Waldyrious

Hi Waldir, I noticed you changed Wikidata:WikiProject sum of all paintings/Property statistics/Header to make it more accessible. The previous color scheme made by User:Wittylama was from bad (0% red), through neutral to good (100% green). The new color scheme is from empty (0% white) to full (100% blue). This changed the intention of what we wanted to show. Maybe you can change it to a accessible color scheme that goes from bad, trough neutral to good? Probably a color scheme for the company results (making a profit or loosing money) would cover this. Also @TheDJ: because he is into improving accessibility. Multichill (talk) 13:02, 21 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hey @Multichill:! I'm not sure I understand what you're asking. What you're describing is a diverging color scheme, and colorbrewer (which I used for the update I made) does have those, so we can certainly use one for cases like what you described -- indeed, such schemes are typically recommended for that kind of data, whose values can move in two opposite directions away from a central anchor point (e.g. loss vs. profit vs. break even, or height vs. depth vs. sea level, etc.).

On the other hand, for percentages (which is what the colors are currently calculated from), there's nothing particularly remarkable about 50%; indeed the progression is linear from 0% to 100%, and for those cases a sequential color scheme is the right choice. Using a diverging color scheme for such data actually creates an artificial inflection in the visualization that distorts the perception of the underlying data.

Are you perhaps suggesting we have two color schemes, one for linearly increasing data, and one for bimodal data? That can certainly be done, but people would have to deliberately choose which one to use (either via two templates or via a parameter in the template). How does that sound? --Waldir (talk) 19:37, 22 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

We chose a bimodal on purpose. Having less than 50% coverage on any of these properties means it's very incomplete and should have a "bad" color. This is intentional to encourage people. It's quite motivational getting rid of the last red block for a collection. So yes, two schemes would be best.

By the way, at first I look at a dynamic scale based on the averages for coverage of each property and to use that instead of the hard coded 50%. I didn't implement that for the because it was too much work, but that might be a good third scheme. Multichill (talk) 21:14, 22 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

I see your point. Actually the color scheme does have different hues on each end of the scale, but I can see how it can appear greenish (= good-ish) throughout. While we could abandon linearity and use a diverging color map such as this one, I believe we may be able to have the cake and eat it to: in other words, a color scale that features qualitatively different hues that can be associated with "bad" and "good" ends of the spectrum, but still remains monotonically increasing in perceived lightness (which also makes it suitable for black-and-white printing, etc.). Matteo Niccoli's perceptual rainbow, aka CubeYF, seems to be a good candidate. WDYT? --Waldir (talk) 23:41, 22 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hey Multichill, I noticed that you've reverted the colors to the red-green scheme. Do you have any thoughts about my suggestion above? --Waldyrious (talk) 10:27, 14 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

I haven't really looked into this for a long time. Blue doesn't seem to be a very good indicator of bad. Multichill (talk) 20:12, 21 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hey Multichill — I understand. What about my other suggestion, Colorbrewer's Spectral? --Waldyrious (talk) 21:45, 21 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hello.

Can you translate and upload en:Vehicle registration plates of Azerbaijan, en:Road signs in Azerbaijan, en:Category:Road infrastructure in Azerbaijan and en:Category:Road transport in Azerbaijan in Portuguese Wikipedia?

Yours sincerely, Matricatria (talk) 18:32, 13 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

I don't have the time or energy to work on that, sorry. --Waldir (talk) 12:13, 15 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello Waldyrious,

Really sorry for the inconvenience. This is a gentle note to request that you check your email. We sent you a message titled "The Community Insights survey is coming!". If you have questions, email surveys@wikimedia.org.

You can see my explanation here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:46, 25 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Desejo a você e a todos os usuários da Wikipédia, do Wikcionário, Wikinotícias, Wikilivros, Wikidata, Wikimedia Incubator, Meta-Wiki, Wikisource, Wikiversidade e Wikivoyage uma Feliz Natália e um próspero ano novo. Natália porque é o feminino de Natal.

