User talk:Simon Villeneuve/Archives/2019

Latest comment: 4 years ago by Simon Villeneuve in topic Merci pour ton travail wikidatien

Cette page est une archive. Merci de ne pas la modifier. Utiliser la page actuelle, même pour continuer une ancienne discussion.

Montagnes du Pays basque edit

Bonjour et Urte Berri On 2019 !!! Je voulais vous signaler que vous avez à de nombreuses reprises mis la France ici, ou à bien d'autres, alors que c'est en Espagne. Je sais pas combien il y a d'erreurs mais il serait bien que vous les recorrigiez. Merci. --Zorion (talk) 22:28, 1 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Salut @Zorion:,
Je regarde ça d’ici la fin de la semaine. --Simon Villeneuve (talk) 00:46, 3 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
Resalut,
J'ai fait ces ajouts avec PetScan. Probablement que je me suis emmêlé les pinceaux car il y avait quand même ~1 200 mauvaises associations avant que je ne les corrige.
Merci pour ta vigilance ! Simon Villeneuve (talk) 18:53, 3 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Universalis et vérifiabiité edit

Bonsoir Simon,

À quel élément lierais-tu cette notice ? verification principle (Q12088741) ou verificationism (Q2297476) ?

Merci par avance de ton avis, et bonne année au passage... Nomen ad hoc (talk) 22:03, 13 January 2019 (UTC).Reply

Salut,
Je ne sais pas. Habituellement, quand j'hésite entre deux, j'associe simplement aux deux. --Simon Villeneuve (talk) 01:46, 14 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Wikidata weekly summary #355 edit

derivative work of artistic theme edit

Hi Simon, I noticed these edits. These edits are not correct and you might have done that on more artistic themes. You probably got tricked into doing this because based on (P144) was used instead of main subject (P921) (example fix). This query contains a list of these cases. Can you have a look at it? Thanks, Multichill (talk) 10:50, 20 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Multichill:,
Thanks for your awareness !
I have removed all the P144 of the items you have listed in the query above. We can supress all the entries of P4969 of the elements classified as theme if you think this must be done. --Simon Villeneuve (talk) 15:01, 20 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
It's only a short list so we should probably just clean it up by hand a keep an eye on it. That's what I'm doing now, you'll probably get a bunch of pings. Sorry about that.
The other way around is a much longer list.
Do you agree we shouldn't be using based on (P144) here and should only use main subject (P921)? Multichill (talk) 16:11, 2 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Multichill: I don't have a strong opinion on that. Do as you wish. Simon Villeneuve (talk) 16:13, 2 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

human settlements in Germany - quickstatements; #temporary_batch_1549128412557 edit

Hi there! It seems this batch is overwriting more detailed descriptions, here's an example: https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q21282200&curid=23328802&diff=850766732&oldid=850758946

In a case like this where more than one human settlement in Germany is named "Gehrden" that might not be helpful. Will you have a look at it when you have the time? Moebeus (talk) 23:21, 4 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Moebeus: Hi,
I've made the file of this batch 2-3 days ago by finding the items without description at this moment. The batch finished yesterday pm (UST). We've been unlucky that our contributions have collided.
Looking back at my edits, I've corrected about 2 dozens entries where this problem have occured. Let me know if you find another problem like that. Simon Villeneuve (talk) 16:27, 5 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Game revert edit

Hi, I reverted this game edit of yours. The items is a specific hypoxanthine-guanine phosphoribosyltransferase, but there are many of those. I believe EB thought about a generic enzyme type. --Magnus Manske (talk) 11:06, 15 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Magnus Manske:Ok. Thank you. I'll be more carefull with chemical like items. --Simon Villeneuve (talk) 12:19, 15 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Sites officiels edit

