User talk:Daniel Mietchen

From Wikidata
Jump to: navigation, search



Logo of Wikidata

Welcome to Wikidata, Daniel Mietchen!

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:

If you have any questions, please ask me on my talk page. 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.

Best regards, Bene* (talk) 08:16, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Bene*! --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 09:28, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
You're welcome --Bene* (talk) 14:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


Hello, Daniel Mietchen! I am just letting you know that I have added the autopatroller flag to your account, as you are a trusted user on Wikidata. If you have any questions or concerns, please don't hesitate to contact me or leave a message at the Project chat. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 05:30, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Riley! --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 06:23, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Infobox neuron[edit]

Please vote for these proposals concerning the Wikidata Medicine project and the Neuron Infobox: Wikidata:Property_proposal/Term#presynaptic_connection_.28afferent.29. Thank you. --Tobias1984 (talk) 09:43, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Merging items[edit]

Hallo Daniel,

When you are merging items, please use the Merge.js gadget. It helps you nominating, gives the option to always keep the lower number (which is older, so preferable) and makes it a lot easier for the admins to process the requests.

With regards,
- User:CycnUser:CycnUser:CycnUser:Cycn - (Cycn/talk) 09:58, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Also, please don't put remarks in labels like "duplicate of Q...". When the items are merged and deleted by an admin this remark gets moved to the remaining item. Just nominating the page (preferable with Merge.js) suffices. - User:CycnUser:CycnUser:CycnUser:Cycn - (Cycn/talk) 10:01, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, will try - thanks. --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 10:09, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

chromosome (P1057)[edit]

The property chromosome (P1057) that you supported is available now. --Tobias1984 (talk) 23:17, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, danke. --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 23:23, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Bonvenon al Wikidata![edit]

Rilate al user:Daniel Mietchen/common.js. Bv. noti helpeton cxe User:Rotsaert8000. Antauxdankon! Kun amikaj salutoj el Munkeno לערי ריינהארט (talk) 19:16, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

So many Widar enabled errors![edit]

My watchlist is on fire with your Widar errors! And when I look at your contributions, I see many more Widar errors, such as no label (Q16860976) dup of no label (Q11150862) and Q16861069 dup of Q1786332. Please fix all the duplicates you have created. John Vandenberg (talk) 22:51, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for checking - it's my first day with Widar, and I have yet to find out how to use it best. I am trying to clean up appropriately. --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 23:10, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Use tools with appropriate professionalism. I see you are doing many merges, so thank you for cleaning up your mess. Many other widar-users just blame the tools and expect others to clean up their mess. How far we have sunk from the days when interwiki bots were intelligent linking & learning machines, and their operators were skillful. John Vandenberg (talk) 02:45, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
I am through with the real duplicates now. There are some of my new pages remaining due to multiple entries in one language, or because of interwiki links to article sections, or because they were genuine new items. --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 03:03, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

DOIP property proposal[edit]

FYI: Wikidata:Property proposal/Organization#DOI Prefix. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:58, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Wrong use of subclass of (P279)[edit]

I have reverted one of your edits, but I think they are many more wrong. Please read Help:Basic membership properties before pursuing with your mass edits. Regards, Andreasm háblame / just talk to me 16:21, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for checking and helping me to think this through. In the context of medical conditions, I am indeed often uncertain as to whether to use instance of (P31) or subclass of (P279), and I am aware that some of my edits in this area may well be wrong. Your example of malaria (Q12156) may not be a good one, though: there are multiple species of Plasmodium (Q130948) that can be transmitted by multiple species of Anopheles (Q158597) to multiple species of Vertebrata (Q25241). Even ignoring organ-specificity such as cerebral malaria (Q18554674), genetic disposition as in Sickle Cell Anemia (Q185034) or the broader picture of Personalized medicine (Q2072214), that is enough reason to think of malaria in terms of subclasses, and International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) (Q45127) seems to concur. Anyway, I just checked for cases where instance of (P31) and subclass of (P279) were both used on the same item, and reverted my edit if it was the cause for that, even in cases like arthropathy (Q708176) where I think P279 is more appropriate. The two remaining items — choreatic disease (Q1076421) and motion sickness (Q309067) — may be a good basis for clarifying things and to work out how best to proceed. For the record, I was adding "P279:Q12136" to items with P699 but no P279, which roughly doubled the number of items with P699 and P279:Q12136. On the way, I also created a list of items with P699 and P279:Q650766. --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 19:07, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Also, disease (Q12136) tends to be too general when there are more specific options. For example, epidemic typhus (Q1290616) is a instance of bacterial infectious disease (Q727028) and a subclass of typhus (Q160649); typhus (Q160649) is a subclass of bacterial infectious disease (Q727028), which is a subclass of no label (Q131736), in turn a subclass of disease (Q12136). Thank you for the interest: we are always short of hands, so every help is more than welcome. Andreasm háblame / just talk to me 19:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Andreasm, Daniel's use of subclass of in the edit you reverted was problematic, but not incorrect. The claim you added ("typhus instance of infectious disease") was incorrect.
Not all Wikidata "leaf nodes" of the subclass hierarchy are instances. Epidemic typhus is not an instance of typhus, nor an instance of disease -- it is a subclass of each of those. (Daniel's edit was problematic because "disease" is too general as an object for subclass of in this case, as you say.) An instance of a disease would be a particular case of epidemic typhus, or a particular outbreak of epidemic typhus, but Q1290616 is not about such a particular thing in space and time. Rather, "epidemic typhus" is a (somewhat) specific thing that has no intrinsic constraints in space and time -- thus it is a class. I am not aware of any items about a particular case of disease on Wikidata, but we do have many on particular outbreaks of disease.
Both of those pale in comparison to how many items we have about classes of disease, though. Statements of the form "<subject that is a disease> instance of disease" overwhelmingly tend to be incorrect on Wikidata. Emw (talk) 02:51, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree that "disease" is too general here, but this series of edits was meant as one of several steps of improving the statements on disease items. I hadn't expected the "subclass of" to be controversial, but once we can agree that this is the way to go forward, we can more easily work on subclasses of disease (e.g. infectious diseases) and bring these statements to a level of specificity that makes sense. --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 13:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

LPSN URL (P1991)[edit]

LPSN URL (P1991) is ready. --Tobias1984 (talk) 09:32, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Plazi ID (P1992)[edit]

Plazi ID (P1992) is ready. --Tobias1984 (talk) 09:38, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

TeX string (P1993)[edit]

TeX string (P1993) is ready. --Tobias1984 (talk) 09:52, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


"I have not seen a strategic discussion as to whether it would be better to use more generic properties on more specific items or more specific properties on more generic items, though the issue keeps popping up" - I agree. Should we start an RfC? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

@Andy Mabbett: Not sure an RfC is the best way to move forward here, since the answer may actually depend on the subject matter. But asking WikiProject Taxonomy (which I pinged in that thread) and over at the Project chat for a more general discussion would seem useful. --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 09:07, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


Hi Daniel! Sag mal hast du eine Idee, warum bei ZooBank auch Pflanzen auftauchen (z.B. Bulbophyllum ngoyense (Q4995248))? Gruß --Succu (talk) 18:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

@Succu: Sieht mir so aus, dass BHL da nicht differenziert — wohl weil es darin zu viele Beschreibungen der "Flora und Fauna" gibt. --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 20:11, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
ZooBank beschreibt seine Vision mit den Worten „ZooBank is a central, authoritative and comprehensive resource for scientific names in zoology.“ Mein Bot werkelt noch an einer Teilmenge der von Plazi geklauten und mit dem ZooBank-API geprüften UUIDs. Mal schaun was das Ergebnis der WDQ-Abfrage CLAIM[1746] and TREE[756][][171] ist. Gruß --Succu (talk) 20:42, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

HMDB ID (P2057)[edit]

HMDB ID (P2057) is ready. --Tobias1984 (talk) 10:19, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

LIPID MAPS ID (P2063)[edit]

LIPID MAPS ID (P2063) is ready. --Tobias1984 (talk) 13:00, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

KNApSAcK ID (P2064)[edit]

KNApSAcK ID (P2064) is ready. --Tobias1984 (talk) 13:19, 14 September 2015 (UTC)


Can you please translate (and label corresponding item) this into English&Russian? --Infovarius (talk) 19:30, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, don't know how to translate that — the only thing I can say at this point is that it seems closely related to but different from alloy (Q37756). --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 21:21, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Da ist was schief gelaufen...[edit]

Hi Daniel!

