User talk:Msmarmalade

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Disambiguation link notification for January 8[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Miyuki Kanbe
added a link pointing to Model
Saki Nakajima (voice actress)
added a link pointing to Saitama

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


Excuse me. Just a moment I thought that you had merged those two sections and wanted to separate them. But I understood that I had made a mistake and reverted my edit. Thanks. Keivan.fTalk 15:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

@Keivan.f: That's ok, thanks for letting me know. —Msmarmalade (talk) 01:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


Just running this by you, as you are the unofficial record keeper ;) According to Pasleim, he has finished the short description import into Wikidata, although I have left him a query as there seems to be a few that were missed. Based on my work, I do not want anything else imported - there are more reliable templates to extract the data from. My conclusion is that Wikidata no longer requires Persondata and is no longer relevant to the Persondata debate. When Pasleim responds next week, I will produce some figures and try to get a consensus on Wikidata no longer needing Persondata.

I would like to keep the debate in easy bite size pieces, so I think the next step should be to ascertain if anyone or anything does actually use the Persondata template. I suggest an RfC "Do you use Persondata" emphasising that it is not a debate for its removal. The outcome will decide the next steps. Periglio (talk) 18:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

@Periglio: Thanks for the heads up! Sorry I've taken so long to respond; I've been busy with uni and such. I've updated my page now. I think an RfC is a good idea, like you say, to ask who actually uses the template. However, from previous discussions (mainly the RfC) I think only 2 or 3 people were actually using the template and you were one of them. It might be better to nest that question within a bigger RfC, rather than trying to hook people into multiple RfCs. (But it'll still be good to demonstrate that almost no-body uses it)
Then, since the rest of the RfC was basically Wikipedia being reluctant to outright delete data en-mass, it might be good to should show that the information itself isn't worth keeping or importing since it's so unreliable. Maybe include your analysis and the problems that have been raised in various discussions. Here's Pigsonthewing's page from a while ago that might be useful (link). And here's what I've got on my page:
  • Problems with name sorting - formatting guidelines not always followed, and there are also names like "Otto von Bismarck" or "Martin Luther King Jr" which are often mislabeled. (link, link)
  • Problems with date format - again, formatting, also dates before a certain time are unreliable as Gregorian and Julian formats are indistinguishable (link). Also, dates rarely have references (link)
  • Problems with location disambiguation - formatting and when there is no link markup, or too much link markup (link, link, link)
  • Short Description appears to be the only data field with no major complaints (and has been mostly copied over to Wikidata by PLbot except for some technical difficulties (link))
In the long run, we want to aim to stop adding new Persondata, then methodically delete Persondata. The TfD already deprecated the template, and AWB have said they'll remove it from the AWB code "when the communities are ready" (link). So we basically just need confirmation (from more than the 4 users of the TfD).
Msmarmalade (talk) 04:37, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
@Periglio: It occurred to me that I could probably write up an RfC draft instead of waiting for someone else to do it. Here it is — I'd appreciate any advice.—Msmarmalade (talk) 11:35, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
It looks good, but could you give me over the weekend to think about it. My immediate comment is that it needs a why we should keep Persondata paragraph to balance the faults paragraph, although it would probably be a short paragraph! Periglio (talk) 19:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I've added a little section, although I can't think of any real positives :P. —Msmarmalade (talk) 01:49, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I took the liberty of referring to the closure of the wikidata bot request and adding the tick to emphasise the point that Wikidata has finished copying the data. I also added the question "are there wikidata bots still using Persondata for new and revised articles". I suspect this happens, but I would like to confirm (and persuade them to use a more reliable source of data). Those points aside, I am happy with the document. Periglio (talk) 20:31, 26 April 2015 (UTC)