Petite conséquences des éditions de Veillg1 sur Wikipédia, mais tu as mis tout pleins de site officiel de la MRC de La Haute-Côte-Nord sur les lacs et cours d'eau de la MRC (ex.: [1] et [2]). Je ne pense pas que c'est approprié, est-ce que ça serait possible de les enlever? Je pourrais le faire aussi sur Wikipédia si tu me donne les liens fautifs pour pas que l'erreur se répète. --19:44, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@Fralambert: Ok. Je vais retirer.
Les liens proviennent du modèle fr:Modèle:Officiel (la redirection). Simon Villeneuve (talk) 20:03, 24 February 2019 (UTC)Reply
Pour les rivière, j'en ai 40 résultats.
SELECT ?lac ?lacLabel ?site_officiel WHERE {
  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE],en". }
  ?lac wdt:P31 wd:Q4022.
  ?lac wdt:P17 wd:Q16.
  ?lac wdt:P856 ?site_officiel.
}
LIMIT 100
Try it!
--Fralambert (talk) 20:13, 24 February 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Fralambert: Et moi 39. Simon Villeneuve (talk) 20:19, 24 February 2019 (UTC)Reply
Merci, ça va m'aider dans mon ménage. :) --Fralambert (talk) 20:26, 24 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Q58416611 edit

Hi, i wanted you to look into https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q58416611 page, how can we improve this page? I have added image with approved OTRS permission, kindly help me to improve the page. --Vrisle (talk) 01:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Vrisle: Hi,
I have put the Youtube channel id. I find nothing more to put in this item for now. Simon Villeneuve (talk) 13:38, 28 February 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Simon Villeneuve: Hello,
Thanks, how can we add image to the wikipedia knowledge graph ? so that it appear on he search property? can you suggest me? --Vrisle (talk) 20:03, 28 February 2019 (UTC)Reply
Hi,
I don't know. Simon Villeneuve (talk) 20:04, 28 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Building in Africa edit

Really? I think you made a mistake here. Please check your edits and roll back to wrong ones. Something else. I notice you're running multiple batches at the same time. Your edit rate is much to high. Please stick to running one or maybe two batches on at the same time. Multichill (talk) 20:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Coming to think of it, these are bad descriptions. If you are mass adding building in <something>, you should at least use the country. Using "Africa" is just wrong. The continent is huge and has countries. Feels very post-colonial to just throw them all on one big pile. It's like nobody even cares in what country it is. Please fix. Multichill (talk) 20:16, 17 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
I'm correcting it with your query right now. Simon Villeneuve (talk) 21:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, appreciated. Multichill (talk) 21:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Edit group QSv2T/1553383039730

Summary #quickstatements; Author Simon Villeneuve
Number of edits 204 (more statistics) Example edit Q57172522

Discussion edit

Hi Simon Villeneuve, I detected 3 error on this batch in my follow list (The Rogue (Q2301306), Death Quest (Q3348114),The Traitor Queen (Q11128111)), there are probably others. — eru [Talk] [french wiki] 08:10, 24 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Je suppose que ce batch est basé sur fr:Catégorie:Suite romanesque, mais il aurait du ignorer les items avec part of the series (P179). — eru [Talk] [french wiki] 08:10, 24 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Eru: Tu supposes bien. J'ai corrigé en conséquence. Merci ! Simon Villeneuve (talk) 09:57, 24 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
Je pense que pour Uses items/props il faudrait utiliser None au lieu de All, et ajouter Q5 & Q223393 : petscan:8391932eru [Talk] [french wiki] 10:44, 24 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Eru: ça, c'est si on veut ajouter "suite romanesque". J'ai plutôt fait une requête pour enlever des éléments inappropriés. --Simon Villeneuve (talk) 10:50, 24 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
Ok je comprend, dans ce cas il rest à annuler les Q5 petscan:8392359, je m'en occupe. — eru [Talk] [french wiki] 10:53, 24 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
Merci encore ! --Simon Villeneuve (talk) 10:55, 24 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Canals edit

Hi Simon, looks like you didn't filter out the former canals. Look for the qualifier end time (P582). Multichill (talk) 18:53, 24 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Multichill: Ok, I have stopped the batch and I'll double check later. Simon Villeneuve (talk) 19:10, 24 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Multichill: Ok, I got about 5 results. I restarted the batch and I'll correct them manually at the end. Simon Villeneuve (talk) 13:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
Excellent! Multichill (talk) 16:21, 25 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Everything is a "bâtiment"? edit

