Beireke1
--Epìdosis 09:47, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Previous discussion was archived at User talk:Beireke1/Structured Discussions Archive 1 on 2018-03-26.
Welcome to Wikidata, Beireke1!
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!
Call for project proposals (software applications based on Wikidata) edit
Hi Beireke1,
If you guys are planning to create software applications that make use of the performing arts data you have ingested into Wikidata, this call for projects might be of interest to you. If you have any questions, please let me know (beat.estermann(at)bfh.ch).
-- Cheers, Beat Estermann (talk) 08:54, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Hein Picard edit
Hein Picard (Q42853895) - no incoming links, just a name, that is pretty general, and a reference that is is mentioned in a location of some archive. To me, this is a useless, full random, created article, that could refer to every Hein Picard on this planet. Why did you create this? Edoderoo (talk) 06:30, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Edoderoo: It makes perfect sense to have this entry on Wikidata; it should however be expanded by further statements to make it easily distinguishable from other entries (see the related Wikipedia article for further data). Statements about the content of archival collections fall within the scope of the WikiProject Archival Description. They concern the second layer of information described in figure 1 of the following article: "An International Knowledge Base for All Heritage Institutions". Whether the related stub article on Dutch Wikipedia makes sense is subject to discussion on the Dutch Wikipedia. Typically, whenever a heritage institution decides to preserve the archival fonds of a person, the relevancy of the fonds and the person has been assessed and a minimum of information about this person has been collected. If we want to avoid useless notability discussions on Wikipedia, we can just go by the rule that the notability criteria have been fulfilled whenever a heritage institution considers a person relevant enough to preserve their archival fonds. But this is obviously up to every Wikipedia community to decide. --Beat Estermann (talk) 06:55, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- As an afterthought, after consulting the archive database of Letterenhuis, I wonder whether the "archives at" statement is justified in this case, as there seems to be no archival fonds directly attributed to Hein Picard; he is however mentioned on several database entries. A common policy regarding the usage of "archives at" should be agreed upon in the context of WikiProject Archival Description. --Beat Estermann (talk) 07:34, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Notified participants of WikiProject Archival Description
@Edoderoo: I improved this item (which was obviously not useless, thanks for the creation Beireke1 !), you could (and should) have done the same. « that could refer to every Hein Picard on this planet » apparently, you didn't even read the only reference provided which clearly stated that the archive was created by "Picard Hein (24/10/1925 - 20/11/1988)". Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 07:52, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- You are right, I overlooked the extra information. Maybe I'll check after my holidays if I can pythonically read that website, to auto-improve such items. I get at least once a month a new Dutch lemma that needs/can be attached to an item like this. Edoderoo (talk) 08:02, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Edoderoo: no problem, it happens to everyone (myself first
). And if you could do the improvement with Python it would be great! Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 12:55, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Edoderoo:@VIGNERON:@Beat Estermann: Sorry for my late reaction, but it seems like you three together solved the initial misunderstanding regarding the relevance of the item that I created. In the structured data that are available, there is no distinction between "the one and only archive" from a person and "archival material" from this person being in a collection. That is why I could only group them all under the "archives at" property, which I believe in way certainly makes sense. It would of course be great if the data could be enriched pythonically, as you say, Edoderoo.Beireke1 (talk) 13:17, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Edoderoo: no problem, it happens to everyone (myself first
Community Insights Survey edit
Share your experience in this survey
Hi Beireke1,
The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with Wikidata and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.
Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.
This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).
Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.
Sincerely,
Reminder: Community Insights Survey edit
Share your experience in this survey
Hi Beireke1,
A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.
Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.
This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).
Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.
Sincerely,
New OpenRefine reconciliation service edit
Hi!
Thank you for wearing the {{User loves OpenRefine}} userbox on your user page!
Because the existing Wikidata reconciliation service has had severe performance issues recently, I have created a new one which should be faster and more robust. You can add it to OpenRefine in the reconciliation dialog with the following URL: https://wikidata.reconci.link/en/api (or by replacing en by any other language code).
If you have any issues with this new service, let me know.
