User talk:Mike Peel/Archive 5

This page is an archive. Please do not modify it. Use the current page, even to continue an old discussion.

List

Hello! Could you please tell me how to look for all the list of files I uploaded in Wikimedia Commons, without checking in my contributions list? Is there any way, like we can see the list of articles directly from a special website? Haoreima (talk) 08:32, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello @Haoreima: the uploaded files can be found at

• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:ListFiles?limit=100&user=Haoreima&ilshowall=1

--M2k~dewiki (talk) 08:43, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

@M2k~dewiki: Another query! Once I committed some ip edits, for I was unaware of logging out. It was actually a set of edits. Usually I sent email to oversight team's collective email, and I used to receive replies very soon (during that time, it's only single edit for each case). But for the last time, I didn't receive any reply till now. What shall I do? Haoreima (talk) 08:47, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

@Haoreima: If you want to send me a message with the link to the edits, I can have a look, otherwise just carry on waiting or resend the email. (Thanks M2k for answering the other question!) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:31, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Mike Peel. 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.

Haoreima (talk) 10:06, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Replied by email - all sorted. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:07, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

But I didn't receive any reply through mail! Haoreima (talk) 14:34, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

@Haoreima: Odd... But basically it said  Done. ;-) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:41, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know what you mean! Do you mean that you sent the email for me to oversight teams? And they replied to you! Is that it? And if so, what is "odd"? I can't understand! Please clarify me! Haoreima (talk) 06:52, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@Haoreima: No, I replied to you, it's odd that you didn't receive the email (I'm now doubting my mail server!). I removed your IP address myself, since I'm an admin. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 06:59, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks you did! And let me request you in future if oversighters didn't respond!

I received all kinds of email from Wikimedia, including anyone leaving a talk in my talk page (except your reply). (Please try a mail to another user to confirm if the error is in my gadget or in yours!)

Well, something irrelevant with Wikimedia, but will be relevant to wikipedia in future, there's an issue, I want to discuss with you. That is Google Translate is soon to approve Manipuri language (aka. Meitei language) (my mother tongue). But it's using Bengali script instead of Meitei script. However, in all the Wikimedia sister projects (mni wikipedia, mni wiktionary, Commons & wikidata) for mni (Manipuri), we use Meitei script. What best can we do from as a Wikimedian? Do you have any idea? Haoreima (talk) 07:07, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@Haoreima: Sorry for the slow reply. Any admin here should be able to do the same, I didn't actually realise there was an oversighters email address before you mentioned it. I resent my email, perhaps you've received it now? Otherwise check your spam folder? With the language issue, I'm not sure - is the language normally used in both scripts? Perhaps there's a way to auto-convert between them? I'm pinging @AshLin: who might have more insight here! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:45, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Mike Peel:, the state of Manipur has two closely-related languages, Manipuri language and Bishnupriya language. Manipuri is written with Meitei script, Bishnupriya is written with Bengali-Assamese script. Since Google has Bengali-Assamese script script reading in its engine, they may be introducing Bishnupriya translation as a low hanging fruit. Hope that is useful. AshLin (talk) 01:45, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

@AshLin: Manipuri means Manipuri & Bishnupriya Manipuri means Bishnupriya. Actually, en:Manipuri language aka. Meitei (code:- mni) is a Sino-Tibetan>>Tibeto-Burman language, which use both Meitei (predominantly) as well as Bengali script (some cases). While en:Bishnupriya Manipuri language (code:- bpy) is an Indo-Aryan language, which has no own script, so using Bengali script (predominantly) & Devanagari (some cases)! So, there should be no inter mixing between the 2 languages. One thing is that Google using Bengali script for Manipuri language (aka. Meitei language) isn't good. And Google Translate says Manipuri, that means Meitei language. And since I, myself is a native speaker of mni, & an active participant in mni google translate community translation service, I know it's my mother tongue. So, what can we do now? How shall we proceed further? Haoreima (talk) 10:34, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

We need to make it convert to Meitei script instead of Bengali script so that people might not confuse it as Bishnupriya, when It's originally Meitei language (Manipuri language). Besides, Manipuri language uses Manipuri script (Meitei script) predominantly. Even mni wikipedia & mni wiktionary uses mni script. Haoreima (talk) 10:37, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

@Haoreima:I agree with you about Manipuri-Meitei. You should probably approach Google in this case, because as far as I know, Wikidata has no connection with Google. 182.70.74.26 10:55, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Mike Peel Well, bro! What do think about the one you told me, there's a way to auto-convert between them? And, I have a mail for you, please check it. Haoreima (talk) 16:07, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Birth date of a murder (not of a victim)

Hi! Regarding this edit to killing of Peter Connelly (Q25656): deaths and murders don't have birth or death dates, and as I understand it those items should not have statements that belong to the victims, especially when there exists a separate item for the victim. Could you please tell me what Wikimedias policy on this is? Sjö (talk) 06:00, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

@Sjö: The birth date is in en:Death of Baby P - hence why the bot imported it here. Presumably if it shouldn't be in the Wikidata item, it also shouldn't be in the Wikipedia article? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 06:06, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I guess that the thing is that Wikidata and Wikipedia are not consistent when it comes to deaths of people that are only known for their death. Sometimes the article is classified as a death, sometimes as a person, and often it varies between language versions. But I guess the item should not really contain the statement, when Wikidata classifies it as an instance of murder? Sjö (talk) 06:12, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Possibly ... I'll look into it more and perhaps modify the bot soon (travelling today). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 06:23, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

@Sjö: I tweaked the bot [1] - it now checks for instance of (P31)=human (Q5). That should fix this. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 13:04, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Sjö (talk) 13:39, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Mistake

Good Morning! The wikidata inserted in the article Igreja Matriz de São João Batista is wrong. The article refers to the church in the city of Itaboraí and the wikidata is about the church in the city of Atibaia. These cities have very similar names. My best regards.

@BCalassara: Thanks for letting me know, I've undone that edit. I don't think there is a different Wikidata item that matches that article yet (Pi bot will auto-create on at some point). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 12:53, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

YGM bro

Hello, Mike Peel. 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.

Haoreima (talk) 13:00, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Bot constantly create existing family names twice

Why does the bot constantly create existing family names twice, e.g. Busque (Q108596973) ↔ Busque (Q37318772) and many more? Change that please. --HarryNº2 (talk) 08:20, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

@HarryNº2: The bot is creating items for new enwiki articles. It does this with a delay so that there's time for editors to add them to existing items. The solution here is to WD:MERGE. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:27, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Your bot should recognize this and integrate new interwikilinks into existing data sets, not the users. --HarryNº2 (talk) 08:31, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

@HarryNº2: I'm hoping to look into improving it with a student soon, see phab:T290718. Or, the code's at [2] in case you want to send a pull request. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:34, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Surname items should be fairly easy to detect: try to match P31=family name, writing system=Latin script, +English label. --- Jura 14:06, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

category for the view of the item (P8989) and category for the interior of the item (P7561) on Wikimedia disambiguation page (Q4167410)

Please see Q4167410. --- Jura 14:32, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Duplicate coordinates

