StarTrekker

Welcome to Wikidata, *Treker!

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, don't hesitate to ask on Project chat. 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! Peaceray (talk) 07:15, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Caesar

Hello ! First, thanks for working on some Romans, I do feel a little less alone. I effectively mixed up the various Caesar in reverting your edit ; anyway, I'm not entirely convinced that Caesar (Q1025414) (the cognomen) is the same thing than Caesar (Q14873084) (the family name), just as Marcus (Q6757977)said to be the same as (P460)Marcus (Q4642) seems a bit wrong to me. When my library reopens I'll try to check that more in depth. Cheers ! --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 21:03, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I mean, the surname comes from the cognomen, and cognomens in some sense are a type of surname.*Treker (talk) 21:10, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Very broadling speaking, maybe. But it wasn't always hereditary, unlike the nomen (see Vespasian (Q1419) (T. Flavius Vespasianus) and Domitian (Q1423) (T. Flavius Domitianus)). Since the Roman system was articulated around three distinct elements, I would be reluctant to match any to our modern practises, even if your right in stating that a number of modern surnames come from a Roman cognomen. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 06:58, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Maybe we should have input from more people on the topic.*Treker (talk) 07:38, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Agree, I'll open a topic on Wikidata:WikiProject Ancient Rome. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 07:52, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Please merge instead of blanking or repurposing

a lot of text

Thank you for your work in maintaining Wikidata. I have a small suggestion to improve your future work. If you notice that two items are duplicates, please merge them instead of blanking one of them as you did with the page Q16932167. External sites use Wikidata identifiers, so it is important that we preserve the chain of references. We do this by making one item a redirect for the other. In particular, item ids are intended to be a permanent identifier, so we never reuse them for another concept. See Help:Merge for more information on how to merge items, and consider installing the Merge Gadget. Thanks! Bovlb (talk) 14:55, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I found several other cases of repurposing, where you took an existing item and overwrote it with a different concept. I think I have found them all, reversed the repurposing, merged where appropriate, and removed the incorrect links from other items. Bovlb (talk) 16:11, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

@Bovlb: That's terrible. What a huge waste of everyones time and avalable spaces. I did a great job making sure every single thing was correct and improved the connections between ancient people so the information actually made sense, removed people who don't actually exist, split pages that were different people, made sure to add all the correct relatives and marriages. And you've just done and destroyed it all. I can't image what a huge mess the Roman items must be back to now. Sad.*Treker (talk) 01:51, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

@Bovlb: Seriously, I genuenly want to cry. I just took a look at the Romans pages who were impacted by this and I don't even know where to begin to try to fix the dozens upon dozens of pages who were imacted. Couldn't you please at least have waited for me to reply so I could have taken a look at each item before you merged them so I knew what would have to be done to make sure it didn't become a desaster of unconnected pages I will likley never be able to find again?*Treker (talk) 02:02, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you find these changes frustrating. I'm sure you spent a lot of time on this, and it certainly did take me a lot of time to fix everything up. Unfortunately, repurposing is an insidious problem that gets worse the longer you leave it, so we try to clean it up as soon as possible before the problem spreads. (I don't know if you noticed, but in some cases other users were already adding enhancements on top of your repurposed items, and that's also wasted effort.) Do you know how you came to be overwriting/repurposing so many existing items? Did some tool/documentation/person lead you to believe that would be a good idea? We certainly do not want to waste everyone's time like this if we can avoid it.

If you want review the changes, you can see everything in this window from my contributions. Nothing is deleted or hidden. Unfortunately, there's no simple way to copy changes from one item into a new one, so enhancements made to the wrong item are always going to end up being a waste of time. Again, I'm sorry if you find this discouraging, but hopefully you'll understand how Wikidata works a little better for the future. Please let me know if I can provide any further assistance. Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 02:32, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

@Bovlb: I want to say I'm sorry, I feel like I came of as rude in my replies. I understand that you're just doing what the guidlines say. The main reason I've been reusing the items is because I can't figure out how to redirect on Wikidata or how to create new items from scratch. So I figured there was a set number of them and it's like with boxes, you just replace the content if one is unused.*Treker (talk) 02:48, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

That's alright. We're all trying to do our best here. To create a redirect, see Help:Merge. To create a new item, see Special:NewItem, which should be in your toolbar as "Create a new item". Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 02:52, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Also, we would welcome feedback about how to improve the experience for new users. Do you have any suggestions for what we could we do that would have made things more obvious for you? Bovlb (talk) 03:00, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

@Bovlb: Not sure honestly. But I have figured out now that I can make new pages and stuff, so this won't be an issue going forward. Thank you for your patience.*Treker (talk) 15:51, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Glad you're back! If you notice an item to merge, you can also ask me to do so. As a sidenote, the item description usually start with a lowercase, except when the word needs it ; so "Roman writer" is fine, but "daughter of …" should be used :) --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 19:36, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@Jahl de Vautban: Sorry man, I keep forgetting! I'm too used to starting sentences with capital letters.*Treker (talk) 03:39, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

@Jahl de Vautban: Hi again. Could you help me out? I'd like to redirect this page https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q11942503 to this one https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q86071983.*Treker (talk) 12:28, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Done, thanks for finding it! No worries for the description, it won't kill the database (I think ?), but now that you know about it you can also help correct them if you notice one starting with the uppercase. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 13:06, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

@Jahl de Vautban: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q5996201 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q4281763 These two are also the same I'm pretty sure. And these two as well. https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q25340670 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q544421 *Treker (talk) 13:59, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Both  Done! In the future it might be better not to strip on of the two of their properties, as it's would be way easier for me to compare the informations while there are still there. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 14:10, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

@Jahl de Vautban: Ah, didn't think of that. I'll remmber that in the future. Thank again!*Treker (talk) 14:17, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

@Jahl de Vautban: Hi again man, I found these two today: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q24045581 / https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q85750590. Sorry to bother you again!*Treker (talk) 03:51, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done! No worries, it takes 10 seconds once I'm sure the two are identicals. Plus I kinda like to merge things, especially when they have wikilinks. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 07:35, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

