User talk:Multichill/Archives/2018/June

Adding tags on Wikidata

You left a comment on my post regarding how to add a new tag. https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Request_for_creating_a_new_tag_for_edits_made_by_Wikimedia_Commons_Android_app

Can the Tags be edited by anyone? I see no edit option on this page: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:Tags

It would be great if you could provide some more details on how to add a tag.  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Maskaravivek (talk • contribs) at 08:47, 1 June 2018‎ (UTC).

Only admins can add the tag, but it's not very common so I put in the note.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. Multichill (talk) 09:30, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Re: National Museum of Visual Arts of Uruguay

Thank you!. There are 3 or 4 other institutions that can be added there. This query can give you an idea although it also includes photographs holded by a national archive of photos (tinyurl.com/yc2z3sem). Ill be sure to keep that page up to date. Regards.--Zeroth (talk) 13:41, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Reply to User talk:Zeroth#National Museum of Visual Arts of Uruguay. Please keep conversation in one location. Multichill (talk) 13:52, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Question about items

Hello Multichill, I created items that seemed to be logic for me, but when reading various discussions here on Wikidata I have some doubts about the relevance or the necessity of such items. And if so I would not want to still go on this wrong path. Just one example:

Pholiota nubigena (Q53857309)

Q53857505

My question is, did I do something wrong when I created Q53857505? should I have just put a link in Pholiota nubigena (Q53857309) "other sites" to the Commons category.

You are experienced and I thanks you in advance to light me. Regards, Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:09, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

@Christian Ferrer: sorry for the late reply. I have been traveling the last couple of months. Q53857505 is currently not notable because it only links to a category on Commons. Best thing to do is to move the sitelink to Pholiota nubigena (Q53857309). Multichill (talk) 09:43, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thanks you for the answer, I will fix my mistakes. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 10:28, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Adding missing labels requires internationalization sometimes

Regarding this edit by BotMultichillT: Could you filter from "Added missing labels in … languages based on ULAN ………":

1. items with a instance of (P31) statement whose value is not human (Q5), here notname (Q1747829) would have prevented the edit,
2. labels that case-insensitive start with "master ", "monogrammist ", "painter " or end in " the elder" or " the younger".

An alternative would be to internationalize them. Translations are in c:Module:I18n/name. Thanks a lot in advance! --Marsupium (talk) 16:32, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I looked into this before. I rather have a label that needs improvement than no label at all. Besides that it seems to be an edge case. I count 178 items which could be affected by this (out of 78.000). It would make sense to make a (Listeria based) report for labels that need improvement. Something like [1] and than filtered for non-English labels that contain a known English keyword like master. Multichill (talk) 09:37, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Absurd aliases

Hi. Your bot insists in adding absurd aliases on Jean Petitot's page. "Emails par le célèbre Petitot" simply means "Enamels by the famous Petitot". It is a laudative description of works by Petitot and in no way an alias. Sapphorain (talk) 09:06, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

ULAN thinks it's a valid alias, you might want to check with them. Edit warring with a bot won't get you anywhere. Multichill (talk) 09:41, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

So what you are saying is: « well, my bot is programmed to reproduce in Wikidata any information contained in ULAN; that ULAN could be an unreliable source is none of my concern; ask them ». This appear to me to be a rather peculiar way of contributing to an encyclopedia. Thanks anyway. Sapphorain (talk) 20:47, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

No, I’m not saying that, I usually just don’t bother helping people that much who approach me in the way you do. Multichill (talk) 09:39, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, I "approached" you in a rather terse manner only after I had to revert 3 times your bot on Petitot's page (May 5, June 7, June 14), the first time explaining precisely why. Don’t tell me you weren’t noticed. Sapphorain (talk) 12:24, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Sapphorain, I am confused by your edits here. You were told (correctly in my opinion) that the bot copies the alias data from ULAN. There are multiple comments elsewhere about this bot doing that, usually because of similar objections like yours. You are not the first to notice this. The conclusion has historically been that any strange entries are also indeed welcome here. You can better contact the Getty if you feel so strongly about this specific one. The bot also copies aliases from the RKD. I for one am very happy the bot does this. Jane023 (talk) 13:46, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

While I don't have any strong opinion about this particular alias (though we shouldn't spam them, they are also displayed, e.g. in |Alternative names= of c:Template:Creator) I think it isn't good behavior of a bot not to respect human editors' edits. --Marsupium (talk) 14:56, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Of course these aliases are displayed on Commons, as they should be. I also have this display enabled on English Wikipedia when I am logged in, through the use of a gadget. In this particular case, the alias has to do with the most common search result for this artist, which is why the Getty probably included it. I find it debatable whether or not the Getty's judgement goes above the opinion of any editor or not (thus my reasoning for contacting them in individual cases). BTW, this case is exactly the whole point of why we want properties and LOD in general. Jane023 (talk) 11:59, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

@Sapphorain: you're making the wrong assumption here: You assume I would notice it if some undid one of the edits done by my bots. I don't see that. My bots have over 15 million edits and run mostly autonomous. Multichill (talk) 09:27, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, that’s even worse than I thought, then. 15 million edits by autonomous bots without surveillance appear quite disquieting to me. Sapphorain (talk) 07:30, 26 June 2018 (UTC)