Jump to content

User talk:Qwerfjkl/Archive 36

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30←Archive 34Archive 35Archive 36Archive 37Archive 38→Archive 40

Wikidata weekly summary #596

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

Ongoing

    • Weekly Lexemes Challenge #110, Ohm's law (Challenge started on 2023-09-25 12:01:32)

This Week

    • Next Linked Data for Libraries LD4 Wikidata Affinity Group call October 3, 2023: Lars Willighagen will discuss on citation.js.org, Wikidata, and plans for more linked data. Agenda
  • Tool of the week
    • Swiss Archives is an interactive overview map of the Swiss archives present in Wikidata have corresponding Wikipedia articles and in which language (FR, DE, IT), allowing interested Wikimedians to know where they can contribute or expand. - Michael Gasser (X post)
  • Development
    • Wikibase REST API:
      • We are finalizing the work on getting the labels, descriptions and aliases of a Property.
      • We are finishing work on modifying the descriptions of an Item.
    • You can now add sitelinks to Wikifunctions (phab:T342857)
    • We dug into what the upcoming IP-masking changes mean for the Wikidata-related extensions and where code changes are needed
    • Lexicographical data:
      • We improved the “required” marker on Special:NewLexeme, hopefully making its meaning clearer (phab:T322683)
      • If you are not logged-in, you’ll also get the yellow warning when editing Lexeme’s Lemmas, Forms, and Senses (phab:T343979)
    • We added the tlh-latn and tlh-piqd codes for monolingual text, so that now you can add the titles to Shakepear’s works in the original Klingon (phab:T286239)
    • Mismatch Finder:
      • Failed uploads now no longer offer to download review results (phab:T335864)
      • We are working on the ability to report mismatches on qualifiers (phab:T313467)
      • The Mismatch Finder will show a clarifying message when Java Script is disabled (phab:T343344)

You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here. If you want to help, you can also have a look at the tasks needing a volunteer.

Question from LakotaNation (17:01, 2 October 2023)

Hello I would like to submit a new article of a not only member of the Lakota Nation --LakotaNation (talk) 17:01, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

@LakotaNation,Welcome! Creating a new article from scratch is extremely challenging, and new editors are strongly recommended to spend a few months learning how Wikipedia works, by making improvements to some of our existing six million articles before trying it. When you do decide to have a go at a new article, you are highly encouraged to read WP:Your first article. If you haven't already also check out WP:TUTORIAL; it's a lot of fun! Happy editing! — Qwerfjkltalk 17:07, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Tech News: 2023-40

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

  • There is a new user preference for "Always enable safe mode". This setting will make pages load without including any on-wiki JavaScript or on-wiki stylesheet pages. It can be useful for debugging broken JavaScript gadgets. [1]
  • Gadget definitions now have a new "contentModels" option. The option takes a list of page content models, like wikitext or css. Gadgets that use this option will only load on pages with the given content models.

Changes later this week

  • The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 3 October. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 4 October. It will be on all wikis from 5 October (calendar).

Future changes

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

MediaWiki message delivery 01:25, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia proposals request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Village pump (WMF) on a "Wikipedia proposals" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 02:31, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 October 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:31, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2023).

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC is open regarding amending the paid-contribution disclosure policy to add the following text: Any administrator soliciting clients for paid Wikipedia-related consulting or advising services not covered by other paid-contribution rules must disclose all clients on their userpage.

Technical news

  • Administrators can now choose to add the user's user page to their watchlist when changing the usergroups for a user. This works both via Special:UserRights and via the API. (T272294)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:41, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Reopening the case

Hi can you reopen: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_September_10#Category:18th-century_people_from_the_Polish–Lithuanian_Commonwealth_by_occupation. I think we can arrive to some conclusion.

Also I'm not sure if the result is no consensus. For the move voted: Marcelus, Piotrus, Cukrakalnis. The only vote against was from Marcocapelle, but his reasoning was factually wrong (Polish and Lithuanian people were de facto ethnicities in the Commonwealth). In general I gave long list of reasonable arguments, none of them was rebuffed.