Ist schon etwas länger her, da hast du Trigonopterus taurekaorum (Q19658996) etwa 100 mal als Beleg für ZooBank nomenclatural act (P1746) verwendet. Wäre schön wenn du das beheben könntest. Gruß --Succu (talk) 18:20, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

In der Tat — danke fuer den Hinweis. Der korrekte Beleg waere One hundred and one new species of Trigonopterus weevils from New Guinea (Q19966966). Hab die Skripte dafuer gerade nicht parat, sollte das aber bald hinkriegen. --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 20:43, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
@Succu Ich loesch diese falschen claims gerade. Kann dein Bot die korrekten einfuegen? Weiss nicht, wann ich dazu komme. --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 21:00, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Müsste ich was basteln. Termin wäre Ende Oktober, da ich demnächt die Fliege mache... Gruß --Succu (talk) 21:07, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
OK, dann lass mich mal basteln. Viel Spass beim Fliegen. --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 21:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC)


Du hast WDQ zerschossen! Nein, wirklich! ;-) Jedes item im JSON-dump hat eine Zeile. Die Zeile für Observation of a new boson at a mass of 125 GeV with the CMS experiment at the LHC (Q21481859) ist 1.2MB groß und hat für einen buffer overflow gesorgt, der den Import eines neuen Dumps gestoppt hat. Mehr buffer draufgeworfen, schau'n mer mal, ob's jetzt durchläuft... --Magnus Manske (talk) 13:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, und danke fuer den Fix. --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 15:14, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

HTML syntax[edit]

Hi. Bitte entferne beim Import von wissenschaftlichen Artikeln etwaige html-syntax, siehe z.B. Bees of the Lasioglossum series (Hymenoptera: Halictidae) in South Korea, with an illustrated keys to species (Q21558566) oder A review of clearwing moths in the tribe Synanthedonini, with descriptions of six new species from Taiwan (Lepidoptera: Sesiidae) (Q21558565) --Pasleim (talk) 15:06, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Ja, das steht mit auf der Liste. Danke. --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 16:14, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Zwei Dinge[edit]

Hallo Daniel! Bei meinen Vorarbeiten um die Data Papers zur Fauna Europaea als Verweis in WD nutzen zu können bin ich natürlich auf das von dir angelegte Datenobjekt Biodiversity Data Journal (Q19370769). Sollten die Artikel die darauf Verlinken nicht die neue Eigenschaft article ID (P2322) verwenden? Und noch ein Bitte: Könntest du für diesen Artikel mit deinem Script das Datenobjekt erzeugen und befüllen? Danke und Gruß --Succu (talk) 18:51, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Hallo Succu,
Ad 1: Ja, das BDJ ist eine der Zeitschriften, wo article ID (P2322) Anwendung finden sollte — ich hatte allerdings noch nicht gesehen, dass diese neue Eigenschaft mittlerweile kreiert worden war. Wir werden nun gucken, wie wir das in die entsprechenden Arbeitsablaeufe einbauen koennen.
Ad 2: Fauna Europaea: Coleoptera 2 (excl. series Elateriformia, Scarabaeiformia, Staphyliniformia and superfamily Curculionoidea) (Q21675406), noch ohne article ID (P2322). Du kannst mir auch gern Listen von DOIs geben, fuer die du entsprechende Items erstellt haben willst.
Ausserdem: Am Freitag wurde noch einmal detailliert ueber bibliographische Metadaten fuer Referenzen diskutiert, und es wird wohl in den naechsten Monaten ein Treffen rund um WikiProject Source MetaData geben. Wenn du Bot-Aktivitaeten in dem Bereich planst, sag bitte Bescheid, damit wir das koordinieren koennen. --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 22:57, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Danke. Das waren mir zu viele Autoren, daher hab ich mal die Abkürzung gewählt. Im Bereich der Belege steht nichts Größeres an. Hier stehen nur noch ein paar kompliziertere Fälle aus. Vllt. schaffe ich es ja noch ein kleines Weihnachtsgeschenk für WD zu realisieren: Alle Erstbeschreibungen aus Systema Naturae. 10th edition, Volume 1 (Q21608408) zu belegen und auf die jeweilige Seite in der BHL zu verlinken. Mal schaun. Gruß --Succu (talk) 18:39, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata:Database reports/Wikipedia versions[edit]

