User talk:Dorades

On this page, old discussions are archived. An overview of all archives can be found at this page's archive index. The current archive is located at 2024/11.

deletion with "not notable" reason

It's really really discouraging that this also starts here now and items are randomly deleted with no other reason than "not notable". Then you can't even reply on the deletion page because that is _also deleted_. What problem are you fixing by doing this? And what criteria do you personally apply what appears not notable to you? Mutante (talk) 16:39, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I assume you are referring to my RFD for ‎Q124312249. I nominated this item because it did not comply with any of the criteria for Wikidata notability in my view (cf. WD:N). Apparently, the deleting admin thought so, too. If you are unhappy with the outcome of the deletion, please read Wikidata:Guide to requests for undeletion.

I don't know what you mean by "that this also starts here now". Is this about the deletion process on another Wiki? Regards, --Dorades (talk) 19:12, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it's about deletionism on other wikis that so far hadn't spread to Wikidata as much. It's highly frustrating for editors while it's unclear what problem it fixes. Also this did "refer to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity that can be described using serious and publicly available references.". Mutante (talk) 22:45, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Since I've been active on Wikidata, the deletion process has been like this. I nominate items for deletion from time to time which I come across and which don't seem notable. Since there are criteria for notability (WD:N), items can be deleted if they don't comply with those criteria. If you wish to change the deletion process in general, probably WD:PC would be a good place to start (and maybe a RfC afterwards).

As I wrote above, the path to request the undeletion of an item is desribed here: Wikidata:Guide to requests for undeletion. Since I can't see the contents of the item now, I can't tell if there were references given, but I assume if there were "serious and publicly available references" present on the item, it wouldn't have been deleted. --Dorades (talk) 10:41, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

@Mutante: thanks for the comment. @Dorades: you are proposing items for deletion that have serious sources per WD:N #2, please stop this. Eduard Ungern (talk) 22:06, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

This comment was written by a sock of a globally banned user, cf. [1]. --Dorades (talk) 22:31, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

"If you wish to change the deletion process in general" No, thanks, I don't wish to engage in process making, I want to continue doing the work I am doing without getting my work deleted. Especially not because items "seem" not notable to others and without first being asked to provide references or a discussion period.Mutante (talk) 19:03, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

question about revert

Hi, this edit was meant to be posted as a question about IMDB being a reliable source to cite. Masai giraffe (talk)

Hi, thanks for reaching out, but I don't really get what you are talking about. Could you please enlighten me? --Dorades (talk) 07:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I was asking if IMDb was a reliable source to cite on here. Masai giraffe (talk) 11:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand; do I have anything to do with the question that you asked on WD:PC (https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Project_chat&diff=prev&oldid=2266044528)? --Dorades (talk) 12:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

You reverted my edit saying it wasn’t constructive, but my edit was asking a question if IMDb should be used as a reference, using it as identification is fine, but on other articles I have found it as a reference. I apologize for any misunderstanding. Masai giraffe (talk) 16:15, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I think there is a misunderstanding; I reverted your removal of a valid reference on Drake Bell (Q261812) (for the second time btw). There you replaced a reference from SNAC ARK ID (P3430) for the birthdate of the subject with a reference from TMDB person ID (P4985). If you think it is useful to have this further reference, you can add this reference again, but please don't remove other valid references. Regarding your question on WD:PC, I did not revert that or interacted with that topic in any way. Thank you, --Dorades (talk) 16:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I did not see the date of birth on the reference so I believed it to be invalid. I will add an additional reference. Masai giraffe (talk) 12:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

"identifiant GLEIF RAL" issue on Q2498375

I see you revert my fix for it, so please add a better fix Marc wik (talk) 10:32, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't know what you we're trying to express there, but an identifier (Q853614) is obviously not a company register (Q1394657). It's not my job to find out what you are trying to model and I'm not going to guess that. --Dorades (talk) 20:52, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Joseph/Sam Williams

Hi, Dorades, You have pointed us to the Joseph/Sam Williams vandalism. Can you please have a look at the merge that took place of Joseph Williams (Q131137970) and Joseph Williams (Q127597912)? I am losing track a bit. --Lymantria (talk) 13:54, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi Lymantria, I think these two items are indeed about the same person and thus the merge is technically not wrong, but since it's just spam by a LTA (probably promoting themself?) hopefully the corresponding Wikipedia articles get deleted soon. It might be helpful to block Scollball92 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) (their newest account) and also 94.40.163.168 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL (for IP: GUC)) (I assume this is Matlin). Regards, --Dorades (talk) 17:16, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I technically feel I do not have enough to block Scollball92, but I filed a CU request. I hope that will be sufficient. I will dive into the IP later. --Lymantria (talk) 17:56, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Undo in Ruth Andreas-Friedrich

Hallo Dorades,
gehe ich Recht in der Annahme, dass wir uns auch auf Deutsch unterhalten können ?
zu: difflink
Ist es wirklich erforderlich resp. sinnvoll, eine Person (hier: Karin Friedrich als Q1724364) als "significant person" (P3342) zu definieren, wenn diese Person schon als Kind (P40) verknüpft ist, und bei P40 die selbe Referenz wie beim wiederhergestellten P3342 verwendet wird ?
Ich meine, dass das eigene Kind grundsätzlich eine wichtige Person ist und von daher eine explizite Verknüpfung über P3342 zusätzlich zu P40 nicht notwendig ist.
Herzliche Grüße, Archie02 (talk) 16:00, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Hallo Archie02, danke für deine Nachricht und ja, wir können gerne auf Deutsch schreiben.

Ich denke, hier ist diese doppelte Verknüpfung tatsächlich sinnvoll, denn die verlinkte Quelle sagt eben nicht nur, dass Karin Friedrich ihre Tochter war, sondern auch, dass sie für ihre Widerstandstätigkeit eine relevante Rolle gespielt hat (daher die Angabe von Karin Friedrich unter "Personen" in der Quelle). Ich habe versucht, dieses Verhältnis durch Verwendung von significant event (P793) deutlicher zu machen; momentan gibt es dazu eine Fehlermeldung, hast du evtl. eine bessere Idee?

VG, --Dorades (talk) 22:51, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Danke für die Rückmeldung und Erklärung; kann ich durchaus einsehen.

Ich habe ´mal versucht, die Begründung über object of statement has role (P3831) einzubringen: Technisch funktioniert das ohne Warnhinweis, ob das inhaltlich aber passend ist, bin ich momentan noch unsicher.
Danke & LG, Archie02 (talk) 09:38, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Danke, ich glaube, object of statement has role (P3831) ist die richtige Wahl. Statt resistance during World War II (Q2094191) fände ich ein Item oder eine Modellierung besser, das die Gemeinsamkeit des Widerstandskampfes ausdrückt, aber da weiß ich gerade nicht weiter und lasse es erst mal so. VG --Dorades (talk) 19:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)