Hi, it is not good idea to duplicate coordinates. Its are specified already in qualifier for P793. Generally it is not good idea to specify coordinates of humans, ships, spacecrafts and etc. Only small part (reentry module) of Soyuz TM-32 was located in the coordinates. And it was in the point during few time only. So it is not "coordinates of", its are "coordinates of specific event related to the spacecraft. — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 15:12, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

@Ivan A. Krestinin: It's bad practice to specify something like coordinates only as a qualifier, since those are a lot more tricky to access than the main property. It also breaks the link with the coordinates on at least English Wikipedia if you remove them (unless you think they are misplaced in the Wikipedia article - in which case, remove them there as well as here). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:16, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Commons galleries removed from sitelinks

Hi! Could you check if Special:Contributions/Gzen92 are incorrect? My impression was that linking Commons galleries to items as sitelinks was correct, but I may be wrong. Thank you very much, --Epìdosis 10:15, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

@Epìdosis: You're right that linking to Commons galleries with sitelinks is correct. Looking through the edits by @Gzen92:, though, it looks like they are removing links to redirected galleries. Which isn't terrible - but isn't particularly good either. The ideal case would be that the redirects are deleted on Commons... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:20, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello, yes only redirects. And the redirected page is already linked to a wikidata element. Gzen92 ^[discuter] 06:20, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Citation needed constraint on Wikimedia username

Thinking about what to write here, I realized we're mostly saying the same thing. You're saying that if the person's Wikimedia user page mentions their real name, that the property value is self-referencing. I'm saying that if the user page doesn't, there should be a good external reference present on the statement. But, granted, those cases might be a minority. At the least, having the constraint in place makes it clear that we can't or shouldn't infer user names through other means (edit patterns, name similarity, etc.). It also means we can't add something like a suspected sock or undisclosed alternate account, since all alternate accounts should be disclosed and can thus be referenced.

I won't revert again if you still think the constraint is better gone. Another reason a reference might be good is when the user page is edited to remove the mention of the real name. Then a Wikimedia import URL (P4656) linking to an oldid would be welcome. That's if we're upholding the fact that the internet never forgets, of course, which might not exactly be what we want. There may be additional reasons to keep the constraint related to property that may violate privacy (Q44601380) (which I think this property should be) and WD:BLP. --Azertus (talk) 22:16, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

@Azertus: From what I understood of constraints, they should be used where there's a very high likelihood that the statement needs to follow the constraint (100% if it's a mandatory constraint, high 90's % otherwise). I'm not sure that is the case for Wikimedia usernames, since quite often they are obvious (like mine; like WMF accounts; and quite a few others). Not having the constraint doesn't mean that there should never be any references, but having it displays a constraint violation where there's no need of a reference. I agree with you that there are privacy issues with this property, though. I don't feel strongly enough about this to continue reverting: I only did it once so that I could write an explanation in the history (since you can't do that with the first edit). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:42, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

I'll work on adding the missing references ;-) Do you know of EditSum? It's a user script that places a toggle on every item's page that allows you to leave an edit note in the history. But in this case, I think reverting was a clearer way to do so. --Azertus (talk) 11:33, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Importing description for disambiguation pages from enwiki

Hi! Could you please make Pi bot not import disambiguation pages’ article descriptions from enwiki (e.g. here)? en:Template:Disambiguation page short description sets Topics referred to by the same term, but according to Help:Description#Follow Wikimedia namespace conventions, the Wikidata description should be Wikipedia disambiguation page. As far as I remember, there’s another bot that sets this description based on the P31 statement (in several languages), but if your bot sets the correct one instead of skipping the item, that’s also fine. Thanks in advance, —Tacsipacsi (talk) 13:05, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@Tacsipacsi: Added to User:Pi bot/shortdesc exclusions. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 13:19, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Jakub Nalepa (Q48849389), Juniperus communis var. hemisphaerica (Q5956413) or Book of Zephaniah (Q188563)

Hello Mike Peel , Pi bot can put the Sitelinks from the Commons Categories to an item with P31=Wikimedia category (Q4167836) (the same namespace), otherwise it is an error that it reproduces for a long time. Please correct this. Regards. —Eihel (talk) 02:15, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@Eihel: It's long-standing convention here that the Commons Category link goes on the topic item, unless the appropriate category item already exists, or the topic item links to a gallery. This is the convention that Pi bot follows. See User:Mike Peel/Commons linking for more background info. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 06:51, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Interested in Wikimedia project for outreachy internship

Respected Mike, i hope you are having a good day. I am vardah iqbal from pakistan. i am a computer engineer and i am very eager to work with you as an internee. i have read about your work and i am just amazed, i really want to achieve such high competency someday. I am a beginner with python and wikimedia and i am sure with your supervision we both can conquer this project and onwards. Hoping for the best. Thanks! Veeshah (talk) 15:04, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@Veeshah: Welcome! The main place for information about this project is at phab:T290718. There are three starter tasks associated with this project, you can find them at phab:T290719, phab:T290720, and phab:T290721. Please have a look at those links, and let me know if you have any questions! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:44, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello here I am Natwijuka Isophel @Isophel a certified Associate python developer by python institute and would love to work on this project for Outreachy Internship.I hope to get to any one for the very first steps Thank you! https://www.linkedin.com/in/isophel Isophel (talk) 08:48, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@Isophel: Hi, welcome! Please see the links to phabricator right above this, for the information on how to get started. :-) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:25, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Outreachy Applicant Interested in internship @wikimedia

hey @Mike Peel: i'm mila ,a python enthusiast and CS graduate . im interested about wikimedia project. It would be an honor to be an intern under your mentorship and expertise .looking forward to learn a lot form you through this project Nuzhatmila (talk) 16:40, 16 October 2021 (UTC)Nuzhatmila

@Nuzhatmila: Welcome! The main place for information about this project is at phab:T290718. There are three starter tasks associated with this project, you can find them at phab:T290719, phab:T290720, and phab:T290721. Please have a look at those links, and let me know if you have any questions! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:43, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Outreachy Intern Interested in Wikimedia Project

Hello Mike Peel! I am Onyemowo Agbo from Nigeria.I am interested in working on the Wikimedia project - "Automatically matching new Wikipedia articles with Wikidata items using Python" and I look forward to working with you as an intern and learning as much as I can from you. Thanks in anticipation! Onyiee

Onyiee (talk) 18:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Onyiee: welcome! The main place for information about this project is at phab:T290718. There are three starter tasks associated with this project, you can find them at phab:T290719, phab:T290720, and phab:T290721. Please have a look at those links, and let me know if you have any questions! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:29, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Outreachy Task 2

@Mike Peel: Hi Mike, find the link to the second task, I save it on my repo. I love to hear your feedback on it, thanks

https://github.com/Remi288/wikicode/blob/main/task2.py Ope28 (talk) 15:15, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Ope28: Hi, nice work! You count this as accepted/completed. One question, though, part of the output is:

Q14592615
Name: keel laying
No P31
That didn't work!

Do you know why that error is showing, and can you fix it? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:40, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I will look into it and get back to you Ope28 (talk) 08:25, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

@Mike peel:This error message is showing because Q14592615 does not have a property of P31, That is why in the 3rd line we have "No P31", the last error message is generic, I change it to this:

Q14592615
Name: keel laying
No P31
Error: Could not get P31 value and label!

