User talk:Valentina.Anitnelav

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Logo of Wikidata

Welcome to Wikidata, Valentina.Anitnelav!

Wikidata is a free knowledge base that you can edit! It can be read and edited by humans and machines alike and you can go to any item page now and add to this ever-growing database!

Need some help getting started? Here are some pages you can familiarize yourself with:

  • Introduction – An introduction to the project.
  • Wikidata tours – Interactive tutorials to show you how Wikidata works.
  • Community portal – The portal for community members.
  • User options – including the 'Babel' extension, to set your language preferences.
  • Contents – The main help page for editing and using the site.
  • Project chat – Discussions about the project.
  • Tools – A collection of user-developed tools to allow for easier completion of some tasks.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

If you have any questions, please ask me on my talk page. If you want to try out editing, you can use the sandbox to try. Once again, welcome, and I hope you quickly feel comfortable here, and become an active editor for Wikidata.

Best regards! Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 14:18, 5 October 2016 (UTC)


Hello Valentina

Please comment your edits for Vanitas. The link to the main article in the german wp was missed since 2009 (see discussion there). Vanitas and Vanitas still life are not the same. The much shorter articles in the other languages prefer the meaning "vanitas still life", but they mention the other arts like music (en) oder literature (norsk bokmal). – It is much more a topic than a genre. This is right.

Thank you for your understanding and best regards --Summ (talk) 20:50, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

As I see for example in the English or the Spanish articles, the "genre" category ist just one. It is included, because there is no special article for "vanitas still life". --Summ (talk) 21:39, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, better like this. But, I don't really see the reason for two different labels. At my point of view there is vanitas as general concept or as a type of allegories. There could be two possible "genres" in this context: "vanitas still life" for a genre of the visual arts in the 17th century, and "Ubi sunt" for a literary genre of the middle ages. Both should be an addition to a more general article "vanitas". --Summ (talk) 14:59, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey[edit]

  1. This survey is primarily meant to get feedback on the Wikimedia Foundation's current work, not long-term strategy.
  2. Legal stuff: No purchase necessary. Must be the age of majority to participate. Sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation located at 149 New Montgomery, San Francisco, CA, USA, 94105. Ends January 31, 2017. Void where prohibited. Click here for contest rules.

Doppelte Items[edit]

Hello Valentina, du kannst dir einiges an Arbeit ersparen, wenn du vor der Erstellung eines neuen Datenblatts kurz einen IMDb-Check durchführst ->

  ?item wdt:P345 "tt0110912"

Try it!

Setz zwischen die Anführungszeichen die IMDb-ID und klick auf "RUN". Dieser Tool habe ich auf der Benutzerseite von Queryzo gefunden. Grüße -- MovieFex (talk) 08:59, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

IMDb entfernen - auch Artikel anpassen[edit]

Hello Valentina, du hast aus einigen Items die IMDb entfernt, aber den dazugehörigen Artikel nicht angepasst. Das sollte so nicht gemacht werden. Wenn du die dazugehörigen Artikel in den jeweiligen Wikis nicht korrigierst, lass die IMDb's hier bei Wikidata drin und lösch sie nicht raus. Die werden meist bei irgendwelchen Wartungslisten aufgeführt, z.B. bei Wikidata:Database reports/Constraint violations/P345 und kann dann alles (inklusiv zugehörigen Artikel) irgendwann gefixt werden. So lange die falschen IMDb-IDs in den Wiki-Artikeln bestehen bleiben, tauchen die hier wieder auf, irgend ein Bot (z.B. EdgarsBot) liest das wieder aus. -- MovieFex (talk) 21:07, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Nachtrag: Gerade hab ich gesehen, dass du bei Kim Jeong-min eine IMDb herabgestuft hast. Das sollte nicht gemacht werden -> Help:Ranking/de. Wenn beide IMDbs enthalten sind ist das Absicht, denn dann sind sie in der oben angegebenen Wartungsliste. Irgendwann führt das jemand in der Moviebase zusammen, nur welche ID am Ende übrigbleibt ist nicht klar, vergleiche hierzu z.B. -> Hasan Seyidbeyli. Wenn die Einträge dann zusammengeführt wurden, kann der nicht mehr benötigte Eintrag gelöscht werden. Dazu muss aber auch eine Korrektur des Wikipedia-Artikels vorgenommen werden -> Änderung bei azwiki, die Fundstelle im Datenblatt sollte demnacht auch neu angegegeben werden -> neue Fundstelle. -- MovieFex (talk) 07:43, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Ja, das verstehe ich. Allerdings war ich mir in diesem Fall ziemlich sicher, dass die zweite imdb (nm1740242) falsch ist - sie bezieht sich auf Kim Jeong-min (Q12588550), nicht auf Kim Jung-min (Q15125241). Deshalb der herabgestufte Rang. Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 08:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Nachtrag: Nachdem ich mir die Seite (nm1740242) heute erneut angeschaut habe, habe ich nun aber auch den Eindruck, dass in der imdb die beiden Personen (Kim Jeong-min (Q12588550) und Kim Jung-min (Q15125241)) miteinander vermischt wurden. Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 08:32, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Hier gabs einen Bearbeitungskonflikt, ich bin deiner Meinung, da wurde was vermischt. Hier der Stand meiner Recherche vor deiner Antwort:
(...) Tja, da sieht man wieder, die IMDb ist nicht perfekt, aber vielleicht stimmt die IMDb und der Eintrag in der koreanischen Wiki ist falsch -> Kim Jeong-min (* 1968). Hierzu vergleiche die Filmografie, z.B. Eintrage bei 2006 -> Project Makeover, über die englische Seite bekommst du den Link zur koreanischen Filmdatenbank KMDb, hier unter Cast Kim Jeong-min, und das deckt sich mit dem zweiten IMDb-Eintrag. Wo jetzt der Fehler drin steckt weiß ich auch nicht, möglicherweise wurden da ein paar Sachen vermischt. Für den Regisseur gäbe es in der KMDB auch was. Über kreuz und quer Dark Forrest KMDB und Dark Forrest IMDb kommt man zu dem Eintrag, wie du es angegeben hast. Ich lösch die zweite IMDb-ID bei dem 1968er wieder raus, da soll sich ein koreanischsprechender Agent drum kümmern. -- MovieFex (talk) 08:49, 23 February 2017 (UTC) PS: Ich seh gerade, du hast nochwas gefunden. Also machs so, wie du es für richtig hälst. --MovieFex (talk) 08:55, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Ja, wobei ich mich hier an der englischsprachigen Wikipedia orientiert habe - wie zuverlässig das ist, weiß ich auch nicht. Du hast wohl recht - da sollte sich jemand darum kümmern, der sich mit koreanischen Filmen auskennt. -- Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 09:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Zuverlässig?! ;) --MovieFex (talk) 09:06, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey[edit]

