This is an archive of past discussions with User:Mike Peel. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hi Mike,
I was just thinking about the Dec 12th bot edit that pulled all the Withdrawn reviews. Do you mind if I remove these from this main list? I was thinking it may be confusing for new editors. Just to confirm, as of Jan1/Feb1, is the bot ignoring withdrawn reviews?
Thanks again for all your help!!
Jenny
JenOttawa (talk) 03:42, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
@JenOttawa: It's entirely up to you. It might be worth double-checking them to make sure that the update-inline is no longer in the articles as well, though. All edits by the code this year ignore the withdrawn updates. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:00, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Mike. IMO, if a Cochrane citation already in a WP article is "withdrawn", it is very important to remove it and replace with the non-withdrawn older or newer (as appropriate) review version. If a Cochrane citation already in a WP article is updated and the new update is "withdrawn", this could be ignored for now. What do you think Doc James? I am going to try to clean up the Aug2017 (verify all the "withdrawn" reviews that are listed and remove them), and then the page may be fine with the way you adjusted to bot to function as of Jan1. One thought: One way to get a feel that the bot is working is between each monthly run, we should mostly only be seeing freshly published updates being pulled up. E.g: If we see a 2015 update to a 2014 Cochrane that is pulled in Feb but not in January, either an editor added the old, no longer relevant version of the review or the bot is missing things. Does this make sense? Another way for quality control (a bit time consuming, but at least to make sure things are running as we wish): I can get a list of all new updates published on MedLine by Cochrane in a month and double check which of the older versions are already in WP articles and that the bot successfully identified these. Thanks again for all your help. None of this is an emergency of course! In general, the feedback has been extremely positive, things are running smoothly, and the WikiProject Medicine community is very happy with the project. (see feedback:Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Cochrane_profile_in_The_Signpost). Have a great day! JenOttawa (talk) 15:31, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Sometimes I have seen reviews withdrawn by Cochrane not because anything was wrong with them but just because a group felt they were a little old. Being a little old I do not see as justification for removal if their is not a newer version. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:51, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
@Doc James: without more information as to why a review was withdrawn, would it not make sense to set the evidence back to the last published non-withdrawn review? I know we discussed this before and how it is not clear why reviews are withdrawn. I am working my way through the list right now. Thanks! JenOttawa (talk) 01:15, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
I will inquire again @Doc James:. It looks to range from missing info to inaccuracies if a "version" of the review is withdrawn. If an actual review "protocol" is withdrawn, it may be because of a dead-end question / no longer relevant / or the question is asked in a different manner in a new review protocol. This was updated in 2016: [[1]]
I have not come across any reviews that have retracted protocols, only versions that are withdrawn. As of now, if I find a withdrawn version, I have been reverting it to the most recent non-withdrawn version. I think I have only had to do this twice ;). For the purposes of this bot, I think it makes sense to use the most recently published non-withdrawn review version, as I think the bot is doing now. If a entire "protocol" with withdrawn, we could try to manually find the most recent relevant Cochrane protocol or take a closer look as to why it is withdrawn. What do you think? Thanks again for your feedback. JenOttawa (talk) 01:41, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Okay sounds reasonable. I remember asking Amir for a method to have the bot ignore certain reviews we wanted to keep regardless of their retraction. Not sure if this new bot has the same? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:46, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Good point, especially for reviews used in the history sections of articles. They do not seem to be pulled up so far. I can add this to the task instructions (how to "protect"a review from being flagged as being updated)JenOttawa (talk) 01:48, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Welcome to the 300th Weekly Summary!
The weekly newsletter was started by Lydia at the very beginning of the Wikidata project, even before the first deployment, to keep the community informed about the developments, the new projects and tools. More than five years later, the newsletter is still there, its content powered by the community, and sent every week all along the years. I wanted to say a warm "thank you!" to each person who helped filling the Weekly Summary <3
Over the past years, as you know, Wikidata has grown a lot. More data, more tools, more editors and reusers, more exciting projects led by the community. The Weekly Summary has evolved with us, and the 300th edition seems a good moment to ask you all your suggestions about the newsletter, how it could continue evolving, and how you would like to improve it.
On that purpose, you can find a feedback page to express all your ideas about the Weekly Summary. We're very interested to know more about your reading habits, the parts you're more or less interested in, the new topics you would like to share with the community. Thanks in advance for filling it.
I stay available anytime to discuss with you, feel free to contact me if you have any question or concern! Cheers, Léa
A selection of cool tools on Wikidata
Here are a few tools that are recommended by some Wikidata community members. External websites, gadgets or scripts, they are very useful for Wikidata editors or users!