Why are you describing everything (churches, cemeteries, prisons, open air museums, railroads, lightships, old forts etc as "bâtiment" in your current batch?--Hjart (talk) 13:28, 28 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Hjart:Every instance of (P31) and subclass of (P279) of building (Q41176). After that, when someone want to precise the thing, I do it (as you can see 6 sections above). Simon Villeneuve (talk) 13:32, 28 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
Describing i.e. Frederiksberg Old Cemetery (Q12312786) as "building" appears seriously fail to me. I think you should stop this. --Hjart (talk) 13:41, 28 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Hjart:Well, if, after this batch, I change every "bâtiment" by "cimetière" for all the cemetery elements descriptions, do you think this will be ok for you ? Simon Villeneuve (talk) 14:08, 28 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
I think you should stop this batch now and fix it before continuing. When running large batches like this it's better to describe things correctly the first time. I'm whatching a lot of items and I wouldn't be happy to see your batches too often --Hjart (talk) 14:21, 28 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
Why are you describing Lightship Museum (Q12327810), Masnedø Fort (Q12326362), Q12321972, Haderslevbanen (Q803409) & Middelaldercentret (Q10659122) as "bâtiment"?--Hjart (talk) 14:30, 28 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Hjart: As I said to you before, cause they are all subclasses of buildings. Simon Villeneuve (talk) 14:32, 28 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
Describing them as buildings makes no sense at all. Stop it please--Hjart (talk) 15:06, 28 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Unnecessary doubling of words edit

Hello

Why did you put the expression "church church building" to a lot of wikidata items?
Hans G. Oberlack (talk) 20:46, 29 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Hans G. Oberlack: Simply an error in my regex. I'll correct that later. --Simon Villeneuve (talk) 22:03, 29 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
What is a regex? -Hans G. Oberlack (talk) 11:41, 30 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Hans G. Oberlack: en:regex. I have cleaned the thing this morning. Let me know if you find others problems. Simon Villeneuve (talk) 14:00, 30 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Not a building edit

Please don't add edits like https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q48082556&diff=next&oldid=884798875 - it can be described properly like 'Temple', but deniability not a building. --KartikMistry (talk) 04:08, 17 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

@KartikMistry: Hi,
I understand that there is descriptions more precise than other, but a temple is a subclass of building. So the description isn't ideal, but not false. Simon Villeneuve (talk) 09:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
I don't think it is useful to add misleading labels like this, but I'm not opposing it :) --KartikMistry (talk)
@KartikMistry: Well, as I said, "temple" is a subclass of "building", so maybe it's imprecise, but I don't think it is misleading.
But if you want, I can change descriptions in French and English for all the mandir with "building" in their description (~12,000 results). I propose to change for "mandir à P131, en Inde" in French and "temple in P131, India" in English. Simon Villeneuve (talk) 16:44, 17 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

French descriptions on film items edit

Hi Simon, it unfortunately seems something went a bit wrong with your current batch of French descriptions for film items. It added some descriptions containing QIDs instead of names, see here for example. From what I can tell, the items for those directors don't have French labels yet, which probably caused the problem.

Also: on Out of Many, One (Q59962784), a film with two directors, your batch first added a French description with the first director only (this one only a QID), then overwrote that version with a description containing only the second director. And I saw on Silent (Q46932451) that your batch replaced the English description with a shorter one containing a quotation mark at the end: [3]. Regards, --Kam Solusar (talk) 18:02, 12 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Kam Solusar: Hi,
I've corrected the 51 Q descriptions (and, by the way, the 431 other one with t[0-9]).
I've corrected the query to get the French and English labels and I've kill the one who only have Q numbers.
For the 2 and more directors question, I don't know how to adapt the SPARQL query to get them in one line. I'll process manually the batch for that.
For the last problem, I don't understand. This item wasn't supposed to be in the query.
Thanks for your awareness ! Simon Villeneuve (talk) 18:28, 12 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the quick correction, great work! --Kam Solusar (talk) 14:54, 13 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Labels for Q634099 edit

