- @Succu: sorry, I thought both value where legit. I did add quite a lot of them already, I can work on removing those added to items with a publication date set to after the 1st January 2007, does that seems like the right thing to do at this point? -- Maxlath (talk)
Hi. To note that when they initially put the Wikisource works into Wikidata, the bot went through and called them all books, and labelled them as such. Subsequently the Wikidata project has given criteria for published works, and what we have at Wikisource is generally editions, especially as we can reproduce multiple editions of the same work. Slowly slowly we are fixing up those early additions. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:02, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- @billinghurst: sorry, this was an automate edit I programmed yesterday: I was tired of always falling back on the Dutch description of "boek van [author name]" for all books that had only that description, so I wrote a tasks queue to add "book by [author name]"@en and "livre de [author name]"@fr to the entities that already have the Dutch description but no English/French description. Unfortunately, I didn't anticipate the case that someone could add a description between the moment my SPARQL query found it missing and the queue actually comes to it :s — Maxlath (talk) 23:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Varlaam: None of my edits are done with the intent to vandalize, if you consider some of my edits as contestable, feel free to notify, cancel, or override them as some people did above. But do not start with insults, why starting with insults? what kind of asshole would start a discussion on one contested edit with insults?!? Please correct your title and comment or go to hell -- Maxlath (talk) 09:10, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Je vois que tu as ajouté des descriptions en anglais, allemand et espagnol sur Q27918987. Sur le principe, c'est génial, merci ; dans la pratique, tu as pris seulement le premier auteur pour ce livre qui en compte une vingtaine :/ Pourrais-tu jeter un coup d’œil et corriger cela ?
- Salut, oui j'ai traduis des descriptions en néerlandais pour beaucoup de livres (uniquement dans les cas où aucune description pré-existait dans la langue cible), sans, malheureusement, re-vérifier leur validité, d'où un pourcentage faible mais non-nulle de descriptions peu satisfaisantes : je corrige progressivement celle que je remarque ou qu'on me fait remarquer. Désolé pour le dérangement -- Maxlath (talk) 17:50, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
juste pour information, cette modification a introduit une faute de typographie. Je suis donc revenu en arrière.
- hi @Pigsonthewing:, I wasn't sure that it was the right way to do that, but do you see an alternative way to tell the retrieved (P813) value of a qualifier such as number of subscribers (P3744) (as added here)? Isn't it better to have this date in reference, rather than this member count without any date to precise when it was true? -- Maxlath (talk) 13:23, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Date pour Twitter username (P2002) et number of subscribers (P3744)
Je vois que tu ajoutes number of subscribers (P3744) en qualificateur de Twitter username (P2002), c'est une excellente chose. Je ne suis pas souvent tombé sur ce qualificateur mais je suis un peu étonné de voir retrieved (P813) en référence et je me demandais si point in time (P585) en qualificateur ne serait pas plus approprié. Qu'en penses-tu ?
PS: je ne vois qu'après coup le message ci-dessus. Effectivement, il faudrait aller sur le project chat pour avoir plus d'avis ;)
- Bonjour. Je n'ai pas vu de sujet sur le Project Chat, donc je commente ici. Je suis d'accord avec Andy Mabbett : une date de consultation n'est pas une référence. Et j'irai plus loin que VIGNERON : il faudrait conserver les valeurs de chaque relevé ; cela permettrait de connaître les évolutions, comme pour la population d'une ville (exemple). La modélisation est probablement à réfléchir pour avoir quelque chose de générique et éviter une propriété par réseau social... En tout cas, merci pour cet import (je pense que tu peux le terminer, ce devrait être facile à corriger avec un bot lorsqu'une meilleure modélisation aura été choisie). — Envlh (talk) 13:44, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Salut, J'aimerais savoir s'il serait possible que tu fasses quelques modifications (si necessaire) pour ce wikidata s'il te plaît : https://wikidata.org/wiki/Q28361946 (Q28361946) Il n'y a pas encore de Knowledge Graph (avec sa ville de naissance et sa 'profession', il n'y a que sa date de naissance) sur Google en tapant son nom, du coup je voulais savoir s'il n'y avait pas un moyen pour avoir un vrai knowledge graph plus rapidement. Merci! :) Adv75 (talk) 23:34, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Turning books (Q571) into written works (Q47461344)
- book (Q571) has been a problematic instance of (P31) value for several years now, and there seem to be a consensus within both WikiProject_Books and WikiCite discussions to deprecate its use in an effort to make the work/edition distinction clear, using by default written work (Q47461344) for works and version, edition, or translation (Q3331189) for editions. (The question of allowing subclasses of written work (Q47461344) for works as values instead remains opened, as far as I can tell)
- The batch of edits I made on this day aims to update P31:Q571 claims to P31:Q47461344 claims in the cases where it seems clear that the item is a work.
