Talk:Q20638126

Q23501 and Q20638126 about the same plant, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.76.214.74 (talk)

Nope, one item is about the plant/species and one item is about the fruit/vegetable. - Brya (talk) 09:25, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

That isn't quite true as far as the wikipedia articles are concerned. It might make sense to keep 2 separate wikidata items for fruit and plant, but then the interwikis need to be reassign/rearranged. The current state seems at least from Interwiki perspective somewhat nonsensical.--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:06, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

The objective is to put all the interwikis for pages that deal with the tomato (the fruit/vegetable) together in the item for the tomato, and to put all the interwikis for pages that deal with Solanum lycopersicum (the plant/species) in the item for Solanum lycopersicum. Those Wikipedias that treat both subjects in the same page go with Solanum lycopersicum (hopefully these pages will be split some time). - Brya (talk) 11:24, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

yes, but as far as I can see that's currently not the case. Most Interwiki articles seem to deal with fruit and the plant in one article and some of those have been added to the Wikidata item for the fruit and others to the Wikidata item for the plant, without their contents really justifying a different treatment. As result we have an arbitrary split in disconnected language. Also I have we're certainly not going to split perfectly fine WP articles to make them conform with Wikidata. If anything it is the others way around. Those Wikidata items used for Interwikis need to follow the Wikipedia structure.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:58, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I am sure there are "perfectly fine WP articles", somewhere, it is just that they are so few and far between. All too often Wikipedia pages are of the "whatever were they thinking?" standard.

        My impression is that most pages are on the fruit/vegetable, with varying degrees of material on the plant/species included. - Brya (talk) 16:31, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

All those pages need to have the same Interwiki but they currently don't.

As far as fine or not fine WP articles, that doesn't change the fact that Interwiki data items need to follow the Wikipedia structure and not the other way around.--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:58, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

What "Wikipedia structure"? I have seen plenty of iw-connections made by Wikipedians and sometimes the weirdest things have been put together. What might be done here without damaging consistency is to put the enwiki page in Solanum lycopersicum? - Brya (talk) 04:36, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

The "wikipedia structure" means the correct intended interwikis by the wikipedia community. If there is no wikidata item for that, than wikidata can't be used be used for interwikis.

For the problem at hand, it can indeed be fixed by moving en.wp to the Solanum lycopersicum item. However not only en.wp but all or almost all Interwikis currently associated Q20638126 need to be moved to Q23501 (Solanum lycopersicum), as they all describe the plant (at least as well).

I suggested originally a merge to fix them problem, only because I wasn't aware that that Wikidata was keeping separate items for fruit and plant.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Whenever I see the word "correct" I start looking for an objective basis (one man's "correct" is another man's "wrong"): has there been a vote? If so at what Wikipedia? Just the one Wikipedia? To be really objective, it would really need to be a vote at all the major Wikipedia's. Also, this is unsuited for a vote as this is not a static situation, but a dynamic one. Take the similar situation at "apple" (versus Malus pumila, the species): over the past month there have been three iw's added, thus strengthening the divide. This could happen here easily, as well. There is also the matter of page length: as this increases (and these pages at the major Wikipedia's are way above average length) it becomes ever more likely that pages will be split into more logical and manageable units.

        As to your statement "as they all describe the plant (at least as well)": the first page that I looked at, at simplewiki very definitely does not say a word about the plant. Which is only to be expected: the people who eat tomatoes vastly outnumber the people who grow or study the plants. - Brya (talk) 16:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Well if want want to quote me, I suggest you do it correctly/completely, it doesn't simply say "all" in the posting above but "all or almost all". Even the simplewiki, you've looked at, deals with fruit and plant in the same article (see its taxo box), the description is currently "just" so simple that it essentially sticks to the description of the fruit.

As far as the "correct" Interwikis are concerned it is imho not that hard either. As long as they only contain one article on the subject covering both aspects they should initially be connected to the same item in Wikidata. If several items are possible, then one needs to be designated or picked as the "start item". In the case of fruit and plant the best choice for the designated start item might be the plant species. Now if later on an Interwiki article were to change and possibly separate the two aspects by creating a second article, then (but only then) they should use the associated second item on Wikidata. What we should not do however, is distributing the interwikis somewhat arbitrarily over the potentially available items on Wikidata. If they cover essentially the same content/subjects, they need to be assigned to the same Wikidata item.

As far as the apple case is concerned we have a similar problem of misassignments. The English interwiki on the en:apple tree, that is the species, is "falsely" assigned to Q89 (apple fruit), whereas the the German interwiki on the species, de:Kulturapfel is "correctly" assigned to Q158657 (apple tree species). In both interwikis separate articles for fruit and plant don't seem to exist. However at a first glance here we do at least have some interwikis that do feature separate articles for fruit and plant, like es.wp with es:Manzana and es:Malus domestica. In that case the assignment is correct and it needs to use both wiki data items of course. The majority though still seems to be falsely assigned (I tested 5, only the spanish one was correct). My guess is that most false assignment are a "carry over" from the falsely assigned English Interwiki.--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

The quotation was a self-contained unit. If it contradicts what you said elswhere, I suggest you take more care in writing. In looking at the simplewiki-page, I was being generous and ignored the policy-violating taxobox. The page makes a lot more sense without it. I have found that all too often simplewiki is just tacking on taxoboxes, even where they absolutely don't belong.

        What is the topic of a page is often not clear, and certainly is not binary. What we should not do is forcing pages together that are on different topics (just like we should not force pages into separate items).

