Emu

Previous discussion was archived at User talk:Emu/Archive 1 on 2020-09-28.

Dear Emu,

I hope you are doing well,

We are a group of researchers from King’s College London working on developing WQT (Wikidata Quality Toolkit), which will support a diverse set of editors in curating and validating Wikidata content. We are inviting you to participate in an online workshop aimed at understanding the requirements for designing effective and easy-to-use user interfaces (UI) for three tools within WQT that can support the daily activities of Wikidata editors: recommending items to edit based on their personal preferences, finding items that need better references, and generating entity schemas automatically for better item quality.

The main activity during this workshop will be UI mockup sketching. To facilitate this, we encourage you to attend the workshop using a tablet or laptop with PowerPoint installed or any other drawing tools you prefer. This will allow for a more interactive and productive session as we delve into the UI mockup sketching activities.

Participation is completely voluntary. You should only take part if you want to and choosing not to take part will not disadvantage you in any way. However, your cooperation will be valuable for the WQT design. Please note that all data and responses collected during the workshop will be used solely for the purpose of improving the WQT and understanding editor requirements. We will analyze the results in an anonymized form, ensuring your privacy is protected. Personal information will be kept confidential and will be deleted once it has served its purpose in this research.

The online workshop, which will be held on April 5th, should take no more than 3 hours.

If you agree to participate in this workshop, please either contact me at kholoud.alghamdi@kcl.ac.uk or use this form to register your interest https://forms.office.com/e/9mrE8rXZVg Then, I will contact you with all the instructions for the workshop.

For more information about my project, please read this page: https://king-s-knowledge-graph-lab.github.io/WikidataQualityToolkit/

If you have further questions or require more information, don't hesitate to contact me at the email address mentioned above.

Thank you for considering taking part in this project.

Regards

Hallo Emu, bin über Hochkaser (Q124481175), Stuhlkarspitz (Q124480699), Bergwerkskogl (Q124480855) (das reicht schon als Beispiele) gestolpert. Seit mehreren Jahren versuche ich, die über geonames, ceb:WP, etc. zustandegekommenen Objekte grade zu ziehen (d.h. Höhen, Koordinaten, Gebirgszüge zu korrigieren / definieren bzw. Duplikate aufzulösen). Mein Kriterium, wann etwas erledigt ist (es gibt ja in WD keine Marker wie Wartungskategorien - bitte korrigiere mich, falls es doch sowas gibt), ist dass das geografische Objekt einer oder mehreren Gemeinden zugeordnet ist, als unterste administrative Ebene liegt in der Verwaltungseinheit (P131). Daher meine Bitte: Wenn du Objekte wie die obigen anlegst, dann

• ordne sie über liegt in der Verwaltungseinheit (P131) den Gemeinden zu (allen), in denen sie liegen (und nicht dem Bundesland)
• bequelle die Höhenangabe und die Koordinaten mit den passenden GIS-Diensten
• versorge bei Bergen und sonstigen Objekten in Gebirgen (Höhlen, Bächen, Wäldern, ...) die Property Gebirgszug (P4552), wenn einfach möglich

Bei Stuhlkarspitz (Q124480699) habe ich das jetzt schon gemacht, lg --Herzi Pinki (Diskussion) 13:02, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

@Herzi Pinki Ich bin nicht ganz überzeugt von deiner Methode, aber ich habe die Datenobjekte wunschgemäß überprüft.

woran zweifelst du? lg --Herzi Pinki (Diskussion) 17:02, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Es fängt damit an, dass ich bei Bergen die located in the administrative territorial entity (P131)-Information auf Gemeindeebene nicht für übertrieben sinnvoll halte, schon weil sie oft in mehreren Gemeinden liegen und dann die Frage ist, ob nur der Gipfel zählt, etc.

überrascht mich: liegt in der Verwaltungseinheit (P131) - Hinweis zur Benutzung: Es sollte nur die unterste Verwaltungsebene angegeben werden, ... lg --Herzi Pinki (Diskussion) 09:57, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Ja, für größere geografische Objekte ist located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) etwas dings. Aber es ist letztlich nicht mein Spezialgebiet.

