User talk:Stuartyeates

Welcome to Wikidata, Stuartyeates!

Wikidata is a free knowledge base that you can edit! It can be read and edited by humans and machines alike and you can go to any item page now and add to this ever-growing database!

Need some help getting started? Here are some pages you can familiarize yourself with:

• Introduction – An introduction to the project.
• Wikidata tours – Interactive tutorials to show you how Wikidata works.
• Community portal – The portal for community members.
• User options – including the 'Babel' extension, to set your language preferences.
• Contents – The main help page for editing and using the site.
• Project chat – Discussions about the project.
• Tools – A collection of user-developed tools to allow for easier completion of some tasks.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask on Project chat. If you want to try out editing, you can use the sandbox to try. Once again, welcome, and I hope you quickly feel comfortable here, and become an active editor for Wikidata.

Best regards! --Tobias1984 (talk) 07:10, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Babel

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. --Tobias1984 (talk) 07:10, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Articles with DOI-prefix 10.48550/ARXIV but without Arxiv ID

Why have you created articles in such form?
There existed VFTS 243 as predicted by the BPASS fiducial models (Q123857537), which would be obvious if you would have specified arXiv ID (P818)2208.02258 Ghuron (talk) 11:17, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Actually they're different. One is the preprint. I'm creating items based on DOIs that authors claim in their ORCIDs. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:19, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

It should be possible to derive and add the arXiv DOI from the arXiv ID, shouldn't it? Stuartyeates (talk) 20:16, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Let me outline how I see the situation. Wikidata operates under certain technical constraints. A few months ago, we had to implement the WDQS graph split as a temporary measure, but we do not know how long it will remain effective. While the written rules technically allow creating an item for every book, article, or preprint in existence, I do not believe the majority of the community supports this in practice.

1. If an item is needed for structural consistency, its creation is absolutely encouraged. This includes items used as references in Wikidata statements or for properties such as cites work (P2860)/review of (P6977)/etc, as well as creating items for all publications of a specific author. However, indiscriminately creating an item for every new article or preprint falls into a grey area.
2. Strictly speaking, preprints (and even their different versions) are distinct from published articles and could have separate items. In practice, however, Wikidata already contains tens of millions of scholarly items, and fewer items reduce the overall maintenance burden (such as but not limited to author disambiguation). From a verifiability perspective, preprints are also valuable because they are often openly accessible, unlike many paywalled publications. For this reason, the typical practice is to have a single item that covers both the published article and its preprint versions. Normally, creating separate items solely for preprints is considered duplication.
3. Ideally, every item would include all relevant DOIs, both for published versions and preprints. In practice, this greatly increases the maintenance workload. Unless there is a specific need, such as linking, I recommend avoiding the addition of temporary preprint DOIs like DOI (P356)10.48550/ARXIV... if permanent one is known.
4. Regarding your last question, if you review the edit history of Q134290713, you will see that @Simon Villeneuve specified arXiv ID (P818) for that item. This made it clear to me that the item was a duplication.

If you think my approach is illogical and/or does not reflect the community consensus, let's discuss our differences in detail. Ghuron (talk) 09:02, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

duplicate additions

@Stuartyeates, hi, I was just looking at eLife (Q2000008) and saw some duplications (e.g. Q136808646, Q136808641, Q136808620) and several other articles (e.g. a duplicate for Q136851151 and for Q136911800). Somewhere around mid November. Can you please check this? Egon Willighagen (talk) 11:04, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Ooops. 1000% my fault. This is a journal that appears to mint a unique DOI for every review and every author response to every review on every paper. I failed to notice the problem. I've merged the dups into a single item linked to the base DOI and published in the appropiate year. I'll look back through my edit log for others and adjust my practices. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:08, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

User:Egon Willighagen. Fixed How to attack a far galaxy and beyond (Q137238017) (also reported to the publisher an issue with the DOI metadata). Fixed Euclid preparation: LI. Forecasting the recovery of galaxy physical properties and their relations with template-fitting and machine-learning methods (Q135239072) (some fields which should have come through fro the crossref metadata didn't not sure why). Fixed Euclid preparation: LIX. Angular power spectra from discrete observations (Q137192368). Fixed Euclid preparation: LXV. Determining the weak lensing mass accuracy and precision for galaxy clusters (Q137192375). This appears to be a systematic issue. Investigating root cause. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:45, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

User:Egon Willighagen: I have reproduced what appears to be the underlying issue. I've been using https://scholia.toolforge.org/doi/ to check whether a DOI is already in wikidata. It seems that in some types of heavy load, with articles with many authors (n>200), this redirects to the quicklinks page rather than the item page already in wikidata. Looks like I have a few items to check. I'll check both the title and DOI of each before I start in on it again. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:38, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Also, it can now takes minutes before the SPARQL endpoint is updated with new items. This too has given some duplication in the past. Thanks for looking into it, and fixing duplicates! -- Egon Willighagen (talk) 21:46, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Found a better way to find them: wd:Q137323566 Stuartyeates (talk) 10:09, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

That should have been https://w.wiki/Gcgo Stuartyeates (talk) 21:13, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

https://w.wiki/H9wU Stuartyeates (talk) 22:37, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi Egon Willighagen, I believe I've now found and fixed most of these. I have a question about notability, however. There are quite a few cases where there's a scholarly article such as Effectiveness of emission control in reducing PM2.5 pollution in central China during winter haze episodes under various potential synoptic controls (Q111108221) and also item(s) for the supporting materials such as Supplementary material to "Effectiveness of emission control to reduce PM2.5 pollution of Central China during winter haze episodes under various potential synoptic controls" (Q111108223). What are the notability rules around these? Stuartyeates (talk) 21:41, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Rogue Scholar DOI duplication

Hi @Stuartyeates, sorry, I found another (but different) DOI problem. I noticed you added some of my blog post, but since recently Rogue Scholar assigns two DOIs to blog posts: one for the record, and one for each version: so, two by default. This seems to have happened to my blog. For example, see New preprint: "Scholia Chemistry: access to chemistry in Wikidata" (Q137242343) and New preprint: "Scholia Chemistry: access to chemistry in Wikidata" (Q137242345). -- Egon Willighagen (talk) 16:01, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

I've merged these two. I can query for this case, but I'll keep working on my current query for the moment. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:07, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Okay, if I find additional instances, I will merge these too. Egon Willighagen (talk) 08:24, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Please confirm the DOIs that you add don't already exist

I see some of the Euclid articles you've created already existed. Merging isn't a good option due to the author series ordinal numbering. This is a friendly reminder to check that the articles don't already exist under that DOI. Trilotat (talk) 00:41, 28 December 2025 (UTC)