(Sorry to write in Engilsh)

Item to be delete[edit]

In RFD there are one or more item proposed for the deletion created by you. If you do not agree you can participate in the debate --ValterVB (talk) 21:30, 3 March 2017 (UTC)


Hi, why did you split Rat-Man in Q28859773 and Q15325? The pages deal about both the character and the series because they are topics tightly connected. --Superchilum(talk to me!) 16:13, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the topics are tightly connected, but there's a difference between a fictional character appearing in a comic and a comic. E.g. Fictional characters have a gender, comics don't. (It's weird to say that a comic is male). When I assigned the pages to the wikidata items I thought about what the page is mainly about. And there it seemed to me the Italian page is mainly about the character, the English one mainly about the comic. --Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 21:09, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
I know what the differences are :-) but I can assure you that all the pages deal about the same topic. --Superchilum(talk to me!) 07:32, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
The en-Article is certainly about the comic series Rat-Man (Q15325) (of course it also deals with its title character, but it's just one segment in this article besides other characters). The la-Article deals with the character Rat-Man (Q28859773). I related the it-Article to the character regarding the first paragraph and the infobox, but if you think it's rather about the comic series, best move sitelinks. If you just want to connect the en-Article with the it-Article, there is a possibility to do that manually on the Wikipedia-page, if I remember right.
I think it's a rather bad idea to mix up different entity types (e.g. characters and comics) in one item as this leads either to logical inconsistencies or a lack of expressiveness; you would either end up with comics having a gender, an interpreter etc., with characters consisting of comics or with items without informations. Above that you can't really use this items to make statements in other items (e.g indicating the roles in performance works or the comic series a comic belongs to). --Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 11:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Fictional ghosts/gods/vampires/...[edit]

Valentina, I am very skeptic about these your creations. Making them you indirectly state that there are real ghosts/gods/vampire and so on... But even descriptions in most of these (old) classes mention "fictional" or "mythic/legendary", so they were already fictional, there no need to create fictional "fictional" classes! So I suppose you should revert things like: vampires, ghosts and other supernatural being in a work of fiction (Q30061294). And merge new classes with old (the same) classes. What are supernatural being (Q28855038) which are not supernatural being in a work of fiction (Q30061294)?.. --Infovarius (talk) 11:30, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I see how this can be misunderstood. But merging fictional deity (Q17624054) and deity (Q178885) would unnecessarily force a specific world view on the categorization of entitites that is not uncontroversial (You would either have to say that God in Christianity (Q825), YHWH (Q105173) and Allah (Q234801) don't exist - opposed by many people - or that some characters from fictional works are really assumed to exist - opposed by probably all people). I don't see any problem with categorizing some gods as hypothetical entity (Q24199478) and just refraining from declaring them as existent or not existent.
The reason I created those other classes is that there is the same difference between Brown Lady of Raynham Hall (Q991048) and Casper the Friendly Ghost (Q1442531), between ghoul (Q208446) and lich (Q1165928) as between YHWH (Q105173) and Eru Ilúvatar (Q208363). The former are/were believed in, or at least part of a specific worldview and sometimes even object of investigation (e.g. of Occult "Science"), the latter not.
I think many people make a difference between supernatural being in a work of fiction (Q30061294) and supernatural being (Q28855038) on an instance level - the best examples are instances of deity (Q178885) and instances of fictional deity (Q17624054), again (see above). Regarding a discrimination between folklore and fiction you have the two different lists list of fictional vampires (Q6619795) and list of vampires in folklore and mythology (Q6644558). My last example regarding the folklore-fiction-distinction is the discrimination between legendary figure (Q13002315) (subclass of hypothetical entity (Q24199478)) and fictional character (Q95074) (subclass of fictional entity (Q14897293)).
What do you think about relabeling those items "[dubious entity] in a work of fiction" to avoid the connotation that there are real ghosts/gods/vampires? Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 13:47, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, such relabeling is highly welcomed. But I am not sure that the boundary between your 2 lines is always clear. You say that creatures from fiction are not believed in. But! God in Christianity (Q825) was once a character from some popular and only then it became popular and became believed in (and not by everybody). Similar processes happen now in mass culture. I am sure that Cthulhu (Q12038) (obviously a character) is now believed in by many people. And I can imagine that some people (e.g. Tolkien fandom (Q1963025)) believe in Eru Ilúvatar (Q208363) and its descendants. Where lies the boundary between traditional hypothetical entity (Q24199478) and fictional character (Q95074)? May be it's only a matter of time? --Infovarius (talk) 14:38, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
You're right, some entities sit on the borderline between hypothetical entity (Q24199478) and fictional character (Q95074). A good example is Rudolph Fentz (Q673181), a fictional character from a short story that became later an urban legend. I don't mind to classify those cases as both legendary figure (Q13002315) and fictional character (Q95074).
But I don't think that the borders are that fragile as you suggest: If a character has a creator (as e.g. Eru Ilúvatar (Q208363)) and comes from a novel without any claim of truth this is definitely a fictional character that is not assumed to exist. I really doubt that a cultural/religious group believes in Eru Ilúvatar (Q208363) as a god of our world but if that would be the case (and you would want to express this in wikidata properly) I would suggest an additional item because mixing up an item about a character created by somebody with an item about a god being the creator of everything is really weird. Of course you can think of people believing in fictional worlds as real parallel universes ... but this would not affect a categorization in real entities (of our world), assumed entities (of our world) and fictional entities (if you want so: real in other worlds).
As far as I know nobody claims to be the creator of God in Christianity (Q825) as a fictional character and moreover the book this character originates in (if it should originate in this book and the book is not an expression of far older tales and traditions) has a claim of truth. Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 16:33, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Ok. But the concept "Claims of truth" can be fragile. Are you sure that all authors directly claims that all characters are fictional? Of course, there are a number of such claims, but not all. I must check but I doubt that Cthulhu (Q12038) was directly named as fictional ("claim"). --Infovarius (talk) 11:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC)



Thank you for your edits on Geppetto (Q27067781) but it seems that mixed up a little bit Geppetto and Pinocchio. I removed a self-reference link (which was obviously wrong) but can you check the other statements?

Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 11:36, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, you're right. All statements should be correct, now. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 11:53, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Historias, Historiografía[edit]

Historias. Please. Can you arrange for the link to appear in the article? Thank you. --Xabier (talk) 18:48, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't know how to do this, either. I passed the question to Project chat -Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 08:47, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
based on Handling sitelinks overlapping multiple items we could solve this problem for now by creating a new page in the Spanish Wikipedia, linking this to historiography (Q30277550) and setting a redirect to Historiografía on this new page.
Here the steps one by one:
  1. Create a new page in the Spanish Wikipedia (I will call it "Historiografía (género)" - but use the title you think is appropriate)
  2. link "Historiografía (género)" to historiography (Q30277550)
  3. On "Historiografía (género)" set a redirect to Historiografía
Do you see any problems with this approach? I would give this a try. Would you do this (you are more involved with the Spanish Wikipedia than I am)? If you have any more questions, just ask. Thank you, Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 08:35, 24 August 2017 (UTC)



Me again checking to clean the self-referencing, could you take a look at this claim:

⟨ Beauty and the Beast (Q2454384)  View with Reasonator View with SQID ⟩ part of (P361) View with SQID ⟨ Beauty and the Beast (Q2454384)  View with Reasonator View with SQID ⟩

Thanks in advance.

Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 09:50, 19 September 2017 (UTC)


Hello Valintina. MY name is Darlie Brewster. It seems you are creating a page on me and I would like you to remove it. Thanks. 10:44, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I answered at Talk:Q28889497 - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 11:33, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
No actually you didn't. I am that person and what you have posted has nothing to do The Hunchback of Notre Dame. Exactly how does my being transgender and using dead names figure in? This is harassment. 17:13, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry. Obviously I've been insensitive in this matter. I surely didn't want to harass you and I'm embarrassed that I did so unintentionally.
As to your question what this has to do with The Hunchback of Notre Dame I will answer in two parts:
1) Why is there an item about Darlie Brewster (independent from the information on it): To name a person as a contributor to a work (in this case The Hunchback of Notre Dame (Q213787) and Esmeralda (Q27702142)) this person needs an own item. If the item about Darlie Brewster is removed, she/you can't be named as a contributor. The removal of a relevant contributor (and I think that a character animator on one of the main characters is a relevant contributor) would lead to incomplete, flawed information. Thatswhy there is a need for an item about Darlie Brewster.
2) Why is the gender and birth name relevant?: For her/your contribution to The Hunchback of Notre Dame obviously not. I added these informations without consideration because names and gender are considered core information about a person in Wikidata. In the credits for the Hunchback of Notre Dame you have been named by your birth name, so I added this in addition to your actual name. Your actual name has a preferred rank meaning that your birth name is not valid any more. I'm not keen on keeping your birth name and will remove it, as this really seems to be hurtful to you. I added "transgender female" as your gender as this is what I found in the referenced interview [1]. It didn't occur to me that it could be an insult, at least not more than saying that another person is male or female. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 18:40, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
I understand what you are thinking but credits are irrelevant in this. The link to IMDB is under my name, not my old name. That is all anyone needs to know as there is no accounting office to report to. Bad enough IMDB is simply a bunch of fan boys with standards even they don't understand and have been thorn in this communities side forever. No one wants to be known as "TRANSGENDER" . It is not on my license , my passport or any of my essential documents. Why would anyone think that was desirable in ANY way? If this was you I'm sure you would understand. I am in a country where discrimination, violence and hatred is rampant. Where Neo Nazis and white supremacists march proudly for our hate filled president. A president who just called for the firing of 15,000 transgender military service people. Where transgender people are 60% unemployed. Where they suffer 16X the violence rate and turn up dead on peoples lawns. 15:50, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for putting this in perspective. From now on I will be definitely more considerate in similar situations. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 07:38, 11 October 2017 (UTC)


Hi, Valentina. subject has role (P2868) is intended to be used as a qualifier. --Infovarius (talk) 14:01, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@Infovarius: It can be used as a qualifier, but I don't know what you mean with "is intended to be used as a qualifier" - the proposal says nothing about it ([2]). - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 14:11, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
May be to delete P31=Wikidata qualifier (Q15720608) from this property then? --Infovarius (talk) 19:12, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't know. The English description of Wikidata qualifier (Q15720608) says "property that can be used as a part of a claim that says something about the specific claim". This seems fitting to me. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 07:29, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey[edit]

WMF Surveys, 18:57, 29 March 2018 (UTC)


I don't know why you reverted Trio. It's - to my knowledge - more often a piece than a group, - look at all the Minuet and Trio in Classical music. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:07, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello Gerda Arendt I reverted because there is aleady an own item for the trio as a piece: trio (Q29596700) (composition for three musicians). trio (Q281643) should be only used for ensembles. So Il Volo (Q177732) would be a trio (Q281643) and Trio for Flute, Viola and Cello (Q3539351) a trio (Q29596700). - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 12:11, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
I wish that the English article would not confuse the two, - that should link to both wikidata items then but how? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:16, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Gerda Arendt, yes, quite a lot of Wikipedias cover both concepts in a single article. There is no possibility to link from one article to two items directly, but you could link from a wikidata item to a redirect, if you think this would be useful (see Help:Handling_sitelinks_overlapping_multiple_items#Interwikis). - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 12:26, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, but I have too many things already that I WANT to do. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:29, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

musical composition (Q207628) vs musical work (Q2188189)[edit]

Hello, Valentina. Explain me please how do you understand the difference between them? --Infovarius (talk) 13:35, 12 April 2018 (UTC)


I agree with your revert in melody (a melody can be improvised) but I don't agree with incidental music (Q1147752). Are there examples of incidental music (Q1147752) that are not musical compositions? - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 14:16, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't know for sure. I just suppose that for theatre one can use not only composed music but any set of sounds, even natural. --Infovarius (talk) 21:01, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
I see. I just wonder if pure background sounds (like sound effect (Q768807)) are called "incidental music" (or even a musical work). But I think it does not hurt to leave this statement as it is (the item, on the other hand, should probably be split up - "incidental music" seems to be a lot more inclusive than "Schauspielmusik" or "musique de scène") - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 11:50, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia survey[edit]

WMF Surveys, 01:40, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Anna Karenina (Q4066531)[edit]

Hi, since literary character (Q3658341) is a subclass of fictional human (Q15632617), it's pointless to state that Anna Karenina is both. The former implies the latter. P.a.a (talk) 10:18, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello P.a.a, as far as I see literary character (Q3658341) is a subclass of fictional character (Q95074), not of fictional human (Q15632617). - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 10:22, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
You're right, somehow I lost track between my browser tabs P.a.a (talk) 10:29, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Iron Maiden[edit]