Because I can't a value or label when there is no property.

To fix this(my suggestion)- I will have to add a P31 to Q14592615 which is not needed or use another item which has P31. I am open to better suggestions to fix the error, thanks. Ope28 (talk) 11:30, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

@Ope28: Thanks, yes, that's the reason. The code has to cope with all kinds of situations, so really it should only try to print the value/label after establishing that there is a value/label to be printed. :-) But for this task, it's fine. Have a look at Task 3? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:38, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

@Mike Peel: Thank you. No I haven't I will do that now. Ope28 (talk) 12:45, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Pi bot duplicates for restored pages

Hi Mike! Something I recently noticed with PayScale (Q109001012) is that, when an article that's been deleted on Wikipedia for a while is restored, it seems Pi bot is creating a duplicate item for it here rather than adding it back to the original item (PayScale (Q7156560)). Could that be fixed? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:01, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

@Sdkb: It's not easy to automate. You can simply merge the duplicate items. I'm hoping that an Outreachy intern will be able to help improve this soon, see phab:T290718. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:03, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I imagine some challenges would come up, but glad to hear it's being worked on! {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:05, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Outreachy task 2

Pls guide me how do I go about task 2. I have beginner level skills of python. Kindly guide me. I'm very dedicated to the project. Suha 098 (talk) 09:35, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

@Suha 098: Please see the instructions at phab:T290720, and let me know if there's anything specific you have problems with! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:56, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I didnt understand point 3,4 and 5.

in point 3 have i got to retrieve the page i created and then print it out? Suha 098 (talk) 13:27, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

@Suha 098: Point 3, yes. :-) You write some code that retrieves the file, then just use print(page.text) or similar to print out the code. Then for point 4, you have to modify that text, and save it back on-wiki. You can find examples of the code to do this at [3]. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:18, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Dear Mr @Mike_Peel. I have sent you the link to my 2nd task. Pls review it. I got all my outputs correctly. Suha 098 (talk) 19:25, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:Suha 098/Outreachy 2. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:07, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

RfD decisions

Hi, I just wanted to let you know that I’m somewhat confused about some of your recent RfD decisions. You keep some items because they “seem notable” (without providing any hint to WD:N) and delete others that clearly meet WD:N #2 (such as Q109332244). Please at least try to explain your reasons based on the notability criteria. (PS: Your thoughts about Commons-only categories also seem not so uncontroversial to me.) --Emu (talk) 22:02, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

@Emu: I'm happy to talk through any of my edits. I've been trying to explain my reasons when closing them - by "seem notable" I mean that they seem to meet Wikidata:Notability requirements. I generally favour keeping items over deleting them, but I don't see how Texas Institute of Technology & Science (Q109332244) meets #2 - but if you want, I can undelete it so you can add the "serious and publicly available references"? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:11, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

See the sources Lukas provided at Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions/Archive/2021/11/05#Q109332244. Emu (talk) 20:48, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

@Emu: I looked through them, they don't seem to relate to the item that was deleted. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:51, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

It’s literally all they talk about, some even in their headline. As for the bad modeling, I commented on that. Emu (talk) 21:10, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

@Emu: Ah, coming back to this, I see your point. Happy to undelete it if you, @Germartin1: or someone else wants to work on it to turn it into a decent item. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:56, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I’m sorry that I have to say this in a very direct way: Notability is not contingent on your fellow users’ will to create what you believe to be a decent item. --Emu (talk) 20:29, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

@Emu: True. I've restored it now, do what you want with it. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:17, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Outreachy Task 3

@ Mike peel: I have been able to write some code regarding the task, I will like to confirm if I am on the right track (Implemenation still in progress) task3 page

I tried connecting unconnected pages it return a page generator object Ope28 (talk) 02:12, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

@Ope28: Yes, that looks like the right direction. :-) For unconnected pages, loop over the generator to get each result individually (for line in generator ... etc.). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:25, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Mike Ope28 (talk) 10:09, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

@ Mike peel: I have been to get the unconnected pages, kindly review. I am awaiting your response/feedback, thanks. Ope28 (talk) 02:44, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ope28: I have left you feedback at User talk:Ope28/Outreachy 3. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:25, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi @ Mike Peel: I need some clarification regarding the final proposal, I forgot to ask initially: does this project has a timeline? and are there any community-specific questions I need to answer Ope28 (talk) 09:18, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ope28: Please see the 'Application and timeline' section of phab:T290718 - I've just expanded this to be a bit more specific, and your questions are answered there. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:55, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Ope28 (talk) 10:37, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi @ Mike Peel: I have made the correction stated earlier regarding task3 using unconnected pages. I will appreciate your feedback, thank you. Ope28 (talk) 09:35, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ope28: Yes, that goes in the right direction - you get the pages from UnconnectedPages, run the search for them, and then try to identify the match. Nice work. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:39, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Ope28 (talk) 09:51, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

very long time no speak

The time after edinburgh interview seems to be almost 10 years already - wow a few nanoseconds eh astronomically speaking... I have been very lucky to have seen the arrival of three grandchildren in that time I havent been watching the west coast wilderness railway and mount lyell things here in data at all but what was happening on wp en and in commons was the uploading and editing as if they were the same thing - and causing real conflation of things - having walked the formation in the 1970s when there wasnt a single piece of rail left anywhere - The battle on commons is to see a distinct separation as they are literally different in many senses. cheers JarrahTree (talk) 09:08, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi @JarrahTree: time flies! Hope things are going well, and congratulations on the grandchildren! Stay safe, and let me know if there's anything I can do to help with your work here. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:53, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that (will do if I need the help) - good to see you are still around! JarrahTree (talk) 10:40, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I need your help

Hi Mike Peel, I need your help. An inter language on the commons.wikimedia of commons:Category:Judeo-Tat theatre shows a wrong link of the Russian page. I don’t know how to fix this wrong hidden link to the right one. Here is the correct link: ru:Категория:Горско-еврейский театр Please help me to resolve this problem. Thank you. Best regards, Boxes12 (talk) 14:31, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@Boxes12: I don't read Russian, but it looks like this is right? The existing link is at Judeo-Tat theatre (Q109050472), which is category's main topic (P301) from Category:Judeo-Tat theatre (Q109050768) where the other link is. The infobox links directly to the relevant article where present, not the category. If it's the wrong category's main topic (P301) value, maybe @Infovarius: can help? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:04, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@Mike Peel: Thank you so much for your reply! The problem has been resolved. The link has been fixed. Unfortunately, I still don't know how and who it fixed. Again, thank you for your time.