Hello Simon, edits like this contain mistake. Q634099, Q2661988 are not human settlements. It is type of municipal unit, not settlement. Please change "human settlement in..." to something like "municipal unit in..." or "rural settlement in..." Russian municipal division is a bit complicated. — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 07:40, 14 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Ivan A. Krestinin: Hi,
municipal/rural settlements are subclass of human settlements. This is not perfect, but this is not a mistake.
I will wait the end of the batch and change the concerned items as you wish. Simon Villeneuve (talk) 10:21, 14 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
It is old Wikidata problem. Many terms defined in different languages are similar, but not exact the same. Users define subclass of (P279) relations based on term definition in one language and ignore definition conflicts for other languages. So subclass of (P279) usage for automatic tasks can produce mistakes like discussed above. — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 00:06, 15 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Ivan A. Krestinin: Well, ok.
Here are the items in question : ~20 000 linked to rural settlement in Russia (Q634099) and ~1600 linked to urban settlement in Russia (Q2661988). What do you want ? "rural settlement in..." for the first and "municipal unit in..." for the second ?
SELECT distinct ?item #?level1Label ?level2Label ?level3Label
WHERE {
  ?item wdt:P31/wdt:P279* 
        #wd:Q634099 ;
        #wd:Q2661988 ;
        schema:description ?label ;
        #wdt:P17 wd:Q159 ;
        #wdt:P131 ?level1 .
  #?level1 wdt:P131 ?level2 .
  #?level2 wdt:P131 ?level3 .
  #minus {?level2 wdt:P576 ?fin .}
  #minus {?level3 wdt:P576 ?fin2 .}
  FILTER(LANG(?label) IN ("en")).
  filter regex (?label, "human settlement").
SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "en". }
}
Try it!
. Simon Villeneuve (talk) 01:34, 15 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
Options are:
Lets use the second option. Names of these municipal unit types are too confusable. — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 07:30, 15 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Attention aux candidats multiples pour les labels edit

Il peut y avoir quelques problèmes : https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q4092048&curid=3900197&diff=912885785&oldid=912815031 et il peut aussi rester les éléments sans labels en anglais (en français n’en parlons pas). author  TomT0m / talk page 08:42, 14 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

