Logo of Wikidata

Welcome to Wikidata, Christian Ferrer!

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! Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:12, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Your Commons categoriesEdit

While I will honor your requests to delete your own Commons category items for lack of notability, you should have a chat with James and find out what he has been up to with regard to Commons categories. Mahir256 (talk) 03:33, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

  • I created those categories because I find in that (Commons category=Wikimedia Category) something logical. However I have been aware, since the creation of those item, that they are not notable because they only links to a category on Commons, as per Wikidata:Notability. Although I still find that logical and simpler (Commons category=Wikimedia Category), I try to fix my mistakes, by "mistakes" I mean the creation of not notables items as per the current policy. Sorry if my mistakes give you a little work, there will still be some similar deletion requests but approximately no more than 10 or 20, because my participation here is limited. Christian Ferrer (talk) 03:57, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
    • It's no problem at all. James has been creating items for individual Commons categories en masse lately, so you may find his opinions on things useful. Mahir256 (talk) 04:41, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
      • @Mahir256, Christian Ferrer: From my perspective, I think there are a couple of principles driving where we currently are at:
      (i) It is useful that as many categories on Commons as possible to link to something here, because that enables interwiki links; a wikidata infobox; a translation of what the category "means" into the language of Wikidata, precisely what is going to be needed to start populating Structured Data on Commons file information; and because the link will remove the category from SQL queries etc looking for Commons categories that might be linkable, but have not yet been linked.
      (ii) But it is preferred not to create more items here than are needed, to achieve the above. So the preference is against creating a new category item here, if the sitelink could go straight to a main-item here (currently the situation for about 1.35 million linked Commons categories). But on the other hand, if there is already a category item here (because it links to other wikis), then link the Commons category to that (making sure there is a category's main topic (P301) / topic's main category (P910) linking the category-item to the main-item. And similarly, create a category item here, if it impossible to link the Commons category to the main item because there is a Commons gallery taking priority for that sitelink.
      Yes, in some ways perhaps always linking (Commons category=Wikimedia Category) might have been simpler and logical, as you suggest (it did seem so at one point to the Community), but it would require creating perhaps 2 million additional redundant items, which is 2 million more things to go wrong, an additional burden for both creation and maintenance, without generating any obvious gain, which is why I think it did make sense for the Community to move away from this 'full parallelism' model, to a position where this mechanism is available if required, but discouraged otherwise.
      Hope that seen in these terms the result seems at least reasonably coherent, best wishes, Jheald (talk) 16:16, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
"Commons gallery taking priority for that sitelink" : the issue is there. Galleries should be listed as properties, and categories should take priority for the sitelinks. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:45, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
That is an idea that has been suggested, most recently by User:Ghouston. The trouble is that that would break the interwiki links back from the gallery to Wikipedias. It also becomes inconsistent, because sometimes one specifically does want the Commons category to link to a category-item, eg to include interwiki links to Wikis or sister projects that have the category but not the article (especially Wikisource). And it's further away from the model that was originally adopted, so a bigger step to gain consensus for. On the whole, I think what we have come to probably as well as anything is going to, and it is what the community currently understands as the consensus. Jheald (talk) 18:05, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Merging itemsEdit

Hallo Christian Ferrer,
When you (want to) merge items, you may want to use the merge.js gadget from help page about merging. It helps with merging, gives the option to always keep the lower number (which is older, so preferable in most cases) and removes the need to file a request on Wikidata:Requests for deletions.
With regards,- cycŋ - (talkcontribslogs) 09:42, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Fossiles de la collection de Louis AgassizEdit

Bonjour,

Je te contacte car je me suis appuyée sur un élément que tu avais créé pour tenter de faire une entrée correcte concernant un fossile, il s'agit de Q73376253. J'essaye d'entrer toutes les données le concernant qui ont été partagées sur Commons par le Muséum d'histoire naturelle de Neuchâtel, qui héberge la collection à laquelle appartient ce fossile.

Je me demandais si tu estimes que l'entrée est correcte, et éventuellement, si tu savais comment ajouter la stratigraphie?

Merci d'avance!--Flor WMCH (talk) 13:58, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Pour ce dernier point, j'ai posé la question dans Wikidata talk:WikiProject Taxonomy, mais pas sur que j'ai une réponse précise.. Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:11, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Merci pour ces modifications/précisions, et de m'avoir signalé le WikiProject Taxonomy. Je vais voir s'il y a des réponses pour tenter de faire des entrées claires.--Flor WMCH (talk) 10:25, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Linking type specimens to taxaEdit

@ Christian Ferrer: Just wanted to say that I stumbled across your pages on Leucothoe amamiensis (Q21276570) and its type specimens, and that this inspired me to add the ability to display these links to a toy app I've been working on, see https://alec-demo.herokuapp.com/?id=Q21276570 . I'm constantly amazed by the richness of possibilities that Wikidata offers once we start linking more and more things together. --Rdmpage (talk) 13:43, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

  • @Rdmpage: Thanks you, I did not know that tool, that's interesting, and a nice way to display it. You may push the concept a bit more and display the types within the parent taxon too. I mean, when you are in the page for the genus (https://alec-demo.herokuapp.com/?id=Q6534429), the types for all species within the genus. Note that the number of items of the types specimens is very limited, because it is hard to find the time to make them...
SELECT ?item ?itemLabel 
WHERE 
{
  ?item wdt:P31 wd:Q51255340.
  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE],en". }
}
Try it!

