User talk:Quesotiotyo

Archives
Year 1, Year 2, Year 3, Year 4

I like the name variations, that should cut down on duplicates created, when you see the name variations. I bet we would reduce conflations if we added "(1800-1900)" the birth and death years to humans with no descriptions. RAN (talk) 18:13, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused about why you reverted the aliases that I added to H. E. Hinton (Q3504858). These are ways that he was referred to in sources and should be in the alias field so that they can be searchable. Piecesofuk (talk) 08:57, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He may have been referred to along with the title "Professor"/"Prof." in certain contexts but that does not make it part of his name. I would have stripped them out for you but the remaining portions were already present on the item.

--Quesotiotyo (talk) 01:51, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! You reverted my change https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q117521529&oldid=prev&diff=2259170507 and I'm definitely new to Wikidata and believe that I'm doing something wrong. The coordinates of the item were wrong (I think they were just of the end of the street that it was on, not of the actual location), and I mapped the cemetery using public domain aerial imagery on OpenStreetMap. What's the right way for me to correct the coordinates of a Wikidata item? Thanks! PeterCooperJr (talk) 17:45, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome! Wikipedia is a secondary knowledge base, meaning that we record what various sources state about an item regardless of correctness (see Help:Statements#Add_only_verifiable_information). Statements can instead be assigned ranks to indicate the validity of the claim. I like how Help:Ranking#What_ranks_are_not phrases it:

While a reference will ideally point to a reputable and established source of information, it's possible for a source to provide information that is incorrect or not as accurate as it could be. References merely state where a data value comes from; ranks indicate what data value is considered the most correct and, by extension, what values should be included in queries.

With regards to Barefoot Cemetery (Q117521529), I have found that the coordinates listed at Find a Grave are sometimes (as you surmised) the location of the entrance or pathway to the cemetery (even though their support page instructs that "[t]he coordinates for a cemetery should be placed in the center of the cemetery"). While I am hard-pressed to call these values "wrong" (they would be useful for navigation purposes), I will concede that they do not fit the intended purpose of coordinate location (P625) and so I will go ahead and deprecate them. If you would then like to add georeferenced coordinates as a separate statement at a normal rank (perhaps along with determination method or standard (P459) to make it clear how they were derived), that would be fine.

Hope that helps,

--Quesotiotyo (talk) 19:12, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That was very helpful. Can you point me to the right "determination method or standard" for "I used georeferenced public domain imagery from MassGIS and picked the right point?" PeterCooperJr (talk) 22:53, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking something like determination method or standard (P459)georeferencing (Q772007) along with a reference URL (P854) (if you are able to generate a link to the viewing window) and maybe type of reference (P3865)aerial photograph (Q113670888) as well. I would avoid using stated in (P248)Massachusetts Bureau of Geographic Information (Q129997123) since the coordinates are not stated outright, though I am failing to find an existing property that could be used to cite MassGIS as the source of the imagery (rather than of the value itself).

--Quesotiotyo (talk) 07:42, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Q, You recently reverted multiple edits I had made. (ex). I had selected Eugene when I filled the given name property p735 (auto matched using openrfine) but now that it was changed to Yu-Jin by someone else, I see it was a bad match. Just wanted to clarify that it was not malicious. Instead of completely removing the name, why name switch to the correct Eugene? (Nvm, I see you have done that. Thanks.)

Thanks. Kiran891 (talk) 02:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are still quite a few bad name matches that you have added, I hope that you will take some time to find and fix them if you'd rather I'd not. --Quesotiotyo (talk) 17:49, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please help me understand this edit here: https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q2260103&curid=2183045&diff=2249453315&oldid=2249426853 Thank you, -- Ooligan (talk) 23:10, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, significant event (P793) should link to an event or occurrence, but lost film (Q1268687) is neither of those. The term "lost film" describes an ongoing status, not a onetime thing. There may have been an event (such as a studio fire) which is known to have resulted in the film becoming lost; that could be added as a has cause (P828) qualifier on the state of transmission (P12020) statement.

--Quesotiotyo (talk) 18:01, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the explaination. So, how does that compare to this Property:P5816 and why is this property not the correct one to use?

Description= "to indicate state of conservation of a building, monument, artifact, etc. It is not related with its heritage protection (P1435), but to its present state of conservation. Ex.: ruinous, demolished, correct, etc." (underline added) Thank you, -- Ooligan (talk) 19:31, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P5816 is for individual material items. It could be applied to a specific copy of a film, but not the overall concept of the film as a creative work. --Quesotiotyo (talk)

Hello Quesotiotyo, the element Eddie (Q125396475) refers to a female name used by women in Peru. Why was it merged into Eddie (Q430699) as a male name? --Ovruni (talk) 05:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The name is written the same either way, so we treat it as the same thing. The native label (P1705) value is really what defines what any name item is, everything else can then be determined from whom the name is given. Looking at Wikidata items specifically, there are over 2,000 males with this name and only a handful of females, therefore it is clearly a male given name (Q12308941). If as you say the opposite is true in Peru in particular, then an instance of (P31) value can be set along with a valid in place (P3005) qualifier to restrict the statement appropriately.

--Quesotiotyo (talk) 06:03, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it is unique to Peru, but I created that name to add the Peruvian female researcher. I have even found other female researchers that I have just created. In each of them there is a Renacyt ID (P10452) property value where the female gender ("Género:Femenino" in spanish) is also indicated. --Ovruni (talk) 06:11, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please make sure to add that as a reference to the P21 statements for these researchers, it will help to show that the correct value was entered. --Quesotiotyo (talk)

I take this opportunity to ask you a question since it seems that you know more about this matter of names than I do. Can Japanese names go together with names in the Latin alphabet or should they go in a separate element? For Peruvian researchers, I have added several elements of names and surnames of Peruvian people that are written in the Latin language and from time to time I see that a user modifies some of them to put them as Japanese (another type of writing). Here is a recent example from the user. Regards --Ovruni (talk) 06:24, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, Japanese and Latin names should have separate items. User:Lombroso applied the name Kimiyo (Q125421258) (which had been set as "Kimiyo" in the Latin script) to someone with a Japanese name and then changed Q125421258 to be about "きみよ" instead. Both of these were wrong and should be undone.

--Quesotiotyo (talk) 06:58, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply, I have moved the statements to another new item (Kimiyo (Q131290901)), in addition to the site link which seems to refer to the Japanese name, as well as modifying the values ​​to other items of Japanese people were pointing to Kimiyo (Q125421258) (Latin script). --Ovruni (talk) 01:22, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]