Hello, Tobias1984, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for World Geodetic System. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
Hi Tobias. Thanks for adding those coordinates, very helpful. I had a look at your tag, it’s right on the mark! Thanks for the recognition! OscarK878 (talk) 14:01, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Tobias. Take care when using picture galleries. This is an en.encyclopedia and it isn't a picture gallery, commons.wikimedia is the picture gallery here. Kurile islands could have two pictures less. Take care when adding books to "#references". As I understand, books in references are actually used in the article. You could place some books in a "#see also" section, though. People revert these kind of things. If nobody opposes, I'll ask de.kartenwerkstatt if it's possible to translate to english File:Sibirien topo2.png. Cheers --Chris.urs-o (talk) 08:32, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the suggestions. I already took care of the books and the picture gallery. I can also help with the translation of the map. --Tobias1984 (talk) 09:29, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Check if the description I gave of the usage of Ptychagnostus atavus in biostratigraphy is correct. While I can fill in the paleontological details without problem, I'm obviously not very familiar with the geological side, heh. I'll use your corrections as a guide to the rest of the stubs I'll be making, so please fix any errors in the description.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL22:57, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tobias. I thought you might want to know that I made some changes Template:Cambrian_graphical_timeline. I think it renders okay now, but I have only verified on Firefox. I think it should be the same across browsers, but I don't have access to others.
Specifically, I did the following:
For the vertical text, I added "line-height:10px;display:block;". This allowed the lines to compress so the text doesn't run beyond the boxes
For text that was displaced outside the box, I adjusted the "bar##-nudge-down=
Hello Tobias. It seems to be just you and me over at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Geology#Collaboration_for_December (not entirely unexpected) and in reality that means just you; I'll do whatever I can but it'll all be meta stuff - I am not a geologist.
Speaking of meta:
The robot job has been volunteered for by a new bot owner; it may take him a while to get it done. Will continue to try to guide it through.
Hey Arb! Thank you for setting up the task force page, I'm sure that it will get people more involved in meteorite topics. I hope progress isn't too slow, but I would blame it on a lot of Wikipedians preparing for holidays and taking snow days. I hope you have time for some snow days too, and we will just try to get the best out this month ;) --Tobias1984 (talk) 14:04, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No snow here yet; perhaps in the new year. It would make the children happy. I've just added an Infobox to your new Dronino meteorite which reminded me... There are now boxes on all meteorite articles, complete (as far as the information in the article allows) except for the chemistry fields which I didn't feel competent to touch. If you have the urge it would be well worth going through them all and checking / adding chemistry to the box. The easiest way to access them (as you doubtless know) is at Category:Meteorites by name. -Arb. (talk) 14:38, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My view today. We have had some nice snow the last couple of days (I uploaded a picture). I actually did't know that category yet. I think I can still go through the list today and look at the chemistry. I was wondering if we should add a to-do list to the task force page like at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Geology? What do you think? --Tobias1984 (talk) 16:23, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now there's an uplifting view; lucky fellow. Adding a proper to-do list is a fine idea. There's some content for it here but the presentation you have in mind is preferable; more attention grabbing, brings it to the top where it belongs and can be made visible in other places if required. Go right ahead. -Arb. (talk) 18:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've tweaked daubréelite a bit and when I looked at what links here I found the daubréeite redirect. Seems daubréeite is a bismuth oxide mineral and I've turned your redirect into a new article. I had never heard of it before, but your spelling glitch led me to discover it - rather an interesting species altho' quite unrelated to meteorites. Keep on trucking :) Vsmith (talk) 02:39, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia editor Kieranian2001 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
Reviewed as part of page curation. Interesting
detailed article on geology complete with references and categories.Kieranian2001 (talk) 14:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
To reply, leave a comment on Kieranian2001's talk page.
You recently added Earth and Planetary Science Letters to {{Meteorites}}. This is undoubtedly correct but there's nothing in the article that makes it self-evident. Would it be possible for you to add a sentence or even just a word to make it clear that meteorites and/or meteoritics are a primary topic of the journal. -Arb. (talk) 17:11, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Re your recent edit to Itqiy meteorite. A numbered list followed by a single bullet point in External links does look odd (until you get used to it) but it's standard; See also is explicitly for links internal to Wakipedia: Wikipedia:See_also#See_also_section. By the way, great work completing all those assessments. Three days to go. -Arb. (talk) 18:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted my edit and added a ":" so the two lists align. I guess that is a good way of reducing the change in indentation. Three days left for the collaboration of the month, but hopefully we can continue working in the task force next year. --Tobias1984 (talk) 19:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really an expert on this template code. Is it possible that the first if-else-relationship (the one that adds the default picture) prevents the second if-else-relationship to recognize that image is undefined (because it is defined with the default picture)? Anyway, I hope you and your loved ones have a really great new year! --Tobias1984 (talk) 22:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They're asleep now. Good wishes for 2013 to you and yours too. The bug was a spurious "</includeonly><noinclude>{{doc}}"; the </includeonly> deactivated the new code. There are 34 meteorites in the category as of just now. A pleasing first edit of the year. -Arb. (talk) 00:57, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well lunar and martian meteorites are considered clans in one of my sources. I'm not sure we have a duo or trio article. Wouldn't those be considered grouplets? --Tobias1984 (talk) 20:22, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll make those two clans then (if you don't get there first). As for duos and trios, you are quite right; I'd misremembered Binze, Lauretta, McSween, et al (very edifying read that one, by the way). Will eliminate Duo. -Arb. (talk) 21:26, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Might be an idea if you added your source to the lunar and martian articles and a few words about being in a clan too. -Arb. (talk) 21:30, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Another topic. Do we have a definition for "Compositional type" anywhere? The infobox has a link to the wrong place right now. -Arb. (talk) 21:26, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure that this classification goes back to Maskelyne 1862 (or 1863?). So maybe it could link to "Meteorite Classification#Maskelyne Classification" where the tripartition could be explained. Or we make an own article about the Maskelyne classification. What do you think? --Tobias1984 (talk) 22:39, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The tripartition is covered at Meteorite_classification#Traditional_classification_scheme is it not? As for "Maskelyne Classification", there's already a fair bit in "Meteorite_classification#History" so if you add another section watch out for overlap/duplication. Getting back to "Compositional type", if it can be said to be "in widespread use" it would conveniently fit at Meteorite classification#Terminology. That said, I don't have a strong view where it goes, just that it should be in and somewhere linkable. Let me know what you decide (so the infobox link can be fixed). -Arb. (talk) 23:20, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would love to argue about this subject, but I have no idea how the algorithm calculates the importance of an article. Is there a way where the template is automatically set to the calculated importance scale? Then all the article would have the same consistent rating of their importance. Seems like a bot could calculate that once a month and adjust the settings. --Tobias1984 (talk) 07:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A bot might do that eventualy but for now it's a little trial of an idea of mine that needs a reality test. That's why I'd really value your opinion (as you have an overview of the full range of articles and some specialist subject knowledge) about whether the algorithmic assessment is reasonable for each of these four or if you feel your original rating is the correct one and should prevail. The fact that neither of us has full insight into the details of the algorithm is unimportant; we can still have an opinion about whether or not it looks/feels right for a particular article. I say "feels" because an element of intuition undoubtedly comes into it when we rate articles subjectively. -Arb. (talk) 12:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Would't you also think that the articles about groups should be more important than the members of that group? Maybe the algorithm uses the interlinkage of the articles and we just don't have enough links pointing to primitive achondrite for example. To me all the articles about groups and grouplets should be at last mid to high. But maybe that will happen anyway once we introduce more single meteorites and improve the inerlinkage of all the articles. --Tobias1984 (talk) 13:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At a guess you are back at Uni and busy with your studies but if you have the time and haven't yet seen it Meteorites/Articles with one redlink would be well worth a skim by your knowledgeable eyes. There are sure to be some quick wins left; I've done all that were obvious but you will likely spot others. -Arb. (talk) 20:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to get to it today or tomorrow. I'm also sandboxing another article right now. I'm a bit more busy, but there always has to be room for a little Wikipedia ;) --Tobias1984 (talk) 07:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"...create red links to articles you intend to create, technical terms that deserve treatment beyond a mere dictionary definition and topics which should obviously have articles..."
