Kam Solusar

Welcome to Wikidata, Kam Solusar!

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! — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 00:05, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Kam Solusar! I am just letting you know that I have added the autopatroller flag to your account, as you are a trusted user on Wikidata. If you have any questions or concerns, please don't hesitate to contact me or leave a message at the project chat. Thanks, — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 00:05, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your welcome! :) --Kam Solusar (talk) 16:32, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

GNIS Feature ID (P590)

The property GNIS Feature ID (P590) that you supported is now available. --Tobias1984 (talk) 19:03, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

GNIS Antarctica ID (P804)

The property you asked is now available. Just a note, maybe you should ask for becoming a Property creator, another usefull hands would be welcome. --Fralambert (talk)

Thanks! I'll start adding it to items in the next days. About the rights: I'll consider it, but at the moment I'm also already involved in several other projects, so I'm not sure I'd put those rights to much use. Regards, --Kam Solusar (talk) 00:13, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Zeme (Q10549538)

Hello, Kam Solusar. Why you created Zeme (Q10549538) and moved Wikipedia links to this item from Q2307436? --Allardais (talk) 15:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

manga vs anime

You need to explain something to me...

• Wikipedia EN, FR, DE, ES, IT, and 10 others has combined entries for the light novel, the manga and the anime and are linked to Trinity Blood (Q128338). On March 18, you reverted my contribution « IDs of the anime series belong to Trinity Blood (Q50695770) ». You created Q50695770 from scratch the previous day but problemn here, there are zero wikipedia articles linked there.
• You did the exact same thing with Shinmai Maō no Testament (Q15912080), whose anime infos can be found in The Testament of Sister New Devil (Q47924155), but there are no wikipedia articled linked there.

So, what's the point of a seperated entries if its Q-- entry is unused? Do you expect contributors in 15+ languages to split them up? I'm trying to understand your strategy here... InMontreal (talk) 01:27, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi InMontreal. Wikidata's goals are different from Wikipedia's and its scope goes beyond simply hosting data for already existing Wikipedia articles. In Wikipedia, articles occasionally cover more than one dinstinct topic (usually when they're closely related and don't warrant separate articles). But on Wikidata, every distinct topic/entity gets its own item. Items don't need to have pages on Wikimedia projects attached to them, as long as there are external sources and identifiers for this specific entity, see Wikidata:Notability. So when a movie/series/book/game, the director, screenwriter, production company or anything else has entries in various external databases or services (IMDb, TMDb, EIDR, VIAF or many others), it's OK to create an item, even if Wikipedia doesn't yet have an article on that topic. So when items mix various topics (like in case of these manga/anime/light novel franchises), the usual way to handle it, is to split them into separate items.

In case of these anime series, I just came across them when I tried to add their Netflix IDs and saw that they didn't have their own items yet, so I created them. And since those external IDs only refer to the anime, not the other works, they go on the anime item. Wikipedia articles don't have to change or split, of course. Though, I have to say, now I'm a bit curious why only these Japanese manga/anime/OVA/light novel franchises always have a single article on pretty much all Wikipedias, while non-Japanese franchises are usually split into separate articles as soon as there's enough content. But if you need a second opinion, you could ask over at Wikidata talk:WikiProject Movies or Wikidata:Project chat. Regards, --Kam Solusar (talk) 02:16, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I contribute mostly on the french wikipedia, and noticed some templates are modified to be wikidata-compatible. For example, in the external links section, simply entering the Template "(Imdb titre)" without the "id=" parameter will automatically grab the Pxx wikidata property. As you can guess by now, if you create a new Q-entry on wikidata for the anime then delete the Imdb, ANN anime and other anime-related entries from the existing Qxx where everything is linked, the Imdb, Ann anime and anime-related external links just won't display anymore on the wikipedia page, without warning, but the manga-related external links will remain. So, what's the solution here ? InMontreal (talk) 02:41, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

InMontreal: I see. That's indeed quite a problem if templates/infoboxes stop working due to this. I'm going to post over on the project chat to see what the best way of action would be in such cases.

