User talk:ArthurPSmith/Archive/4

chart of nuclides[edit]

Hi ArthurPSmith, do you know why some isotopes are not displayed in the chart of nuclides? Pamputt (talk) 10:13, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed this a little while ago - it seems that several weeks ago User:D1gggg removed a lot of instance of (P31) statements on isotopes - and did some messing around with subclass of (P279) as well - see the history on uranium-235 (Q848497) for instance. Not sure what to do here - I think this affected thousands of items. ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:31, 3 July 2017 (UTC) - sorry fixing ping: @Pamputt:.[reply]

uranium-235 (Q848497) looks like a lone mistake.

Other uraniums have following claims:

⟨ subject ⟩ subclass of (P279) ⟨ isotope of uranium (Q1369686) ⟩

uranium-235m (Q18888906), uranium-236m2 (Q18888908), uranium-237 (Q18845543), uranium-238m (Q18888909), uranium-239 (Q18845544), uranium-239m1 (Q18888910)

d1g (talk) 15:39, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By removing the instance of (P31) statements you have cut out something like half the nuclides from this chart: https://tools.wmflabs.org/ptable/nuclides that is autogenerated based on a wikidata SPARQL query. I don't even know if what the subclass of (P279) statements you have replaced them with will allow for the same sort of chart to be autogenerated now. Plus what you have done is obviously inconsistent since things still work for some but not for others - and in a case like U-235 it wasn't findable at all after your edits. Please at least be more careful on this sort of thing. But at the moment I don't even know a practical way to solve it and get the chart working again. ArthurPSmith (talk) 16:11, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(P31|P279) should fix everything. P31 is not the most correct property for physical classes

Where query could be located? d1g (talk) 17:32, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The query was looking for all instances of subclasses (wdt:P31/wdt:P279*) of isotope (Q25276). Replacing P31 with P279 there will not work, because that leaves no way I can see (right now) to distinguish between an actual nuclide such as uranium-235 (Q848497) and the generic classes such as isotope of uranium (Q1369686). The ptable code is on gerrit if you want to look at it: see the instructions here - ptable is under labs/tools/ptable. ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:00, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding was that isotope can be only of some element, so we can have these relations using fixed number of P279 links.

Query below should return everything to how it was before edits.

Part on below contributes only 33 "missing" items. d1g (talk) 21:07, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following query uses these:

Items: isotope (Q25276)

Properties: subclass of (P279)  

, instance of (P31)  

SELECT DISTINCT ?item ?itemLabel WHERE {
  { ?item wdt:P279/wdt:P279 wd:Q25276 } # suggested structure with fixed links, 4478; DISTINCT 4476
  UNION
  { ?item wdt:P31/wdt:P279* wd:Q25276 } # old one with arbitrary depth, 2391; DISTINCT 2265
  
  # BOTH UNION: 6869
  # BOTH UNION, DISTINCT: 4509
  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE],en". }
}

Try it!

Ok, so maybe it can be fixed, maybe not. Let us see. On a semantic point of view, would it be possible to use instance of (P31) : nuclide (Q108149) on each item in order to identify them clearly and to use a proper query? Pamputt (talk) 22:00, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy with that solution - it definitely seems more robust than depending on there being exactly two subclass levels below isotope. ArthurPSmith (talk) 22:06, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note also this solution fits in well with chemical element (Q11344) being a "first order metaclass" - nuclide (Q108149) is a subclass and so should also be a first-order metaclass, that means all its instances should be classes, so semantically this fits well (hydrogen, helium etc. are all instance of (P31) chemical element (Q11344) and that is correct and should not be changed). So I'm willing to add instance of (P31) nuclide (Q108149) to all the nuclides later this week and should be able to adjust the ptable code to use that appraoch. ArthurPSmith (talk) 22:41, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Pamputt, D1gggg: And D1gggg seems to be busy making the nuclides app completely worthless by continuing his P31 removal spree: Special:Contributions/D1gggg - could you at least WAIT until we have settled this discussion on how we are going to address the problem and actually had a chance to fix the code in ptable and see it working, before making further mass edits? I don't find your actions here very friendly, given that you KNOW they have already caused a problem, and now you are making it worse. ArthurPSmith (talk) 22:14, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Pamputt, D1gggg: I've been trying to rationalize our ontology a bit - this is still very much a work in progress, but I would appreciate your thoughts on my draft ontology for elements, nuclides and chemicals. Basically, I think every specific element and isotope should be treated as leaf nodes in the subclass hierarchy - even though they are abstract, I don't think it makes sense to talk about them having "instances". A "lithium atom" has instances, but there is nothing that "is a" "lithium". ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:27, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

isotopes like neon-24 are similarly NOT classes, but non-instantiable abstract concepts.