- To do that, I collected ids from different SPARQL queries in sort of a duck typing (Q374282) approach:
- This is far from ending the Q571 case, a lot remains. Please join the effort by treating the many remaining occurrences.
- After setting those as work items, the next step would be to remove edition claims (ISBN-13 (P212), ISBN-10 (P957), and other edition identifiers), or to create dedicated items from those claims.
- Hopefully, this didn't generated too many false positive. If you spot one, thank your for notifying me, I will try to help correct the mistake, but please don't just revert as we got to go away from Q571.
- @Maxlath: thanks for the explanation, and for starting to tackle this hairy issue! A few remarks:
- While I’m sure you discussed this with some WikiCite participants, not everyone attends this conference, so it would’ve been useful to write this explanation before starting the edits, and link to it in the edit summary, so you wouldn’t have dozens of users (wild guess) ask what you’re doing :)
- Q571 (book) is currently a subclass of Q47461344 (written work), which is why I find it tempting to revert your change. I acknowledge that a move like this, to distinguish between proper work items and muddled work/edition/whatever items, is necessary; however, eventually we’ll probably want to change those statements again, from Q47461344 to some more specific class (not necessarily Q571). Do you have any plans for that? Because as far as I can tell, written works which used to be books are now mixed up with written works of other kinds, and I’m not sure if it’ll be easy to tell them apart again in future.
- Is there some place where this migration is being discussed that I’m not aware of?
- —Galaktos (talk) 23:45, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
- Is it OK to use literary work (Q7725634) instead of written work (Q47461344) where it seems to be more appropriate (e.g. Parmenides (Q1130762)? --Epìdosis 11:11, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Galaktos:: Hairy indeed ^^
- yes. I would have liked to group those edits in an editgroup, but that feature isn't implemented yet in wikidata-cli ><
- book (Q571) is indeed a subclass of written work (Q47461344), but while it was loosely associated to the FRBR-ish Work level in the past, that was ambiguous to some extent leading some contributors to convert instances of Q571 to convert those to instances of Q3331189, which breaks the assumption some tool had build on that those were Works; thus the attempt to "lock" them in the realm of Works.
- This is being discussed in WikiProject_Books
- -- Maxlath (talk) 21:44, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- Adding to Epidosis replic: all changes in my watchlist from book (Q571) to written work (Q47461344) look strange. I believe they all should be literary work (Q7725634) (or at least 95-99%). --Infovarius (talk) 09:53, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I do not think that adding Spanish book ISBN entries (like here) to a French book work item is a good idea. Such changes may propagate erros if somebody decides to add some more info basing on the ISBN data in future. Ankry (talk) 09:02, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Ankry: [sorry for the delayed answer] that was part of a batch of edits where I added ISBN-13 (P212) values to every item with a ISBN-10 (P957), as you can deduce one from the other. Having ISBNs on Works is a problem in general as those belong to Editions, but we struggle with getting out of it: I removed that one, but ideally we should probably remove all ISBNs from Works. May that day come ^^ -- Maxlath (talk) 18:12, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
I updated Floss (Q55135808)
- @Addshore: wooh nice! for a moment I though that the P18 was your very own ^^ -- Maxlath (talk) 18:03, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi Maxlath. I need your help. Are you able to partially revert this edit please? I need the P516 values on the sandbox, as we're still working on a complex infobox. Are you able to restore that part please? Rehman 11:38, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Rehman: Hi! I took a bit of work to get there, but it's done! :) Maxlath (talk) 11:01, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
- I kind of gave up on the idea of tracking subscribers counts in Wikidata, as the only data model that could fit (out of very special cases where the account/channel is the item, e.g. r/science (Q24207151)) is a qualifier of qualifier. I did express my lost faith here Wikidata:Property_proposal/Number_of_twitter_follower, but I don't want to be blocking in case people come up with a good work-arounds. I do think that having a subscribers property per year isn't very elegant though :( If at some point, there was a consensus that we should just remove subscribers data for cases where a time sequence is impossible, I would be up for cleaning up the mess I created. -- Maxlath (talk) 22:33, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
- It's actually interesting data to have and an annual frequency should be sufficient. I gave up on the idea of an elegant solution. Thus the proposal. --- Jura 22:37, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
- BTW, what do you think of option D1? It would be good to have a bot that collects that data on a monthly basis. --- Jura 12:56, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
- I made a request for that at Wikidata:Bot_requests#Monthly_number_of_subscribers. --- Jura 17:19, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Statements to change to depreciated rank
This query returns the list of statements I need to set to depreciated rank: https://w.wiki/Ark.
