Watching informative Youtubes with a Wikimedia twist

When I go to work, I typically listen to youtubes like this one on the train. The narrative is typically much better than the visuals; not looking gives me room to edit Wikidata at the same time.

I found this youtube because I searched for "trophic rewilding" and it suggests that the introduction of jaguars in Yellowstone may bring equivalent changes to Yellowstone of what Wolves famously did. Suggests, because there is no proof that jaguars have actually been introduced. 

However, there are scientific papers on the subject; eg this DOI. It was included in Wikidata in 2021 and,  a lot of additional information is missing that can be added. Adding co-authors or citations is easy and the best bit; the Scholia for this paper gets automagically updated.

What I would like is an environment to link "youtubes" to information from the Wikimedia ecosystem. With links to a Wikipedia article and a Scholia to the subject, links to other subjects mentioned or scientists mentioned. Also links to what Commons has to offer.

As such an environment will expand when "youtubes" are added, it may also be the place where the issues are presented about the quality of the information provided. It should be useful and it may generate its own public.

Thanks,

       GerardM

MSF, drones, a hospital and what is not in the news - also NOMA

You may know MSF as Doctors without borders. They are not beholden to the whims of politicians. They provide emergency medical care in too many countries, in countries ravaged by war like Palestina, Lebanon, Iran, Sudan.. 

On 2 April 2026, a drone attack struck the Al-Jabalain hospital in White Nile state, Sudan. Seven medical staff were killed. It is shocking and at the time I predicted that it would not be covered in the news. It did not. 

What to do? I read the MSF website and learned about a disease called Noma. In 2023 noma was added to the World Health Organization's list of neglected tropical diseases. I am in the process of deepening the information about Noma in Wikidata. It involves tagging papers with "noma", attributing papers to people. Finding new papers and adding them as well. For a recent "systematic scoping review" I am adding all the citations, adding many more papers relevant to the subject. It results in an informative Scholia on the subject. 

When the news is this bad, doing something positive is a way to cope.

Thanks,

       GerardM

Stamps, a Dutch charity and some science

The Dutch charity "Stichting Koninklijke Kinderpostzegels Nederland"  is best known for the annual sale of "kinderpostzegels". These stamps are sold door to door by primary school children since 1948 when a primary school teacher came up with the idea. It is now considered to be part of the Dutch cultural heritage.

Fast forward to 2026, this charity is probably the best known charity in the Netherlands, it supports disadvantaged children and this year it focuses on loneliness. Loneliness is closely linked to suicide. The numbers for suicide are not pretty; suicide is rising year over year. There is less funding for care so what to do?

The charity commissioned research on how to prevent loneliness. It is truly scientific, done by a reputable organisation, reputable scientists, and as can be expected with plenty of citations. The paper is in Dutch but hey, is Google not your friend?

For this Dutch paper there is a Scholia. Effectively it provides an interactive view, when citations are added, the view will change because of an added cited work, a cited author. When papers are attributed to an author and multiple works happen to be cited, the Scholia evolves and the author is credited for all the papers cited. 

For an NGO this is quite powerful because papers like these underpin the value of their work. It  provides a strong argument to support its work and contribute as a donor or volunteer.

Thanks,

         GerardM

Batch processes for Wikidata .. importing from ORCiD and Crosreff - a more comprehensive trick

Every week a process runs that produces a list of all the papers for all the scientists known to Wikidata that have an ORCiD identifier. The papers are known by a DOI and typically all scientific papers at Wikidata have a DOI. ORCiD-Scraper uses this list for interested users to upload the information of these papers to Wikidata using the "QuickStatements" tool. One paper at a time for one author at a time.

What if.. what if all new papers of all authors known to ORCiD are added? The challenge will be not to introduce duplicate papers or duplicate authors.. So lets agree on two things, we only introduce authors who have an ORCiD identifier and for now we only introduce papers who have a DOI and at least one author who has an ORCiD identifier.

The trick is to cycle through all authors known to Wikidata. For instance a thousand at a time. All new papers have their DOI entered in a relational database where a DOI can exist only once. All these papers may include multiple authors, they enter the same relational database where an author is unique. When all papers for the first thousand authors and associated authors in the database, we can first add all missing authors to Wikidata and add the Wikidata identifiers in the relational database. We then add the missing papers. It is likely that no duplicates are introduced but there will be duplicates for authors where Wikidata does not know about the ORCiD identifier.