@ArthurPSmith: overall I agree, but you should word it using items, not words:

abstract classes lead to class (Q16889133)
physical classes should lead to physical object (Q223557) (or similar item)

⟨ subject ⟩ instance of (P31) ⟨ uranium-234 (Q26841207)  

 ⟩

claims should result in "physical object" using following statements

⟨ uranium-234 (Q26841207)  

 ⟩ subclass of (P279) ⟨ physical object (Q223557)  

 ⟩

neon-24 is a abstract class (P31/279 eventually leads to class (Q16889133))

or

isotope of neon is a abstract class (P31/279 eventually leads to class (Q16889133))

Did you mean this or something different? d1g (talk) 05:19, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"A is a period 2" or "A si a group 18" also makes no sense - "A is a period 2 element" however would be fine.

I also think

⟨ subject ⟩ part of (P361) ⟨ period 2 ⟩

would be more natural, not using P31/P279. d1g (talk) 05:29, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

d1g - are you seeing some sort of difference between uranium-234 and neon-24? I don't think anything can be an instance of uranium-234. Something can be an instance of a uranium-234 atom, or a uranium-234 nucleus, and so "uranium-234 atom" for example should be a subclass of "physical object". But "uranium-234" itself should not be a subclass of anything. As to using items etc., I do intend to articulate this more concretely in terms of wikidata syntax, I haven't really gotten to that fully yet. ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:30, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ArthurPSmith: maybe they aren't different from standpoint of chemistry; then we need to relate other items to "physical" items.

I think that "conglomeration of mass" is what we frequently mean by "physical" "physically" in natural language.

Second definition could be "anything that explainable using laws of physics" (item similar to mathematical object (Q246672)) - i.e. something chemistry wouldn't explain in detail d1g (talk) 06:10, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notified participants of WikiProject Physics

Notified participants of WikiProject Chemistry

See

. You don’t need any kind of abstract uninstanciable concept. At worse you could have

⟨ hydrogen ⟩ union of (P2737) ⟨ list of values as qualifiers (Q23766486)  

 ⟩
list item (P11260) ⟨ hydrogen pure substance ⟩
list item (P11260) ⟨ hydrogen atom ⟩

