User talk:Nikkimaria

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Logo of Wikidata

Welcome to Wikidata, Nikkimaria!

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! Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 14:16, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't change labels for countries[edit]

I don't think that changing labels for country names is a good idea, especially when you are abbreviating.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:47, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's not an abbreviation, it's the common name and thus the most appropriate label. If you look at the wiki list you'll note many of them use the equivalent. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:33, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removing of source for place of burial ?[edit]

Why did you remove source for place of burial at for instance the wikidata-item of Ross Zucco (Q16597346) ? Best regards Migrant (talk) 01:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is not a reliable reference. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:08, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well I don't think that is the best way of doing it, it should rather be deprecated rather than removed, because that was the source I used for adding the parameter for it. So why isn't it a realiable source ? If you have problems with it I think you really should explain that on the Property ID Find a Grave memorial ID (P535) ? Best regards Migrant (talk) 03:00, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How would you propose deprecating it, other than by removing it? And what does the property ID have to do with whether it's a good source for other things? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:04, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Will answer later, gotta sleep, lives in europe. Regards Migrant (talk) 03:23, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for proposing deprecating it since I can't find a way to that myself. But I can't see the problem with the source for not being an okay reference for place of burial ? See the english wikipedia-article en:Find a Grave. Can you explain that to me please ? By the way I have added the property-link to the wikidata-item of Ross Zucco (Q16597346). Best regards Migrant (talk) 21:37, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to that change. But while the gravestone itself may be appropriate as a primary source, the commentary is user-generated. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:24, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A similar issue with Lorna S. Soderstrom (Q28444859): even though Find a grave may not be a reliable source, it's the source I got the information from - and the function of the reference block is to make it explicit to the user/next editor where the information comes from. She can then judge for herself, if/to what extent she'd like to trust the source. Just to delete sources doesn't improve anything, as you leave the user/next editor without any hint whatsoever. -- Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 07:25, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it does. First, it makes it clear that there is no reliable source, so editors can eg. search/filter for all statements lacking sourcing during data quality improvement efforts. Second, it prevents the data from being exported to other projects that use an onlysourced filter. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:50, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But wouldn't it be better to just exclude statements having only certain unreliable sources from the export filters/search (for quality improvement) than to remove the sources? You could exclude sources with urls containing "www.imdb.com"/"www.findagrave.com" or using stated in (P248): Find a Grave (Q63056) (I don't know how the export works exactly, but as it is possible to exclude statements having only another wikipedia as source I can't imagine that this should be impossible). -- Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 12:40, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But it would require excluding every possible unreliable source individually - when really we shouldn't be using such links as references at all. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:45, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are you removing every possible unreliable source, now? No. You are searching for certain frequent sources - f.e. findagrave.com, dailymail etc. - and remove these (from an enwikipedia point of view). You could exclude those very frequent sources from the export filter. Enwikipedia is not the only wikipedia using wikidata. I'm still kind of a newbie, but as far as I know there exist different policies in different wikipedias. Some wikipedias seem to allow certain less reliable sources, if there are no better at hand. (Actually, even the enWikipedia seems to have this rule "use with care, if there is no better source at hand": en:Template:Find_a_Grave#As_a_reference_for_article_content) -- Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 07:54, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I cannot personally remove every single unreliable source. That doesn't mean using unreliable sources is A Good Thing. Nor would selectively excluding sources from one filter solve the problem of (a) every other filter (b) reuses that separate data from sources or (c) users who don't have the necessary research literacy to assess a source for themselves. Relying on such sources reduces our data quality. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:24, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning a): Generally I don't think that it's the role of wikidata to tell other wikipedias/people where to rely on (and, as I pointed out, sometimes even enwikipedia seems to allow findagrave and other less reliable sources). Thatswhy - of course - some filters can allow sources other filters exclude. It's the decision of the user, not of wikidata. b) The problem of reuses that separate data from sources I see, too, but on the other hand everybody has the possibility to retrieve sources with statements and you don't solve this problem by removing the source (because if the user doesn't care about references she will reuse the statement anyway). Concerning c) you don't "teach" other people information literacy in just telling them where to rely on but in giving them characteristics of sources and their impact on the trustworthiness of certain statements.
Of course it increases data quality to have good sources. Thatswhy you should *replace* less reliable sources with more reliable sources, if you find any. But it doesn't increase data quality if you just *remove* sources that are less reliable (keeping the statements). In my opinion it reduces the data quality, as the point of sources in wikidata is not to prove a claim, but to tell where the claim comes from - and every claim comes from some source (in the worst case from your own imagination) and to give the history of a claim is part of a statement. -- Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 13:57, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The question of teaching information literacy is an important one, but beyond the scope of Wikidata as a project. It's our role to compile reliable data. Using unreliable sources as reference URLs is counterproductive. If I added a claim and stated as a reference "my imagination", that ought not to stand, whether the claim itself is accurate or not. Really the best outcome here would be to take more care in what sources are used to add claims in the first place. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:33, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please don't remove sources from statements. Feel free to add references you consider reliable for statements or delete problematic statements with dubious statements.
    --- Jura 11:51, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will certainly remove problematic statements with dubious references. However, if the statement is unproblematic, there is no pressing need to delete it simply because it is poorly sourced. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:59, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not apply Wikipedia rules to Wikidata, we have our own set of rules for inclusion. We use the best available information at the time and source it to a specific reference. Please find out the rules here before mass deletions. You are welcome to begin a discussion on our rules for inclusion at any time. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:17, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Since Wikidata:Verifiability is tagged as proposed, I'm basing my source-related edits on Help:Sources, which states that references should be reliable. What rule do you believe encourages the use of unreliable sources? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:07, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have to get consensus to blacklist a website as unreliable, Wikipedia rulings have no automatic legal standing here. If you want to develop consensus for a rule that demands that Wikipedia-rules automatically apply at Wikidata, please go ahead and start that discussion. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:31, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As far as our policies go, they express both desires. The desire for having information about the provenance of statements is expressed by "Wikidata is a collection of sourced data, which means that most statements should indicate where the data comes from" and "Furthermore, sources should not be removed from items that already have sources." It doesn't say "Furthermore, reliable sources should not be removed from items that already have reliable sources." ChristianKl (talk) 12:48, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@ChristianKl: This section and the RfC are both about Findagrave; that edit concerns another site. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:10, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Described at URL[edit]

Why are you removing "Described at URL" parameters? Can you point me to the discussion, if this has been discussed somewhere. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:13, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As indicated here, that parameter is intended for reliable resources. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:44, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You have to get consensus to blacklist a website as unreliable. Once you get consensus, I will remove them. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:27, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): Wikia is already on the URL blacklist, which indicates that it is considered unreliable. I assume you will now be reverting your reverts? Nikkimaria (talk) 11:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, if Andy Mabett confirms that the "Primary Sources Tool" is a universal blacklist for urls, I will revert. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 13:11, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"the UR blacklist"? Poppycock. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:15, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wikia shouldn't be listed along with warez websites in the first place. Maybe it was done for technical reasons. d1g (talk) 06:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are back to removing them, making more work for everyone, if you think they are invalid because they are community sourced, bring it up at "project chat" like I did with your Findagrave removals. You are using "reliable" as an antonym for "community sourced", and that is not the Wikidata definition. At this point you appear to be removing the links just for trolling purposes. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 13:41, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What Wikidata definition are you referring to? Help:Sources states "For more information on identifying reliable sources, please see Wikidata:Verifiability", which then states "With regards to determining what web content qualifies as an authoritative source of information, it's recommended to follow the guidelines outlined by Wikipedia for using questionable and self-published sources." - linking to the English Wikipedia guidance that concurs that wikis are unreliable. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:00, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

the only agreement at Wikidata is to remove "imported from Wikimedia project (P143) ... Wikipedia" references when they are true[edit]

It would help if you wouldn't test if another website is "reliable" or not:

In your case I should stress "when they are true" part.


We never had blacklists for specific websites so far. Wikidata is not a project about "unreliable sources" but about statements made in addressable sources. d1g (talk) 17:26, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@D1gggg: Again, please read past the first sentence. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:29, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Using Wikipedia approach to do things at Wikidata wouldn't help.
Many problems for Wikipedia are not problems at Wikidata: e.g. personalized selection of "reliable" sources.
Or mass updates when things are wrong.
Or deprecation mechanism.
You have shown no understating that Wikidata and Wikipedia are different projects:
"The vast bulk of people of the world, who are not covered by reliable sources, are not notable. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:06, 24 June 2017 (UTC)"
I can conclude you're not familiar yet with goals and methods used in Wikidata.
Or why do we need to make things differently from Wikipedia.
Again, Wikidata is not a project about "notability" in the way you stress it. d1g (talk) 17:42, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is not primarily notability, but reliability. Reliability of sourcing, and therefore reliability of data, is absolutely a Wikidata problem, and an important one considering that a key goal of the project is to provide data for reuse. Data that can't be trusted is of little value. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:55, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Reliability of sourcing, and therefore reliability of data, is absolutely a Wikidata problem"
If IMDB had wrong birth date, what Wikidata should do?
If IMDB had correct birth date, what Wikidata should do?
@Nikkimaria: if you have something so suggest - do so. d1g (talk) 18:17, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In both cases, Wikidata should do nothing. Particularly for living people, this should use a reliable source. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:20, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: as we can see, you don't understand that Wikidata is secondary database and will include mistakes (in first case) and thus wrong birth date will get "deprecated" Help:Rank at least to avoid re-entry d1g (talk) 18:25, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between including a fact that is wrong and deprecating it, and including a source that is unreliable and refusing to allow it to be removed or flagged. There is also a difference between including a known wrong date because it has been reliably reported, and including a known wrong date just to avoid people changing the right one. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:32, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: so far your suggestion was to do "nothing" d1g (talk) 18:36, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's correct: we shouldn't use an unreliable source to add or change our data. If you disagree, I have some suggestions for you: create a policy to make explicit that Wikidata has no sourcing standards for data; deprecate most of Help:Sources; reject Wikidata:Verifiability... Nikkimaria (talk) 18:41, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria:

Second question:

institute of arts known to manage catalog of art-related items, some of them are dated.