        It is not easy to tell what "en:apple tree" is about. It seems to be mostly about apples, but it meanders all over the place. In cases of doubt I tend to adopt the policy that if a page has a taxobox, it is about the species, but with enwiki this can work out poorly because of the poor organisation and the overuse of taxoboxes. - Brya (talk) 12:02, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

You seem to have missed the point above. Of course it is not always "clear" what items a Wikipedia article is about. In fact it is often in the nature of encyclopedic articles to cover several closely related items at once. There is no argument there. But all those Interwikis covering the same items in one article and not dealing with them in several articles (yet), need to assigned to the same wikidata item, because otherwise you break the (intended) interwiki structure and you cannot navigate the same topic through different languages anymore.

As far as the discussion about quote above is concerned, what you call "elsewhere" is actually in the same sentence. I don't think it us too much to expect to read a sentence as a whole. Moreover arguing over the nature of "all" in that sentence is a bit beside the point here, which is that a large number of those interwikis is currently falsely assigned and breaks the (intended) interwiki navigation. That is the issue that needs to be addressed (for tomato as well as for apple).

As far as the your taxobox rule is concerned that is certainly a good rule of thumb (and exactly one of reasons suggesting the current large misassignment of Interwikis for tomato and apple). But there is more, you can use look at article definition in the lead and the bold print and see whether a separate articles for fruit and plant exists. If separate articles do not exists and both items are somewhat covered, you can always assume it to be plant article, as the by its very nature the plant article needs to cover its fruits as well.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:12, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:59, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

In the matter of quotation, it remains clear to me that if you took some more care in what you write you would not need to come up with tortuous arguments the moment you are quoted.

        I am afraid I am not religious and unlike you I do not believe there is a hand of God involved which drew up a plan of how things are "intended" to be. Hopefully every user has an idea of how he intends the results of his work to be, but users differ and their "intended"s differs. While it may be convenient for one user to "navigate the [...] topic [he is interested in] through different languages anymore", this may well be inconvenient for another user, as the page on the topic he is interested in has a menu full of iw's to pages on topics he is not interested in.

        Anyway, your argument above should be seen in the light of your actions. Your moving ca:Mazana and others to Malus pumila suggests that the content or helping Wikipedia readers is not your 'intent', but rather a blunt eyes-closed Bigger-is-Better-philopsophy? - Brya (talk) 05:11, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

There is hardly a "tortuous argument" and any writing no matter how careful, can keep people from quoting out of context, if they intend to do so rather than trying to understand the issue at hand.

You don't need the "hand of God" or any other divine intervention to understand the intention of Interwikis, it's pretty basic and rather obvious to most Wikipedians. I'm not sure what your issue or lack of understanding here is (your example above makes no sense to me).

Rather than speculating about any "eyes-closed Bigger-is-Better-philopsophy", you should have open your own eyes, when looking at the moves. They are based on the criteria discussed above (and partially suggested by yourself), that is all Interwikis describing the plant/apple tree (as well) get assigned to Q158657. Determined is that by the existence of a taxobox, the name/bold print in the lead and the articles content in general (as far as I could read/assess it).

ca:Mazana doesn't exist instead there are ca:Pomera comuna (plant) and ca:Poma (fruit), which are both correctly assigned. The other "Ma(n)zanas" that were moved are qu:Mansana pam:Mansanas and an:Mazana. The first two have the taxobox and hence were correctly moved. The third one however seemed to have been a mistake (no taxobox and article is designed to have a separate plant article in the future (red link)).--Kmhkmh (talk) 07:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, ca:Mazana doesn't exist. I am not sure where I went wrong (although the interface's habit of showing something different from what is there will not have helped. I keep clicking on links to get to surprising pages). I do apologize. However, the same argument pertains to zh-yue:蘋果, while no:Epleslekten by lour logic belongs in Malus.

        As to your way of arranging iw's being the way that is meant-to-be, well, this automatically happens if one adopts a sufficiently narrow way of looking at things, so I guess it is not surprising you don't understand someone adopting a different perspective. And now we can wait for some user who adopts the exactly contrary point of view, and wants to rearrange things again, with equal vehemence. - Brya (talk) 05:38, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

zh-yue:蘋果 is rather short but as far as I can tell correctly assigned to malus domestica/pumila, the brackets to the bold print say malus domestica. no:Epleslekten was false under apple and could indeed potentially be assigned to malus instead of malus domestica, however at least current malus and malus domestica are handled in the same article for that interwiki and malus domestica redirects to no:Epleslekten, hence an assignment to the malus domestica is ok for now imho.

As far as other viewpoints are concerned there are a few cases where one might argue to which wikidata item the Interwiki should be assigned to. The somewhat arbitrary looking assignment we had before with various clearly false assignments (no matter what perspective one might take), didn't help anybody. Also the point of view discussed above is not simply an arbitrary view, but it is based one how most encyclopedias actually do handle the topic (the fruit is always treated in the plant species article, aside from few rare cases where you have 2 articles due to a large scope)--Kmhkmh (talk) 06:58, 19 October 2015 (UTC).

Most treatments of fruits will mention the species it is derived from, so that means nothing. zh-yue:蘋果 is a pathetic little page, but in as far as it has a focus, it is on "apple".

        As to no:Epleslekten, both the norse name and the taxobox claim it is about Malus, and the introductory paragraph bears this out. It indeed contains two paragraphs on the best-known species of the genus, but the bulk of the page is on "apple". Treating it as a species page is forcing things to the point where it can unreservedly be called just weird.

        Your "how most encyclopedias actually do handle the topic" sounds wonderfully vague, and discounts the fact that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Actually, it seems it would be easy to find encyclopedias that have extensive entries for apple, entries that include a small section of the species. Your assigment of iw's looks more arbitrary to me that what we had before.

        For somebody who is so keen on plant articles you appear to be singularly cavalier about plant names. - Brya (talk) 16:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)