Open main menu

User talk:Deryck Chan

About this board

Previous discussion was archived at User talk:Deryck Chan/Archive 1 on 2015-08-24.

VIGNERON (talkcontribs)
Deryck Chan (talkcontribs)

Thanks Vigneron. It took me some time to figure out what the constraint violation was (because constraints violation tooltips don't show in either diff mode nor mobile view). So the issue is a class violation... and it seems that we consider Lanterne rouge (Q1315624) a award (Q618779) (taking it very literally) not a position (Q4164871). So I've changed the qualifier to award received (P166) which seems to obey all constraints.

Reply to "Change of qualifiying property"
Jura1 (talkcontribs)
Deryckchan (talkcontribs)

That should be taken care of. TV episodes should be P279 / Q2431196. Can you give me an example where the property should've been migrated but wasn't? (Or the reverse, was migrated but shouldn't have been)

Jura1 (talkcontribs)

Deryck Chan (talkcontribs)
Jura1 (talkcontribs)

Nevermind, I thought you'd be fixing them.

I agree about the first part, but if we know the original language of the episode, we should be using P364 and not delete it. Apparently this wasn't clear to everyone before the closure of the threads.

Deryck Chan (talkcontribs)

To be honest, the only advantage of keeping P364 that I can see, is that many film and TV infoboxes use P364. As I wrote in the PFD, there are only 487 items that have different values for P364 and P407, which suggests that the vast majority of use cases do not generate minimal pairs between P364 and P407 in the intended use of P364 = original language, P407 = translation. This is because the WikiProject Films had already decided that translations should get their own items.

Jura1 (talkcontribs)

From that point of view, it could make sense, but the question is if it the outcome would have been as reliable ..

Personally, I wouldn't do a recommendation about meaning of P407 currently present on other works (except maybe scientific articles).

BTW, it's not translations, its about specific dubbings.

Deryck Chan (talkcontribs)

Yes I did mean "dubbings". Sorry, that word escaped my head when I wrote the previous message.

Reply to "break"
Catherine Laurence (talkcontribs)
Deryckchan (talkcontribs)

谢谢回复。另外提醒您,您的维基字签名有错(维基数据没有 U: 和 UT: 名字空间简写),请改正。

Catherine Laurence (talkcontribs)

了解,谢谢提醒。

Reply to "提醒"
Catherine Laurence (talkcontribs)

謝謝您在權限申請中幫我說明情況。

Reply to "Thanks"
Zazpot (talkcontribs)

Hi Deryck,

I saw your comment on Wikidata:Requests_for_comment/Adopt_a_username_policy and thought it might be helpful if I explained one of the factors that motivated me to open that RfC. A year ago, I noticed the username YULdigitalpreservation being used on enwiki and several other WMF wikis, apparently to represent a small group of people rather than a single person. On enwiki, there is clear guidance about whether that practice is acceptable (it is not) and what another user (e.g. me) should do upon encountering such behaviour. You can see the outcome here, here, and here.

On Wikidata, that user's behaviour is, IMO, equally problematic; but there is no adequate policy or guidance for handling it. What would you suggest, besides adopting a username policy (which you opposed)? Thanks! Zazpot (talk) 12:20, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Deryck Chan (talkcontribs)

If this role account's edits are unproductive, Wikidata:Blocking policy already takes care of it.

The slightly wider issue is "should we forbid or allow role / shared accounts". The ongoing debate at the RfC on whether the en.wp policy or Commons policy is more appropriate has shown that we don't have consensus over this matter, nor do I see a strong need for regulation at this stage.

If we decide to forbid shared accounts, an amendment (or expansion) to Wikidata:Alternate accounts can be an adequate solution which doesn't require having a local username policy.

Deryck Chan (talkcontribs)

Another example I have in mind is User:ScorumME and User:ScorumMEBot. The name and their edits imply that the operator(s) is the owner of sports statistics site scorum.me . These accounts contributed useful sports statistics for some time, but the external link destination page eventually became a cryptocurrency page, so the bot was blocked and all links to the site removed.

Throughout the case nobody cared whether the account was meant for a single person or multiple people in the same role.