Please, do not add the musicians to the Iron Maiden's albums data. The albums were recorded by Iron Maiden, not by Iron Maiden featuring Bruce Dickinson, Steve Harris, etc. Progenie (talk) 16:54, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello Progenie, this line-up information is quite relevant and should be recorded somehow at Wikidata. I'm not sure about your problem with performer (P175) (is it some infobox-issue?), but what do you think about using contributor to the creative work or subject (P767) instead? - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 07:31, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Ok, I'm going to move the information to contributor to the creative work or subject (P767). - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 13:58, 4 May 2018 (UTC)


I'm not sure why you added all those links to Zdravljica (Q27965845). That item was for a different Slovene hymn. Look at the lyrics on the Wikisource link. It's not the same hymn. Please reverse your changes. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:56, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

The item Zdravljica (Q169215) is a poem by Prešeren which became the Slovene national anthem. The poem and anthem are the same work. But Zdravljica (Q27965845) is a different hymn with different lyrics. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:06, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

EncycloPetey, the anthem is not the same as the poem - the anthem only uses the seventh strophe of the poem. That is the difference between the wikisource-texts at Zdravljica (Q169215)[3] and Zdravljica (Q27965845)[4] - the second shows the seventh strophe of the first. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 20:10, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
That is not what the article at the Slovene Wikipedia says. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:16, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Ok, I found the following information at the English article about the anthem (en:Anthem_of_the_Slovene_nation): "The question whether the entire Zdravljica or only its seventh stanza constitutes the Slovenian national anthem, remains unresolved. Whereas the Constitution of Slovenia determines the title of the poem, the Act about the anthem specifically determines its seventh stanza. It has been argued that the act contradicts the constitution and that the question should be resolved by the Slovenian Constitutional Court.[1][2] In practice, mostly only the seventh stanza is sung and reproduced as the national anthem." - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 20:22, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
pinging EncycloPetey - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 20:23, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
In any case, the odd item out is the one on the Lithuanian Wikisource. All the WP articles discuss both the poem and the anthem that derives from it. If you think a split is desirable, then there would need to be three WD items. (1) for items about just the poem, (2) for items about just the anthem, and (3) for items about both the poem and the anthem. However, the WP articles all seem to fall into group (3), so I don't think a split is necessary. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:24, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
the English WP has an own item about the anthem (Zdravljica (Q15932006). I moved the sitelinks there. I don't know what to do with the Lithuanian wikisource, but let's leave it as it is. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 20:35, 12 May 2018 (UTC)


Regarding Meowth (Q877650)... It is quite a discovery for me! I am quite unaware of this universe but is it really not a single character? --Infovarius (talk) 14:50, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Infovarius, there is also a single character called "Meowth" being of the species of Meowth but most info on the item Meowth (Q877650) (and most articles) are about the species. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 09:08, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

about villains and heros…[edit]

You remain the hero of your own story even when you become the villain of someone else's. 😉 -Shisma (talk) 16:21, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

@Shisma: and including all antagonists on the side of the villain and viewpoint characters on the side of the protagonist/hero there are 11 characters with antagonistic and protagonistic appearances in wikidata, at the moment. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 07:37, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
even though I'm not sure about those "protagonists" of multi-player-games like Super Smash Brother, etc. It would be better to express this using player character (Q1062345), probably. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 07:47, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Replacing object has role (P3831) with narrative role (P5800).[edit]

since you have been engaged in the proposal discussion. Do you think we should just replace all of these object has role (P3831)-statements with narrative role (P5800)? --Shisma (talk) 16:50, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

SELECT DISTINCT ?narrativeLabel ?charactersLabel ?roleLabel WHERE {
  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE],en". }
  ?narrative wdt:P674 ?characters.
  ?narrative p:P674 ?characterStatement.
  ?characterStatement pq:P3831 ?role.

Try it!

Yes, I think we should, Shisma. I found a small mistake in your SPARQL-query (with your query you get for every work every possible combination of every character mentioned via P674 with every character role mentioned via P3831). With the following query you get only those combinations actually mentioned at P674. (This reduces the size of the result set from 3998 results to 822 results (for 123 works)).
SELECT DISTINCT ?narrativeLabel ?charactersLabel ?roleLabel WHERE {
  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE],en". }
  ?narrative p:P674 ?characterStatement.
  ?characterStatement ps:P674 ?characters; pq:P3831 ?role.
ORDER BY ?narrativeLabel ?charactersLabel
Try it!
I also think we should replace all subject has role (P2868)-statements (at characters) used to indicate the narrative role/character type with narrative role (P5800).
SELECT DISTINCT ?item ?itemLabel ?role ?roleLabel
  ?item wdt:P31/wdt:P279* wd:Q14897293; p:P2868 ?st.
  ?st ps:P2868 ?role.
  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE],en". }
ORDER BY ?item
Try it!
I would take care of the qualifiers today and of the direct claims (via subject has role (P2868)) later . - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 09:38, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

The first Query only yielded 8 results for me. It would seem like you are already done ^^--Shisma (talk) 16:06, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello Yair rand, I included them because they were also mentioned at Wikidata:Property_proposal/Narrative_role (third example), but I see that this is debatable. narrative role (P5800) is intended to be of quite wide scope (including also character types like damsel in distress) and it seemed to me that player character (Q1062345) is comparable to viewpoint character (Q15841935). But I see that player character (Q1062345) can also be seen just under the aspect of game mechanics. Should I move those statements refering to player character (Q1062345) back to object has role (P3831)? (pinging also Shisma) - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk)
Bringing this to Wikidata talk:WikiProject Video games, hope that's okay. --Yair rand (talk) 19:16, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

What isn't vandalism?[edit] 12:57, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the link, but what do you want to say? - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 17:28, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Ilya (Q1096462) und Ilya (Q31440338)[edit]

Hallo! Würden Sie bitte diese Bearbeitung kommentieren? Die beiden Elemente sind an sich zu mergen. Ich habe da derweilen Wikimedia duplicated page (Q17362920) gesetzt, weil das Mergen mit Special:MergeItems dort rein technisch schwierig ist. --eugrus (talk) 18:00, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Hallo eugrus, ich habe Wikimedia duplicated page (Q17362920) entfernt, weil die beiden Objekte nach den Regeln von Wikidata:WikiProject_Names keine Duplikate sind. Ilya (Q31440338) repräsentiert die kyrillische Version "Илья", Ilya (Q1096462) die lateinische Version "Ilya" (beim letzeren Objekt müssten die Labels vereinheitlicht werden, aber es ist am Wert der Eigenschaft native label (P1705) ersichtlich). Dass "Илья" und "Ilya" (und "Ilja" und "Ilia") verschiedene Versionen desselben Namens sind, wird über said to be the same as (P460) ausgedrückt. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 18:10, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Carmelo Imperio (Q42385387)[edit]