Though after I had some time to think about this, I think having just one item for all the works described in such articles might not always work all that well anyway. Imagine if an article doesn't just include information about an anime series, but also short films, OVAs or a second anime adaptation. When someone adds a second IMDb template/ID for example (maybe on another language version of the article) and the ID gets moved to Wikidata, the link templates also wouldn't really work correctly anymore, since there's no way for the templates to know which IMDb number in the item belongs to which work. And you probably already get similar problems with other statements in infoboxes like author, publication date, etc since those aren't specific to just one type of work. With Shinmai Maō no Testament (Q15912080) for example, there also seem to exist several OVA episodes and the second season of the anime has another name (which could mean that some external databases give it a separate ID). Maybe in some cases where there's no clear relation between the article and a specific work, the IDs have to remain in the templates. Hopefully someone more knowledgeable has an answer on the project chat. Regards, --Kam Solusar (talk) 02:02, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Concerning the splitting of manga and anime, I believe there's a missing "link" between them in order to guide the contributors. Not sure which is which, but I'm thinking has part(s) (P527), maybe ? I haven't read the instruction manual yet. Anyways, on the french wikipedia last weekend, I modified the "ANN manga" template to be wikidata compatible, which led to hidden categories pointing out the errors. While attempting to add the missing entries or fix them, the only way I could figure out if there's a seperate Qxx on wikidata for the anime or the manga is to click on "View History" and look for deleted entries. Not practical. For a typical 1 manga + 1 anime wikipedia page, in theory, most of their identifiers can coexist in the same Qxx, but when adding start/end dates statements, well, enter the confusion zone... I told the manga café project to keep adding the "id=" value to the Ann manga/anime template like normal, hopefully some programmer (which I'm not) will figure out the "|wikidata=Qxx" addon extention to these and the infoboxes. InMontreal (talk) 19:01, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

InMontreal, thanks for your effort. The missing link from the main item to the anime items is something that I was also worried about, because it makes it difficult to see that a separate item was created. has part(s) (P527) would probably work better if the main item was about the media franchise (media franchise (Q196600)). But the articles' main topic (going by the first sentence of typical manga articles) seems to usally be the manga/light novel series, so the anime probably wouldn't count as a part of that (in the way that the property was intended).

I just discovered that derivative work (P4969) now exists as the reverse of based on (P144), which seems to be a good fit for this situation. There's a deletion request warning on its talk page, but there seems to be no actual discussion yet. --Kam Solusar (talk) 00:20, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey

Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this survey on the project page and see how your feedback helps the Wikimedia Foundation support editors like you. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement (in English). Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through the EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys to remove you from the list.

Thank you!

WMF Surveys, 18:57, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia survey

Every response for this survey can help the Wikimedia Foundation improve your experience on the Wikimedia projects. So far, we have heard from just 29% of Wikimedia contributors. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes to be completed. Take the survey now.

If you have already taken the survey, we are sorry you've received this reminder. We have design the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. If you wish to opt-out of the next reminder or any other survey, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement. Thanks!

WMF Surveys, 01:40, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey

Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 23 April, 2018 (07:00 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

If you already took the survey - thank you! We will not bother you again. We have designed the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. To opt-out of future surveys, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement.

WMF Surveys, 00:50, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Updates to Q1093431

I was looking over the rejected edits to Q1093431 and these don't seem to be repurposing. Can you please explain your reasoning behind this decision?  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Seogeek45 (talk • contribs) at 19:43, 19 June 2018‎ (UTC).

Hi Seogeek45. Citizens Bank (Q1093431) is an item for Wikimedia disambiguation pages named "Citizens Bank", like en:Citizens Bank on the English Wikipedia for example. It is not an item for one specific bank. The edits by User:Rotapeter seem to concern a specific bank and were therefore in the wrong place. Maybe Citizens Financial Group (Q5122694) is the one you're searching for? Regards, --Kam Solusar (talk) 22:12, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. So would you recommend creating a new item entirely for Citizens Bank? Since, i want a page for the company in this case not a branch. Something similar to what bank of america did here: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q487907  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Seogeek45 (talk • contribs) at 13:36, 21 June 2018‎ (UTC).