Also look at the issue more broadly. The original move of Category:18th-century Polish people by occupation to Category:18th-century people from the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth by occupation was wrong from technical point of view; because the new name is an umbrella category for all the nationalites and ethnicites of the PLC, but it was the way that only "Polish" category ceased to exist but the other remained. The bottom-line is that my request is to correct technical wrongdoing. Marcelus (talk) 22:43, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

@Marcelus, see #Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 September 10#Category:18th-century people from the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth by occupation further up this page. — Qwerfjkltalk 09:06, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, I know about that, I was refereing to your words: Finally, of course, I determine consensus based on the strength of arguments rather than their number, imo the reasoning against was very weak and refuted. Marcelus (talk) 11:52, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
@Marcelus, first of all, you arguments were only somewhat strong. Your focus on restoring the earlier state of affairs was excessive and detracted from your arguments. Moreover your assertion WP:OCEGRS says clearly such categories can exist if "ethnic background constitutes a distinct and identifiable group with a specific cultural and political context." So even if it is nationality in the sense of ethnicity there is justification for such a category to exist. was not backed up by anything - you gave not explanation as to how that was the case there, as Marcocapelle argued.
I also had to factor in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 September 10#18th-century Lithuanian people by occupation which also rested on earlier an earlier consensus. That doesn't mean that things can never change, but the arguments for supporting would have to be stronger and the consensus would have to be clearer for this to not be closed as no consensus. — Qwerfjkltalk 16:23, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, but I can't agree with you. You say: ...was not backed up by anything - you gave not explanation as to how that was the case there, as Marcocapelle argued, but first of all WP:OCEGRS does not apply here, because Poland and Grand Duchy of Lithuania were separate entities united in the Commonwealth. That's a basic historical fact, that cannot be ignored. What explanation more do you need?
Polish people were a nationality at the time, as citizens of the Polish kingdom. Moreover, even if one (erroneously) does not recognise Poland as a state, still Poles and Lithuanians had an "ethnic background that constitutes a distinct and identifiable group with a specific cultural and political context", as citizens of a dual state - the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. At least two groups should be separated.
I wrote it directly there, so how can you accuse me at this point that my statement "was not backed up by anything"?
I have proved beyond any doubt that the current state of the tree is technically incorrect, as well as incorrect from the point of view of historical accuracy. I have clearly justified my position. In contrast, any votes "against" were thrown around with a flimsy justification, which I refuted quite easily. My replies went unanswered because the people writing them knew that "oppose" alone was enough to block the name change.
Marcocapelle writes: "Polish and Lithuanian people were de facto ethnicities in the Commonwealth (next to many other ethnicities) and we do not intersect ethnicities with every possible occupation", which is wrong in every respect. His vote should therefore be ignored and not taken into account in the finding of a lack of consensus.
I am already overlooking the basic fact that Poles as a population group existed in the 18th century, so the absence of such a category, I perceive as a denial of the existence and continuity of Polish identity during that period. Which, of course, is unacceptable. Marcelus (talk) 18:04, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
@Marcelus, I was in particular referring to the latter part of the statement which I quoted. You have said it again here.
I'm afraid just because you think they are wrong does not mean I can take your opinion over theirs. Their view does not go against policy so I cannot reject it.
Again, I took the other discussions into account. If you really take issue with the closure and find it egregious, you can take it to move review.
I still do not find compelling consensus for renaming. — Qwerfjkltalk 18:56, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
I haven't expressed a single opinion so far, so I don't know what you're talking about. You are simply ignoring the facts I present. The existence of the Polish kingdom in the 18th century is a fact. I don't know what stronger arguments you need. Please say it explicitly.
After all, when closing the discussion you must consider the course of the discussion and notice that in the course of the discussion the votes opposing were undermined, and this undermining was left unanswered. So why do you take such votes into account?
Still if you took them into account, it is 3 to 1. So what lack of consensus are you talking about. WP:BLUDGEON and obstruction of discussion should not be taken as a reason for lack of consensus. Marcelus (talk) 19:05, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
@Marcelus, I'm afraid I've already gone over this with you. As the closer, I determined the strength of the arguments. In light of your comments heree, I still believe that the close was correct. I will not be changing it. If you feel the close is incorrect, you are welcome to take it to move review. I fail to see how further discussion here would be productive. — Qwerfjkltalk 15:35, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Can you elaborate why the arguments against were stronger? Marcelus (talk) 17:42, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
@Marcelus, I have already gone through this. The arguments against where not (necessarily) stronger, that's why I closed it as no consensus. rather than keep. — Qwerfjkltalk 19:52, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
I understand that, but I just want to understand also what was wrong with my nomination and why you interpreted the discussion the way you did it. I just read the discussion completely differently. The only argument against proposed move was that Poles were not a unique ethnic group in the PLC. Which from the point of view of historical knowledge is an absurd argument. Therefore, I am unable to understand how you could conclude that there was no consensus. Marcelus (talk) 20:00, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
┌───────────────────────────┘
@Marcelus, the problem is, as clsoer, there is no objective truth for me to pursue. I can only take the arguments you put forward against the arguments against. You say that the premise of the earlier discussion was wrong; obviously the nominator then did not think so, and they had several other editors supprting them. You can also consider Fayenatic London's comment in the discussion; they summed it up nicely (which you disagreed somewhat with, but not really the substance of what Fayenatic London said.
There was clearly disagreement over several arguments you put forward; whether they are true or not I cannot say, I can only look at the arguments put forward in the discussion. — Qwerfjkltalk 20:16, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
But after all, in any way you have to evaluate the various arguments and weigh their value, otherwise any discussion could be blocked by writing something completely nonsensical. If not in terms of "objective knowledge" then at least in terms of Wikipedia policies and guidelines.
As in this case, Marcocapelle votes against by writing a thing that is at a completely elementary level untrue. I refute his argument on two grounds. First, as a thing that is not supported by historical reality. Second, as an argument that contradicts WP:OCEGRS. What else could I do?
How can an objective observer judge our statements as standing on the same level and determine that Marcocapelle's statement provides the basis for a lack of consensus. Marcelus (talk) 20:41, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
@Marcelus, we've already gone over OCEGRS, so let's not discuss that again.
I'm afraid you're simply going to have to accept my closure. If you still have issues with it, you can open a move review.
Unfortunately, I am a volunteer like all Wikipedia editors and I only have so much time. I'd rather spend it clearing up the CfD backlog than responding here.
I'm sorry, really, that I don't have more time to discuss the close with you. But I can't help but feel that we're going in circles here. — Qwerfjkltalk 21:00, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
I understand, and sorry for taking so much of your time. I am sorry to say that I still do not understand how, knowing the course of this discussion, it could be closed due to lack of consensus, when one definitely formed. Have a nice day. Marcelus (talk) 21:29, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
It's unfortunate that you don't understand.
Just because I closed the discussion as no consensus doesn't mean there will never be consensus; you are free to reopen the discussion. Just make sure to clearly address the opposition's concerns. As you don't seem to understand the arguments against, you might want to inquire directly on the talk pages if those that opposed. — Qwerfjkltalk 20:56, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Question from ICan'tRememberMyFirstAccount (14:22, 2 October 2023)

