Dorades

On this page, old discussions are archived. An overview of all archives can be found at this page's archive index. The current archive is located at 2025/06.

"identifiant GLEIF RAL" issue on Q2498375

I see you revert my fix for it, so please add a better fix Marc wik (talk) 10:32, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't know what you we're trying to express there, but an identifier (Q853614) is obviously not a trade register (Q1394657). It's not my job to find out what you are trying to model and I'm not going to guess that. --Dorades (talk) 20:52, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Joseph/Sam Williams

Hi, Dorades, You have pointed us to the Joseph/Sam Williams vandalism. Can you please have a look at the merge that took place of Joseph Williams (Q131137970) and Joseph Williams (Q127597912)? I am losing track a bit. --Lymantria (talk) 13:54, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi Lymantria, I think these two items are indeed about the same person and thus the merge is technically not wrong, but since it's just spam by a LTA (probably promoting themself?) hopefully the corresponding Wikipedia articles get deleted soon. It might be helpful to block Scollball92 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) (their newest account) and also 94.40.163.168 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) (I assume this is Matlin). Regards, --Dorades (talk) 17:16, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I technically feel I do not have enough to block Scollball92, but I filed a CU request. I hope that will be sufficient. I will dive into the IP later. --Lymantria (talk) 17:56, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Undo in Ruth Andreas-Friedrich

Hallo Dorades,
gehe ich Recht in der Annahme, dass wir uns auch auf Deutsch unterhalten können ?
zu: difflink
Ist es wirklich erforderlich resp. sinnvoll, eine Person (hier: Karin Friedrich als Q1724364) als "significant person" (P3342) zu definieren, wenn diese Person schon als Kind (P40) verknüpft ist, und bei P40 die selbe Referenz wie beim wiederhergestellten P3342 verwendet wird ?
Ich meine, dass das eigene Kind grundsätzlich eine wichtige Person ist und von daher eine explizite Verknüpfung über P3342 zusätzlich zu P40 nicht notwendig ist.
Herzliche Grüße, Archie02 (talk) 16:00, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Hallo Archie02, danke für deine Nachricht und ja, wir können gerne auf Deutsch schreiben.

Ich denke, hier ist diese doppelte Verknüpfung tatsächlich sinnvoll, denn die verlinkte Quelle sagt eben nicht nur, dass Karin Friedrich ihre Tochter war, sondern auch, dass sie für ihre Widerstandstätigkeit eine relevante Rolle gespielt hat (daher die Angabe von Karin Friedrich unter "Personen" in der Quelle). Ich habe versucht, dieses Verhältnis durch Verwendung von significant event (P793) deutlicher zu machen; momentan gibt es dazu eine Fehlermeldung, hast du evtl. eine bessere Idee?

VG, --Dorades (talk) 22:51, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Danke für die Rückmeldung und Erklärung; kann ich durchaus einsehen.

Ich habe ´mal versucht, die Begründung über object of statement has role (P3831) einzubringen: Technisch funktioniert das ohne Warnhinweis, ob das inhaltlich aber passend ist, bin ich momentan noch unsicher.
Danke & LG, Archie02 (talk) 09:38, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Danke, ich glaube, object of statement has role (P3831) ist die richtige Wahl. Statt resistance during World War II (Q2094191) fände ich ein Item oder eine Modellierung besser, das die Gemeinsamkeit des Widerstandskampfes ausdrückt, aber da weiß ich gerade nicht weiter und lasse es erst mal so. VG --Dorades (talk) 19:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you

Hey @Dorades Thank you for linking out to the notability requirement for Wikidata, i was not aware notability was a requirement for Wikidata, and was under the impression that anything could be added to Wikidata as its a collection of data - thanks for clearing that up. TrevorAingworth (talk) 06:24, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Not at all. I just left you a welcome message on your talk page in case you are planning to contribute further. --Dorades (talk) 20:53, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose Deletion of Q133784237 – Legitimate, Independently Verified Digital Agency with National Presence

I respectfully oppose the deletion of Wikidata item Q133784237 (Marmon & Co.), as it represents a legitimate, verifiable, and independently recognized digital marketing agency based in Champlin, Minnesota, United States.

Marmon & Co. is a registered LLC operating under the legal name Marmon & Company Limited Liability Company. The company is publicly listed on several reliable, independent business and review directories, including: Crunchbase Clutch GoodFirms U.S. Chamber of Commerce Manta Trustpilot

The business operates nationally, with fully documented services, client testimonials, local presence, automation platforms, and active profiles across verified sources. It is not a duplicate of [Q120260438] and has its own corporate identity, branding, and legal entity. The subject clearly meets Wikidata notability standards under: Criterion 2: It has “received significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources.”

Structured data and schema markup are live on the official website: https://www.marmonco.com If needed, I am happy to provide additional references or documentation to further verify the entity's independence and notability. Kindly reconsider the deletion. Thank you. MarmonCoSolutions (talk) 12:55, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi, please leave your reasoning at Wikidata:Requests for deletions#Q133784237. The item has not been deleted yet and I am not in power to delete or undelete items. Also note that Wikidata has its own criteria of notability which do not talk about "significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources." --Dorades (talk) 21:32, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Request for item label to be made available on future deletion requests

Hi, just wanted to say thank you for catching non notable item https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions/Archive/2025/04/28#c-Dorades-20250427210000-Q119157844 which I created some time ago. This brand/company was created for the All The Places (Q115707984) and subsequently Name Suggestion Index (Q62108705) projects to capture brand/operator information used by OpenStreetMap (Q936) and similar purposes for what at the time was thought to be a UK chain of locksmiths named "Ace Safes". It turns out ATP/NSI/OSM don't care about "Ace Safes" because there doesn't appear to be any on the ground evidence of physical shops/branded locations existing per https://github.com/alltheplaces/alltheplaces/pull/8681 so the Wikidata item should have also been deleted at the same time as https://github.com/alltheplaces/alltheplaces/pull/8681 was processed for lack of notability/purpose.

To help people like myself in the future, could I ask for similar RfDs to include the label of the item requested to be deleted, or some other description of what is proposed to be deleted? It was hard for me to track down what had been deleted after-the-fact as an administrator responded quickly in deleting the item, and I had to refer to a non-official Wikidata instance/query engine that lags behind the official instances (for lack of ability to view labels of deleted items in official Wikidata instances).

Once again, thanks for catching this bad item! Dhx1 (talk) 11:41, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi Dhx1, thank you for explaining and letting me know about the history of the item. Sorry that it was so time-consuming to find what it was about and thanks for the feedback. I'll try to remember to include the company's name in the future in similar cases. Regards, --Dorades (talk) 21:05, 28 April 2025 (UTC)