@Jahl de Vautban: Hi again, found these two today: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q85752209 and https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q2470888 .*Treker (talk) 11:58, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done! --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 12:39, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@Jahl de Vautban: Found these two as well. https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q47539107 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q8993471 *Treker (talk) 12:46, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

And these https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q25442709 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q2069424 *Treker (talk) 12:48, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

These two as well https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q86341927 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q9236867 *Treker (talk) 13:27, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

All done. For the second set, you may want to edit portuguese wikipedia, as it mention a release date in 1982. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 13:33, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@Jahl de Vautban: Thank man! You're a gem!*Treker (talk) 13:35, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I tried editing the Portuguese page but it wouldn't let me. I also found these two now https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q10681721 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1244124 .*Treker (talk) 13:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

What error did you get ? I'm unsure for the last two: according to their respective wikilinks, Stretch (Q10681721) is a short-lived band created in 1995, while Stretch (Q1244124) is a long lasting band created in the 1970'. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 14:36, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@Jahl de Vautban: When I tried to save the page it just refused to load.*Treker (talk) 14:40, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

OK, strange. I did the edit without problem. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 14:44, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@Jahl de Vautban: Awesome. Thanks again, like I said, you're a gem.*Treker (talk) 14:49, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@Jahl de Vautban: Hi again! I found these https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q30867103 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q61384755 and https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q8850064 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q61384750 today.*Treker (talk) 11:38, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello!  Done! --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 13:36, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@Jahl de Vautban: Found these two today https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q3951837 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q16720062 *Treker (talk) 07:32, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello,  Done! You're doing a great work finding all those duplicates. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 08:28, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@Jahl de Vautban: Thanks! I enjoy finding them, very greatful that you take time out to help me with it.*Treker (talk) 08:29, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I found another simpleWiki duplicate https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q61384708 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q9158455 *Treker (talk) 11:29, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done! --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 14:20, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi again @Jahl de Vautban:, could you merge these two https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q12282872 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q91342082 *Treker (talk) 13:12, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi *Treker, it's done! Also, I remind you of the uppercase in the description ;) (even if this one is from two weeks ago). --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 13:46, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Jahl de Vautban:, I found these today. https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q12272207 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q94704259 .*Treker (talk) 13:32, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello *Treker, it's  Done. Sorry for the delay, I'm on a wikibreak. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 11:51, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

No need to appologize @Jahl de Vautban:!*Treker (talk) 12:36, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Jahl de Vautban: Found these two today also https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q16822085 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q20108144 and these two https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q67223511 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q11002436. I also found these two now: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q9965186 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q55949000. These two are also the same I'm pretty sure https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q86337846 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q31062753. I'm finding a ton of these today https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q86314068 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q31063404.*Treker (talk) 15:22, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Jahl de Vautban: Found these two today https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q95390188& https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q9120894 .*Treker (talk) 03:11, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

@Jahl de Vautban: And https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q16114459 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q2481470 and https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q95202185 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1815905.*Treker (talk) 01:03, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi *Treker, all done (except for Category:Daughters of emperors (Q31063404), which was already merged)! I'm not expecting to be fully active again before June 18 — got exams in the way now. But you can continue notifying me, I'll do them when I can! --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 17:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Jahl de Vautban: Good luck Jahl! And thank you so much again!*Treker (talk) 00:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@Jahl de Vautban: Hi again man. I found https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q86309950 and https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q9543478 today. Hope you're doing well!*Treker (talk) 16:43, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi *Treker! Yes all well, thanks! Concerning your two items, I don't think they're exactly about the same thing. Category:Blade (franchise) (Q86309950) is about the whole franchise (films, musics, video games) while Category:Blade (comics) films (Q9543478) is only about the films. So maybe you could say that Category:Blade (comics) films (Q9543478)part of (P361)Category:Blade (franchise) (Q86309950). --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 07:35, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

@Jahl de Vautban: Hi again Jahl, I found https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q96625836 and https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q55325879 today.*Treker (talk) 19:41, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi! This time PLbot was quicker that me! --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 14:40, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@Jahl de Vautban: I think these two are essentially the same https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q9514540 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q8251285 .*Treker (talk) 07:24, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree, they are now merged! --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 15:33, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

@Jahl de Vautban: Found https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q30683654 and https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q8308701 today.*Treker (talk) 18:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi treker, done! The interwiki were also redirecting to one another, so all good. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 15:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@Jahl de Vautban: I found these two today. https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1027458 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q22694452 .*Treker (talk) 06:51, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi, done! (I went back doing some Wikisource, it might take a while for me to get active again on Wikidata :D) --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 12:09, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

@Jahl de Vautban: No problem. Have fun over there. :D*Treker (talk) 12:24, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

@Jahl de Vautban: Found these two today https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q27517527 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q86778154 .*Treker (talk) 11:15, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi! Already done by PLbot! --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 16:29, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

@Jahl de Vautban: Found these two https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q64918426 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q55826284 .*Treker (talk) 13:54, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

@Jahl de Vautban: And these two today https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q11934179 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1641530 . And these two https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q97066599 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q4782127 . *Treker (talk) 23:59, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi, done ! --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 06:22, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

@Jahl de Vautban: Found these two now https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q12286105 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q21857495 .*Treker (talk) 00:21, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Done! --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 05:53, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

@Jahl de Vautban: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q30811647 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q9652871 these two. I tried doing it myself but then I realized there were too many different languages to pull it off.*Treker (talk) 02:31, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi! Already done by a bot. Cheers, --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 06:09, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

@Jahl de Vautban: I'm pretty sure all THREE of these https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q47452851 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q2236673 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q16853841 are the same guy.*Treker (talk) 15:54, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Definitely the same person, good catch! --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 16:09, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

@Jahl de Vautban: Thanks! . I also found these two which are the same https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q11951808 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q342512, but they can't be merged because the Catalan Wikipedia has two articles.*Treker (talk) 16:14, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I'll try to contact someone speaking Catalan to have that sorted. In case it doesn't work, I'll report on it on this page to have it recorded somewhere. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 17:17, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