We cycle through all our known authors and we can rerun each week.

We can do this but why.. 

One reason is an English Wikipedia template named {{Scholia}} it may be used on scholars and subjects. Unlike Wikipedia the information it presents will always be up to date. There are more reasons but this is a great starter.

Thanks,

      GerardM

Batch processes for Wikidata .. importing from ORCiD and Crosreff

One of my favourite batch processes produces data for a tool called "Orcid-Scraper". I use it to add the missing publications known to ORCiD. I do it as a hobby however, I would use my time more effectively when in stead of producing a database that enables me adding new data, the new data is added to Wikidata. 

This was done in the past by a different tool. It was a drama because Wikidata is NOT a relational database. The problem is that an item cannot be created with the certainty that it will be unique. To ensure that new items will be unique there are plenty of available tricks. 

The easiest trick is to have an option in the tool to create all the missing papers known for a given author. One author at a time and, from Scholia. It makes use of results from a batch process that runs once a week. Cheap, cheerful highly effective.

Then there is a need for another batch process. For all the "author string"s that include an ORCiD identifier, existing authors are sought and these author strings are changed into "author"s removing the link to the ORCiD identifier as it is implicitly part of the author. This process can run once a week.

A second batch process, also running once a week, looks for "author string"s with ORCiD identifiers without corresponding authors. It generates a list of ORCiD identifiers with associated "author string"s and creates one new item uniquely identified by that ORCiD identifier. 

Obviously new authors make it useful to run the first batch process again.

These batches could run exclusively for an author processed by Orcid-scraper making this tool and Scholia more powerful and up to date.

Thanks,

       GerardM

One line in a Wikipedia article; a prize is name after her

The ESHG refers to Wikipedia articles for its award recipients. The award named after Leena Peltonen-Palotie currently has 6 recipients, three have a Wikipedia article and when I am done writing this blogpost, all will have a Wikidata item. 

This award currently has no Wikipedia article, it has a Wikidata item and consequently associated information can be shown in Reasonator or in a Scholia. 

I added the 2024 recipient because awards without recipients is not really informative. I came across the inaugural 2013 recipient because of another award she received. All six recipients had an Wikidata item and only one did not have publications associated with him. However, a merge of two items solved that issue.

It is wonderful to see prestigious organisations refer to Wikipedia articles. I do notice that we are still at a stage where Wikipedia information is not valued enough to mine it, curate it and finally share it with all our audience. We could share the knowledge that is available to us.

Thanks,

     GerardM

Fellows of the Royal Zoological Society of NZW and .. #ChatGPT

Wikipedia knew in a text about a fellow of the Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales. Unlike many other awards it does not have its own article, there is no category for these fellows, it has a paragraph in the article about the fellows.

Wikidata did not know the award. 

The list of fellows on the RZS website is formatted in a "last name, first name" format. There are too many fellows so converting it by hand is inconvenient. As so many people are enamoured by ChatGPT, I gave it a spin. ChatGPT does NOT process websites for me. So I copy pasted the list and asked it to change the order of the surname and the first name. 

I asked it who had a Wikipedia article. It could not tell me but it gave me a list of fellows who likely have a Wikipedia article. For many of them I added the award in Wikidata and for some fellows  I added a new Wikidata item. For many of them I linked publications and this results in a nice Scholia for the award. 

It would be really cool when there is a Wikimedia AI that will answer questions like: "for the people in this list change the order of the name and check if these Australian award winners have a Wikipedia article or a Wikidata item". Maybe start with a tool for editors and then open it up to the general public. 

Given that Wikipedia is multilingual, what would be the effect of the data for the answers being all Wikipedias AND Wikidata.. Given that Wikifunctions is language agnostic, why not have functions that are a front end to such a Wikimedia AI?

Thanks,

       GerardM

The story of African award winning scientists using Wikifunctions

You can find the winners of the Alan Pifer Research award on the English Wikipedia. One of them, the 2011 recipient is Mr Kelly Chibale. there are several ways to be informed about him. There is Scholia and Reasonator, both derive from Wikidata and then there is the Wikipedia article. All four provide information, one is unstructured and exclusively in English. The good news is that parts of it have a structure making it easy for tools to analyse and convert to data. 