to reflect the polysemy. You also have

⟨ hydrogen pure substance ⟩ has part(s) (P527) ⟨ hydrogen atom ⟩

. What more is needed ? where do your definitions come from to argue ? author TomT0m / talk page 17:25, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TomT0m that is what we have been doing until now, but I believe it to be fundamentally wrong based on the way these terms are defined by the wikipedia pages. You suggest "hydrogen" is the union of "hydrogen as a pure substance" (or "simple substance" I think is the term used here) and the "hydrogen atom". I believe it is a lot more than that. Go to en:Hydrogen; how much of that page is about either of those two meanings for "hydrogen"? A lot of the page discusses hydrogen's abundance in the universe in atomic and ionized states, chemical properties within other molecules, ions and hydrides, its combustion and production, its uses in semiconductors, its biological relevance, the isotopes also, etc. As to the diagram you post, I agree almost entirely with the left-hand side: hydrogen atom should be a subclass of atom, germanium atom should be a subclass of atom, that is correct. Rather than "tritium", the correct item there should be "tritium atom", which would be a subclass of "hydrogen atom". That is all fine - their instances are specific atoms which are physical objects. The problem is the relations between center panel and the right column. "hydrogen atom" is NOT an "instance of" "element". "hydrogen atom" is NOT the same as "hydrogen", and it is "hydrogen" that is the instance of "element". en:Hydrogen atom talks about quite different things than en:Hydrogen, as far as definitions go. ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:44, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ArthurPSmith: Please follow the link en:chemical element in « hydrogen is a chemical element » in en:hydrogen. You’ll see that it’s a species (a synonym of subclass) of atoms. This fits with hydrogen beeing a subclass of atom. all atoms with the same number of protons in the atomic nucleus. »author TomT0m / talk page 10:09, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TomT0m: Does "species" mean subclass? I don't think so. In the third paragraph of the article "chemical element" it states "The term "element" is used for atoms with a given number of protons (regardless of whether or not they are ionized or chemically bonded, e.g. hydrogen in water) as well as for a pure chemical substance consisting of a single element (e.g. hydrogen gas)." An element is not simply a subclass of atoms. And we don't have that in our ontology currently anyway - "neon" is not "subclass of" in any way, "atom" right now. I don't think it should be. The fact that we have separate items for "hydrogen" and for "hydrogen atom", as well as for several other elements, also implies that they are not considered synonymous. ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:38, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ArthurPSmith: Please please please use references. I said a thousand time that mine was https://goldbook.iupac.org/html/C/C01022.html . There is two definitions : « all atoms with the same number of protons in the atomic nucleus. » and « A pure chemical substance composed of atoms with the same number of protons in the atomic nucleus. » The first one is an element as a subclass of atoms, the second one is the one of a class of pure substance. The seciond refers to the union I proposed : the term is used for both. There is also definitions (several) of species like https://goldbook.iupac.org/html/C/CT01038.html https://goldbook.iupac.org/html/C/CT06859.html but none actually applies, the first refers to an experiment which is not relevant in the definition of an experiment, the second is about subtypes of elements and don’t apply to the element concept itself. Also note the definition of a taxonomic species : https://goldbook.iupac.org/html/S/S05786.html : « a group of closely related, morphologically and physiologically similar individuals. » : a species is a subclass of individuals. author TomT0m / talk page 15:57, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also found references to support my interpretation :

1. A species ofatoms  ; all atoms with the same number  of protons in the atomic nucleus. 
2. A pure  chemical substance  composed  of atoms  with  the same  number of protons   in the atomic nucleus. Sometimes this concept is called the elementary substance as distinct  from the chemical element as defined under 1,  but mostly the term chemical element is used for both  concepts.  
La  première  définition  est  retenue  par  les  programmes  scolaires  
français,  elle  se  traduit  par  :  «  Catégorie  d'atomes  :  tous  les atomes  
dont  le  noyau  possède le  même  nombre  de  protons  »

from http://documents.irevues.inist.fr/bitstream/handle/2042/23982/DIDASKALIA_2008_32_117.pdf?sequence=1 : translation of the text is french « the first def is used by every french teaching programs, it translates to « category of atoms, every atoms whose kernel has the same numbes of protons » wgich is exacsly what I say. author TomT0m / talk page 16:22, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

references that provide definitions using words are unlikely to be precise enough to definitively answer these questions. We are trying to define "subclass" and "instance" (and possibly other) relationships in a way that makes logical sense. What we have now clearly doesn't. In French, does it make logical sense to say "X est un hydrogène"? What do you think that would mean? Whereas I think "X est un atome d'hydrogène" is clear, and different in meaning. So "hydrogen" "subclass of" "atom" does not seem right. "hydrogen atom" "subclass of" "atom" does. If we follow your suggestion, what would we do with the wikidata item for "hydrogen atom"? Merge it with "hydrogen" (but we can't due to the wikilinks)? ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:15, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"X est un hydrogène" would mean « X is a kind of hydrogen », hence a subtype. It’s meaningless in other acceptations. Why would Wikidata bother about meaningless stuffs ? author TomT0m / talk page 07:16, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

because that is what P31 means. According to Wikidata:Relation between properties in RDF and in Wikidata, P31 means the same as "rdf:type", and according to the SPARQL standard for example - rdf:type can be abbreviated 'a', as in ?x a :class is the same as ?x rdf:type :class. If "hydrogène" covers "kinds" of hydrogen, rather than just "hydrogen atoms", then a particular hydrogen atom cannot be "a" "hydrogène", and therefore "hydrogène" cannot represent the class of atoms, it must mean something else. ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:11, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

significant updates[edit]