It's ongoing, but it might take some time! On shorter pages I would have done the redirect myself (like I did on w:ca:Mazeu de Cilícia and w:ca:Mazeu de Babílonia, but in the case of Ti. Claudius Nero there is a bit too much information. Also, you might want to archive/delete a bit of this thread :) --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 18:23, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

@Jahl de Vautban: You're a gem man. :) I will archive as soon as I figure out how to do it. Haha.*Treker (talk) 18:26, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

@Jahl de Vautban: Found these two today. https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q12297458 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q11923347 .*Treker (talk) 09:08, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Done! --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 14:10, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@Jahl de Vautban: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q9596217 and https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q32482019 are the same.*Treker (talk) 10:24, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Its also pretty certain that these https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q343191 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q6090707 two are one and the same, but like with Nero there seems to be duplicate articles on some languages.*Treker (talk) 10:41, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Done for the first pair ; as for the second, you're probably right but sadly the various duplicate interwiki prevent me from doing much, and there is a lot of work to do to correct it. You should report it on this page. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 16:46, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

@Jahl de Vautban: I think this one https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q3958037 could be redirected to https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1234468 or even just deleted.*Treker (talk) 16:58, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Done! --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 16:37, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

@Jahl de Vautban: Father son pairs today https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q857036 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q4131882 and https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q4281783 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q11935102 .*Treker (talk) 17:05, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi, done! I wondered, could you add, if you have the time, Digital Prosopography of the Roman Republic ID (P6863) on the Romans you work on? That would be a great way to track duplicates. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 18:44, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

@Jahl de Vautban: I'll make sure to figure out that thing!*Treker (talk) 19:21, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

@Jahl de Vautban: Found these two https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q28451746 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q99824292 .*Treker (talk) 19:08, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@Jahl de Vautban: I also found these two which (once again) can't be merged https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q85861180 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q40020 .*Treker (talk) 19:43, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi, done for the first one! For the second one, I considered copypasting and redirecting it myself on ru, but apparently (I only understand Russian through Google Translate) on one article she is the mother of Cleopatra VII and on the other she is her sister, so I avoided doing so. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 19:53, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

@Jahl de Vautban: Sadly this is a longstanding historical confusion. The general consensus today is that she was the mother of Cleopatra VII. But I understand it might be best to leave it up to Russian editors to decide what to do with it.*Treker (talk) 00:56, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

@Jahl de Vautban: Found these two today https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q11929531 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q63758672 .*Treker (talk) 05:24, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Treker, it's done! --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 06:43, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

@Jahl de Vautban: Hi again, I found these two today: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q11929531 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q15309028 .*Treker (talk) 10:08, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Done! --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 10:50, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

@Jahl de Vautban: Found these two https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q12278988 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q16096990 .*Treker (talk) 12:22, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Done! --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 13:13, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

@Jahl de Vautban: These two templates were recently merged on en.wikipedia https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q20340915 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q20342975 .*Treker (talk) 17:12, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Done! --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 19:23, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

@Jahl de Vautban: Came across these two https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q32714715 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q59046834 .*Treker (talk) 21:38, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Done again! --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 06:44, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

@Jahl de Vautban: Found these today https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1970370 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q16680116 .*Treker (talk) 00:27, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi, done ! --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 07:28, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@Jahl de Vautban: Found these two https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q66057925 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q20496678 .*Treker (talk) 06:17, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi, done! --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 07:21, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

@Jahl de Vautban: Found these two https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q12291720 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q98940100 .*Treker (talk) 19:29, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Done! --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 08:49, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

@Jahl de Vautban: Found a father-daughter duo https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q103522586 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q94127670 / https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q4882584 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q10996751 .*Treker (talk) 19:59, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi! I have merged both. For the second however, perhaps the NLWP page should be linked to Paulla Aemilia (Q11919227) instead ? --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 06:25, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

@Jahl de Vautban: Several of the articles suffer from mistakenly naming her parents as other people, but the articles all seem to be about the woman who was once engaged to Lucius Caesar and was later convicted of claiming her son was from her latest husband. I's say it should stay as it is as of now, hopefully the articles can be fixed.*Treker (talk) 07:38, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

@Jahl de Vautban: I'm pretty certain that all three of these guys are the same https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q325754 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q11955757 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q98690532 .*Treker (talk) 17:44, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm certain as well - I've merged them. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 07:55, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@Jahl de Vautban: Found these two https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q21386379 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q11950619 and these two https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q11935217 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q28021556 and https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q92803400 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q20099313.*Treker (talk) 22:34, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

All done! --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 08:51, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

@Jahl de Vautban: These are the same woman I'm pretty certain https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q40322772 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1416927 and these two https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q544988 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q16172734.*Treker (talk) 22:27, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Done! --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 09:05, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

@Jahl de Vautban: Found these two https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q780252 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q12272787 and these two https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q27231 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q97959293 and https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q27243 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q97959295 and https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q97959294 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q27329. Also these two https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q97366766 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q100394599.*Treker (talk) 00:43, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

What an harvest! Done! --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 08:04, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

@Jahl de Vautban: Found these https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q11923512 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q97315380 .*Treker (talk) 21:28, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi, done ! --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 10:24, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

@Jahl de Vautban: Found a Cato https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q12350589 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q180081, and these two https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q10247710 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q32486433, and these https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q24009669 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q3398151.*Treker (talk) 13:55, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi! The last two pairs are merged, but Cato Maior has two pages on WPEO and I couldn't proceed. Do you want to ask on this WP is they can sort it out? --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 20:25, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

@Jahl de Vautban: Yes I think that would be for the best.*Treker (talk) 20:29, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

@Jahl de Vautban: I found these now too https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q25443867 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1241479 and https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q21010843 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q11941645 and https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q97661790 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q21034698.*Treker (talk) 22:40, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Done! --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 08:49, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

@Jahl de Vautban: Found these https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q11689772 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q28004481 and these https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q15281450 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q16721350 and these https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q3679904 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q102214434 and these https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q192841 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q20577329 and possible these https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q9225718 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q13283828.*Treker (talk) 20:57, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Done except for the last pair. In several wiki at least there is a difference between being born somewhere and being associated to that place later on in your life. Eg. you could say that Aristoteles is in the category born in Stagira, but at the same time he is very much a personnality from Athens. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 10:11, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

