Matěj Suchánek

Podle mě je smazání editu nelogické

Ahoj! Všiml jsem si, že jste odmítli moji úpravu článku Wikidata s názvem Q4204402. Kromě toho, zdrojem je https://ru.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/истома ale pokud si myslíte, že je to nelogické, prosím o vysvětlení! Отид Картгепсут (talk) 18:06, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Souhlasím se změnou "Истома (имя)" → "Истома". Nesouhlasím s odstraněním popisu, že jde o mužské jméno, protože přesně vysvětluje účel položky (viz Q4204402#P31). A informace "источник: https://ru.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/истома" vůbec neodpovídá Help:Aliases. --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 18:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Brasilian municipality Pacujá

Ahoi, you recently undid my addition of a web page of Pacujá. Thank you: you were right. The web page is https://pacuja.ce.gov.br, and by a typo I just inserted part of the URL as https://p.ce.gov.br ... You might recheck: the link https://pacuja.ce.gov.br (pt) is really working and is the official web page. Thanks for your attention! ThomasPusch (talk) 18:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q99312&diff=prev&oldid=2301641559&diffmode=source

There is no source for the data you restored. Please leave the Item clear. Conny (talk) 20:12, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Wikidata:Tools/Potential gadgets

Hi! I think we don't have a way to write to all interface administrators (maybe Wikidata:Wikidata:Interface administrators' noticeboard should be created), so I write you. A few months ago I created this page (it was also advertised in Wikidata:Status updates/2024 06 03 and Wikidata:Status updates/2024 06 10) and now it contains a second request, besides my first one; no interface administrator has edited it as of now. Could you have a look at them and evaluate if they can be solved? Thanks very much as always, --Epìdosis 11:27, 23 March 2025 (UTC) P.S. Could you (or other interface administrators) also check MediaWiki talk:Gadget-DuplicateReferences.js#Proposal of improvement about P813?

Hi! I wasn't aware of that page, so I had a look and I think your request is a good demonstration that we all probably need to sit down and talk about the future of gadget administration on Wikidata.

To start with the lowest hanging fruits, I will treat Wikidata:Tools/Potential gadgets#ProVe: Reference Verification Gadget for Wikidata first. Wikidata:ProVe#ProVe Installation Guide tells: "To compute scores, the ProVe widget communicates with a non-Wikimedia site/server for processing claims and references." This is discouraged, and as an interface admin, I'd better reject it if I ever want to have a good sleep.

As for the request of yours, the general issue with promoting user scripts to gadgets is that that this places a significant burden on the volunteer interface admins both in terms of reviewing its code (which they should probably do) and the community's expectation that patches and possibly new features will be provided. This doesn't just depend on whether its creator is still active, but also whether he is an interface admin. Not to mention that we have just been switched to Vector 2022, so some gadgets might become useless or stop working. (I don't care about mobile atm.)

So it isn't really a surprise that things are rather stale. But I can also see ways forward. Some ideas:

• It's quite useful to know there is actual popular demand. I wasn't aware of Wikidata:Database reports/Gadget usage statistics/wikidata, thanks for bringing it up. (Maybe the question is now how many grains of sand make a heap.)
• Perhaps interface admins should indeed have their own noticeboard. (And the first topic there should be a discussion on this matter.)
• More interface admins should be recruited from people who are not admins but they do coding.
• Run a survey similar to the wishlist on Meta or Commons. (This will be tough as it seems more difficult than ever to get people share ideas.)

Finally, an observation. A few years ago, moveClaims, my (quite popular) user script, got promoted to a gadget, and there was even a fork which was eventually merged into it. Obviously, people had to load either one via common.js, but they don't have to anymore. Despite users being prompted to switch to the gadget whenever they use them, there are still hundreds of deprecated uses around according to the report. Perhaps users don't care and they won't care even if we install the gadget. Or they put it in their scripts but don't use it (i.e., lower demand). Either case, why should interface admins bother when the user script "just works"? (This is really just a rhetorical question, user script do have drawbacks.)

--Matěj Suchánek (talk) 21:44, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi! I see now because I had not received a ping nor subscribed to the thread.

Sure, for ProVe I agree with you, the communication with a non-Wikimedia site/server is IMHO a sufficient reason to refuse the request.

Yes, I surely agree on the general issue that "promoting user scripts to gadgets is that that this places a significant burden on the volunteer interface admins"; for Vector 2022, personally I deactivated it, but I know it can also pose real problems to gadgets. But yes, what concerns me more is the stale: the main reason for which I reported you Wikidata:Tools/Potential gadgets was that the gadgets reported there had received no answer at all (neither  Done or  Doing… or  Not done), so I was mainly looking for feedback.

Your ideas are very interesting: I completely agree on "Perhaps interface admins should indeed have their own noticeboard. (And the first topic there should be a discussion on this matter.)", if you have time you could go bold and create it IMHO ;-) Surely also recruiting more interface admins would be good, as well as running a wishlist specifically on Wikidata (but this would imply WMF and/or WMDE investing resources in assuring that a few most wanted gadgets are created/improved ... which I would love, but I'm not sure could happen in the near future).

For the general aspect of popular demand, statistics, and the usefullness of promoting user scripts to gadgets, I think that the situation from the point of view of non-interface admins could be roughly described as follows: the great majority of users, comprising also some quite expert users, don't know at all the common.js (and common.css), so they only use gadgets in the preferences, also when some gadgets available in the common.js could significantly improve their editing experience; a few users use the common.js, with various degrees of proficiency. Usually it is this minority who has interest in the promotion of gadgets, with the aim of popularising important ones among the vast majority of users not using the common.js. In fact, the statistics show well that (especially among active users) the gadgets in the preferences - sometimes also very specific ones - are much more used than the common.js gadgets, and I think this demonstrates the above hypothesis. But the promotion of gadgets, surely, poses pressure on an even smaller minority of users (i.e. interface admins) who then have to take care of more pages ... yeah, we need a broader discussion on the topic; maybe an RfC, but surely a discussion among interface admins would be a good start. Epìdosis 22:49, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

YGM

Hello, Matěj Suchánek. Please check your e-mail – you've got mail!
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

Jasper Deng (talk) 13:16, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

National team infobox templates

Hello! Can you add dutch labels and links for different squad navigational boxes for both European Championship and World Cup tournaments?. 193.161.216.9 15:00, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Can provide me with some further guidance (examples, sources, etc.)? I'm not a Dutch speaker. --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 09:39, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

I meant the squad navigational boxes for different European Championships and World Cups. Can you ask someone who is. I am not that either. Can you provide with dutch language links and labels. 193.161.216.9 13:26, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Dr Jemma King

Hello, the Page for Dr Jemma King was deleted without any information last year. Ive attempted to reinstate it in order to reconnect links to peer reviews and similar articles for the prominant Doctor. you have very quickly undone the edits, i was jsut wondering why ? 203.59.199.180 03:51, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

The robot is unyielding. The page wikipedia:Jemma King ([1]) has not actually been "reinstated", so there is no point in linking to the item. --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 06:21, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

151.188.227.197

Special:Contributions/151.188.227.197 vandalism at Q6105452, etc 151.188.137.230 16:35, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Please always report to Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard. --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 17:27, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Start a discussion with Matěj Suchánek

Talk pages are where people discuss how to make content on Wikidata the best that it can be. Start a new discussion to connect and collaborate with Matěj Suchánek. What you say here will be public for others to see.

Start a discussion