Seogeek45: you could create a new item, if the bank in question meets Wikidata's notability criteria. But I'm not too familiar with the topic, so maybe editors over at Wikidata talk:WikiProject Companies are more qualified to answer questions in that regard. --Kam Solusar (talk) 09:41, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Directors

Sorry about those, Kam. Thanks for spotting them. How I did that batch is a long story; I hope not too many were wrong :( --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:53, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Tagishsimon: No problem. I'm just looking at those on my watchlist and there seem to be indeed a couple of wrong ones. It's unfortunately a general problem on film items, in my experience. I've stumbled upon quite a few of them where directors, cast members, etc. were added just by looking at the name (or aliases) of the persons' items, which can lead to further problems when labels of those items change later and are then used by other users to create descriptions for the film items. --Kam Solusar (talk) 16:03, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Yup. Cough. That's about what happened here. I'll take a look through my batch later and see if I can spot any more. I'm far too shame-faced to explain anymore right now ;) --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:09, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

P2631 formatter URL

The old URL works for me, so I assumed that changing from tcm.com to tcm.turner.com was unnecessary complication. I've undone my edit. Trivialist (talk) 16:07, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Trivialist: Interesting. I first thought it was just my browser (a cookie problem or something like that), but others have the same problem. It simply redirects to http://www.tcm.com/unavailable and then goes into an endless redirect cyclce, which causes the browser to throw an error message. I wonder why that happens only to some people. Maybe language or location based. --Kam Solusar (talk) 05:30, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Flags of Germany

[1]: Maybe I don't understand well your argument. The government and the Federal Constitutional Court of the Federal Republic of Germany consider it a legal continuation of the German Reich (as created in 1871). As could be seen at multiple country items a change of regime or constitution is not a reason to remove historical flags. --Nk (talk) 17:36, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Nk: The Federal Republic of Germany is indeed seen as the legal successor of the Third Reich/German Empire and in some specific areas its continuation, but it's not the same country. It wasn't just a regime change or a change of the constituion. The Third Reich was, for all intents and purposes, dissolved and ceased to exist. Then a few years later (after occupation by the allied forces) the FRG was founded as a new country, replacing the zones occupied by the allied forces. The item in question, Germany (Q183), covers only this specific coountry that was founded in 1949 and has never used these flags of its predecessors. The flags belong on the respective items of those historic states that used them. --Kam Solusar (talk) 22:42, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

The country named Germany continued to exist in 1945-49 both in the legal world (with its own legal system, citizenship, etc.) and as an entity of international relations. The definition of 'country' doesn't require sovereignity so the occupation doesn't change much, it's just a special form of government. --Nk (talk) 09:31, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Nk: Well, the situation between 1945 and the foundation of the FRG is certainly somewhat complicated from a legal perspective (both in national and internnational law). But that doesn't really change much of the fact that the FRG founded in 1949 is a separate country and not just the German Empire under a different name. As a successor state it inherited a lot of things, from memberships,treaties, embassies and more, but those flags were never official flags of the Federal Republic. But maybe this is a discussion that would be better suited for Talk:Q183 or the German project chat (since that's where users most familiar with the intricacies of this case can be found]]). --Kam Solusar (talk) 13:57, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

The situation is such that for the elements of many persons of the 19th century and earlier Germany (Q183) is specified as country of citizenship (P27). Often it moved from the DNB, where there are no separate notations for the Weimar Republic or the Third Reich([2], [3]). Moreover, for athletes pre-WWII Olympics or FIFA World Cups we specify Germany (Q183) as a country for sport (P1532) too (Ernst Wilimowski (Q559779), Adolf Urban (Q364411)). In favor of this is also evidenced by united articles like Germany at the Olympics (Q1576072), Germany national association football team (Q43310) or flag of Germany (Q48160). It is significant that in the Germany (Q183) article in any section of Wikipedia the history is given, beginning with the Middle Ages. The same with any other countries such as Hungary (Q28) or France (Q142). In some language sections of Wikipedia citizenship with the relevant historical period flag in the infoboxes is loaded from the Wikis, and in this case these flags are useful. Сидик из ПТУ (talk) 10:57, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