Leonardo José Raimundo (talk) 20:00, 25 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

You do not have to add described at URL (P973) to Pantone colors. In the future, Pantone color ID (P9094) will link to the color on the website. I just haven't got to implementing that yet. Lectrician1 (talk) 14:54, 13 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the heads-up, Lectrician1. Is there anything I can to to help that becoming the case? Is there an existing property that adds a link to an URL with a transformed version of the relevant string? --Waldyrious (talk) 10:23, 14 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

I have no idea how it works so I don't know. Lectrician1 (talk) 01:28, 15 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Dear Waldyrious,

I hope you are doing good,

I am Kholoud, a researcher at King's College London, and I work on a project as part of my PhD research, in which I have developed a personalised recommender system that suggests Wikidata items for the editors based on their past edits. I am collaborating on this project with Elena Simperl and Miaojing Shi.

I am inviting you to a task-based study that will ask you to provide your judgments about the relevance of the items suggested by our system based on your previous edits.

Participation is completely voluntary, and your cooperation will enable us to evaluate the accuracy of the recommender system in suggesting relevant items to you. We will analyse the results anonymised, and they will be published to a research venue.

The study will start in late January 2022 or early February 2022, and it should take no more than 30 minutes.

If you agree to participate in this study, please either contact me at kholoud.alghamdi@kcl.ac.uk or use this form https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSees9WzFXR0Vl3mHLkZCaByeFHRrBy51kBca53euq9nt3XWog/viewform?usp=sf_link

I will contact you with the link to start the study.

For more information about the study, please read this post: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User:Kholoudsaa

In case you have further questions or require more information, don't hesitate to contact me through my mentioned email.

Thank you for considering taking part in this research.

Regards

Kholoudsaa (talk) 22:14, 24 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi Waldyrious. I don't think that this edit is appropriate. An organisation does not use given name (P735), and since instance of (P31) properties should cover all sub-items, Q18336849 doesn't work here. — Huntster (t @ c) 15:02, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi, thanks for the heads-up. I must be misinterpreting what "given name" means, then. I assumed something like "Toyota" or "The Beatles" or "Portugal" counted as one. But I can see why that might be too broad an interpretation. To clarify, I based by understanding on the fact that organisation that may or may not be fictional (Q113584205) was marked as an instance of Q18336849, so I made it into a subclass of organization (Q43229) and moved the P31 statement up the tree.

I assume then, if I'm reading you correctly, that neither person or organization (Q106559804) nor organization (Q43229) (and therefore not organisation that may or may not be fictional (Q113584205) either) should be considered an instance of Q18336849. Is that right? Waldyrious (talk) 16:04, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

That is my interpretation, yes. given name (P735) only applies to people, and Q18336849 is entirely about items that use given name (P735). So it would never apply to any kind of organization. Honestly, Q18336849 is an oddity who's existence doesn't really make sense and I cannot really understand its value. — Huntster (t @ c) 18:52, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I'll remove that statement from those items.

For context, I came across it when setting up a subject type constraint for an external identifier property for book authors (Property:P1005#P2302), which has identifiers for individual persons but also organizations, institutions, etc. I thought it could be convenient to define similar constraints (with an aggregate entity as subject type) for many such authority control properties, rather than repeating the constraints in each of those properties listing all the individual items that represent the classes of entities that can get such identifiers. Do you know of any way to do so other than person or organization (Q106559804)? Perhaps that is the right aggregator and the exceptions like these are simply poorly modeled instances of persons or organizations? Waldyrious (talk) 19:35, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

So, the problem with those violations is that those items are about concepts, buildings, programs/projects, etc. These things cannot be authors. A person can be, an organization can be credited as such, but things like Neutron Data Compilation Centre (Q105465719) and SWIFT (Q257597) cannot be authors. At least, that is the logic that Portuguese National Library author ID (P1005) is built on, and it's not wrong. It's just that there are edge cases and poor attributions that have crept into the National Library's records over time. While it irks my OCD, sometimes these edge cases cannot all realistically be fixed without completely diluting the constraints and making them useless. Reality usually doesn't fit nicely within the rigid constraints we sometimes wish it did.

It's not a good answer, I know, but with only a few minutes to look it over it's the best I can give. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:17, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

I understand what you mean. It seems to me that these are all instances of conflation in action — which means the solution would lie in properly separating the physical aspect of entities from their conceptual ones — like a building vs the organization that manages it, a city and its local government, etc. --Waldyrious (talk) 05:08, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply