Open main menu

User talk:Checkingfax

About this board

Previous discussion was archived at User talk:Checkingfax/Archive 1 on 2016-09-16.

Reason of {{P|31}} {{Q|5365007}}?

Liuxinyu970226 (talkcontribs)
Reply to "Reason of {{P|31}} {{Q|5365007}}?"
William Graham (talkcontribs)

I will note that the property description for "said to be the same as" reads "this item is said to be the same as that item, but the statement is disputed". I'm not alleging they're the same person, just acknowledging that the allegation is out there.


Checkingfax (talkcontribs)

Roger that!

Reply to "GSK and Visalia Ransacker"
Harmonia Amanda (talkcontribs)

Hi! I think you may misunderstand the use of some properties. birth name (P1477) need a value in the language of the person. This is obviously wrong, his name at birth was in Russian as you said, so Борис Алексеевич Курышкин and certainly not in Latin-script. Which is an error you made in other items. Please correct all of these!

In the same way, you add patronimyc (and created an empty item to do so!) as value for family name (P734). Or a patronymic is not a family name and this property deals exclusively with family names. You added it as value for given name (P735) to other items which is also completely wrong.

Many societies on earth don't use family names and so this property wouldn't be appropriate. For example Roman people have Roman praenomen (P2358), Roman nomen gentilicium (P2359), Roman cognomen (P2365) and Roman agnomen (P2366) but no given names or family names.

When you are dealing with people who have given names or family names, the correct value is the one with the same string as value in native label (P1705). So for a Russian, it would be Boris (Q39314414) (Борис) and not Boris (Q666112) (Boris) even it they are written/translitterated the same in English. It also mean you need to add native label (P1705) when you are creating an item for a name so it can be used properly. For example you created this half-empty item when it should have been this (at least in term of properties, I understand dealing with labels/descriptions/aliases when you are not familiar with the subject of translitteration on names can be quite complicated, but the properties are a need).

Please correct your wrong edits that I didn't spot and take more care in the future. Thank you very much.

Checkingfax (talkcontribs)

Hi, there. I do realize some of the problems already, although they are not as vast as you make them out to be. I do not appreciate your rude and demanding attitude. Editing is a moving target, and we all do something to make forward progress. At least I am not a bot, clogging up Wikidata with nearly worthless new items, like Wikidata is some kind of race to win. Go ahead and fix them, and I will be more careful in the future. Have an awesome day! Having fun! Cheers!

Harmonia Amanda (talkcontribs)

I don't see where I have been rude. If you think so, please tell me exactly why so I can improve next time. I tried to explain the uses of the properties and how to do better, in a clear way. I know that human names are complicated and so Wikidata is complicated to deal with it too. I don't see how explaining how complicated things works is rude instead of helpful.

I had to delete several of your items before writing you a message. The goal was explicitly so you would make fewer mistakes in the future because you are an human who can learn and do better. I don't see how bots have anything to do with it as I'm not one either and a bot which would have made even as few mistakes as you would have been blocked on sight. So yes, we deal with human and bots differently. We assume humans can learn when we explain something and bots need to be blocked until their scripts are corrected.

All humans make mistakes and sometimes don't take the time to read the help pages and the dedicated tutorials Wikiprojects put around. I'm not asking you to read the entirety of the Wikiproject Names. But yes, I'm asking you to stop the totally wrong edits you made, even if you did it in good faith because bad data is bad data. And because I know you made it in good faith, I explain why that was wrong.

Checkingfax (talkcontribs)

Well. You are wrong to delete items that I created, without discussing it with me, so I can explain the need for their creation. I did not create any empty items. The empty items were created by bots.

Harmonia Amanda (talkcontribs)

I deleted item with only "given name" or "family name" as value for P31 which were obviously not either given names or family names. So they were created with wrong values since the start, were used wrongly (that why i spotted them in the first place) and I could find no one with a similar real given name or family name in the database.

But if you find me a person with the string "Sergeyevich" as a given name, I can undelete it. I could find no one with this given name so yes, it was deleted. I assume you created this by mistake, seeing as there are many Slavic people with Серге́евич as a patronymic (which is neither the same string nor a given name). So I can understand why you created it but until you find me a person really bearing a Sergeyevich given name, the deletion stand. All the others were like this, both wrong strings and P31, no correct data at all at the creation of the item and no entry in the database which would have justified keeping it.

I checked your items creation and as you are not a bot, I don't see how is that relevant? I don't even understand what you are speaking about. Did you see bots doing mistakes? If so, even if it has nothing to do with the current conversation, please tell me the name of the bot so i can verify the edits. Thank you.

Checkingfax (talkcontribs)
Harmonia Amanda (talkcontribs)

All of these are patronymics not given names, proving my point. Please read for example.