Best wishes, Boxes12 (talk) 15:15, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Formates

It is obvious that commons:Category:Formates is NOT an equivalent of en:Category:Formates... Wostr (talk) 18:23, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@Wostr: Is it? The Commons subcategories seem to match the articles in the Wikipedia category. But it looks like more work is needed either on Commons or enwiki to improve the categorisation? Not sure that moving things back and forth on Wikidata will help. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:25, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

These sitelinks were correctly assigned to items based on Wikipedias categorisation trees before your edits. We have three classes of chemical compounds under the term 'formate':

1. 'formate' = derivative of formic acid (salt or ester): formate (Q2001841) + Category:Formate derivatives (Q8466151)
2. 'formate' = salt of formic acid (subclass of #1) formate salt (Q11775272) + Category:Formates (Q9019519)
3. 'formate' = ester of formic acid (subclass of #1) formate ester (Q55580015) + Category:Formate esters (Q8466150)

– commons:Category:Formates is a subcat of commons:Category:Carboxylates and have a subcat commons:Category:Formate esters → it is an equivalent to #1 (Commons lacks category that is equivalent to #2)

– en:Category:Formates is a subcat of en:Category:Salts of carboxylic acids and en:Category:Formate esters is a separate cat → it is an equivalent to #3 (en.wiki categorisation is different than in Commons and many other projects, it lacks the connection between carboxylate salts and carboxylate esters (in this case category that is an equivalent to #1), it is done by placing links on category pages in contrast to Commons/other projects where there is a proper supercategory).

Now, I expect that you will revert your edits in Category:Formate derivatives (Q8466151) and Category:Formates (Q9019519). Wostr (talk) 18:41, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@Wostr: OK, so the solution to the sitelink problem is probably to create new categories either/both on enwiki and Commons, it's not to just move the sitelinks around. Please could you do that - I can help as needed but you clearly know the subject a lot better than I do! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:53, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Sitelinks were in correct items which is a fact, this is you who are moving the sitelinks around based on technicalities instead of on actual knowledge of the topic. I don't know if there is a problem in en.wiki categorisation, maybe it is how they want it to be, there is no obligation for the categorisation to be identical in all projects, you can write about this on the en.wiki WikiProject Chemistry discussion page if this is a problem for you, because I don't see any problem here and in fact I don't see any reason why you have moved the sitelinks in the first place except that the names matched. Right now, after creation commons:Category:Formate salts the existing commons:Category:Formates is empty and in fact redundant and this is why I wrote that categorisation may not be identical in all projects which is not a problem. Wostr (talk) 19:27, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@Wostr: I'm syncing the links between enwiki and Commons via Wikidata, this is one of the few mismatches than need to be resolved. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:29, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Events that don't have birthdays

Hi! Regarding this edit: I believe that it is wrong to assign dates of birth and death to events. Gabriel Fernandez Gabriel Fernandez (Q106901268) does have the dates, so adding them to his murder is redundant. I wonder if the bot should only assign such dates to instances of humans or animals? Sjö (talk) 12:46, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@Sjö: It looks like the sitelinks are messed up in murder of Gabriel Fernandez (Q89221466), dewiki at least seems to be about the person rather than their murder, and should be moved to Gabriel Fernandez (Q106901268). I haven't checked the others, but dewiki's link would definitely confuse the bot like this. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 13:06, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

The German article is also about the murder. There is absolutely nothing significant in the life of Gabriel Fernandez except his murder. Moving the sitelink would be a mistake as it would break the interwiki connection between articles on the same topic. Sjö (talk) 13:23, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Outreachy Final application

Dear Mr @Mike_Peel, Hope ur doing well. Due to time constraints I couldn't fill the application properly. I'm from business n finance background. I'm skilled in regard to financial markets, etc. I don't think it's relevant so didn't mention it. I'm sorry I don't have a list of projects. I'm greatly inspired by Sundas Khalid coz she too comes from a non tech background and has had a career gap. I too had quit my job few years ago due to personal family reasons. I have self taught myself python. Although I don't hv a tech degree I'm hard working sincere n willing to learn. I will value this internship. I would love to work with you. You hv been a kind teacher. Kindly consider my application. Thank you. Suha 098 (talk) 13:26, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Picture reflection from Wikidata

Hello Mike! I have a doubt! Sometimes, Infobox deity in a wikipedia article, has reflection of images from the corresponding Wikidata item, if the Infobox lacks a picture and there's an image in the Wikidata item. Like this, I tried to see about Infobox folktale, but there is no reflection. Could you tell me what mechanism was there for causing reflection in some while not in some? Haoreima (talk) 03:08, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

@Haoreima: It looks like en:Template:Infobox deity used to use image (P18), but it was removed by this edit. The code in the left-hand part of the diff shows how to do it if you want to, but this seems controversial on enwiki. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:00, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Could you please explain me can i draw reflection from Wikidata item for other infoboxes also, besides infobox deity? For example, infobox folktale, infobox book, infobox person, etc. Haoreima (talk) 11:56, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

@Haoreima: The code (linked to above) is the easy part - the difficult part is getting consensus. I suggest posting on the talk pages of the templates to see what reaction you get - if it's positive, I can help you add the code if needed. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 12:00, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Does that mean everyone depends on the particular template page in the Regular English wikipedia? If so, actually I am currently blocked from editing there! :) :) So, I have to request you. If I misunderstood you, actually, I want that particular code (which you mentioned) to be added to the very template pages of mni wiki (Manipuri wikipedia/Meitei wikipedia). Could you do it for me? My primary purpose is just to draw reflection from Wikidata item in case the infobox lacks image. Haoreima (talk) 12:04, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Get consensus, then I can help with the code if needed. I can't do anything more. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 12:06, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

YGM, Sir!

Hello, Mike Peel. 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.

Haoreima (talk) 14:54, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

@Haoreima: Seen, but there's not much I can do to help at en:User_talk:Haoreima. I suggest focusing on improving your simple wikipedia edits in the meantime. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:01, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

page move check

Hi Mike,

You probably recall Wikidata:Project_chat#Duplicates_on_Wikidata_(sitelink_and_sitelink_to_redirect). Can you implement the suggested page move check? I don't think the other solutions will be implemented anytime soon. --- Jura 17:53, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@Jura1: I'm not sure what actually needs coding up here. It sounds like @Krd: already has a solution, so just needs to apply that to more language wikis? I'm generally backing out of doing a lot of Wikimedia maintenance work now (after yet another incident on enwiki this week), but still willing to code up bots - but would need a clear recipe to do so, or existing code that I could adapt. I'll also have a couple of students next month, who might also be able to look at this. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:56, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Maybe the simplest check could be to not create items if the Wikipedia page is older than a given age. BTW I asked Krd (see their talk page). --- Jura 18:03, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

That wouldn't work for cases where the page has been moved from user/draft space, or if it was previously a redirect that's been converted into an article. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:18, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Given the number of dups created by the bot, I wonder if missing a few such oddities is really worth it. Alternatively you could try to list the ones it skipped. --- Jura 18:21, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Given that enwiki has draft space, which gets used a lot, I think the oddities are the failed page moves rather than the older pages. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Can you log items created for pages that are older than 3 months? --- Jura 19:12, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I checked a few from Wikidata:Database_reports/without_claims_by_site/enwiki and the only one that had a history of more than 3 months was the article linked to Q109621220 and that items appears to be a duplicate. --- Jura 21:58, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@Jura1: Why would you expect to see the links there, since Pi bot tries to add other claims where it can? In general, let's delay this until next month, when I might have a student that can look at this. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:50, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@Jura1: I've set up User:Pi bot/old new item and coded the script to add items to that page where the article is older than 90 days and it's creating a new item. We'll have to wait until tomorrow to see how well this works (hopefully it won't just error out - this is tricky to test!). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:00, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