@Jahl de Vautban: I found these https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q27180996 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q23641169 .*Treker (talk) 16:54, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Done! --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 17:42, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

@Jahl de Vautban: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q12577534 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1897481 the later page also seems to suffer from a bad case of not actually translating the title.*Treker (talk) 00:58, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

@Jahl de Vautban: Found these two as well https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q7034048 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q17623504 .*Treker (talk) 16:34, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah those are common and a real pain ; usually however they are mass imported in one diff and you can revert it to get ride of dozen of labels. Anyway, I didn't merge the first pair because I'm unsure they are strictly equivalent - at least in French they aren't. But the second is done! --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 09:09, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@Jahl de Vautban: Happy new year Jahl! I found these two which I feel may be a good idea to merge https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q259059 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q51370429 .*Treker (talk) 00:39, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Happy new year Treker ! I'm reluctant to merge those: apparently one is a social concept, the other an economic one (there is also household (Q10854954)). I don't know enough in both fields to say for sure that they are equivalent. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 19:15, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@Jahl de Vautban: There seems to be a lot of crossover between the three items, do you know someone who we could contact on Wikidata who might know more? As of now the first two I liked seem to share a lot of external links which is causing them to have warning symbols.*Treker (talk) 19:21, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I saw that too, and actually household (Q51370429) isn't linked to another Qid at all. Maybe Bovlb, who have reached you here before, can be of help on this case? --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 19:26, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@Bovlb: Hi Bovlb, Jahl thought that maybe you'd have an idea of what to do with these three items.*Treker (talk) 19:32, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@Jahl de Vautban: Found these two https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q20005239 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q12285217 .*Treker (talk) 09:05, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Treker! I'll check that tomorrow when DPRR come back online — it seems we have several Lucii Memmii that could be the same. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 09:14, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@Jahl de Vautban: Yes I'm doing my best right now to try to figure out these Memmii.*Treker (talk) 09:16, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@Jahl de Vautban: I seem to have somehow created this https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q104640767 while making this https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q104640766 . Somehow.*Treker (talk) 16:40, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@Jahl de Vautban: Found a whole bunch today. https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q20099795 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q52349322 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q28022227 , https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q28022219 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1127821 .*Treker (talk) 09:21, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi! I finally merged the two Lucii Memmii above but frankly my main raison was that they both lack a RE article, which is higly suspect anyway: Lucius Memmius (Q12285217) is probably identiqual to another one, but I can't say for sure which one. I also added DPRR ID (search is back online, but not the front page for some reason) based on the RE article they are linked to. The different wiki pages are all higly inacurrate and should be redone from scratch. Marcus Appuleius is  Done. As for the disambiguation page, I recently discovered the stupid rule according to which you're not supposed to merge disambiguation pages if the spelling isn't the same (see what happened to poor Lucilius (Q104621976)). I can't help to think that this is higly unpractical for any Greek or Roman, but I'm not the one making rules. I added said to be the same as (P460) instead. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 14:07, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

@Jahl de Vautban: I think these two are the same. https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q18330334 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q15003529 .*Treker (talk) 17:50, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

You're right; done! --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 18:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

@Jahl de Vautban: Found these two https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q96395578 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q23900377 .*Treker (talk) 20:31, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, done! I think I'll become interest in the bot approval system, it's starting to be irritating to merge countless items that havn't been checked before import. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 20:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

@Jahl de Vautban: I found these https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q9338191 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q12293917 .*Treker (talk) 22:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@Jahl de Vautban: I feel like at least a couple of these should be gotten rid off https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q67858050 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q60474687 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q104025438 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1961700 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q48780172 .*Treker (talk) 05:17, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Done for Scribonia. The given name however should stay on separate items. I'll admit that I find the project Name a bit messy, but it seems to work. What matter here is the native label (P1705) property : you can see that they are all written in a different way, some in cyrillic, some with diacritics. It's the same for Greek given name, where we usually have two items, one for the Greek, one for the latin translitteration ; the latter shouldn't be used on Greek persons, only the former. Also, I took the liberty to add a box to save some scroll time ! --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 06:39, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the box @Jahl de Vautban:! Feels great to have the section more navigationable.*Treker (talk) 06:54, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@Jahl de Vautban: Found these two https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1223584 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q22811764 .*Treker (talk) 23:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, done ! --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 08:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@Jahl de Vautban: Fairly certain these two are one and the same https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1898418 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q60111424.*Treker (talk) 21:36, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi! What make you think that? The first is indicated as the wife of Jovian, the other as the daughter of Tiberius II. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 15:00, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@Jahl de Vautban: I found them by looking at their mothers item, it struck me as odd that two sisters would have the exact same name in Byzantine times.*Treker (talk) 16:00, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Wait but Charito (Q1898418) can't be the daughter of Ino Anastasia (Q3657785), she is born two centuries earlier! --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 16:06, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@Jahl de Vautban: Well that explains it. Someone must have confused that item for the item of the actual daughter.*Treker (talk) 16:15, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@Jahl de Vautban: These are the same https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q943532 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q98831520 .*Treker (talk) 01:08, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

No, those are slightly different. Q943532 is about the film franchise, while Q98831520 is about the media franchise. The latter is larger: it actually include the films as well as any video games, music, and whatever else exist around Ice Age. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 07:52, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

@Jahl de Vautban: I've never seen a case of differenciating between "media franchise" and "film franchise", each article is on the "film franchise" item and they all cover all the media not just the film franchise. "Film franchise" just describes what the franchise is mainly made up of. To me it seems very redundant to have the first item around.*Treker (talk) 11:27, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I'd say it's just like Q384426, which is about the whole universe, and Q194318 which is specially about the films. Loooking closer, they use the same set of P31. In the end however I'm a history man, not a film franchise expert: Wikidata:WikiProject Movies or Wikidata:WikiProject Fictional universes (or even the Wikidata:Project chat) may have a more interesting and argumented opinion than I do. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 12:04, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