Hi, i dont understand this edit, care to explain?. (why would anyone mistake Carmelo Imperio (Q42385387) with Georg Peter Luck (Q55676263)?. Regards!--Zeroth (talk) 18:46, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Zeroth, seemingly they are virtual twins (they have identical birth and death dates). - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 18:53, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification Valentina.Anitnelav. I've never heard of that term :). I've updated the criteria used to clarify that point. Regards!--Zeroth (talk) 12:27, 30 September 2018 (UTC)


The reason I deleted the alternative spelling in the label is that this column is meant to represent a valid first name, not a list of possible transcriptions: There is no German first name "Ljudmila/Ljudmyla", so it doesn't make sense to put this in the label. That's what the "also known as" / "alias" column is for (where all transcriptions are already mentioned). --Tkarcher (talk) 09:19, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello Tkarcher, this item represents the valid first name Людмила, which is transkribed differently depending on language (e.g. Russian or Ukrainian). Have a look at the Russian labels of Paul (Q4925623). -Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 09:25, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Frankenstein's Aunt[edit]

Hi, Just to not doing reorganisation in the same time :

eru [Talk] [french wiki] 12:27, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi eru, there does not seem to be a literary trilogy (Q13593966) called "Frankenstein's aunt" (there seem to be only two books with the same title character...). I just requested Q327936's deletion: Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions#Q327936
Ok good, it's was just why I was merged them. — eru [Talk] [french wiki] 12:33, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Removing series ordinal from Harry Potter?[edit]

Hi, can you describe your reasoning for removing the series ordinal from all the Harry Potter entries? Thanks. -- Fuzheado (talk) 10:03, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Fuzheado, series ordinal (P1545) should be used as a qualifier. It is already present at part of the series (P179). -Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 10:08, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Great, thanks for the explanation. Sounds like the right way to go. -- Fuzheado (talk) 10:24, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Cinderella and Aschenputtel[edit]

That change moves it from a data item with interwiki links to one that does not have any. The way to do that is to make a German entry for the original (with the interwiki links) and put the german name as the title of Q11841

Hi RaboKarbakian, Cinderella (Q11841) is about a fairy tale (type), it is not a closed work in the strict sense (there does not exist THE Cinderella, but many, the canonicals being the one by Basile, Perrault and Grimm). Cinderella (Q60558727) is an edition of a translation of the Grimm's version. For that reason I moved the link. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 15:19, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
The interwiki links are not about the personality type though. The better thing to do is to make the personality type its own wikipedia page and the personality type stuff would be yet another version of the original fairy tale. It is really about the interwiki links. If you really want to sort through the interwiki links and separate out the least links (like if the majority is about the psychology of cinderella and not about the fairy tale, then move the ones that are about the fairy tale over) But I think you will find that the majority of the links are about the tale and the publication and not about the chick.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 15:27, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
RaboKarbakian, I'm not speaking about the character. This has an own page: Cinderella (Q13685096).
I'm speaking about the circumstances that Cinderella (Q11841) is not about a work, but about an abstract story contained in many works. There exist many versions of this story, the most famous versions being the one by Giambattista Basile (The Cat Cinderella (Q3822509), the one by Charles Perrault (Cendrillon (Q2944224)) and the Brothers Grimm (Cendrillon (Q2944224). Cinderella (Q60558727) is a translation of the Grimm's version (not the one of Perrault or the one of Basile). - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk)
If you are able to sort through this stuff, I will not get in your way. The version page for the Lang stuff was the thing I have been skipping. I actually prefer to be an amateur at fairy tales. Not just fairy tales, everything, even...  :) --RaboKarbakian (talk) 15:39, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

cast member (P161) -> voice actor (P725)[edit]

thx for this. can you also set cast member (P161) = no value? Queryzo (talk) 18:18, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@Queryzo: is there a way to do this via Quickstatements? - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 18:26, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
it was reported in Wikidata weekly summary #327 this may work with "novalue". Queryzo (talk) 19:28, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, it seems to work with csv-commands. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 19:33, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
how did you used this? "novalue" adds the string while novalue adds nothing at all. Queryzo (talk) 07:31, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
@Queryzo: It worked for me only with csv commands (not with V1 commands). There I would use the format (with imdb)
-Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 09:21, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


Noticed you've been doing some great work on compositions/recordings lately, just wanted to say thanks! I hope I haven't gotten in your way, I can get a bit excited when I see someone doing quality music edits, doesn't happen that often :-) Moebeus (talk) 20:56, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@Moebeus:, thanks for your improvements! I had a look at your edits and have two questions:
  1. Why do you add instance of (P31) musical work (Q2188189) in addition to song (Q7366)? song (Q7366) is already a subclass of musical work (Q2188189), so this does not seem really necessary to me.
  2. Why do you remove genre (P136) statements from song items? I see that there may be performances of a song in different genres, but it seems to me that most songs are themselves written in the spririt of a certain genre/movement, not just performed. I would conceptualize genre-shifts in performances of a song in terms of performances of a modification of the original song (I tend to additionally add modified version of (P5059), as done at Foxy Lady (Q62033582)). Do you mind keeping those genre-statements also at the song-item?
I'll probably make some alterations to the production dates at the tracks of Three Imaginary Boys (Q1415138), as the production of a song is not limited to its recording and I only considered the recording dates, but apart from that I will leave them alone - if you feel like improving them you won't get in my way :) - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 10:17, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
@Valentina.Anitnelav: Hola!
  1. You're not the first person to ask that, see here:
  2. Unfortunately there is no clear rule here, but it's no secret that I firmly believe genre does not belong on composition, but rather on the interpretation (recording). See for some background here. I would add that unless you could get the genre from the sheet music (as would be the case with some waltzes, tangos, blues, etc), then setting genre on the composition should be avoided. About the "spirit in which it was written", I fear that's a criteria a bit too loose / subjective and moreover disregards the importance of a producer and the other band members' role when recording. BUT! All that said I realize that until we reach a consensus this is just my opinion, and I promise not to remove any more of your genre-statements ;)

Have a great day! Moebeus (talk) 11:06, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

subclass of quality[edit]

Hi mis(tres)s Anitnelav,

Since you reverted one of my edits on quality: what better solution do you suggest for following issue?

value requires statement constraint Help Discuss

entity should have a statement subclass of.