@Jura1: Seems to be logging OK, over to you to have a look through them. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 13:31, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I checked and annotated a few. Page moves seem to be the main problem. In the meantime, @Krd: set up his bot for enwiki. This should take care of them. Seems enwiki should be fine. --- Jura 10:28, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

@Jura1: Thanks, that sounds like a good step forward. Can I stop the logger now, then? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:47, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

A Portugese editor pt:Usuário(a):Diogo Barcelos has been moving loads of musical albums, but they don't have an account at Wikidata so new items have been created for all of them. What is the best way of preventing this happening? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:03, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

@MSGJ: I thought accounts were auto-created as needed? Perhaps needs a Phabricator ticket? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:27, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I added some explanation at Help:Sitelinks#Page_renames. You could add the tickets there. --- Jura 10:55, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Pi bot

Hello Mike, I hope you're doing well. I wanted to let you know the error I get when I try running the enwp_wikidata_newitem.py script, It says

Traceback (most recent call last):
File "C:\Users\Username\pywikibot\enwp_wikidata_newitem.py", line 83, in <module>
if done == 0 and newitems == 1:
NameError: name 'done' is not defined

Please where can I define "done"? Joseph202 (talk) 10:06, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

@Joseph202: It doesn't look like it is defined, probably 'done == 0 and' can be removed. But, why are you trying to run this script? This was a test script that led to Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Bot/Pi bot 19, and shouldn't generally be useful. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:02, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

@Mike Peel: Thanks for your response, I am trying to run the script on another wiki (a non WMF wiki), the script has been configured to match these wikis, so that's why I am trying to run it. What do youn think? Joseph202 (talk) 16:33, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

@Mike Peel: I tried removing

done ==0 and

from that line but it still showed me

NameError: name 'newitems' is not defined

. So I decided take only

if 1:

and then it worked, but I now get an exception error which says;

Traceback (most recent call last):
:::  File "C:\Users\Username\pywikibot\enwp_wikidata_newitem.py", line 88, in <module>
:::    new_item = pywikibot.ItemPage(repo)
:::  File "C:\Users\Username\pywikibot\pywikibot\page\__init__.py", line 3900, in __init__
:::    ns = site.item_namespace
:::  File "C:\Users\Username\pywikibot\pywikibot\site\_datasite.py", line 91, in item_namespace
:::    self._item_namespace = self.get_namespace_for_entity_type('item')
:::  File "C:\Users\Username\pywikibot\pywikibot\site\_datasite.py", line 78, in get_namespace_for_entity_type
:::    raise EntityTypeUnknownError(
:::pywikibot.exceptions.EntityTypeUnknownError: DataSite("en", "thewikibaserepofamily") does not support entity type "item"

My question now is, How do I make the DataSite support entity type "item"?

I await your benevolent reply, thank you for your anticipated cooperation. Joseph202 (talk) 17:09, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

IMO numbers and ship names

Hello Mike, I am contacting you because I have seen your activity in user talks. I have uploaded many ship photos in Wikimedia and started to create and edit also Wikidata pages. I have learnt from Ein Dahmer that the main Wikidata Infobox is linked to the Wikimedia category with IMO number and that this number is used as label, wheras the infobox for the individual ship name (xxx (ship, xxxx)) is only a Wikimedia category linked to the IMO number. Many of the infoboxes created by me were automatically updated by PiBot in this way, which I found logical.

When inputting further data, I made the error that I thought the infobox for the IMO number would be more clear if I exchange the data in 'description' by the ship name of my data. However this was wrong and I was punished by restoring many data to its original state. I am sorry for any confusion created.

Now to my problem: I found many Wikidata infoboxes linked to IMO numbers with ship names as label. In some of them I replaced them by IMO numbers, especially if there are different Wikimedia categories, i.e. different names of the same ship. Most of them I left as they are, but for me it remains unclear how the labels, descriptions and aliases are to be filled in case of Wikidata linked with IMO numbers. I had some debate with Hjart who liked to ban all IMO numbers from these fields. I think, this is a weak point of the Data base as sometimes current names, sometimes famous names, sometimes different names for different languages and sometimes the last names are chosen. Especially the last one is doubtful because often the final names are only for the voyage to the ship breakers. What would you recommend?

By the way, in some cases I have added data (like an image) on the Wikimedia category, see e.g. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Otto_Sverdrup_(ship,_2002). In principle all data referring only to the respective period of the ship should be here.--Wolfgang Fricke (talk) 09:15, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

@Wolfgang Fricke: category for ship name (P7782) was meant as a work-around to cope with the multiple ship name subcategories here. The main Commons category seems to be the IMO number, so that's the one that should get the site link in the main item (like Otto Sverdrup (Q1418252) - and the Wikipedia sitelinks should be on the main item as well, as should all the information about the ship. The 'ship name' category really should just be the Commons sitelink, instance of (P31) value and category combines topics (P971) values - nothing else - and you shouldn't really need to edit items like Category:Otto Sverdrup (ship, 2002) (Q109906000). The Infobox here automatically fetches the ship info from the main item, it really doesn't need to be duplicated. For the label, I don't care as much - my suggestion would be the 'most-well-known' name as the main label (this is normally what's used for Wikipedia article titles anyway), and have all the rest as aliases - including the IMO number. Ideally we should just have the one category for the ship here, rather than the whole IMO structure, but that's a whole big argument for another day. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:23, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Mike, for the clear answer. Wolfgang Fricke (talk) 12:24, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Song released in 2021?

Hi. There are some problems with your bot. It says in the description that songs, which were not released in 2021, were released in 2021. See for example that (There are more, but I can't remember where I saw). Euro know (talk) 22:25, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

@Euro know: Pi bot just copies descriptions from enwiki, it doesn't generate them. The place to complain would be en:Wikipedia_talk:Short_description. That said, I think this one came up before, and the template has already been fixed - so if you just blank the description here or revert the edit, pi bot will copy over the updated one. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 06:59, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Lists are no humans

Hi Mike,

I have seen your bot indicating that lists of deceased people are people, most recently on November 30. Could you prevent it from doing so? These lists are a collection of deceased people, not articles about human beings.

Thanks, RonnieV (talk) 12:19, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

@RonnieV: Apparently the list died in 2021 - it's in pt:Categoria:Mortos em 2021? I can tweak the bot code, but I'm currently traveling so it will have to wait a few days. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:55, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Mike, yes it concerns the items in pt:Categoria:Mortos_em_2021, under 0-9. There will be new lists in the next year, so maybe you can exclude pages starting with 'Mortos em'? There is no hurry to do so, it's just one edit a month, which someone has to undo. Thanks and have a good trip! RonnieV (talk) 17:08, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

@RonnieV: I've now added 'Mortos em' to the exception list with [4] - let's see if that's solved the problem. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:19, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Mike, looks fine to me. Great that 'lynching' and 'case of' are also excluded. Thanks, RonnieV (talk) 23:49, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

events as humans

Hi Mike,

There are few items that end up being created as humans despite their label, e.g. [5]. For more:

• "Lynching of",
• "Murder of" [6],
• "Killing of" [7],
• "Death of" [8].

It's something that did happen before, but it would be preferable not having to fix them afterwards.