Hi Daniel! I have seen you contributing to a lot at pages linked to (as for today titled Wikipedia versions but intended in general for WMF projects). I would be happy if you can review the properties of these pages, create the missing Wikibook and Wikiversity project pages, comment on user:I18n/sandbox (where you may find many usefull queries) and comment there with new / additional ideas. Best regards Gangleri also aka I18n (talk) 15:36, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks — it's good that you're working on this so systematically. It's not really my focal area, but I will keep it in mind should I stumble across such items in the future. Cheers, --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 19:14, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi! I want to let you know that the number of Wikidata:Database reports/WMF projects has increased to more then 385. You may be interested in adding labels and descriptions in other languages, follow the discussion at property talk:P218#whats next, property talk:P219, property talk:P220, property talk:P1800 and comment there. Best regards Gangleri also aka I18n (talk) 02:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC) / I18n (talk) 10:27, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 04:13, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your work and your time! Please see: m:Talk:Facebook pages. I added more property related queries at user:I18n/sandbox#property_Wikimedia_database_name. Regards I18n (talk) 09:29, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi at user:I18n/sandbox#qP275 is a query about the presence of license (P275) at items which are EITHER WMF projects OR Wikimedia chapters.
Wikimedia database name AND NO license (P275) : claim[1800] AND noclaim[275]&props=275
Can you please add the required licence at the WMF project items only? Thanks in advance! I18n (talk) 03:54, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Labs seems to have problems again, so autolist didn't show anything to me. --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 20:28, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

duplicated items[edit]

There are a lot of duplicates at page Wikidata:Database reports/Constraint violations/P356#"Unique value" violations created by you. Would you mind to merge them? -- VlSergey (трёп) 06:32, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Спасибо. Я все осталные соединил. --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 22:56, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Новые появились... — VlSergey (трёп) 10:57, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Спасибо. ✓ Done. --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 23:11, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Help decide the future of Wikimania[edit]

Wikimania logo with text.svg

The Wikimedia Foundation is currently running a consultation on the value and planning process of Wikimania, and is open until 18 January 2016. The goals are to (1) build a shared understanding of the value of Wikimania to help guide conference planning and evaluation, and (2) gather broad community input on what new form(s) Wikimania could take (starting in 2018).

After reviewing the consultation, we'd like to hear your feedback on on this survey.

In addition, feel free to share any personal experiences you have had at at a Wikimedia movement conference, including Wikimania. We plan to compile and share back outcomes from this consultation in February.

With thanks,

I JethroBT (WMF) (talk), from Community Resources 22:01, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Towards a New Wikimania results[edit]

Wikimania logo with text.svg

Last December, I invited you to share your views on the value of Wikimedia conferences and the planning process of Wikimania. We have completed analysis of these results and have prepared this report summarizing your feedback and important changes for Wikimania starting in 2018 as an experiment. Feedback and comments are welcome at the discussion page. Thank you so much for your participation. I JethroBT (WMF), Community Resources, 22:47, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Missing label onQ22122369[edit]

You (presumably with a bot) added Complete genome sequence of Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium LT2 (Q22122369), but failed to copy the paper title into the label. Please check if this happened to others, and fix them. Thanks for adding all these papers, though! JesseW (talk) 23:14, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for checking this. It's not a bot but a tool, which works with the CrossRef API that simply does not list the title in some cases, including this one. I have added the English label and the title (P1476) statement manually in most of such cases but may have missed a few. --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 11:16, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to Wikidata user study[edit]