Notified participants of WikiProject Physics

Notified participants of WikiProject Chemistry

@Pamputt, D1gggg, TomT0m: Please see the latest draft ontology for elements, nuclides and chemicals - I have included both my own version described above, and what I believe TomT0m is suggesting. The actual impact of our differences is not huge, but the details do matter a bit here. Both of them imply the removal of a lot of the existing statements on elements and nuclides, and restoring some of what d1g removed. Please comment on the talk page of the draft, thanks! ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:16, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree on 1.1 and 1.2; I also added

⟨ gemstone (Q83437)  

 ⟩ subclass of (P279) ⟨ natural physical object (Q16686022)  

 ⟩

(or it should be Q7946). No comments on other parts. d1g (talk) 20:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just chiming in after the storm: intuitively I would use both P31 and P279 on hydrogen (Q556), probably with different target items. The P31 would link to an element (possibly via P279*) that represent the class of all the "funny squares that you find in the Mendeleiev table" (I think they are called chemical elements but I have no idea if chemical element (Q11344) is suited for that). The P279 would link (again via P279*) to the class of all atoms, or physical particles, or whatever. But I am neither a physicist nor a philosopher. Anyway, it would be useful to be able to isolate all the "cells of the Mendeleiev table" with a simple P31/P279* query, so that we could also state with properties for this type (P1963) all the data that they are supposed to have. And I find it quite natural to treat isotopes as subclasses of these. It seems possible to reuse the best of both approaches in a consistent way. − Pintoch (talk) 16:58, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

still not working[edit]

Hi, I come back to my initial request; there are still plenty of holes in the nuclide chart. I skip the discussion above at some point and I do not understand wether something was decided. If so, could you process the nuclides that are missing in the nuclide chart? Pamputt (talk) 19:45, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate your weighing in on the rough plan, either one of them - essentially the solution will require reverting pretty much all d1g's changes to nuclide P31/P279 statements and while I personally think that's necessary I'm reluctant to do that without more of a weight of opinion from the community here. ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:19, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

You may interesting about Wikidata:WikiProject Association football/Discussion about properties. Xaris333 (talk) 22:39, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Xaris333 - I've read the discussion there, I have to say I don't know very much about football or really any sports competitions in general, but it seems to me the competition structure you outline at the top makes sense (I assume those are subclass relations) and I think the rest follows logically. I don't understand what TomT0m is saying there about not using P3450, that seems like the right relationship to me. ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:30, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Identifier classification tree[edit]

Thanks for the recent talk. Maybe this tree helps a bit. Each DE, FR are country codes, specifically ISO 2-letter codes. Each is subclass of ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code. To inherit all superclass properties it is needed that ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code is a subclass of country code, which in turn is subclass of UID. 213.39.164.36 23:04, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Calling "DE" a class seems a very odd way of thinking about it. Also, what "superclass properties" do you find useful for "DE" to inherit? The subclasses can't inherit the external ids (for example the freebase ID for ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code). There's not much else on any of these wikidata items that seems particularly relevant. More fundamentally, to my mind, is we seem to have a dispute about the meaning of "unique identifier". We can think of a class as a collection, but if everything that is a code used to identify something qualifies to be in the "unique identifier" collection, that collection becomes full of a huge number of duplicate codes that identify different things - i.e. they are very definitely no longer unique. If "DE" is a unique identifier in the collection you are calling the class "unique identifier", how do we know whether it is talking about Germany (ISO 3166-1 alpha-2) or Delaware (FIPS 5-2 US state code) or something completely different? The specific codes are ONLY "unique" within a context of a specific "identifier" - such as ISO 3166-1 alpha-2, which I would view as the collection (class) containing the specific instances of codes. I.e. to me it is very clear "DE" is an instance of "ISO 3166-1 alpha-2" which should be one way or another an "instance of" "unique identifier". But apparently there is disagreement on this. You are advocating for something that makes no sense to me at all - and property inheritance seems terribly unconvincing as a reason. ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:17, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strange statements[edit]

making ISO 639-3 code 'ara' an instance of ISO 639-2 code [1]
turning specific subclass of UID into less specific subclass of machine-readable data [2]
making language code a subclass of machine-readable data - (can humans not read language codes?) [3]
[4]