It may be more appropriate to create a separate item for the Federal Republic of Germany (1949-) as it is done for the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic (Q1998866) or People's Republic of Bulgaria (Q121932).Сидик из ПТУ (talk) 11:01, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Сидик из ПТУ: sorry, took me a while to reply due to stuff in real-life. I think it's not an uncommon opinion that many of our country items as well as many statements referring to them are quite a mess. And sooner or later, Wikidata will have to clean up this whole topic area (which will most likely mean that infoboxes on Wikipedia will also need some fixes to deal with the changes). With persons and country of citizenship (P27) statements, it's especially bad, since many people seem to use it more as a nationality statement rather than referring to the specific state the persons were actually citizens of. Many historical "German" persons have that statement even though they lived before there even was a unified German country - simply because they are considered German. Fixing all those country of citizenship (P27) statements will be quite the task in the future, since it's not always easy to figure out, which kingdoms/duchies/electorates/etc. they were citizens of.

And like you said, the Wikipedia articles mostly describe both the current countries as well as everything that existed there since the dawn of time. Which unfortunately lead to our items also often mixing the current state as well as all predecessors. With Germany, I'd argue that the current item already describes the Federal Republic and we'd maybe need a new item for either the concept of "a unified German country, called Germany" (so everything after 1871, I guess) or "everything that has ever existed in the borders of today's Germany that could be called German". Which unfortunately isn't easy to define. --Kam Solusar (talk)

In any case, significant changes must first receive an appropriate discussion. FIFA and the IOC do not know the Third Reich and the Weimar Republic, in this topics there is only a term 'Germany' (and 'West Germany' too). Сидик из ПТУ (talk) 06:37, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree. This is a topic that definitely needs a bigger audience to discuss since it concerns our general approach to modelling country items and not just one country. Maybe on the project chat?

With national sports teams, I vaguely remember from some discussion on Wikipedia that this might potentially be a bit more complicated since the teams don't play for the countries directly, but rather for their respective national associations. So in case of Germany, the national football team played for the German Football Association (Q154191) which was founded in 1900. But that's something for the sports people to figure out. --Kam Solusar (talk) 14:50, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

On which project? I have not yet figured out where this is the place for community discussions and polls. If we talk about country for sport (P1532), then, I think, for a long time there will not be items for different national federations of table tennis or archery. Specifying them instead of Germany (Q183) or Bulgaria (Q219) will be a significant obstacle for many users. Сидик из ПТУ (talk) 16:27, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there's a Wikiproject for this, Wikidata:Wikidata:WikiProject Countries seems inactive/finished. Maybe Wikidata:Project chat to see if there are people willing to work on this? I don't think this can be done without a generral consensus first. --Kam Solusar (talk) 20:53, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

WD:RFP/A

Hey Kam Solusar, did you ever consider to add a request at WD:RFP/A? I think you would have good chances to get promoted to sysop status in Wikidata, and there is no doubt that you have continuous need for the tools during your valuable countervandalism activity. Just as in Wikipedia, Wikidata’s admin corps is clearly unterstaffed as well… Viele Grüße! —MisterSynergy (talk) 13:44, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

MisterSynergy: Never gave it much thought. I haven't done all that much with my admin rights over at Wikipedia since I started working more on Wikidata. But yeah, I would be pretty handy, there's quite a lot of vandalism over here.

Though it'll probably have to wait a couple of weeks until I find out how much free time I'm actually going to have next year to work on Wikidata and other projects. If that works out, sure why not. Schöne Grüße zurück! --Kam Solusar (talk) 15:08, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, no hurries with it. Schönes Wochenende! —MisterSynergy (talk) 15:49, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of Q59294292

Hello -- I noticed that you deleted the Wikidata page for Q59294292 (the page was created for the company Staycity). You claimed it does not meet the notability policy, but I believe that it does meet the following criteria: "It refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity. The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references." It was listed as an instance of an Apartment hotel (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q617839). Instead of deleting the entity, it would make more sense to add additional information. Here are some additional links on the company: Homepage: https://www.staycity.com/ LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/staycity Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/staycity/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/Staycity Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/staycityco/

Let me know what you think! It seems like it would make more sense to update the page with additional info instead of deleting it.  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cjkotecki (talk • contribs) at 18:26, 20 March 2019‎ (UTC).

