Aluxosm

Welcome to Wikidata, Aluxosm!

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!

--Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 12:28, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

References

Hey, just a quick note for when you're adding references. If you're are quoting specific material from the source, use quotation (P1683) rather than object named as (P1932). The latter is used for describing how the source refers to a specific person or thing, such as when the name of an author differs slightly in Wikidata from what they are called in the source (i.e. the source says "J. C. Smith" but the Wikidata entry is "John C. Smith"). — Huntster (t @ c) 01:23, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@Huntster: Ruh-roh, I've been using that everywhere, thinking that that's what subject named as (P1810) was for 😬. Must have picked it up by seeing someone else doing the same so I'll try not to encourage it further by rectifying this where I see it. Thanks for the heads up! Aluxosm (talk) 02:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Note to self - here's a good discussion on the difference between named as subject named as (P1810) and stated as object named as (P1932). Essentially, it depends on which aspect you're referencing:

• subject = "named as"
• object = "stated as"

If the statement is about something like the date of birth (P569) and you want to reference some text in an article, then use quotation (P1683).

Whereas if the statement is along the lines of cites work (P2860) (like in Modeling of near-surface structure and Response simulation of GPR in the Jezero crater, Mars (Q106394934), then use object named as (P1932).

@Huntster: could you let me know if it sounds like I've got a better handle on this? Cheers. Aluxosm (talk) 10:27, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

To be honest, while there's nothing wrong with using object named as (P1932) like you did in cites work (P2860), it's really not necessary to use it that way. Like mentioned before, object named as (P1932) is really only useful when you're wanting to provide transparency or clarity when there might be some kind of ambiguity, such as with the listed names of people or organisations compared with how they are presented on Wikidata. But otherwise, yeah, you're fine. — Huntster (t @ c) 22:21, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Call for participation in the interview study with Wikidata editors

Dear Aluxosm,

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

Podcast episodes

Would it be possible to import all podcast episodes (ie. from Joe Rogan's postcast) into Wikidata. Would be cool to analyise the topics/guests. Germartin1 (talk) 08:58, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Germartin1: It certainly would be possible and I agree that it would be cool! I had investigated this when I added JRE #961 - Graham Hancock, Randall Carlson & Michael Shermer (Q107206789) but quickly abandoned the idea after thinking about just how much work it would be. I used to really enjoy JRE and would likely have taken this on in the past, but my opinion of Joe has tanked over the last few years and I'm still pretty busy with my current hobby project (the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis (Q1092095) ) so it's pretty far down on my list at the moment. I'd suggest seeing if anyone over at WikiProject Podcasts else is interested in the meantime. Good luck! Aluxosm (talk) 20:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

@Aluxosm: I found a list of all episodes and will import them with OpenRefine in the next days, contact me so you can have a look at the schema. Germartin1 (talk) 21:50, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

@Aluxosm: I imported all of Jordan Peterson's episodes Query. Joe Rogan will be next, however matching the guests to wikidata will take some time Germartin1 (talk) 07:28, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

@Germartin1: Wow, nicely done on the imports! I'm not too familiar with the Jordan Peterson podcast but I've had a look through the JRE episodes and they look great. Thanks for all of the work you've done on this, it's already been really useful! Aluxosm (talk) 09:05, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, most appreciated. Still have around 500 Guests that need to be connected with Wikidata, let me know if you want to help. Germartin1 (talk) 09:24, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Sure thing, let me know! Aluxosm (talk) 10:16, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Here's a list of JRE episodes that are missing P5030 (talk show guest) (query). Aluxosm (talk) 10:01, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@Aluxosm:Yeah let's connect on Telegram, I already in contact with Trade.

We should discuss the production code, as you added the same code to Q109306897 Q109304736 Germartin1 (talk) 10:11, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

@Germartin1: <connected off-wiki> I had wondered what the best way to deal with that was. I'm not too familiar with production code (P2364) but thought the number in the title was the best fit. I really just wanted a way to sort them by episode number. Let me know if you think there's a better way though; I can undo the edit group if you reckon the whole thing is off.