@Jahl de Vautban: I think these are the same person https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q11241698 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q18217134 .*Treker (talk) 18:12, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Done! Since you guess them right most of the time, you're sure you don't want to try it by yourself? This way you'll not be dependent on me to improve Wikidata. All it takes is a few clicks to activate the gadget, and another few clicks to merge two Qid. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 21:16, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

@Jahl de Vautban: I would want to learn, but I'm quite unsure of tech, would you be willing to guide me to how to access the gadget?*Treker (talk) 21:19, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Of course, it's very simple. To activate it, you should first go in your "Preferences", which can be acceded in the top right corner (maybe this link works ?). Then just tick the box in front of the gadget called "Merge". There you go, first step done! The gadget will stay activated until you uncheck the box. Next step will take place directly on a Qid. If you go to Q11241698 (or any element), you should have a new tab right next to the search bar, with a down arrow. In this, you have two options : we'll use the first one for now. If you click on it, you'll see a pop-up appears, asking you first which element you want to merge with this one, and second the reason for doing so. You also have a few boxes checked or not ; I personaly have 1-2-4 checked. So all you have to do now is find a duplicate, copy its Qid in the right field of the pop-up, add a reason, and it will be merged! --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 21:35, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

@Jahl de Vautban: It seems to be working! I have the down arrow and an option named "merge" now! I will be looking for mergable items to try it out, thank you so much Jahl!*Treker (talk) 22:18, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Q96387713

Hi,

I noticed your additions of Q96387713 on some video game (Q7889) items − thanks! However, I think this is a better fit for the newly created media franchise (P8345) rather than part of the series (P179)?

Cheers, Jean-Fred (talk) 16:50, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

@Jean-Frédéric: I was not aware that had been created, good to know!*Treker (talk) 17:30, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

In what way is it helpful to remove the brackets? How is that beneficial to anyone?

@Queryzo: Your talkpage won't let me load so I'm taking this here.*Treker (talk) 20:14, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Reasonable doubt

Hi, *Treker. Where do you get the names you give Roman women? For instance: Caecilia Metella (Q99844311). I think you make them up. --Romulanus (talk) 12:17, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

• I'm forced to use nicknames because Wikidata doesn't allow propper navigation between people of the exact same name.*Treker (talk) 12:19, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Therefore, you make them up. Ok. If the Roman women of the same family had the same name, it's not our problem. We are not here to invent anything. You have the description to differentiate them. I ask you to stop inventing those names and to remove the ones you have been introducing. --Romulanus (talk) 12:55, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
    • @Romulanus: It is our problem because it hinders navigation. Its near impossible to find the correct link when because descriptions aren't searchable when you try to link items to each other. Its a major issue for the site honestly and makes working hear way harder than it should be. I've just been trying to do the best with a shitty situation.*Treker (talk) 13:04, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
      • When you search for a name, the description is below. If there is no description, you can add it yourself to differentiate the items. The solution cannot be to make up the names. Please stop. And delete. --Romulanus (talk) 13:12, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
        • @Romulanus: You already told me to stop and delete. And again, you don't seem to understand what I'm trying to explain, I'm not blind, I can see that when you try to link something examples show up which have descriptions, the problem is that when there are too many items with the same name there is only so many examples that can show up, which makes finding the one you need impossible. For example if I'm trying to link a Caecilia Metella to one of her siblings there is a big chance that the Caecilia Metella I need does not show up when I write out her name in the bar because there are too many other women by the exact name.*Treker (talk) 13:21, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
          • I have read what you have written. I have been writing solutions to your objections and I continue to do so. When you write a name, a list appears and, at the end, a button for more results. And more and more. You can do this too. The situation is not how you describe it. What's more, why those names and not others? Why is this woman Macedonilla and not Macedonica or Macedonina or Macedoniana or Macedonicilla and so? Will you do the same when you face the numerous namesake Roman men? If you think there is a problem, you can raise it so that consensual solutions are sought. Invention can never be a solution. --Romulanus (talk) 13:49, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
            • @Romulanus: You've already complained at me that its not ok. I've just explained why I felt the need to do it. I've already removed the ones I remember I've made.*Treker (talk) 13:56, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
• @Romulanus: And in the case of the two you removed from the talkpage, Livia Scriboniana and Cassia Lepida are indeed the names they are called in scholarly literature.*Treker (talk) 12:23, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
  • That's why I withdrew them, although it does not invalidate my question. --Romulanus (talk) 12:55, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
    • Never implied it did.*Treker (talk) 13:04, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Please merge instead of blanking

Hi! I noticed that you blanked Cornelius Scipio Salvito (Q65204828), whereas it should have been merged instead. Please don't do that. Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 15:09, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

• @Bovlb: I don't know how to merge, and I don't want to bother other people with it when there is little new information on the newer one, its easier to just blank it and have the bot redirect the correct page.*Treker (talk) 15:13, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
  • You can find information on merging at Help:Merge. If you're having trouble with something, please reach out. We are happy to help. It's not a bother.  :) Happy editing! Bovlb (talk) 15:42, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Cato the Younger

Had on daughter named Porcia and from Marcia. Please support a source claiming hae had another duaugher by the same name הנדב הנכון (talk) 07:44, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

@הנדב הנכון: All women who had the same father were named the same thing in ancient Rome. That's how naming conventions worked. You're free to actually look at those Wikidatas and their articles for more information.*Treker (talk) 08:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcia_(wife_of_Cato) doesn't even state he had a daughter "Marcia and Cato had two or three children", either way, it's your responsibily to supply a source when asked to. Please add or remove this unsourced statement הנדב הנכון (talk) 08:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

@הנדב הנכון: Jerome described a second daughter by Cato from his marriage to Marcia, you'd know that if you read the article of the daughters Wikidata page like I asked you to do https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C3%B3rcia_(filha_de_Cat%C3%A3o_Uticense_e_M%C3%A1rcia). Plutarch also mentions that Cato had younger daughters that needed to be taken care of when he went of to war with Caesar.*Treker (talk) 08:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