Zazpot (talkcontribs)

Had I known about User:ScorumME and User:ScorumMEBot, I would have cared! Shared-use accounts inevitably and irreversibly muddy provenance and editorial responsibility. As such, edits from people using shared-use accounts are inevitably less productive than those same edits would have been if they had instead been made from individual-use accounts. Is that difference sufficient to warrant a block (and a policy)? In my view, yes; but other editors disagree.

Hence my call for clarity from the community; to replace the status quo of ad-hoc responses and laissez-faire regulation that leaves many new and old editors unsure what is acceptable, what is not, and why.

Anyhow, thanks for explaining your rationale. I am grateful to know it, even though I disagree with it. Zazpot (talk) 16:18, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Deryck Chan (talkcontribs)

I wonder if we should write a documentation page on accounts, rather than a policy page:

  • Wikidata has several policies that are relevant to the use of accounts: Wikidata:Alternate accounts; Wikidata:Blocking policy
  • User accounts are unified across all Wikimedia projects.
  • Each person should only use one account, except for limited purposes set out in Wikidata:Alternate accounts.
  • Wikidata does not currently have a local username policy. However, as Wikidata is inherently a cross-wiki project, users may run into problems during editing if their username falls foul of the rules of another Wikimedia project:
    • Some other Wikimedia projects, notably the English Wikipedia, forbid usernames which imply shared usage or usage by different people at different times, for example "Communications Department at XYZ Company", "Secretary at ABC Foundation".
    • Many Wikimedia projects have rules that say forbid usernames that are offensive. Sometimes a name that is benign in one language may be misconstrued as offensive in another language. Administrators understand that usernames are unified across projects of many languages and cultural misunderstanding may arise, and editors should be prepared to explain themselves should such situations arise.
  • The Wikimedia Foundation terms of use require any editor who is receiving compensation for their editing, or editing on behalf of an organisation, to declare their employer and affiliation. This is best done by a statement on the user page attached to your account.
  • Accounts that are disruptive to Wikidata may be blocked according to Wikidata:Blocking policy.

...something like that?

Zazpot (talkcontribs)

I appreciate your effort, but this still doesn't say anything about the acceptability or otherwise of (ostensibly) shared-use accounts on Wikidata. As such, it doesn't really address the concerns that I discussed above.

Reply to "Username policy"
117.136.54.99 (talkcontribs)

How do you think about it, this was rejected years ago but now has a lot of users who just make support votes. --117.136.54.99 23:02, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Deryck Chan (talkcontribs)

Thanks for the heads up.

Reply to "Wikidata:Property proposal/Baidu Baike ID"

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey

1
MediaWiki message delivery (talkcontribs)

WMF Surveys, 00:50, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Reply to "Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey"

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia survey

1
MediaWiki message delivery (talkcontribs)

WMF Surveys, 01:40, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Reply to "Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia survey"

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey

1
MediaWiki message delivery (talkcontribs)

WMF Surveys, 18:57, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Reply to "Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey"

sourcing circumstances (P1480): acting (Q4676846)

8
Multichill (talkcontribs)
Deryck Chan (talkcontribs)
Multichill (talkcontribs)

Ok, I undid this edit. Good luck with finding a better qualifier. Can you ping me when you find one?

Deryck Chan (talkcontribs)

It would appear that subject has role (P2868) is the best for now, even though these aren't really "roles" for the subject to be in, until we can think of another one.

Multichill (talkcontribs)

Funny, that property also talks about acting, just the different kind of acting. It seems to be an improvement to use that one.

Deryck Chan (talkcontribs)
Jura1 (talkcontribs)

If you consider operating the script once more in the future, please ensure that you are able to clean-up things yourself.

This has taken almost 4 months to resolve.

Deryck Chan (talkcontribs)

I can port the statements out anytime, but we need to decide where they're going first! While there's a rough consensus that P1480 isn't a good place to keep these qualifiers, I do think there's also a consensus against reverting them to the now-deleted P794. As I wrote in WD:PFD, I'm happy to run the script again to move the qualifiers to whichever property as soon as we agree on it.

Reply to "sourcing circumstances (P1480): acting (Q4676846)"
Return to the user page of "Deryck Chan".