What do you think about splitting off the different shows, like having a separate item for the MMA shows or fight companions? Would that fix the duplicate production code issue? Aluxosm (talk) 10:57, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

@Germartin1: Here's an example query that highlights the use (and duplicates) of the sortable production code: Joe Rogan Experiance episodes (query). Aluxosm (talk) 12:00, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting my edit of What Caused a 1300-Year Deep Freeze? (Q110068211)

I didn't realize that my QuickStatement English description edits would change existing descriptions. That is NOT what I intended. Thanks for fixing my error. Trilotat (talk) 17:04, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

@Trilotat: No worries! I figured that was the case. I know that OpenRefine prevents edits from overriding descriptions by default and you can change that behaviour, but I'm not sure if that's possible with QuickStatements. Looking over my watchlist and adding a filter for #Quickstatments [2.0], it looks as though the batches #temporary_batch_1640973637238, #temporary_batch_1640822532426, and #temporary_batch_1640923812610 (may be more) changed at least 65 descriptions. Most of the values that were overridden were added by bots beforehand so it's not the end of the world, but it may be worth doing stuff like this in OpenRefine in the future if you can (and maybe adding a mention on the Quickstatements talk page). Sorry for the "bad" news. Thanks again for all of your work still, my hobby project is coming along nicely thanks to it. Happy New Year! Aluxosm (talk) 18:31, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

To be honest, @Aluxosm:, your "work" and I honestly have NO idea what it is, has given me new motivation and focus. I have long felt I was doing a lot with no impact here, but your Younger Dryas activities has motivated me to refine my workflow. It has given me the notion I'm helping someone who's doing research or academic work here here, which is exciting for me. I need to learn how to use Open Refine. I've tried it but was not able to focus on it for long, so forgot about it. FWIW, I'll pause the description efforts; that hasn't really been important to me anyway. I'd rather figure out how to use the citation and reference content in ADS Bibcode to improve WD articles. ADS data causes me much frustration with the duplicate items, bad DOIs, etc., but it's mostly good data. Take care and happy new year. Trilotat (talk) 22:02, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

@Trilotat: That's great to hear! Long story short, I have mild obsession with the debate around the w:Younger Dryas impact hypothesis 😄. Whichever way it goes, I think it'll be one for the history books (one's actually been written already); my goal is simply to document the discourse as thoroughly as possible. For myself, it started off as a way to satisfy my curiosity, but I now know for a fact that this data is being used by researchers on both sides. Like yourself, I find that to be pretty exciting!

I can't recommend OpenRefine enough, it is a bit odd at first but when you get used to it it can be incredibly useful. I'd be more than happy to answer any questions you have if you ever give it a go and get stuck.

The reference stuff sounds great! I got a bit impatient waiting for Citationgraph_bot to come back online so ended up using Egon Willighagen's quickstatements.groovy script to import the COCI citations for YDIH related articles (thanks to both if either read this!). The bot and the script only work on items with DOIs though; are there items with citations that only have an ADS Bibcode? Aluxosm (talk) 19:36, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

OpenAlex got released yesterday which is said to have citations to things other than journal articles, tho it may still be reliant on DOIs a bit much. OpenAlex is CC0 and I know the developers and this is all very exciting! --Egon Willighagen (talk) 10:04, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@Egon Willighagen: Nice, thanks for the heads-up! This seems to be a bit of a trend, exciting indeed! Another project that's done a similar thing is archive.org's Refcat (the catalog that underpins their IA Scholar service). I'm really looking forward to all of these imports; I've done a few papers completely manually and it's exhausting haha. I hope that all of this extra data doesn't overwhelm Wikidata though. Aluxosm (talk) 11:27, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

letter to the editor (Q651270) v. scholarly article (Q13442814)

Moved to Wikidata talk:WikiProject Source MetaData § Letters to the editor

I saw you replaced scholarly article (Q13442814) with letter to the editor (Q651270) on Reply to Boslough et al.: Decades of comet research counter their claims (Q28661563).