Hello, this isn't about a specific article or anything, but how knowledgeable should I be about a topic that I want to add or edit? Is it okay to edit something that's just a hobby of mine, or do I need to have a degree in that topic, or does it just depend? --ICan'tRememberMyFirstAccount (talk) 14:22, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

@ICan'tRememberMyFirstAccount, my apologies for not answering this sooner. You don't need any specific degree of knowledge in a particular so next to write an article about it; for the most part you just need to summarise what reliable sources say about the subject. That being said, for more complicated topics I would certainly advise that you understand what the topic is before writing about it.
I don't write articles so you can take this advice with a pinch of salt; there are more knowledgeable editors at WP:Teahouse that you could ask. — Qwerfjkltalk 21:00, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Joshua Tomar

Hello, Qwerfjkl, and welcome to Wikipedia. I edit here too, under the username Lightburst, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Joshua Tomar, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joshua Tomar.

You might like to note that such discussions usually run for seven days and are not votes. And, our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Lightburst}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Lightburst (talk) 23:01, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Question from Jordanpatterson87 on User talk:Jordanpatterson87 (06:50, 24 September 2023)

How do I add my birth year? --Jordanpatterson87 (talk) 06:50, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

@Jordanpatterson87, do you have an article about yourself in Wikipedia that you are trying to add your birth year to? If so, I would say it is not a good idea, and will likely get reverted. — Qwerfjkltalk 07:30, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
No I Don’t Jordanpatterson87 (talk) 20:40, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
@Jordanpatterson87, then which article are you trying to add a birth year to, and do you have a reliable source for it? — Qwerfjkltalk 07:35, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Qwerfjkl (bot) edit Talk:OnApp

User:Qwerfjkl (bot): Science isn't a valid project for Talk:OnApp [3]. Widefox; talk 21:29, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

@Widefox, indeed. You can fix the edit manually; I later modified the bot task because it was too unreliable as in cases like this. — Qwerfjkltalk 07:34, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
Yes, already done. Understood. It's a big ask to automatically categorise, although ORES used in WP:RATER succeeds for class ratings in my experience. Widefox; talk 14:15, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Tech News: 2023-41

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

  • One new wiki has been created: a Wikipedia in Fon (w:fon:) [4]