There are no items about instances of UIDs. The instances are printed on books, written on paper, etc.

same target value for P279 AND P2283. RDF datatype IRI (Q31385480)subclass of (P279)Internationalized Resource Identifier (Q424583) AND RDF datatype IRI (Q31385480)uses (P2283)Internationalized Resource Identifier (Q424583) [5] 77.179.153.106 17:36, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to argue that d1g is doing a good job here, I've disputed some of his edits before, he made a big mess among the isotopes that is still not cleaned up. ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:19, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Erroneous coordinate locations added by APSbot[edit]

Japan Medi-Mental Institute (Q30297094)'s coordinate location is wrong. I went there and there are only residential apartments.
Institute of Applied Energy (Q30267470)'s coordinate location is wrong. I went there and there is nothing but a bank. The facility is actually kilometers away.
Veterinary Medical Center (Q30281039)'s coordinate location is wrong. I went there and there is nothing but residential buildings and a few small companies. The item is actually kilometers away.
Same for Chemicals Evaluation and Research Institute (Q30281738), Moritani Scholarship Foundation (Q30272759), Heiwa Nakajima Foundation (Q30297087).

I was a nice sunny day of walk in this very quiet area of Tokyo, but I could not get a picture of these items, as they were not there.

Maybe the data source used by your bot is wrong, or some erroneous geocoding took place? In any case, would you mind removing the erroneous data? (for the items above and for the others that might have the same problem).

Thanks a lot! :-) Syced (talk) 08:16, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Syced: Hi - these and the other coordinates were stated with a reference, to the GRID database release. If you follow the GRID ID link you'll see where the GRID app maps these to. The problem is probably an uncertainty issue, which they are not providing. But it is stated information in that source directly from the json dump of their data so according to wikidata policy I don't think it's wrong to leave it there. However you might want to deprecate these entries based on your personal experience. ArthurPSmith (talk) 12:55, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Property creation[edit]

Hi Arthur,

I think it's good you closed the other proposal. At least, this way we can move ahead. I hope you don't mind too much that I listed it for deletion.
--- Jura 06:37, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind at all, thanks. ArthurPSmith (talk) 10:48, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal waiting[edit]

Hello Arthur,

please have a look at this proposal. It's the same as this but affects an other German state - and is waiting since one whole week. Plese tell me, if something is wrong whis my proposal. Thanks --Quarz (talk) 11:20, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

well I don't think I've ever been to Bremen, but I've been to Bayern many times! :) I did leave a comment about the id format - from the page I went to for your example, the full ID did seem to have the leading 4 0's as part of the ID. Has that not been used elsewhere? ArthurPSmith (talk) 13:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Bremen is not as big as Bayern. But people who came here say, that its nice. :) Thank you for your contructive comment. I have answered it. Bremen and Bremerhaven will never have 10.000 or more cultural heritage monuments. So we decided to shorten the id to the significant digits. --Quarz (talk) 14:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OpenRefine demo: incoming new features[edit]

Hi Arthur,

As the OpenRefine demo is coming up next month I thought you'd be interested to know that I have been working on a few features that are relevant:

importing wiki tables: basically, OpenRefine now understands the wikicode of tables and can pre-reconcile the cells of such tables based on the wiki-links in the cells. The idea is that this can be useful when migrating manually-maintained tables to Listeria-based tables. It's still not as flexible as I would like (Wikitables can be very messy!) but the basic functionality is ready.
editing Wikidata from OpenRefine: it lets users import datasets in Wikidata with the same UI that they use to add statements manually. They can just drag and drop table columns as values in the statements they add, and these columns will be replaced by their values for each reconciled item. For now this feature relies on QuickStatements but the plan is to bypass that and make edits directly from OpenRefine.

