User talk:TiagoLubiana

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Previous discussion was archived at User talk:TiagoLubiana/Structured Discussions Archive 1 on 2020-06-15.

Translation request[edit]


Can you translate and upload en:Science and technology in Azerbaijan, en:Baku State University, en:National Academy of Sciences of Azerbaijan and en:National Library of Azerbaijan in Portuguese Wikipedia?

Yours sincerely, Matricatria (talk) 20:12, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights Survey[edit]

RMaung (WMF) 16:25, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey[edit]

RMaung (WMF) 19:51, 20 September 2019 (UTC)


I've started Wikidata:WikiProject_COVID-19 based on your message. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 00:56, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

@Jodi.a.schneider: Great initiative! I was talking with User:Daniel Mietchen and he suggested that a task force may be better suited, based on his previous experiences. He suggested to maybe create it as a subpart of Wikidata:WikiProject_Medicine . TiagoLubiana (talk) 01:02, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Bom dia, obrigado por ter actualizado 2020 COVID-19 pandemic in Portugal (Q86948603), no entanto, apesar das suas fontes serem de uma entidade credível, não estão de acordo com a realidade. Eu vou continuar a actualizar com os dados fornecidos pela Direcção Geral de Saúde. Joao4669 (talk) 13:14, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Oi @Joao4669:. Obrigado por comentar. Sim, os dados da WHO são desatualizados, mas alguns items estavam ainda mais desatualizados. Foi uma edição em massa para todos os países. Muito bom que alguém esteja cuidando da página de Portugal. Se quiser contribuir mais para o projeto em geral, também, fica o convite para se juntar ao Wikidata:WikiProject_COVID-19.
Então vou marcar as edições em causa com "deprecated rank". Já agora, o ping a outros utilizadores só funciona se na mesma essa edição for assinada. Joao4669 (talk) 16:42, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
@Joao4669: Ah, obrigado. Preferia que marcasse as suas como preferred, e não as da OMS como deprecated. Não se dizer se a informação da OMS é "errada". Mas ambos fazem sentido. TiagoLubiana (talk) 17:35, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
@Joao4669: João, você prefere que eu exclua Portugal das próximas atualizações em massa com os dados da OMS? TiagoLubiana (talk) 03:04, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Sim Tiago, de facto prefiro essa opção, na prática os valores são os mesmos mas com datas diferentes e não é possível alterar o rank somente da data. Muito obrigado pela sua disponibilidade. Boas edições, Joao4669 (talk) 06:45, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I removed some of your data points for infected people on the page for the Netherlands. The source you use has data which is one day old. Please see the RIVM sources I used, which are the official counts, but a day earlier. --Egon Willighagen (talk) 14:35, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

@Egon Willighagen: Awesome that you are watching that page closely. They were the official counts by WHO, but I get that WHO is usually delayed regarding the counts. I believe both sources can coexist. It would be even interesting for later studying the gap between local and global information sources. Maybe marking the RIVM statements as a preferred source would be a good option, so it is clear that it should be the one used by external queries and so. But I mean, you can delete also, your call. TiagoLubiana (talk) 14:59, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
@Egon Willighagen: Would you prefer that I leave the Netherlands out of my next WHO-based case count batch edits? TiagoLubiana (talk) 03:04, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
@TiagoLubiana: Yeah, let's stick to RIVM. I can keep track of that. The gap analysis can be done anyway. PS, if you have ideas for, let me know :) It's work in progress, along with my day job, but getting more populated every day. --Egon Willighagen (talk) 07:06, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Messy edits to Q84081576[edit]

Hi, I noticed you made some messy edits to this Qid. Could you clean it up so that every value has only 1 point in time and add refine date and the timezone for the source you are using (WHO)? See here for an example of how I would prefer it to look for each value: Thanks in advance!--So9q (talk) 09:00, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

@So9q: Thank you for your comment and for watching closely the Sweden page. I added the edits automatically using the WHO reports. If a value is repeated, the report for that day repeats the number. It is automatic, and I cannot change that. It is accurate, though. Well, if you want, I can just stop updating the Sweden page according to WHO numbers, no problems. And about the formatting, there is still no standard formatting for reporting outbreak case number. Your input would be super welcome in Wikidata:WikiProject_COVID-19, especially in the Wikidata:WikiProject_COVID-19/Data_models/Outbreaks section! Thanks! TiagoLubiana (talk) 14:01, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the invitation, could you please clean it up? It is unfortunate that quickstatements do make it possible to create a new value-statement and defaults to adding to an existing. Please check the result of your edits and ensure they are correct. Improving this flaw in quickstaments should IMO be prioritized. Can you please file a bug report?--So9q (talk) 15:16, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
@So9q: I beg your pardon, but it is not a mess, it is a valid representation of data from a reliable source. The results are correct, even though it might look weird. Please state clearly why it is a problem, and where is the official standard that should be followed. Prove it is a "mess" and sure, I will correct it. But please, refrain from using such an aggressive vocabulary, this is a collaborative environment. Thanks. TiagoLubiana (talk) 15:24, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Sorry that it came across that way. I still think this is a mess because you mix references and dates and that makes it hard e.g. via queries to assert what date what source reported something. E.g. maybe someone would like to calculate how long time WHO lacks behind. For that we need more precision than your approach enables. I would prefer to have multiple e.g. 3 death values if the date or time differs between the sources. That way we make clear who said what when. You did not answer my question about filing a bug, should I take that as a no?--So9q (talk) 19:08, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
@So9q: Uuh, I get now what you mean. It was not a quickstatements bug, it was just how I was using (so my fault). Do you think that adding the qualifier to the reference (and not the statemente) would make it better? I don't think we currently can add a reference to a qualifier.Thanks for the comments TiagoLubiana (talk) 20:05, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
@So9q: By strict standards, point in time (P585) Shouldn't even be used in that situation, as it is to be used for "Anything that was confined to a specific time, but not a range of time" (Property_talk:P585). So, for multiple values in official reports, how can I solve that? TiagoLubiana (talk) 15:29, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
I disagree. The sources I have used all have point in time statements WHO inclusive (00:00 cet )--So9q (talk) 19:08, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
@So9q: That is a nice suggestion, thanks. I agree, WHO has a point in time info, and that can be added. It has not been added by default in items such as COVID-19 pandemic in the United States (Q83873577) before. I will make sure I add it to my next edits. If possible, can you raise this kind of concern on the Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_COVID-19 so other people can also improve their editing? Thanks TiagoLubiana (talk) 19:12, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Done :)--So9q (talk) 20:36, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

