Tom.Reding

Welcome to Wikidata, Tom.Reding!

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.
• User options – including the 'Babel' extension, to set your language preferences.
• Contents – The main help page for editing and using the site.
• Project chat – Discussions about the project.
• Tools – A collection of user-developed tools to allow for easier completion of some tasks.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask on Project chat. 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.

Best regards! Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 08:07, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Instructions for importing species into Wikidata

Hi Tom, I noticed you importing the Conasprella species into Wikidata. Can you list out the steps that you performed and tools that you used to do it? I am new to Wikidata. Thanks, Ganeshk (talk) 15:57, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

@Ganeshk: the first thing I do is use en:Template:Wikidata search link on a list of species to make sure they don't exist on Wikidata yet. For those with negative search results, I have a spreadsheet that creates instructions for QuickStatements to use. For Conasprella aquitanica (Q60180696) the instructions were:

CREATE				
LAST	Len	"Conasprella aquitanica"		
LAST	P225	"Conasprella aquitanica"	S143	Q328
LAST	P31	Q16521		
LAST	P105	Q7432	S143	Q328
LAST	P171	Q5158230	S143	Q328
LAST	Senwiki	"Conasprella aquitanica"		
LAST	Den	species of mollusc		

The QuickStatements link has very good documentation for its various functions. —Tom.Reding (talk) 16:28, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Having trouble adding taxon name using Quickstatements

Hi Tom,

I am having trouble adding taxon name using QS, it is getting stuck on Running mode:

here is the my entry:

qid,P225
Q60268715,Atlantilux rubra

Atlantilux rubra [Q60268715] ADD Statement taxon name [P225]: { "type": "unknown", "text": "en:Atlantilux rubra" }

What's wrong with the above? Ganeshk (talk) 03:51, 31 December 2018 (UTC) @Tagishsimon: if you are around, please reply.

Please consider this resolved. Ganeshk (talk) 04:21, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Having trouble adding WoRMS identifier using Quickstatements

Similar to the above, cannot add WoRMS ID either.

Here is my entry:

qid,P850
Q60268715,957173

init Atlantilux rubra [Q60268715] ADD Statement WoRMS-ID [P850]: 957173

I get an error, Invalid snak data. Ganeshk (talk) 03:55, 31 December 2018 (UTC) @Tagishsimon: if you are around, please reply.

@Ganeshk: I am around, I just added a WoRMS-ID to Atlantilux rubra (Q60268715) using a QS of:

Q60268715 P850 "957173"

Note the quote marks. Does that help? (Sorry to hijack your page, Tom. --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:02, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

@Tagishsimon: Did you use the CSV import? It needs a header column. Ganeshk (talk) 04:04, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I get snak error even with the quotes. May be it is a limitation of CSV import? Ganeshk (talk) 04:07, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

No, I was using tab separated. So not sure if the quote issue holds there. Can you switch to tab? I normally prepare QSs in a spreadsheet and then just cut & paste to QS.

I suspect the taxon name issue might be the same - if it's a string, it needs quote marks around it. I'm not quite following your description of the problem, but

Q60268715 P225 "Atlantilux rubra"

seems to have worked. --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:08, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

@Ganeshk:I've reverted by changed ... let me have a play with CSV. 5 mins. Feel free to switch to my talk page --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:09, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I preferred the CSV option, will now switch to the TAB one. Thanks @Tagishsimon:. CSV is definitely buggy. Ganeshk (talk) 04:10, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

@Ganeshk: I have a solution: four quotation marks before the string, one after it. Don't ask :)

qid,P225

Q60268715, """"Atlantilux rubra"

--Tagishsimon (talk) 04:13, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

@Tagishsimon: That is it. :) That issue is mentioned at Help:QuickStatements, I did not think it applied here. Thank you!!! Ganeshk (talk) 04:15, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

PoV

Hi Tom.Reding,

I see that you are adding a particular point-of-view to descriptions of organisms (as here). This may please some; seeing the name Pinopsida will warm the heart of those who believe in it and like it. However, there are very many people who won't have a clue as to what kind of animal Pinopsida should be, not to mention those who find it an odious belief. I feel this is not helpful: a description is supposed to disambiguate, that is, to indicate what kind of ballpark the item belongs in. Names on -opsida, especially Equisetopsida and Magnoliopsida, but not limited to these, don't disambiguate, but themselves need to be disambiguated when used, since they can mean all kinds of different things.

"Species of plant" is nice and neutral. It is also short, which is the prime criterion for a good disambiguation. - Brya (talk) 12:01, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@Brya: I'm propagating higher level descriptions downward, i.e. from Hesperocyparis goveniana (Q32856054), whose original description 'species of Pinopsida' was added by @Mr.Ibrahembot, Mr. Ibrahem:. I've seen so many of these that I figured they were semi-standard, and not PoV. I've been removing some that weren't useful due to their redundancy or ambiguity. I'll be more liberal in their removal elsewhere. —Tom.Reding (talk) 12:30, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, I wish we actually had a standard, then we probably would not have these. So please do remove them where you find them. I also see you are replacing "prokaryotes" by "bacteria"; this is not so much a problem for bacteria (very well known), but it is for the non-bacteria prokaryotes. I never followed prokaryote systematics, but am pretty sure there is no universal agreement on the component groups. - Brya (talk) 18:29, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm currently standardizing children of Posibacteria (Q3399629) & Negibacteria (Q3337759), in preparation for adding missing descriptions even farther down. 'Prokaryote' & 'eukaryote' are too broad to be of much use (but better than nothing), so I tend to replace them with something more appropriate if I can find it. —Tom.Reding (talk) 19:25, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, going by number of species prokaryotes are not so big a group, and they have a separate Code of nomenclature of their own. - Brya (talk) 04:31, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@Brya: I just saw that you fixed an issue with Trochoidea (Q1976259) vs. Trochoidea (Q42787221). I've collected ~700 potentially similar issues (of which that was one), flagged via Quickstatements during my descript-a-thon, at en:User:Tom.Reding/Wikidata conflicting items that you might want to look at. —Tom.Reding (talk) 19:09, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Interesting. The two biggest categories of cases are 1) wrong en-labels (not conforming to the "taxon name" value and 2) true duplicates. The first happens a lot since in the beginning there often was more than one "taxon name" value, and splits left a lot of wrong labels. - Brya (talk) 05:51, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Call for participation in a task-based online experiment

Dear Tom.Reding,

I hope you are doing good,

I am Kholoud, a researcher at King's College London, and I work on a project as part of my PhD research, in which I have developed a personalised recommender system that suggests Wikidata items for the editors based on their past edits. I am collaborating on this project with Elena Simperl and Miaojing Shi.

I am inviting you to a task-based study that will ask you to provide your judgments about the relevance of the items suggested by our system based on your previous edits.

Participation is completely voluntary, and your cooperation will enable us to evaluate the accuracy of the recommender system in suggesting relevant items to you. We will analyse the results anonymised, and they will be published to a research venue.

The study will start in late January 2022 or early February 2022, and it should take no more than 30 minutes.

If you agree to participate in this study, please either contact me at kholoud.alghamdi@kcl.ac.uk or use this form https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSees9WzFXR0Vl3mHLkZCaByeFHRrBy51kBca53euq9nt3XWog/viewform?usp=sf_link

I will contact you with the link to start the study.

For more information about the study, please read this post: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User:Kholoudsaa

In case you have further questions or require more information, don't hesitate to contact me through my mentioned email.

Thank you for considering taking part in this research.

Regards

Kholoudsaa (talk) 20:59, 28 January 2022 (UTC)