User talk:MisterSynergy

Jump to: navigation, search

About this board

Babel user information
de-N Dieser Benutzer spricht Deutsch als Muttersprache.
en-4 This user has near native speaker knowledge of English.
Users by language

Previous discussion was archived at User talk:MisterSynergy/Archive 1 on 2015-11-09.

By clicking "Add topic", you agree to our Terms of Use and agree to irrevocably release your text under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and GFDL
Jura1 (talkcontribs)

Just curious: what was Q21290059?

MisterSynergy (talkcontribs)

:pt:Georges Stobbaerts; male human, date of death 6 January 2014; seven edits in total, no external references and backlinks

Jura1 (talkcontribs)

Thanks. Could be VIAF 99900009 , but otherwise let him RIP.

MisterSynergy (talkcontribs)

Good spot, I have restored the item and added some more claims, including identifiers. Thanks for asking.

Jura1 (talkcontribs)

Well, if you hadn't deleted it, I'd never have figured out who he was ;)

MisterSynergy (talkcontribs)

That is the problem with so many items we have. If there aren’t any identifiers or references in the item when the last sitelink is deleted, it will very likely not be improved or identified later. I have meanwhile seen a lot of such cases. They typically base on deleted Wikipedia sitelinks which where either

  • fully promotional (thus have very little credibility)
  • copyright infringements
  • complete fakes
  • created by problematic (perma-banned) users
  • simply found to be not notable for Wikipedia

Some of these Wikipedia deletion rationales do not imply lack of notability for Wikidata, but for most entities this is indeed the case.

If there are no sitelinks, backlinks, and external references, I thus delete such items without any external searches for notability indicators and wait for users to complain about the deletion—which happens extremely rarely. With very few exceptions, there are simply no editors who watch these items. Yet I am happy if someone takes notice and asks for the content or undeletion :-)

Jura1 (talkcontribs)

If creation/deletion was easier, probably, it wouldn't matter much if we deleted items without much content automatically. Personally, I wouldn't mind.

I was somewhat surprised when reading that some users think that Wikidata items get created (and possibly maintained) automatically ;)

MisterSynergy (talkcontribs)

I agree, both creation and deletion are not really effortless (enough). At least undeletion is pretty simple, so the somewhat aggressive deletion approach (as described in my previous comment) currently taken by a couple of admins is a good compromise to my opinion.

Unfortunately there are much more problematic items than admins who are significantly involved in the deletion business. Furthermore, deleting an item requires several clicks and page loads, the GUI is not made for that workflow. We will likely continue to have a substantial amount of problematic items in this project.

Reply to "del"
Joutbis (talkcontribs)

Hello,

I am the current operator of JoRobot (talkcontribslogs). It was a joint effort with Joancreus (talkcontribslogs), and he's indeed inactive, but myself and the bot are quite active in the Catalan wikipedia. Sorry I didn't update the wikidata page, but I am responsible for this bot's work.

As for my edits about IUCN identifiers, I am making them semi-automatically for efficiency. I have checked some of the violations and they are duplicates that should be merged.

How can we go about deblocking the bot?

MisterSynergy (talkcontribs)

Hey Joutbis, please make sure that…

  • … the bot page lists you as the operator
  • … the bot page indicates that it has a valid bot flag (plus link to the request for bot flag page)
  • … the bot talk page redirects to your talk page
  • … the bot only operates within the scope of the bot flag request; if the bot has other jobs meanwhile, please file new requests for each of them
  • User:Succu's concerns at User talk:Joancreus are addressed

Although I am going to unblock the bot now, I suggest to make all these repairs before you re-activate the bot. (notify bureaucrats @Lymantria, Ymblanter who are responsible for bot flag approval).

MisterSynergy (talkcontribs)

I forgot to mention that this issue was brought to administrators' attention via Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard#User:JoRobot.

JoRobot (talkcontribs)

OK, thanks, I'm working on it. I assume that bureaucrats will set the bot flag if the task is approved without me having to ask specifically for it, right?

Succu (talkcontribs)

First of all please fix all the introduced errors. BTW you should act here with your user name, and not with your bot name.