Warm greetings & many salutations, Klaas `Z4␟` V:  13:09, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello KlaasZ4usV,
this is an issue with entity (Q35120) - as entity (Q35120) should be the root element of the ontology, it can't be a subclass of any other element, so every direct subclass of entity (Q35120) (also object (Q488383)) shows this constraint violation. As it is not a mandatory constraint I don't think one should worry too much about it. If it should bother you, you can add an exception to the constraint at subclass of (P279).
Kind regards, - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 16:08, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Okay, you're probably right. The warning didn't bother me per se. What bothered me much more that you reverted without explanation. The reason you promptly supplied upon request.
Thank you very much indeed & kind regards, Klaas `Z4␟` V:  16:52, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

@KlaasZ4usV: It is of little importance but your account that I reverted without explanation is not completely true: You removed a statement without explanation (I understand that this is difficult without the possibility to give edit summaries for simple edits) and without a replacement. I expressed my confusion about this (and my reason for reverting) in my edit summary. Have a nice week :) - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 07:20, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Obviously I missed something, due to as we call in Dutch de aard van het beestje. Many times I overlook some details and (re)act [far] too fast. Sorry, Valentina.Anitnelav. Indeed this project (unlike e.g. Wikipedia) lacks a good way to enter a great edit summary. Hope the developers find a way to improve the Wikidata code at this point. Freundliche Gruesse aus Italien,  Klaas `Z4␟` V:  10:52, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

How should I do?[edit]

The screenshot (No Lie (Q28225520)), Musixmatch track ID (P6742), single (Q134556). "Society Person" Peppa Pig (talk) 05:32, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello "Society Person" Peppa.
If you just want to add Musixmatch track ID (P6742) without creating a new item: Just add it to the single (Q134556)-item and ignore the constraint. The constraint is not mandatory.
There is also a "diligent" way in case you want to model song-items and its relationship to releases: You can create a new item for the song (I already did it for "No Lie" at No Lie (Q63639213)) and move the appropriate statements there.- Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 10:42, 9 May 2019 (UTC)


Hi. About animation (Q11425), it shouldn't be subclass of (P279) filmmaking (Q932586). It doesn't make any sense to consider animation strictly as cinematic productions. The same goes for anime (Q1107) subclass of (P279) animated film (Q202866). Please note that the condition "all instances of these items are instances of those items" is not met.--Sakretsu (talk) 13:38, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I just opened a topic at Talk:Q1107, so let's continue our discussion there :). - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 13:41, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Press conferences and depicts (P180) / main subject (P921)[edit]

Hi ! I think that for press conferences there is the same distinction as with visual works: main subject (P921) should be about the main subject of the speech/artwork, while depicts (P180) is for less central but still present elements. For instance if during a speech there is a long development about AI and a phrase "as I already said in my previous speech", for me the other speech is depicts (P180) while AI is main subject (P921). What do you think ? Léna (talk) 14:51, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello Léna, to link to the previous speech I would rather use cites work (P2860). Do you have another example where you think some content of a speech deserves mention where main subject (P921) would not be fitting?
I never thought about describing speeches and other political documents, so my thoughts are rather initial, but I don't think that everything present in a speech should be enumerated in Wikidata, probably just the central points. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 15:38, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
My initial motivation for created items about speeches was to create requests about recurring topics. So, even if something is "not important" in a given speech, the fact that it is talked over and over is important. So for the speeches of Emmanuel Macron (Q3052772) you can generate a bubble chart or even a map of everything present in a speech. Of secondary importance, he also tends to cite a lot of classical texts, and I think it would be interesting to have a list of them, even if they might not be that important for a given item. Léna (talk) 17:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
@Léna: I see. In this case it is better to use depicts (P180). For the classical texts cited I would use cites work (P2860), just to make it a bit more structured. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 06:22, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights Survey[edit]

RMaung (WMF) 17:38, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey[edit]

RMaung (WMF) 19:54, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Love is a Song and Love Is a Song[edit]

Hello, the items Q15832799 and Q47482573 are about the same topic, only the latter has more descriptions in other languages. Can these items be merged? Thank you. 22:58, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for noticing. It seems that Little April Shower (Q47482573) was originally about another song (Little April Shower)[5] and got repurposed later. I just restored the "Little April Shower"-version and now I think they should not be merged. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 10:56, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Question about Don (Q77191171)[edit]


I've got two questions about the item Don (Q77191171) :

Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 13:12, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi VIGNERON, I put those two values there due to constraints on the property cast member (P161) (value-type constraint (Q21510865) and value-requires-statement constraint (Q21510864)). I only created the item to model the Razzie nominations, I found no informations about the actual horse. I'm rather sceptical if this horse could be called an "actor" (I could add a reason for deprectaion "not been able to confirm this claim (Q21655367)"). instance of (P31) = animal actor (Q52688389) was suggested to me by the property constraints. I would not mind just deleting it and expanding the scope of cast member (P161) to include all animals or adding Don (Q77191171) as an exception. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 19:02, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Ok I see now. Thanks for the explanation.
For the first point, ok, let keep it that way.
For the second point, yes I think the constraint should be improved to include all animals.
Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 19:34, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Merge "water spirit (Q7973762)" and "water sprite (Q1936706)"?[edit]

Hi Valentina! I saw that you are active here on the topic of folklore spirits. Maybe you could have a look on what I think is a conflict between "water spirit" and "water sprite". (Link) I'm not familiar with wikidata and don't really know how to do a complex merge like that myself. Thanks in advance. --Irrwichtel (talk) 20:24, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@Irrwichtel: I'm glad that you are aware of those two. I let those two alone as the English article mentions also deities (in the section about African folklore). I'm not familiar at all with African folklore, but I'm a bit hesitant to mix up deities and sprites and I'm not sure if the term "sprite" is appropriate for these beings from African folklore. Two suggestions:
Thanks for your answer! Yes, I‘m also unsure about the exact classification of the african deities and so on. The terminology for legendary beings like that is really confused, not just in wikipedia but in academic writing as well. My own discipline would use a cautious term like "intermediary beings associated with water" or the like. But right now the english wikipedia alone has at least the three entries en:Water spirit, en:Water Sprite and en:List of water deities. As far as I can see, the distinction between spirit and sprite seems to exist only in english (as a regional vernacular? as an archaism?). I have just started rewriting some folklore articles on german wikipedia and there is a lot of overlap/confusion to be cleaned up as well. Things like this probably have to be reworked by informed users on each language wiki individually, before we could try and find really appropriate wikidata items. And yes, I was mostly interested in interwiki-links. Now that you set a link between german and english, I think we can leave it like this for now. I think I'll just add a "See also" to en:water spirit into en:sprite and people can go from there. --Irrwichtel (talk) 16:11, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

We sent you an e-mail[edit]

Hello Valentina.Anitnelav,

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)

Love your work[edit]

This is the rare time where I (or anyone, really) starts with an expression of gratitude and doesn't awkwardly segue into criticism in the next paragraph.

