User talk:XXN/Archive

Latest comment: 7 years ago by Lea Lacroix (WMDE) in topic Wikidata weekly summary #240

Logo of Wikidata Welcome to Wikidata, XXN!

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) 19:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Babel

edit

Babel lets you view and edit more than one language on Wikidata. Just add e.g.{{#babel:de-N|en-3|es-1|fr-2|nl-3|it-4|da-0}} to your user page. --Tobias1984 (talk) 19:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Genes and proteins are distinct concepts

edit

Hi, I noticed a merge on a gene item and a protein item. Although related they are distinct concepts and as such should not be merged. A protein is a product of a gene. Merges like this leads to incorrect knowledge since it links gene properties to protein properties and vice versa. I took the liberty to revert the merge to the previous state of separate gene item and a separate wikidata item. --Andrawaag (talk) 13:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

keyboard vs computer keyboard

edit

It doesn't appear constructive to put equal sign between Q7558684 and Q250. --Avatar6 (talk) 09:13, 10 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

You've removed many good links from Q250. Excepting one sitelink added in Q7558684, the rest were "lost". This is unacceptable. --XXN, 11:19, 10 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Frate, Fratello

edit

Hello XXN. Concerning this and this move, I'd like to bring to your attention the explanation I gave in User_talk:Infovarius#Fratello. Regards, Apdency (talk) 20:57, 18 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Frate = brother and the right place for this sitelink is Q10861465. There does not exist an article for sibling (Q31184) on ro.wikipedia, yet. --XXN, 21:28, 18 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
As far as I can gather (both by text and image), the article gives a gender neutral description, which would make it equal to "Sibling". Apdency (talk) 19:01, 19 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
When you don't know enough some language, maybe, it's better to not involve in polemics related to that language, I think. Romanian Explanatory Dictionary (DEX) lit. says that "frate" is a "Male person considered in relation to another person (regardless of gender), born of the same parents or only the same father or the same mother" (first signification). --XXN, 20:00, 19 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
I don't know enough Romanian to have a conversation in it, that's right. But I have no difficulty in understanding what is meant with "Fratele, respectiv sora în cazul persoanelor de sex feminin, ...". And in making decisions concerning Wikidata items, I focus on article content, rather than on dictionary definitions. Either that content is wrong, or the connection with the "Brother" articles. Apdency (talk) 20:19, 19 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
@Apdency: Ok; article was created without any source[1]; probably was mistranslated from other language, but every language has its own particularities; Wikipedia it's not a source for itself; in Romanian in 100% of cases> "Frate" is 100% equivalent of English term "brother", but only in rare cases is equivalent of "sibling". That article in rowiki must be rewitten and extended with more explantions; an article for sister (Q595094) also must be created in place of current redirect; and, additionally a stub for sibling (Q31184) can be created, but this probably will not happen soon due to this and this. --XXN, 22:29, 19 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

@XXN:, I suggest to link ro:Frate to sibling (Q31184) per Apdency. The current situation does not make any sense. --Gikü (talk) 12:50, 8 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Merge

edit

If you merge items with your bot, please also create a redirect from the old item to the new one. Thanks. --Pasleim (talk) 23:25, 23 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Done. Function for clearing and redirecting was temporary disabled (it's nice that PLbot is watching RC finishing off the job). --XXN, 23:57, 23 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