Changes later this week

  • The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 10 October. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 11 October. It will be on all wikis from 12 October (calendar).
  • Starting on Wednesday, a new set of Wikipedias will get "Add a link" (Swahili Wikipedia, Walloon Wikipedia, Waray Wikipedia, Wolof Wikipedia, Kalmyk Wikipedia, Xhosa Wikipedia, Mingrelian Wikipedia, Yiddish Wikipedia, Yoruba Wikipedia, Zhuang Wikipedia, Zeelandic Wikipedia, Min Nan Wikipedia, Zulu Wikipedia). This is part of the progressive deployment of this tool to more Wikipedias. The communities can configure how this feature works locally. [5]
  • At some wikis, newcomers are suggested images from Commons to add to articles without any images. Starting on Tuesday, newcomers at these wikis will be able to add images to unillustrated article sections. The specific wikis are listed under "Images recommendations" at the Growth team deployment table. You can learn more about this feature. [6]
  • In the mobile web skin (Minerva) the CSS ID #page-actions will be replaced with #p-views. This change is to make it consistent with other skins and to improve support for gadgets and extensions in the mobile skin. A few gadgets may need to be updated; there are details and search-links in the task.

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

MediaWiki message delivery 14:37, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

BAG

Hi Qwerfjkl, as an experienced and active bot operator, would you consider standing for WP:BAG? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:47, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

@MSGJ, I'm not sure I would feel competent enough in that position. — Qwerfjkltalk 15:29, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #597

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Events
    • Upcoming:
      • The next Wikidata+Wikibase office hours will take place on Wednesday, 16:00 UTC, 18th October 2023 (18:00 Berlin time) in the Wikidata Telegram group. The Wikidata and Wikibase office hours are online events where the development team presents what they have been working on over the past quarter, and the community is welcome to ask questions and discuss important issues related to the development of Wikidata and Wikibase.
      • Next Linked Data for Libraries LD4 Wikidata Affinity Group Working Hour October 13, 2023: Over the summer and into the fall the LD4 Wikidata Affinity Group will be offering a series of Wikidata Working Hours to give folks an opportunity to try out various Wikidata-related skills and tools by assembling a data set of diverse library and information science (LIS) materials (articles, conference proceedings, books) and adding it to Wikidata. Wikidata Working Hours provide hands-on Wikidata experience in a supportive space. We hope you will join us if you are interested in learning more about Wikidata, exploring LIS literature, and have been looking for a fun Wikidata project to contribute to. The fifth Wikidata Working Hour in the series will cover manually adding authors and publishers from our bibliography into Wikidata. This session will be recorded and the recording shared on the event page. Event page
      • Wikidata's 11th birthday is around the corner, on October 29th! Discover how you can prepare and present a gift to the community and organize a local birthday celebration.
      • New round open HDI course on Knowledge Graphs. October 11, 2023 - November 21, 2023. Sign up enrol here.
      • Data Modelling Days, November 30-December 2. An online event dedicated to our data modelling challenges. You can already submit a session or ideas.
    • Ongoing:
      • Weekly Lexemes Challenge #112, Dogs (Challenge started on 2023-10-09 12:01:19)
  • Tool of the week
    • https://aletheiafact.org <- is a new fact-checking website using Wikidata for people/concept identification. The website allows users to contribute to fact-checking claims made by public figures, such as politicians, celebrities, and influencers.
  • Development
    • Wikibase REST API: We worked on the new routes for PATCHing Property and Item aliases as well as PUTing Property labels and descriptions (phab:T342982, phab:T337371, phab:T337371, phab:T348150)
    • We are continuing to work on fixing an issue with Lexeme pages missing styles and scripts (phab:T344362)
    • We’re adding some missing license notes to some javascript UI interfaces (phab:343998, phab:T343999)
    • Mismatch Finder: We are continuing the work on supporting mismatches for data that is stored in qualifiers (phab:T313467)

You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here. If you want to help, you can also have a look at the tasks needing a volunteer.

Question from Jaskaran Singh Anand on Talk:Wikipedia (18:54, 10 October 2023)

I want to make an edit request as it is on a protected page when you go to the Wikipedia page of Amitabh Bachchan it's shows he is 80 years old but he is 81 as of now --Jaskaran Singh Anand (talk) 18:54, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

@Jaskaran Singh Anand, typically these things will be set to automatically update. I think there is might be an issue with timezones as well given that his birthday is on the 11th and it is the 10th today (at least for me). Check again in a few days. — Qwerfjkltalk 19:30, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Question from Fico Puricelli (13:30, 12 October 2023)

Greetings. How do I upload one same image into several articles? --Fico Puricelli (talk) 13:30, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

@Fico Puricelli, uplaoding an image and adding an image to an article are two different things. To upload an image, see Help:Uploading images. To insert an image into an article, just type [[File:Example.png]] (using the actual name of the image). — Qwerfjkltalk 15:57, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Poor WikiProject categorization by bot

