User talk:Dhx1

Previous discussion was archived at User talk:Dhx1/Archive 1 on 2017-07-21.

Hello Vunj909or4n2btrv,

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 surveys@wikimedia.org.

You can see my explanation here.

Mistake fixed

I dont think this is correct, I started a discussion about this on the talk page. --Hannes Röst (talk) 15:57, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks for finding the error!

Hi, can i ask why? I have been using P18 as a support for the references since June after a discussion at the village pump months before, all my insertions of Wiki Loves Monuments ID and their (productive) use as references are based on this discussion and those previously existing uses. It's very useful in general to put it as a clear link to a document, a grave, a plaque. I therefore disagree with this constraint, where was it discussed?

It was just based on usage statistics at Property_talk:P18 where as main value (Q54828448) is the overwhelming use of image (P18). It is possible to add as qualifiers (Q54828449) and as references (Q54828450) if there is a use case for this. You've mentioned a few use cases where more applicable properties exist though. For documents, I suggest using described by source (P1343), for plaques commemorative plaque image (P1801), place name signs place name sign (P1766), and graves/tombs image of grave (P1442).

I Know they exist, I said "in general" for that reason, I was referring to the fact that you need to use an image as a reference. As a result, you simply cannot create always a set of specific properties for that, the general one has an intrinsic value per se. My images for example are letter of consents, for example. it looked to me that P1343 was designed to link to an item, not a file on commons.

The ideal approach would be creation of a new item which is instance of letter of consent (Q88798846) and then using document file on Wikimedia Commons (P996) on this new item to link to the Commons file. Alternatively or additionally a WikiSource item can be linked and/or Wikisource index page (P1957) used. Then in references, described by source (P1343) item-which-is-instance-of-letter of consent (Q88798846) would be used.

That doesn't rule out the need for use of image (P18) for use as a reference. A fact on Wikidata could be verified by observing a photo hosted on Wikimedia Commons. For example, what colour an object is, the name of a building on a sign in an old photo, etc. I generally support adding "as reference values" to the property constraint of image properties (and subproperties thereof).

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) 22:47, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're free, or anywhere near Sydney, but I wanted to make sure you knew about this: https://www.eventbrite.com.au/e/sydney-wikimedia-meetup--tickets-82886619109 If you do make it, I'd be glad to meet.

Thanks for the invite @99of9. I'm Melbourne based, but hope it's a great meetup and opportunity to catch up amongst the Sydney Wikifolk. Do you mention these events in the weekly Wikidata news updates before or after the event? It'd be great to get a quick summary there to raise awareness of these meetups and projects including those on the agenda for the workshop--AustLII and SLNSW.

Good idea, done.

Gentoo packages came from an outdated mix-n-match catalogue and needed an "end time" qualifier.

Please stop adding non-existing gentoo packages:

• https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q65048401#P3499
• https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q2031313#P3499

or at least add them along with corresponding end time (P582)

Hi I found you from your use of this property which I never saw before but which looks very useful and so I used it on Q87743905. Now I wonder if there is a way to add stuff to a subreddit since I am not on reddit, e.g. this. If you don't know, that's fine, I just thought if you used the property you might know.

I don't use Reddit either, but this moderator post on Reddit looks like it provides the information you're after. You'd need to create a Reddit account to cross-post articles from /r/Iowa/ to /r/CoronavirusIowa.

Hello Dxh1,

Due to your many contribution to COVID-19 related items on Wikidata, I am here to send you this friendly invitation for tomorrow (Monday, 15 of June) cal of the Wikiproject COVID-19 at 15:00 UTC!

This is the link for the call:  https://meet.google.com/vtp-ighz-npx

This is the link for the etherpad: https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/wikidata_covid_notes

The WikiProject seems to be losing momentum. Perception of the size of COVID-19 as an enormous problem is fading (at least in Brazil). That might be a sign of things getting better, but it is also very dangerous (as they might not be that better yet).