"Do not create red links to articles that will likely never be created..."
"In general, a red link should be allowed to remain in an article if it links to a term that could plausibly sustain an article, but for which there is no existing candidate article, or article section, under any name."
"A red link to an article that will plausibly be created in the future should be left alone rather than being created as a minimal stub article that has no useful information."
"Red links serve the purpose of notifying readers that a need exists in Wikipedia for creation of a new article with at least minimal information content; the creation of minimalist marker stubs simply to get rid of a red link destroys this useful mechanism."
So, it needs someone with a clue as to which Martian meteorites (or whatever) could sustain an article (ie meet Notability guidelines) and which are just generic. Is that you? -Arb. (talk) 14:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That does make sense. In that case better to leave the red links where they are for now and let future you and future me decide what to do with them :) --Tobias1984 (talk) 14:27, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I changed most of the links from meteorite pages that were "Fe-Ni", "FeNi", "Fe-Ni-alloy", "FeNi-metal" etc.. to meteoric iron. I thought that if people would still link to FeNi it should list all the alloys or combinations of the two elements and not just redirect to meteoric iron. Not sure if it is a good idea though. --Tobias1984 (talk) 14:04, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've broken the large, unwieldy list of single red links into smaller sections and asked various WikiProjects for help with relevant bits of it. If you've got a few minutes would you look at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Geology/Meteorites/Articles_with_one_redlink_by_topic#Rocks.2C_minerals.2C_geology.2C_etc and split it into Rocks and minerals items versus Geology items. When you're done I'll compare your rocks and minerals selection to what we've already asked them to help with to see if I missed any and also ask Geology project for help with Geology items. You have a better grasp then me of the fine distinction between these fields, hence this request. Also, if there are any links that "belong" to neither project best highlight those too. Many thanks. -Arb. (talk) 22:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure I can safely modify the template {{Geologic Ages Inline}}, what if (with no rush) I drop a list of the right ages somewhere, e.g. on a subpage of my user page. Than you could check the syntax and cut-and-paste. --Kaapitone (talk) 13:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I note that you have removed the non-SI units from the Russian meteor article per MOS. MOS states that miles and feet should not be included in "science" articles, but they are found as conversions in the article about the Tunguska event and 2012 DA14. These might be considered as historical and news, respectively, rather than pure science articles. For consistency, it seems appropriate to allow feet and miles in the article about the Russian meteor event. Regards. Edison (talk) 17:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-SI units are used all over Wikipedia even where MOS specifically depreciates them. I don't think that that is consistency, but a set of editors trying to convert every single number on Wikipedia so they don't have to familiarize themselves with the SI-system or do the conversion. --Tobias1984 (talk) 17:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. While my strength in Wikipedia is molecular biology and astrobiology, and I've been drawn to the Polonnaruwa (meteorite) article because of the unusual claims of living organisms within. The preliminary consensus by biologists and (local) geologists is that it is not a meteorite at all. Is there a way to determine if that object has been recognized as a meteorite by the competent meteorite experts? Thanks for any help you may give. CHeers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:15, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi BatteryIncluded! You probably have read these commentaries on the science behind this rock:
I think as a rule of thumb you can say that any rock that is not included in the meteoritical society bulletin database or the natural history museum database is not a meteorite. The first article also has a picture of the rock. As a geologist I can tell you that that is the last thing I would pick up and call a meteorite :). --Tobias1984 (talk) 14:45, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again. That team just released another paper on the elemental analysis of some rocks. Verifying that it is a meteorite with embeded diatoms, has repercusions in astrobiology. I am interested in your opinion regarding their bias/neutral science and conclusion. I don't want to give it too much weight in the Wikipedia article as they are going against the opinion of all other scientists who have looked into these rocks, and Wickramanshe has a history of publishing unverifiable and unreviewed papers (as in the Journal of Cosmology.)
PS: Keep in mind this is a new 'meteorite' found 2 months ago, unrelated to their previous claims of extraterrestrial microbial life.
Again this is a really weird publication with the weirdest approach of identifying a meteorite one could possibly think of. They are just publishing meaningless from machines they don't understand. The fact that none of these people have any idea of what they are doing is that they first coat a sample with gold to look at it with the electron microscope, and THEN they analyse the chemistry and write: "The gold is from the coating". Well why didn't they just use another piece of their "meteorite"? :) They intentionally don't use cheap and reliable methods (like a thin section) because that would show that their just looking at some limestone. --Tobias1984 (talk) 14:40, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know their biology techniques have been intentionally twisted and plain dishonest BS, and am not surprised they are doing the same with elemental analyses. Thank you for your feedback. BatteryIncluded (talk) 13:13, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You created an "one liner" stub (ixiolite) :[ User:Ixfd64 created one liner mineral stubs beginning with 'A' (November 2006, e.g. arctite, arcubisite, artroeite), they are still very small stubs :[ Please, don't create one liner stubs :[ Calm down, chill out and keep cool ;) There is no deadline for improving Wikipedia ;)
I took that picture at a restaurant. Thought it looked kind of cool. Not sure if it will be kept on Commons as a piece of modern art :) --Tobias1984 (talk) 13:17, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that you are active at WikiProject Geology so I wonder if you can help with this. A few days ago I created a new article for paleontologist Donald Prothero which I have also nominated for a DYK. Afterward I learned about the bot that lists new geology articles but I notice the Prothero article is not on the list despite containing a lot of the necessary keywords. Does that indicate a need to add keywords to the bot?
