User talk:Romaine/2018

Latest comment: 5 years ago by Lea Lacroix (WMDE) in topic Wikidata weekly summary #344

Wikidata weekly summary #293

edit

Wikidata weekly summary #294

edit

Wikidata weekly summary #295

edit

Wikidata weekly summary #296

edit

Churches in French

edit

Hi,

Just a quick note: in French, church is « église » (with a lowercase « é », if you use an uppercase « É » then it's not a building but the community-congragation).

Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 14:44, 27 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi VIGNERON, Ah! Did not know that. Will try to keep that in mind, thank you for the explanation! Romaine (talk) 14:47, 27 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
Yes, French can be weird and over-precise like that. I'm checking things like this this from time for time. Cdlt VIGNERON (talk) 14:50, 27 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

And here is the perfect example where French precise subtelties can be quite painful : Temple de l'Observatoire (Q7698705) is this item about a building (église) or about a congregation(Église)? (the two seems a bit mixed up in the 3 Wikipedia articles). Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 13:58, 5 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Wikidata weekly summary #297

edit

Wikidata weekly summary #298

edit

Wikidata weekly summary #299

edit

Wikidata weekly summary #300

edit

Wikidata weekly summary #301

edit

Wikidata weekly summary #302

edit

Wikidata weekly summary #303

edit

Wikidata weekly summary #304

edit

Wikidata weekly summary #305

edit

Wikidata weekly summary #306

edit

Inquiry regarding your deletion of 47thPennVols user page from Wikidata

edit

Hi, Romaine. While working on a bio of Hetty Voûte for the English version of Wikipedia (as part of the April 2018 drive by Women in Red to increase the number of women's biographies on Wikipedia), I came across Hetty's given name, Henriette, and thought I should add it to her Wikidata entry (Q24009728) to help other Wikipedians who might be researching her life. When I went in to do that edit on Wikidata, I saw a notice on my user page that you had labeled my Wikidata User Page "Out of project scope," for a prior edit I had done for the subject of a different bio, and that you had also then deleted my user page (deleted it on April 7, 2018). I've been a member of Wikipedia since 2015 (as User:47thPennVols), and always try to do the right thing but, like many of fellow Wikipedians, am still learning all of the ins and outs of Wikipedia procedures. (Just as a bit of background, I've been researching and writing Wikipedia articles on and off since 2015, but hadn't made any changes to any Wikidata entries prior to this year. I did so for the earlier bio because I had found info that wasn't available on Wikidata, and thought it might be helpful to other Wikipedia researchers.) I didn't see any explanation from you on the Talk Page for my Wikidata User Page regarding why you deemed my earlier edit out of scope, and why you then also deleted my user page. So, I just wanted to check in to ask you what your reasons were for reverting the edit and deleting my user page. (I'm sincerely trying to be a good Wikipedian.) Thank you in advance for your response. 47thPennVols (talk) 19:15, 25 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi 47thPennVols, I think I missed your message on my talk page because you added it in the middle of the page (and during a very busy week), instead of at the bottom where I usually look for new messages.
What happened is that another user marked your user page for deletion as "out of project scope" and in the quick review of that request I did your page looks a lot like the many spam user pages that get created or attempts of people to write a Wikipedia article on the wrong wiki. Looking at that earlier version in more closer detail, I should have noticed the page was nominated for deletion in error. My apologies for my mistake.
I appreciate you came to me with your question, and I am happy that my colleagues helped you fixing my mistake. If there is anything in the future I can help you with, please let me know. Romaine (talk) 01:04, 5 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Cast list

edit

Hi Romaine, would you undelete and move the list you deleted at Talk:Q16672466 to a place you deem suitable?
--- Jura 12:49, 7 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi Jura, Sure I can do that. What place you have in mind for this list? Romaine (talk) 12:51, 7 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
I don't see a problem with having it like Template:Item documentation where it was, but you can put it at Talk:Q16672466/full cast list if you prefer.
--- Jura 12:53, 7 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
I was more thinking of a project page or sandbox page in the user namespace. I do not see a reason why this list is suitable for that items talk page... Creating an orphaned page seems also not a good idea to me. Romaine (talk) 13:00, 7 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
I'm not aware of the a "no item documentation" policy on talk pages. Can you point me to that? Thanks.
--- Jura 13:02, 7 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
I am not aware that there is a "I can invent a policy I can ask others about"-policy... Can you point me to that?
A talk page is intended to discuss the subject. I can even imagine documentation can take place regarding the background of an item. But still, I do not see a list of items created by a bot as documentation, nor did the person who nominated that page. Romaine (talk) 13:22, 7 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
As administrator, I expect you to explain your administrative actions and the Wikidata policies they are based on. As talk pages are used for item discussion and documentation, you are expected to explain why you'd think this isn't so.
--- Jura 13:27, 7 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
I do not know how this is on the many Wikimedia wikis, but on most wikis I am active on is thinking that for everything a policy exist is considered to be disturbing.
A second thing that is considered problematic is when people do not reply on the arguments provided in a discussion.
But then still, on Wikidata there is a policy called: Use common sense. I explained to you why it is to me common sense that a talk page of an item is used for discussing that item, even secondary that documentation of that item on the talk page is possible. Also I said that just a list of the cast is not discussing that item, nor documentation. If you think that explanation is not right, can reply to me saying why you think it is not right. Thank you. Romaine (talk) 13:48, 7 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Q26212424

edit

The above made me wonder about your approach to deletions. What was the label of Q26212424? Why is it out of scope?
--- Jura 13:17, 7 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

