User talk:Sisyph

-- Ę-oиė  >>>  ™ 12:39, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Babel lets you view and edit more than one language on Wikidata. Just add e.g. {{#babel:de-N|en-3|es-1|fr-2|nl-3|it-4|da-0}} to your user page. With the same language codes you can add links to your userpage on Wikipedia e.g. de:User:User123. --Tobias1984 (talk) 22:27, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, done. If you ask me that because of my last modifications, I clean French page concerning basketball, the bot couldn't transfer zh.wp links from [1], so I do the job by hand.Sisyph (talk) 22:33, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I sometimes just write that message when I see somebody that hasn't added babel yet. It is practical and some people don't know it yet. Thank you for doing the link transfer. It is very much appreciated. --Tobias1984 (talk) 22:37, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Salut, je suppose que ce titre te rappelle quelque chose :-) (voir ma pdd WP fr ici + la tienne ici). C'est pour te signaler Wikidata:Communes de Hongrie - task force où on projette des extractions de données. Envisagerais-tu d'avoir ici pour DSisyphBot le statut de bot, pour pouvoir mettre ici en gros les mêmes données que ce que je t'avais demandé sur WP fr, soit directement à partir des sources, soit en utilisant les fichiers intermédiaires que ton bot avait déjà créés à partir des sources? Ce serait dans un premier temps beaucoup moins de choses que l'autre fois, vu que beaucoup de types de données manquent encore. Ce qu'il faudrait au départ, c'est mettre KSH code (P939) aux localités de Hongrie, et peut-être aussi une valeur instance of (P31) (en discussion sur la page task force que j'indiquais). Pour les détails techniques propres à Wikidata, ne t'adresse pas trop à moi mais plutôt en français à User:Ljubinka ou à User:Snipre, par contre pour expliquer les données et vérifier le travail du bot, je suis là. A+ Oliv0 (talk) 15:00, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merci de ton essai. Pour la façon de sourcer va voir stp le lien task force ci-dessus où on avait parlé de plusieurs méthodes, et pour des questions techniques genre syntaxe ça peut être aussi le bon endroit pour voir ça pour les communes de Hongrie avec Ljubinka, Snipre ou d'autres. Oliv0 (talk) 07:39, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pour la source, comme Wikipédia n'est pas une source (on ne sait pas ici si on n'a pas mal sourcé là-bas), vois dans le lien en question les deux tableaux présentés : méthode avec stated in (P248), méthode avec reference URL (P854). Pour illustration j'ai mis provisoirement les deux dans Abaújszántó (Q305749). Pour sourcer la valeur de KSH code (P939), stated in (P248) a le défaut d'utiliser la valeur de KSH code (P939), ce qui est étrange : il faut bien qu'on ait eu d'abord la valeur par une autre source.

Par ailleurs il faudrait respecter la contrainte imposée « KSH code (P939) seulement sur human settlement (Q486972) » en mettant si nécessaire une propriété instance of (P31) avec une valeur sous-classe (via un ou des subclass of (P279)) de human settlement (Q486972), comme par exemple la valeur settlement of Hungary (Q14502790) : à voir plus tard éventuellement. Oliv0 (talk) 18:29, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

was approved.--GZWDer (talk) 15:09, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Sisyph,

When you are merging items, please use the Merge.js gadget. It helps you nominating, gives the option to always keep the lower number (which is older, so preferable) and makes it a lot easier for the admins to process the requests.

With regards, - - (Cycn/talk) 08:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour Sisyph,

Je vois que tu es actif sur le fr:Projet:Interwikification (merci au passage pour ton bot qui génère cette liste), peux-tu utiliser le gadget Merge qui permet, en même temps que de fusionner deux items, de proposer à la suppression l'item devenu inutile en cochant la case "Demander la suppression des éléments en trop dans les demandes de suppression" (et pour aller dans le sens de la section ci-dessus, cocher aussi "Toujours fusionner dans l'élément avec le plus petit Qid") ce qui permet de repérer plus facilement les items à supprimer. Merci. Florn (talk) 20:58, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Salut Florn, j'utilise parfois le gadget, mais uniquement en cas de conflit dans les interlangues. Le reste du temps je reste sur fr.wp et j'utilise le bouton "Ajouter des liens" de l'article et la "fusion" se fait toute seul. J'avoue n'avoir pas regardé en détail comment se fait l'ajout du lien, mais improprement c'est sur. Honnêtement passer par wikidata et utiliser le gadget merge.js me prendrait beaucoup plus de temps. Ne faudrait-il pas réviser l'action qu'il y a derrière le bouton "Ajouter des liens" pour le rendre conforme aux exigences de wikidata ? Ca serait bénéfique à tous les utilisateurs qui font comme moi. Après je ne suis pas obtu, et s'il y a un vrai dérangement, je changerai ma méthode de travail --Sisyph (talk) 08:35, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, je ne savais pas qu'on pouvait le faire directement depuis fr.wp. Dans ce cas, ne change pas tes habitudes, le passage par wikidata prend effectivement plus de temps. Florn (talk) 09:05, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bonsoir Sisyph,

j'ai trouvé plusieurs items, que ont été fusionnés par toi, mais pas proposé de supprimer. Ça a créé des items inutiles.