Hi Cjkotecki. I didn't delete it myself, as I'm not an admin on this project, but it seems I proposed the deletion. It was deleted by admin User:Jianhui67 and only admins are able to restore deleted pages. To try to get it undeleted, you could either ask Jianhui67 on his talk page or post a request over on Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard.

I can't access the deleted item, but from my deletion request it seems it didn't have any references or external identifiers showing that relevant third parties had found the company relevant enough to write about/include it. The criteria you quote is generally interpreted to refer to reliable third-party sources. The pages you list are all merely social media pages and other pages edited/maintained by the company itself, so they aren't considered reliable sources. References required to keep items would be something like scientific literature, articles by bigger news outlets, entries in authority databases, etc. --Kam Solusar (talk) 01:56, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Ah that makes sense! Thanks for the additional information!

Problems with mix'n'match catalogue

I'm trying to pair the items from mix'n'match catalogue Danskefilmstemmer.dk person ID but as you can see, it doesn't do anything. I've experienced the same problem with other properties. --Trade (talk) 00:21, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

@Trade: I think the problem in this case is, that the Mix'n'match catalogue isn't linked with the property Danskefilmstemmer.dk person ID (P6777), so the tool doesn't know which property to use. If you click on the "Action" button at the top right, you can see the little warning in red at the bottom of the options. I'm not entirely sure who can add the property to this catalogue (I've never created one myself), but I think User:Gerwoman, who also created this catalogue, can help with that. --Kam Solusar (talk) 02:12, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Done! --Gerwoman (talk) 07:11, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Kam Solusar,

The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with Wikidata and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 17:37, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Kam Solusar,

A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 19:53, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Epguides ID (P3121)

Considering that all (some) of the Epguides ID (P3121) entries have links to English Wikipedia couldn't we get a both to match them automatically? --Trade (talk) 15:16, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@Trade: That would certainly be a possiblity. I've simply added it to Mix'n'match because I saw that the site provided a simple csv file with all IDs, dates, etc, so it was really easy to upload them to M'n'M. Unfortunately the file doesn't contain the Wikipedia links or IMDb IDs shown on the individual entries. However I'm not sure how reliable those Wikipedia links are. One of the first entries I've looked at, The Zoo (UK) for example, erroneously links to en:The Zoo. And now that I've searched for others, I've found more entries like C-16, Caïn, Cluedo, which don't link to the correct WP articles. Some links might have been correct at the time, but the Wikipedia articles have been moved or changed in the meantime.

But the IMDb ID (P345) TV Guide show ID (former scheme) (P3804) identifiers listed in the entries are probably something we could use to match epguides to Wikidata. The dozen or so entries I've looked at all had the correct IDs. --Kam Solusar (talk) 16:25, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

New page for catalogues

Hi, I created a new page where I started collecting sites that could be added to Mix'n'match and I plan to expand it with the ones that already have scrapers by category. Feel free to use, expand. Best, Adam Harangozó (talk) 15:08, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi

Apparently , i don't know why you reverse my edits when KLF did change his username to @305KyleKLF , and his wife's Angelina Jolie Twitter account is officially @drtycmptr . So I did not vandal , all i did was changed their usernames , so that's just so stupid why Wikipedia had to block me for no reason . 00:34, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

No one here is interested in your (more than obvious) fake stories about that guy. --Kam Solusar (talk) 12:51, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Zur Kenntnis

Wikidata:Administrators'_noticeboard#Vandal_with_changing_accounts Ist dir noch ein anderer Account diesbezüglich aufgefallen? -- MovieFex (talk) 23:58, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

@MovieFex:. Hab die Sache mit diesem Account leider nicht weiter im Auge behalten. Konkret bei dt. Besreibungen hab ich zwar hin und wieder mal solche Änderungen im Vandalism Dashboard gesehen, hab das i.d.R. aber nur für Änderungen gehalten, die mit guten Absichten von normalen Usern gemacht wurden, die diese Wikidata-Regel nicht kennen. Werd da in Zukunft aber genauer drauf achten. Das Einzige was mir jetzt noch aus der letzten Zeit einfällt, wäre Special:Contributions/138.121.104.22, der ähnliche Änderungen aber nur bei englischen Bezeichnungen gemacht hat. Also vermutlich nicht derselbe User. Gruß, --Kam Solusar (talk) 00:41, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Siehe Wikidata:Requests for checkuser/Case/UWERAPP1982. Gruß -- MovieFex (talk) 21:10, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

We sent you an e-mail

Hello Kam Solusar,

Really sorry for the inconvenience. This is a gentle note to request that you check your email. We sent you a message titled "The Community Insights survey is coming!". If you have questions, email surveys@wikimedia.org.

