User talk:Arlo Barnes
Open Humans EditEdit
Hi Arlo Barnes, Thanks for the Open Humans edit with a lower Q number for Madeleine Ball, but in that instance since the replaced Q was the same entity (see ORCID) a merge would have been a better fit so the second Q doesn't hang around for the same entity. I've made the merge in this case. Wolfgang8741 (talk) 06:01, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Personal Data WikiProjectEdit
Hi Arlo Barnes, I see you have expressed interest to work on the Personal Data WikiProject! I can certainly use the help ;-) Particularly, at this stage, around defining the scope and specifying it in a good way so others see it too. Pdehaye (talk) 12:54, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
title character of Q66048962Edit
Hey, instead of writing the number in the description could you just use the name of the item instead? So instead of title character of Q66048962 you could write title character of Spooky's House of Jumpscares --Trade (talk) 19:16, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- Sure, I usually try to do the name and then the Q-number in parens, but I forgot that time.
- I like to include the number because on the rare occasion that someone includes it, it has helped me when doing edits.
- Thanks for the catch, though.
- Arlo Barnes (talk) 21:53, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- Hmm, in my experience including a number doesn't make much of a difference in the difficulty of finding a description.
- Do you have any examples where removing the number makes the item harder to find?
- --Trade (talk) 10:29, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
- It's more like an efficiency measure, since I can plop the number directly into the URL bar rather than using the search.
- Also, it helps disambiguate items that have the same label; it is generally pretty clear which one is meant once their entries are opened, but again that requires an additional step.
- Arlo Barnes (talk) 17:51, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Community Insights SurveyEdit
RMaung (WMF) 17:38, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
I've been cleaning up some odd values in date of death (P570) and noticed you added a few of them recently (eg). "no value" is really meant for cases where there is no meaningful value and won't ever be one - eg "spouse" for someone who was never married, "educated at" for someone with no formal education, or "number of children" for someone who never had any. As a result, it gets a bit conceptually weird to use it for dates/places of death, and the consensus has generally been to avoid it. (It also confuses a lot of database queries, which use "has any P570 statement" as a proxy for "is dead", on the assumption that novalue isn't used.)
We don't unfortunately have any clear way to record "is currently alive"; it's usually inferred by a recent birthdate + absence of a deathdate rather than an explicit statement. Andrew Gray (talk) 12:19, 21 September 2019 (UTC)