Joutbis (talkcontribs)

I will, just give me a couple days to test the new template version with the items in that list.

MisterSynergy (talkcontribs)

Technically you already have a bot flag, so you will not get a second one.

However, any activity that is not covered by your first request at Wikidata:Requests_for_permissions/Bot/JoRobot should be approved by separate requests. Succu raised a concern at the Administrators' noticeboard that the activity of your bot is out of the scope of that request. With regards to the media legend import I have to say that I share his opinion.

Thus you need to file a new request by yourself at Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Bot. If you already have a bot flag, then this is pretty straight forward. They will probably ask you to do some “test edits” with the bot and approve your request then…

MisterSynergy (talkcontribs)

I just found Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Bot/JoRobot 2. That’s the right thing to do.

Reply to "JoRobot"
Summary by MisterSynergy

Answered on the talk page of the requesting author, as desired.

Randykitty (talkcontribs)

Hi, this confuses me. To what criteria in Wikidata:Notability does this refer? The subject has been deemed not notable in multiple deletion debates on multiple wikis. I would appreciate if you could post your answer on my talk page, as I do not follow pages that use Flow (and this is the first time ever I post on a Flow page, so I hope I didn't screw something up). Thanks.

Nomen ad hoc (talkcontribs)

Hi there,

could you please restore Q30118115? I would like to reuse it as a category item.

MisterSynergy (talkcontribs)

Hey Nomen ad hoc, I am not sure whether this is a good idea. It had sitelinks en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AlexLevyOne/Archive and fr:Wikipédia:Faux-nez/Albion. Such sitelinks are not permitted per Wikidata:Notability/Exclusion criteria.

If you plan to do something else with the item (you said “category item”), the way to go is a new item anyway. We never reuse items for other things than what they originally were made for. So what do you think? Regards!

Reply to "Q30118115"
Anne Bauval (talkcontribs)

Thank you for your recent help (I am completely unable to do it myself). A few months ago, I met another duplicate : [[Institut de Mathématiques de Toulouse (Q277888)]] and [[Toulouse Mathematics Institute (Q30261390)]]. Anne Bauval (talk) 07:57, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

MisterSynergy (talkcontribs)

You’re welcome.

There is a gadget simply called “Merge” which you can activate at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets (very first one). It adds an entry in the “More” dropdown menu directly left to the search box in the web interface. Using this gadget it is very simple to merge two items.

Another possibility would be to use Special:MergeItems and just provide the two Q-ids there. We typically merge into the Q-id with the lower number, but there are exceptions from this rule.

Feel free to ask for more advice, if you think you need that. Regards!

Reply to "Thank you for merging"

Dimensions of prints in the National Library of Wales

4
Summary by MisterSynergy

Took a while, but this problem has just been solved in the past three days.

Pigsonthewing (talkcontribs)

I thin this - https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q23673808&diff=prev&oldid=499481348 - and several like it are not right....

MisterSynergy (talkcontribs)

Thanks, stopped after your comment for now.

Data is given at Commons in the same way, but it seems that occasionally image and paper size was mixed up—at least according to the linked identifier.

I need to look into this a little closer, but corrections are necessary anyway. I’ll try to figure out whether I can crawl the source website and fix all values, while adding a source as well. Do you happen to know whether paper size or image size shall be given in properties height (P2048) and width (P2049)?

MisterSynergy (talkcontribs)
  • The source can indeed be crawled and be used to compare it against our entry. I will set this up, but it will take some days to finalize and evaluate the crawl (I need to implement the code).
  • It will probably be the easiest to finish the previous run (addition of unit, I only updated 274/3660 items) before I compare and correct values. Any objections?
  • I also found User talk:Sic19#National Library of Wales, thus a notification goes to @Sic19, Molarus.
MisterSynergy (talkcontribs)

The unit addition continues now, a value correction run will follow (including addition of sources to both claims).

Nomen ad hoc (talkcontribs)

Hi there,

could you please restore Q27160133 and Q24199939? I'd like to complete it. Thanks!

