User talk:Trilotat

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Re: When disambiguting authors, please complete the task[edit]

You are absolutely right, I did many and I did not realize it. Thanks for the warning, it is already corrected. Cheers, --PePeEfe (talk) 21:03, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Magazine as topic[edit]

Please in future instead of

⟨ subject ⟩ main subject (P921) View with SQID ⟨ Mechanics of Materials (Q64320918)  View with Reasonator View with SQID ⟩

use materials science (Q228736), strength of materials (Q240553) or general continuum mechanics (Q193463). --Infovarius (talk) 19:36, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I replace all 600 examples with the first value. --Infovarius (talk) 19:39, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
@Infovarius: Why did you leave this on my talk page? Did I use this magazine title as a topic? I looked briefly and didn't see my "fingerprints". Trilotat (talk) 21:06, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
I now see the errors I made. Thanks for resolving. Trilotat (talk) 06:41, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
@Infovarius: I figured out how this is happening, but it is beyond my skills to resolve (or prevent future occurences). If I use SourceMD tool to create an item published in Experiments in Fluids (Q5421186) or International Journal of Minerals, Metallurgy, and Materials (Q15745378), it creates an item with main subject (P921) = Mechanics of Materials (Q64320918). I verified by creating another item from the most recent issue of Experiments in Fluids (Q5421186) and it has, indeed, Mechanics of Materials (Q64320918) as a subject. Trilotat (talk) 00:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

[WMF Board of Trustees - Call for feedback: Community Board seats] Meetings with the Wikidata community[edit]

The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees is organizing a call for feedback about community selection processes between February 1 and March 14. While the Wikimedia Foundation and the movement have grown about five times in the past ten years, the Board’s structure and processes have remained basically the same. As the Board is designed today, we have a problem of capacity, performance, and lack of representation of the movement’s diversity. Our current processes to select individual volunteer and affiliate seats have some limitations. Direct elections tend to favor candidates from the leading language communities, regardless of how relevant their skills and experience might be in serving as a Board member, or contributing to the ability of the Board to perform its specific responsibilities. It is also a fact that the current processes have favored volunteers from North America and Western Europe. In the upcoming months, we need to renew three community seats and appoint three more community members in the new seats. This call for feedback is to see what processes can we all collaboratively design to promote and choose candidates that represent our movement and are prepared with the experience, skills, and insight to perform as trustees?

In this regard, two rounds of feedback meetings are being hosted to collect feedback from the Wikidata community. Two rounds are being hosted with the same agenda, to accomodate people from various time zones across the globe. We will be discussing ideas proposed by the Board and the community to address the above mentioned problems. Please sign-up according to whatever is most comfortable to you. You are welcome to participate in both as well!

Also, please share this with other volunteers who might be interested in this. Let me know if you have any questions. KCVelaga (WMF), 14:33, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Re: Do you use the ORCIDator tool?[edit]

Hello Trilotat, I didn't know the tool. Fantastic!!!, I have just try what you have suggested and it has worked perfectly (except that it does not interpret correctly the topic of the article). A lot of thanks for your help, greetings, --PePeEfe (talk) 16:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@PePeEfe: Unfortunately, it seems that subject error happens a lot. I don't know why. Enjoy! When I post a note on your talk page, you don't have to create a new discussion on my talk page to reply. You can reply on your page since I follow it (now that we have "met.") Regards. Trilotat (talk) 16:37, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
@PePeEfe: You can see from Q105620604 that, when creating a new article item, it will post all the authors who have entered the DOI in their ORCID account as well. See that it added Q57902121 as an author. I ran ORCIDator tool for that person and it created or edited about 15 articles.
Here's another example where the tool isn't perfect... See Q105620881. It didn't add Q57902121 as an author because their name doesn't match the name on the created article item. J. Sanz is what the created article has, but that names isn't listed on Q57902121. That's why I try to update all the possible name spellings and abbreviations/initials before running ORCIDator. You have to wait a few minutes after adding name spellings before running ORCIDator, so the tool can see the alternate spellings. So, with that name missing from the author item, we have to update the article or run the alternate spellings through this disambiguator tool (don't know if you use.)
https://author-disambiguator.toolforge.org/names_oauth.php?name=&fuzzy=0&wbsearch=0&limit=500&use_name_strings=0&name_strings=

Please clean up html escaped stuff in labels[edit]

https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q58310658&action=history this has a label full of html escaped stuff. see also https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?search=quot&search=quot --So9q (talk) 07:22, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

@So9q:Thank you for bringing it to my attention. As I presume you’ve noticed, too often I imports don’t work well with special characters. I do my best to correct when I see it. I should do better. Trilotat (talk) 14:04, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
@So9q: can you tell me which is the Wikidata standard for quotation mark to replace the html found in that second link (search results) that you shared, " or “ ? I make no promises to make a dent in that list, but I’ll tend to it when I can. Trilotat (talk) 14:13, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
This looks like a bot job to me to be honest. It would be nice to know if the obviously flawed tool has been fixed. Can you investigate? --So9q (talk) 15:34, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm clueless about such things. I'm happy to clean up but even describing the problem beyond the obvious is more than I can do. I've seen discussions about it in various projects, so I know it's a known issue. Trilotat (talk) 15:46, 3 March 2021 (UTC)