The reason I ask is because I want to get a better understanding of how the bot works so that I can create a search for new articles in the area of scientific skepticism. I'd appreciate any help you can provide! Allecher (talk) 19:30, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just used a picture of the geologic time sale 2012 and copypasted the colors with Gimp. Probably that is not the best way to do it. If you have the exact RGB values it might be time to update the English version once more. --Tobias1984 (talk) 07:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The reference was not replaced when I did the edit request. The colors in the GTS2012 are slighty more pastel, probably for readability. The correct reference should be: http://www.stratigraphy.org/index.php/ics-chart-timescale I don't know if those RGB values are written down anywhere, but those are the images I used to read out the color values with Gimp. --Tobias1984 (talk) 09:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know that you were one of the only people working on the Geology of North America article. I have been working on the article in my sandbox as noted on the talk page. I have gotten quite a ways on that article, and I would be interested to hear what you think about my draft? I would be inclined to move my draft to article space for Geology of North America, and move the current article back to Geology of the United States where it belongs. I tried to include most of the sourced information from the current article. Do you have any thoughts? --Al Climbs (talk) 00:09, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I remember that we even thought of deleting it, as it was just a huge collection of red links with very little content. As AlClimbs now has a more appropriate Geology of North America article the old one can be moved to Geology of the United States and we will try to sort out things from there. --Tobias1984 (talk) 18:05, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for helping me through that mess I created. I know that Geology of the United States now needs a lot of work, but I am somewhat sick of those two articles, and I am disinclined to work on them. The cleanup from this will be worse than trying to sort through the administrative issues I created. Again, I would stay and help but I am sick of them. Also, I feel I need to end by repeating thanks for helping that along. Think I need to make note of what happened at the Wikiproject Geology? --Al Climbs (talk) 01:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad I could help. And things like that are bound to happen sometimes ;) I also wouldn't worry about the cleanup. I looked through the history of both articles and I think nobody will mind the way we handled this. I also sometimes get tired of some topic. Best is just to take a break or work on something else. When you are ready to work on it again it will be fun to see what other people added. --Tobias1984 (talk) 06:37, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I hope you put this page on your watchlist. Listen, I'm afraid that I can't approve the DYK nomination yet until editing has settled down or issues (including unrelated ones that would affect the article, like tagging) are addressed. Hopefully, you can resolve these issues or have someone else interested to do so. --George Ho (talk) 14:30, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I only nominated the article. Don't have the time nor the interest to argue with the IP-editor who highjacked the article. Thanks for the message. --Tobias1984 (talk) 15:40, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Crisco told that guy off, so... you can semi-retire, not fully, from DYK. To be honest, IP comes across as vain, vindictive, petty, dangerous, and someone I cannot socialize with. --George Ho (talk) 00:51, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tobias1984, the IP has asked for Greenland to be included on the first image (and maybe the second). This may be a reasonable request - the Greenland article indeed says it's physiographically N. Am. - in which case either the image or its caption need to be updated. Or if the request is unreasonable, if you'd explain it to me then I'll update the DYK; either way, once that's done I think we can proceed to DYK. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Chiswick! I will try to crop something together from another map. Could you maybe change the hook to something less bad than what I suggested. --Tobias1984 (talk) 15:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're asking me? My geology extends to granite, marble, and slate... ok, limestone as well. (just kidding). How about something like
I like that hook. Nice and simple and nobody can take offence in it. I changed the map to something that includes Greenland. --Tobias1984 (talk) 15:40, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
geology
Thank you for contributing with scientific background quality articles on geology and mineralogy, by country and about single people, such as Karl Hugo Strunz, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!
You're welcome. Are you planning to do more work about the geology of Ireland? Would be nice to have better coverage of that area. --Tobias1984 (talk) 12:04, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Concerns for an early Mars sample return until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
Warren Platts (talk) 21:40, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
During this work I noted that some information in the list of the GBSP-article is not consistent, but I will leave those to you to deal with, i.e.:
Discoaster brouweri is identified as haptophyte, while D. surculus is identified as a calcareous nannofossil. Both are correct, but it is a bit odd to use two different terms where the reader probably does not realise both are haptophytes that have conserved as calcareous nannofossils; I'd definitely prefer the information given on the haptophyte page to the the information on the pages calcareous and fossil;
the end of the fossil record of Discoaster brouweri is called extinction, while for D. kugleri it is called "Last Common Occurrence" (a term that merits some further consideration: the capitals suggest that it is an official term, but there is no wiki article, nor does it occur anywhere else on wiki, and it evades me with what in this occurrence is common).
Thank you so much for all the help. I replaced the "calcareous fossil links" with haptophyte. You're right about the biostratigraphic terms. We probably should have entries for "first occurence", "last occurence", "first common occurence", "last common occurence", "first regular occurence" and "last regular occurence". In the case of D. kugleri there is some information here:
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Hi Tobias1984. A french wikipedian is translating an article from the french Wikipedia in the english Wikipedia. He requested me to correct him, but I am not sure his translation is good. Could you help us please ? Cordially, Juraastro (talk) 10:23, 23 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Clunia, Austria, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Feldkirch (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Also, it seems we start to have a small group of ~3 GIS map makers around. That's the first time this happen on wiki-en. Please ask questions whenever you need to get GIS / Mapmaking know-how, and show us what you are doing so we may give tricks or ask you questions as well. Yug(talk)12:28, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... I tried to make similar to other Classified websites in Wikipedia, for example: Dubizzle .. Opensooq is really a well known website in MENA regions, we reach 5 million unique visitors per month, so I would appreciate to make it more professional and be included in Wikipedia --Existed (talk) 11:53, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair I also nominated Dubizzle for deletion. Having millions of visitors is not notable anymore in our world. It is also not notable to have an office, an app, an investor, having relocated, having a website, .... I am sure you agree with this. --Tobias1984 (talk) 12:59, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the addition! Please feel free to add additional important species, but when you do please update the notable species include bit....I already fixed it for your addition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rm13967 (talk • contribs) 11:23, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tobias1984. Thanks for your work on the map, but it has serious shortcomings which should be fixed, if the map is to be used on wikipedia. It does not show many notable medieval towns, while it is unduly overcrowded with Albanian places, many of which were not recorded in the 14th century. This is also the case with some other towns, such as Novi Sad and Mostar. Some names are anachronistic (for example, Podgorica, Tuzla, Sarajevo, and Sofia were then called Ribnik, Soli, Vrhbosna, and Sredets)... I can provide the correct place names and coordinates, via email if you want. Also, the map should show the West Morava and Vardar Rivers. "Truma" should be Struma. There are no names of the seas... Vladimir (talk) 14:43, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, send me a spread-sheet and I will make the changes. The problem is that there are no databases that can provide names and coordinates of historic cities. Let's hope that Wikidata can soon provide map makers with this kind of information. --Tobias1984 (talk) 14:51, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Tobias1984. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Well done! That's a great improvement. There are several things still to be fixed. The point at which the western border departs from the Drina River should be moved a bit to the south (see File:Serbian Empire.png). The narrow coastal strip west of Dubrovnik (the former Republic of Ragusa) should be bordered off from the Banate of Bosnia. The Morava River should be indicated as in your previous version. If "Niš" stands in the way, move it to the north (you can delete "Nisava"). "Treska, Vardar" should be just "Vardar" (Treska is a different river). I found that there are two errors in the table I sent you: 1) The southern of the two "Vidins" should be deleted - there is no such place. 2) The correct coordinates for Severin are 44.567, 22.667. Cheers, Vladimir (talk) 14:27, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The western border is now ok. "Morava" is shown, but "Niš" disappeared. There's the circle for the town, but no label. The previous version had all diacritics (č, ć, š, ž) but now č and ć are lost. "Wallachia" was moved too far to the south. It should be north of the Danube. As for Ragusa, see the island west of Dubrovnik partially shown at the western border of the map (Mljet). North of it is a narrow land mass - Pelješac. North of Pelješac is a narrow inlet of sea. The border of the Republic of Ragusa should run along this inlet. Currently, the coastal strip is too broad at its western part. You may label the republic. Vladimir (talk) 15:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly don't know whether fossils should be listed under the formation or formation under the fossils since the information doesn't really seem more or less relevant to either concept. Is there anyway to list it under both simultaneously? I know so little about Wikidata that I'm not sure what how to make a helpful suggestion. I am really excited about the concept, though. Abyssal (talk) 18:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sava Fault, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jesenice. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Alfenz, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Donau. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Thanks Tobias! To be super-clear I'm talking about navboxes and not infoboxes. And then getting a bot to remove them from the navbox titles... should improve their readability significantly. Just let me know where to support and I will. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:55, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tom (LT): I think that the people that are running the bots, can also grab the codes from the navboxes. But after that, the data can be used wherever it is needed. But I agree that putting them in the headline of a navbox is just too much information density. - The voting for new properties on Wikidata requires a {{support}} or {{oppose}} under each of the proposal boxes with a signature (d:Wikidata:Property_proposal/Natural_science#ICD-10-PCS). Only properties that get enough support are created after a minimum of one week. --Tobias1984 (talk) 23:18, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for using VisualEditor and sharing your ideas with the developers.
