User talk:Mdd

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Logo of Wikidata Welcome to Wikidata, Mdd!

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!

--Ricordisamoa 12:23, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you for your work in maintaining Wikidata. I have a small suggestion to improve your future work. If you notice that two items are duplicates, please merge them instead of blanking one of them as you did with the item Q108782849. External sites use Wikidata identifiers, so it is important that we preserve the chain of references. We do this by making one item a redirect for the other. In particular, item ids are intended to be a permanent identifier, so we never reuse them for another concept. See Help:Merge for more information on how to merge items, and consider installing the Merge Gadget. Thanks!  Bovlb (talk) 23:44, 3 October 2021 (UTC) --Bovlb (talk) 23:44, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bovlb:. There is some kind of logic here that I do not yet comprehend. Now I have a similar case with Arjen Brussaard (Q108839633) and ‎Category:Arjen Brussaard (Q108839626). Could you fix this? -- Mdd (talk) 21:51, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And Andrea Bruce (Q59469986) and ‎Andrea Bruce (Q109412675), -- Mdd (talk) 16:29, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Van vs van

[edit]

Hello Mdd, please make sure that Van Nieuwenburg and van Nieuwenburg are two different spellings, see Van (Q69876093) vs van (Q69872130). Best regards --HarryNº2 (talk) 08:17, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Call for participation in a task-based online experiment

[edit]

Dear Mdd,

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) 17:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New family names and given names

[edit]

Hi Mdd!

It's nice of you to create new names. Please fill out at least these three Properties of information, this saves a lot of work for the other Wikidata contributors:

  • For names in Latin script:
  1. instance of (P31) (use "family name (Q101352)", "male given name (Q12308941)" or "female given name (Q11879590)")
  2. writing system (P282) (use "Latin script (Q8229)")
  3. native label (P1705) (use allways "mul" for the language specification; specific language specifications require a reference)

The easiest way would be to use the script from User:Bargioni, see: User:Bargioni/QuickNames

  1. instance of (P31) (use "family name (Q101352)", "male given name (Q12308941)" or "female given name (Q11879590)")
  2. writing system (P282) (use "Cyrillic script (Q8209)")
  3. native label (P1705) (use allways "mul" for the language specification; specific language specifications require a reference)

Note: The transliteration from e.g. Russian (Q7737)/Ukrainian (Q8798)/Serbian (Q9299) etc. to English (Q1860), French (Q150), German (Q188) and various other languages is different.

For more information please see this page: Wikidata:WikiProject Names/Properties.

I wish you continued happy work on Wikidata. Best regards, HarryNº2 (talk) 05:41, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dates in names (labels)

[edit]

Hi Mdd,

Thanks for adding the Van der Pot people to Wikidata.

I saw you've put the birth and death dates together with the names in the labels, instead of the descriptions. This causes problems with processing Wikidata information, so the label should only contain the names of these people. The dates can be put in the description as disambiguation information.

Information about labels can be found at Help:Label, especially the sections Labels can be ambiguous, Disambiguation information belongs in the description and Drop dates unless significantly important. Koen WikiTree (talk) 15:29, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Koen WikiTree:, the reason why I have been doing that because of the presentation in Wikimedia Commons. I would like to have the data in the name and not in the description, which is really strange. What you get in the infobox is for example:
Willem van der Pot,
merchant (1715-1789)
Which is rather a strange way of presentation, which I want to avoid there.
-- Mdd (talk) 15:51, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought. I guess I can live with this reversed data. I must admit in the infoboxes the names without the birth and death dates reads better, yet more undetermined. -- Mdd (talk) 16:19, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated report of empty item: Q116465299

[edit]

Hello, an item that you have edited (and you are the only non-bot editor) is considered empty and will be deleted in 72 hours if it doesn't improve. Your automated cleaner, Dexbot (talk) 17:28, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated report of empty item: Q108839626

[edit]

Hello, an item that you have edited (and you are the only non-bot editor) is considered empty and will be deleted in 72 hours if it doesn't improve. Your automated cleaner, Dexbot (talk) 17:30, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated report of empty item: Q116416483

