Arlo Barnes
For prior discussion on this talk page, see /Archive 1.
 Archives |
|---|
|
|
WikiProject:Books follows FRBR, which is a system used internationally be libraries, to distinguish between data recorded for a work and data recorded for an edition. On Wikisource, the two should be placed on separate data items. This way, multiple editions of a work can each have their data stored on Wikidata, without confusion. Each published edition should be separate from all other editions, and separate from a data item for the work of literature. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:10, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
For example: Death Comes for the Archbishop (Q115978630) is the 2023 Standard Ebooks edition. And I have created Death comes for the Archbishop (Q117344844) for the 1927 edition being transcribed at en.WS. These two editions must have their own data items, or else there would be multiple dates, publishers, distribution formats, and links all jumbled together on the same data item. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:42, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- @encycloPetey: Thank you. So https://librivox.org/death-comes-for-the-archbishop-willa-cather would have its own item, or would it be whichever edition they are reading from? — user:Arlo Barnes (talk) 08:14, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
- If it's possible to identify which edition they read from, then it could be placed on that edition. However, that's usually difficult or impossible to determine. Additionally, we need to track information like the reader, publish date for the recording, the cast members if it's a LibriVox perfromed play, or the readers of each section if it's a divided effort reading. So the best option is to give LibriVox recordings their own data items. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:14, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
Are you going to start a discussion on creating a VLM property, so we can import the entire database and do a mix-n-match? RAN (talk) 19:36, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): Yes, please comment at wikidata:property proposal/Veterans Legacy Memorial. Arlo Barnes (talk) 19:37, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
- And now, Veterans Legacy Memorial ID (P12389)! 06:17, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi@Arlo Barnes! I am reaching out to gather some ideas about the approach of adding land acknowledgement information to Wikidata items.
I am working with a group of people on a wikidata project. We wanted to add land acknowledgement to some institutions. Our intuition was to search if there's property to use. We then found that Wikidata users add the land acknowledgement by adding "subject use (P2283) land acknowledgement (Q96200400)" statement and add statement URI as a reference. Some users use "of" qualifier to add information about the groups mentioned in the land acknowledgement. It seems that "of" is being deprecated (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P642). We wonder if you know what will happen to the land acknowledgement statements after "of" is deprecated?
We also see if there's property for other kind of statements. There's also another property for accessibility statement URI https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P9494. We discussed if we can propose a land acknowledgement URI property, which seems more convent for users to add this information. We wonder if you have concerns of creating a new property for land acknowledgement URI?
Our group also found there was a property proposal land acknowledgement deleted recently (https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Property_proposal/land_acknowledgement&action=edit, @Ameisenigel) We wonder if you have thoughts on this topic as well?
Thanks! Gretaheng18 (talk) 17:48, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- 'of' has been labelled as deprecated for years, I don't think anyone is going to remove it until there's a clear solution for transitioning the (many!) statements to another property. Proposing a dedicated property for such acknowledgements seems like a good idea to me and I'd vote for it, although I'll note that I haven't seen most institutions use a webpage for that; it looks like they usually just put it in the footer of the site, or alongside legal notices. In any case, there's always an opportunity to provide the exact phrasing used with quotation or excerpt (P7081) as a qualifier or quotation (P1683) in the references.
- Although not directly related to land acknowledgement (Q96200400)s, you may also be interested in meta:Wikiproject Local Contexts. Arlo Barnes (talk) 18:26, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- Just noting that Wikidata:Property proposal/land acknowledgement was containing only the template for property proposals but did not contain any information. Feel free to request a new property, but please fill out all required fields. --Ameisenigel (talk) 20:53, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Dear Arlo_Barnes,
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) 20:25, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- Dear Arlo_Barnes,
- Thank you so much for kindly volunteering to participate in our study. Unfortunately, it was difficult to find a time when everyone was available and we ultimately had to arrange the workshop for 4pm UK time tomorrow which the sign-up form suggests would be a time you weren't available. We're hoping to hold another workshop soon to give further insight into our findings and if it is ok with you, I would be happy to reach out again when we've made the arrangements.
- Just in case and on the chance that you are able to attend after all and it's not too short notice, I wanted to share the session link.
- Thank you again for your willingness to take part and sorry that we couldn't find a more convenient time.