Christian Ferrer (talk) 14:25, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

    • @Christian Ferrer: The tool I made is still very limited, but it helps me think about some of the challenges of querying Wikidata. For example, I need to do more work on taxonomic hierarchies because, as you know all too well, they tend to be messy and complicated. I think adding types could be greatly sped up by using bots to do it, for example using data from GBIF. It would be an interesting challenge. --Rdmpage (talk) 14:46, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
      • @Rdmpage: you may be intersted by Wikidata:Property proposal/GBIF occurence ID, note that I have stopped the specimen types in Wikidata because it is too big a job to do manually for one person, but if there was a BOT to do that, I will likely help regarding for some types not treated by the BOT. I see also that the tool allow to go to the autor pages, publications, giving the list of taxa by author or by publication... that's cool. Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:15, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
      • A thing interesting is also to give:
the synonyms
the references about the synonyms
the type specimens of the synonyms but I don't think it is modelled yet in Wikidata.
Links to Wikispecies and Wikimedia Commons if available Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:51, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Call for participation in the interview study with Wikidata editorsEdit

Dear Christian Ferrer,

I hope you are doing good,

I am Kholoud, a researcher at King’s College London, and I work on a project as part of my PhD research that develops a personalized recommendation system to suggest Wikidata items for the editors based on their interests and preferences. I am collaborating on this project with Elena Simperl and Miaojing Shi.

I would love to talk with you to know about your current ways to choose the items you work on in Wikidata and understand the factors that might influence such a decision. Your cooperation will give us valuable insights into building a recommender system that can help improve your editing experience.

Participation is completely voluntary. You have the option to withdraw at any time. Your data will be processed under the terms of UK data protection law (including the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR) and the Data Protection Act 2018). The information and data that you provide will remain confidential; it will only be stored on the password-protected computer of the researchers. We will use the results anonymized (?) to provide insights into the practices of the editors in item selection processes for editing and publish the results of the study to a research venue. If you decide to take part, we will ask you to sign a consent form, and you will be given a copy of this consent form to keep.

If you’re interested in participating and have 15-20 minutes to chat (I promise to keep the time!), please either contact me at kholoudsaa@gmail.com or use this form https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdmmFHaiB20nK14wrQJgfrA18PtmdagyeRib3xGtvzkdn3Lgw/viewform?usp=sf_link with your choice of the times that work for you.

I’ll follow up with you to figure out what method is the best way for us to connect.

Please contact me using the email mentioned above if you have any questions or require more information about this project.

Thank you for considering taking part in this research.

Regards

Kholoud

Call for participation in a task-based online experimentEdit

Dear Christian Ferrer,

I hope you are doing good,

I am Kholoud, a researcher at King's College London, and I work on a project as part of my PhD research, in which I have developed a personalised recommender system that suggests Wikidata items for the editors based on their past edits. I am collaborating on this project with Elena Simperl and Miaojing Shi.

I am inviting you to a task-based study that will ask you to provide your judgments about the relevance of the items suggested by our system based on your previous edits. Participation is completely voluntary, and your cooperation will enable us to evaluate the accuracy of the recommender system in suggesting relevant items to you. We will analyse the results anonymised, and they will be published to a research venue.

The study will start in late January 2022 or early February 2022, and it should take no more than 30 minutes.

If you agree to participate in this study, please either contact me at kholoud.alghamdi@kcl.ac.uk or use this form https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSees9WzFXR0Vl3mHLkZCaByeFHRrBy51kBca53euq9nt3XWog/viewform?usp=sf_link I will contact you with the link to start the study.

For more information about the study, please read this post: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User:Kholoudsaa In case you have further questions or require more information, don't hesitate to contact me through my mentioned email.

Thank you for considering taking part in this research.

Regards

Kholoudsaa (talk) 20:15, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

About the repository aspect of Acuario Nacional de Cuba (Q31505)Edit

I changed the "instance of" claim from repository (Q2145117) to biorepository (Q4915239) because I thought biorepository (Q4915239), which is a subclass of corporate body (Q106668099) via repository (Q108296843), is more appropriate. Other than biorepository, there are some types of repositories (Example query to check that) under repository (Q2145117). If you think my revision is not appropriate, please let me know. --KAMEDA, Akihiro (talk) 11:58, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Tool for author disambiguationEdit

Note sure you've seen this yet: Wikidata:Tools/Author Disambiguator. Works nicely with Wikidata:Scholia. --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 23:49, 11 March 2022 (UTC)