[edit]

Hello, an item that you have edited (and you are the only non-bot editor) is considered empty and will be deleted in 72 hours if it doesn't improve. Your automated cleaner, Dexbot (talk) 21:26, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated report of empty item: Q116836725

[edit]

Hello, an item that you have edited (and you are the only non-bot editor) is considered empty and will be deleted in 72 hours if it doesn't improve. Your automated cleaner, Dexbot (talk) 17:28, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. As I noticed you are creating such items, I would like to point out that categories with only a link to wiki commons are not allowed under WD notability policy: #4 at WD:N. Solidest (talk) 17:39, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess your comment here has someting to do with this refert you made, where a linked was made between a Wikimedia Commons Category and a listing on the Dutch Wikipedia, which was made on Wikimedia Commons. I think this is not an issue of notability, but an issue of linking a category to a listing. -- Mdd (talk) 21:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, another example. The category c:Category:Spijkenisserbrug (1903-1978) was created five years ago and today an Wikidata Infobox was added and the Spijkenisserbrug (1903-1978) (Q127261903) Wikidata entry was created here.

The creation of that second category five years ago made sense, because there are over 100 images available, and there are actually two separate bridges with all kinds of specifics. The Wikidata entry gives (with all the data gathered) a data model of one specific bridge. Trying to fit those two bridges into one Wikidata entry is quite complicated. It is easier to make two entries and link them one to another.

Now this is only one of the many exceptional things I have dealt with in the past. It makes sense to me, and the WD notability policy: #4 at WD:N doesn't seem to take this into account. It might require some update. -- Mdd (talk) 22:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A third example recently brought up here could share some more light. Appearently this concerned two similar items created regarding the Category:Views from Pekelník on Wikimedia Commons:
  1. https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q123253134&oldid=2001273412 - 06:46, 31 October 2023 by Akul59 ‎Created a new Item: Category:Views from Pekelník
  2. https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q126900708&oldid=2188118463 - 05:35, 25 June 2024 by Akul59 ‎Created a new Item
Now the second entry was nominated for deletion, see here, with the argument "Category item with no sitelinks."
This particular situation was resolved by creating a redirect from the second to the first. Now this is a somewhat similar as the situation mentioned in my first comment, see here with some differences. Now the things is again that this not any notability issue, it is an issue of merging two items together, and doing the right things in the right order here on Wikidata.
Now I am aware that I am missing something here. This particular merger seems like an edit made here on Wikidata. yet it was actually made on Wikimedia Commons, when I linked the one item to the other. Apparently some data remained here on Wikidata, which I was not even aware of. Now this was fixed here by User:Solidest of which I am grateful. However I still do not see how there is any notability issue here. -- Mdd (talk) 21:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I guess I don't understand the problem here. Take the first example. The main topic in "Former schools in Heemskerk" is "Schools in Heemskerk". There is a whole story how and why that Wikimedia Commons category has been created, which started with the release of a series of 2 million images under a CC license some 3 to 4 years ago, where all the images in the category came from. These images are from the period that Heemskerk was the fastest growing municipality of the Netherlands. Where is the leak of notability here? -- Mdd (talk) 18:14, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As to the commons-only items that is story on it's own as well, which has to do what I called here on Common next generation categorization. It also mentioned there "By the end of 2021 there was the public domain donation of the Noord-Hollands Archief of the Beeldbank De Boer collection with about 2 million images of the Haarlem region," which concerns the first comment I gave yesterday.

Third about the labeling of new Wikimedia categories as "Wikimedia categories" or "history-related" category for example. I am indeed aware, that I sometimes alter these labeling from one to another, while in fact they are both.