@הנדב הנכון: I've added references now, next time please assume good faith and check the new additions own Wikidata items before assuming its not true.*Treker (talk) 08:44, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject Ancient Rome

Hi Treker ! In case you don't know about it, there is a project about Ancient Rome here on Wikidata. It's not really active yet, but I invite you to add your name on the list at the bottom; this way, if someone ping the project (with the {{Ping project}} template) you'll also be notified. Cheers, --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 21:18, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Uppercase for latin names

Hi Treker! I saw that you're transforming the latin spelling of items with uppercase. I guess that you're doing so to represent the fact that ancient Roman dit not have our modern distinction between upper/lowercase, but ultimately I think it's not a good idea. I can't think of any modern book in which latin would be typographied in this way. Every modern text edition, either of literature or epigraphy, make use of lowercase and capitalize the first letter of proper names — in fact this is often the only use of capital letters, which are not used after a full stop. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 18:46, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

@Jahl de Vautban:I figured it was for the best since the parameter is "native label", it seems a little inacurate to claim it to be native label if it incorporates things which did not exist back then. But if you think it's a bad idea I will stop.*Treker (talk) 18:58, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I totally get your reasoning ; but I think there is no harm in reflecting modern use of Latin, especially as it is so widespread even in scholarly literature. Further, as Latin had a long evolution, it would be a real nightmare to transcribe spelling according to its historical reality, both in term of sound and of script. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 19:31, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Food for thought: currently on FRWP, Publius Valerius Poplicola (Q318726) has is "native name" given as Poplios Valesios Poplocola (partly on the basis of this inscription). So at least some contributors favor the use of archaic Latin for archaic Romans. However I really don't think that it would be beneficial to rename every Roman for the early Republic and beyond with -os. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 09:23, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

@Jahl de Vautban: Very interesting link Jahl, thank you.*Treker (talk) 10:15, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Call for participation in the interview study with Wikidata editors

Dear *Treker,

I hope you are doing good,

I am Kholoud, a researcher at the 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 on kholoudsaa@gmail.com or use this form https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdmmFHaiB20nK14wrQJgfrA18PtmdagyeRib3xGtvzkdn3Lgw/viewform?usp=sf_link 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.

Regards Kholoud

Agrippa

Hi Treker! I don't understand why you are stating Agrippa (Q3221235)has characteristic (P1552)feminine (Q1775415). All the Romans where it is currently linked are men; the fact that Aggripus is attested doesn't automaticaly make Aggripa a feminine cognomen. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

@Jahl de Vautban: How is it not feminine when it has a feminine ending? There are men who use feminine names.*Treker (talk) 03:04, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Some nouns in Latin can be of the first declension and still be masculine, like poeta, ae, nauta, ae or better for the issue at hand agricola, ae. Anyway both the Lewis & Short and the Gaffiot give it as masculine. I'm curious to see other cases of men using feminine cognomen. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 07:23, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

@Jahl de Vautban: Well my bad then. Does the same apply to nomen such as Caecina (Q32978978), is the gens Caecina still feminine in that case?*Treker (talk) 09:56, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

It is masculine; the feminine is correctly stated as Caecinia (Q32978977) (see this article). Anyway if the holder is masculine, we shouldn't be more Roman than the Romans and we can safely assume that the name is masculine. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 10:28, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Q33196

Data item embryo (Q33196) is the general item for embryos of all kinds, whether plant, animal, fungal, or algal. Not all of these organisms have a pre-embryo. Pre-embryo seems to be restricted to placental mammals, based on the description on the page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:03, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Disney core universe characters

Is Disney core universe character (Q112161269) a type of character (i.e. a class), or a specific grouping of characters? It can't be both at the same time. If it isn't a class, then no other items can be an instance or a subclass of this item, only a part of it. For example, Mickey Mouse (Q11934)instance of (P31)Disney core universe character (Q112161269) then doesn't work, and must be removed or changed into Mickey Mouse (Q11934)part of (P361)Disney core universe character (Q112161269). If however it is a class of characters, then Sensational Six (Q112161257)part of (P361)Disney core universe character (Q112161269) would mean that the entirety of Sensational Six (Q112161257) is a part of the concept of a Disney character. In this case, it makes a lot more sense to say that Sensational Six (Q112161257)has part(s) of the class (P2670)Disney core universe character (Q112161269), which means that Sensational Six (Q112161257) has one or more parts, each of which are instance of (P31)Disney core universe character (Q112161269). Einar Myre (talk) 15:29, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@Einar Myre: I'm sorry but this does not make sense to me.StarTrekker (talk) 15:52, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Have a look at Help:Basic membership properties for an introduction to classes and instances, and an explanation of when to use instance of (P31), subclass of (P279) or part of (P361). Einar Myre (talk) 16:55, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@Einar Myre: Well all that was a lot to take in, I'm still a little unsure of it all, but I'll trust your judgement. You can revert back to how you had it.StarTrekker (talk) 17:44, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Order of statement

Hi Treker! May I suggest you to add in your common.js the line importScript( 'User:Tohaomg/rearrange values.js' ); which will allow you to reorder statment without deleting their qualifiers or references? Cheers, --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 14:51, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Roman topics

Greetings, much of the information I removed was because it was erroneous. For example, nowhere does it say, except in a fictional novel, that Quintus Caecilius Metellus Pius had a wife named Licinia. Nor have I read anywhere that Caracalla had Julia Mamaea and Julia Soaemias as spouses. Like these, most things. --BlaGalaxi (talk) 11:02, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

@BlaGalaxi: It doesn't say they were spouses, the parameter used is "unmarried partner" which is something they both claimed in life. Also, there was no reason to move this discussion to my talk page from yours.StarTrekker (talk) 12:04, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Call for participation in a task-based online experiment

Dear StarTrekker,

I hope you are doing well,

I am Kholoud, a researcher at King's College London, and I am working on a project as part of my PhD research, in which I have developed a personalised recommender model that suggests Wikidata items for the editors based on their past edits. I am collaborating on this project with Elena Simperl and Miaojing Shi.

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 model 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 in a research venue.

The experiment should take no more than 15 minutes, and it will be held next week.

