Wikidata usefuls

importScript( 'User:Magnus Manske/wikidata_useful.js' ); // User:Magnus Manske/wikidata_useful.js //importScript( 'User:Goldzahn/wikidata_useful.js' ); // User:Goldzahn/wikidata_useful.js Jared Zimmerman (talk) 22:14, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Margot Bickel (Q5946595)Edit

Hi Rosie, I just saw this edit. I know that Margot Bickel is a poet, but should we also call her a writer? Maybe I am misunderstanding the classifications here. (If you are wondering why I am asking this, see here.) --Gnom (talk) 09:53, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Hm, isn't a "poet" a subclass of "writer", and shouldn't we be as specific as possible when making statements? --Gnom (talk) 16:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but we need both. Adding Jane023 (talkcontribslogs) to the conversation who can help with clarification regarding why. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Poets are writers and poetry is their literary genre. If you want to track poets, make sure they are listed as writers. "Poet" is an intersection. It's fine to include it as an occupation, but don't leave out the main occupation, which is "writer". Same for journalists, etc. Jane023 (talk) 23:01, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jane023, I am confused. If all poets are writers, isn't that an argument for not adding "writer" when someone is already classified as "poet"? For example, since we classify Blanche Hoschedé Monet (Q2905991) as a "painter", there is no need to also state that she was an "artist", right? --Gnom (talk) 09:07, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
No. Why would you think that? People can have more than one occupation, and I think you will find that many poets wrote more prose than poetry anyway (if you count in lines). We also have lots of diarists, theologians etc who were also writers. The reason you "also" need to include the term "writer" is because that is the top tracking occupation for writers (as opposed to sportspeople etc) Jane023 (talk) 09:19, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
I think that limiting ourselves to the most specific statement and leaving out superfluous general statements is the only logical thing to do. This is why I am so puzzled that you are seeing this differently. But I am still not sure if there may be a misunderstanding. To my knowledge, Margot Bickel (Q5946595) never published a line of prose in her life, see here. --Gnom (talk) 09:35, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Whether or not the poetry or prose is published has little to do with the occupation. We are not differentiating between profession and occupation. I believe you must prove no prose is at all recorded (including personal letters that might be published on Wikisource etc) in order to state someone is a poet and not a writer. Possible, but not probable. Did you know that Hitler is a painter on Wikidata? Jane023 (talk) 19:35, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
I think still don't understand where you are coming from. The profession or occupation of Margot Bickel (Q5946595) is to be a poet. "Poet" being a subclass of "writer", we should make the most specific statement possible, and not make two statements, one of which includes the other. --Gnom (talk) 09:31, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Martha E. WhittenEdit

hi, (continuing talk elsewhere) for Woman of the Century, i have tried to model links to wikisource here, Martha E. Whitten, Q63497673, using "described by source". if you are ok with that, i will sweep back shortly and add links manually. cheers. Slowking4 (talk) 15:33, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Slowking4 (talkcontribslogs). IMO, that's a good way to go. --Rosiestep (talk) 23:09, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
ok getting started. the virtue of "described by source" is - it is an easy query [1] -- cheers Slowking4 (talk) 13:37, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
ok, i see someone was using quick statements and a bot to handle "described by source" for more mainstream encyclopedic sources: i.e. [2] User:SKbot. maybe we need a practice of asking for a run when we transcribe new sources. cheers. Slowking4 (talk) 19:40, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Slowking4 (talkcontribslogs), I support whatever you think is best. --Rosiestep (talk) 23:09, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
i'm 5% done here, so i can finish it out. but for future reference, (NIE, or Herringshaw's National Library of American Biography) rather than manually adding links, we should enlist some bot help. (here is another [3] User talk:Reinheitsgebot - cheers. Slowking4 (talk) 23:44, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Slowking4 (talkcontribslogs), yeah, that makes sense. And thanks for what you're doing. --Rosiestep (talk) 13:38, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Svenskt kvinnobiografiskt lexikonEdit

Hi Slowking4 (talkcontribslogs). Thanks for the work you are doing regarding creating items for the women in "Biographical Dictionary of Swedish Women" (”Svenskt kvinnobiografiskt lexikon”)[4]. Regarding the BDSW, I just noticed this ( and this ( but I don't know what is the difference or when to use which one. Can you help me with that? Also can you or Tagishsimon (talkcontribslogs) please let me know when you've created a Women in Red redlist for the BDSW women? IMO, it doesn't have to wait until all the names have an item. This is a good redlist to model: [5]. And then I can add the redlist to the Women in Red redlist index[6]. Thank you so much for what you do. It's appreciated! BTW, I've been chatting about this project with a member of the Swedish National Heritage Board and we're excited about this collaboration! --Rosiestep (talk) 13:45, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

ok, tried at w:Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by dictionary/Biographical Dictionary of Swedish Women. i will go back to fix the listeria, it has a template error; help appreciated for the P versus Q , see also discussion at User_talk:Salgo60 - for a print bio dictionary i would use q number, but skbl like ODNB has both text and a unique identifier for each bio entry. Slowking4 ‽ (Rama's revenge) 22:29, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Great, Slowking4 (talkcontribslogs)! And thanks! Wish I could help with the template error, but I'm clueless. --Rosiestep (talk) 22:34, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Modeling the ratings and reviews of criticsEdit

We were talking about modeling reviews. I asked a question and I am impressed with the answer I got. We can discuss and model this in a bit and you not need to jump into any of this conversation or look at the documentation, but I wanted to link the experience I had out to you -

Thanks and talk soon. You have a nice project idea. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:06, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Brilliant, Bluerasberry (talkcontribslogs). Thanks. --Rosiestep (talk) 22:33, 29 August 2019 (UTC)