MisterSynergy (talkcontribs)

There you go:

Regards!

Summary by MisterSynergy

Merging issues solved for now. Thanks for the input!

Ary29 (talkcontribs)

Hello! I use the Italian interface, and the merge tool is in the upper right tabs: Altro > Unione con l'elemento... I checked the English interface, and it seems it's the Merge Wizard. I hope this helps. Have a nice day! ~~~~

MisterSynergy (talkcontribs)

Okay, thanks for your reply! Yes, this looks like the “Merge” gadget from Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets. I guess you use it with the “Create a redirect” checkbox activated (I can’t even deactivate it, but who knows what’s possible there…), but then something is broken or whatever in the gadget.

Since I don’t know what exactly went wrong, I have to make a bigger survey involving other users as well :-) This is very annoying for a couple of weeks now, because there are plenty of empty items with missing redirects. User:PLbot does indeed try to repair such cases and it is successful in most cases, but I’d prefer a situation where this workaround involving bots wouldn’t be necessary.

Nevertheless, you can of course go on with your work, and don’t worry about this one. If you notice something suspicious however, please let me know. Regards!

Ary29 (talkcontribs)

OK, I'll revert to you if something goes wrong. Ciao

Ary29 (talkcontribs)

Something went wrong: [[:Q32641997]] didn't become a redirect to [[:Q9218410]].

MisterSynergy (talkcontribs)

Thanks. Did you use the merge gadget again?

There is now a discussion at Wikidata:Project chat#Merge with quickstatements don't work? about this problem, and phab:T172649. It shows up as well when QuickStatements is used to merge items. If you have an important observation to contribute, you can either leave it in one of those places or tell me here.

Regards!

Ary29 (talkcontribs)

I used the Merge Wizard as usual.

Steak (talkcontribs)

Hi, wollen wir für :de:Wikipedia:Positivlisten/Spieler der deutschen 3. Fußball-Liga das gleiche machen wie für die Bundesligaspieler? Ich denke das wäre einfacher, weil nur knapp 20 Artikel nicht existieren. Diesmal könnte man auch Property:P118 hinzufügen (ich hab per Disk die Domain auf Spieler erweitert), dann hätte man alle Drittliga-Spieler sauber vermerkt.

MisterSynergy (talkcontribs)

Ja klar, das können wir machen. Der andere Job mit den Bundesligaspielern war allerdings etwas durcheinander aufgezogen, ich kann mich gerade nicht mehr erinnern, was wir da genau gemacht haben. Magst Du kurz eine to-do-Liste skizzieren, was ungefähr in welcher Reihenfolge zu tun ist? Viele Grüße!

Steak (talkcontribs)

Also ich würde sagen folgende Schritte sind zu tun:

  • Erstellen der Items für die Spieler, für die es bislang keines gibt
  • Ergänzung sämtlicher Items mit dem Liga-Property
  • Ggf. können noch weitere Properties ergänzt werden (Staatsangehörigkeit etc.). Letztesmal hast du Daten von Weltfussball.de gezogen, ich weiß nicht ob das wieder ginge und wie groß der Aufwand wäre
Steak (talkcontribs)

Also, wir haben 2326 Artikel per PetScan, plus 16 fehlende Artikel (wobei es zu allen schon ein Item gibt). Das passt nicht ganz, denn insgesamt sollen es nur 2350 Artikel sein. Wie fügt man hier eigentlich maskierte Wikilinks ein?

MisterSynergy (talkcontribs)

Link einfügen und dann den Text bearbeiten. Klassisches WYSIWYG ;-)

Die Listen schaue ich mir einmal an…

MisterSynergy (talkcontribs)

Ich habe in der Liste eine BKS umgebogen und sechs (?) Weiterleitungen aufgelöst, sowie einen Artikel zu Wikidata verlinkt. Ich würde dann bald so ca. 2333 Artikel in der Petscan-Liste erwarten, zuzüglich der 16 fehlenden würde dann nur einer irgendwo verloren gegangen sein. Da Petscan gerade nicht sofort aktualisiert, müssten wir hier ein bisschen warten…

Steak (talkcontribs)

Hab den fehlenden gefunden: Lukas Novy, den hatte das Missing topic tool nicht gefunden, weil er im ANR nicht verlinkt ist. Ein Item hat auch er schon.

