Uzume

Welcome to Wikidata, Uzume!

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! --Tobias1984 (talk) 19:18, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Q81542894

This edition cannot have been printed in 1924, since it carries information about the copyright renewal in the United States. The date of publication is not known. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:52, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Well that creates a sticky wicket. I was cleaning c:Category:Books with Wikidata item: quick statements. The only way to fix the QuickStatements linked from c:File:A Passage to India.djvu is to break the Wikidata item linkage (probably not the best idea since it seems you created the item at the same time you uploaded the media) or either add the Wikidata statement (which you maintain is incorrect) or change the publication date on Commons—which I did. I also removed the date on s:en:Index:A Passage to India.djvu. Since this is your baby I will let you do the same wherever else it might need to be removed, e.g., s:en:A Passage to India, s:en:A Passage to India/Chapter 1, s:en:Author:Edward Morgan Forster, etc.

By the way, both of these:

• passagetoindiafors00fors OCLC 1036804004
• passagetoindiasyed00fors OCLC 1036752926

claim the same Openlibrary_edition: OL15111472M

There is also the HathiTrust (Q3128305) scan OCLC 992592206 and the OCLC of the original print version: OCLC 804205; which should I put on the WD records?

—Uzume (talk) 01:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Open Library can be a bit of a mess at times, but OCLC/WorldCat is hopelessly muddled. It's quite common to find WorldCat errors. I only add the data if there's something listed on the OpenLibrary page, but that is no guarantee that there aren't going to be many errors.

I cannot determine whether the HathiTrust copy is the same edition or not, since it is missing the title page, the copyright statement (from the back of the title page), and does not have its original cover. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:21, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I figured out why OCLC, Inc. (Q190593) is doing that; both Internet Archive (Q461) and HathiTrust (Q3128305) are publishing MARC standards (Q722609) records that it is indexing and creating OCLC control number (P243) records. —Uzume (talk) 02:28, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Questionnaire invitation (a new tool to be developed, to verify media data)

Hi there, I'm developing a tool to assist users in verifying (structured) data of media on commons.

To understand the community's needs, I would like to invite you to participate in this questionnaire: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScbNdJdQYN1yBvEeKne48eWDU6SBsdlUfNBAmZyvUEBkCR1Gg/viewform?usp=sf_link. It should take ~2 minutes.

Thanks a lot. :D

(You received this message as you seems to have experience with structured data on Wikimedia projects.)

-- Gabrielchl (talk) 23:43, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

You assert that I seem to have some experience with structured data on Wikimedia projects. I wonder on what basis you make such an assertion and choose to notify me about this questionnaire. I also wonder if the author of the questionnaire is a native English speaker as the second to last question seems inverted: if someone minds (is annoyed or concerned about) being contacted with respect to a specific topic then there is no reason for contact information, whereas, if someone does not mind being contacted, contact information could prove useful to arrange such contact. This is inverted from how it is used in many other languages I have encountered (e.g., I know native Japanese speakers often get this wrong) —Uzume (talk) 05:55, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

"Error: Unable to display the reference properly. See the documentation for details." on te wiki

@Uzume perhaps? your te మాడ్యూల్:Wd edit is causing error: "Error: Unable to display the reference properly. See the documentation for details." Can you please check on your end. thank you. హరుడు (talk) 14:04, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

@హరుడు: And did you look at the documentation (en:Module:Wd#References)? That error is from the module when the Wikidata references cannot be rendered using Template:Cite web (Q5637226) or Template:Cite Q (Q22321052) because they do not have both title (P1476) and reference URL (P854) or stated in (P248). The best resolution is to fix the Wikidata records adding the missing properties to the references. Based upon my experience this is most commonly a missing title (P1476) when a reference URL (P854) is present but there are other possibilities. You can find an extensive discussion on how this feature was developed at en:Module talk:Wd#Reference formatting bug when using "author name string" (P2093). The most relevant parts refer to something called "fallback". I did not develop this. I just copied it from enwiki. Janhrach wrote most of the code perhaps he can help you further. —Uzume (talk) 15:06, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

P4258 (identifiant Gallica)

Bonjour,

Il me semble que les dernières modifications que vous avez effectuées sur cette propriété sont problématiques : elles génèrent un avertissement réclamant un identifiant BNF "archives et manuscrits" ; or, sauf erreur de ma part, il n'y a qu'un identifiant BNF pour un document de Gallica : l'identifiant BNF (P268), ou l'identifiant BNF archives et manuscrits (P12207), mais pas les deux à la fois ? Acélan (talk) 17:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

@Acélan: You will have to forgive me as I do not speak French but if machine translation is correct you are saying that all digital items referenced by an Gallica ID (P4258) should always have either a Bibliothèque nationale de France ID (P268) catalog entry or a BnF archives and manuscripts ID (P12207) entry but not both. It should be noted that I only fixed the constraints that were broken on Gallica ID (P4258). If I am understanding things, as it stands the current constraints require both and as far as I know the current constraint system is not able to enforce an A or B scenario (I may be wrong there and need to do more research but it seems to be a limitation of item-requires-statement constraint (Q21503247)). In any event, I only fixed the previous broken constraints that another editor put in place. Perhaps it would be better to remove all such constraints since neither always requiring A or always requiring B is correct (and certain always requiring both is wrong). There is a relevant discussion at Property talk:P4258#Constraints. I believe @VIGNERON is interesting in this topic and there are comments from both of the editors that initiated the current constraints so I recommend you bring it up there (where more interested parties are already discussing such things). Thank you, —Uzume (talk) 21:51, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, and I'm sorry I wrote in French; I couldn't work out which language you spoke. I'll talk to Vigneron about it. Acélan (talk) 06:45, 6 April 2024 (UTC)