@TomT0m:Salut,
Je pensais avoir éliminé tous les cas de Q..., mais tu me montres que ce n'est pas le cas. Je vais attendre la fin de cette batch et corriger les descriptions problématiques.
J'en profite pour revenir sur ton intervention concernant la gestion des rangs par les outils automatiques tels QuickStatements et Openrefine. Perso, je ne suis pas très fan de l'utilisation de rangs pour les renommages/changements de divisions avec le temps. Simon Villeneuve (talk) 10:21, 14 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
C'est pourtant bien pratique et ce à quoi les rangs sont supposés servir à la base, cf. le modèle de Wikibase. C'est juste un ressenti ou tu as des idées concrêtes sur ce pourquoi c'est pas bien ? Pour moi c'est une fonctionnalité bien utile pour s'en sortir dans tout ce fatras et colmplémentaires des qualificatifs de dates, par ex. Si on veut tout l'histo on peut, mais bien souvent c'est l'info actuelle qu'on veut, et c'est parfait dans tous ces cas pour la mettre en avant et ne pas avoir w se préoccuper de l'histo sauf si vraiment c'est ce qu'on cherche. author  TomT0m / talk page 12:48, 14 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
@TomT0m: J'ai exposé mes arguments ici. Simon Villeneuve (talk) 13:58, 14 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
Je comprends pas trop. Si un utilisateur fait mal les choses, il s'en rendra compte parce qu'il n'aura pas le bon résultat dans son infobox/reasonator. Si un robot fait mal les choses, il faut prévenir son dresseur. Mais dans tous les cas, tout contributeur de Wikidata doit à terme être au courant de la bonne manière de faire et lire un minimum la doc ou écouter les conseils des autres contributeurs. C'est pas grand chose comme travail en comparaison des avantages, c'est simple conceptuellement et très compréhensible et ça simplifie plein de choses derrière, le codage d'une infobox minimale sur une wp ou il y a peu de compétences dispo, l'écriture de requête quand on veut pas de l'histo et leurs performances ... Franchement oui, des utilisateurs feront des erreurs, mais non, c'set loin d'effacer tout les avantages, juste un truc à leur expliquer. author  TomT0m / talk page 14:38, 14 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
@TomT0m: Là, c'est moi qui ne comprend pas trop. Tes quatre premières phrases ne servent à rien : tu n'as pas à me vendre cette méthode de fonctionner. Je suis le premier à en bénéficier et à prôner son application.
Je crois comprendre que tu défends l'histoire des rangs à partir de la cinquième phrase. Tu as plus de connaissances techniques que moi et si tu dis que ça simplifie beaucoup de choses, je ne peux pas te contredire. De plus, à la limite, concernant les localités russes, je pourrais me ranger à ton avis puisque les remaniements administratifs ne sont pas si fréquents. Cependant, dans la situation que je soulève, c'est-à-dire dans le cas des populations, alors là, je suis loin d'être convaincu. Les recensements officiels se font aux 5 à 10 ans selon les pays et rien n'empêche d'entrer également les estimations hors-recensement officiel. Vouloir mettre en rang privilégié une population donnée à une époque donnée fait en sorte qu'il faudra toujours passer derrière pour remettre un rang privilégié à chaque mise-à-jour. Je ne pense pas qu'il est approprié de faire ce genre de contribution chronodégradable. De plus, toujours selon cet exemple, le modèle Lua d'Infobox Localité est plus difficile à adapter quand une population mise en rang privilégié n'est pas à jour. Simon Villeneuve (talk) 19:30, 14 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
Je défends la manière de fonctionner avec les rangs dés le début de mon message, et je note que ça vient des développeurs de Wikidata à la base. Les infobox sont plus faciles à écrire parce que par défaut le développeur n’a rien à faire et surtout pas à s’occuper des rangs. L’infobox n’affichera par défaut que ce qui est en rang privilégié. Oui, ça met la responsabilité au contributeur ou au robot de modifier les rangs par défaut quand il met à jour une info. Je ne conçoit pas vraiment ça comme une difficulté. « le modèle Lua d'Infobox Localité est plus difficile à adapter quand une population mise en rang privilégié n'est pas à jour.» Je ne comprends pas, il n’y a pas du tout à toucher au modèle, mais aux données. Et si c’est un modèle qui est conçu pour récupérer toutes les déclarations sauf les dépréciées, ben a priori il ne s’occupe pas des rangs donc il n’y a rien à changer dedans. Pour les populations, si c’est un contributeur régulier, plutôt que de repasser derrière mieux vaut lui laisser un message pour lui expliquer. Mais comme je te le dis, il devrait se rendre compte par lui même que quelque chose cloche si il ne voit pas sa modif se refléter dans l’infobox, il devrait de lui même venir et poser la question pour résoudre son problème. Il n’y aura donc pas à repasser derrière puisqu’il prendra alors l’habitude de le faire de lui même. author  TomT0m / talk page 19:44, 14 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
@TomT0m: Ok. Je ne partage pas ce PoV pour le moment, mais il me manque trop d'éléments pour bien saisir les enjeux. Désolé de la tournure de la discussion. J'ai été clivant et c'est poche.
Si je tente de me rattraper, nous allons probablement effectuer une publication académique grâce aux statistiques de % de contenus genrés que tu m'as fait en une demi-journée et que je n'arrive toujours pas à saisir complètement. N'hésite surtout pas à me faire suivre des requêtes/explications que tu juges pertinentes. Simon Villeneuve (talk) 01:24, 15 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Error here Q702336 edit

Kapu is not a building. I replaced the definitions referring to buildings. I unlinked the page (language=DE). It was an error from way back, 9 December 2012, when a bot created the wikidata item and included an article that was for a building but other articles re: Hawaiian term https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q702336&oldid=887937559 --Level C (talk) 18:47, 18 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Ok. Simon Villeneuve (talk) 23:12, 22 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Mix n Mismatch edit

This addition was an error. It should have been relatively easy to spot this was a mistake, since there was already a Britannica Online ID linked for the entry. Are you checking for pre-existing links to avoid adding a second one? --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:04, 20 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