If you agree to participate in this study, please either contact me at kholoud.alghamdi@kcl.ac.uk or use this form https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfA1wfdBfCRlcG3WhDyc-V8lzgPNx3fDFCNXkyn4CSwahXZ_A/viewform?usp=sf_link

Then, I will contact you with the link to start the study.

For more information about my project, please read this post: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User:Kholoudsaa

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) 21:24, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in the WQT UI requirements elicitation online workshop

Dear StarTrekker,

I hope you are doing well,

We are a group of researchers from King’s College London working on developing WQT (Wikidata Quality Toolkit), which will support a diverse set of editors in curating and validating Wikidata content.

We are inviting you to participate in an online workshop aimed at understanding the requirements for designing effective and easy-to-use user interfaces (UI) for three tools within WQT that can support the daily activities of Wikidata editors: recommending items to edit based on their personal preferences, finding items that need better references, and generating entity schemas automatically for better item quality.

The main activity during this workshop will be UI mock-up sketching. To facilitate this, we encourage you to attend the workshop using a tablet or laptop with PowerPoint installed or any other drawing tools you prefer. This will allow for a more interactive and productive session as we delve into the UI mock-up sketching activities.

Participation is completely voluntary. You should only take part if you want to and choosing not to take part will not disadvantage you in any way. However, your cooperation will be valuable for the WQT design. Please note that all data and responses collected during the workshop will be used solely for the purpose of improving the WQT and understanding editor requirements. We will analyze the results in an anonymized form, ensuring your privacy is protected. Personal information will be kept confidential and will be deleted once it has served its purpose in this research.

The online workshop, which will be held on April 5th, should take no more than 3 hours.

If you agree to participate in this workshop, please either contact me at kholoud.alghamdi@kcl.ac.uk or use this form to register your interest https://forms.office.com/e/9mrE8rXZVg Then, I will contact you with all the instructions for the workshop.

For more information about my project, please read this page: https://king-s-knowledge-graph-lab.github.io/WikidataQualityToolkit/

If you have further questions or require more information, don't hesitate to contact me at the email address mentioned above.

Thank you for considering taking part in this project.

Regards Kholoudsaa (talk) 14:25, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Image of Servilia

Hello. I remove an image from the page of Servilia. The image was a modern fantasy drawing of someone's fantasy about the appearance of Servilia. Of course, such an image can not be said to be a representation of her on her official page. To put it there would give the impression, that the drawing is a truthful image of her. In other words: it would be POV. Therefore, I removed it. I later replaced it with an contemporary coin image, that May portray Servilia. My reasoing was: if there should be an image of her at all, then surely it is better to have one a contemporary one that may portray her, than a modern fantasy drawing, that certainly does not. You removed it with the words: "Pure speculation that it would be based on Servilia". You are correct: we can not be certain if the coin is indeed a depiction of Servilia. Therefore, I have no objection to you removing it. But to replace it with a modern fantasy drawing, can not be said to be the oposite of POV either, can it? It is the personal speculation of an individual. Thus, I assume the page is better of without an image. Thank you. --Aciram (talk) 23:15, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

It being "fantasy" is irrelevant, about 90% of ancient women's images are made up drawings from the Middle Ages.StarTrekker (talk) 23:21, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I have expanded my reasons on the talk page of Servilia. It is correct that some Ancient women have no other image than a posthumous image from the Middle ages. A portrait from the middle ages, which is known by historians and the scientific world, is not the same thing as unknown fant art made my a random person a year ago.

If you have made this image, I can understand your feelings. You are a fan of Servilia, you have interest in her, and you are proud of your image, and want to show it to the world. Perfectly understandable feelings. Servilia is a fascinating person. It is a pretty image. But please try to put your personal feelings aside. Such feelings can so easily make you biased. Do not become insulted, but try to consider the goal of Wikipedia, which wikidata is a part of.

I could make an image of Servilia today, and post it in the evening. Would you aprove it? You should not. And neither should this one. This image is a private fan art image. It is not an centuries old image known by the historical and scientific community to be of her. Please try to show respect to the scientific goal of Wikipedia, its users and editors, by not having modern fan art in the info boxes.

And please, do not become insluted and view me as your personal enemy and this as the beginning of a personal feud. Be sure, that this discussion will continue to pop up by different users and editors from wikipedia legitimately concerned with the scientific goal of Wikipedia, and they may have more energy to engage in a lenghty conflict than I do. Please also consider the good reputation of Wikidata.--Aciram (talk) 12:25, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I am not the artist. I just don't view your concerns as actual issues. To me it seems purely POV to care about "fan art" or similar, it's a depiction of the person intended to be a depiction of the person, it has no less value than an illustration from 100 years ago or the Middle Ages, many of which are on Wikipedia and Wikidata. Having an image is a very important factor for readers remembering what they're reading, it's an established fact of education. Leaving this subject without an image when one depicting them is clearly avalable is very wrong to me as it would be a misfortune to our readers.StarTrekker (talk) 12:56, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Since the artist himself uploaded the art to Commons, could this be a case of self promotion? I think it would be a good choice to replace this "fan art" on the Wikidata with File:File:Servilia presents her daughter Junia Tertia to Julius Caesar. Cesar a qui Servilie presente sa fille Tertia.jpg. Mathijsloo (talk) 11:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

No, sadly I have no artistic talent anywhere near like that. If you're interested in engaging in this discussion it would be better to do so at the item talk page, where the I've offered a compromise. The image you presented is an ok idea as well.StarTrekker (talk) 14:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC) Sorry pinged the wrong person @Mathijsloo:.StarTrekker (talk) 14:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I've undone this edit

An activity is a series of actions, where an action is a singular event. Swpb (talk) 15:25, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Fair.StarTrekker (talk) 16:01, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

legislative seat (Q1414672) and legislative seat (Q3814605)

Hi StarTrekker,

are you speaking a Romance or a German language? I'm struggling to get the exact difference between these concepts. May you help me? Bernice Heiderman (talk) 20:49, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

@Bernice Heiderman: Both concepts refer to holding a position of political authority in a collective of other people with the same role.StarTrekker (talk) 21:45, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Are they mergeable?--Bernice Heiderman (talk) 21:49, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

@Bernice Heiderman: Possibly, I think maybe it would be best to ask someone who is more familiar with politics, it is not my area.StarTrekker (talk) 06:32, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the claim you added to cemetery (Q39614)

Just letting you know that I've removed a claim from cemetery (Q39614) that you added, subclass of (P279)administrative territorial entity (Q56061)nature of statement (P5102)sometimes (Q110143752). Kinsio (talk ★ contribs) 06:28, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

@Kinsio Would you mind explaining why?