QuickStatements is a powerful tool that can edit or add Wikidata item en masse, via a text editor or importing a spreadsheet. (Éder Porto via Facebook)
Mix'n'match (manual), which helps us to interlink Wikidata with the rest of the web and the world :-) (Spinster, Siobhan via Twitter)
WikiShootMe! allows you to see Wikidata items plotted out on a map and shows you whether they have images or not. (Ham II)
Yair Rand's WikidataInfo script adds the QID of the equivalent Wikidata item to the page being viewed (on sister projects), along with its Wikidata label and description. (Andy Mabbett)
Recoin measures the degree of completeness of relevant properties of a Wikidata item and suggests any relevant statements that can be added to the item. (Rachmat04)
DuplicateReferences gadget adds a link to copy references and add them to other statements on the same item. (PKM)
checkConstraints gadget adds notifications on the interface to easily notice the violation of constraints and help people fixing them (Léa)
Resolve authors lists scientific articles with the property author name string (P2093) and groups them on the basis of co-authors and topic, which helps to distinguish people referred to by identical name strings. (Daniel Mietchen)
The Wiki Loves Monuments map is powered by Wikidata. You can look for a city and find the monuments around. (Stefano Sabatini via Facebook)
Fixed incomplete "Label:", "Description:" and "Statement:" entity usage messages in various places (phab:T178090). Thanks, Matěj!
Improved violation messages for ranges involving the current date (e. g. “should not be in the future”).
Continued work on caching constraint check results.
Enabled Lua fine-grained usage tracking for better performance on several more wikis: hywiki, frwiki, svwiki, itwiki, zhwiki, bewiki, nlwiki, glwiki, and Wikimedia Commons (phab:T187265phab:T186714)
Representation and grammatical features of the form can be changed using the UI (WikibaseLexeme) (phab:T173743, phab:T160525)
This monthly newsletter showcases the Wikipedia Education Program. It focuses on sharing: your ideas, stories, success and challenges. You can see past editions here. You can also volunteer to help publish the newsletter. Join the team! Finally, don't forget to subscribe!
Hello Mike Peel,
Last fall you started and RfC about enabling mapframe on English Wikipedia. A lot has happened since that request and I thought you'd appreciate an update. There's now a different team taking on the task of getting maps in a more healthy state. Part in due to the Community Tech wishlist and part in due to the codebase needing some love. :) This will require a bit of work before anyone's comfortable turning it on for English Wikipedia - given it's size and activity. The team wants to make sure we do some preliminary work before approaching you all again. I hope this helps and sorry I couldn't get more information to you sooner. I'm eager for your thoughts, here, on the talk page for the project, or in Phabiricator. Yours, 172.13.199.59 (talk) 18:32, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Community ban discussions must now stay open for at least 24 hours prior to being closed.
A change to the administrator inactivity policy has been proposed. Under the proposal, if an administrator has not used their admin tools for a period of five years and is subsequently desysopped for inactivity, the administrator would have to file a new RfA in order to regain the tools.
A change to the banning policy has been proposed which would specify conditions under which a repeat sockmaster may be considered de facto banned, reducing the need to start a community ban discussion for these users.
Technical news
CheckUsers are now able to view private data such as IP addresses from the edit filter log, e.g. when the filter prevents a user from creating an account. Previously, this information was unavailable to CheckUsers because access to it could not be logged.
The edit filter has a new featurecontains_all that edit filter managers may use to check if one or more strings are all contained in another given string.
Bhadani (Gangadhar Bhadani) passed away on 8 February 2018. Bhadani joined Wikipedia in March 2005 and became an administrator in September 2005. While he was active, Bhadani was regarded as one of the most prolific Wikipedians from India.
Significantly (on average to 1/4th) reduced the number of changes from Wikidata showing up on the watchlists and recent changes on Wikipedias and the other sister projects. This way changes that do not affect an article should no longer show up. We're still holding off roll-out to Commons, Cebuano, Waray-Waray and Armenian Wikipedia because of scalability concerns.
Working on optimizing one of the largest database tables (wb_terms) (phab:T188279)
Fixing a bug on how Wikidata changes are shown on Wikipedia (phab:T189320)
Continued addressing security review issues for Wikibase-Lexeme extension (phab:T186726)
Final note from Léa: thanks to people who participated to the feedback page! Today's Weekly Summary is already improved thanks to your suggestions. Feel free to add more comments, and feel free to edit the newsletter yourself: all small contributions are welcome :)
The property suggestions were updated last week, the last update was in December 2017. The most noticable effect is the higher ranking of "family name" (P734) on items about people. Input about the suggester is still welcome.
George, le deuxième texte (fr), a website querying Wikidata to find French female authors, in order to bring more diversity in the literature school programs
New, configurable download page for Mix’n’match catalogs (example)
