Ms040got

Thank you for contributing to Wikidata. I see that you recently created an item Q122236967 that does not clearly indicate its notability. The Wikidata project only accepts items that meet its notability criteria, and your item is therefore likely to be deleted soon. In brief, items must have an associated Wikipedia article, must be needed for statements on another notable item, or must have both identifiers and serious sources. For the last case, a good indication of notability would be multiple articles about the subject in independent publications like newspapers or magazines. You can add such sources as references to specific claims using reference URL (P854), or as top-level claims using described at URL (P973).

Also, this may not apply in this specific case, but you should know that we discourage editors from contributing on topics with which they have a strong personal connection, as this may present a conflict of interest. If you are being paid to edit here, then you are obliged to disclose this. For a longer version, you might find it useful to read the essay "How to create an item on Wikidata so that it won't get deleted".  Fralambert (talk) 02:57, 10 January 2024 (UTC) --Fralambert (talk) 02:57, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

1. Thank you @Fralambert for noticing me first time. I try to understand why and I try to improve. So it is okay.

2. But why am I not getting this notfication for all requests like the first from @William_Graham did? I would have saved me a JSON in advance, before someone cleans it.

3. How is it possible to get a JSON back from an already deleted objects? Thank you.

4. While someone deletes an QID, how can I look up understanding what was the object exactle because its deleted? Is there an easy way to look into the deleted content.

5. I ask because in the "request for deletion" there is no exact reason written why it was deleted. There are just words like "Not notable" > Is there a page where these reasons are listed to understand better what to not do?

Thank you Ms040got (talk) 13:24, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

hand drawn map (Q122395769)

Hey! I noticed that you had created item hand drawn map (Q122395769) last year. I think the meaning is the same as manuscript map (Q2353983), and maybe they should be merged? What do you think? Kind regards, Samoasambia ✎ 20:52, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi!, yes it looks similar, but in general I would differ, because manuscript maps are made in hand writing and hand drawn is more a drawing (like with colors and drawing skills) and not necessarily made with hand writing. Thanks for the question Ms040got (talk) 08:03, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Problematic description of a living person

Hi, I noticed that you created Simon Poole (Q121338015) about a living person and set the English description to “osm con”. Was this a mistake? A visitor who stumbles upon this item would think Wikidata is saying something derogatory about this individual. There are important policies to follow when creating items about living people. It also isn’t clear to me that this item meet’s Wikidata’s notability policy, since there are no notability-conferring external references and no inbound links from other items. Minh Nguyễn ^💬 20:43, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Hey, I think it was just a error from copying the name. "osm con" should come from osm contributor, so I just forgot to delete it. Thanks for the advice Ms040got (talk) 04:06, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Why creating "type of legal entity in X"

Hey Ms040got, why creating an entity type of legal entity in X, when legal form (Q10541491) + applies to jurisdiction (P1001) gives the same information? It's just bloating the system and in worst case someone is creating "type of legal entity for non-profit-organizations in British Guiana". Or is there any added value I don't see? Best NGOgo (talk) 14:44, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

You are right, the issue is, that firstly many of these already exist before. Some were also named really different compared to others, that was before I added/changed that. Than others did the same, so I thought it's useful. Than I realized what you mean. Sure the value for users which are not familiar with WQS is, that you can easily figure them out, especially if some entities of a legal form doesn't have country inside or even a business doesn't have a country but a legal form. For fixing your issue all "types of legal entity in x" should be removed and all entities being a legal form should have only applies to jurisdiction instead of country. Ms040got (talk) 10:51, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Made this proposal in the project chat. NGOgo (talk) 19:15, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

flag of Europe (Q122482)

Hello,

Regarding this edit: if the identifier is inappropriate, you should raise this as an issue at the Name Suggestion Index GitHub. Otherwise, it will continue to be automatically added whenever the project's Wikidata sync script is run by a project maintainer. BrownCat1023 (talk) 21:08, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

The Wikidata sync script also removes any qualifiers other than "stated in: Name Suggested Index", meaning this edit will also be overridden whenever the project's Wikidata sync script is run. Again, if you're really concerned about the presence of the identifier, the only way to get it permanently removed is to file an issue with the NSI project. BrownCat1023 (talk) 23:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the hint. I am not sure, what to do. Sadly I am not a github user. Could you adress this, because I saw you are an editor of NSI?

I think this is a generel issue, because Europe and EU are to different things and somebody started really late creating "flag of EU"

According to Overpass, there are currently 13 objects in OSM for "flag of EU" and 1482 for "flag of Europe". Ms040got (talk) 00:03, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I can file the issue, but I can't promise that the Wikidata value of the OSM preset generated by the NSI will be changed. That decision will ultimately lie with other maintainers who have more knowledge of and investment in the issue. BrownCat1023 (talk) 00:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

thanks and sure

I think its just not consistent, if we have different results in the OSM database for the same objects Ms040got (talk) 00:16, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I understand. You can track the progress of the issue at this link. Regards, BrownCat1023 (talk) 22:37, 23 December 2024 (UTC)