MisterSynergy (talkcontribs)

Sind wir dann schon fertig , angenommen das Petscan-Tool bringt gleich tatsächlich 2333 Artikel raus? Bei Petscan stehen tatsächlich 2333 Spieler drin, 17 fehlen, und die Wikipedia-Liste hat tatsächlich 2350 Einträge, so wie das auch obendrüber geschrieben steht.

Steak (talkcontribs)

Fertig mit zusammensuchen der Items ja (2333 + 17 = 2350 wie es sein soll). Dann fehlt nur noch das Hinzufügen von P118.

MisterSynergy (talkcontribs)

Das kriegste selbst hin. Die 17 fehlenden machste händisch, die anderen mit QuickStatements. Bei Petscan die Liste laden (im Output-Tab CSV oder TSV auswählen), dann mit Excel oder so die Items rausfischen, und an alle Zeilen "<TAB>P118<TAB>Q154069" anhängen.

Falls Du dabei Assistenz brauchst, sag Bescheid. Das Vorbereiten des QuickStatements-Inputs kann man grundsätzlich in 2 Minuten schaffen.

MisterSynergy (talkcontribs)

Läuft, wie ich sehe :-) Warten wir auf 2350 Ergebnisse in dieser Abfrage.

Steak (talkcontribs)

Ja, läuft, nach ein paar Anlaufschwierigkeiten ;)

MisterSynergy (talkcontribs)

Schon gesehen. Ein Klassiker, wenn man Excel zur Vorbereitung nutzt ;-)

Steak (talkcontribs)

Die von dir verlinkte Abfrage ist allerdings einen Tick zu simpel und würde mehr Ergebnisse liefern ;) Wenn man sich noch auf Menschen beschränkt, passt es.

MisterSynergy (talkcontribs)

Ähm richtig. Machen wir es mit dieser Version: passt :-)

MisterSynergy (talkcontribs)

Nochwas.

Wenn es nun irgendwann Update in der dewiki-Liste gibt, kannst Du mit petscan:1211590 alle Items (mit dewiki-Blaulinks) finden, denen P118:Q154069 fehlt. Es ist dazu ratsam, die dewiki-Liste frei von Weiterleitungen und BKS-Links zu halten. Erstere kannst Du in einer common.css farbig hinterlegen, letztere mit einem Helferlein. Für die Rotlinks brauchst Du weiterhin das missingtopics-Tool und händische Prüfungen.

Viele Grüße!

Steak (talkcontribs)

Ok, am Ende der aktuellen Saison eventuell ;)

Steak (talkcontribs)

Die Query findet jetzt nur noch 2349 Items. Wie kann man rausfinden, bei wem das Statement entfernt wurde?

MisterSynergy (talkcontribs)

Der Petscan-Link meines letzten Beitrages macht das.

Des Rätsels Lösung: es wurde kein Statement entfernt. Es hat aber jemand im Objekt Philipp Kühn (Q1617089) weitere Aussagen ergänzt und eine davon, nämlich die aktuell gültige, richtigerweise mit bevorzugtem Rang ausgestattet. Unsere Abfrage findet für jedes Objekt nur die Aussagen mit bestmöglichem Rang, das ist in diesem Fall nicht die 3.-Liga-Aussage.

Mit der modifizierten Abfrage SELECT ?item { ?item p:P118 [ ps:P118 wd:Q154069 ] } werden alle Objekte gefunden, die die gesuchte Aussage haben – unabhängig vom eingestellten Rang. In der Petscan-Abfrage kannst Du das in der SPARQL-Box auch nutzen.

Steak (talkcontribs)

Ok, danke. :)

Summary by MisterSynergy

Further discussion at WD:RfD.

ValterVB (talkcontribs)

Q20702600 Are you sure?

MisterSynergy (talkcontribs)

Yes I am, and I wrote this comment at WD:RfD.