On this page, old discussions are archived after 90 days. An overview of all archives can be found at this page's archive index. The current archive is located at 2025/01.

SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose oldest comment is older than 90 days.

Hi, Daniel! I hope you're doing well. After returning from WikiConference North America, I wrote a blog post on Diff about the importance of in-person conferences. If you're interested, I'd love for you to take a look and share your thoughts!

I was also wondering if we could collaborate on creating and updating Wikidata entries for notable individuals from Central Asia. We could start with this list of outstanding architects, actors, and writers from the region. It would also be fantastic to translate the list into German, especially since I know you're quite active on dewiki.

Let me know what you think! On my side, I'd be happy to help by adding Russian, Turkish, and Uzbek descriptions on Wikidata. Nataev ^talk 15:37, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nataev: thanks for the suggestion. That's a nice write-up of your wiki event experiences. We have probably crossed paths at some of them, e.g. in 2012. As for the prize recipients, I wrote a SPARQL query to handle the list and adapted it for Tabernacle to facilitate editing. Adding descriptions or aliases would be straightforward, too, and we could filter out things that are complete in some way. Happy to coordinate further. --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 16:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's amazing! I've never used Tabernacle. Looks cool! Can we also add Turkish to the table? That way I'd also edit the Turkish labels and descriptions. Thank you so much! Nataev ^talk 17:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nataev: Sure. I added Turkish to both queries and adjusted the links above. --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 18:14, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop creating empty unsourced lexemes and then leaving them empty and unsourced. I already deleted several of those earlier today; please don't make me have to do it again. Mahir256 (talk) 20:08, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for checking, stopping now, even though I just opened many tabs in order to create new entries. The ones I started today all came (via Ordia) from scholarly articles or Wikipedia articles on scholarly topics, so from actual usage rather than dictionaries — not sure how to source that properly. Re these lexeme entries being "empty": I often enrich existing entries, including bare-bone ones, but I find it more convenient to decouple that activity from the creation of lexeme entries. For instance, I like to record pronunciation files based on SPARQL-generated lists of existing lexemes with no pronunciation audio (P443) statement. Do we have an entity schema for a lexeme stub? Is there a workflow that you would recommend for starting lexeme entries? --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 20:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you really want to cite usage of lexemes in scholarly articles, you can add quotations from those articles using the gloss quote (P8394) property, either on the lexemes themselves (such as found on cat (L7)) or on their senses (such as found on the senses of have (L1885)). I don't know how much heavy lifting the word "often" is doing in your sentence, or how vaguely defined your notion of "enrich" is, but I have seen often enough the result of "decoupling" lexeme improvement steps eventually being "completely forgetting to add other information", and am disinclined to believe anyone is immune to this forgetting when they do perform this "decoupling". (I should remind you here that I had briefly blocked you for similar behavior that was reported two years ago.) This is why I ask others to provide sources for lexemes in their language when they create them, with this request rising to a demand the more greatly-resourced a language is. I don't believe there are EntitySchemata for lexeme stubs since what a 'stub' looks like will depend on the language-lexical category pair, but if you are going to continue to create new lexeme entries, then I demand (given that English is the highest-resourced language in the world) that you add one of the properties noted under the bullet point "The evidence for the existence of a lexeme may be indicated in a number of ways:" in the "Should there be a lexeme for it?" section of this page—with greater preference for the earlier bullet points should it be possible to provide them. (Many external identifiers for English may be searched for using Mishramilan (মিশ্রমিলন).) Mahir256 (talk) 20:52, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, these pointers are useful. I generally don't "want to cite usage of lexemes in scholarly articles" but I am mostly looking for technical terms representing senses that are likely to have or merit a dedicated item to link to. Some of these might be in relevant ontologies, some in dictionaries, some in both or neither, and so far, I haven't looked at that systematically. I'll keep it in mind going forward. --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 21:42, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Daniel. About this edition, I think you can deduce that from the instance "scientific article" and the "topic" -> "Wikipedia", without having to add Wikipedia as a subject of academic studies (Q870337) because it is duplicating information, don't you think? Why do you think it is necessary to put it back? Thank you. Vanbasten 23 (talk) 14:05, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanbasten 23: Thanks for thinking along. I am also a bit uncomfortable with this somewhat duplicate tagging. It can be justified to some extent, though: (i) a number of Wikipedias have an entry for Academic studies about Wikipedia, and the Wikidata item Wikipedia as a subject of academic studies (Q870337)    follows from that; (ii) there are multiple Wikipedias, yet most academic studies look only at one (and English Wikipedia (Q328) in particular), which is then often used for main subject (P921) tagging, while all of them could be tagged with Wikipedia as a subject of academic studies (Q870337); (iii) sometimes, Wikipedia might be in the title because it was used rather than studied, for which I would like to see a sharper distinction between main subject (P921) and describes a project that uses (P4510), which could perhaps introduce some helpful nuance here. --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 18:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the response. Despite this, I still do not understand its usefulness as it is. Regarding point 1, this article exists in several Wikipedias, but it is a list that can be built perfectly with the instance and the topic, without the need for anything else. Regarding point 2, if necessary you can specify "Wikipedia in X language" in the topic, but with a query you can get all the possible languages, without problem. Regarding point 3, you are right that one thing is not the same as the other, but if we think about what usually appears in main subject (P921) there are concepts such as "rowing", "cancer", "Wikipedia", but not something as extensive as Wikipedia as a subject of academic studies (Q870337). I would see it fine if you were putting it in "instance of" instead of "scientific article" and Wikipedia as a subject of academic studies (Q870337) was a type of scientific article, but that's not how I see it. Take care. CC: @Madamebiblio: --Vanbasten 23 (talk) 19:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just an fyi, I was using author disambiguator and noticed you had quickstatements on 23 October 2024 that created duplicate items for Rida T. Farouki.

https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q130626173

https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q130626194

I merged them with https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q112551012 (pretty sure it's the same person), but thought I'd mention it. Thanks!

Emwille (talk) 20:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Emwille: Thanks for thinking along, checking, fixing and for this notification! --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 15:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Daniel, something went wrong with this import by Research Bot. It has a defunct DOI and a wrong publication date. --Kolja21 (talk) 05:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like this led to a bunch of WikiProject Physics articles being classified as falling under WikiProject Mathematics — see post at Wikidata:Edit groups/QSv2/211440. Preimage (talk) 04:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]