A person can read an article, find and add an award not in Wikidata and choose to add the awardees or use "Awarder" to do it with less effort. It is good when it is done but analytical tools could do a better job. There are many tools that produce information in a nice layout like Listeria.. Problem is that it is not maintained by Wikimedia and it is not necessarily multilingual. 

And then there is Wikifunctions. It is developed and maintained by the Wikimedia Foundation. It could do all the things that Listeria does. Having a function that does only list all the honours and awards for someone like Mr Chibale would be great particularly when there is a function that brings to the light all the award winners for any award. An article about an award can be minimalist, and still include stuff that typically goes into an info box.

With functions available like this, it PAYS to engage in Wikifunctions for the specifics of a language for a function. It is impossible to include all awards in any language but with some imagination, we can expose information once the necessary functions are available.

Thanks,

      GerardM

Another Red&Blue application; the epidemiologist who wrote the book on "Smoking Kills"

Professor Richard Doll of Oxford is considered one of the best epidemiologists of the 20th century. There are 20 Wikipedias who consider him notable enough for an article yet Wikidata had until now no scientific paper associated with him. That was easily solved by disambiguating "author strings" for Mr Doll. 

With currently 54 publications to his name, none of his books are included. At the Open Library, Mr Doll is known five times and several books were known by these different Mr Dolls. All books have now been attributed to the Mr Doll with id OL1150080A. This identifier is now linked on Wikidata and reading the available books can be read by an international public.

All publications known at Wikidata for Mr Doll are represented in his Scholia. Given that there is much more to explore, this representation will evolve over time. People may add books or publications and additional co-authors may be disambiguated (currently a potential of 159 authors). 

The English Wikipedia has a Scholia template and it is implemented on the Richard Doll article. Functionality like this makes all the effort worth it bringing information to a next level of exposure. It works both ways. Suppose that all references of all Wikipedia articles in any Wikipedia are to be found in Wikidata. All of these references will be known in the Red&Blue Wikibase. All references with an identifier like a DOI or an ISBN can easily be integrated in Wikidata for re-use in other Wiki projects. 

With some additional work, it is even possible to associate references to individual statements and have them known in Wikidata as well. Again this promotes exposure of all the work we do and it promotes re-use in other Wiki projects.

• Scholia is/could be available as a template on any and all Wikipedias
• You can read books when available at OpenLibrary
• Anyone can contribute to the tapestry of information for any scholar
• References can easily be added in Red&Blue Wikibase
• These references can be linked to Wikidata making for one stop shopping for updates

So what is not to like? 

Thanks, 

       GerardM

Be both Anthony G. and Αντώνης Γ. Καφάτος as a scientist and have an ORCiD identifier

Anthony G. Kafatos is a co-author on many papers that are part of the "Seven Countries Study". When you want to know about the many papers he was involved in, it helps when they are all linked. The papers known at Wikidata are linked to his item. When papers are still known as a string, an "author name string", they are hard to spot AND they may be spelled differently AND even be in a different script.

Anthony was also spelled as Antony.. Both work in the same department at the same University making it safe to consider them the same. Someone has to decide, this time it was me. That is not great because what do I know. One alternative is that nothing gets decided but it is much better when scientists themselves are involved.

Data is an ecosystem. Best is when any and all scientists have one ORCiD identifier and authorise the institutions they trust to update their profile with their latest and greatest work. This has profound implications. This data will now be available for many applications including Wikidata. It will become easier to understand what the neutral point of view on a subject is.

This is the Scholia for Mr Kafatos. At this time there are 18 links to papers on the "Seven Nations Study", four more than for Mr Ancel Keys the architect of the study. 

Thanks, GerardM

Food for thought; statistics and Wikidata - DONT BE A KARELIAN

The lumberjacks in Karelia Finland got all the physical activity you can expect for lumberjacks, they looked the part and they died in droves before their fifties. This was as well known in the world of health scientists as well as the fact that in Japan people had the least problems with heart failure. Epidemiologists started one of the most famous studies, the "Seven Countries Study" to learn about these phenomenon. The Karelians ate a lot of meat and butter, this caused arthrosclerosis and it was identified as the cause of all these early demises. 

The Finish government wanted this to change, the lumberjacks loved their meat but their wives loved their hubbies more and they started them on a different diet. The government did a double blind research project and the fine Karelian gentlemen started to outperform their fellow Fins... As a consequence the Finnish government promoted healthy food to all Fins.

In Wikidata we have MANY scientific publications with "Seven Countries Study" in the name of the publications. With more than 100 such publications tagged, many authors, publications and subjects have become apparent. This can be seen in the Scholia for the Seven Countries Study. Statistically it is likely that when another 100 publications are added, the patterns found may slightly differ. Additional authors may be represented but the relative weight of existing authors is likely to remain the same. 

Ancel Keys is the architect of the Seven Countries Study, he authored both papers and books with many publications and publishers and he collaborated with many of the most prominent scientists in his time. The results of all these published studies are profound and not only for the Karelian lumberjacks. Not everybody is happy with the results. Influencers have us believe that Mr Keys misrepresented the facts of the study. However, when you look at the co-author graph, Mr Keys is not really central to all the collaborations. It is also obvious that there were many different publishers involved. 

The meat of the matter is obvious. Don't be a Karelian of centuries past, be smart, be there for your nearest and dearest and understand that a traditional Japanese diet or the Mediterranean diet gives you more mileage. The Seven Countries Study had a run for over fifty years, it knows about what people ate and the mortality that is the consequence of their diet. You can ignore this at your own peril :)

Thanks, GerardM

A #Netflix documentary, #Youtube reviews and a more #NPOV @Wikidata reaction

I really enjoyed watching "You are what you eat", a Netflix four part documentary based on research of the differences found between a vegan and an omnivorous diet in identical twins. The results of this research can be found in a paper called "Cardiometabolic Effects of Omnivorous vs Vegan Diets in Identical Twins". 

The documentary has several story lines, one is about the research itself, another informs about participants in the study and finally we are informed about the industry that produces our food. The chosen participants are a vehicle for the story, there were chefs, athletes cheese aficionados and people from other cultures (seen from an US-American perspective). What people eat is produced so we are informed about the food industry. The picture painted is not pretty but based in facts.

On YouTube there are several "reviews" and now some reviews as well. All of the "reviews" are really disappointing because they express expectations that are not realistic. The program is NOT about only the science and it is NOT giving equal weight to the production of fish or meat. The results of the research are favorable to a vegan diet and the documentary provides information on what is available when less or no meat is eaten. It is why we learn about the quality of vegan cheese and meat products. Great cheeses and a biltong that is not meat based are explored by participants of the study. 

I found the YouTube "reviews" disappointing because they came across as hatchet jobs. When they consider the documentary biased, it finds its basis in the bias of the reviewer and not necessarily on the results of the research. When it is said that these reviews were requested by "so many people", it feels like that people in the agro business exposed their hand. 

Wikipedia has the article on the documentary and it has an article on the principal author of the paper. They have an appropriate neutral point of view.

My Wikidata reaction is that I added the paper to Wikidata, I added many of its authors and many of the papers cited as references and to be brutally honest, seen from within Wikidata it looks awful, it is one dimensional, it is unusable. However thanks to tools the full impact of available information becomes available. Scholia is my preferred tools for science. This is the Scholia for the paper.

Thanks,

      GerardM

A Scholia for "water fluoridation"

Some topics are poisonous. People have a set point of view; hell or high water they will budge from their position. Even Wikipedia with its "neutral point of view" makes no dent in their preoccupation. So why argue?

Wikipedia is known for its references to sources and Wikidata is great at connecting these sources together. Particularly scholarly papers with a "DOI" may link to authors, cites works and works citing a paper. When a paper is of particular interest, you can expand the information in all these ways.

So I did not get into an argument about "water fluoridation", I included papers mentioned to Wikidata. I linked some papers with "water fluoridation" in its title to the subject. I attributed papers to authors including one by the Surgeon General of the United States..

Everything that was done on the subject is reflected in the Scholia for the subject. It suffices for me as my participation in an endless argument.

Thanks, GerardM 

For Dr @ashadevos there are 14 @Wikipedia articles

 

Hardly a "woman in red", Dr De Vos has many accomplishments chronicled in these Wikipedia articles. She presents herself with her colleagues on Facebook and, the graph of her co-authors should paint a similar picture, initially it did not. At first there were only a few publications to her name, they have been expanded to 26 at present. It introduced many co-authors and there are now some 112 co-authors missing.

Obviously, there is much more that could be done. Adding more papers and co-authors adds complexity to the Scholia of Dr de Vos. More distinctions could be added, talks at conferences and papers that were cited. I typically restrict myself to papers with a DOI and authors with an ORCiD identifier as they have the biggest network effect. 

