Brwz

Welcome to Wikidata, Brwz!

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!

Redactyll (talk) 00:04, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Adding centuries with OpenRefine

Hi!

Regarding https://twitter.com/medievalben/status/1109115085123928065, you can follow this: Wikidata:Tools/OpenRefine/Editing/Schema_alignment#Dates. However, you will need to upgrade OpenRefine to 3.2-beta. You can get it there. I hope it helps!

Cheers − Pintoch (talk) 15:58, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey, awesome, thanks so much for the response! I read the schema alignment so I tried to follow it, but I wasn't running OpenRefine 3.2 because I ran into a problem with it uploading excel files. I see on GitHub it's an open problem [1]. Will convert to a csv and see if it runs properly.

Thanks again! -Brwz

Missing creator

Hi Brwz,

Q64571489 came up on WikiProject Random. I notice that this and a few similar ones don't have creators. It would be good to add them, even if we don't have much more data about them. --- Jura 12:42, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

BTW, if present, I think it would be good to include the name in the description, e.g. as on Q64631879. Not sure why these items keep coming up on WikiProject Random. --- Jura 10:30, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Brwz,

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,

RMaung (WMF) 17:38, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Brwz,

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,

RMaung (WMF) 19:54, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Possibly redundant instance of values

I notice that many works in the National Gallery of Art have multiple values for instance of (P31), one of which is work of art (Q838948). Just over ~110,000 items with a National Gallery of Art artwork ID (P4683) have a instance of (P31) value of either print (Q11060274), drawing (Q93184), or photograph (Q125191) (each of which is a subclass of visual artwork (Q4502142), which is a subclass of work of art (Q838948)) in addition to instance of (P31) work of art (Q838948). Because of this dual subclass relationship, I am considering removing the work of art (Q838948) value from those items which have both that and a more specific instance of (P31), but I wanted to ask if you had any particular use for this redundancy before doing so. Mahir256 (talk) 05:06, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the question. You can go ahead and remove work of art (Q838948) if you wish. All the items should have at least one other instance of (P31) value. The redundancy was the result of reconciling large data sets through Open Refine. Because of how the data was formatted and many items were new, the instance of work of art (Q838948) was used to create the item. It was a precautionary thing. Brwz (talk) 13:53, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer! I have started this removal process, though I don't know how long this will take. A related question; I see a number of items that have both collection (P195) National Gallery of Art (Q214867) and Prints in the National Gallery of Art (Q64946756) (the latter of which also has collection (P195) National Gallery of Art (Q214867)). Is there a particular reason to keep this redundancy? Mahir256 (talk) 17:34, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

No problem. Those redundancies are more important, and I'd prefer to keep them. They correspond to how the National Gallery of Art's image categories are arranged on Wikimedia Commons, which themselves are based on the museum's open-access classification structure. The redundancies allow queries for the entire sub-set of holdings. Since "prints" encompass a wide range of techniques, one can grab all prints without having to specify instance of "etching", or "engraving", or "monotype." Basically, it makes it easy for someone, like a digital humanist or art historian, to grab all the prints data without having to wade through the entire 120,000 records or cobble them together themselves. Let me know if this isn't clear and I can explain the rationale a bit more. Thanks. Brwz (talk) 20:20, 23 June 2020 (UTC)