Hi Silverfish, I'm working with User:EpochFail (@halfak on irc) on a research study to look into how mw:ORES is working out on wikis where it has been enabled. I was hoping to talk a little about what the kind of work you do on Wikidata and about how the ORES edit filters and classifiers have been working out. Do you use any tools other than Special:RecentChanges or Special:Watchlist that take advantage of ORES? Do you know of any other tools that are used to patrol that do not use ORES? I'm also interested in any other observations you may have about how the ORES scores are working out. Thank you!
Return to the user page of "Silverfish".
Reply to "How's ORES working out for you?"
Reply to "Feedback request"
Reply to "Please take part in the Flow satisfaction survey"
Reply to "scoresway"
Reply to "cagematch"
Reply to "RfD"
Reply to "Saint not book!"
Reply to "Please explain your edit"
Reply to "P423"
Reply to "P2369"
About this board
Welcome to Wikidata, Silverfish!
Wikidata is a free knowledge base that you can edit! It can be read and edited by humans and machines alike and you can go to any item page now and add to this ever-growing database!
Need some help getting started? Here are some pages you can familiarize yourself with:
- Introduction – An introduction to the project.
- Wikidata tours – Interactive tutorials to show you how Wikidata works.
- Community portal – The portal for community members.
- Contents – The main help page for editing and using the site.
- Project chat – Discussions about the project.
If you have any questions, please ask me on my talk page. If you want to try out editing, you can use the sandbox to try. Once again, welcome, and I hope you quickly feel comfortable here, and become an active editor for Wikidata.
Previous discussion was archived aton 2015-11-19.
How's ORES working out for you?
The team that made ORES is working on a new tool called JADE. The new tool is for humans to review the work of ORES, to provide human feedback and oversight. The team would like to hear about how your experience using ORES has been on your wiki, and what you might expect from a tool like the one proposed. If you are interested, you can comment on this page on mediawiki.org.
The team is also interested in sharing updates with you as JADE is developed. Short messages will be sent to this talk page every month or two, linking to a page with further information. Is this something you would like to sign up for? Simply reply to me here if so and I will put your name on the list.
Happy editing to you.
You can also sign yourself up for updates anytime.
Please take part in the Flow satisfaction survey
(That message in other languages: العربية • bosanski • català • Deutsch • Esperanto • français • עברית • polski • português • português do Brasil • русский • اردو • 中文 – translate that message)
Like some other community members, you are using Flow.
An increasing number of communities now use Flow or are considering it. Although Flow itself is not scheduled for major development during 2016 fiscal year, the Collaboration Team remains interested in the project and in providing an improved system for structured discussions.
You can help us make decisions about the way forward in this area by sharing your thoughts about Flow — what works, doesn't work or should be improved?
Thanks for your ideas and opinions about Flow!
Hi! Just to make sure before running bot. So it is safe to simply copy everything from Soccerway player ID (P2369) (the numerical part of it, of course) to scoresway soccer person id (P3043)? If the new scoresway id will be wrong (dead url), then it's because we have invalid Soccerway ID? And the same(?) goes for dublicates?
As far as I'm aware it should be safe. It seems from the discussion at Property_talk:P2369 that both use the same IDs, and that seems to be the case with all the cases I've checked. In any case, it seems it will be a lot easier to check once the IDs have been copied over.
OK, I'll then send complainers to you if something will be screwed up :) (joke)
Theoretically I have copyed everything (with original "source"). Will be keeping eye on Soccerway player ID (P2369) use, that is, will be periodically doing copying.
Thank you for the work. I've been looking at the uniqueness violations on SPARQL, and there are currently 27 of them, and I've already resolved some. They seem to be about half true duplicates, and half with the wrong ID, but I'll keep a note of them to try to work out where the wrong IDs are coming from.
OK. As long as you delete both IDs (soccerway and scoreway), not only scoreway, it's fine. Because my script won't be thinking - if it sees item with soccerway, but without scoreway, it will add it :) Of course, I can create some kind of blacklist list of bad items, so if you have an item, where you have deleted scoreway, but not soccerway for some reason, say so.