Peux-tu utiliser le gadget merge.js. Il permet de fusionner des éléments et de supprimer automatiquement ou demander la suppression de l’élément surnuméraire après la fusion. Faciliterais notre travail énormement. Merci beaucoup. -- Pütz M. (talk) 23:59, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Salut. Je te signale ce diff étrange, que j'ai corrigé. Zetud (talk) 21:47, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pourquoi avoir fusionné l'item sur la série française et l'item sur le concept ? Il suffit de regarder les articles liés pour se rendre compte que le contenu était très différent ! --Harmonia Amanda (talk) 12:35, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Salut Sisyph, I noticed that you made multiple merges of items that have similar names but that represented different concepts, even some that were referring to each other -- thus they refer to themselves after the merge (BTW such incorrect merges are automatically commented with "(Tag: self-referencing)", have a look at your own history of contributions...) If you want to do item merges, it is your responsibility to ensure consistency of statements on the resulting item. More specifically, you merged shooting of Kayla Rolland (Q17450149) into Kayla Rolland (Q3194404), bringing a merged item that was at the same time a person and a murder case - these are two different concepts, automation tools like the Reasonator could not use it. LaddΩ chat ;) 14:26, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Same here, "Lippisch Ente" is not a disambiguation page. --Horcrux92 (talk) 10:17, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, sometimes page contains multiple {{imdb name}} templates. Bot has troubles with this case: [2]. — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 19:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you for the warning. I paused the bot. I will add more checkings if I restart it (control of sex or gender (P21), instance of (P31) and/or value on en.wp. --Sisyph 21:41, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed a merge on a gene item and a protein item. Although related they are distinct concepts and as such should not be merged. A protein is a product of a gene. Merges like this leads to incorrect knowledge since it links gene properties to protein properties and vice versa. I took the liberty to revert the merge to the previous state of separate gene item and a separate wikidata item.

@Andrawaag: Hello, sorry, I though both articles dealt with the same protein, but I conceed it is not my expertise field. Thank you for the reverts. --Sisyph 12:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour, Merci de sourcer vos ajouts/modifications par de vraies sources vérifiables comme cela a du être fait pour Q2000865, Q264861 et Q960419. Pour vous aider, la page d'Aide Help:Sources. Bonne continuation. Dacoucou (talk) 06:00, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok merci !--Sisyph 20:34, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Sisyph, could you please tell your bot not to merge category items which do not belong together, and tidy up wrong mergers? Mergers such as this one: [3] / [4] are just not correct due to inherent incompatibilities of the frwiki categorization method with the ones of all other Wikipedia projects. —MisterSynergy (talk) 06:39, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello MisterSynergy. If you are rigth the cateogries are not striclty identical, the fr.wp usage allows to link male categories to a global categories to avoid 0 interwikis. For example : fr:Catégorie:Sportif aux Jeux olympiques d'été de 1976 linked to en:Category:Competitors at the 1976 Summer Olympics and fr:Catégorie:Sportive aux Jeux olympiques d'été de 1976 is empty. It is less precise but more friendly to navigate. There are thousand of examples for fr.wp. When a male categort will exist, it will be time to split. As I said it is a custom, not a standard and it can be change. If the rowing project doesn't want that, I will not oppose, but I think it is a loss. --Sisyph 16:20, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your answer.

I had a pretty excessive discussion with a couple of frwiki editors 1.5 years ago, see fr:Projet:Sport/Café des sports/Archives25#Gender-independent categorization of sports personalities. I find it indeed highly problematic that we allow the male version to have plenty of interwiki links, while the female counterpart categories systematically cannot have ones in turn. This also applies in the other direction of the interwiki path, i.e. if I want to look up a female sportsperson in frwiki via an interwiki link from another language edition, but I only find biographies of male persons. If I wasn’t involved in this discussion linked above, I wouldn’t even understand that the female version is linked on each male category (and vice versa), since I am (unfortunately) a fr-0 speaker. My suggestion was to create a combined supercategory which includes both genders, but the frwiki people unfortunately were not so enthusiastic to do so. However, the supercategory would be the perfect match to the categorization scheme of all other Wikipedia editions. Back then I sorted everything manually to the situation that your bot now found worth to merge, and added the item pairs to (non-official) “Do-not-merge” lists (you can find them via Special:WhatLinksHere from the items in question).

Btw. a technical note: the redirect creation by your bot seems to have gone wrong, regardless of what we do in this case. It left items without any sitelinks instead or redirects. —MisterSynergy (talk) 16:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello MisterSynergy. I am impressed, you managed a tough topic in front of French speakers although you don't speak French. I will not make a second discussion, but from my point of view, I prefer to have the male category linked to the neutral one. It is not 100% correct, but historically interwikis was built like this on fr.wp before wikidata creation. As you said in the 2015-discussion, fr.wp is an excetpion for categorization. Each exception must be dealt with exception

For the approximative merging done by my bot, I have to improve it for sure. --Sisyph 19:50, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Sisyph, the question is where to make the exception. I refrained from creating the “missing”, but unusual supercategories in my field of work (sport of rowing) at frwiki, since I am not much involved in that community and it is not my intention to cause any uproar there. However, I also feel that the inevitable burden of that unusual categorization scheme should not be carried solely by the other communities (Wikipedias, Wikidata), since they do not have any chance to fix this flaw. They just have to accept “wrong” interwikilinks in their project, forced by the frwiki community. For that reason I ordered categories at Wikidata to 1:1 matches (as desired by this project and Wikimedia projects in general), which unfortunately meant that frwiki categories are left with very few or no interwikis. If frwiki decides to create the missing supercategories, they could immediately be added to the “reserved” place.

Do you see any chance that the frwiki community accepts the creation of the missing supercategories in the field of rowing? There are much more cases than those ~10 categories which you merged. For the field of rowing I do not expect that these supercategories are deeply hooked into the greater categorization scheme as other categories are, i.e. a local subcategorization within fr:Catégorie:Personnalité de l'aviron should be sufficient to my opinion. But then e.g. fr:Catégorie:Rameurs et rameuses (aviron) (non-existing right now) could supercategorize fr:Catégorie:Rameur (aviron)‎ and fr:Catégorie:Rameuse (aviron)‎ and be the frwiki sitelink in Category:Rowers (Q9782304).

I understand that you are probably not in a position to permit this kind of category creation to me. If you think that a new discussion at frwiki is necessary, feel free to create one and ask for my input if desired (would be in English, of course). Regards, —MisterSynergy (talk) 09:32, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now this is already creating extra trouble here at Wikidata. User:ValterVB has now merged the remaining empty items into the ones where the misplaced frwiki sitelinks now are, and there will be a lot of manual cleaning necessary to get rid of the mess. However, he probably didn’t know about this situation and this discussion, so I don’t expect him to revert his routine work. But we should really quickly solve this situation, in order to prevent further strain. —MisterSynergy (talk) 15:28, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello MisterSynergy. Honestly, I don't see how fr.wp can create a supercategory. There is an architecture for people categories which is now pretty standard. Creating a supercategory will simplify the maintenance in wikidata, but it will create a mess in fr.wp, and contributors on fr.wp are "WP first, WD if it can help".

When I have a look on cs:Kategorie:Veslaři podle zemí and cs:Kategorie:Veslařky podle zemí, I guess if cs:Kategorie:Veslaři podle zemí is removed and linked to fr:Catégorie:Rameur par nationalité (aviron), it will fixed this category. --Sisyph 20:26, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Sisyph! I am not surprised to read this; most Wikipedias act like that, it is not only an issue with frwiki. However, in consequence we have to be relatively rigid with our structure and principles here as well, or otherwise cherry picking by all the projects would create a lot of mess here (mixture of different concepts within items), and occasionally in other projects as well as in this case.

I will also have a look into the cswiki category structure that you pointed to. There are a couple of projects which actually separate female from male categories, and I wouldn’t rule out that some of them have not properly linked their sitelinks as well. Unfortunately it is relatively time consuming to figure out translations of all the category names.

Back to frwiki rowing categories. Can we agree to restore the former situation with clean separation of gender-independent, male, and female categories? I would offer to crawl all Wikipedia project category trees in Category:Rowing (Q8683464) to figure out which projects have gender-separated categories as well, to fix them and help frwiki categories to have as many interwiki links as possible. —MisterSynergy (talk) 20:44, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes of course, former situation can be retored. I can't oppose me to an active WD contributor ;-) . I am less and less active on WP in general. However if you think me or my ot can help you, it will be with pleasure --Sisyph 21:38, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your offer! Since I quickly made a list of necessary restore steps immediately after I saw this bot action, so it was still possible to do it by myself. I also interlinked both items to each other with different from (P1889) to indicate that those items should not be merged. Regards, MisterSynergy (talk) 05:27, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Salut. Comme promis les liens pour que tu puisse voir : Projet matériaux, Projet douleurs chroniques et le futur bot pour lequel je suis en train de me renseigner. A++ ;-) --Thibdx (talk) 20:35, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Salut @Thibdx:, ma semaine est chargée, mais je regarde mieux ça ce week-end. --Sisyph 05:45, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pas de soucis t'inquiète. Tu fais tourner Piwikibot en local, sur Paws ou sur Toolsforge ? --Thibdx (talk) 08:57, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Salut @Thibdx:, je fais tourner pywikibot en local car je ne sais pas le faire sur un serveur. Je n'ai jamais pris le temps de regarder.

Si ça peut t'aider voici un script pour écrire sur wikidata. Ca récupère des données sur fr.wp pour les injecter sur WD. Mais seul l'écriture sur WD doit t'intéresser.--Sisyph 09:01, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Super merci ! C'est exactement ce qu'il me fallait pour me familiariser avec le framework. Je vais le faire tourner sur Paws, rien à installer, juste à écrire le code dans un notebook et l’exécuter. C'est assez pratique...  --Thibdx (talk) 23:14, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ça y est ! Il est écrit et attends la permission de pouvoir tourner : Wikidata:Requests_for_permissions/Bot/Tdbot ... --Thibdx (talk) 22:40, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]