Dear Daniel Mietchen,
I am a researcher of the Web and Internet Science group of the University of Southampton.
Together with a group of other researchers from the same University, we are currently conducting a research aiming to discover how newcomers become full participants into the Wikidata community. We are interested in understanding how the usage of tools, the relationships with the community, and the knowledge and application of policy norms change from users' first approach to Wikidata to their full integration as fully active participants.
This study will take place as an interview, either by videotelephony, e.g. Skype, phone, or e-mail, according to the preference of the interviewees. The time required to answer all the questions will likely be about an hour. Further information can be found on the Research Project Page Becoming Wikidatians: evolution of participation in a collaborative structured knowledge base.
Any data collected will be treated in the strictest confidentiality, no personal information will be processed for the purpose of the research. The study, which has submission number 20117, has received ethical approval following the University of Southampton guidelines.
We aim at gathering about 20 participants, chosen among experienced Wikidata users who authored a large number of contributions.
Should you be interested in taking part or wish to receive further information, you can contact us by writing to the e-mail address
Thank you very much, your help will be much appreciated!
--Alessandro Piscopo (talk) 11:21, 1 June 2016 (UTC)


Hi, would you mind changing "no" to "nb" in your babel box? We're trying to get rid of "no", see phab:T102533 :) Danmichaelo (talk) 21:12, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Done. --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 21:41, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Plant science[edit]

You've added a bunch of articles which have main subject (P921) Plant Science (Q15746538) View with Reasonator View with SQID. But it is wrong. How a magazine can be a main topic? I planned to remove all such statements, but may be you would like to adjust them somehow? --Infovarius (talk) 14:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for checking, Infovarius. This is a known bug. Let's see what Magnus thinks. In any case, I always try to remove the false positives, but I am aware I have missed some, and I would appreciate if you could help sort out such cases, or ping me when you see them. Thanks! --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 09:07, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Ok. But what can we use here instead? @Succu, Brya: botany (Q441)? --Infovarius (talk) 13:41, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
I just started plant science (Q24454422) for that purpose. --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 19:56, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
And what's the difference from botany (Q441)? --Infovarius (talk) 14:20, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Plant science includes botany and agriculture. --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 14:25, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Bot account[edit]

Hi, have you considered using a bot account? Almost whenever I visit Recent Changes, a majority of the edits are yours. Danmichaelo (talk) 18:33, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I have not really considered this, since I am neither a developer (albeit learning Python) nor familiar enough with any of the existing bot frameworks that I would be able to do these kinds of edits via a bot. --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 00:14, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Bot accounts are also for semi-automatic (human-assisted) editing. Personally I try to use my bot account when I need to do lots of repetitive edits using tools like quickstatements, that I don't expect anyone to question. When the number of edits are relatively low, or when I think it's a good idea that the edits show up in other people's watchlists, I use my non-bot account. Whether you want to use the same approach or not is of course up to you, there's no policy or consensus on this on wikidata.
Something else: I've been curious about what approach you're using for adding articles. Is it to go through all PMCID (P932) systematically in increasing order? Danmichaelo (talk) 12:47, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know about how you use that bot account. I see your point and will give it some more thought.
As for prioritizing the PMCID (P932), there is not much significance in the ordering (other than making quality control easier), and I am actually using a mix of criteria:
Happy to dig deeper into any of that. --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 00:20, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Understanding how the Wikidata community is editing items[edit]

Dear Daniel,

Together with some colleagues, I am running a survey to understand the way Wikidata editors edit items over time. We would like to know the extent to which you choose the items you want to edit, the criteria that you use to decide what to edit, the situations that trigger your edits, and the way these decisions change over time.

Before we conduct the survey, we would like to be sure that the questions are clear and we would like to get some feedback from Wikidatans. Given your expertise, I am writing you directly, to kindly ask you if you could answer the survey and give us feedback.

You will need around 10 minutes to complete the survey.

We are not interested in the edits of particular users, but rather in the editing strategies being followed by the community of editors. That’s why the responses to this survey are anonymous.

We plan to publish the anonymous results openly. We will share the results with the Wikidata community.

Thanks a lot in advance for your collaboration!