That creates type constraint for articles with the properties PMCID (P932), PubMed ID (P698), and ResearchGate publication ID (P5875). Perhaps you could add letter to the editor (Q651270) as genre (P136) of scholarly article (Q13442814) instead? Trilotat (talk) 01:46, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Hey Trilotat, sorry for the delay, think I dismissed this notification while half asleep. I've just moved this to WikiProject Source MetaData to hopefully get some more eyeballs on it. Aluxosm (talk) 16:57, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

PagesBot

Not sure what the current state and plans are for the bot, but it came up in this discussion, which may be of interest to you. Daniel Mietchen (talk) 21:35, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay Daniel! I am definitely interested, thanks for the heads-up. It'd be great to get PagesBot running, it was just an unfortunate victim of the all-too-common 'too-many-projects' problem 😅. Aluxosm (talk) 12:04, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Your WikiProject

Hi Aluxosm,

it would be much clearer if you'd prove maintained by WikiProject (P6104) statements by adding the very paper proving the link with stated in (P248) . Kind regards U. M. Owen (talk) 07:58, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

@U. M. Owen: I can see your point and do agree that some info may be useful but I don't think that stated in (P248) statements would be the right way to go about it; most items would have many papers "proving" the link and some may even have none, it's possible for an item to simply be of interest to a specific WikiProject and so have this statement applied to it. Either way, it'd be an incorrect use of the stated in (P248) property unless the paper (or whatever source was linked to) actually stated that the item was part of the WikiProject. Cheers! Aluxosm (talk) 08:18, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

To my understanding you are the WikiProject Younger Dryas impact hypothesis. Is a list of personal interest items really a task for Wikidata?--U. M. Owen (talk) 08:44, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

@U. M. Owen: I may be the most prominent contributor to WikiProject YDIH but it's not mine, nor am I it; I know of at least 5 other active editors who have helped (and continue to) curate items related to it. The subject as a whole may be a personal interest of mine but the items maintained by the WikiProject are not just a random collection of things that I find interesting; as you might expect, the items in this case are all related in some way to the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis (YDIH}.

In this case it's an easy one, Ciprian F. Ardelean is currently only linked to two papers on Wikidata and one of those directly relates to the YDIH, Ciprian also happens to be the primary author. Aluxosm (talk) 09:52, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I have doubted the relation. How does an item benefit from being curated by your project?--U. M. Owen (talk) 12:49, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

@U. M. Owen: From the abstract:

...the Ojo de Agua Black Mat yielded significant indicators of intense wildfires during the Younger Dryas, but produced no carbon spherules or nanodiamonds supposedly linked to the impact theory.

The impact theory referred to here is the YDIH. The title of the paper mentions the "Black Mat", a geological feature that has become intrinsically linked to the YDIH. Also, at least seven of the references are already maintained by WikiProject YDIH (including the seminal work on the subject); it's quite clear that the paper is related.

How does an item benefit from being curated by your project? Again, it is not my WikiProject, that's not how wikis work (projects or otherwise). The items curated by it benefit in the same way that any other item that is curated by a WikiProject benefits: increased exposure to interested editors, resulting in improvements to the item itself as well as related works. Come and take a look, any help would be much appreciated! 🙂 Aluxosm (talk) 09:26, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you

Hello Aluxosm. I'm sorry to bother you. I changed the title because this historical fact is still controversial. So I think the title is biased, and my changes are limited only to the Japanese Wikipedia. Since I am not a native English speaker, I may have some language problems. Please forgive me. If you have any other comments, please continue to reply. Kagakyoko1027 (talk) 01:34, 19 October 2023 (UTC)