Talk:Q93868746
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Autodescription — numeric identifier (Q93868746)
description: identifier whose values must be numbers (in any base)
- Useful links:
- View it! – Images depicting the item on Commons
- Report on constraint conformation of “numeric identifier” claims and statements. Constraints report for items data
For help about classification, see Wikidata:Classification.
- Parent classes (classes of items which contain this one item)
- Subclasses (classes which contain special kinds of items of this class)
- ⟨
numeric identifier⟩ on wikidata tree visualisation (external tool)(depth=1) - Generic queries for classes
- See also
- This documentation is generated using
{{Item documentation}}.
Repurposing an item[edit]
@TKsdik8900: please don't repurpose an item [1] and don't revert without addressing the issues mentioned in the edit summaries, e.g. "see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominal_number - several examples of human-readable" GeoGQL (talk) 20:56, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
- You have removed Czech and all other descriptions of the item and I have no idea what problem you see there. If I take a look at the item right now and try to add a description based on its label and the only statement, it would be… again the same? Well, “numeric ID” is “identifier in the format of a number”, duh? What else could it be that we’d need to “create a new item as a subclass”? What would be the label, description, and statements of this supposed subclass (and, for that matter, what is the description of this class according to your idea of it? What exactly is it that you are objecting to by removing the descriptions? --Mormegil (talk) 08:44, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- "and I have no idea what problem you see there" - Please have a look at the statement above where it says "please don't repurpose an item". GeoGQL (talk) 17:05, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- I agree with Mormegil: If you disagree with the former description(s), please add a new one (in your language(s)) to make clear what you think this item is about. That this item has no descriptions at all does not help with conflation. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 10:31, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- This is not a vote. Please show since when repurposing of an item is allowed. The creator of the item didn't give any source, so the only definition that exists is the label "numeric ID", see first version of the item GeoGQL (talk) 16:01, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Eurohunter: could you add a description, please? What do you think about "identifier in the format of a number"? Is it ok or do you have something else in mind? - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 07:14, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Valentina.Anitnelav: I think, in this case description should be added by native speaker of English who has enough knowledge about language, and maybe he could add description which makes sense. Eurohunter (talk) 16:16, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- What is the difference to nominal number (Q2004972)? GeoGQL (talk) 16:51, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Eurohunter: You don’t necessarily need to write the description in your non-native language. You should provide a description in some language, e.g. your native one. (But I note that the intention of an original item creator is not the definitive criterion about the meaning of an item. If the original creator had wanted to create a meaning X but later thousands of other users converged to some other meaning Y and used the item in that way in thousands of other items… the item has, in fact, the meaning Y.) --Mormegil (talk) 09:24, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
- "but later thousands of other users converged to some other meaning" - and millions of further others didn't? How often is such a change allowed to happen? Who does the counting? Were is the evidence that meaning change is allowed in Wikidata by "users converged to..."? GeoGQL (talk) 11:49, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
- ? I honestly have no idea what you are fighting for and against now. All I want is to know when we have 1946 properties which are instances of numeric identifier (Q93868746), what does that mean? Can you answer me the question? Yes? No? If yes, then go ahead and explain it, ideally in the description of the class. If not, why do you feel the need for reverts and philosophical disputations? We can also ask User:Midleading who added the claims? (Or was he mistaken to use this item? Maybe he should have asked the original creator for permission?) --Mormegil (talk) 13:00, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Mormegil: Original meaning X may change only if other editors misunderstood original meaning X and just added their own Y, but in such case original meaning X should be restored in a separate item. Eurohunter (talk) 14:46, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
- Can you point to the policy that allows for such repurposing of an item? GeoGQL (talk) 19:34, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Mormegil:
- "? I honestly have no idea what you are fighting for and against now." - please don't use such language. If you don't know what this section is about, then look at the section name "Repurposing an item" and the first statement.
- "All I want is to know when we have 1946 properties which are instances of numeric ID (Q93868746), what does that mean?" - ask those that did add these statements
- You are not listed as a contributor to the item, how did you find that discussion in the first place? GeoGQL (talk) 19:32, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Mormegil: Original meaning X may change only if other editors misunderstood original meaning X and just added their own Y, but in such case original meaning X should be restored in a separate item. Eurohunter (talk) 14:46, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
- ? I honestly have no idea what you are fighting for and against now. All I want is to know when we have 1946 properties which are instances of numeric identifier (Q93868746), what does that mean? Can you answer me the question? Yes? No? If yes, then go ahead and explain it, ideally in the description of the class. If not, why do you feel the need for reverts and philosophical disputations? We can also ask User:Midleading who added the claims? (Or was he mistaken to use this item? Maybe he should have asked the original creator for permission?) --Mormegil (talk) 13:00, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
- "but later thousands of other users converged to some other meaning" - and millions of further others didn't? How often is such a change allowed to happen? Who does the counting? Were is the evidence that meaning change is allowed in Wikidata by "users converged to..."? GeoGQL (talk) 11:49, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Valentina.Anitnelav: I think, in this case description should be added by native speaker of English who has enough knowledge about language, and maybe he could add description which makes sense. Eurohunter (talk) 16:16, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Eurohunter: could you add a description, please? What do you think about "identifier in the format of a number"? Is it ok or do you have something else in mind? - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 07:14, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- This is not a vote. Please show since when repurposing of an item is allowed. The creator of the item didn't give any source, so the only definition that exists is the label "numeric ID", see first version of the item GeoGQL (talk) 16:01, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- I agree with Mormegil: If you disagree with the former description(s), please add a new one (in your language(s)) to make clear what you think this item is about. That this item has no descriptions at all does not help with conflation. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 10:31, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- "and I have no idea what problem you see there" - Please have a look at the statement above where it says "please don't repurpose an item". GeoGQL (talk) 17:05, 11 May 2023 (UTC)