User talk:Sabelöga

finessen moveClaim

Du foreslo nylig at jeg kunne benytte finessen moveClaim. Denne har jeg aktivert, men jeg skjønner ikke helt hvordan jeg skal bruke den. Problemet er premieredatoer til filmer som ikke er innsatt kronologisk. Disse ønsker jeg å flytte slik at de blir kronologisk. Men jeg ser ikke hvordan jeg kan bruke moveClaim for å flytte datoene slik at de blir kronologisk. Ezzex (talk) 12:08, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

@Ezzex Det stämmer, fel av mig. moveClaim används för att flytta värden mellan objekt. Jag menade finessen "Rearrange Values". Med den kan man ändra ordningen på värden för ett uttalande. Man behöver dock ladda in sidan på nytt efter man lagt in ett värde för att ska fungera. Sabelöga (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Tack så mycket. Det ser ut til å være den riktige finessen. Synd at jeg ikke hadde vist om dette tidligere. Det hadde spart meg for mycket arbete. Ezzex (talk) 15:51, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

sv.wikipedia.org as multilingual label

Hello Sabelöga, don't you think that an edition's prefixed domain name makes a sensible multilingual default for referring to language editions in languages that are missing a label? What is your rationale for opposing it? --Iketsi (talk) 23:05, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

No, I don't think that is appropriate as no language would actively have that as a label in their language. mul is basically used when several, most or all label languages will use the same input and therefore we can avoid duplicated labels in hundreds of languages by using the mul label instead. That said www.wikipedia.org is the web domain of Wikipedia, not the name of the project. Appropriate mul labels include a person's name in their native language that stays the same in most languages, an original name for a work that doesn't get translated most of the time, etc. Sabelöga (talk) 23:12, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

You are right about what mul is often used for, but don't forget that language-specific labels overwrite the multilingual default. For users of a small language, "sv.wikipedia.org" is a sensible default that is preferable to a blank "Q169514" or "Swedish Wikipedia" in English. When your interface is set in Swedish, the label will still display in Swedish. --Iketsi (talk) 23:06, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

If no label is set in a language en label (with ^English (the name for the English language in the local language) next to it) is used instead. So "Swedish Wikipedia^English" instead of Q169514. Sabelöga (talk) 23:16, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Creating Mix-n-match catalog

I am willing to make an attempt if you help me with matching my catalog to the correct items

https://mix-n-match.toolforge.org/?#/list/7740/unmatched

Unfortunately Preliminarily matched does not show up on the catalog for some reason Trade (talk) 01:50, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Okay, I've updated the preliminary matches for the catalog. One can do that here: https://mix-n-match.toolforge.org/?#/jobs/7740 And started matching posts. Sabelöga (talk) 21:27, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

https://mix-n-match.toolforge.org/?#/entry/281290672 matches a talk page. Could you check if there are any more mismatches like this? Sabelöga (talk) 21:52, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

• https://mix-n-match.toolforge.org/?#/catalog/7759

Here you go. Leave a message at my talk page if you want catalogs for anymore identifiers --Trade (talk) 22:52, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Great thanks! ❤️ Sabelöga (talk) 23:25, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

https://mix-n-match.toolforge.org/?#/catalog/7760 I'll expand the catalog later--Trade (talk) 03:14, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, I was gonna ask about that one too. But, how come the 100 or so IDs already present uses on Wikidata aren't already connected in the catalog? Or is that what you meant with "expand", that not all IDs are present in the catalog?

https://mix-n-match.toolforge.org/?#/sync/7760

https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Property:P3705&limit=250 Sabelöga (talk) 08:09, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

The way way the RITVA program database specifically is set up makes it very difficult to get a complete list of programs in their database

In order to get those 27463 entries i had to some convoluted trial and error for it to work

In short making the catalog is the easy part. Actually retrieving the entries in the database is the difficult part Trade (talk) 15:04, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

For context i haven't even figured out how many programs their database even have listed meaning it's impossible for me to know what i am missing in the catalog Trade (talk) 15:09, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Sorry but the catalog update is gonna be delayed due to the slow speed of the website! --Trade (talk) 02:48, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

For more context i can only add new 48 IDs to the catalog per minute. I am gonna wait till i'm done so i only have to do it once Trade (talk) 03:26, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Okay, that's too bad, thanks for the heads up.

By the way, by doing a blank search (%20), the web page search gives:

• 228384 programs
• 13461 series

This does for some reason not work for the other categories. Sabelöga (talk) 12:17, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Update: My IP got blacklisted by KAVI before the catalog finished ): --Trade (talk) 01:36, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Oh no :( Sabelöga (talk) 17:14, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Is that block indefinite or can you appeal it? Sabelöga (talk) 14:40, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

19star

I have corrected the domain https://19star.bflix.co.kr/, which was my mistake pointed out at https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Property_proposal/Creative_work. ならちゃん (talk) 08:14, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Talk pages scope

My discussion topic about Wikipedia is about Wikipedia. Do not tell me to take it to English Wikipedia. It belongs on both. Please leave me alone. Take care. ~2026-33542-06 (talk) 21:38, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

No, a talk page should be used to discuss the format or content of its associated page/article. Not the subject in general. As your message regards the administration of the English Wikipedia (a different Q number English Wikipedia (Q328)) it is not relevant for the talk page. Hence why I removed it. If you have issues with the administration of a local project you should really be addressing this with said administration.

Cheers. Sabelöga (talk) 21:48, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Empty items

Hello, I'm Bovlb. You recently made an empty item Q140878052. An item is empty if it does not have any claims or sitelinks. Unfortunately, such items are not useful to Wikidata, and they are normally deleted. If you were planning to return to this item later in order to complete it and it was deleted you can request it be undeleted. Remember that all items are expected to demonstrate notability, and we strongly discourage editors from self-promotion, creating items where they have a conflict of interest, for example about themselves or their employers. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks!

 Bovlb (talk) 22:55, 4 August 2026 (UTC) --Bovlb (talk) 22:55, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

@Bovlb: I created that item by mistake and have marked it for deletion. You are free to expedite the process if this is urgent. --Sabelöga (talk) 22:58, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I wanted to let you know that you created another empty item: Third Degree Films (Q141137360) Bovlb (talk) 23:29, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, merged with Third Degree Films (Q14409149). Sabelöga (talk) 02:03, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Removal of references

Hello. I feel awkward to say it again but I have already told you that this is questionable practice. You remove references from the statements from time to time, and it a) makes the items for little-known persons marginally to non-notable per WD:N criterion 2, b) worsens the content of an item. Databases (like IAFD, we both know what subjects I am talking about) are not usually notable, and I am pretty sure you can not rely solely on them. I am indifferent to the argument like 'It does not have sense' because it seems to me that almost everything has sense unless it is a trivial repeat of the obvious things or vandalism.
I kindly suggest you point me out a policy that recommends keeping the reference lists compact if other notability criteria are shown. I do not want to start an undesirable conflict but if the current policy is tolerant regarding the number of refs, and regarding the level of detail with which refs describe the subjects, let me keep the refs in the items that I look after. Searching for references is, you know, not easy stuff. Regards, -- Wolverène (talk) 00:02, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

[1] I suggest keeping both your precious way of referencing and the links of mine that you consider useless. --Wolverène (talk) 00:15, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi again.

I cannot remember where you previously have given a good reason why we should model refs that awkward way that it was on both the Jacks. Where there's like 5 instances of references to the same source that also do not specifically cover the subject but rather a topic the subject is a contributor to. And one unformatted reference to IAFD which apparently is better the the one with the link I added. If we've had this conversation before I can only apologize because I don't remember, but I don't think we reached an agreement where this was the preferred praxis. Please do provide a link to the discussion if there is one you're thinking of.

Regarding the notability criterion you mentioned, I don't see how a databases, such as IAFD, Adult Film Database, AIWARDS, or AVN, can NOT be notable. You yourself seems to support links to films in AVN and that's a database. Or do you have som beef with IAFD specifically?

You mention referencing an item can make its notability worse. How? Or do you mean that a link to a work where a person has worked on in a newspaper, is a good source for a persons occupation? And a link to a database which catalogs the persons filmography is not? How does that makes sense?

I don't support the notion that we should restrict references to some bare minimum, but I do support removing unhelpful references. Do we have a policy for that, do we need one? Sabelöga (talk) 00:31, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

We talked about similar cases here and [2]. Seems like there was probably one more but I am not sure, maybe I had it in a dream.
I do not have problems with IAFD. This is a great database, hard work maintained by some people but this website contains only the filmographies, some trivial biographical info, and sometimes -- that is of course helpful -- lists of awards/nominations (if a performer was ever nominated for smth). It does not usually contain more-less detailed info, contrary to articles, obituaries or movie reviews (NSFW link!) with a special mention of performers. If being listed in IAFD is enough, then we could just import myriads of performers like this lady with a single role.
Also note that IAFD person UUID (P12776) is a Wikidata property for an identifier that does not imply notability.
You mention referencing an item can make its notability worse. -- If my words can be interpreted in such way, I am sorry for my language barrier.
Only hypothetically. If you, as a contributor, see an item, you have the right to check carefully whether a subject notable or not. If the only references lead to a site that does not imply notability (by default, acoording to the community), if an item does not have interwiki links, and it is not linked from other items -- or this connection is far-fetched / not strongly necessary -- you may think about nominating this item for deletion. It is that simple.
I am by no means claiming that you are completely wrong or that you are violating a policy but keep potential issues in mind. We can be satisfied with databases as single sources of information but there are other users too. --Wolverène (talk) 07:16, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Alright. But I still don't see why we shouldn't use the source then for this "trivial" information which in my eyes are still useful. Just because it does not imply notability? But, yeah, I agree that other sources such as papers or obituaries are better, but if there are none we should absolutely use the ones we have.

And yes, I agree that not all performers in IAFD are notable just as not every item on IMDb are notable. That does not necessarily make them bad sources for the information they do have.

Isn't there though some notability criterion where an item that's used on other item can make it notable? I can't find it now, but I come to think of Nhan (or Wu Chow), who are not found anywhere else to my knowledge then IMDb, IAFD and other databases. I decided it's not notable and didn't create it even though he plays a major nonsex role in two movies, but nothing else to my knowledge. But I wouldn't challenge it if someone created it.

I do believe we should have a low threshold on WD, with that said, a subject must be identifiable and that can absolutely be that several databases (independently, hopefully) identifies a subject as prolific and separate from others. Sabelöga (talk) 14:06, 21 September 2026 (UTC)