. Please don't reinsert them again. In one case by the way the IP had replaced the drawing with a photography, which you also reverted (). See also this discussion in de-WP: [[:w:de:Wikipedia:Fragen zur Wikipedia#Comicbilder in Personenartikeln auf Wikidata]]. ~~~~
Well, I don't know why the linking doesn't work, then as an URL: [https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fragen_zur_Wikipedia#Comicbilder_in_Personenartikeln_auf_Wikidata] ~~~~
That discussion on dewiki (which I read through google translate) does not seem to represent a policy decision on the matter (indeed it doesn't even seem like it ended in a firm conclusion one way or another). Further even if it were dewiki policies do not have effect here on wikidata. If dewiki doesn't like these images then you can label them with a qualifier and exclude them from inclusion in dewiki articles. There's no inherent policy against "comic style drawings" on Wikidata. This has come up before in the context of enwiki or other language Wikipedias.
I won't revert your edits immediately because I will wait for this discussion to continue.
Maybe there is no strict policy. But we can not only stick to policies. We also have to use common sense from time to time. Do you really think [[:File:Sophie Labelle by sandra mu.png|such]] illustrations are helpful in any way for illustrating an encyclopaedic article? If some projects think these pictures are helpful than they can put them into their articles manually. But as part of a Wikidata item they are used automatically everywhere where the Wikidata ressources are used - and that's also outside the Wikimedia world i. e. in Google search results, external projects and so on. Therefore we have to build the datasbase on Wikidata responsibly. We can not just say "hey let's use these pictures, it's better than nothing". Chaddy (Diskussion) 22:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
And what if eswiki thinks that image is fine but dewiki doesn't? How are we to tell which images are acceptable? Plenty of items have only illustrations as their image. Why is
unacceptable? Apparently frwiki thinks it's a good enoguh image. How is wikidata supposed to resolve disputes between different wikis other than just "leave the best image available and let wikis opt out".
But that's exactly my point. Just because any image is the best image available this doesn't necessarily make it a good image. And there is a difference between illustrations of whatever and illustrations of people. People are not things, they are sensitive beings and should be treated with dignity. This restricts the ways how we can illustrate their articles. Another point is who made the illustration. If Wikipedians create them themselves than it is OR. And that's a big problem. Chaddy (Diskussion) 17:06, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
My understanding is that OR policies as you mention them do not apply to images. For example, see en:Wikipedia:No_original_research#Original_images .
Yes, people have rights beyond that of "things". So we shouldn't allow images that might upset the subject. I don't think the image I shared above that is already on frwiki would count as upsetting. If it might then I would suggest you try to get it deleted on commons.
Per your comment on the dewiki discussion, why should eswiki have to opt-in instead of dewiki opting out? Who decides which images should be opted-in vs. opted-out? From wikidata's perspective it would be best to include the best available image and mark it with a qualifier if it is possible problematic in some re-use scenarios.
To chime in (as a participant in the German discussion), OR policies differ in the various projects. An English-language Wikipedia policy doesn't necessarily have an equivalent in German or, say, Finnish Wikipedia. In German-language Wikipedia, we don't have a fixed OR policy regarding original images by Wikipedians, but in various discussions (some of them linked in the recent discussion) a strong tendency to avoid using such images has emerged.
Ok this sounds like a problem dewiki needs to solve itself and not something that wikidata should be forced to accept and impose on all other consumers of the data.
There are lots of dimensions along which someone might object to an image. Maybe the consumer only wants photos or only wants color or only wants busts. What if jpwiki decided that no explicit images were acceptable (even of explicit subjects). Would wikidata be forced to remove all explicit images? Wikidata has a qualifier system to allow us to annotate the kind of data we have so that downstream consumers can decide how to use the data. You are asking us to not include data that some consider fine just because of some dewiki policy. Dewiki isn't being force to accept these images just because they are in wikidata.
In my view the topic is "to what extent can some downstream consumers of Wikidata information dictate how the data in Wikidata is collected".
I mean is dewiki ok with user-contributed diagrams? But not portraits?
Yes, I think that's a very different thing. A user-contributed diagram, as long as the data is properly sourced and not presented in a misleading way, is just a way of visualizing established data in a standard way. But when it comes to *the look of a person*, especially as it's not allowed to make a drawing recognizably based on an existing, copyrighted photograph (because this would be a copyright violation as a derivative work and probably deleted on Commons as soon as a deletion request is filed), there is so much personal interpretation - it's necessarily the artist's view of the person - and choice involved that it's not suitable for Wikipedia, unless it's by a notable artist (then we can title it "portrait of X by <name of famous artist Y>", as this then is a depiction which is notable in its own right). Gestumblindi (talk) 19:48, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
ok but imagine if some other wiki or downstream user of wikidata was not ok with user-contributed diagrams. should we remove all such diagrams from wikidata?