Hello, Tobias1984,
The Editing team is asking for your help with VisualEditor. I am contacting you because you were one of the very first testers of VisualEditor, back in 2012 or early 2013. Please tell them what they need to change to make VisualEditor work better for you. The team has a list of top-priority problems, but they also want to hear about small problems. These problems may make editing less fun, take too much of your time, or be as annoying as a paper cut. The Editing team wants to hear about and try to fix these small things, too.
You can share your thoughts by clicking this link. You may respond to this quick, simple, anonymous survey in your own language. If you take the survey, then you agree your responses may be used in accordance with these terms. This survey is powered by Qualtrics and their use of your information is governed by their privacy policy.
More information (including a translateable list of the questions) is posted on wiki at mw:VisualEditor/Survey 2015. If you have questions, or prefer to respond on-wiki, then please leave a message on the survey's talk page.
as i "say" ..."i don't understand any "problem", i live current-ly in Simferopol, and i know what i voting for on referendum, and where i belong now, stop falsify people minds, i know better than you, european union , and others where i live." and where for example there are all gas fields in which i works, and which concern from Russia, not Ukraine (Rosnieft) is paying me now. So!, sorry I'm not interested geopolitical propaganda and etc. --Muffi (talk) 18:39, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With this edit (and a few subsequent edits) to Module:Wikidata, you added several calls to a printError function. However, there is no such function, and you didn't write one. This makes Lua crash whenever any of those calls happen. Can you do something about this? Thanks, Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:59, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Jackmcbarn: Sorry, I never even saw that anything was failing. Where did you find the bug? - In any case I grabbed that function from the German module and looked over some pages and didn't notice any errors. The lack of a version control system and a proper virtual environment makes testing difficult. --Tobias1984 (talk) 21:14, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't remember what page I saw it on. I think the issue that led to printError getting called went away, so the problem isn't currently visible, but it still exists. Can you just copy that function over as well? Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Jackmcbarn: Already copied it to en and simple-en. Those are all the modules I edited in the past. Maybe we should create a test-page which does any imaginable call to Wikidata. If that page shows any errors we revert the latest edit to the Wikidata-module. It is not ideal, but at least it gives us a way to discover bugs. --Tobias1984 (talk) 10:18, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Tobias1984. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
This newsletter starts with the motto "common endeavour for 21st century content". To unpack that slogan somewhat, we are particularly interested in the new, post-Wikidata collection of techniques that are flourishing under the Wikimedia collaborative umbrella. To linked data, SPARQL queries and WikiCite, add gamified participation, text mining and new holding areas, with bots, tech and humans working harmoniously.
Scientists, librarians and Wikimedians are coming together and providing a more unified view of an emerging area. Further integration of both its community and its technical aspects can be anticipated.
While Wikipedia will remain the discursive heart of Wikimedia, data-rich and semantic content will support it. We'll aim to be both broad and selective in our coverage. This publication Facto Post (the very opposite of retroactive) and call to action are brought to you monthly by ContentMine.
Wikimedians interest themselves in everything under the sun — and then some. Discussion on "core topics" may, oddly, be a fringe activity, and was popular here a decade ago.
The situation on Wikidata today does resemble the halcyon days of 2006 of the English Wikipedia. The growth is there, and the reliability and stylistic issues are not yet pressing in on the project. Its Berlin conference at the end of October will have five years of achievement to celebrate. Think Wikimania Frankfurt 2005.
Progress must be made, however, on referencing "core facts". This has two parts: replacing "imported from Wikipedia" in referencing by external authorities; and picking out statements, such as dates and family relationships, that must not only be reliable but be seen to be reliable.
In addition, there are many properties on Wikidata lacking a clear data model. An emerging consensus may push to the front key sourcing and biomedical properties as requiring urgent attention. Wikidata's "manual of style" is currently distributed over thousands of discussions. To make it coalesce, work on such a core is needed.
WikiFactMine project pages on Wikidata, including a SPARQL library (in development).
Fatameh tool for adding items on scientific papers to Wikidata, by User: T Arrow. It has made a big recent impact. Offline for maintenance as we go to press, it is expected back soon.
Interviewed by Facto Post at the hackathon, Lydia Pintscher of Wikidata said that the most significant recent development is that Wikidata now accounts for one third of Wikimedia edits. And the essential growth of human editing.
Internet-In-A-Box
Impressive development work on Internet-in-a-Box featured in the WikiMedFoundation annual conference on Thursday. Hardware is Raspberry Pi, running Linux and the Kiwix browser. It can operate as a wifi hotspot and support a local intranet in parts of the world lacking phone signal. The medical use case is for those delivering care, who have smartphones but have to function in clinics in just such areas with few reference resources. Wikipedia medical content can be served to their phones, and power supplied by standard lithium battery packages.
Yesterday Katherine Maher unveiled the draft Wikimedia 2030 strategy, featuring a picturesque metaphor, "roads, bridges and villages". Here "bridges" could do with illustration. Perhaps it stands for engineering round or over the obstacles to progress down the obvious highways. Internet-in-a-Box would then do fine as an example.
"Bridging the gap" explains a take on that same metaphor, with its human component. If you are at Wikimania, come talk to WikiFactMine at its stall in the Community Village, just by the 3D-printed display for Bassel Khartabil; come hear T Arrow talk at 3 pm today in Drummond West, Level 3.
Dorstenia elata, a critically endangered South American herb, contained in Moraceae, the family of figs and mulberries
Clearly, conservation work depends on decisions about what should be done, and where. While animals, particularly mammals, are photogenic, species numbers run into millions. Plant species lie at the base of typical land-based food chains, and vegetation is key to the habitats of most animals.