• P31 to use us death (Q4), murder (Q132821), lynching (Q486775), killing (Q844482) etc.
• date of death (P570) should be in point in time (P585).
• place of death (P20) in location (P276)

It's possible to create an additional item for the person, but that wouldn't be linked to the article.

Possibly it happens for less morbid events too. --- Jura 15:08, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

@Jura1: You're linking to 2020 diffs here, is this still happening after the code changes since then? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:47, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Maybe not. The searches find some recent ones, not necessarily by your bot, except maybe:

• [9]
• [10],
• [11]

Some are correctly skipped [12][13], but the lack of P31 leads Noclaimsbot to step in.

"Case of" seems to be another label worth checking. --- Jura 11:05, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

@Jura1: I added exceptions for 'lynching' and 'case of' to the code [14] - hopefully that will solve this. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:20, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I guess I could remove the infobox person template from Noclaimsbot's list.

Alternatively, could you attempt to add P31=death (Q4), murder (Q132821), lynching (Q486775), killing (Q844482), etc directly.

Sample: Person characteristics + label starting with "Murder of" => P31 = death (Q4), possibly with aslo: point in time (P585), location (P276), victim (P8032)=somevalue named as <last part of label">? --- Jura 11:50, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

@Jura1: Not easily. Best to get Noclaimsbot changed instead. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:16, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

which task is this?

I saw this edit from your bot? Which of the tasks is this from? Is it this one?. Shouldn't their be some kind of reference (e.g. based on heuristic pronoun)? Or at least a comment that it's importing from enwiki? BrokenSegue (talk) 17:00, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

@BrokenSegue: Yes, that's the code. It's Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Bot/Emijrpbot 6, which I adopted when they weren't active. The code doesn't fetch references, it should be fairly obvious where it's being imported from (just look at the recent sitelink additions). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:18, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

If I made a patch that added a reference and a edit comment would you accept it? BrokenSegue (talk) 01:54, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

@BrokenSegue: Potentially, yes. There's already code to add imported from Wikimedia project (P143)=English Wikipedia (Q328) ('addImportedFrom' function), but I disabled it because it was basically doubling the amount of edits for not much point (that's not a proper reference anyway). If you could figure out how to identify a proper reference and add that, that would be great. Or would be happy for the edit summary to be changed. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:42, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

By proper reference do you mean Wikimedia import URL (P4656)? Personally I would prefer imported from Wikimedia project (P143)=English Wikipedia (Q328) over nothing but I can look into something better. I would also add that it was done via a heuristic (e.g. based on category or regex or whatever). Adding an edit comment should be easy and is a good first step. BrokenSegue (talk) 21:50, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

@BrokenSegue: No, I mean a link to an external authority that states the fact, not an internal link. We shouldn't confuse the import source and/or mechanism with a reference. An improved edit summary would be good though. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:03, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

I think it is important to indicate that the statement was imported from wikipedia (and how that import was done). This tells to assign a lower level of trust to the fact and help anyone looking at the statement in the future understand how it was generated. There's obviously no way to automatically generate an external reference for arbitrary facts like this. But ok we obviously disagree there. I'll at least create a patch file to add comments which is at least an improvement. BrokenSegue (talk) 04:30, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

@BrokenSegue: I'd assign the same low level of trust to an unreferenced statement as I would to one with imported from Wikimedia project (P143) - there's really no difference between the two. Happy to see a patch with improved (multilingual?) edit summaries though. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:36, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't think multilingual edit summaries are possible? If we linked a QID we could indicate it in a multilingual manner (but if we were doing that we would insert it as a reference). BrokenSegue (talk) 03:59, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Commons categories as sitelinks

Hi Mike. I just wanted to draw your attention to Wikidata:Project chat#Commons categories as sitelinks. Based on some of the past discussions I have seen you participate in, it seemed like something you might be interested in, or able to help with. Thanks! Dominic (talk) 17:08, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

@Dominic: Thanks for the link, will watch the discussion. I'm not sure there's consensus at the moment to change the status quo, though - which I tried to write up at User:Mike Peel/Commons linking. You're probably talking about the creation of several million new Wikidata items with your proposal - I can easily write a bot that can do that, but not sure the Wikidata community would like that. (Plus, there's still another 3.5 million Commons category sitelinks to be added! Although adding them all as category items would simplify the process of deciding if they are about a topic (building/person/etc.) or actually a category). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:53, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Number of files

Hello Michael! How do you know the number of files you upload in Wikimedia Commons? I, too, want to know the number for mine! I can't manually count them one by one. :) Haoreima (talk) 05:21, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

@Haoreima: [15] - it looks like you've uploaded 330 files to Commons. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:36, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Does this 330 exclude or include deleted files? I am a little bit confused! Haoreima (talk) 11:36, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

@Haoreima: No idea, you'd have to ask at mw:Talk:XTools. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:43, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Items with more than 1 birthday and or deathdate

If you look at the item Eyvind Olesen (Q110175646), you will see that it has 2 sets of birthdates and 2 sets of deathdates. Both birthdates are the same year, but one is more precise than the other. In cases like this, I think it's trivial to rank up the more precise date, so that we'll only see one in infoboxes, as well as only get one in queries. Is that something Pi bot could do?--Hjart (talk) 09:55, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

@Hjart: I thought there was a bot that already did this? It's a bit outside of my bot's repertoire - I think this should be solved by deprecating the less precise value, providing the more precise value has a good reference associated with it, and that's something pi bot doesn't normally do - but should be possible with a bit of investigation. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:31, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

incoherent merge

Hi Mike Peel,

Can you explain the sense of the version at [16]? It seems to be a mixup of two different concept. Please have a look at Wikidata:Wikiproject Names#Basic_principles. Can you fix it? --- Jura 14:22, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

@Jura1: Compare the previous versions, [17] and [18], they look the same to me, particularly with the en label and instance of (P31) value. Feel free to revert and clean up if you want, but please add different from (P1889) if you do so. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:24, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

It mixes two writing systems. I cleaned it up before, thus the deletion request.

I'd expect that one would first determine if it's about specific concept and then whether it's notable. --- Jura 18:04, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

@Jura1: Just clean up the merged item then. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:06, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

redirect only item

Can you explain why you closed Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions/Archive/2021/12/24#Q102429177 as "not done" while it was part of a series of others that have the same problem: Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions#Basshunter/Eurohunter_cleanup? --- Jura 14:27, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

@Jura1: I explained why already on the deletion page. But: Basshunter's musical style (Q102429177) has a sitelink to enwiki, and it's also linked to from Q104100311. There was no link to the mass deletion request - should have been a subsection if that was the case. I'd suggest merging the items or otherwise cleaning them up, or feel free to relist it for deletion (as a subsection!) if you want and we'll see what another admin makes of it. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:27, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

There is no article at enwiki. The sitelink is just a redirect.