Link to the survey:

Cristina Sarasua <> --criscod (talk) Institute for Web Science and Technologies, University of Koblenz-Landau, Germany Member of Wikimedia Deutschland

Gianluca Demartini <> Information School, University of Sheffield


Hey, I'm really sorry to block you but you are flooding everything by running the bot with really high speed. You caused disruption in services including ORES. Please mark yourself a bot or put a reasonable throttle Amir (talk) 08:05, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Please answer and I will unblock you immediately Amir (talk) 08:53, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
It wasn't a bot but I had multiple instances of quick statements open. Will look into getting a bot flag, perhaps for a separate account. --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 15:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
That still counts as a bot. Please do not do this again. In 20:25 last night, you made 210 edits. This is by far bigger than anything bots are allowed to do. Amir (talk) 17:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
I started a bot request. Btw, I had not responded this morning because I thought I could not post while blocked. --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 17:10, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

your edits of scientific articles[edit]

I think you do great work, but I think it's wrong to add volume (P478), page(s) (P304) and issue (P433) to the item. IMHO a article doesn't have a volume, a pagenumber or an issue, the journal has it. So I think, we must add this properties as qualifiers to published in (P1433) like I do here: [1]. --Balû (talk) 17:57, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I see your point, but I don't think your way of doing it is the only option here. I am following the model outlined at Wikidata:WikiProject Source MetaData/Bibliographic metadata for scholarly articles in Wikidata. The role of qualifiers has indeed not been specified in much detail there, so your input on this would be welcome. Having these components of bibliographic metadata as properties rather than qualifiers makes reuse of this information — e.g. in a citation template on a Wikipedia article citing the scientific article — more straightforward. --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 20:17, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
I think, my proposed way is the only right way. What would you do with this properties, if the article was published in more than one journal? --Balû (talk) 02:39, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
That's an interesting special case, which hasn't really been discussed yet (as far as I can tell), so thanks for bringing it up. My hunch is that this is rare enough that it could be modeled by setting up two different items (either way) and linking them through something like said to be the same as (P460). --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 02:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
@Balû: Ich hab mal ein Testset dafuer angelegt. --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 21:45, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #232[edit]

Scientific articles 2[edit]

I was asked to add, next to the NL-description, also the English. I see you did quite some German descriptions already. I do not know how much work it is with Quick Statements, but if it's easier for you to do it with my python script, then let me know. I can actually add any language that is needed (as long as I get the correct translation for scientific article ;-). There are about 275.000 such items right now, but maybe they will upload some more. Edoderoo (talk) 16:37, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

@Edoderoo: Thanks. Yes, please add English and German to your bot for instances of scientific article. There should be relatively few left to do right now, since I have just gone over them again. Most of these actually share the title with an item that has a description like "scientific article", as listed here (based on error messages I got from Quick Statements). How do you treat such cases with your bot? Once we have a workflow for them, I am happy to discuss other languages. --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 21:45, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Interesting .. how do you decide if it's preprint or an article. My script would either (try to) put "scientific article" in all of them, while the second time it will would not be written to the database due to the error that is generated, because the combination title/description must be unique. But if I know which one is the preprint and which one the article, I can prevent the error. Can there be a third instance with the same article name, or do they usually come in pairs of two? Edoderoo (talk) 07:38, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
@Edoderoo: I think I've used "preprint" just once as a description (in Model-based projections of Zika virus infections in childbearing women in the Americas (Q22809004)), and this could be inferred from the DOI prefix "10.1101", which belongs to BioRxiv (Q19835482). Technically, I could thus have removed Q22809004 and Model-based projections of Zika virus infections in childbearing women in the Americas (Q26250276) from the above-mentioned list, but I left them in there as a reminder to think a bit more about how to model preprints, perhaps in the context of a redefinition of corrigendum / erratum (P2507) into a more generic "update" property.
There are multiple reasons why two Wikidata items about scholarly articles might have the same title, including:
Figuring out which item belongs to which of the above categories will probably require human interaction for some time to come, which is why I put them on that list. For cases of articles evolving over time, I have started to add the publication date into the description, and for articles published across different journals, the journal names. That probably warrents further discussion — suggestions welcome. --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 21:35, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Fehlfunktion Bot[edit]