Erfgoedkaart ID property proposal edit
Hey, I just noticed you are responsible for adding a lot of Belgian heritage locations. Thanks! You might be interested in this proposal of mine. --Azertus (talk) 16:23, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Azertus: Thanks for letting me know. I reacted on the property proposal page. Beireke1 (talk) 07:28, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Adding redundant unsourced date of birth/death statements edit
Can you please stop adding redundant and unsourced statements to items? Thank you, Multichill (talk) 17:50, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Multichill: I'm going to undo both https://quickstatements.toolforge.org/#/batch/106461 and https://quickstatements.toolforge.org/#/batch/107089 for two reasons: first, redundance (as you say); second, they lack the fundamental retrieved (P813); third, they don't follow the guidelines in Help:References, according to which a reference should be preferably constructed with stated in (P248) + ID + retrieved (P813), but use the (not-preferable if an ID property exists) reference URL (P854). --Epìdosis 00:20, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- Hi @Multichill and @Epìdosis : I understand your concerns and will try to improve the preparation of the data. Before you simply undo the batches, I would like to understand how the redundant statements where added to Wikidata. I know from previous data uploads that if you use Quickstatements to add identical (and thus redundant) statements, these statements are simply not added. This seems to have worked well in some cases (the errors in https://quickstatements.toolforge.org/#/batch/107089) and not in others, although the data are all in the same format and schema. Also the unsourced statements are the result of inconsistencies in the Quickstatements upload process. For example, the reference URL (P854) was added to all my statements in the same way, but some were not added to Wikidata (see https://quickstatements.toolforge.org/#/batch/107089). I didn't add retrieved (P813) because I didn't consult each source url before uploading the data, as I worked from a database dump. I thought that leaving it out would be the most correct thing to do, but if the community guidelines prefer it otherwise, I could add the date of the database dump instead. What do you think? Beireke1 (talk) 08:32, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Beireke1, I try to answer your questions. Effectively QuickStatements doesn't add exactly identical statements (i.e. the birth year if the birth year is already present as statement), but can add non-identical redundant statements (i.e. the birth year if the birth day is already present as statement); anyway, having such redundant statements is not a problem for me (we already have a lot of items having both the birth year and the birth day with respective sources, and it's fine), as long as the redundant statement is well referenced. Regarding references: I perfectly understand that the delay in adding the references is a problem of QS, I have often experienced it; surely stated in (P248)UGentMemorialis (Q26453893) + UGentMemorialis professor ID (P3159)000000002 is better than reference URL (P854)http://www.ugentmemorialis.be/catalog/000000002; regarding retrieved (P813), it should be present containing in your case the date of the database dump. Of course I remain available for other questions and doubts. --Epìdosis 09:24, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- Hi @Epìdosis, I also had completely identical redundant statements such as this one. In this case, only the reference is not identical, but the statement (only year) is. I will try a new upload of the data with the references as you suggested. Hopefully that makes a difference, and fingers crossed that the references come through... Beireke1 (talk) 09:34, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- I see, this case is (unfortunately) a known problem of Wikidata itself, because of which the statements are only apparently identical, but in fact are encoded in a different way; see phab:T310981 (I reported it in June); fortunately, as of now, a bot merges such statements periodically, so don't worry too much for them. --Epìdosis 09:43, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Epìdosis@Multichill I just started a new batch and stopped it immediately, because the same errors in writing the data to Wikidata appeared, although my Quickstatements look fine. See for example the last birth date added in Roeland De Moor (Q55232685), although it looks fine in the data (number 4 in the batch). What should I do? Is it a good idea to do the upload and then try the errors again a second time, as I see no logic it all in which references are being added to Wikidata and which aren't? Beireke1 (talk) 09:43, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- This last batch seems fine, you can let it go; trying again the errors at the end of the batch will work; of course there is no clear logic in references added immediately and references skipped, it just depends on how much QS is overloaded. --Epìdosis 09:47, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks for your help! Beireke1 (talk) 09:48, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- This last batch seems fine, you can let it go; trying again the errors at the end of the batch will work; of course there is no clear logic in references added immediately and references skipped, it just depends on how much QS is overloaded. --Epìdosis 09:47, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- Hi @Epìdosis, I also had completely identical redundant statements such as this one. In this case, only the reference is not identical, but the statement (only year) is. I will try a new upload of the data with the references as you suggested. Hopefully that makes a difference, and fingers crossed that the references come through... Beireke1 (talk) 09:34, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Beireke1, I try to answer your questions. Effectively QuickStatements doesn't add exactly identical statements (i.e. the birth year if the birth year is already present as statement), but can add non-identical redundant statements (i.e. the birth year if the birth day is already present as statement); anyway, having such redundant statements is not a problem for me (we already have a lot of items having both the birth year and the birth day with respective sources, and it's fine), as long as the redundant statement is well referenced. Regarding references: I perfectly understand that the delay in adding the references is a problem of QS, I have often experienced it; surely stated in (P248)UGentMemorialis (Q26453893) + UGentMemorialis professor ID (P3159)000000002 is better than reference URL (P854)http://www.ugentmemorialis.be/catalog/000000002; regarding retrieved (P813), it should be present containing in your case the date of the database dump. Of course I remain available for other questions and doubts. --Epìdosis 09:24, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- Hi @Multichill and @Epìdosis : I understand your concerns and will try to improve the preparation of the data. Before you simply undo the batches, I would like to understand how the redundant statements where added to Wikidata. I know from previous data uploads that if you use Quickstatements to add identical (and thus redundant) statements, these statements are simply not added. This seems to have worked well in some cases (the errors in https://quickstatements.toolforge.org/#/batch/107089) and not in others, although the data are all in the same format and schema. Also the unsourced statements are the result of inconsistencies in the Quickstatements upload process. For example, the reference URL (P854) was added to all my statements in the same way, but some were not added to Wikidata (see https://quickstatements.toolforge.org/#/batch/107089). I didn't add retrieved (P813) because I didn't consult each source url before uploading the data, as I worked from a database dump. I thought that leaving it out would be the most correct thing to do, but if the community guidelines prefer it otherwise, I could add the date of the database dump instead. What do you think? Beireke1 (talk) 08:32, 21 December 2022 (UTC)