Unlike Chaddy, I actually tend to agree with you: we can't impose German-language Wikipedia's policies or practices on Wikidata. No project is forced to use images from Wikidata, and I have suggested in the recent discussion that in German-language Wikipedia, we stop doing so in the few places where Wikidata images are currently automatically embedded (that is, mainly in infoboxes for athletes, as otherwise infoboxes for persons are frowned upon and used only in a few subject areas - another peculiarity of dewiki). Some kind of qualifier for Wikipedian/Wikmedian created drawings of persons "not suitable for German-language Wikipedia" might be a good idea.
Chaddy, we in German Wikipedia don't have to use Wikidata's pictures, so I don't really see how they impose anything on us.
Yes, I know. But the other way round it's the same - when local projects want to use these illustrations, they can do it. But there still is a small difference: If Wikidata determines these illustrations then the local projects have to actively "opt out" if they don't want these pctures. And don't forget about external websites that use the Wikidata database. They are also affected by the decisions of Wikidata. Chaddy (Diskussion) 21:36, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
I think we all agree that there should be some standard on images. Clearly you can't upload a Jackson Pollock-style painting and claim it's a portrait of someone. But what line is it that you are proposing? All user-made drawing are banned? Would you be upset if we had a user-created photo-realistic painting of Marie-Andrée Schwindenhammer (Q105087624)?
Do you have a problem with the images used in Jacques Marie Gaston Onfroy de Bréville (Q3179785) or BoyWithUke (Q109901290)?
I'd say that the portraits of Marie-Andrée Schwindenhammer and Peggy Roche are indeed problematic, as they're a personal vision of the Wikipedian/Wikimedian who drew these images of how these persons look - unless if drawn closely after a photograph, but then it would probably be a copyright violation. Certain facial features are emphasised or toned down in any drawn portrait, and that's fine if it's a work from a notable artist or at least from a notable publication, but not fine for encyclopedic purposes (I think) if it's our "own work". Along this line of thought, I would accept drawings from the Wall Street Journal (if in the public domain or freely licensed), as they're previously published in a notable publication, so that's different from a worldwide first publication of a work by a Wikipedian in Wikipedia. I have no issue with File:Job (Jacques Onfroy de Bréville).jpg because it's by a probably notable artist (Emilio della Sudda). From a content point of view, I think that File:BoyWithUke.jpg should be fine, as it's apparently an actual photograph of that artist who hides his appearance under this costume. However, I have copyright concerns in this case. In en:BoyWithUke it's described as a "promotional image", so it seems unclear to me whether the small-resolution picture is really the Commons uploader's "own work" (their only contribution). For this image, I will file a deletion request on Commons to clarify matters.
Ok thank you for the comprehensive answers. I now understand your position better. Unfortunately I still disagree. enwiki's policy pretty explicitly allows such images and I'm still not clear if dewiki has a formal policy on this subject. But even if dewiki bans such images the fact that other wikis do not (and other downstream consumers might be fine with it) means that wikidata should not enforce this ban. If you want to change wikidata policy on the subject I suggest you move this discussion to Wikidata:Project Chat but I believe it has been taken there before and the general consensus was to keep them.
My advice to you would be to come up with a mechanism of labeling images as "community created" and tagging images on wikidata as such so they can be automatically excluded from dewiki. I will say though the "community created" still feels like a weird line to draw and maybe you should refine the policy? Surely if the WSJ artist were also a Wikimedian that wouldn't invalidate the image? Is it a question of being a Wikimedian? Or is it the notability of the artist?
I will likely restore my reverts soon.
Because you don't like the art style? I could maybe get on board if the assertion is that it doesn't look sufficiently like the subject. But I mean it does depict some of the subject's attributes. I'm indifferent but worried about the implications.
I don't have a big problem with the art style. But this style is so heavily abstract that there is just little similarity to the real person. Compare these two pictures: File:Sophie Labelle by sandra mu.png and File:Sophie labelle 1530204.jpg. Chaddy (Diskussion) 20:22, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
So like I'm bad with faces so I'm not going to try to answer this (and this is part of why I think having a subjective rule here is bad). I will note that in other photos that person has pink hair in the style of the drawing (and the eye color, skin color, general build matches)
Thank you for acting like the ignorant keyboard police, as often seen in the Wikimedia community. There's no rationality, no benefit, no consensus, but you.
I noticed you protected this page, but there was no edit war. It was just that I accidentally undo another user's edit when undoing an anonymous user's edit.