StarTrekker (talk) 14:48, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

It came to my attention because it was causing a self-contradictory classification (immaterial entity (Q124711467), vs. material entity (Q53617407) from all the other superclasses) and if I understand the concept of administrative territorial entity (Q56061) correctly, I can't think of how a cemetery would ever be one. Do you have any examples? Kinsio (talk ★ contribs) 19:48, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Ingenui

Hi! I see that you undid my changes of the definitions of ingenuus ([1]) and ingenua ([2]); I changed them according to the definitions I found in the Oxford Latin Dictionary, but has surely been an evolution of these terms during time. I would be interesting in the reading the sources you used for you definitions, in order to check also it:Ingenui and improve it if necessary. Thanks! --Epìdosis 11:19, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

@Epìdosis: Hi, it seems to me that the idea that "ingenuus/ingenua" refered to all freeborn persons/all born Roman citizens at one time is a disputed theory. While it is possible that that was once the case (before Plebs even existsed) most contemporary uses of the word that are known refer a class of citizens who were children of liberti or of a libera and a male slave, hence "freeborn freedmen" (as contradictory as that may seem). From what I can tell the difference between ingenui and other freeborn persons is that an ingenui might be subject to their parents patrons potestas. But as you said it seems the term evolved over time. Maybe we need separate items for each legal status even if they used the same name.StarTrekker (talk) 11:33, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for the reference to en:Ingenui. I have read it and I see that it says "Ingenui indicated free men who were born free", although afterwards it discusses and problematizes this definition as you say. I see, however, that this article is mostly based on the article of Smith's DGRA (1870) and that it mentions no secondary source more recent than 1884. In the first two posterior sources I have consulted, the article in the Enciclopedia Italiana (1933) and this article (1961), ingenui is only mentioned as synonim of "freeborn citizens", which also coincides with the definition of the Oxford Latin Dictionary. Also a recent and authoritative source like The Cambridge Ancient History (2018) states here that "Next, free men are either ingenui (freeborn) or libertini (freedmen). Ingenui are those born free, libertini those manumitted from lawful slavery." So I wonder if effectively, given these last sources, the definitions simply referring to all free-born Roman citizens may be more up-to-date. Epìdosis 14:40, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

It appears to me that you may be very right. It seems to be a mistake on my part to have reverted you. By bad. I found this book which gives some more insight into offspring of freedmen and their status (until the Empire) but it still supports you assertion that ingenui refers to all freeborn.StarTrekker (talk) 15:35, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

@Epìdosis: Forgot to ping.StarTrekker (talk) 15:35, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

OK, no problem! Is it fine for you if I restore my descriptions? Of course if in the future we find other contrasting sources we can modify them further. Epìdosis 06:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

@Epìdosis: Done. (Tho seems I was accidentally logged out, ops).StarTrekker (talk) 12:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Film genres and cinema by country overlap

Hi, I noticed that you recently moved the "cinema by country" connection from p279 to "facet of" in the genre hierarchy. Although I think a hierarchy of genres by country would be useful, but in general you are probably right, because those items were not really 'film of a country', but rather 'film art of a country'. And most likely a 'film by country' branch would have to be created separately. By the way, if you want to finish these changes, there are a few more left: https://w.wiki/B5QX - these are subclasses of p31=cinema by country or region (Q67515288) items, which are not p31=cinema by country or region (Q67515288) themselves. Solidest (talk) 14:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

@Solidest: Hi, I took a look at the item and tried to correct any obvious errors I could find, but right now I think I'm about to become ill, so I don't really have much energy to go into every detail at the moment, hopefully I will feel better soon.StarTrekker (talk) 18:57, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in research exploring Wikidata editors' experience of content gaps

Dear StarTrekker,

I hope this message finds you well!

We are researchers at King's College London investigating how content gaps arise and can be measured in Wikidata. Currently we have explored existing research papers to identify several categories of gaps. However, we have noted a lack of consideration of editors’ experiences in this existing research and are keen to hear about editors’ views on and methods for identifying and addressing content gaps. While this topic has seen a lot of attention in Wikipedia, we believe Wikidata presents unique challenges and content which warrant further investigation.

We are reaching out as we understand you have previously taken part in a research study with our colleague Kholoud and thought as an active and experienced editor, you may be able to share your experiences with us. We would therefore like to invite you to participate in an interactive online workshop to explore this topic further.

This will consist of a 90 minute online call consisting of a group discussion and collaborative editing of a document (in Miro). We will ask you to rank gaps according to your familiarity and your opinion of their importance, give feedback on which types of metric might be most valuable to you as an editor and give some initial thoughts and potentially even sketches of how a content gap monitoring tool might look for Wikidata.

The main goal of the workshop is to understand your perspectives on how to measure and monitor content gaps as well as potentially identify further metrics or even to propose new methods to identify and quantify gaps in Wikidata.

Participation is completely voluntary. All personal data will be kept confidential in compliance with GDPR. If you are interest in taking part, you can find out more about the workshop from our participant information sheet. You can also read more about the research at our meta page.

You can sign-up to take part from our registration form.

The workshop will take place online using Microsoft Teams. We are hoping to host the workshop in the coming weeks, but if you would like to take part and are unavailable during the proposed times, we may be able to find an alternative time.

If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact us at anelia.kurteva@kcl.ac.uk and neal.t.reeves@kcl.ac.uk

Thank you for considering taking part in this workshop and supporting our research.

With kind regards, Celestialtoast (talk) 20:28, 28 September 2024 (UTC)