This was a section in the other BH/EH stuff. I don't see what the link on Q104100311 would give, even if that item wasn't listed for deletion. --- Jura 18:07, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Q109587596

Why did you delete the data object Carolin Woitke (Q109587596) even though the source Von Mailand nach Altenburg: Junge Designerin gründet Label clearly meets the relevance criteria? --2003:DA:1707:3430:8C29:409:A175:41F9 14:56, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

I can't access that source, but regardless, there should be multiple sources to establish notability. Per Wikidata:Notability "it can be described using serious and publicly available references". Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:59, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

If you had googled her name you would have found other sources, such as Thüringer Modedesignerin plant eigenes Atelier in Altenburg and Carolin Woitke, if that doesn't meet the relevance criteria then I don't know either. --2003:DA:1707:3430:8C29:409:A175:41F9 15:07, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

You need to demonstrate notability in the item - not by pointing to a google search. If you really want, I can restore the item and the deletion debate, you could make more edits, and then we'd see what another admin makes of it. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:29, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

If you restore the database, I'll be happy to do it. --2003:DA:1707:3461:506B:4506:8235:4888 17:19, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

OK, restored to Carolin Woitke (Q109587596), and the deletion debate is back at [19]. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:38, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

How we will see unregistered users

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:20, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Next steps in matching categories to Wikidata

Hello Mike, your RfC has made me think more about matching Commons categories to Wikidata. First of all, I like your idea of splitting the dataset into 1) categories that we might be able to pair to some Wikidata item and 2) categories for which we do not have any potential match. Let's put the latter aside for now and concentrate on those which may have a counterpart in Wikidata. This will be a monumental undertaking anyway and will require collaboration of a large number of users. I think it would be great if the dataset of "potentially reconciliable" categories was available for everyone as a dump. We could then try to approach the dataset systematically - the distributed game is great, but I fear the work will never end if we do not try more automatic approaches. For example, we could try to automatch categories by their location (P625 in Wikidata vs coordinates of images in categories, something I've been playing with here). We could also try to split the dataset "by country" and see if we can get local Wikidatists interested in those. Many other categories are not geographical in nature but we can still try to split them by topic etc. What do you think? Would you be able to create and curate such dataset? Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 08:24, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

@Vojtěch Dostál: Hi, thanks for the message, and sorry for the slow reply - it's been a long week. What I have at the moment is a set of potential matches stored in a database, which is populated by a script that looks through Commons categories and searches for matches on Wikidata. It's not at all complete, it's just populated whenever the bot looks at a category. My plan would be that a new-item script would do this check first, and only create new items if there were no matches that hadn't already been excluded - otherwise it would add more to the database. While I could provide a copy of the database, I'm not sure how useful it is - since it really is very dynamic and incomplete. I'd suggest playing the game and seeing if you can identify patterns that emerge from the suggestions, and we could try to tackle those directly. Matching P625 with image coordinates is an interesting approach I hadn't thought about before - but it would probably going to be quite complex to implement. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:38, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Duplicate coordinates

Hello Mike, please do not add coordinate location (P625) to items if the item already have P625 as qualifier for some property. Examples of wrong edits: [20], [21]. — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 19:12, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Also your bot process globe parameter incorrectly (always Earth). See [22]. — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 19:17, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@Ivan A. Krestinin: Please do not use P625 as a qualifier, it breaks how things work cross-wiki. I've restored the old version of the 3rd example, where the globe was already set correctly - Pi bot can't easily tell this. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Could you say that functionality is broken? — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 16:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@Ivan A. Krestinin: Yes. For example, on Commons, the map is no longer shown if you only have P625 as a qualifier, and it gets added to a tracking category of categories that need coordinates. On enwiki it gets added to a tracking category that the coordinates are not on Wikidata (but they mostly have a local copy of the coordinates - but not always). It also breaks uses in infoboxes on various other language wikis. The best approach is to have coordinate location (P625) as the main item with applies to part (P518) or similar as a qualifier. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Are you about coordinates on top of the article (display=title)? Its are wrong in such cases. For example Soyuz TM-27 (Q643774): it was manufactured in one place, transported to Baykonur, moved to start point, after launch it has dock and undock points, it was separated in some orbital point, part of the spacecraft was de-orbited to Pacific sea, another part was landed in Kazakhstan, after landing it was moved again. Each event has specific location. en:Soyuz TM-27 shows landing point as coordinates of Soyuz TM-27. Only small part of Soyuz TM-27 (descent module) was in this point. And it was few days or hours only in this point. So showing landing point as coordinates of Soyuz TM-27 is mistake. More generally: movable or living objects like spacecrafts or humans should not have coordinate location (P625) directly. I understand that I can fix enwiki, but it is better to add check for errors to bot`s code too. — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 19:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Not sure what bot error you are meaning? The bot just copies from enwiki to wikidata, it's users that decide whether an article should have a coordinate or not, and what that coordinate should be. If it's useful, I already exclude items with instance of (P31)=human (Q5), if there are a few other QIDs I could add to that check then that would be OK with me. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 13:13, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia and another datasources contain some errors usually. It is good to filter error values during import if it is possible. Exclusion of P31=Q5 is right idea. Could you also exclude items with COSPAR ID (P247) property? Just an idea: you may use more general approach: read conflicts-with constraint (Q21502838) from Property:P625#P2302 before each bot start. — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 16:36, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

OK, COSPAR exclusion added. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

About Wikidata:Requests_for_permissions/Bot/Cewbot_4

Thank you for pay attention on this task. I do not abandon the task, but there is no permission to do test edits, so I can not move on. If there are other concerns, Please tell me, thank you. Kanashimi (talk) 21:49, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@Kanashimi: Great, thanks for the response! I've re-opened the bot request and pinged some bureaucrats to have a look at it. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Pings

Mike, I am sorry to say this but you pinged me today already 12 times. May be it is time to stop? All these pages are on my watchlist anyway. Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:22, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: Sorry! I stopped already. I checked through all outstanding requests at Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Bot and either closed them or pinged people if it looked like they were still active, if they hadn't been active recently. It's never good if there's a backlog with bot requests, since that's a good way to lose potential bot editors. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Sure, but stale projects are typically those where there issues with the proposals, and the proposers did not respond well to the objections. Sometimes objections are not really serious, and we can overrule them, but if the proposer disappears we typically can not do anything. I am certainly not going to approve a proposal from say May 2021 with an incomplete discussion without a reaction from the bot owner.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:30, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: That makes sense. I always pinged the bot operator, and where they seemed inactive then I closed the discussion, but there were still quite a few that could do with bureaucrat input, which were the ones I pinged you on. Feel free to ignore the pings if you don't think the request is going anywhere though - I'll probably go through them again later this year to close inactive ones. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:34, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation problem

It's hardly the fault of your bot, but data bus (Q2928673) seems to link to two disambiguation pages (en and ko) while not being a disambiguation item (the other wikipedia links look fine), and now the English description ("topics referred to by the same term") set by your bot makes little sense to the majority of the linked pages. Where can such items be reported for repair before they get worse? I don't understand Korean and don't know how to resolve the issue without creating a new disambiguation page for each, which I don't have the time nor the skills to engage in. Thanks for advice. --SM5POR (talk) 12:06, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

@SM5POR: In general you should try fixing them yourself - in this case, probably the enwiki link needs to be moved to a new item along with the other disambiguation ones. You could also ask for help at Wikidata:Project chat. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 12:09, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification; I think I managed to sort it out. What made me hesitate was the Korean link; as I understand it any disambiguation item should include languages with the exact same spelling of the ambiguous term only, and since Korean uses an entirely different script I wasn't sure what to do about it. However, I found an existing disambiguation item Databus (Q4890413) and moved the English link back to it (it had been moved from there several years ago). Then I created a similar item for the Korean link and moved the Korean link there, along with its label and description.