AFK for many days. I'll answer you next week. --Simon Villeneuve (talk) 11:05, 20 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
@EncycloPetey: Hi again,
There's a lot of items having more than one Britannica ID (2 267 to be precise) and I'm not sure that this is wrong for all of them. The case you put in light is a good example. On Britannica, the two notions are linking to the same entry (brachii is a redirection to biceps muscle). So what do we do ? If I take a look to Biceps (Q412860) in French, it would be ok to link biceps muscle to it, but the English article give other disambiguation notions that have nothing to do with the muscle. So, probably that here, a new item is the best thing to do, but to put the 2 notions on the same item is'nt that bad, considering again that the two notions refer to the same article on Britannica and that Wikidata community don't really (know/agree on) what to do with redirections.
Last, but not least, I don't like the way you're writing to me (It should have ben relatively easy... are you checking ?, etc.). Please, consider that we are all working here the best we can and keep your contempt for yourself. Simon Villeneuve (talk) 23:12, 22 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
It does not match the concept of biceps brachii. The Britannica link you added covers both the biceps brachii and the biceps femoris. It is more like a disambiguation article, and does not fit for the data item you added it to, which is exclusively about the biceps brachii. It isn't relevant what the WP articles says, but what data is present on the WD data item, which clearly says that it is part of the arm, and lists points of attachment, nerves, etc., which apply exclusively to the biceps brachii muscle in the arm, and not the the biceps femoris of the thigh.
If you're going to add that Britannica link to biceps brachii (Q201363), then it must also be linked to biceps femoris muscle (Q601016), because the Britannica page covers both topics equally. Either that, or a separate data item should be created for that Britannica link.
Finally, if you choose to be insulted by things I didn't actually say, then I have no control over that. I asked you a question "Did you..?" into which you read additional subtext that wasn't there, and chastised me for your interpretation. Please do not be offended by subtext that isn't present in my comments. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:20, 23 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
@EncycloPetey:Well, you just have to ask man !
Yes, the other scenario exist. There is a lot of items linking to the same entry on Britannica, with reasons similar from the above.
Read a little bit on the mix'n'match entry about EB, you'll soon see that there years of experiences here. Simon Villeneuve (talk) 01:58, 23 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Wikidata weekly summary #361 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #362 edit

hu problems edit

Kérjük írj magyarul!!! Zoknibab90880 (talk) 06:40, 1 May 2019 (UTC) A Wikidata magyar. Írjál magyarul! Hungarikusz Firkász Ide írkássz! (talk) 12:33, 6 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Zoknibab90880, Hungarikusz Firkász Ide írkássz!: Hi guys,
I speak French and English. So if you want to communicate with me, you should use one of these. Also, only one sentence without any links don't help me to understand what you are talking about. [4] Simon Villeneuve (talk) 14:06, 6 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Wikidata weekly summary #363 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #364 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #365 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #366 edit

Request edit

Hello.

Can you create and upload en:List of earthquakes in Azerbaijan in French Wikipedia?

Yours sincerely, Matricatria (talk) 20:32, 28 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Matricatria:
  Done Maybe you can, in exchange, help it here a little bit.
select distinct ?itemLabel ?date ?lieu ?itemDescription ?loc ?image ?item where {?item wdt:P31/wdt:P279* wd:Q7944 ; wdt:P17 wd:Q227 . optional {?item wdt:P18 ?image .} optional{?item wdt:P625 ?loc .} optional {?item wdt:P131 ?lieu .} optional {?item wdt:P585 ?date .} SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE],en". } } order by ?date
Try it!
Simon Villeneuve (talk) 01:52, 31 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
Thank you very much! Matricatria (talk) 07:57, 31 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Wikidata weekly summary #367 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #368 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #369 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #370 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #371 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #372 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #373 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #374 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #375 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #376 edit

Mix'n'match catalog 1330 edit

Dear Simon Villeneuve, I appreciate your contributions about Science Fiction Encyclopedia (catalog 1330), but please do not match pseudonym entries! Those entries must be excluded (press N/A), to avoyd double matches.