Hi, siehe Anlass https://www.meinbezirk.at/graz/c-lokales/kernstockgasse-heisst-jetzt-maria-stromberger-gasse_a6506323 was heißt das für Kernstockgasse (Q106635525)? Ist das Objekt die Straße und der Name bloß das Attribut, d.h. spiegelt sich eine solche Namensänderung bloß in Kernstockgasse (Q106635525) wider? (die Variante, die ich bevorzugen würde) oder wird ein neues Objekt für Maria-Stromberger-Gasse angelegt? Wenn die erste Variante, wie sind die Labels zu setzen, wo es dort kein Startzeitpunkt (P580) und Endzeitpunkt (P582) gibt? Im zweiten Fall wohl über Nachfolger (P156) etc. Die erste Variante hat den Charme, dass dies eine automatische Änderung an allen Stellen bewirkt, wo Kernstockgasse (Q106635525) verlinkt ist (allerdings derzeit keine solche). lg --Herzi Pinki (Diskussion) 22:19, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

@Herzi Pinki Nach meinem Verständnis der Modellierung von Wikidata sind Namen Schall und Rauch, es geht um Konzepte in der echten Welt. Die Labels werden typischerweise nach der häufigsten Variante gewählt, das wäre zwar die Kernstockgasse, aber in diesem Fall würde ich davon ausgehen, dass der aktuelle offizielle Name gewählt werden sollte, außer es sprechen sehr gewichtige Gründe dagegen. Ich habe das Datenobjekt so geändert, wie es nach meiner Auffassung korrekt ist.

Kleiner Nachsatz: In diesem Fall wurde einfach eine Straße umbenannt. Das ist ein einfacher Fall. Schwieriger ist es, wenn anlässlich einer Umbenennung auch der Zuschnitt der Straße geändert wird – zum Beispiel, wenn ein Teil der Straße unter dem alten Namen weiterbesteht und ein anderer Teil einen neuen Namen erhält.

merci --Herzi Pinki (Diskussion) 22:34, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello Emu,

some properties deleted by you - Property talk:P8189/Duplicates#human. Doesn't the correct way is to redirect them rather than to delete them? There is something new about this.

@Geagea Thank you for following up and also for monitoring J9U statements in general!

I think you mean items instead of properties and you are right: Items with the same meaning shouldn’t be deleted, they should be merged. In this case however, the items were reused: For example, Q111077224 originally had the meaning Edward Baring and was accordingly redirected to Edward Baring (Q75422479). However, this redirect was reverted and the item was remodeled to mean Jeffrey Brooks. This is highly problematic because the meaning of an item should never change, or at least not that drastically. So Jeffrey Brooks (Q124254803) was created and I deleted Q111077224. To allow external user to make sense of this process and the two possible meanings of the deleted items, I left a log message which can be seen in the red box (desktop computers only, mobile view seems to be a problem).

see also: Wikidata:Requests for deletions/Archive/2024/01/21#Bulk_deletion_request:_reused_items_to_be_spun_off_and_deleted_ASAP

ok, thanks

Niños Asesinos (Q64863450) is a recreation of Q64996103 (deleted by you), but it has three inlinks from items with sitelinks. What do you want to do about it?

@Bovlb You probably mean Q124311706. I’m not so sure: Your RfD on cy.wp has been removed without a reason back in July 2023. According to w:cy:Wicipedia:Y Caffi#Mexican_films_without_notability, an IMDb entry means automatic notability on cy.wp. I’m all for trusting other projects and accordingly we can’t delete those items with a sitelink but keeping dozens of sketchy items per WD:N #3 seems like a stretch. However, if you feel that this is a misjudgement, I can restore the whole bunch. --Emu (talk) 23:12, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Ah yes. That's what I meant. Too many tabs.

Regarding the RFD on CYWP, you might like to read cy:Sgwrs Defnyddiwr:Bovlb.

