User talk:Valentina.Anitnelav

From Wikidata
Jump to: navigation, 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)

Vanitas[edit]

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 ->

SELECT ?item WHERE {
  ?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 Jeong-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 Jeong-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)

Rat-Man[edit]

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 deity in fictional work (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 assumed 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 deity in fictional work (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 assumed 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 assumed 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 assumed 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)

Q27067781[edit]

Hi,

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)
@Xabier:
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)

Self-referencing[edit]

Hi,

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)

Q28889497[edit]

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. 104.34.202.79 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. 104.34.202.79 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. 104.34.202.79 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)