You can see my explanation here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:46, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Bidirectional series ordinals

Hi! Thanks for fixing my edit. Though, similar to as for the Sous le soleil episode, Q16555341 is still stated as part of (episode 13) of Once Upon a Time, season 4 Q16913798. Seems like that ought to be fixed too? CarlJohanSveningsson (talk) 16:13, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@CarlJohanSveningsson:: You're right, I've gone ahead and fixed the statement there. Seems this happened when the Once Upon a Time episode was erroneously merged into the Arrow episode, which caused a bot to "fix" the redirect. The merge was undone, but the "fix" wasn't. Might be a good idea to occasionally run a query to check for such inconsistencies on tv season items. -Kam Solusar (talk) 18:01, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Cast and documentaries

Hi! In case you haven't seen: Wikidata:Property_proposal/onscreen_participant. --- Jura 19:36, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, left a comment there. --Kam Solusar (talk) 22:34, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

[WMF Board of Trustees - Call for feedback: Community Board seats] Meetings with the Wikidata community

The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees is organizing a call for feedback about community selection processes between February 1 and March 14. While the Wikimedia Foundation and the movement have grown about five times in the past ten years, the Board’s structure and processes have remained basically the same. As the Board is designed today, we have a problem of capacity, performance, and lack of representation of the movement’s diversity. Our current processes to select individual volunteer and affiliate seats have some limitations. Direct elections tend to favor candidates from the leading language communities, regardless of how relevant their skills and experience might be in serving as a Board member, or contributing to the ability of the Board to perform its specific responsibilities. It is also a fact that the current processes have favored volunteers from North America and Western Europe. In the upcoming months, we need to renew three community seats and appoint three more community members in the new seats. This call for feedback is to see what processes can we all collaboratively design to promote and choose candidates that represent our movement and are prepared with the experience, skills, and insight to perform as trustees?

In this regard, two rounds of feedback meetings are being hosted to collect feedback from the Wikidata community. Two rounds are being hosted with the same agenda, to accomodate people from various time zones across the globe. We will be discussing ideas proposed by the Board and the community to address the above mentioned problems. Please sign-up according to whatever is most comfortable to you. You are welcome to participate in both as well!

• Round 1 - Feb 24, 4:00 pm UTC
• Round 2 - Mar 3, 4:00 am UTC
• Sign-up and meeting details: Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees/Call for feedback: Community Board seats/Conversations/Wikidata

Also, please share this with other volunteers who might be interested in this. Let me know if you have any questions. KCVelaga (WMF), 14:32, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

The Simpsons episodes

What's the reason for the latest batch? --Trade (talk) 18:17, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Trade: I've removed date of first performance (P1191) since it was never meant for works outside of stage plays (someone seems to have changed the constraints without much discussion) and episodes already use publication date (P577) to model this data. It seems these statements were mostly added by only a few users on a small number of episode items. And since I already had a list of QIDs and saw that some of them had language of work or name (P407) statements, I just ran another batch to remove those as original language of film or TV show (P364) is used for that information. --Kam Solusar (talk) 18:29, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Il mondo dei doppiatori

Hey there, why did you remove this claim? --Titore (talk) 00:26, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Titore. I removed it because the entry seems to be about the whole show (Doctor Who (Q34316)), not about the special episode The Day of the Doctor specifically. --Kam Solusar (talk)

I see. While that's true, it still contains useful informations about the Italian edition of the special episode, not only about the dubbing per se, but also about the broadcasting, some translation errors that were later fixed, etc. Unfortunately the website didn't put these details in a dedicated webpage, but it included them in the page about the whole show. Do you think that's enough to add the claim back? --Titore (talk) 08:09, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