I think your work on the Bechtel Test (and similar) is especially useful. That's the sort of data that just wants to be sliced every which way.

Your notes on the references for Carl Maria von Weber (Q154812) are also spectacular. We should use them as "Property Examples", it might shame others into referencing the data they add.

Anyway, thanks again --Matthias Winkelmann (talk) 03:25, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Media Diversity Tests[edit]

Thank you for your work on expanding the visibility and use of the Mako Mori Test and the Vito Russo Test, as well as your work on the Bechdel Test.

As these are beginning to be used in academia and media criticism more often, I am planning to create items for the Riz Test, DuVernay Test (qualitative), Shukla Test/Apu Test and the Latif Test. And maybe others later on, as the visibility of these tests start becoming more apparent in news or academia.

Is there a property where the criteria can be added, as some tests have longer criteria lists that may not fit into the description? Or, is there a better way to model them?

@Wallacegromit1: Nice idea. Unfortunately I have no idea how to best add the criteria to the test items. Until there is a better idea I would add all criteria to the discussion page, so that everybody can look up which criteria have to be fulfilled.
Just an additional thought that comes to my mind: For works that fail such a test with more criteria it would be interesting to be able to get the criteria it fails. I would probably create items for the criteria (e.g. "at least two characters", "not presented as irrationally angry", etc.). Then I would add them to statements has quality (P1552) <fails the ... test> via criterion used (P1013). This way you could get an overview how many films fail the Riz test (for example) because they 1) are talking bout, the victim of, or the perpetrator of terrorism, 2) are presented as irrationally angry, 3) are superstitious, culturally backwards or anti-modern ...
As to the Riz test I would also think about creating an item "Riz test not applicable" as this is only applicable to works that feature at least one Muslim character. To have this item would make it easier to monitor the completeness of statements as to the Riz test.
What do you think about starting a project to monitor the activity and document the approaches taken. (Maybe "Wikiproject Media Diversity"?). - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 10:45, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
I got an idea how to add the criteria at least to items <passes the ... test>; has quality (P1552) could be used. So one would have, for example, <passes the Riz Test> has quality (P1552) <Muslim character not presented as irrationally angry>, <Muslim character not talking about, the victim of, or the perpetrator of terrorism>, ... - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 11:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

1. Wikiproject Media Representation? The title may need some discussion. I love the idea of a Wikiproject, as we would be easily able to monitor and discuss best practice, and inclusion of new tests. We can also add the disclaimer on the page about the 'Tests', which should be used more as 'Tools' for statistical analysis, and just because a Movie passes or fails, does not mean they are bad representations automatically. This is why the Mako Mori test was created as a compliment/alternative. The Vito Russo Test has a brilliant disclaimer that we can modify to encompass all tests.
2. Is there a way to say that a movie fails one test (Example: Riz Test)), but still is considered good or appropriate representation (Example: My Name Is Khan or Four Lions), the referencing might be tricky. The DuVernay Test is specifically qualitative, and not a binary Yes/No for this reason, but wonder how to use a qualitative test on Wikidata without biases. Or do we just wait for other tests to be created within the same subject/topic like the Mako Mori, to give multiple perspectives? We may be able to create our own tests/criteria, but we should include media, representation/diversity and data experts to see what are we missing or what data they may require or may be useful to find biases and trends. However, I would personally prefer only using tests/criteria that already exist, and in the Wikiproject, it could be a topic of discussion! Open to suggestions.
3. I love the use of criterion used (P1013) as a way to specify the criteria. But we may need better modelling as the data set might start to get bigger (mostly, thanks to you!). We can discuss this in the Wikiproject, and if any specific Properties need to be created for these Tests. And Agree to the <passes the Riz Test> has quality (P1552) <Muslim character not presented as irrationally angry>, <Muslim character not talking about, the victim of, or the perpetrator of terrorism>, etc...
4. "test not applicable" is a great idea for all tests that have a prerequisite, before the criteria even begin to apply.
5. Apologies for all the questions, as I was hoping more eyes could be on this before more data is added in this area. I would also be mostly working on Non-English movies from the Global South (with some exceptions), as they seem to be highly underrepresented in these statistics, and may offer some interesting trends, especially when seen over decades or particular film movements (like Generations of Chinese Cinema, Hong Kong New Wave, or the Indian Middle Cinema).
6. Let me know what you think of the above and then we can start building the Wikiproject. And just as an FYI, as of this moment;
4856 movies in Wikidata pass the Bechdel Test
659 movies in Wikidata pass the Reverse Bechdel Test
606 movies in Wikidata pass the Mako Mori Test
123 movies in Wikidata pass the Vito Russo Test
@Wallacegromit1:1. Agreed
2.a (Is there a way to say that a movie fails one test (Example: Riz Test)), but still is considered good or appropriate representation). I guess not really. You already mentioned it in point 1: "just because a Movie [...] fails, does not mean they are bad representations automatically". As to some criteria in the Riz Test: I guess you could take into consideration the main subject of the film. When a film about terrorism fails the Riz Test just because of criterium 1 it is not a "failure" of the film per se (in the end it is about terrorism). If, in the broader picture, Muslim characters appear mostly in films about terrorism and/or fail criterium 1 this is a sign of missing diversity in the media generally.
2.b I'm not sure if I understand the DuVernay Test completely: There are 5 questions and each question answered with "yes" gives you one point, so that you can have a score of 1/5 if one criterium is fulfilled and 5/5 if all critera. Is that right? If so, I could imagine to use the following option: We create an item <score in the DuVernay Test>. Then we can use has quality (P1552) <score in the DuVernay Test> review score (P444) 1/5 (and then maybe use criterion used (P1013) for the criteria).
3. I agree with the need of better modelling and especially documentation of the model. criterion used (P1013) might be used in a lot of ways.
5. No need to apologize, I like your questions and your idea to include more tests. I'm also not sure about every approach I've taken and it will be nice to have a project and other people to discuss that. Some films are actually hard to "rate" in terms of these tests and we should document how to mark those statements as unsure or that a film/book/... hardly passes the test.
6. I would start to set up the project page for "Wikiproject Media Representation" tomorrow, if you don't beat me to it. :) - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 09:57, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
1. Perfect!
2.a Agreed. (sign of missing diversity in the media generally.) Well said!
2.b Will discuss further in the Wikiproject.
5. Unsure or Ambiguous can be options, as some films/books/etc... are too on the line.
6. Yes, Please take the lead! I have never created a Wikiproject, and would love some guidance.
@Wallacegromit1: Sorry, I won't manage to do it this weekend. But during the next week certainly. I will ping you then. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 11:37, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
@Valentina.Anitnelav: I have created WikiProject Media Representation! The page still requires a lot of work, and am happy for you to make any major or minor changes. If you have any questions or concerns about any aspect of the page, please let me know.
@Valentina.Anitnelav: Can you please see the Feldman Test Update in the discussion, and reply as soon as possible please!