I don't feel that they're especially notable, and I still have the feeling that someone is gaming the system here, but WD:N seems clear on this point.

@Bovlb Then I would propose restoring them and not allowing unreferenced statements to minimize spam value.

Habe eine intuitive Anleitung für die Bedienung von Wikidata gefunden: siehe . lg --Herzi Pinki (Diskussion) 15:24, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi! I probably did a wrong discussion page at dewiki: de:Wikipedia:Projektdiskussion/Invalid dewiki entries in Wikidata. Could you check or correct my mistake? And maybe you can comment this dewiki-related topic as well

@Estopedist1 Done! I transcluded your question to the appropriate page and also left a comment.

Ms Emu has deleted all the proposed repurposed items instead of leaving them merely as redirects. She did not re-create those items I deemed notable but it is no big deal since I have learned how to do it efficiently myself. I feel grateful for her hard-work and patience.

Hello, it has been a while. There are some issues around repurposed items that needed admin's power to resolve. 1) I very recently discovered duplicate item tool and have since properly re-established some repurposed items. I proposed the old items to be deleted but they all became redirects instead. I ask for your assistance to delete the numbers listed here and Q95340858. 2) Some repurposed items you deleted and were not re-established are somewhat notable in my view. I ask for the following items be established (efficiently without many edits).

Q13164199: Charles A. Mack III used to be a media personality in Taiwan. He has coverage for a Wikipedia article and an item could help accumulate data for a Google Knowledge Graph.

Q114243359: Tsai Shao-chung 蔡紹中 is son to prominent businessman Tsai Eng-meng and has been an active and high profile business executive.

Q107723651: Silvia Micu is a Romanian opera singer. She may be notable given her active career. ~~~~

@Seanetienne I don’t quite understand:

1. Why do you think that Q95340858 shouldn’t be redirected to Q52896659? They seem to have the same meaning or did I miss something?
2. Q13164199: Why do you mean by has coverage for a Wikipedia article? Is there a Wikipedia article? Either way, if you feel that Charles A. Mack III is notable, feel free to create an item and remember to include references. You don’t need an admin for that.
3. Q114243359 and Q107723651: Again: If you feel that the subject is notable, please create an item with sources.

1) I think the repurposed items are deleted based on previous practice; such treatment should continue in order to remove the messed-up histories from regular viewing and apply to Q95340858 as well as those I listed on Infrastruktur's talk page. 2) What I mean is that the item "C. A. Mack III" (Q13164199) may meet notability since there are sufficient sources for a potential article (I am going to work on it). I think it would be more efficient if the new items are created with one single edit by duplicating from the old items instead of adding statements one by one. I have done so without inflating edit counts. I'd be glad to do it myself but those items are already deleted, and only admins can access them. I know there are advanced editing devices out there, but I do not have any coding background to operate them. So Frau Emu, please help me out.

Okay, I have deleted Q95340858.

As for Q13164199: So you want me to restore the item to allow you to duplicate the item and then to delete the item again because it was repurposed? Sorry, that seems a little convoluted to me. You can probably create the full item in under 20 minutes so I don’t see the need for this procedure.

It would be awkward if that were the case. Given the fact that the items are deleted, I was asking for the whole procedure be done by admin (for editing efficiency). But if Frau Emu does not want to proceed, I would then have no other choice but to establish the items from scratch by myself. Aside from these, at least delete these repurposed items please: Q52621626, Q42185833, Q52774676, Q105973335, Q52637016, Q10292669, Q14223370, Q25493687, Q65436153.

I would like to know if admins can identify deleted items' content without reviving them?

@Seanetienne If I remember correctly, I created items for all subject matters that I felt confident establishing notability – that’s not the case for Charles A. Mack III. I don’t necessarily think he isn’t notable, but I can’t be sure since I don’t have enough knowledge in this field of expertise.

I deleted the repurposed items per your request.

Admins can generally see deleted items (unless they were oversighted) but it’s harder to find a specific deleted concept. I don’t know if that answers your question though.