I did it in response to Wikidata:Administrators'_noticeboard#Edit_war_of_discharge_of_radioactive_water_of_the_Fukushima_Daiichi_Nuclear_Power_Plant_(Q106504658) but yeah it seems like there isn't really an edit war.
Hey smug brokenseque why did you delete Visiyon page? Stay away from other people stuff didnt you mama learn that?
I have literally no idea what you're talking about.
22:19, 7 September 2023 BrokenSegue talk contribs deleted page Q122190664 (Does not meet the notability policy: content was: "Visiyon")
Please see Wikidata:Notability. Thank you for your time. Also please start a new discussion on my talk page instead of just adding to an existing thread.
Misuse of P279
Incorrect use of subclass of (P279)
This edit to "Claussen pickles" (Q5129551) was in error; Claussen pickles (Q5129551) refers to the brand, not the pickles themselves. Because subclass of (P279) is transitive, such errors can lead to numerous false inferences. Before you use the properties instance of (P31) and subclass of (P279), please be familiar with Help:Basic membership properties, and look at the value item in your statement to be sure it's the one you intend. There is often another property that can accurately express the relationship you had in mind; in this case, product or material produced or service provided (P1056) works better. You can search through available properties here. Thanks! Swpb (talk) 13:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
Misuse of P279
Incorrect use of subclass of (P279)
This edit to "education company" (Q57285129) was in error. Because subclass of (P279) is transitive (for example, see this tree of parent classes), such errors lead to numerous false inferences, such as education company (Q57285129)subclass of (P279)action (Q4026292) Before you use the properties instance of (P31) and subclass of (P279), please be familiar with Help:Basic membership properties, and look at the value item in your statement to be sure it's the one you intend. (In particular, note that "A" is only a subclass of "B" if all instances of "A" are also instances of "B".) There is often another property that can accurately express the relationship you had in mind; in this case, field of work (P101) works better. You can search through available properties here. Thanks! Swpb (talk) 19:43, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Misuse of P279
Incorrect use of subclass of (P279)
This edit to "postal service" (Q1529128) was in error. The properties instance of (P31) and subclass of (P279) define key ontological relationships. Because subclass of (P279) is transitive, such errors lead to numerous false inferences, such as postal service (Q1529128)subclass of (P279)process (Q3249551). Before you use these properties, please look at the value item in your statement to be sure it's the one you intend. You can also review the usage instructions on these two properties, and Help:Basic membership properties. (In particular, note that "A" is only a subclass of "B" if all instances of "A" are also instances of "B".) There is often another property better suited to expressing the relationship you had in mind; you can search for one here. Thanks! Swpb (talk) 17:24, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks but I don't think I was in error. Please take a look at what that item looked like when the edit was made. https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q1824132&oldid=1017851857 The item was called "delivery service" with a subclass of service. It seems like someone took over the item to be about some different subject thus breaking the link. The error was made elsewhere.
Undelete request for Lerboristeria.com Q120197814
Hello, I was editing this topic and creating related content to give many informations and notability, but you deleted it few minutes after I started creations, I think this is not correct, please give me some days for completing the work.
Can you undelete it?
Can you supply some credible references to establish the notability of Lerboristeria.com? See Wikidata:Notability. There were no references when I deleted the item and it had been around for 15 minutes. Generally you should add references as you are making an item.
Ok, I will do it. But please give me some time.
I will insert references on the topic statements, if you undelete it.
Ok it's temporarily back.
Ok, I added some references on the history, location, founder and awards statements of the Item.
I ask you what is the correct statement to use to insert the fact that this website data is used as citation on some Wikipedia Items.
And also ask if inserted references will suffice for Notability.
Ok thank you for adding references but there are still some issues with the item:
- some of the references you added don't actually back the statements being claimed. For example the archive.org reference doesn't prove when the website opened. The Google maps reference doesn't show that the hq is in Italy (it points to somewhere in France).
- the awards you list probably are the most valid references you've provided but unfortunately the statements have errors (as indicated by the exclamation points). la Repubblica (Q85329) is a newspaper not an award that can be won.
- I'm not sure what you mean by "I ask you what is the correct statement to use to insert the fact that this website data is used as citation on some Wikipedia Items."
- References to https://www.lerboristeria.com don't really establish notability since they are not independent of the item
- archive.org reference: you can see snapshots of the website recorded from feb 2001, it is a prove that at least from that date the website was active.
- Google maps: it shows a generic point at the center of the european region served from the e-commerce, but ok, I will insert other references to the address from some public firms registers.