See https://tools.wmflabs.org/mix-n-match/#/sync/1330 to fix/resolve double entries (you'll have then to remove manually from entities). Thank you, --Marcok (talk) 20:34, 5 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Marcok: Hi,
Yes, I can do that, but first, can you explain to me why we must exclude redirections ? Simon Villeneuve (talk) 00:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
Dear Simon, the problem is that we cannot have more than 1 value of Encyclopedia of Science Fiction ID (P5357) in a Wikidata item. If you revise your past edits, you'll find this problem highlited in any iteem that has a double value. Don't worry: sometimes I made the same mistake. Using the sync page of the catalog it's easy to find every item that needs to be fixed. Thank you again. --Marcok (talk) 06:33, 6 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Marcok: Hi again,
I understand that, but this isn't answering my question : why ? Where's the problem to have another value for this entry ? Having all the information on the Wikidata item property, incluing the redirections, seems relevant to me. So I wan't to know why or who have decided this. Simon Villeneuve (talk) 09:41, 6 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Marcok: Example : this is a unique redirection entry. I think it's better to associate it with the Wikidata item than to class it as "N/A". So, among others, if someone want to know from Wikidata how the SFE is dealing with this notion, the link is here. The link is also giving links to the evolution of the entry (Previous versions of this entry). Another thing is that if the SFE change this entry to create a true article instead of a redirection, the link will already be here on Wikidata. Simon Villeneuve (talk) 11:13, 6 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
Dear Simon, I suggest that if you want a multiple value in the property, you should propose it in the talk page of the property (when a new property is created, there is a community discussion, so to change its characteristics there must be a consensus as well). However I think it's better to have a unique value, for practical reasons, linking to the page of real information in SFE, to avoid confusion. For example, a value here is used to create automatically a link in the "External links" section of many articles on it.wiki, and multiple links to SFE redirects aren't really useful. Alternate names are managed in a different way in Wikidata, and if you want you can add them to the items using the "Also known as" fields. --Marcok (talk) 17:28, 6 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Wikidata weekly summary #377 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #378 edit

Support pour la création d'un identifiant RPGGeek edit

Bonjour Simon,

J'ai demandé la création d'un identifiant pour la base de données RPGGeek https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Property_proposal/Creative_work#RPGGeek_ID Voudrais-tu apporter ton support ?

Merci et bon été ! --Pmartinolli

@Pmartinolli: Coucou,
Avec plaisir !
On parle de combien d'entrées environ ? Simon Villeneuve (talk) 17:16, 19 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
Merci @Simon Villeneuve: Pour l'instant, il y a environ 992 + 1276 entrées sur le jeu de rôle sur table dans Wikidata. Environ 10.000 entrées dans RPGGeek.

Wikidata weekly summary #379 edit

Requête Wikidata edit

Simon,

J'ai besoin de tes lumières pour une requête Wikidata. À celle-ci, je veux voir apparaître les adresses des biens. Cette information est parfois dans P6375, sinon dans P969. Quelle requête poser ?

Merci,

Cantons-de-l'Est (talk) 09:33, 31 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Cantons-de-l'Est:Coucou,
Désolé pour l'attente. J'étais afk depuis vendredi.
Pour la requête, il s'agit d'ajouter wdt:P6375 ?ad1 et wdt:P969 ?ad2. Cependant, il faut le mettre en OPTIONAL. Comme ça, la requête te donne tous les résultats précédents et ajoute l'info des 2 propriétés supplémentaires quand elle est disponible.
Pour Newton, rien ne presse. Quelqu'un s'y est mis il y a quelque semaines et je suis en frwikibreak indef. Simon Villeneuve (talk) 18:06, 2 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
C'est bien ce que je cherchais, recette que je conserve précieusement dans mes dossiers. C'est noté pour Newton. Désolé pour tes wikisoucis. On se reparle. Cantons-de-l'Est (talk) 18:24, 2 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Wikidata weekly summary #380 edit

Merci pour ton travail wikidatien edit

Simon,

Je pensais à toi la semaine passée et à toutes les modifications que tu fais dans Wikidata. Presque dix millions. Incroyable. Je suis bien content que tu y collabores, car ton travail rend le site meilleur :-). De plus, je connais quelqu'un qui s'y connaît en requêtes Wikidata ;-).

On se reparle,

Cantons-de-l'Est (talk) 13:27, 5 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hey, merci, c'est gentil ! ;)
Faut dire que la plupart de mes modifications ces temps-ci (ajout de la langue d'articles scientifiques) n'apportent pas beaucoup de plus value, mais il faut le faire, surtout que le dresseur de Research_Bot ne semble pas vouloir s'y mettre, même pour les nouveaux éléments créés. Pourtant, il me semble que ça ne demanderait pas une grosse adaptation de son script. M'enfin.
@+ l'ami ! Simon Villeneuve (talk) 13:32, 5 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
Return to the user page of "Simon Villeneuve/Archives/2019".