User talk:Trilotat

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Descriptions for new items[edit]

Hi there! I noticed you have been creating a number of items for journal articles. If you would, please remember to add descriptions for these, so they may be more easily distinguished from other, non-article items at a glance. I use something like "scholarly article published in MMM YYYY", but even just "scholarly article" or "scientific article" is better than nothing. Let me know if there are any questions, and thank you! Huntster (t @ c) 02:21, 14 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello again. I would again like to ask that you provide descriptions for journal articles that you import. It is important for all items to have descriptions, especially for article names that may closely resemble non-article items, to help users avoid confusion. It should be an easy addition to the import process, using the publication date as a primary disambiguator. Thanks. Huntster (t @ c) 18:10, 13 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Huntster: I try to do that when I see what looks like a possible confusion. Adding that description may seem easy, but it's not part of my workflow, so I'm not sure I can guarantee adding it to all journal articles. It's certainly a reasonable request, so I'll do my best to figure it out. Trilotat (talk) 18:19, 13 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, it really would be appreciated. As the number of items in Wikidata continues to grow, the potential for similarly named items to cause confusion amongst users when no description is available grows as well. Without knowing how your workflow is set up, I wonder if your system could simply append the scraped/inputted publication date to the end of a static phrase, as mentioned earlier. Huntster (t @ c) 18:25, 13 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]



Thanks for the revert on Georges Aad (Q57305547) but I'm not fully sure to understand as you just remove the alias and didn't undo the merge. Was it just the first version of this item that was plain wrong, was it a bad idea for me to merge it? I would like to be sure that everything is good now with this item.

Cheers, VIGNERON en résidence (talk) 11:14, 16 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You were were right to merge them, but there was an erroneous label (name) brought over. The Semantic name was bad. My apologies for my confusing edit. Trilotat (talk) 11:48, 16 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@VIGNERON en résidence: If you follow the the Semantic author link, it's someone else. That identifier is often a problem (not a mistake you made, but the data is a problem.) I should reverted the merge and then repaired the source first (removing the bad alias) and then merged again. Can you revert that merge? I am sorry for my partial revert. Trilotat (talk) 12:08, 16 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, got it, Semantic was the problem, that's what I thought. Not sure we need to unmerge-remerge for such a small detail (and I won't have time but feel free to do it if you really think it's necessary). Cheers, VIGNERON en résidence (talk) 12:49, 16 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Miroslav Finger[edit]

Hi! Miroslav Finger (Q112898818) and Michael Finger Jr. (Q60692302) shared the same VIAF and other IDs, I have moved them to the second. If the second is the son of the first, maybe the IDs and the birth date 1939 should go to the first. Could you have a look? Thanks, --Epìdosis 15:15, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello @Epìdosis:. Thank you for your interest in this. To be clear, I have NO knowledge of these two authors beyond a certainty there are two of them given the names M. Finger and M. Finger Jr. appear in numerous articles together. I have tried to disambiguate the two. Many article items have one listing for M. Finger, when both are credited in the published work - not sure how they got combined (might have been my fault, but I sure hope I'm not guilty). As for date of birth, I'm not sure how to be sure who is the M. Finger listed at that VIAF and other IDs. I moved from that disentangling effort since it was so complicated and well beyond my data skills to easily resolve. Trilotat (talk) 15:39, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The case seems effectively complex, also because of this coupled use of Miroslav and Michael. If both persons are Czech, or at least have been active in Prague, it's a bit strange that NKC only has one record; while it's true that they appear at the same time in some articles. I think we need your help @Vojtěch Dostál, Frettie:! Not speaking Czech, I prefer not to risk an interpretation. Hopefully we will solve it. --Epìdosis 17:08, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Epìdosis @Trilotat Oops, that is a mess indeed. The younger Finger is likely not Miroslav but Michael Finger and has worked in CERN (as seen here: The page also mentions Miroslav Finger, who could be his father and has worked in CERN too, as the main organizer of an event. Is it possible that the son uses "Jr." because their names start with the same letter? It is unusual but not impossible. They are indeed close collaborators because student Markéta Pešková thanks both Michael ("M.Sc. Michael Finger for the supervision of my thesis") and Miroslav ("consultant prof. Miroslav Finger for inviting me to Czech group at COMPASS experiment"). The Finger born in 1939 is definitely the older of them. Now, if Miroslav Finger (Q112898818) is the 'father' or the 'older of them two' (professor Miroslav), then most identifiers in Michael Finger Jr. (Q60692302) (M. Sc., CSc.) definitely relate to him (VIAF, but *definitely* NKC). I can move them there if you agree. Almost nothing will remain in Michael's item (Michael Finger Jr. (Q60692302)) except for the ORCID and related identifiers. If you can dig up more, let's hear it. Also @Mormegil: who is interested in Czech physicists/mathematicians. Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 14:34, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Vojtěch Dostál: I agree with your analysis, you can go on with the changes IMHO! 1939 is strange for the son, instead of the father, effectively :) --Epìdosis 14:41, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, @Vojtěch Dostál:, I concur with @Epìdosis: and yes, please proceed. Thank you both so much for engaging with this complex puzzle. Trilotat (talk) 22:33, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Epìdosis @Trilotat ✓ Done Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 07:59, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DOI as ADS Bibcode[edit]

Are you sure that The vowel elements in speech (Q113755235)ADS bibcode (P819)10.2475/AJS.S2-42.125.167 is correct? [1] states that correct bibcode is 1866AmJS...42..167P Ghuron (talk) 16:05, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ghuron: My error. I’ve corrected it. Thanks for catching it. Trilotat (talk) 11:24, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, but I probably didn't explain it clearly. There are ~4K suspicious edits: Wikidata:Database reports/Constraint violations/P819#"Format" violationsI can see that report didn't really picked up all changes yet. Thanks! Ghuron (talk) 11:58, 9 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I hope I fixed my 4k errors. I think I have. You’re catch made me check if it was a broader error. Sorry for the distraction. Trilotat (talk) 22:26, 9 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nothing to be sorry about, it's only those who do nothing that make no mistakes Ghuron (talk) 05:18, 10 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Call for participation in a task-based online experiment[edit]

Dear Trilotat,

I hope you are doing good,

I am Kholoud, a researcher at King's College London, and I work on a project as part of my PhD research, in which I have developed a personalised recommender system that suggests Wikidata items for the editors based on their past edits.

I am inviting you to a task-based study that will ask you to provide your judgments about the relevance of the items suggested by our system based on your previous edits. Participation is completely voluntary, and your cooperation will enable us to evaluate the accuracy of the recommender system in suggesting relevant items to you. We will analyse the results anonymised, and they will be published to a research venue. The study will start in late January 2022 or early February 2022, and it should take no more than 30 minutes.

If you agree to participate in this study, please either contact me at or use this form I will contact you with the link to start the study.

For more information about the study, please read this post: In case you have further questions or require more information, don't hesitate to contact me through my mentioned email.

Thank you for considering taking part in this research.

Regards Kholoudsaa (talk) Kholoudsaa (talk) 15:16, 13 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]