ContentMine dictionaries, for example as tabulated at d:Wikidata:WikiFactMine/Dictionary list, enable detailed control of queries about endangered species, in their taxonomic context. To target conservation measures properly, species listings running into the thousands are not what is needed: range maps showing current distribution are. Between the will to act, and effective steps taken, the services of data handling are required. There is now no reason at all why Wikidata should not take up the burden.
Annotation is nothing new. The glossators of medieval Europe annotated between the lines, or in the margins of legal manuscripts of texts going back to Roman times, and created a new discipline. In the form of web annotation, the idea is back, with texts being marked up inline, or with a stand-off system. Where could it lead?
1495 print version of the Digesta of Justinian, with the annotations of the glossator Accursius from the 13th century
ContentMine operates in the field of text and data mining (TDM), where annotation, simply put, can add value to mined text. It now sees annotation as a possible advance in semi-automation, the use of human judgement assisted by bot editing, which now plays a large part in Wikidata tools. While a human judgement call of yes/no, on the addition of a statement to Wikidata, is usually taken as decisive, it need not be. The human assent may be passed into an annotation system, and stored: this idea is standard on Wikisource, for example, where text is considered "validated" only when two different accounts have stated that the proof-reading is correct. A typical application would be to require more than one person to agree that what is said in the reference translates correctly into the formal Wikidata statement. Rejections are also potentially useful to record, for machine learning.
As a contribution to data integrity on Wikidata, annotation has much to offer. Some "hard cases" on importing data are much more difficult than average. There are for example biographical puzzles: whether person A in one context is really identical with person B, of the same name, in another context. In science, clinical medicine require special attention to sourcing (WP:MEDRS), and is challenging in terms of connecting findings with the methodology employed. Currently decisions in areas such as these, on Wikipedia and Wikidata, are often made ad hoc. In particular there may be no audit trail for those who want to check what is decided.
Annotations are subject to a World Wide Web Consortium standard, and behind the terminology constitute a simple JSON data structure. What WikiFactMine proposes to do with them is to implement the MEDRS guideline, as a formal algorithm, on bibliographical and methodological data. The structure will integrate with those inputs the human decisions on the interpretation of scientific papers that underlie claims on Wikidata. What is added to Wikidata will therefore be supported by a transparent and rigorous system that documents decisions.
An example of the possible future scope of annotation, for medical content, is in the first link below. That sort of detailed abstract of a publication can be a target for TDM, adds great value, and could be presented in machine-readable form. You are invited to discuss the detailed proposal on Wikidata, via its talk page.
Under the heading rerum causas cognescere, the first ever Wikidata conference got under way in the Tagesspiegel building with two keynotes, One was on YAGO, about how a knowledge base conceived ten years ago if you assume automatic compilation from Wikipedia. The other was from manager Lydia Pintscher, on the "state of the data". Interesting rumours flourished: the mix'n'match tool and its 600+ datasets, mostly in digital humanities, to be taken off the hands of its author Magnus Manske by the WMF; a Wikibase incubator site is on its way. Announcements came in talks: structured data on Wikimedia Commons is scheduled to make substantive progress by 2019. The lexeme development on Wikidata is now not expected to make the Wiktionary sites redundant, but may facilitate automated compilation of dictionaries.
And so it went, with five strands of talks and workshops, through to 11 pm on Saturday. Wikidata applies to GLAM work via metadata. It may be used in education, raises issues such as author disambiguation, and lends itself to different types of graphical display and reuse. Many millions of SPARQL queries are run on the site every day. Over the summer a large open science bibliography has come into existence there.
Hello, Tobias1984. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
At the beginning of December, Wikidata items on individual scientific articles passed the 10 million mark. This figure contrasts with the state of play in early summer, when there were around half a million. In the big picture, Wikidata is now documenting the scientific literature at a rate that is about eight times as fast as papers are published. As 2017 ends, progress is quite evident.
Behind this achievement are a technical advance (fatameh), and bots that do the lifting. Much more than dry migration of metadata is potentially involved, however. If paper A cites paper B, both papers having an item, a link can be created on Wikidata, and the information presented to both human readers, and machines. This cross-linking is one of the most significant aspects of the scientific literature, and now a long-sought open version is rapidly being built up.
The effort for the lifting of copyright restrictions on citation data of this kind has had real momentum behind it during 2017. WikiCite and the I4OC have been pushing hard, with the result that on CrossRef over 50% of the citation data is open. Now the holdout publishers are being lobbied to release rights on citations.
But all that is just the beginning. Topics of papers are identified, authors disambiguated, with significant progress on the use of the four million ORCID IDs for researchers, and proposals formulated to identify methodology in a machine-readable way. P4510 on Wikidata has been introduced so that methodology can sit comfortably on items about papers.
From the days of hard-copy liner notes on music albums, metadata have stood outside a piece or file, while adding to understanding of where it comes from, and some of what needs to be appreciated about its content. In the GLAM sector, the accumulation of accurate metadata for objects is key to the mission of an institution, and its presentation in cataloguing.
Today Wikipedia turns 17, with worlds still to conquer. Zooming out from the individual GLAM object to the ontology in which it is set, one such world becomes apparent: GLAMs use custom ontologies, and those introduce massive incompatibilities. From a recent article by sadads, we quote the observation that "vocabularies needed for many collections, topics and intellectual spaces defy the expectations of the larger professional communities." A job for the encyclopedist, certainly. But the data-minded Wikimedian has the advantages of Wikidata, starting with its multilingual data, and facility with aliases. The controlled vocabulary — sometimes referred to as a "thesaurus" as term of art — simplifies search: if a "spade" must be called that, rather than "shovel", it is easier to find all spade references. That control comes at a cost.
Case studies in that article show what can lie ahead. The schema crosswalk, in jargon, is a potential answer to the GLAM Babel of proliferating and expanding vocabularies. Even if you have no interest in Wikidata as such, simply vocabularies V and W, if both V and W are matched to Wikidata, then a "crosswalk" arises from term v in V to w in W, whenever v and w both match to the same item d in Wikidata.
For metadata mobility, match to Wikidata. It's apparently that simple: infrastructure requirements have turned out, so far, to be challenges that can be met.
One way of looking at Wikidata relates it to the semantic web concept, around for about as long as Wikipedia, and realised in dozens of distributed Web institutions. It sees Wikidata as supplying central, encyclopedic coverage of linked structured data, and looks ahead to greater support for "federated queries" that draw together information from all parts of the emerging network of websites.
Another perspective might be likened to a photographic negative of that one: Wikidata as an already-functioning Web hub. Over half of its properties are identifiers on other websites. These are Wikidata's "external links", to use Wikipedia terminology: one type for the DOI of a publication, another for the VIAF page of an author, with thousands more such. Wikidata links out to sites that are not nominally part of the semantic web, effectively drawing them into a larger system. The crosswalk possibilities of the systematic construction of these links was covered in Issue 8.