There is even a forth aspect here, that with my efforts on Wikimedia Commons I am applying Wikidata on a some larger scale, trying to optimize the Wikimedia Commons representation and its connections. On the Dutch Wikipedia I have been doing the same on a much smaller scale, and am aware of the ongoing resistance towards the use (see for example this contemporary discussion). In my understanding if we want to make this work, we should work on mutual understanding what we are trying to accomplish apart and all together. Thank you. -- Mdd (talk) 10:20, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with your misunderstanding is that you are not looking at these as wiki pages (which every Wikimedia category is), but as independent concepts. And you're back to arguing about the meaning of these categories, when the point of this rule is purely "standardization". There is no rule in wikidata that adds contextual relevance to commons categories, except for the two exceptions listed in the rule (1=category has "main topic", 2=category is used in other properties that suggest a link to the commons gallery). Claims like "the release of a series of 2 million images under a CC licence some 3 to 4 years ago" plays no role here. Wikidata is not an addition to the Commons, but a separate project first, and this rule is deliberately designed to avoid replicating the entire Commons category catalog in Wikidata. Roughly speaking, Wikidata manages only real-world concepts/entities, but also Wikiprojects pages, for which there is a strict set of requirements. For example, Wikipedia categories are automatically notable enough, but Commons categories are not, just as Wikipedia's archive or talk pages are not notable enough to be created in Wikidata. And the templates you put in Commons category pages should actually retrieve data from concept items, not from category items.
Your reasoning is that your understanding of the relationship between wikidata and commons allows you to ignore this rule, but that's the wrong approach, because the rules are set by the community and should be followed despite higher-level concepts and such. The rules are simply what they are, for historical, technical, or other reasons, and if you disagree with them, you should start discussions in the general forums to have them revised or clarified. There you can write anything you wrote in previous comments as arguments. At the moment, category articles with only commons category sitelinks are not allowed on wikidata, and this is what we should follow. Solidest (talk) 12:54, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
>"Wikimedia categories" or "history-related" ... while in fact they are both
Could you please clarify what you mean? I gave an example where you removed the “Category:” prefix, but you didn't change anything beyond that. I don't understand what your answer has to do with this case. I have a feeling that you don't really understand what Wikimedia category (Q4167836) is? Solidest (talk) 13:02, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the first example. I argued the main topic in "Former schools in Heemskerk" is "Schools in Heemskerk". So the Wikimedia Category:Former schools in Heemskerk does have a main topic. The rule, as you say, is "1=category has "main topic," and this rule has been upholded here. There is no rule-breaking here.

The only thing is that at the moment "schools in Heemskerk" is not acknowledged and created as a Wiki data entry yet. At Wikipedia.NL there are already 70 categories about schools in Dutch municipals, yet of the 300 municipals we have in the Netherlands. There is the simple situation, that 75% of the representation of municipals are underdeveloped.