I am wondering why you give me the impression of a hostile approach. I am willing to help, but not under all conditions.
The page has as label: Louise Smith
The page was deleted on the English Wikipedia.
No unique identifiers were added to the page, nor any sources were added.
A user nominated this page being not relevant/out of scope. Romaine (talk) 13:29, 7 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
I am not sure if I agree if that is sufficient. But as this is a wiki of us all, I asked other admins how they think of this. I am happy to follow their feedback regarding this item. Romaine (talk) 14:03, 7 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
I asked you for a reference for a statement you made there. Please provide it.
--- Jura 09:07, 8 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Wikidata weekly summary #307

edit

Wikidata weekly summary #308

edit

Wikidata weekly summary #309

edit

Wikidata weekly summary #310

edit

Wikidata weekly summary #311

edit

Wikidata weekly summary #312

edit

Wikidata weekly summary #313

edit

Wikidata weekly summary #314

edit

Wikidata weekly summary #315

edit

Wikidata weekly summary #316

edit

Class and superclass as P31

edit

Hi,

I see that you add instance of (P31) = nation at sport competition (Q46135307), thank you. But on some item, there was already a more precise subclass of nation at sport competition (Q46135307) (see this SPARQL query), in this case should we keep them both? I think not, but I'll let you decide.

Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 18:31, 18 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi VIGNERON, In a lot of occasions it was added by others if I see the query, but in case I added it, I work on a list some days old and mine and your edits might crossed. Let me pick an example: France at the UEFA European Championship 2016 (Q22002164). I see through UEFA Euro 2016 Team (Q24199684) it gets nation at sport competition (Q46135307). The English labels confuses a bit, but translating the French label to Dutch it makes more sense. In general I would say that a specific one if often more welcome, however at the same time it makes it more risky for the total group of items to fall out of the group (while belonging in it). To this question I do not have an answer what wisdom is. I leave undecided, you can decide yourself. My goal is just to get all items with sitelink to nl-wiki with instance of (P31) or subclass of (P279). I noticed you made additions yourself too, thank you for that! Romaine (talk) 19:02, 18 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
Ok, I understand. Until more wisdom, let's leave this for now. Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 20:13, 18 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Wikidata weekly summary #317

edit

Wikidata weekly summary #318

edit

Wikidata weekly summary #319

edit

Wikidata weekly summary #320

edit

Wikidata weekly summary #321

edit

Wikidata weekly summary #322

edit

Wikidata weekly summary #323

edit

Wikidata weekly summary #324

edit

Wikidata weekly summary #325

edit

Nieuwe bot

edit

Hoi Romaine,

Weet je nog dat je voor mij zorgde dat er een infobox uit Wikidata verscheen op Commons? Is vermoedelijk een van de laatste keren geweest dat dit met de hand moest. Er draait nu een bot die de Commonskoppeling "autodramatisch" toevoegt. Dit is o.a. geschied op Hubert van Lith en Jessica Polka. Bizar genoeg staat er een verwijderverzoek op enwiki... Collegiale groeten uit Osdorp van Klaas `Z4␟` V07:43, 19 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Wikidata weekly summary #326

edit

Wikidata weekly summary #327

edit

Wikidata weekly summary #328

edit

Wikidata weekly summary #329

edit

Wikidata weekly summary #330

edit

Wikidata weekly summary #331

edit

Q718074

edit

Would you rather explain rather than scream in a description? For most of the functional groups in WD the structure is pretty clear, but you have obviously different idea how it should be done. Wostr (talk) 18:24, 30 September 2018 (UTC) PS Organyl group is already a subclass of functional group, so I really don't understand why you want to add a this class to a subclass of organyl group... Wostr (talk) 18:26, 30 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

1. I do not scream. If you would have called it frustrations, yes I can confirm. 2. I do not have a "different idea", I just tried to add a missing P31/P279 to a large group of items, including two that already had it. And yes, it is possible that another option is better 3. About the PS: sorry, had not seen that. 4. Please explain to me why you need to go to the history page of the item and to revert my adding there, instead of just removing. Why is it so needed to attract my attention if it is to you so obviously wrong what I did? Romaine (talk) 18:35, 30 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I've noticed that several items about functional groups (existing only in nl.wikipedia) has been assigned instance of functional group (Q170409) and thanks to you I was able to add identifiers, structures etc. and also merge some items, because I didn't find these items before, when I was looking for 'functional group' in existing WD items. About 4: in my home project that is a typical action in such situtations – to let someone know about the revert (with justification of it in a description). The other option – to make a revert without using the revert option – is recognized rather inappropriate (and gives the impression of trying to hide the edit), because someone may not notice the edit. However, if you took such action as unkind towards you, I can only apologize for it. Wostr (talk) 18:49, 30 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for the work on these items! Much appreciated!
On different wikis there are different customs. I have noticed that reverting someone's edit causes often first the emotion of frustration (because "someone is undoing my work"), while it may turn out a good improvement, for example with mistakes. Therefore I only use reverting if I want to indicate something to the editor (or with frustrations). Sorry, for expressing my frustrations to you. Romaine (talk) 18:59, 30 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
Ok, I will keep in mind that reverting may not be the best option. Thanks, Wostr (talk) 19:14, 30 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Wikidata weekly summary #332

edit

Wikidata weekly summary #333

edit

Wikidata weekly summary #334

edit

Wikidata weekly summary #335

edit

Wikidata weekly summary #336

edit

Wikidata weekly summary #337

edit

Wikidata weekly summary #338

edit

Wikidata weekly summary #339

edit

Wikidata weekly summary #340

edit

Wikidata weekly summary #341

edit

Wikidata weekly summary #342

edit

Wikidata weekly summary #343

edit

Wikidata weekly summary #344

edit
Return to the user page of "Romaine/2018".