@Titore: Hmm.. I think that would probably go against the purpose of such IDs. They are meant to show that the (main) topic of an external entry/page is the same as the topic of our item. And to be able to use the ID to query the corresponding Wikidata item and the information stored in it (like other IDs). They are not used to show what other (sub-)topics are also mentioned or briefly described there as part a larger topic. I think that's what described by source (P1343) or described at URL (P973) are meant for. --Kam Solusar (talk) 22:18, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

OK, I added it because on itwiki we use to query that ID to use it as an external link for the Italian dubbing, but I guess I'll just restore it locally. --Titore (talk) 10:14, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@Titore: Ah, in that case, maybe the template programming could be changed. So if the item in question doesn't have a Il mondo dei doppiatori ID (P5099) statement and is about an episode, it could query the part of the series (P179) statement and then retrieve the ID from the series item instead. --Kam Solusar (talk) 14:26, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

P407

As you did some cleanup the other day, I was wondering if you'd want to remove [4]. This would have the advantage that P407 wouldn't be suggested when manually adding statements. Given the back and forth a while ago with some user that wasn't seen before and afterwards, I'm a bit hesitant to do it myself. --- Jura 19:12, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Jura1: Yeah, I'd love to. I've been occassionally chipping away at the huge number of statements - a few dozen here, a couple of hundred there. Mostly did it series by series, since in most cases only about 1/4 to 2/3 of all episodes of a show were using P407 anyway - so the removal at least makes the data model consistent for those shows. But I'm somewhat hesitant to simply remove all of them in one go, too. Don't want this to end in a similar situation as last time, with a long discussion that would probably go nowhere. But I will definitely focus more on this task and remove larger batches, so hopefully the whole thing can be resolved somewhat soon-ish. --Kam Solusar (talk) 20:53, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

• Initially, I thought P364 on episodes wasn't needed as it's present on the series. Anyways, I removed some P407 from episodes without too many other statements. Maybe this has some effect on property suggestions. --- Jura 10:07, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

P155 / P156

Most episodes use these as main statements, not as qualifiers. I think it would be preferable to stick to that rather than add it to series and season statement (sample: Q106205932). What do you think? --- Jura 18:18, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Jura1: Actually, on this topic I tend to agree with many points made in this recent RFC and currently think we should generally move away from using P155/P156 as main statements where possible.

We already had issues on various Wikipedias that came from such main statements on film items where the films belonged to more than 1 series/series order. And I think the same issue came up with other series of works like book series. We already have such statements on many TV show items linking to other shows without any information about the relationship. Some are meant to show spin-offs or shows in the same universe, some were imported (mostly from the Portuguese and Korean(?) WP I think) from Wikipedias and are meant to show shows that aired on the same channel or even shows that were part of the same programming block in one country.

Granted, with TV series, there's usually only the one series it belongs to and only one way to order them correctly (usually by airdate). But there have been various cases in the past where production order, intended order, original airing order and episode order on later publications differed (like Firefly (Q11622), Almost Human (Q13217606), Enlisted (Q13417246), etc.). And in such cases there are several correct follows/followed by statements possible - although I'm not sure we currently have a good established data model for such cases. Crossovers like Elseworlds (Q57415397) or Crisis on Infinite Earths (Q63985020) where the same story continues on other shows also have two different valid values for P155 / P156 statements. Using them only as qualifiers would fix those issues and would make it more machine-readable - to us it's clear from the context what those statements mean, but not necessarily to a computer.

Additionally, I think using them as qualifiers on season statements allows us to more easily mark episodes as the first or last episodes of a season using <novalue> as values for P155/P156. --Kam Solusar (talk) 03:55, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

It seems to me that Wikidata:WikiProject_Movies/Properties#television_series is fairly clear. At some point, we had all series in line with this.

If anything comes out of the RFC, we might want to consider updating it. The last time this was discussed on project chat, the suggestion was floated to make all of them main statements.--- Jura 08:55, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Either approach has its advantages and disadvantages. I think we figured out ways to handle most in the current approach (notably cross-overs). If there are some you think I should have a look, I can do. Aren't story arcs handled with a different property?