It would be fantastic if you are able to help with this.
- @Koavf: having subscribers count in qualifiers doesn't work as you can't add qualifiers and references, such as a point in time, to that qualifier. This results in those subscribers count being just outdated data, with one point in time. The different attempts to work around this issue, such as Wikidata:Property_proposal/subscribers, were not convincing in my opinion. See also Wikidata:Requests_for_permissions/Bot/SilentSpikeBot. Therefore, I went on to cleanup the mess I created by mass adding subreddit subscribers counts, as for Q6097, and proceeded to remove those subscribers counts on P3984 statements. -- Maxlath (talk) 19:55, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Batchmode in Wikibaseclient
I add Descriptions to Wikidata and for that I use QuickStatements. I read something about the Wikibaseclient and a Batchmode there and after there is sometimes a bigger Lag in Wikidata I look for ways that the work I do is more efficient and better for the infrastructure of Wikidata and the WikimediaProjects. As far as I have understand is the Wikibaseclient a possibility to make it more efficient. Is it possible and allowed to run a bot with the Wikibaseclient in Batch mode. I am not a programmer and I work a lot with Spreadsheets and I think that it is possible for me to create a batch with the commands as needed but I am not able to install the Wikibaseclient at the moment. I need to learn some things about command lines before I can install it. -- Hogü-456 (talk) 20:15, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Hogü-456: wikibase-cli could be faster than QuickStatements, partly because it makes less checks: for instance, it won't check if a given claim value already exists, it will just follow the instruction to add it, and might thus create duplicated claims. By letting this responsibility to the users, wikibase-cli needs less requests and can thus go faster. Also, wikibase-cli uses a maxlag value of 5 by default, which means that it will pause for 5 seconds if the server is lagging too much. It should thus be ok to use it for a bot. -- Maxlath (talk) 10:01, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Written work or literary work
I was hoping maybe you can help clarify when to use literary work (Q7725634) and when is written work (Q47461344) more appropriate? I don't seem to get why for example The Hours (Q2610868) is an instance of (P31) of written work but Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (Q43361) is literary work.
- Hi @Keren - WMIL:, I'm unfortunately not totally able to answer. I contributed to an effort to replace P31:Q571 by P31:Q47461344 to make the distinction between works and editions explicit. But while some would like to keep all instances of work with a unique P31 value (like all humans have a P31:Q5 claim), as that makes the data easier to work with, there is also a trend, that some go as far as calling consensual, to consider that "any subclass of [Q47461344] is acceptable". According to the later, you would then be invited to change P31:Q47461344 into P31:Q7725634, or other subclasses Q47461344, when it seems appropriate. I personally still feel uncomfortable with this state of things, as in absence of a P31:Q5 equivalent, it's increasingly difficult to work with bibliographic data in Wikidata :/ -- Maxlath (talk) 07:21, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Enrique Cordero: Entiendo que se trata de un tema delicado, pero me pareció que la declaración era posible, dado que hay referencias a su uso. De la misma manera, es posible afirmar que Earth (Q2):shape (P1419):disk (Q238231): esta afirmación la hacen ciertas personas, y se pueden encontrar referencias para defenderla. Esto no significa que sea cierto o legítimo: "Debido a que las declaraciones esencialmente apuntan a fuentes de información referenciables y diferentes fuentes pueden proporcionar información contradictoria, es posible representar una pluralidad de perspectivas en Wikidata." https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Help:Statements/es#Pluralidad_y_consenso. Pero no sé mucho al respecto y no insistiré si se elimina. (perdón por los errores de lenguaje, usé un traductor) -- Maxlath (talk) 12:39, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
- La referencia es la afirmación de una bloguera y la referencia es también un blog; eso no implica que sea un apodo de uso corriente, es la ocurrencia de esa señora, una ocurrencia despreciable e indigna por vejar a una víctima del terrorismo, algo con lo que creo deberían hacerse pocas bromas; sacada de contexto y convertida en categoría no es un apodo, es una afrenta. Yo sí insistiré en que se borre. No se apuré por errores de lenguaje, agradezco su esfuerzo en la comunicación. --Enrique Cordero (talk) 12:55, 30 May 2020 (UTC)