Hallo, dein Bot legt gerade massenhaft Items ohne Label an, finde ich nicht so toll. --Balû (talk) 07:15, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Ich habe einen Antrag auf Blockieren, gestellt, da du wohl momentan nicht online bist. Wikidata:Administrators'_noticeboard#User:Research_Bot --Balû (talk) 07:25, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Alle Items des gegenwaertigen Botlaufs sind als instance of (P31) von scientific article (Q13442814) gekennzeichnet und haben eine PubMed ID (P698). Um die Labels kuemmere ich mich separat. Ich habe jetzt aber Beschreibungen mit eingefuegt. --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 11:55, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Ok, es sieht nur sehr seltsam aus, wenn da viele Artikel ohne Label angelegt werden. Wenn du das im Griff hast, ist es auch kein Problem :-) --Balû (talk) 12:32, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #233[edit]

HTML characters in descriptions[edit]

Hi. Many of the descriptions you recently created contain masked HTML entities, especially &amp; (for "&"), e.g. [2], [3]. Please check your tools or sources. Thank you! --YMS (talk) 18:46, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. I can't do much about the tools or sources, but I am keeping an eye on such things on the basis of SPARQL queries and fixing them in batches. --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 20:27, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #234[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #235[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #236[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #237[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #238[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #239[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #240[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #241[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #242[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #242[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #243[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #244[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #245[edit]

Title with footnote marks[edit]

We got "† , ‡" footnote marks in the title [4]. I wonder if this is a sourcemd issue? — Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 19:53, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

@Fnielsen: This comes from the sources, and SourceMD just forwards it. Several similar problems listed here. --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 00:53, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #246[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #247[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #248[edit]

Research Bot[edit]

Hallo Daniel,

ich habe ein gewisses Problem mit Artikeltiteln in Großbuchstaben wie z.B. BENJAMIN FRANKLIN'S MEDICAL IMPRINTS (Q28776923). Zweifelsohne ist das der Titel, wie ihn die Quelle hergibt, aber sind Artikeltitel in Großbuchstaben nicht nur ein Artefakt aus dem Bleilettern-Zeitalter, das von manchen Zeitschriften zur Hervorhebung von Überschriften angewandt wird? Wäre es eine Möglichkeit, bei P1476 den Titel in Großbuchstaben zu nehmen, dafür aber den Titel des Items in Benjamin Franklin's Medical Imprints anzupassen?--Kopiersperre (talk) 18:02, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Hallo Kopiersperre, mich stoeren diese Grossbuchstabenketten auch, und ich wandle diese gelegentlich in ein Alias um, doch ist mir keine systematische Heransgehensweise an dieses Thema bekannt, und Research Bot kann dabei derzeit auch nicht helfen. Unter User:Research Bot#Known problems sind einige aehnliche Probleme aufgelistet, die mittels SPARQL queries zumindest ueberwacht werden koennen, und ich arbeite die entsprechenden Listen immer mal wieder durch. Ein Query fuer Labels oder P1476, die nur aus Grossbuchstaben bestehen, erscheint mir nicht uebermaessig kompliziert, auch wenn ich im Moment nicht genau weiss, wie das anzustellen waere. Vielleicht fangen wir damit an und gucken, was dabei rauskommt? Auf der Basis koennen wir dann vermutlich auch andere fuer die Thematik interessieren. --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 20:08, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks to WikidataFacts, we now have this query. I have added it to the list of known problems and will keep it in mind when I go through the list. --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 22:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #249[edit]

Item to be delete[edit]

In RFD there are a lot of item proposed for the deletion created by you. If you do not agree you can participate in the debate --ValterVB (talk) 20:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. I am fixing the items right now. --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 21:42, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Item to be delete[edit]

In RFD there are one or more item proposed for the deletion created by you. If you do not agree you can participate in the debate --ValterVB (talk) 23:32, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm done going through these items — thanks again for the notification. --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 22:54, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #250[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #251[edit]

Weekly Summary #252[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #253[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #254[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #255[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #256[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #257[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #258[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #259[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #260[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #261[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #262[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #263[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #264[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #265[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #266[edit]