Wikipedia:External links speaks of them as kept "minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article." Here Wikidata finds more of a function. On viaf.org one can type a VIAF author identifier into the search box, and find the author page. The Wikidata Resolver tool, these days including Open Street Map, Scholia etc., allows this kind of lookup. The hub tool by maxlath takes a major step further, allowing both lookup and crosswalk to be encoded in a single URL.
Around the time in February when Wikidata clicked past item Q50000000, another milestone was reached: the mix'n'match tool uploaded its 1000th dataset. Concisely defined by its author, Magnus Manske, it works "to match entries in external catalogs to Wikidata". The total number of entries is now well into eight figures, and more are constantly being added: a couple of new catalogs each day is normal.
Since the end of 2013, mix'n'match has gradually come to play a significant part in adding statements to Wikidata. Particularly in areas with the flavour of digital humanities, but datasets can of course be about practically anything. There is a catalog on skyscrapers, and two on spiders.
These days mix'n'match can be used in numerous modes, from the relaxed gamified click through a catalog looking for matches, with prompts, to the fantastically useful and often demanding search across all catalogs. I'll type that again: you can search 1000+ datasets from the simple box at the top right. The drop-down menu top left offers "creation candidates", Magnus's personal favourite. m:Mix'n'match/Manual for more.
For the Wikidatan, a key point is that these matches, however carried out, add statements to Wikidata if, and naturally only if, there is a Wikidata property associated with the catalog. For everyone, however, the hands-on experience of deciding of what is a good match is an education, in a scholarly area, biographical catalogs being particularly fraught. Underpinning recent rapid progress is an open infrastructure for scraping and uploading.
Open Citations Month, with its eminently guessable hashtag, is upon us. We should be utterly grateful that in the past 12 months, so much data on which papers cite which other papers has been made open, and that Wikidata is playing its part in hosting it as "cites" statements. At the time of writing, there are 15.3M Wikidata items that can do that.
Pulling back to look at open access papers in the large, though, there is is less reason for celebration. Access in theory does not yet equate to practical access. A recent LSE IMPACT blogpost puts that issue down to "heterogeneity". A useful euphemism to save us from thinking that the whole concept doesn't fall into the realm of the oxymoron.
Some home truths: aggregation is not content management, if it falls short on reusability. The PDF file format is wedded to how humans read documents, not how machines ingest them. The salami-slicer is our friend in the current downloading of open access papers, but for a better metaphor, think about skinning an onion, laboriously, 100 times with diminishing returns. There are of the order of 100 major publisher sites hosting open access papers, and the predominant offer there is still a PDF.
Red onion cross section
From the discoverability angle, Wikidata's bibliographic resources combined with the SPARQL query are superior in principle, by far, to existing keyword searches run over papers. Open access content should be managed into consistent HTML, something that is currently strenuous. The good news, such as it is, would be that much of it is already in XML. The organisational problem of removing further skins from the onion, with sensible prioritisation, is certainly not insuperable. The CORE group (the bloggers in the LSE posting) has some answers, but actually not all that is needed for the text and data mining purposes they highlight. The long tail, or in other words the onion heart when it has become fiddly beyond patience to skin, does call for a pis aller. But the real knack is to do more between the XML and the heart.
The proposal includes downloading 30,000 open access papers, aiming (roughly speaking) to create a baseline for medical referencing on Wikipedia. It leaves open the question of how these are to be chosen.
The basic criteria of WP:MEDRS include a concentration on secondary literature. Attention has to be given to the long tail of diseases that receive less current research. The MEDRS guideline supposes that edge cases will have to be handled, and the premature exclusion of publications that would be in those marginal positions would reduce the value of the collection. Prophylaxis misses the point that gate-keeping will be done by an algorithm.
Two well-known but rather different areas where such considerations apply are tropical diseases and alternative medicine. There are also a number of potential downloading troubles, and these were mentioned in Issue 11. There is likely to be a gap, even with the guideline, between conditions taken to be necessary but not sufficient, and conditions sufficient but not necessary, for candidate papers to be included. With around 10,000 recognised medical conditions in standard lists, being comprehensive is demanding. With all of these aspects of the task, ScienceSource will seek community help.
Facto Post enters its second year, with a Cambridge Blue (OK, Aquamarine) background, a new logo, but no Cambridge blues. On-topic for the ScienceSource project is a project page here. It contains some case studies on how the WP:MEDRS guideline, for the referencing of articles at all related to human health, is applied in typical discussions.
Close to home also, a template, called {{medrs}} for short, is used to express dissatisfaction with particular references. Technology can help with patrolling, and this Petscan query finds over 450 articles where there is at least one use of the template. Of course the template is merely suggesting there is a possible issue with the reliability of a reference. Deciding the truth of the allegation is another matter.
This maintenance issue is one example of where ScienceSource aims to help. Where the reference is to a scientific paper, its type of algorithm could give a pass/fail opinion on such references. It could assist patrollers of medical articles, therefore, with the templated references and more generally. There may be more to proper referencing than that, indeed: context, quite what the statement supported by the reference expresses, prominence and weight. For that kind of consideration, case studies can help. But an algorithm might help to clear the backlog.
Officially it is "bridging the gaps in knowledge", with Wikimania 2018 in Cape Town paying tribute to the southern African concept of ubuntu to implement it. Besides face-to-face interactions, Wikimedians do need their power sources.
Hackathon mentoring table wiring
Facto Post interviewed Jdforrester, who has attended every Wikimania, and now works as Senior Product Manager for the Wikimedia Foundation. His take on tackling the gaps in the Wikimedia movement is that "if we were an army, we could march in a column and close up all the gaps". In his view though, that is a faulty metaphor, and it leads to a completely false misunderstanding of the movement, its diversity and different aspirations, and the nature of the work as "fighting" to be done in the open sector. There are many fronts, and as an eventualist he feels the gaps experienced both by editors and by users of Wikimedia content are inevitable. He would like to see a greater emphasis on reuse of content, not simply its volume.
If that may not sound like radicalism, the Decolonizing the Internet conference here organized jointly with Whose Knowledge? can redress the picture. It comes with the claim to be "the first ever conference about centering marginalized knowledge online".
Plugbar buildup at the Hackathon
Links
ScienceSource focus list (shortcut WD:SSFL on Wikidata), project to tag a first-pass open access medical bibliography on Wikidata, and also overcome the systematic biases in the medical literature by curation.
Anti-parasitic drugs being distributed in Côte d'Ivoire What's a Neglected Disease?, ScienceSource video
To grasp the nettle, there are rare diseases, there are tropical diseases and then there are "neglected diseases". Evidently a rare enough disease is likely to be neglected, but neglected disease these days means a disease not rare, but tropical, and most often infectious or parasitic. Rare diseases as a group are dominated, in contrast, by genetic diseases.
A major aspect of neglect is found in tracking drug discovery. Orphan drugs are those developed to treat rare diseases (rare enough not to have market-driven research), but there is some overlap in practice with the WHO's neglected diseases, where snakebite, a "neglected public health issue", is on the list.