- award: as you can see in the first url provided (see the phrase "... classification published on La Repubblica"), the award won was created from that newspaper and published on it, but there is no other url other the 2 provided, so I don't know how to improve it)
- Wikipedia: tha website is cited in this Wikipedia articles:
How can I specify this on the Item? which statement I have to use?
- The archive.org reference does not prove the website was founded in 2000. The source does seem to indicate it was founded in 2000 though.
- Yes I see that. But the statement you added is "Lerboristeria won the la Repubblica award" but "la Repubblica" is a newspaper not an award. Does this reward have a name? What is the name?
- The fact that this website is linked to from itwiki is not a fact that is recorded on this item. We don't log that information. Imagine if we logged every time CNN was references on enwiki.
Ok, so first 2 points are ok.
For the awards, it's ok if I create another Item for that prize, using that url as reference and pointing to the newspaper as the founder, and I use it in my first Item?
For itwiki, I would like to demonstrate the Expertise, Authoritativeness, Trustworthiness of the website and its authors in its field of competence, there is a way to do it?
Yes you can make an item for the prize. And list it as being conferred by (P1027) the newspaper.
I don't think there is a way to do this.
Thanks for your help.
Administrators that are "pretty"
You're quite correct that a large amount of the administrative staff doesn't really do any administrative actions, or put their ass on the line for the common good. Some global policies even actively hamper anti-vandal efforts.
Ratios of sysops who have performed an action more than once in the last ~30 days:
Block : 16/52
Deletion : 36/52
Protection : 13/52
Block, deletion or protection : 41/52
And yeah, I got detailed statistics, but I refuse to publish any statistics that names names on-wiki because I respect that there is more to the admin role than just putting in the work.
Sorry what? I don't think I said anything like that.
People have lives and don't necessarily have opportunity to volunteer all the time. Wikidata is honestly not that important in the grand scheme of things. I don't think we should remove adminship from users who currently don't have the time/inclination to volunteer.
I just think it would be good if we elevated some more users to spread the load out.
Honestly I would bet if I looked at the detailed statistics it would turn out that like 50% of the work was being done by like 3 people (mainly Bovlb). That definitely isn't fair but it doesn't mean the admins who aren't doing as much work are a problem. Everyone should do what they can/want to do.
I'm unsure what you mean by "global policies even actively hamper anti-vandal efforts".
Regarding Bovlb, i dont think it is a lack of time but rather that most admins simply dont wanna deal with the people Bovlb deals with.
Yeah, I can imagine many administrators shy away from uncomfortable interactions. That's what I like about unambiguous vandalism: it's simple to deal with. The amount of effort that goes into dealing with people recreating deleted items seems very disproportionate to the gains. But since one is expected to be polite, that makes the process bureaucratic, which in turn leads to less administrators willing to do this, or so I would imagine.
it's probably some of both but looking at Bovlb's logs it seems a lot of the tasks don't involve talking to anyone (just bulk deleting things).
And if your statistics are right that actually looks like pretty good participation. 41 of 52 admins did something? What is that ratio on enwiki?
Correction: There's 66 administrators, not 52, forgot to count people who haven't performed any action at all the last 30 days. So there's actually even more people just sitting around looking pretty.
I think you misunderstand. This was not intended as a critique, and I wholeheartedly and sincerely apologize if it came across as such.
Ratios are calculated on wikidata recentchanges DB table for what it's worth.
Ah, I'm sorry. I'm just used to people on enwiki making arguments about how lots of admins aren't contributing enough and suggestions to de-admin them if they don't do X-tasks in Y-time. More help would definitely be good. Also more automation.
"Wikidata property for items unsuitable as sources"
Are you willing to support my idea?
I guess what I don't understand about the proposal is:
- How will we determine what properties qualify for this? Vote? Is there sufficient community interest?
- What are the implications of tagging a property with this? Trigger a constraint error?
- What if it's used as a source along with a more legitimate source? Is it bad to source something to everipedia (or info wars or whatever) if there is also an additional source to the NYTimes? Is it hurting anything?
- Will this encourage users to just use reference URLs which will bypass these checks presumably? Should we have a list of URL patterns that are unacceptable for sourcing?
- How will we determine what properties qualify for this? Same way as we decide how to model items and change policy.
- What are the implications of tagging a property with this? Just that property scope constraint > as reference should be removed
- What if it's used as a source along with a more legitimate source? Use the legitimate source
- Will this encourage users to just use reference URLs which will bypass these checks presumably? This would fall under Wikilawyering since it ignores the spirit of the item
ok that seems reasonable. probably worth a go. I'm a literal worries this will spiral into useless arguments about what sources are "suitable" but it's worth trying.
Are you open to have the bot update the subreddit qualities? The majority of involved subreddits are not linked to any Wikidata items so it should not take too many bot edits