I was reminded by Greenpeace that some people give themselves nothing for their birthday. So I updated this Wikidata item. Who will notice or care.. Like Greenpeace, Dr De Vos cares about whales; it is her specialty.

Thanks,

     GerardM

An hydrology professor was killed in a shooting

I learned of Prof Meixner because of an outpouring of grief on Twitter by many people I knew of because of my hobby. I include papers and authors related to hydrology and related topics to Wikidata. As they expressed their loss, I started adding papers for Prof Meixner. The result is an evolving Scholia for him and his co-authors.

I have also done some work on some of the people I noticed on Twitter. Their Scholia has been expanded as a result. When they collaborated on research with Prof Meixner, they may pop up in his co-author graph.

Recently I had a tshirt printed with a design from a paper. When people suggest a picture that goes with a DOI and explain why it illustrated one of his papers, I will include the text on my blog. When there are more than one, the one Twitter likes best will get a tshirt.

It is horrible only to learn about someone when he dies like this. Apparantly this is how I deal with it.

Thanks,

       GerardM

Hierarchies of scientists from a personal @Wikidata/@Wikipedia point of view

 

As a hobby I add publications and scholars to Wikidata. I am particularly interested in hydrology, biodiversity and climate change. When I come across scientists, I look them up on Wikidata, I care most about scientists with an ORCiD identifier, I often add Google scholar and Twitter identifiers as well. ]

As there have been many, many papers and scholars for a long time, the impact I have is particularly in scientists new to Wikidata and attributing papers to them. This results in an improved representation that can be seen in their Scholia. When there is a Wikipedia article for a scientist, a template for the Scholia can be added; it will always show the most up to date information.

The way it works out is that I am a "browser", I read Twitter feeds by a scholar, find a publication they enthuse about and I may already be on a tangent adding the papers and scholars. In my job I do not have time to read and comprehend but I have time to mechanically add more papers. I read in the morning, make a pick for the day and I "search" using the Scholia search function with a DOI as the argument. When a paper does not exist I am presented with the option to add it to Wikidata. When its authors can be found because of their ORCiD identifier, they are linked from the start to their Wikidata item.

My personal hierarchy

• I find a paper, a scholar on Twitter
• They publish on a subject I am interested in
• When they are already known to Wikidata, they are linked to the publication I search for
• When search indicates that an ORCiD identifier exists, I search Wikidata and add a scholar or add an identifier.
• When Twitter indicates Twitter handles, I add them
• When I cannot guess the gender, I look at Google scholar for a picture, I add the identifier as well.
• When a scholar is picked for the day, I add the latest pictures first because they include more ORCiD identifiers for co-authors.

A Wikidata/Wikipedia hierarchy

• Most valuable are scholars with a Wikipedia article that includes a Scolia template
• Scholars with a Wikipedia article
• Scholars with a Wikidata item with many identifiers including an ORCiD identifier.
• Scholars with only an ORCiD identifier
• Scholars with no identifiers
• Scholars only known because of an "Author string"

When I come across an Australian scientists who was rewarded with an award, who has a Twitter account, an ORCiD and a Google Scholar identifier but no Wikidata item, it is someone I will add. So a warm welcome to Heather Neilly. She is of interest to me because of her work as an ecological consultant and in natural resource management for local government. Her latest work is on vegetation change in sheep-grazed chenopod shrublands in South Australia.

Thanks,

       GerardM

Sabina Nowak a Polish scientist, an expert on European wolves

Dr Nowak has a Wikipedia article in several languages. Her notability is obvious because wolves is a very hot topic in many European countries. When people have opinions about wolves, it is obvious that in a European context you cannot dismiss the research of Dr Nowak over the years. 

When the notability and the quality of a Wikipedia article is assessed, it is obvious that an encyclopedic article is not best served with a list of papers Dr Nowak contributed to; the Scholia template provides more in depth information. However, Scholia only functions when the papers are known and attributed.

In Wikidata, there were two items that needed to be merged. Three papers were linked, an additional nine could be attributed. Additional identifiers were added, of particular significance is Google Scholar as it knows many if not most of the papers of a scientist. 