From an encyclopedic point of view, lack of research also may mean lack of high-quality references: the core medical literature differs from primary research, since it operates by aggregating trials. This bibliographic deficit clearly hinders Wikipedia's mission. The ScienceSource project is currently addressing this issue, on Wikidata. Its Wikidata focus list at WD:SSFL is trying to ensure that neglect does not turn into bias in its selection of science papers.
In an ideal world ... no, bear with your editor for just a minute ... there would be a format for scientific publishing online that was as much a standard as SI units are for the content. Likewise cataloguing publications would not be onerous, because part of the process would be to generate uniform metadata. Without claiming it could be the mythical free lunch, it might be reasonably be argued that sandwiches can be packaged much alike and have barcodes, whatever the fillings.
The best on offer, to stretch the metaphor, is the meal kit option, in the form of XML. Where scientific papers are delivered as XML downloads, you get all the ingredients ready to cook. But have to prepare the actual meal of slow food yourself. See Scholarly HTML for a recent pass at heading off XML with HTML, in other words in the native language of the Web.
The argument from real life is a traditional mixture of frictional forces, vested interests, and the classic irony of the principle of unripe time. On the other hand, discoverability actually diminishes with the prolific progress of science publishing. No, it really doesn't scale. Wikimedia as movement can do something in such cases. We know from open access, we grok the Web, we have our own horse in the HTML race, we have Wikidata and WikiJournal, and we have the chops to act.
Enslaved: People of the Historic Slave Trade, Michigan State University project for a linked open data platform. Quote: "Disambiguating and merging individuals across multiple datasets is nearly impossible given their current, siloed nature."
Around 2.7 million Wikidata items have an illustrative image. These files, you might say, are Wikimedia's stock images, and if the number is large, it is still only 5% or so of items that have one. All such images are taken from Wikimedia Commons, which has 50 million media files. One key issue is how to expand the stock.
Indeed, there is a tool. WD-FIST exploits the fact that each Wikipedia is differently illustrated, mostly with images from Commons but also with fair use images. An item that has sitelinks but no illustrative image can be tested to see if the linked wikis have a suitable one. This works well for a volunteer who wants to add images at a reasonable scale, and a small amount of SPARQL knowledge goes a long way in producing checklists.
Gran Teatro, Cáceres, Spain, at night
It should be noted, though, that there are currently 53 Wikidata properties that link to Commons, of which P18 for the basic image is just one. WD-FIST prompts the user to add signatures, plaques, pictures of graves and so on. There are a couple of hundred monograms, mostly of historical figures, and this query allows you to view all of them. commons:Category:Monograms and its subcategories provide rich scope for adding more.
And so it is generally. The list of properties linking to Commons does contain a few that concern video and audio files, and rather more for maps. But it contains gems such as P3451 for "nighttime view". Over 1000 of those on Wikidata, but as for so much else, there could be yet more.
Go on. Today is Wikidata's birthday. An illustrative image is always an acceptable gift, so why not add one? You can follow these easy steps: (i) log in at https://tools.wmflabs.org/widar/, (ii) paste the Petscan ID 6263583 into https://tools.wmflabs.org/fist/wdfist/ and click run, and (iii) just add cake.
Hello, Tobias1984. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
GLAM ♥ data — what is a gallery, library, archive or museum without a catalogue? It follows that Wikidata must love librarians. Bibliography supports students and researchers in any topic, but open and machine-readable bibliographic data even more so, outside the silo. Cue the WikiCite initiative, which was meeting in conference this week, in the Bay Area of California.
Wikidata training for librarians at WikiCite 2018
In fact there is a broad scope: "Open Knowledge Maps via SPARQL" and the "Sum of All Welsh Literature", identification of research outputs, Library.Link Network and Bibframe 2.0, OSCAR and LUCINDA (who they?), OCLC and Scholia, all these co-exist on the agenda. Certainly more library science is coming Wikidata's way. That poses the question about the other direction: is more Wikimedia technology advancing on libraries? Good point.
Wikimedians generally are not aware of the tech background that can be assumed, unless they are close to current training for librarians. A baseline definition is useful here: "bash, git and OpenRefine". Compare and contrast with pywikibot, GitHub and mix'n'match. Translation: scripting for automation, version control, data set matching and wrangling in the large, are on the agenda also for contemporary library work. Certainly there is some possible common ground here. Time to understand rather more about the motivations that operate in the library sector.
Links
Wikidata and Libraries: Facilitating Open Knowledge, book chapter by Mairelys Lemus-Rojas, metadata librarian and Lydia Pintscher, Wikidata Product Manager, from Leveraging Wikipedia: Connecting Communities of Knowledge (2018)
LD4P and WikiCite: Opportunities for collaboration, WikiCite 2018 program abstract, Christine Fernsebner Eslao of Harvard Library Information and Technical Services and Michelle Futornick, Linked Data for Production Program Manager at Stanford University
Besides the handiness of Zotero's warehousing of personal citation collections, the Zotero translator underlies the citoid service, at work behind the VisualEditor. Metadata from Wikidata can be imported into Zotero; and in the other direction the zotkat tool from the University of Mannheim allows Zotero bibliographies to be exported to Wikidata, by item creation. With an extra feature to add statements, that route could lead to much development of the focus list (P5008) tagging on Wikidata, by WikiProjects.
Zotero demo video
There is also a large-scale encyclopedic dimension here. The construction of Zotero translators is one facet of Web scraping that has a strong community and open source basis. In that it resembles the less formal mix'n'match import community, and growing networks around other approaches that can integrate datasets into Wikidata, such as the use of OpenRefine.
Looking ahead, the thirtieth birthday of the World Wide Web falls in 2019, and yet the ambition to make webpages routinely readable by machines can still seem an ever-retreating mirage. Wikidata should not only be helping Wikimedia integrate its projects, an ongoing process represented by Structured Data on Commons and lexemes. It should also be acting as a catalyst to bring scraping in from the cold, with institutional strengths as well as resourceful code.
T115158Write a Zotero translator and document process for creating new Zotero translator and getting it live in production, long Phabricator thread 2015–17.
Recently Jimmy Wales has made the point that computer home assistants take much of their data from Wikipedia, one way or another. So as well as getting Spotify to play Frosty the Snowman for you, they may be able to answer the question "is the Pope Catholic?" Possibly by asking for disambiguation (Coptic?).
Headlines about data breaches are now familiar, but the unannounced circulation of information raises other issues. One of those is Gresham's law stated as "bad data drives out good". Wikipedia and now Wikidata have been criticised on related grounds: what if their content, unattributed, is taken to have a higher standing than Wikimedians themselves would grant it? See Wikiquote on a misattribution to Bismarck for the usual quip about "law and sausages", and why one shouldn't watch them in the making.
Wikipedia has now turned 18, so should act like as adult, as well as being treated like one. The Web itself turns 30 some time between March and November this year, per Tim Berners-Lee. If the Knowledge Graph by Google exemplifies Heraclitean Web technology gaining authority, contra GIGO, Wikimedians still have a role in its critique. But not just with the teenage skill of detecting phoniness.