But do not merge ordinary items with disambigs! [2] There are few things that cause so much chaos as bad merges with disambigs. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 07:07, 20 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Innocent bystander: bot merged items trying to connect cebwiki and svwiki homonymous disambigs: ceb:Eich with sv:Eich. SVwiki sitelink was incorrectly added in Q7147 on 31 October 2015 and thus occurred this situation. I'll recheck all merges done yesterday in that session of actions (several tens). XXN, 07:48, 20 July 2016 (UTC)Reply
Thank you, Lsjbot is currently on vacation and we have a discussion on the svwiki:Village pump if and how we should let him start again with this project. Not only the interwiki is a mess, also the articles are very confusing sometimes. I edited an article today, and the mountain suddenly became 1200 meters taller. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 07:56, 20 July 2016 (UTC)Reply
@Innocent bystander: I found ~1500 duplicated disambigs on svwiki and 166 on cebwiki. Many of them don't have YET duplicated WD items but in any moment some WD flooder can mass-create these "missing" items. With "Linked items" is possible to find easily at any moment (duplicated) WD items for these pages. But firstly it's necessary to merge (unify) duplicated pages in wikipedias to prevent item creation. Do you have any idea how to proceed? A huge amount of work and time is necessary for this. Maybe some team(s) of users (Wikiprojects) are interested to get involved in? --XXN, 11:48, 20 July 2016 (UTC)Reply
Duplicate disambigs on svwiki have to be handled manually, and the intension is to do so. One large problem is that these new Lsjbot-disambigs contains a lot of wiki code, which is not always user friendly. Otherwise almost anybody can easily merge two disambig-pages. Otherwise, I do not think a set of two disambigs with the same label is a big issue. In a few cases, the disambig-pages will be so long, that they by technical reasons have to be split in two (or more) pages. So even when we are finished, we will have duplicate disambig-items.
One good thing to do is to add GeoNames ID (P1566) from these two projects to by the help of those identify duplicates and mismatches. It will take a lot of time, but I think it is worth the effort. It could also be good to compare the data from GeoNames with the present statements we have. GeoNames is far from trustworthy, but it is a start to identify duplicates and mismatches. The Wikipedia-links present in GeoNames is unfortunately neither trustworthy. Too often they only link to anything with the same name as the GeoName-item. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 15:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

after your "be-x-oldwiki to be-tarask"

edit

It seems that your changes broke the update script, now all 4 lists that about this wiki are frozen.

In my opinion, we shouldn't change them before these Phabricator tasks to be resolved.

--Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:20, 2 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Didn't know about this bug. Reverted my edit for now, but I'll not watch these tasks to do the update again when everything will be OK; I hope someone else will do it. --XXN, 07:54, 2 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
edit

We today have many sitelinks on svwiki who are redirects. Many of them are intentional, but more and more of them are unintentional, created by mistakes when pages are merged. The script you designed for the external links on nlwiki, looks like it could identify if a page on nlwiki was a redirect or not. Is it possible to create a script that identifies redirects on svwiki that are unintentionally connected to Wikidata? Which are intentional and unintentional could be sorted out by the help of something like Template:Soft redirect with Wikidata item (Q16956589). We do not have any such template yet, but it could soon be created as soon we have a consensus about marking up such redirects. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 08:02, 2 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Innocent bystander:
here are all sv.wiki redirects connected in Wikidata (4600+).
Here are only redirects with multiple revisions (~4000). Not sure if this is the best way to find all redirects unintentionally connected to Wikidata, maybe you know other criteria for query? XXN, 11:11, 2 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
Well, when we have a template (with associated category) like Template:Soft redirect with Wikidata item (Q16956589) in place, that could work as a indicator that a redirect is "intentional". Is it possible to create a query for such maintenance, so we do not have to rely on a bot to update such lists? -- Innocent bystander (talk) 11:31, 2 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
Yes. Such a query will do the job. XXN, 13:31, 2 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
Ok, but how do I run such a query? The template and corresponding category is now alive! -- Innocent bystander (talk) 17:00, 3 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
@Innocent bystander: log in to Quarry using your wikimedia account; go to the query page and click on the button "Fork" (in upper right side) - this will clone current query to your account. Then click that big button "Submit query" (under text area) and wait some time until results will appear below. That's all. XXN, 19:06, 3 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Wikidata weekly summary #228

edit

Wikidata weekly summary #229

edit

Wikidata weekly summary #230

edit

Wikidata weekly summary #231

edit

Wikidata weekly summary #232

edit

Wikidata weekly summary #233

edit

Wikidata weekly summary #234

edit

Wikidata weekly summary #235

edit

Wikidata weekly summary #236

edit

Wikidata weekly summary #237

edit

Wikidata weekly summary #238

edit

Wikidata weekly summary #239

edit

Wikidata weekly summary #240

edit
Return to the user page of "XXN/Archive".