Ffffrr

  Hello, I'm Kirilloparma. In case you didn't know, descriptions begin with a lowercase letter except when uppercase would normally be required or expected. Essentially, you should pretend that the description is appearing in the middle of a normal sentence, and then follow normal language rules. Most terms would not be capitalized if they appeared in the middle of a sentence. However terms such as proper nouns (e.g. the names of specific people, specific places, and specific titles) should be capitalized. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks!  Kirilloparma (talk) 02:04, 17 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I’ll remember that. Ffffrr (talk) 02:07, 17 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

Could you please avoid changing such changes? Disambiguation pages have a standard description, if it need change it should be done globally and presumably by consensus. Thanks, --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 17:32, 5 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Ok Ffffrr (talk) 17:37, 5 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm Eihel. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent description edits to Q59919350 didn't meet the Wikidata description guidelines. Descriptions should appear as though they were in the middle of a sentence, typically start with a lowercase letter, and written from a neutral point of view. For example, "pop singer" would be a better description than "He is the best pop singer." If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks!  Eihel (talk) 16:32, 6 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

…and Q3624342, Q3429923, etc. Cordially. —Eihel (talk) 16:37, 6 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I see Ffffrr (talk) 20:59, 6 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Please use dates on published editions of works, but not on the work itself. The main data item for a work is for all versions of the work, whenever they were published. Putting a date in the description could indicate the date of inception, the date of completion, the date of first publication, the date of first publication in book form, or any number of things. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:22, 12 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Ok, they have to be separate I see. Ffffrr (talk) 17:32, 12 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Again, adding dates to general items for works is not best practice. Dates should be placed on specific editions to indicate the date they were published, not on the general data item. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:38, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Since when this item ([1]) can be a 'antihistamine drug'? It has instance of (P31)group of stereoisomers (Q59199015), so it describes a group of isomers, not a drug. Descriptions have to describe the content of the item, not the content of a Wikipedia article, so please do not copy-paste en.wiki descriptions to WD without taking into account instance of (P31) and subclass of (P279) statements. What's more: in WD 'chemical compound' is absolutely sufficient, just like 'group of stereoisomers' in this case. Something being a 'drug' or other thing is only a 'role' or 'use' of a chemical entity. Wostr (talk) 12:59, 10 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Again, look at the scope of the item and do not mindlessly copy the descriptions from en.wiki. degree Fahrenheit (Q42289) is not about a temperature scale, it is about a unit. This item (Fahrenheit scale (Q105525247)) is about a scale. Wostr (talk) 22:21, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

I appreciate your vast work here Ffffrr, which is >99% correct, but my advice is that you don't change Wikidata descriptions if they already exist. In many cases they're more correct than those on en.wiki. I remember one such example, your edit on Q3583062, where you replaced a proper building function with ambiguous term, city/county with province (again wider), and also heritage status was removed. That's contrary to unwritten rules of Wikiproject Iran, tens of thousands of sites follow it. --Orijentolog (talk) 22:45, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

No need for this, because there's additional item Afshar tribe with label "Oghuz Turkoman tribe" so people will confuse these two. Furthermore, there is also item for a country. --Orijentolog (talk) 21:51, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Ok Ffffrr (talk) 21:52, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

I forgot there's one more related item: Afshar dialect as Turkic language. While Wikidata keeps all of them strictly separate, Wikipedia articles sometimes combine these topics into a single piece (tribe/language, dynasty/country, even tribe/dynasty/country), and when they import it here there's always mess and confusion. I'm monitoring it for a long time so I know the issues, even today I found "Afsharid Empire" as synonymous for dynasty, and also a map for dynasty. It's really killing! :( For that reason my advice is to keep dynasty strictly political and tribe strictly apolitical, although your edit was 100% factually correct. --Orijentolog (talk) 22:13, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

I see, I'll watch out for that in the future. Ffffrr (talk) 22:45, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

I see that you changed the description of Glorieux (Q5632580). Can we talk about that, as I've been trying to standardise ship descriptions to <date> <class> <type>, as I think that gives the most compact and useful information that remains constant for a ship's life, just for ships like Glorioux which served in multiple navies, even if only briefly in the Royal Navy. If we want to emphasise the French service, I'd suggest swapping the name and aliases so it appears as 'Glorioux' Vicarage (talk) 06:40, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Yes, if you find the prior description more informative it would be fine to change it, or note in which navy it was used as well. Ffffrr (talk) 06:53, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

That diff effectively repurposed the arcade (Q15613992) item. I have now renamed this item for clarity, and created arcade game (Q113726751) for what you intended.

Thanks! Jean-Fred (talk) 12:57, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. Ffffrr (talk) 13:40, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

On Q4592334, it says "Wikipedia", but that item is linked to other wikis, like Wikibooks, Wikinews, ect. as well. Is there a reason you changed it to "Wikipedia"? Thanks -L10nM4st3r (talk) 13:39, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

The item’s title is “Wikipedia:User pages” for the English entry, but perhaps it could be changed to “Wikimedia”. Ffffrr (talk) 17:38, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

I see you've been modifying and overwriting WD item descriptions with the Wikipedia short description. WD items don't typically have excessive disambiguation like dates of birth/death because the item's properties already include that information.

I ask you to be more judicious about when you overwrite a WD item description that already exists and is sufficient. Wikidata is used to support other WikiProjects but it is not subordinate to any specific language Wikipedia. Wikidata and Wikipedia descriptions can and will be different and that's fine. If your primary concern is the Wikipedia site description, you might be better off focusing your edits on that Wikipedia. -- William Graham (talk) 18:32, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

I have been judicious with my edits and imports, I edit manually one by one and not through mass import. Ffffrr (talk) 18:47, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

In many cases the dates of birth and death were already present prior to my edit. Ffffrr (talk) 18:56, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi, following on from the discussions above, can you please explain what your purpose is in converting Wikidata labels to short descriptions? I don't understand the value you are adding in most cases and you are introducing some errors, like you did today on Charles Richardson (Q108087874). From Hill To Shore (talk) 19:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)Reply