There is more to beating Gresham than exposing the factoid and urban myth, where WP:V does do a great job. Placeholders must be detected, and working with Wikidata is a good way to understand how having one statement as data can blind us to replacing it by a more accurate one. An example that is important to open access is that, firstly, the term itself needs considerable unpacking, because just being able to read material online is a poor relation of "open"; and secondly, trying to get Creative Commons license information into Wikidata shows up issues with classes of license (such as CC-BY) standing for the actual license in major repositories. Detailed investigation shows that "everything flows" exacerbates the issue. But Wikidata can solve it.
Systematic reviews are basic building blocks of evidence-based medicine, surveys of existing literature devoted typically to a definite question that aim to bring out scientific conclusions. They are principled in a way Wikipedians can appreciate, taking a critical view of their sources.
PRISMA flow diagram for a systematic review
Ben Goldacre in 2014 wrote (link below) "[...] : the "information architecture" of evidence based medicine (if you can tolerate such a phrase) is a chaotic, ad hoc, poorly connected ecosystem of legacy projects. In some respects the whole show is still run on paper, like it's the 19th century." Is there a Wikidatan in the house? Wouldn't some machine-readable content that is structured data help?
Most likely it would, but the arcana of systematic reviews and how they add value would still need formal handling. The PRISMA standard dates from 2009, with an update started in 2018. The concerns there include the corpus of papers used: how selected and filtered? Now that Wikidata has a 20.9 million item bibliography, one can at least pose questions. Each systematic review is a tagging opportunity for a bibliography. Could that tagging be reproduced by a query, in principle? Can it even be second-guessed by a query (i.e. simulated by a protocol which translates into SPARQL)? Homing in on the arcana, do the inclusion and filtering criteria translate into metadata? At some level they must, but are these metadata explicitly expressed in the articles themselves? The answer to that is surely "no" at this point, but can TDM find them? Again "no", right now. Automatic identification doesn't just happen.
Actually these questions lack originality. It should be noted though that WP:MEDRS, the reliable sources guideline used here for health information, hinges on the assumption that the usefully systematic reviews of biomedical literature can be recognised. Its nutshell summary, normally the part of a guideline with the highest density of common sense, allows literature reviews in general validity, but WP:MEDASSESS qualifies that indication heavily. Process wonkery about systematic reviews definitely has merit.
Hello, Tobias1984. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
, re my question and your contribution to the Iron meteorite article.
The term Applications Programming Interface or API is 50 years old, and refers to a type of software library as well as the interface to its use. While a compiler is what you need to get high-level code executed by a mainframe, an API out in the cloud somewhere offers a chance to perform operations on a remote server. For example, the multifarious bots active on Wikipedia have owners who exploit the MediaWiki API.
APIs (called RESTful) that allow for the GET HTTP request are fundamental for what could colloquially be called "moving data around the Web"; from which Wikidata benefits 24/7. So the fact that the Wikidata SPARQL endpoint at query.wikidata.org has a RESTful API means that, in lay terms, Wikidata content can be GOT from it. The programming involved, besides the SPARQL language, could be in Python, younger by a few months than the Web.
Magic words, such as occur in fantasy stories, are wishful (rather than RESTful) solutions to gaining access. You may need to be a linguist to enter Ali Baba's cave or the western door of Moria (French in the case of "Open Sesame", in fact, and Sindarin being the respective languages). Talking to an API requires a bigger toolkit, which first means you have to recognise the tools in terms of what they can do. On the way to the wikt:impactful or polymathic modern handling of facts, one must perhaps take only tactful notice of tech's endemic problem with documentation, and absorb the insightful point that the code in APIs does articulate the customary procedures now in place on the cloud for getting information. As Owl explained to Winnie-the-Pooh, it tells you The Thing to Do.
Working With Wikibase From Go, Digital Flapjack blogpost 26 November 2018, Michael Dales, developer for ScienceSource using golang, with a software engineer's view on Wikibase and the MediaWiki API
Talk of cloud computing draws a veil over hardware, but also, less obviously but more importantly, obscures such intellectual distinction as matters most in its use. Wikidata begins to allow tasks to be undertaken that were out of easy reach. The facility should not be taken as the real point.
Coming in from another angle, the "executive decision" is more glamorous; but the "administrative decision" should be admired for its command of facts. Think of the attitudes ad fontes, so prevalent here on Wikipedia as "can you give me a source for that?", and being prepared to deal with complicated analyses into specified subcases. Impatience expressed as a disdain for such pedantry is quite understandable, but neither dirty data nor false dichotomies are at all good to have around.
Issue 13 and Issue 21, respectively on WP:MEDRS and systematic reviews, talk about biomedical literature and computing tasks that would be of higher quality if they could be made more "administrative". For example, it is desirable that the decisions involved be consistent, explicable, and reproducible by non-experts from specified inputs.
What gets clouded out is not impossibly hard to understand. You do need to put together the insights of functional programming, which is a doctrinaire and purist but clearcut approach, with the practicality of office software. Loopless computation can be conceived of as a seamless forward march of spreadsheet columns, each determined by the content of previous ones. Very well: to do a backward audit, when now we are talking about Wikidata, we rely on integrity of data and its scrupulous sourcing: and clearcut case analyses. The MEDRS example forces attention on purge attempts such as Beall's list.
Two dozen issues, and this may be the last, a valediction at least for a while.
It's time for a two-year summation of ContentMine projects involving TDM (text and data mining).
Wikidata and now Structured Data on Commons represent the overlap of Wikimedia with the Semantic Web. This common ground is helping to convert an engineering concept into a movement. TDM generally has little enough connection with the Semantic Web, being instead in the orbit of machine learning which is no respecter of the semantic. Don't break a taboo by asking bots "and what do you mean by that?"
The ScienceSource project innovates in TDM, by storing its text mining results in a Wikibase site. It strives for compliance of its fact mining, on drug treatments of diseases, with an automated form of the relevant Wikipedia referencing guideline MEDRS. Where WikiFactMine set up an API for reuse of its results, ScienceSource has a SPARQL query service, with look-and-feel exactly that of Wikidata's at query.wikidata.org. It also now has a custom front end, and its content can be federated, in other words used in data mashups: it is one of over 50 sites that can federate with Wikidata.
The human factor comes to bear through the front end, which combines a link to the HTML version of a paper, text mining results organised in drug and disease columns, and a SPARQL display of nearby drug and disease terms. Much software to develop and explain, so little time! Rather than telling the tale, Facto Post brings you ScienceSource links, starting from the how-to video, lower right.
Please be aware that this is a research project in development, and may have outages for planned maintenance. That will apply for the next few days, at least. The ScienceSource wiki main page carries information on practical matters. Email is not enabled on the wiki: use site mail here to Charles Matthews in case of difficulty, or if you need support. Further explanatory videos will be put into commons:Category:ContentMine videos.
Thanks for creating Dolichovespula omissa! I edit here too, under the username Boleyn and it's nice to meet you :-)
I wanted to let you know that I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:-
Please add your references.
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Boleyn}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.
Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
Hello! Your submission of Geology of Russia at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Orlady (talk) 01:13, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Done--Tobias1984 (talk) 09:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Template:Geologic Ages Inline has been nominated for merging with Template:Period start. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. RockMagnetist(talk) 17:17, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
.jpg)