Adding missing papers is easy; you search with a DOI for the paper and when Wikidata does not know it, it is suggested to add it using the quickstatements tool. The best bit is that when CrosRef knows the ORCiD identifier for an author, it will either identify the author or will add the ORCiD identifier as a qualifier. 

Adding the Scholia template to any Wikipedia article about published scholars makes sense; the data is a "work in progress". It changes as more papers and co-authors become known. It is also an invitation to our communities and scientists to improve both the Wikipedia article and the data represented in the Scholias for any scientist.

Thanks, GerardM 

Herbivory and fire. Automate citations to display them in @WDscholia

When what is there does not easily burn, a fire will be not that damaging. In a forest, a prairie particularly those with wild grazers and browsers, the damage by a wild fire is substantially less. Science describes this effect and science describes the effect of beavers who have a similar beneficial effect.

For the paper "Effects of large herbivores on fire regimes and wildfire mitigation" Wikidata has an item, it links to its eight authors but there are no citations. Like any quality article there are plenty of references on the website for the article but we do not know them yet in Wikidata. There is a bot that goes around and adds citations in its own sweet time but when volunteers like me take an interest, it would be great to tool up for attention for a single paper.

What it would look like is easy; it would show the papers that are known to be citations and enable a one click solution to add them as a citation. Then it would show the papers not known to Wikidata but with a DOI. They can be added one at a time. What is left is the stuff that is cited but takes more effort to annotate. 

The benefits are obvious; science connects what is said before to what is said in a paper and eventually it will be linked to those citing a paper. As more papers from more authors get this royal treatment, Scholia as a tool will become even more relevant for those who care about the references in related Wikipedia articles; its references are referenced.

It is easy to suggest that it should not be hard to implement; there is a bot and it only needs to function for only one paper in stead of serially. It then has to find its way as a tool in Scholia and that opens up a box of user interface related issues. Well worth it (I think) but it then we also need to get the message out that Scholia is very much an active as well as a passive tool.

Thanks, GerardM

You are a #scientist and, you want your papers to be read

People have to know that there is something new out there and Amy D. Willes gets it, she tweeted the news and illustrated it with gorgeous cover art. On Twitter I follow Jens Svenning, he retweeted the news from Amy and it is why there is now a Scholia for the paper.

When you want your paper to be read, you receive optimal results when your paper is used as a reference in Wikipedia. Current Wikipedia references have their references and when people want to review an article, it is only the later papers that provide new insights.

So what can you do for yourself and your papers:

• Check if your papers or you as a scientist are known
• a paper has a DOI
• you have an ORCiD, a Google Scholar et al identifier.. your Twitter id is appreciated
• You can check your profile using Scholia and you can add papers using Scholia
• It will identify co-authors with an ORCiD identifier when they are known on the publication at Crossref

Adding yourself or any other scientist is a start; when there is a Wikipedia article, it is great to add a {{Scholia}} as a reference particularly as it will get updated from new papers, cited papers, new papers or because of co-authors that become known.

Obviously a well developed Scholia is a stellar argument to support the notability when a new Wikipedia article for a scientists is considered.

Thanks,

       GerardM

PS you can also add a "main subject" to a paper for instance "woolly mammoth".. 

Scholarly articles in @Wikidata and its link with #Fatcat

 "Dam-site selection by beavers in an eastern Oregon basin" is a scholarly paper. It has a DOI that is not functional, it is known to Researchgate and consequently we can find a PDF of the paper. 

This paper is cited by a paper I have an interest in. I am adding its references into Wikidata (this is its Scholia) and I added the "Dam-site selection" paper to make a complete reference.  The result is something like this.

The PDF of the paper is available for download and as is to be expected, the Way Back machine of the Internet Archive has a copy as well for the URL of the download page. And then there is Internet Archive's Fatcat. 

"Fatcat is a versioned, publicly-editable catalog of research publications: journal articles, conference proceedings, pre-prints, blog posts, and so forth. The goal is to improve the state of preservation and access to these works by providing a manifest of full-text content versions and locations."

Wikidata is used as a source of Fatcat and as I include an additional paper, it will at some stage be picked up by Fatcat. If there is one thing to wish for, it is a function where entering a Wikidata Qid will trigger Fatcat to update its data based on the Wikidata info. If I can have two more wishes, one would be an icon for Fatcat. The second would be a Fatcat identifier making it easy to link from Wikidata to Fatcat.

Thanks,

        GerardM