In tomorrow's call, I would like to discuss with you two important and related questions:

- How can this WikiProject best serve the anti-covid-19 effort?

- what does this project can offer for the post-COVID-19 Wikidata world?

As usual, if you have any topics to add, you can do so either before at the Project Meeting Page or at the meeting.

I hope you can make it!

All the best,

Tiago

~~~~

Thanks for the invite @TiagoLubiana, but the timing doesn't work out for me. A few thoughts are below on what I see as being the most useful data to curate in Wikidata:

• Data useful for generating a timeline of the spread of the pandemic including the methods used to control the pandemic.
• Linked citation graph of scientific papers related to COVID-19 including linking to the main topics of each paper/report--medical conditions, structure of the virus, pandemic control methods, etc.

This data would be useful embedded into all the various Wikipedia editions to maintain consistency, and also be a useful repository of information to help people be informed of how best to respond to future pandemics.

It could be wise to test scripts on items that has a rather low visibility, or even do testrun in the sandbox. Just I friendly remainder, I have messed up items myself, and it is not cool when people at several wikis start yelling at you.

Data was added manually and not by script--but yes, I did make a lot of changes in the process due to finding a better way to model the data on 2019-nCov. It looks like @Salgo60 has also started importing the same data each day from the WHO, but using QuickStatements to do so (much more efficient).

@Dhx1 I use Open Refine and generates Quickstatements but its gets messy I feel you cant set rank, it just works if the value is unique etc.... looks like @Larske start cleaning it.....

Another thing, at some point the spread will probably be so massive the numbers will stop making sense. I'm not sure how that should be modelled. It will then go from a confirmed number to an estimated number.

@Jeblad: sourcing circumstances (P1480) is used to qualify that some number of cases (P1603) values on 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak in China (Q83872271) are estimations/probabilities provided by the WHO. Perhaps determination method (P459) could also/alternatively be used if there is an estimation method that is used to come up with future estimates?

Yes, I suppose sourcing circumstances (P1480) or determination method (P459) could be used. Seems like a number of determination methods would be used as a fallback chain.

@Larske@Jeblad@Dhx1

Lesson learned so far having 2019-nCov data in Wikidata:

1) WIkidata with its "query lag" is not optimal for data like this

2) the current way of changing rank to show latest value doesnt work good with Quickstatement that cant set rank

3) Adding the same value as was entered before Quickstatement adds the data qualifiers to the already created value

4) In the latest report the reporting changed also having information about

• Total (new) cases with travel history to China
• Total (new) cases with possible or confirmed transmission outside of China
• Total (new) cases with site of transmission under investigation

how should we handle that? Is Wikidata a good place for data like this were Wikidata has limited support for properties based on data from other properties, transactional data.....

Example query:

• map
• latest data

Suggestion from Telegram group "Wikidata" is use "A designated wikibase"

I've been wondering about statistics, and whether there are some cases where the dynamic is such that we need an alternate way to update and query the values. In particular, that statistics somehow isn't a first order member of one item or even several items, but rather it is related to several of them as a born digital entity itself, and perhaps even related to items of heterogeneous type. It is not metadata about a single item, it is statistics about several items.

I saw query "Chart of the number of infections and deaths casued since the outbreak of novel coronavirus, as reported by the World Health Organisation" in the Wikidata:Status updates/Next

FYI: As Quickstatement has no good support update ranking,.. I changed the approach and only add causes when there is a change compared to the day before....

It seems that currently this section discussed things, that may or may not about your former edits, ehh, (added Wikidata usage instructions (P2559) value "List subjects which the article covers. Do not use P527 "has part" as parts of an article are the title, sections and paragraphs.") don't you need to join this thread?

Thanks for the link. I've updated a modelling help page with better information on what statements to add to these Wikidata items which are instance of (P31) Wikipedia article covering multiple topics (Q21484471).