Descriptions for new items edit

Hi there! I noticed you have been creating a number of items for journal articles. If you would, please remember to add descriptions for these, so they may be more easily distinguished from other, non-article items at a glance. I use something like "scholarly article published in MMM YYYY", but even just "scholarly article" or "scientific article" is better than nothing. Let me know if there are any questions, and thank you! Huntster (t @ c) 02:21, 14 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello again. I would again like to ask that you provide descriptions for journal articles that you import. It is important for all items to have descriptions, especially for article names that may closely resemble non-article items, to help users avoid confusion. It should be an easy addition to the import process, using the publication date as a primary disambiguator. Thanks. Huntster (t @ c) 18:10, 13 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Huntster: I try to do that when I see what looks like a possible confusion. Adding that description may seem easy, but it's not part of my workflow, so I'm not sure I can guarantee adding it to all journal articles. It's certainly a reasonable request, so I'll do my best to figure it out. Trilotat (talk) 18:19, 13 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, it really would be appreciated. As the number of items in Wikidata continues to grow, the potential for similarly named items to cause confusion amongst users when no description is available grows as well. Without knowing how your workflow is set up, I wonder if your system could simply append the scraped/inputted publication date to the end of a static phrase, as mentioned earlier. Huntster (t @ c) 18:25, 13 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DOI as ADS Bibcode edit

Are you sure that The vowel elements in speech (Q113755235)ADS bibcode (P819)10.2475/AJS.S2-42.125.167 is correct? [1] states that correct bibcode is 1866AmJS...42..167P Ghuron (talk) 16:05, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ghuron: My error. I’ve corrected it. Thanks for catching it. Trilotat (talk) 11:24, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, but I probably didn't explain it clearly. There are ~4K suspicious edits: Wikidata:Database reports/Constraint violations/P819#"Format" violationsI can see that report didn't really picked up all changes yet. Thanks! Ghuron (talk) 11:58, 9 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I hope I fixed my 4k errors. I think I have. You’re catch made me check if it was a broader error. Sorry for the distraction. Trilotat (talk) 22:26, 9 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nothing to be sorry about, it's only those who do nothing that make no mistakes Ghuron (talk) 05:18, 10 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Call for participation in a task-based online experiment edit

Dear Trilotat,

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 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 or use this form I will contact you with the link to start the study.

For more information about the study, please read this post: 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) Kholoudsaa (talk) 15:16, 13 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cerro del Pueblo edit

I think Cerro del Pueblo (Q75135545) is the correct location not Cerro del Pueblo Formation (Q27781564). The camera location for the picture in en:Cerro del Pueblo Formation matches the location of Cerro del Pueblo (Q75135545). I think this edit gave the incorrect coordinates and it was imported to wikidata by a bot. Is there a reason there are two wikidata objects? Maundwiki (talk) 14:11, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Maundwiki: If you're asking why there is an object for both Cerro del Pueblo and Cerro del Pueblo Formation, I'm sure it's because the mountain is different from the formation, though the formation was likely named for the mountain where it was first identified. I think the coordinates are different for the two objects. The picture of the mountain is the same as the formation as both are displayed in that picture. As to the specific coordinates, I'm not sure of their details or history. Did I respond to your question(s)? If not, please let me know. Trilotat (talk) 23:25, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Incorrect instances of "erratum" edit

Hello @Trilotat, I've come across a few Quickstatements edits where you've added the statement instance of erratum to items that are not errata, examples: 1 2 3. My guess is that you used a query for the keyword 'correction' in the item label or title, but this picks up quite a number of false negatives. I've started undoing some of the edits when I see them, thought you should know so you can consider changing your query strategy. Kbseah (talk) 11:30, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Kbseah: Thank you for the note. My process was "start with the keyword and remove the non-errata." I was careful , but I should have been more careful.Trilotat (talk) 18:52, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No worries, and thanks for the reply! One thing I did notice about errata is that they're usually only one page long, which is a surprisingly good filtering tool... Kbseah (talk) 18:57, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]