Now at the moment I am not that interested in contributing to Wiki-policies discussion, but I can say that the second rule of exception "2=category is used in other properties that suggest a link to the commons gallery)" makes little sense. Commons gallery simply don't work. Also "Wikidata is not an addition to the Commons, but a separate project first..." is a limited view. Third, Wikidata should take into account that it should indeed "replicate the entire Commons category catalog in Wikidata." It should respect the autonomy of each project and work together. Assuming and keep stipulating misunderstanding and misconception from its longest standing contributors might not be the most constructive way to proceed. -- Mdd (talk) 14:39, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the first example, it is more subtile. The subject "Schools in Heemskerk" is not yet established here, yet the "Category:Schools in Heemskerk" is, see Category:Schools in Heemskerk (Q110493461). At the moment there are 70 similar categories on the Ducth Wikipedia, see here. On the corresponding Wikimedia category, see here, there is an wikidata infobox. And on Wikidata there is the corresponding Category:Schools in the Netherlands by municipality (Q17572578). This could be seen as the main topic of the Category:Former schools in Heemskerk (Q129099233) and all corresponding categories as well.
The Category:Former schools in Heemskerk (Q129099233) is the first example you brought up, and I have tried to give you a straight answer from the start. The first you brought up next was that I suffer from misconception. Such framing is kind of bold, and makes it personal while the whole subject of the first example is not. I guess from the start you wanted to lecture me, but forgot to give me at least one example of what you are refering to. If I see now in you second comment you made it personal, and brought up all kinds of policy issues. next just now you start referting me, see here, in stead of responding. This just for the record. -- Mdd (talk) 16:42, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that if "schools in Heemskerk" is created in the plural form, it is likely to be a list article, which usually does not have a "topic's main category". Whereas "main topic" usually implies a topic in the singular, and there is unlikely to be an article for that. And for "former schools in Heemskerk", it should be the main topic "former schools in Heemskerk", since it's not common to spread a concept over several different categories (e.g., Category:Lost films won't have "category's main topic: Film"). "Schools in Heemskerk" could still be presented as a structural need item to maintain a hierarchy. But I doubt that "former schools in Heemskerk" will ever be created. This category probably has a better chance of existing by creating a counterpart on nl.wikipedia than by assuming that it will ever need a main topic. But again, it has to appear first, and only then can you create a page for it on Wikidata with Commons link. That's what the rule says.
Also, in Category:Former schools in Heemskerk (Q129099233) you set the category's main topic - Category: item. This is an obvious mistake, and there is no such practice on wikidata. Given your experience on Wikidata, you should have noticed that people don't do it that way anywhere.
Based on what you wrote in the last paragraph, you really should go to the wikidata policy forum, or at least start by reading the help pages, because what I'm writing to you is not a limited view, but what's in the policy and what follows from it. Specifically on the topic of autonomy of each project - it is so in general, but with restrictions in the form of a notability policy, especially for Commons categories. It is literally written in Help:Sitelinks#Usage. You can read the discussion on this topic: Wikidata:Requests for comment/Creating new Wikidata items for all Commons categories. As you can see, the rules have not changed since that discussion. Many people have argued against your position with various arguments. So your position needs to be discussed further and a new consensus developed. And all I ask you to do for now is to abide by the current rules. Thanks. Solidest (talk) 17:00, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
> Such framing is kind of bold, and makes it personal while the whole subject of the first example is not. I guess from the start you wanted to lecture me
... I gave you a link to the rule from the beginning and wrote one line. And I expected to hear "ok, will be aware" and that would be the end of this conversation (that's why I haven't opened this page since the beginning of July). But almost 2 months later I found you violating this rule again. And okay, I don't take it strictly and I don't have a problem with people creating such articles to get around the rule. But you got my attention by changing category titles for no reason and often not putting the Category: prefix along with the p31=category statement.
And in response to the link to the rule, you started looking for examples in my edits that had nothing to do with the mentioned rule, then arguing with the rule and trying to find excuses for not following it. And each time you try to explain each case separately, when you create dozens of such categories that violate this rule. I don't understand the logic behind this. Now you're telling me I'm getting personal when I try to explain this rule to you? No, that's not true, and I didn't mean anything by it. I apologize if you felt that way. Perhaps you were offended by the phrase about not understanding categories? I came to that conclusion after you gave no answer to the question about removing the category prefix except that categories are "in fact they are both". I was also confused by that answer. And I also saw that you fill the categories into "category's main topic" or "category combines topics" properties, which are also mistakes.
Anyway, the point of this conversation is that I gave you links to the rules because of the repeated errors, and you gave me a wall of text back. So it seems to me now that you are the one who wanted to lecture me in the first place. Solidest (talk) 17:29, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nederland vs Koninkrijk der Nederlanden

[edit]

Hi Mdd, Ik zie dat je op verschillende items met eigenschap country (P17) de waarde "Koninkrijk der Nederlanden" hebt opgegeven bij bv een fabriek en allerlei meer. Op Wikidata hebben we afgesproken om zo specifiek mogelijk te zijn voor landen: als iets dus in Nederland gesitueerd is dient Netherlands (Q55) opgegeven te worden en niet Kingdom of the Netherlands (Q29999). Een tweede punt van aandacht is wat je als bestuurlijke eenheid opgeeft. De meest specifieke bestuurlijke eenheid is in Nederland de gemeente. Ik zie je op verschillende items echter als bestuurlijke eenheid een dorp opgeven, dat is fout. Voor het aangeven van dorpen is location (P276) bedoeld. Zou je op deze dingen in het vervolg willen letten? Dank! Romaine (talk) 18:23, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bedankt @Romaine: voor de doorgevoerde correctie, en ik zal daar verder op letten. -- Mdd (talk) 22:27, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mdd&oldid=2242414394"