Hi! I saw that your bot added Beata Drozdowska to WikiProject Sports, completely missing the fact

  • she is a human being and should thus also have been added to WikiProject Biography, with the living=yes parameter since she's alive
  • she's Polish, and can also be added to WikiProject Poland,
  • and that specifically, she's a swimmer, and that WikiProject Swimming would be more appropriate than WikiProject Sports

Could you please improve your categorization code before continuing with any similar edits? I'm also working on some autocategorization code myself; I'd be happy to share any results I have. — The Anome (talk) 12:24, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

@The Anome, yes, I realise there are quite a few problems with that task. I stopped it applying WikiProjects a while ago. The task is also finished and hasn't run for a few months.
That said, I would be interested in looking at autocategorization code. — Qwerfjkltalk 16:04, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Thank you. You can see some of my preparatory work at User:The Anome/Naive Bayes WikiProject classifier where I'm creating a dataset that I can feed into a Naive Bayes classifier (or possibly a Support Vector Machine, or even a Pytorch-based NN system if it produces better results). This is very much a work in progress, but I'll share Python code when I have it. If it works well, I'll consider porting it to the ORES (or rather, the new thing which is replacing ORES) infrastructure. — The Anome (talk) 08:47, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
@The Anome, it might be worth removing the wikiprojects that my bot that added ([7]) then? — Qwerfjkltalk 17:06, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Cfd Closure

Upon closing a CfD as "merge", and moving the pages to the target (e.g., with Cat-a-Lot), should I tag the category with {{catredirect}} or is there some other tag I should use? Something so it can be deleted by a bot? Thanks, Edward-Woodrow • talk 23:13, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

@Edward-Woodrow, you should tag it with {{category redirect}} if it's a valid category redirect, or you can tag it for deletion under G6 with {{db-xfd}}. Typically I handle OfF closures by listing them at WT:CFDW so that they can get processed by a bot. — Qwerfjkltalk 06:46, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Move review for Category:18th-century people from the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth by occupation

An editor has asked for a Move review of Category:18th-century people from the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth by occupation. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Marcelus (talk) 19:46, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Category:Science museums

Re [8], I do not think there was sufficient exposure to rename Category:Science museums without first tagging at least that category and relisting for another week. I have therefore reopened the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_October_14#Category:Science_centers. No offence intended. – Fayenatic London 10:29, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

@Fayenatic london, fair enough. I noticed that the museum categories were untagged but I didn't think it was worth tagging them and waiting another week. — Qwerfjkltalk 16:33, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
In this case only a small subset of Category:Science museums by country were picked up in the nomination, so there is more at stake than the few listed categories.
I think any such cases should be relisted and the categories tagged in future, including reverse merges. I raised this at another listing at WT:CFDW and Ymblanter agreed. Where do you think we need to document this so that non-admins will also be aware? Clearly WP:CFDAI, but maybe also at WP:NAC? anywhere else? – Fayenatic London 16:45, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
I'll go ahead and add about paying attention to tagging (especially in regards to group noms) to NACD. This is obviously something that's important for all of XfD. - jc37 17:54, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Done - I added it as a general note for all closers.
I also see that it's already noted at Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Category_deletion, as well. - jc37 18:11, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
@Fayenatic london, it may be worth noting hat I use User:Anomie/linkclassifier to check this. — Qwerfjkltalk 20:25, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

OKVS, Science?

Why did you attribute the science flag to Ordered Key-Value Store i⋅am⋅amz3 (talk) 18:32, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

@Iamamz3, it may have been a false positive by the bot. Feel free to remove it. — Qwerfjkltalk 20:31, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Question from Princereyvie (08:15, 16 October 2023)

how do i use blog? --Princereyvie (talk) 08:15, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

@Princereyvie, what are you referring to by "blog"? — Qwerfjkltalk 15:50, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #598

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Development
    • Wikibase REST API:
      • Working on the ability to modify the aliases of an Item or Property (phab:T342982, phab:T337371)
      • Working on the ability to add or replace a label in a given language on a Property (phab:T342979)
      • Working on the ability to add or replace a description in a given language on a Property (phab:T348150)
    • Lexicographical data: We (mostly) fixed an issue where Lexeme pages where missing styles and scripts (phab:T344362)
    • Mismatch Finder: We continued work on making it possible to report mismatches on qualifiers (phab:T313467)

You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here. If you want to help, you can also have a look at the tasks needing a volunteer.

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Qwerfjkl/Archive_36&oldid=1185366500"