Yes, I'm deleting both IDs, and replacing them with the correct ones if I can find them.
Hi! Just wanted to let you know, that almost everybody from dewiki has CageMatch worker ID (P2728) (which has URL "http://www.cagematch.de"). Didn't import these, because the URL is suspicous (different name from page title).
Thanks for that. I've checked some of the ones you didn't import and added them, as they are correct. I'll check through the rest later, but it looks like there's only a few obviously wrong ones, where it doesn't refer to a person.
Hey Silverfish, thanks for your work identifying non-notable items. I deleted all but one that you reported today, because it had some identifiers that qualify it under Wikidata:N criteria #2. I was wondering if you had considered requesting local adminship here, so you could do this sort of work yourself? You might want a bit more experience with evaluating per the notability policy, but you could probably put the sysop bit to good use.
Thanks again for your help!
I hadn't considered applying for adminship, but I might do in the future. By the way, it looks like Agata Dutkowska (Q21088517) is the one you didn't delete: which identifier qualify it for notabilility, and is there a list somewhere? I ask because I'm trying to identify items that are likely to be non-notable by looking at ones without sitelinks), and it would be useful to be able to filter out ones any false positives.
Generally, anything other than facebook/twitter/other websites where they can make an account are good for notability (in my eyes anyway). We can be more inclusive here than say Wikipedia, because we're just dealing with data - so long as there is some 3rd party indication as to who they are that isn't made by themselves, then the item is generally good to keep.
And glad to hear you might consider it :). RfA is a pretty easy process here.
That makes sense. I'm mainly interested in spam items (where someone is created an item for their themselves or their company), which are unlikely to have an VIAF ID, say.
Saint not book!
See my previous comment, and note that the item you added as the given name of Melangell (Q7225389) was Melangell (Q20569017), which is a book. It looks like someone has now created an item for her given name.
Q7225389 has not been a book, created from the start (Russian translation of Welsh wicipedia article as you can see here: https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q7225389&diff=next&oldid=57679089. You reverted my edit on Q7225389 claiming that Q20569017 was a book, yet I have not once edited the book version. Q7225389 has always been Melangell, the saint, not book. Can you show me when was it a book please as I need to understand this. ~~~~
I never claimed Q7225389 was a book, and I never claimed you edited Q20569017. I claimed Q20569017 is a book and that is what you set as the given name of Melangell.
On wiki I would need to have typed 'book' after the name, here I did not. But I see what you mean, and the word 'Melangell' was taken to be a book, for some reason. I need to double check as I type. Many thanks for the explanation. ~~~~
Please explain your edit
Hi Silverfish. Can you explain [https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q13132095&diff=next&oldid=315120303 your undid edit]I added the first name of the saint, and your comment was: ''a given name should be an item with instance of male/female given name, not a self re''. I'm at a loss! Thanks. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 09:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
The way given name works is that the value should be an item that represents a given name. For example if you go to the given name for John Ingleby (Q21727807), it is John (Q4925477), which is an item which represents the given name "John", and is an instance of (P31) male given name (Q12308941). In your case you set the value of given name to Tybïe herself, which doesn't make sense, as she isn't a name, she is a person. If you want to include her given name, you should create an item for the name Tybie, if it doesn't already exist, which would be a female given name. If you have any questions about how we represent names, please have a look at Wikidata:WikiProject Names, and ask questions there, as they know a lot more about this sort of thing.
Ah, so your answer basically is: if a person has only one name, then don't count it as 'given name'. Odd, but if that's the rule, then of course I accept yyour revert! Please change all Celtic saints names from 5th - 10th century (there's around 2100 with only one name, altogether). ~~~~
No, this is not my answer at all. My answer is that it is incorrect to use someone as their own given name, you should create a new item for the give name (if we don't have one), and use that as the given name. For example Melangell (Q7225389) has now been corrected, with a new item for her given name. Wikidata:WikiProject_Names gives a lot more information about this sort of thing than I can.
Ah! Now I understand! Many thanks! ~~~~
Hello. I just saw an old diff from you. But it doesn't work : hockey players don't shoot with feet.
There are no older topics