For one item:

  • In their catalog they claim country A
  • Radiocarbon dating time C and country B


What should Wikidata do?


d1g (talk) 18:40, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the circumstances. It would be irresponsible to make a blanket judgement without more information, such as the dates in question, the source of the radiocarbon results, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:32, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: it is enough to read Help pages to make following decisions:
Wikidata would have both claims.
If one of them is wrong, then it would get deprecated value.
If statements can be sourced, they would get references.
d1g (talk) 09:03, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You can't make those decisions without knowing whether there is a reference, to begin with. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:38, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Third time, you don't seem to understand first 2 sentences of Wikidata:Verifiability or any other source-related page[edit]

How fluent you are with English?

If you don't agree that wrong population of Germany should be included in Wikidata with deprecated rank, then you should make an effort to change current agreements.

Maybe we are not good enough for your high standards. d1g (talk) 18:59, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, it would be so helpful if you would read past the first couple of sentences of pages before trying to cite them. I haven't disagreed with those two sentences. I will agree though that the approach you're advocating is not good enough for any reasonable standard of data quality. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:32, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I can conclude that your approach not to use IMDB to enter birth date.
@Nikkimaria: You were told in June that Wikidata would get all dates, including wrong birth dates first, then it would get correct dates with better sources
@Nikkimaria: Will you continue to remove correct references? Try to answer without "unreliable sources". d1g (talk) 09:25, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfenstein II: The New Colossus[edit]

Why did you remove the narrative location? Even worse, why without any edit comment?

--46.255.171.83 08:51, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP, I've added the US as the broader narrative location given the movement of the game. It's not possible to manually alter edit comments for regular edits. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:35, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please give me an answer to my first question?
I disagree to use 'US as the broader narrative location'. Generally, statements should be as most detailed as possible. 'US' would also make impossible to query e.g. computer games which plays in New Orleans, but vice-versa 'New Orleans' would allow to query computer games which plays in US. The property page also explicit allows to have multiple values. There is no reason to change a more detailed location to a more general one and especially no reason to remove the statement at all as you did at first. Any comment before I revert to my version?
--46.255.171.83 16:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My answer to your first question is, I don't agree that those particular entries are appropriate and that the more encompassing location would be preferable given the game's movement. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:20, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata:Requests for comment/Findagrave removed as a source for information[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria,

Just a reminder: don't remove these references.
--- Jura 17:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jura1: I replaced them. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:51, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You can add more, but don't remove them.
--- Jura 17:51, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jura1: Why? It is consistent with the RfC you cite to replace them with better sources to support the data presented. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:53, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All people asked to comment on your deletions seem to favor keeping these references.
--- Jura 17:56, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jura1: That's not the case - they objected to removing data based on its sourcing, on the premise that it's "better than nothing". But there is no issue with replacing it with other sources when those are available. And there's no reason for you to remove those. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:59, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I had to undo your incorrect edit. Going forward, when adding references, please make sure to not delete existing ones.
--- Jura 18:01, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jura1: My edit was not incorrect, and there is no problem with replacing existing references. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:03, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion of valid content isn't correct. Please refrain from doing so going forward.
--- Jura 18:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I'm aware, there is no policy or guideline on Wikidata that forbids replacing one source with another, so long as the statement is supported by the new source; given that and the above, I will respectfully decline your request, and will ask that you yourself do not remove sources through reverting. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:13, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata:Requests for comment/Privacy and Living People[edit]

You are receiving this message because you commented at the above RFC. There are additional proposals that have been made there that you are welcome to comment on. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:50, 9 April 2018 (UTC) (for Rschen7754)[reply]

P4656[edit]

Hi thanks for the copyediting on Wikipedia. I don't understand the revert of P4656 at Special:Diff/793147203; should I have pointed to a certain wiki revision or used a source other than Wikipedia instead? It is sourced from article with references therein. This removal of source affects infoboxes in that they won't display unsourced information, by default. –ASiplas (talk) 18:14, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ASiplas, you added a citation to English Wikipedia, but there is already a citation to English Wikipedia present for that statement. If you have a source other than English Wikipedia that you'd like to add, by all means do so. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:16, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oops Thank you. –ASiplas (talk) 18:23, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see now that We don't consider Wikimedia projects real sources[1]and that P143 is but a placeholder for other (better, future?) sources. I wonder if you're talking about P143 when you say it's already sourced to English Wikipedia?
There is talk that Also, should we try to make sure that we don't use just imported from Wikimedia project (P143) by itself, but also add Wikimedia import URL (P4656) with a permalink to the revision of the page?[1] which makes sense to me. –ASiplas (talk) 18:37, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant guidance is Help:Sources#Different_types_of_sources. If there are references in the article or elsewhere that support the statement, those can and should be used instead. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:06, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Award from Q123261966?[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, could you help me understand why you removed the claim "award received (P166): grant (Q230788)" from Yi-Chun Tricia Lin (Q123261966)? CarCai (talk) 14:38, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because grants are better understood as funds rather than honours. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:34, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 Property_talk:P143#Making the usage of this property clearer
Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nikkimaria&oldid=2006711917"