User talk:Haansn08/Archive 1

Deleeting ALL??

Hi, i hope i am right here and reach you this way. I'm a bit confused by your request to delete all my entries. Wikidata has more data than only the one used by wikipedia. What can i do, if i need a publishing house to be in wikidata, so that i can link to it in https://inventaire.io/ - or general concepts to link them with the content of a book? Shall i first put an entry in wikipedia, before it can appear in wikidata? And what about things, which i can find in wikipedia, but not in wikidata?  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alguma_A._Pessoa (talk • contribs). Some explanation would help me to use it in a better way.

@Alguma_A._Pessoa: Hi, you are right that it is easier to establish notability on Wikidata than on Wikipedia. However we do have a notability policy: WD:N. For example, items for humans with name and occupation only generally do not meet the criteria. Some ways to establish notability could be:

• External identifiers for the subject, especially identifiers that suggest notability. You can look at other publishers like Langenscheidt (Q8870) to get an idea which external identifiers could be applicable. (Social media identifiers do not imply notability.)
• Structural need: Did an author win an notable award? If so, adding an award received (P166) statement makes the item useful to other (already notable) items.
• Add references or described at URL (P973) statements to your items. At the very least show that the person/publisher exists. The references should be "serious and publicly available".
• If you can find a concept on Wikipedia, there already should be an item for it on Wikidata. If not, it is very easy to establish notability: Just add the Wikipedia sitelink to the item.

--Haansn08 (talk) 13:04, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

@Haansn08: Thank you for the explainations!

About the publishing houses: Is a isbn-13-prefix not enough reference to show that it exists? It is a very official information and should have a clear one-to-one correspondence. I surely can't get all the informations as they are in the langenscheidt-article for all publishers... And what of these are really needed Google- and Twitter-IDs??  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alguma_A._Pessoa (talk • contribs).

@Alguma_A._Pessoa: I do not know whether an ISBN-13-prefix establishes notability, but the items in my deletion request do not have a ISBN-13 prefix. Google and Twitter-IDs are certainly not an requirement for notability. --Haansn08 (talk) 14:41, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

New OpenRefine reconciliation service

Hi!

Thank you for wearing the {{User loves OpenRefine}} userbox on your user page!

Because the existing Wikidata reconciliation service has had severe performance issues recently, I have created a new one which should be faster and more robust. You can add it to OpenRefine in the reconciliation dialog with the following URL: https://wikidata.reconci.link/en/api (or by replacing en by any other language code).

If you have any issues with this new service, let me know.

Happy reconciling! − Pintoch (talk)

Wikidata "Sittlichkeit"

Hallo, ich spreche jetzt mal deutsch. Du hast meine Änderungen in "Wikidata" zu "Sittlichkeit" rückgängig gemacht. Der Link vom englischen "Sittlichkeit" (als hegelianischer Spezialbegriff) zum deutschen "Sittlichkeit", das viel allgemeiner ist und man wohl am besten mit "morality" übersetzen kann, ist aber falsch. HerbertErwin (talk) 10:57, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@HerbertErwin: Das Problem ist, dass du hier den "Moral" dewiki Link entfernt hast ohne ihn neu zu verbinden. Dadurch hat dewiki "Moral" kein Wikidata Item mehr. Du könntest aber ein neues Item erstellen um vom Spezialbegriff, Sittlichkeit und Moral zu unterscheiden, wenn noch keines existiert. Eventl. mit different from (P1889) verknüpfen. --Haansn08 (talk) 11:10, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

California cities in Zimbabwe

Hi, I noticed you made changes to quite a few California cities claiming that they are also in Zimbabwe ([1]). This information is being displayed on a great number of infoboxes at Wikimedia commons which was where I noticed this issue first. I'll admit I don't know too much about Wikidata, so I'm contacting you to let you know instead of reverting the edits myself, but I'm sure you must have been trying to do something else! --72 (talk) 19:53, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

@72: Thanks for letting me know. this was the culprit. --Haansn08 (talk) 22:58, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

No problem, turns out I definitely don't know how Wikidata works! Thanks for sorting it out. --72 (talk) 23:44, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