- Celestialtoast (talk) 20:47, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Hi. audio track (Q7302866) should only be used for non-music audio tracks, not songs Trade (talk) 04:04, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
There is a lot of property proposals that needs votes (opposing or supporting) in order to move along. Would you mind helping out? Trade (talk) 02:20, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
- I'll take another look later today; skimming the topic groupings right now I see a lot I am ambivalent about, but I want to be able to comment with something more substantive than "support because properties shouldn't be a pain to make" or "oppose because we're kinda neglecting the properties we already have"... Arlo Barnes (talk) 18:45, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
Have you ever considered requesting to have your own bot on Wikidata? There's plenty of tasks i can think of that would need it but most of them seem to be too busy to take on any additional maintenance tasks Trade (talk) 05:12, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, I've often wished for the capability for narrow automation. For example, talk:Q136208. However, I am not quite where I wish to be in terms of understanding of operating bots, nor having the local setup to run one. Help in the former would be appreciated, if you have knowledge in this area. Arlo Barnes (talk) 01:45, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
I would be interested in what you find confusing about the use cases page. Obviously it's large (that's unavoidable), but for any given statement there should only be a few tables that may be relevant, which can be found from the ToC. Obviously, I don't think your diagram adds much value, certainly not enough to justify its prime real estate, but maybe there are other things we can do to make the page more usable. Swpb (talk) 13:28, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- I freely admit the diagram is currently a dud, but I think that's the sort of thing I personally would need to navigate that page. Perhaps my cognition is unusual in that respect, but in order to figure out (to use my latest use of P642 as an example) which statement(s) retire all government employees (Q133355473) should have to replace main subject (P921)dismissal (Q9213592)
of (DEPRECATED) (P642)government employee (Q3796928) , I have to determine the animacy of...government employees? Or dismissal? Or should I just give up on modelling that nuance? What I need is a clear signal of where the 'intuitive' but imprecise modelling that P642 provides may fall short of the precision required by Wikidata. I wish for the traceable paths of a flowchart, even if a literal flowchart is perhaps the wrong tool for the job here. Arlo Barnes (talk) 00:30, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply. So, I think of the ToC as providing essentially a flowchart already, and I want to see if I can understand why it doesn't work that way for you. Is it just hard to trace visually? Because I certainly don't like what the new Vector skin has done with the ToC, but you can disable that for yourself by clicking "switch to old look", so at least the ToC will have numbering, better indentation, and no line wrapping. I wish I could force that display for everyone.
- Now, as to your specific example. Government employees are certainly animate (being living humans), but that doesn't matter here, because they are not the cause of their own dismissal, but its undergoer/patient. (This is where I think the new ToC layout could be tripping you up, with the line break in "agent (animate cause)" making the word "cause" easy to miss.) So, knowing the qual value is an undergoer, we are looking at this table. There, you won't find a case covering the occurrence "dismissal of employees", until you get to the "catch-all" case at the bottom of the table. Here I admit it gets a little tricky – I wanted a single property covering all three of these relations, but I could only get enough support for this three-way split. Anyway, "government employee" is a role filled by a person, rather than something a person inherently is; in a different context, the same person may have roles like "mother", "customer", or "passenger". So we want the last property, objects of occurrence have role (P12992). Using class of object(s) of occurrence (P12913) would technically be wrong, but it's a subtle point and not the end of the world. As a hint, groups of people will almost always demand the "role" property, and I've added a note to that effect.
- One more thing to note is that the final arbiter of whether a property is correct is the property item itself: its description, examples, and constraints. The use cases page is a best effort at directing you to candidate properties, but you don't have to rely on it to decide between those candidates. That's why step 3 is "make sure the handling makes sense". Cheers!
- Edit: One more thing: as to "where the 'intuitive' but imprecise modelling that P642 provides may fall short of the precision required by Wikidata", the answer is "everywhere". That's why it's going away. Swpb (talk) 14:20, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
Could you help me complete HDMI 2.0 connector (Q133806867) and DisplayPort 1.4a connector (Q133806868) and power connector (Q133806881)? Trade (talk) 05:29, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
- I can take a look tomorrow. What's missing? Arlo Barnes (talk) 06:08, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
- Nvm. It's already fixed
- If you care me and PantheraLeo1359531 are trying to figure out how to model graphic cards Trade (talk) 11:17, 3 April 2025 (UTC)