We sent you an e-mail[edit]

Hello TiagoLubiana,

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

You can see my explanation here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:46, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

This makes me chuckle -- was it an email just notifying you there would be a future email? Sj (talk) 17:21, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Help expanding articles on knowledge abstractions[edit]

A few core WP articles on topics related to wikidata could use attention -- like knowledge graph. I'd appreciate your thoughts / references, including in langs other than English (there are few translations!).

Warmly, Sj (talk) 17:21, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Nice, I will translate that one to Portuguese and take a look at similar ones. TiagoLubiana (talk) 15:14, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

derived from organism type[edit]

We had a longer discussion at . You mentioned that it's important to have clarity about cell line being derived once. A way to create that clarity would be with a description. Are you up to writing one? Then we could set the property to ready. ChristianKl❫ 11:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

  • @ChristianKl: Hello, Christian, thank you for the message. I'll work on this tomorrow. Happy new year! TiagoLubiana (talk) 14:41, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Destructive edit[edit]

Hi. I'd like to remind you that your bot keeps doing destructive edits on the COVID-19 pandemic in Indonesia's wikidata page which affects its wikipedia's article. Please do something to fix this because we can't keep reverting it. Thanks. HiChrisBoyleHere (talk) 02:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Hello, @HiChrisBoyleHere:. No problems, I'll remove Indonesia from the automatic updates, thanks for letting me know. I imagine you keep it with only one result so you can pull with a Lua template. I'd like to point out to this bot discussion and ask you to note there your issue. Can you point to me which user/users are responsible for maintaining the Indonesia item so I can list them on the CovidDatahubBot? TiagoLubiana (talk) 13:04, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Your bot makes also destructive edits on the on the COVID-19 pandemic in Luxembourg's wikidata page ( Please remove Luxembourg from automatic updates. I'm updating the wikidata page of Luxembourg. thanks --Sultan Edijingo (talk) 19:58, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

CovidDatahubBot request[edit]

Hi. I am manually updating COVID-19 pandemic in Colombia (Q87483673). Please do not edit it with User:CovidDatahubBot. Thanks! --Julián L. Páez (talk) 05:19, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Some suggestions for the COVID-19 bot[edit]

I've noticed that your bot is making updates on COVID-19 pandemic items (I myself am monitoring COVID-19 pandemic in Singapore (Q83873387)), but only on the total number of cases and deaths. Does the dataset you're pulling the info from also contain the number of recoveries and hospitalizations? Would be handy to automatically fill those out too.

Also another suggestion: can your bot maybe set the latest statement for each of those statistics as the highest priority (with the older statements as normal)? I don't know if other people manually updating the pandemic items do this (other contributors are free to chime in), but I've stuck to a convention of setting the latest stats statements as "preferred", so that other apps that pull info from WD (e.g. Entity Explosion) could show just those latest stats rather than a barrage of numbers.

--Btcprox (talk) 05:32, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

  • @Btcprox: Thank you for the message! The dataset unfortunately does not include recoveries and hospitalizations. The second suggestion is really good. I want to do that, eventually, but I am letting the bot get "noticed" by the community before moving forward to tweaking ranks. Whenever we reach a point that the bot is not competing with human editors, then sure, it would be great! If you want the bot to stop updating Singapore, just let me know. If you want to share your thoughts at the bot discussion page, you are very welcome. TiagoLubiana (talk) 16:33, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
  • (By the way, I have great memories of Singapore, specially the kites at the marina and the Jurong Bird Park. Beautiful country.) TiagoLubiana (talk) 16:33, 26 January 2021 (UTC)


Your bot edits element COVID-19 pandemic in Poland (Q87250695). Could it change last information about "number of deaths" and "number of cases" to preferred too, because Polish Wikinews uses this element? (talk) 14:05, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Hello,, good to know that polish Wikinews uses that! I am working on the ranks, thank you for the message! Best, TiagoLubiana (talk) 12:26, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

CovidDatahubBot vaccinations[edit]

Is it possible to have the bot track COVID-19 vaccinations now that number of vaccinations (P9107) exists? Examples of its usage are on its property page. AntisocialRyan (talk) 17:15, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

  • : @AntisocialRyan: That would be great, Ryan. The source we are using currently misses that information. If you (or someoneelse) can find a reliable source for vaccination counts, just post it on the bot discussion page and I'll add it gladly. Best, TiagoLubiana (talk) 12:46, 8 February 2021 (UTC)