@72: At Wikidata each notable concept gets a with a Q in front like Q840678. Since human editors are better at remembering concepts by their name in their native language rather than some number Wikidata has labels, one for each language. Q840678 for example has the Japanese label "レドンドビーチ" or the English label "Redondo Beach". We can link concepts together using properties which have P numbers. For example a statement like "Redondo Beach is a charter city" is the triple Redondo Beach (Q840678)instance of (P31)charter city (Q13218391). Remember Wikidata only stores the Q and P numbers of the statements, and labels of concepts can be changed by editors. If somebody changes the English label of Q13218391 from "charter city" to "Zimbabwe" the previous statement would be presented as Redondo Beach (Q840678)instance of (P31)Zimbabwe which is exactly what happened here. --Haansn08 (talk) 05:24, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

RfD for Rikard Marasović (Q99445771)

Hi I am new to Wikidata and was wondering what was the item of mine Q99445771 you requested to delet on Sept 19th? Tnx!Zblace (talk) 07:34, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

@Zblace: Hi and welcome to Wikidata! When I spot an item which does not have any sitelinks, relevant external identifiers or is not used to make other items more useful (see WD:N), I file a request for deletion for it. Since I file many such requests, I do not remember the specifics of every item I filed an RfD for. --Haansn08 (talk) 08:44, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I do not mind you do your work as you find adequate but please consider that some people are new to Wikidata and can only know and dedicate little time here and there for this. Deleting something non-controversial and non-disruptive so quickly should not be high priority. Please check my situation as described here https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User_talk:Wiki13#Item_Q99445771_you_deleted_was%3F Zblace (talk) 14:33, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikisource page NS

Hi. Why do you reverting my change request? I think, we don't need to have item for page NS. So i removed sitelink, because it's confusing and i added request for deletion. Skim (talk) 15:47, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

@Skim: The item was filed for deletion. If the item has a sitelink or not is relevant for deletion so it should be kept. --Haansn08 (talk) 20:22, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi, :-D ok, no matter. Skim (talk) 09:10, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Bulk Deletion Questionable notability

I'm new to Wikidata, so apologies if I'm not replying in the correct place. I'm very surprised that you have flagged up my entries for bulk deletion. Why do you feel these should not be included in Wikidata? You sight 'self-promotion' and yes, I'm the composer on the CD and the owner of the record label 'A Flock Ascending' but who else is going to do this? The CD does exist and can be found all over the internet and in physical shops all over the world - it has a reputable music distributor. It is conducted by Ronald Corp who is a highly esteemed conductor and composer (listed in Wikidata and Wikipedia) and features the New London Orchestra (also listed in wikidata and wikipedia). The main work on the CD is a substantial 25 minute world premiere recording of 'Palintropos' by the British composer Sir John Tavener (1944-2012) with whom I studied and worked with many times thoughout his life - interviews, articles, booklet notes (see discogs) and was asked to write his obituary for the Guardian newspaper (https://www.theguardian.com/music/2013/nov/12/john-tavener). The CD has also been exceptionally well received by The BBC Music Magazine, Gramophone Magazine and The Times newspaper. You can delete my entries if you want, but it wont delete the facts from reality. I have to say, I'm really disappointed by the integrity of Wikidata.

@Mstewart262: If you feel your items meet the notability policy the correct place would be WD:RFD, below the request. --Haansn08 (talk) 10:16, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

a wrong edit done by Haansn08-Bot

This edit seems wrong for goddess isn't a occupation. Please fix it. Thanks a lot.--迴廊彼端 (talk) 12:27, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Please do not judge items' notability wrong

Hey, I learnt that my items having multiple news sources nominated for deletion by you, referencing "not meeting the notability policy" and then deleted by @Mahir256:. I missed the WD:RFD pings because of my IRL time-constraints. So to clear your edits in case you missed, Wikidata and Wikipedia serve different needs but also have an intersecting workspace. As I also mentioned on Mahir's talk page, #2 clearly states that if an item exists or existed before and cleared its existence by sources, it can be stored in the Wikidata Database. Wikidata doesn't serve for Wikimedia only, but many knowledge databases worldwide including Google which is the major donator/founder of the Wikidata project since its beginning. In Addition to Google, other project joints and technology ventures, working closely with Wikidata, don't care about notability but the true data only. So notability policy's 2nd policy is associated with that purpose: if the knowledge is true, it can be stored on WD. Hope you understand and we can recover all my edits. And hope you won't make further judgments similar to that and resulting in the same situation over and over again. --Megatron34 (talk) 19:34, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't think you ever searched for any sources when nominating them for deletion. As you both can see, I didn't create Wikipedia pages for them since I know that they don't meet Wikipedia's Notability Policy but I'm pretty sure that they're fully covered in Wikidata's Notability Policy. --Megatron34 (talk) 19:43, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@Megatron34: I do not doubt that the persons for which you have created items for, do exist. However profiles on social media are not considered serious references. For example, the item Q107024554 currently only has LinkedIn, Facebook and Twitter as a source, no sitelinks to other Wikimedia projects and is not used to make other items more useful. Therefore, in its current form, it does not meet WD:N. --Haansn08 (talk) 08:25, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@Haansn08:, as I said above. You're right mentioning "Wikimedia projects association" as #1 notability and "making other items useful" as #3 but what about #2? They fulfill #2 for sure. You can simply search names online and read their online sources. And I'm repeating again that: Wikidata and Wikipedia serve different needs but also have an intersecting workspace. Wikidata doesn't care about fame or anything but the true data and the existence to be stored in the database. Wikidata project is beyond Wikimedia projects. So, please. --Megatron34 (talk) 16:31, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