Personally, I'm not really a big fan of either (at least in fields where things are numbered and dated), but that's not really relevant. --- Jura 08:55, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I know that's the way it's currently done, and I have no intention to remove any of those main statements (unless there's a consensus) on episode items. So if anyone wants to add them to items I created, I really don't mind. It's just that after I've seen discussions about moving away from using them as main statements in multiple places over the last years and came across several cases (the crossovers, some shows where there are multiple contradicting series orders out there, etc.) I just didn't add them to new episode items I created. Because I thought we'd be generally moving them to qualifiers in the near future anyway and that we'd have better ways to model these cases then.

As to crossovers: I'm not really familiar with their general situation on Wikidata. I guess when it comes to crossover episodes, we often don't have a separate item for the crossover itself that can be used to model the episodes as "part of <crossover>". Looking at the Arrowverse crossovers that I'm familiar with, seems I used part of the series (P179) on the episodes of the Crisis on Infinite Earths (Q63985020) and Elseworlds (Q57415397) crossovers, while you used part of (P361) for the episodes of Crisis on Earth-X (Q40911314). Invasion! (Q27894619), Heroes Join Forces (Q28669302) and Flash vs. Arrow (Q18663862) episodes also use part of (P361). Should I change the two that currently use P179? I guess for me, a crossover like that is also a series of works that follow each other in a certain order, so P179 probably felt more natural to use. --Kam Solusar (talk) 15:49, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

If there are several possible values for P155 or P156, they would need to be qualified in one way or the other. At Q106013444#P156, I used "criterion used". I'm currently cleaning up the season items (to qualifiers). If you don't mind, I'd do the same for episodes (as main statements there). --- Jura 10:51, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Jura1: Hmm.. I'm not sure criterion used (P1013) is the best way to go here. I think on the RFC someone mentioned using part of the series (P179) as the qualifier for these, which IMO would make more sense to show the relation to a series of works. It's also what we use as a qualifier on episode list items, for example (e.g. Q327710#P360).

Pondering about the whole situation, I've come to think that we probably need another additional qualifier to state the exact way in which the parts of a series of works are ordered in this particular statement. Like production order, first airing order, in-story chronological order (for prequels in film series, etc.). So we can for example model intended order and original airing order of Firefly (Q11622) by adding several part of the series (P179)Firefly (Q11622) statements with different series ordinal (P1545) (and preferrably P155/P156) qualifiers. But since we don't have a dedicated "ordered by" property, criterion used (P1013) might be the best one to serve that specific purpose. --Kam Solusar (talk) 15:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

But like I said, I'm still not totally sold on moving everything to qualifiers of P155/P156. Maybe we should wait to see what that RFC brings, otherwise we might end up with a bit of chaos where different areas of topics use different ways to model these relationships. For seasons and film series, for example, other editors (and me) have already moved a lot of P155/P156 staments to qualifiers of series ordinal (P1545) - which I think some film infoboxes on Wikipedia projects now use to display series and following/preceding films. --Kam Solusar (talk) 15:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Ref. Disney XD (Q1858139)

Ref. Disney XD (Q1858139). Dude, I totally was in the wrong tab. (Should've been on Dude, That's My Ghost! (Q5311682)) Thanks for fixing my blunder. Got a bit unfocused since the article was deleted on nowiki while I was trying to get the content to qualify for, at least, a sub-stub level. Seems like an IP has created a few sub-sub-stub articles on nowiki and the IP-range has now been banned there for sockpuppeting. I think I'll save the article now that I have put too much effort into it. — Sincerely, Desoda (talk) 18:08, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Desoda: Don't worry, I figured it was probably just a normal mistake. Happens to everyone. The article was created by an IP that creates lots of low quality stubs for TV series across multiple wikis, they usually get deleted within a few days. The IP has already been banned multiple times on various wikis and globally, since some of their articles and edits are hoaxes or wrong information (especially the series titles, which sometimes don't exist outside of pages created by this person on sites like Fandom wikis or Wattpad). --Kam Solusar (talk) 19:58, 10 April 2021 (UTC)