Thank you for deleting all those messes for me. I'll handle those items such as Charles A. Mack III by myself.

So even admins cannot determine the content of a deleted item unless undelete it first. Is my understanding correct? I asked this because I was looking for the deleted item which once hosted "Category:Taiwanese opera singers", a cat deleted for being empty. After comparing both deletion logs, I found that the deletions with the summary "Wikimedia category deleted" and closest in timing should be the candidates: Q9457765, Q24634864, Q32316967. I want the item back because I need it to host the now existing Chinese version of the category. The revival and continuity would be wonderful.

Admins can generally view deleted items including all revisions even without restoring them. It’s more complicated if the Qid number isn’t known. The three Qids you mentioned have nothing to do this “Category:Taiwanese opera singers” and I was not successful locating this deleted Qid.

Appreciate your efforts checking them out. I looked into another route for the first time and I realised that the item actually still exists. Sorry for adding your workload in vain... I have good news to share with you though. I just successfully used Quickstatements to efficiently create the items I previously mentioned. I therefore would have no further requests about restoring repurposed items from now on. Thank you for your time and efforts on me.

Hello Emu. Please help me delete Q65426249, a repurposed item. And also revive Q9587031, which was mistakenly merged to Q15366910. The latter means opera singers from Taiwan while the former meant actors of "Taiwanese opera" (Q31918) from Taiwan. Thank you!

@Seanetienne I deleted the first one. However, I’m not quite sure why we need to restore a category item that was deleted almost 10 years ago?!

The merger-deletion was a mistake. Since it was an erroneous move it is appropriate to undo it. It would be even better and beautiful if it was addressed from the root and let the content return to where it belongs.

 Done

I was surprised to see item Q123856054 deleted even though I had put a keep vote with reasoning on the deletions page https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions&oldid=2042547578#Q123856054. I'd like to better understand the reasoning behind the deletion and why my argument was ignored.

@Skyshifter Thank you for following up. Your argument was that Paheal (Q65965947) exists. However, this item is different as it has a (redirect) sitelink and is at least mentioned at w:es:Regla 34 (still a somewhat weak claim to notability). The source you provided () doesn’t look like a “serious and publicly available reference” per WD:N. Feel free to submit additional (serious) sources and I will reconsider my decision. --Emu (talk) 13:52, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Ich war gestern/heute dabei ein Datenobjekt zu überarbeiten und bin darüber auf die Person oder die Personen Markus Perner gestoßen. Hier in Wikidata gibt es ein Datenobjekt Markus Perner (Q56278044). Dieses Datenobjekt behandelt einen österreichischen Schauspieler und Sportler, welcher auch einen Artikel im RegiowikiAT hat. In diesem Artikel wird auch auf einen GND-Eintrag verlinkt als auch ein Bild verwendet, wo ich mir nicht sicher bin, ob das wirklich zu der Person gehört, welche im RegiowikiAT beschrieben wird.

Denn sowohl im GND-Eintrag als auch in dem Bild geht es um einen Komponisten Markus Perner, welcher Mitglied der Band „Garish“ ist und unter anderem bei den Filmen „Amelie rennt“ und „Tatort: Die harte Kern“ als Filmkomponist mitgearbeitet hat. Ich bin mir da wirklich sehr unsicher, ob es sich bei dem Schauspieler und bei den Komponisten um die gleiche Person handelt. Anderseits kann ich leider aber auch nicht wirklich nachweisen, dass es sich nicht um die gleiche Person handelt. Vielleicht kannst du da als Person aus Österreich ein wenig mehr herausfinden als ich.

@Gymnicus Es handelt sich um verschiedene Personen, Markus Perner (Q56278044) (* 1980) war ursprünglich der Schlagzeuger und Filmkomponist – ich habe die Wiederverwendung rückgängig gemacht. Für den Regiowiki-Mann habe ich Markus Perner (Q123985306) (* 1988) angelegt und im Regiowiki Anpassungen vorgenommen.

Vielen Dank für deine Hilfe.