Gundermann (Film)[edit]

Hallo, ist es sinnvoll, bei einem biografischen Film einen Test für fiktive Werke durchzuführen? -- Gruß, 32X (talk) 20:31, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

@32X:. Auch wenn Gundermann auf der Lebensgeschichte einer realen Person basiert, handelt es sich um ein fiktionales Werk - es erzählt die Lebensgeschichte in fiktionalisierter Form und erhebt keinen Anspruch auf Wahrheit aller gezeigten Einzelheiten (z.B. können Szenen aus dramaturgischen Gründen ausgeschmückt werden, andere Einzelheiten werden weggelassen, der Hauptdarsteller liefert seine Interpretation des Charakters der Hauptfigur, etc.). Dies kann zum Beispiel geschehen, um größere Themen herauszuarbeiten. Dass solch eine Fiktionalisierung bei Gundermann stattgefunden hat, wird zum Beispiel in diesem Artikel hervorhoben: Andreas Dresen über ostdeutsche Widersprüche (Zitat: "Dresen arbeitete mehr als zwölf Jahre an dem Film und drehte an Originalschauplätzen in Hoyerswerda und Umgebung. In dem Ergebnis seiner Recherchen vermischt er Realität und Fiktion. „Gundermann“ ist damit weniger Biopic einer früh gestorbenen Kultfigur und mehr Film über das widersprüchliche Leben in der DDR." Dass alle Charaktere und Ereignisse frei erfunden sind, ist nicht die Voraussetzung für die Fiktionalität eines Werkes. (siehe auch de:Filmbiografie und de:Fiktion, insbesondere die Absätze de:Fiktion#Fiktion_im_Verhältnis_zu_Gattungen_und_Genres und de:Fiktion#Erfundenheit könnten relevant sein). Solange es sich nicht um Dokumentationen handelt, sind diese Tests auch auf Filmbiographien anwendbar. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 22:24, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Article request[edit]

Hello, can you please write an article in the German Wikipedia about the 1995 film Gordy? Either that, or know who to ask to write about it in German? de:Gordy (Film) was once created and later deleted as too short. Also, de:Fuchsspur is a short article as well. It needs more content. Thank you. Cat~idwiki (talk) 01:32, 17 January 2021 (UTC)


Hi. I wonder if dubious (Q104378399) is not basically the same as disputed (Q18912752). --Tinker Bell 13:42, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@Tinker Bell: Yes, I see. For most statement in Wikidata disputed (Q18912752) is probably not useful at all. I created this item with media representation tests in mind for cases in which an editor is unsure about an evaluation but not aware of any discussion. The problem with disputed (Q18912752) is that it implies that there is one party that says the statement is true and another party that says that the statement is false (one could use statement disputed by (P1310)/statement supported by (P3680). I would like to make a difference between cases where there is actual discussion about an evaluation and cases where an editor is unsure (or where an evaluation is marked as unsure in external databases, like Bechdel Test Movie List (Q45150204). In this section I tried to express the differences between the qualifiers as used by our Media Representation project: Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_Media_Representation#Qualifiers_for_Art_der_Behauptung_(P5102). - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 15:02, 2 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)

Serhii (Q41527049)[edit]

Вітаю. Чому було скасовані мої редагування? Перепрошую, не знаю англійської. --Юрко Градовський (talk) 08:03, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

@Юрко Градовський: Вітаю. У Вікіданих кожен рядок повинен мати різний елемент. Сергій (Serhii (Q41527049)) — не Сергей (Sergey (Q12902079)), не Sergei (Sergei (Q18946921), і не Sergej (Sergej (Q18946707)) (Для конкретнішої інформації, див Wikidata:WikiProject_Names/uk). На жаль, я не знаю української. Можливо, Infovarius (російською мовою) може допомогти з подальшими питаннями. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 12:03, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Але ж це одна сутність - Сергій, Сергей, Sergiusz, Сяргей і т.д.--Юрко Градовський (talk) 12:15, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
@Юрко Градовський: по сути вроде бы да, одно имя, т.к. имеет общее происхождение. Но даже в пределах страны бывают различия в написании, и в одном разделе Википедии может оказаться несколько статей - о разных вариантах "одного" имени. Поэтому пришлось разработать систему (см. указанную Валентиной ссылку) "одно написание - один элемент", которой сейчас придерживаемся. Но конечно возникают проблемы: 1) интервики между похожими именами приходится разделять; 2) не всегда ясно, какой из вариантов давать человеку (например, советскому человеку, родившемуся в украинском городе и живущем в Москве, какое?). Сможете придумать систему получше - предлагайте. Пока такая, хорошая или плохая. --Infovarius (talk) 13:41, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Call for participation in the interview study with Wikidata editors[edit]

Dear Valentina.Anitnelav,

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 that develops a personalized recommendation system to suggest Wikidata items for the editors based on their interests and preferences. I am collaborating on this project with Elena Simperl and Miaojing Shi.

I would love to talk with you to know about your current ways to choose the items you work on in Wikidata and understand the factors that might influence such a decision. Your cooperation will give us valuable insights into building a recommender system that can help improve your editing experience.

Participation is completely voluntary. You have the option to withdraw at any time. Your data will be processed under the terms of UK data protection law (including the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR) and the Data Protection Act 2018). The information and data that you provide will remain confidential; it will only be stored on the password-protected computer of the researchers. We will use the results anonymized (?) to provide insights into the practices of the editors in item selection processes for editing and publish the results of the study to a research venue. If you decide to take part, we will ask you to sign a consent form, and you will be given a copy of this consent form to keep.

If you’re interested in participating and have 15-20 minutes to chat (I promise to keep the time!), please either contact me at or use this form with your choice of the times that work for you.

I’ll follow up with you to figure out what method is the best way for us to connect.

Please contact me using the email mentioned above if you have any questions or require more information about this project.

Thank you for considering taking part in this research.