Since your bot apparently tries to set a proper description, maybe it could somehow flag items with conflicting characteristics, such as having other properties than instance of (P31) Wikimedia disambiguation page (Q4167410) while also having at least one disambiguation link, and leave those for human editors to attend to? -- SM5POR (talk) 14:19, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

@SM5POR: It mostly looks good, but I think Databus (Q4890413) and Q110680760 should be merged, unless they are unrelated disambiguation pages? I don't think 'exact same spelling' is needed, but I haven't looked into that in much detail. Pi bot only copies labels when there isn't one already here, there's another bot that adds the standard labels to instance of (P31) Wikimedia disambiguation page (Q4167410) items pretty quickly. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:25, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

In the revision history of Databus (Q4890413) there are a number of edits by ValterVBot saying "BOT:Add label (only latin alphabet) and descriptions on disambiguation item" which to me suggests they aren't intended for links to articles in other scripts (yet they do add descriptions using any script, it seems).

As to the need for identical spelling, I don't recall if I have seen that requirement anywhere, but how could you else ensure that there is a one-to-one mapping between any two languages sharing an ambiguous term? It will take me too much time to find an actual example in languages we both understand, so let me give you a hypothetical example: the word right is ambiguous in English, meaning both correct and the opposite of left. The corresponding Swedish word rätt is also ambiguous, meaning correct as well as court, just and dish. The Swedish and English words are however pronounced and spelled quite differently from each other. Should they be linked together? Probably not, since their multiple meanings don't map one-to-one (correct is ok, but a dish on a plate has nothing to do with directions in a street crossing). You can link them together anyway, due to the similar spelling, but as we add languages, what's considered similar between one pair of languages will be completely nonsensical taking another pair in the chain. In other words, "similarity" is not an equivalence relation any more than humans are similar to the single-cell organisms from which we have evolved. And the Korean and English words don't look at all similar to me even as they may mean the same thing. -- SM5POR (talk) 15:39, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

@SM5POR: On your example, I'd just wait and see what happens in the long term - perhaps they'll be split, perhaps they'll be merged, hopefully by more knowledgable people. :-) If they are truly different from each other, I'd suggest using different from (P1889) to link between them, which means they can easily be found from the other item, and can't easily be merged. But anyway, looks like this is pretty much sorted out for now. :-) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:04, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Pi bot creating Wikidata entries for single articles on Simple English Wikipedia

Hi, Mike. Several times recently I've come across cases where Pi bot created a new Wikidata item for an article on Simple English Wikipedia, when there was already an item the article could be connected to. An example is Wikidata item Q108403836, created for simple:Orkla. (I have just merged that item into Q60003.)

Is it necessary for the bot to create a Wikidata item for a single article? When that happens, the article shows as being connected, even though it's not connected to other articles at all. On Simple, we don't seem to have a lot of editors who take care of Wikidata connections when creating things (actually we don't have a lot of editors at all), so I understand that articles there would sit unconnected for a long time, but I'm not sure creating an item for just one article is better. What are your thoughts about this? --Auntof6 (talk) 07:04, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

@Auntof6: The bot waits 2 weeks before creating a new item, with the hope that this is long enough for the article to be added to an existing Wikidata item if it's going to be connected - after that it's probably more likely that someone would merge a duplicate item. I'm looking at improving this soon - currently with a couple of Outreachy students, and maybe I'll set up a Wikidata Game for potential matches to reduce the number of duplicates. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:26, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

OK, thanks for your reply. -- Auntof6 (talk) 19:28, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

@Auntof6: Maybe User:Pasleim/projectmerge/enwiki-simplewiki helps.--迴廊彼端 (talk) 04:29, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikidata:Requests for deletions/Archive/2022/Properties/1

Hi Mike. Is there a size that these archives should not go above? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:16, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@MSGJ: Not sure. On other wikis it's around 100k, which was the point I started the 2nd archive. If we're going to have subpages, though, maybe we should switch to archiving them on a monthly basis. I could get Pi bot to auto-archive them daily, like it does for Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Bot. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:18, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm just wondering becsause most years there is only one page required for the archives. Yes a bot would be great, perhaps it could also attend to this task? What would be the trigger for the bot to know that the discussion is closed? — Martin (MSGJ · talk)

@MSGJ: Sure, I should be able to code something to update that template - I didn't realise that's where the list came from, was wondering why it wasn't automatically updating! The current triggers I use are when {{Approved}}, {{Withdrawn}}, or {{Not done}} are used, but it's easy to change that. Perhaps in this case looking for {{Discussion bottom}} at the bottom of the page would be best, I don't think templates are used as much for closing as they are elsewhere? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 13:12, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

In my (short) experience, I think it is helpful if these discussions are formally closed with a discussion top/bottom. Implementing a deletion often takes a while and it is not helpful if editors start trying to relitigate the decision. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:57, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

P373

@Mike Peel: The ruckus at the English Wikipedia proved that however the depcration of P373 is handled, it will be controversial and the implementation needs to be handled with extreme care to avoid further polarisation and anti-wikidata sentiment. I would be interested in hearing your reflection on that situation and how we can avoid losing the links to commons, which are perceived to be valuable, even when the sitelinks do not precisely coincide. — Martin (MSGJ · talk)

@MSGJ: enwiki doesn't use P373 any more, the links are either through the sitelinks or they're locally defined. Also, not sure why we're talking on a subpage, is it OK to merge this to my talk page? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:59, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead if you prefer :) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:00, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

@MSGJ: Moved here. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:26, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Okay do that does make the situation more straightforward. However there are parallels between locally defined links to commons categories on enwiki and P373 statements on wikidata, in that they are both adding additional links beyond what is possible or desirable with sitelinks. Removing these links, which are perceived to be valuable, is likely to be controversial unless there is an alternative way of preserving the link between item and related categories. I will respond further at the property discussion. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:06, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

@MSGJ: True. My main response point would be that we really don't need to store these *three* times - local links + P373 + sitelinks. At least let's go down to two copies, if we can't go down to one... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 13:08, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Difference

Good morning Michael! I have a file :

This file appears in white background in any pages it's used. But when entered to the original file in Commons, it's in black background. Recently, I have reverted the former white background version for a new black background version. But the new black background version is not appearing yet. What shall we do to make it appear black in other places too? Haoreima (talk) 05:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Try adding "?action=purge" to the end of the URL to purge the server's cache of the page, and/or try in a different browser on your computer to see if it's a local cache issue. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:09, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I did both ways. But I still face the same problem. How was the appearance to your screen? At this very talk page of yours, does this image appears in white background or black background? And in the Commons file, does this image appear in black background or white background? Please have a look! Haoreima (talk) 08:48, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Here, I see a black background, same if I look on Commons. If I look at Taoroinai I see both the white background (in the infobox) and black background (below) versions, since you've included both images as separate filenames. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:27, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Have you ever experience such malfunction/unusual appearance before? Haoreima (talk) 14:33, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it's normally just a caching issue. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:20, 25 February 2022 (UTC)