WD:N clearly says "if it meets at least one of the three criteria below" and you're judging my items by only #1 and #3 criteria but missing #2 totally. --Megatron34 (talk) 16:34, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I also saw that your talk page includes many of these subjects. --Megatron34 (talk) 16:38, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Not adding these sources to items doesn't mean they're not notable. You should do your work online before judging items straight. Otherwise, we should have been deleting half of the Wikidata database. And I'm sure that doesn't make sense if we all are here to structure World's largest and trustable database. --Megatron34 (talk) 16:43, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Addition to all these, WD:N also clearly says "Wikidata in its first phases has two main goals: to centralize interlanguage links across Wikimedia projects and to serve as a general knowledge base for the world at large." I'm sure you're missing the second part here :) --Megatron34 (talk) 16:58, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

• Please read carefully before you're referencing WD:N to all these users again. --Megatron34 (talk) 17:00, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
• It's also useful if you read why/who/how the Wikidata project began and why we are here as a contributor. --Megatron34 (talk) 17:08, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

• @Megatron34: I have read WD:N carefully and I'm sure so did the admin who deleted your item. Social media IDs are not considered serious references. That your item was restored is for you to improve it by adding the sources you are talking about. Otherwise it will likely be deleted again. If you need help adding references, I can probably help you. If you want to discuss what Wikidata is and isn't, my talkpage is probably not a very good place, as not many people will see it. --Haansn08 (talk) 17:22, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that's why the admin restored my deleted item, Olgun. I'm sure @Mahir256: will restore others too considering my mentions above and I'll add news sources. --Megatron34 (talk) 22:55, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Dersu-Habertürk

Hi. I see that that you have DR'ed Dersu (Q104586509). Habertürk, one of the most prominent Turkish media titans, has given her space, even that "alone" is enough to show her notability. Maybe you should consider withdrawing the DR. Thx. --E4024 (talk) 01:38, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the user really cares WD:N. But I'll let the user say "you should add described by URL statement," so I can proudly say "hey, it's connected to a Wikimedia Commons link and WD:N says 'if it contains at least one valid sitelink to a page on Wikipedia, Wikivoyage, Wikisource, Wikiquote, Wikinews, Wikibooks, Wikidata, Wikispecies, Wikiversity, or Wikimedia Commons, it's notable for Wikidata.'" Cheers. --Palaangelino (talk) 09:55, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Tore Berg (deleted based on notability)

Note my request to restore the Wikidata item for Tore Berg https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Talk:Q100935694 --Dag Endresen (talk) 12:20, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

game theory

Hello noble "Player strategy" = "actor strategy" but equivalent to "strategy (game theory)" in English = "(Strategy (game theory)". Please correct. With respect

سلام بزرگوار «player strategy» = «استراتژی بازیگر» ولی معادل «استراتژی (نظریه بازی)» در زبان انگلیسی = «(Strategy (game theory» میشود. لطفا اصلاح نمایید. با احترام AzizAlizad (talk) 15:07, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

@AzizAlizad: Strategy is already an alias of this item. Please use the description to clarify an item's definition, not parenthesis. --Haansn08 (talk) 15:18, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

It should be strategy, but it should be (game theory) instead of player.AzizAlizad (talk) 15:27, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

@AzizAlizad: Please do not use parenthesis in the item label. --Haansn08 (talk) 15:32, 5 December 2021 (UTC)