Checkingfax (talkcontribs)

Yes, automated bots are creating millions of items with wrong casing, no descriptions, and no claims so they just create a minefield to cleanup, and are essentially useless for anybody needing them right off.

Harmonia Amanda (talkcontribs)

Well ok, if you say so. Without the name of the bots, nothing I can do here. I know of some bots which were doing this and they have been blocked, which, I agree, did not magically clean up the items, only insured there would be no new errors.

I fail to see a link between that and the conversation we are having about names and the relevant properties but yes, we can agree that some bots probably need to have their scripts checked out.

Checkingfax (talkcontribs)

This was a small rabbit hole I went down because I encountered a dozen winter sports athletes that were lacking their FIL ID on Wikidata.

I am curious why it is FIL instead of ILF, since ILF is the name of the overseeing agency of the database.

Too many Wikidata items need disambiguation via labels and proper casing - and claims. I will take note of some of the originating bots next time.

Harmonia Amanda (talkcontribs)

It seems the official name of the organization is in French (Fédération Internationale de Luge de Course, "FIL") which is also used on their website, so the people here probably thought it would be best used as the property name. However ILF is more frequent in English it seems and it should at least be added as an alias for the property. Thank you for spotting that.

Checkingfax (talkcontribs)

For instance, "Alexejewitsch" appears in several places, include my guy, but you deleted my created item for it, whereas you should have fixed it, if you felt it contained errors - or discussed it with me - so it can be a teaching moment. I do not appreciate your bullying or threats, and treating me like a misbehaving bot. It appears here and here (notice that the bot 'sk!dbot' created a blank labeled item).

Checkingfax (talkcontribs)

In my thought train the patronym needs to be an item so it can be linked as a claim as a patronym of the required; everyone in Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus is supposed to have a tripartite name. I have already conceded that I was going to go back in and do some work. It is still the weekend over here.

Harmonia Amanda (talkcontribs)

The thing is, you really should join the relevant Wikiproject. We are debating the use of a specific property to handle patronymics (there are some opposition because some people thinks these should be deduced from the given name of the father and not stored of the child's page).

Whatever your position in this debate, patronymics are not and should not be used as values for given name (P735) and family name (P734). Adding wrong data here won't help the clean-up later, only mess things up. By the way creating a new property (such as the one which would be needed to add patronymics) can take months so it will not be solved this week-end that's for sure. The policy here is: better missing data than wrong data. If they are people with a nationality requiring a patronymic, the day we decide collectively to add the patronymics, it will be easy to spot that they need it. Adding wrong values to properties with a really specific scope is not the way to handle it in the meantime.

You don't need to clean up. I took the time to pass after all of your edits relating to names since you are contributing to Wikidata. All is clean now, so you can enjoy the rest of your week-end.

Harmonia Amanda (talkcontribs)

And you are totally right about sk!dbot which was doing this in 2013. if a bot did that in 2017, it would be blocked. At the time, we felt as a commnity that even empty item with only sitelinks were better than nothing. Since then, the community has decided that we need at least some labels and properties and no bot is creating empty items anymore.

Harmonia Amanda (talkcontribs)

In "your guy" it appears as a patronymic not as either a given name or family name. So it should not be present in either family name (P734) nor given name (P735) and it certainly can't be used to justify the existence of the item. Can you link to an item where it's really a given name and not something else? I don't know how to be more clear: patronymic are not given names and not family names. Yes, human names are complicated.

And by the way, yes I fixed it. I corrected the wrong values in birth name (P1477), given name (P735) and family name (P734). I cleaned up the new items you created half-empty. I only deleted the few which had no correct data at all.

Checkingfax (talkcontribs)

Are you stating that it is your opinion that patronyms do not need to be items?

Harmonia Amanda (talkcontribs)

No. I am stating that if someone want to create items for patronymics then this person should add the correct velue for instance of (P31), native label (P1705) and probably language of work or name (P407) and add the label in the relevant(s) language(s). If no one of these is done then the item is not about a patronymic.

My position in this debate (because yes, there is a debate) is actually that we should create a property to handle patronymics, and that therefore we should create clean patronymics items. I won't do it until we have reached a consensus on Wikidata but if you want my personal opinion then this it.

This post was hidden by Checkingfax (history)
Harmonia Amanda (talkcontribs)

It's to link a given name to the corresponding patronym or matronym. Like it would be used on Сергей to link to Серге́евич.

Checkingfax (talkcontribs)

Thank you for your help. I really appreciate it. Cheers!

Reply to "Names"
ValterVB (talkcontribs)

In RFD there are one or more item proposed for the deletion created by you. If you do not agree you can participate in the debate --ValterVB (talk) 22:15, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Reply to "Item to be delete"
There are no older topics
Return to the user page of "Checkingfax".