You can try these features on the wikidata-extension branch of the OpenRefine repository. For the second one, you should get a "Wikidata" menu in the top right corner, with a "Edit Wikibase schema" action. Then, you can add statements and save the schema (hopefully it's intuitive enough). Once that is done, you can export to QuickStatements.

I'm not sure if these features will be properly released before WikidataCon, but I guess that gives some idea of what sort of things the tool is heading to.

Also, I have started Wikidata:Tools/OpenRefine to advertise a bit the tool to the community - feel free to improve if you have time.

Cheers − Pintoch (talk) 19:46, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Pintoch: - I was just starting to try the wikidata-extension branch and hit a classLoader error:

SLF4J: Class path contains multiple SLF4J bindings.
SLF4J: Found binding in [jar:file:/Users/apsmith/src/OpenRefine/server/lib/slf4j-log4j12-1.5.6.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder.class]
SLF4J: Found binding in [jar:file:/Users/apsmith/src/OpenRefine/main/webapp/WEB-INF/lib/slf4j-log4j12-1.5.6.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder.class]
SLF4J: See http://www.slf4j.org/codes.html#multiple_bindings for an explanation.
SLF4J: Actual binding is of type [org.slf4j.impl.Log4jLoggerFactory]
SLF4J: The requested version 1.5.6 by your slf4j binding is not compatible with [1.6, 1.7]
SLF4J: See http://www.slf4j.org/codes.html#version_mismatch for further details.
Exception in thread "main" java.lang.LinkageError: loader constraint violation: when resolving method "org.slf4j.impl.StaticLoggerBinder.getLoggerFactory()Lorg/slf4j/ILoggerFactory;" the class loader (instance of edu/mit/simile/butterfly/ButterflyClassLoader) of the current class, org/slf4j/LoggerFactory, and the class loader (instance of org/mortbay/jetty/webapp/WebAppClassLoader) for resolved class, org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder, have different Class objects for the type LoggerFactory; used in the signature

Any ideas how to fix this? How much of this is in the main branch now (which does work for me)? ArthurPSmith (talk) 13:59, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, and something's broken with the "cell.cross" GREL action - I just get null pointer exceptions for everything now, even doing exactly the same things that used to work. ???? ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:19, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, "cross" works again, I just had to restart "./refine". Not sure why it didn't work right away, I think that was not a problem last time around. However, in investigating this I did discover the eclipse configuration seems to be broken (some jar files listed in .classpath don't exist for one thing) and running "./refine test" resulted in 1 test broken (related to URL caching). So there seem to be some things needing fixing at least... ArthurPSmith (talk) 16:11, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arthur, sorry yes this branch is a big mess and I will not have much time to clean that up before WikidataCon. I have bitten a bit more than I can chew! I will definitely finish this work at some point. For now, everything on master should be clean (all tests should work, at least they all pass on Travis). That already includes Wikitable import. − Pintoch (talk) 19:53, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok - actually the last couple of comments from me were regarding master, as I couldn't get wikidata-extension branch to run after the build so I switched back to master. Glad to hear the wikitable import bit is in, I may try that for the demo! Do you use eclipse or something else to work on this? ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:58, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I use Eclipse and yes I had issues with the config files too… I suspect the issue you had with the URL caching test could be due to a temporary network issue on your side. − Pintoch (talk) 08:59, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Academic institutions from India[edit]

Hi!

I remember that in Wikidata:WikiProject_Universities/Scope you pointed out that we were missing many institutions from India. I have created Wikidata:WikiProject_Universities/New items which tracks the latest institutions created and a lot of them are from India! It is nice to see that there is activity where we need. Also, I am thinking about migrating Wikidata:WikiProject_Universities/Scope to Listeria-based tables, so that they get updated automatically.

Cheers − Pintoch (talk) 09:32, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

nice! I notice many of them don't have sitelinks, I wonder where they're coming from? ArthurPSmith (talk) 11:59, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

by the way I updated the first few (13) countries on the list with the latest numbers from the query; India has definitely greatly increased its count since you ran that before, although it's clearly still missing a lot. China should have at least 2000, so it's missing a lot too. And I don't really believe Poland has more academic institutions than Germany, France, or Russia, so I expect there are a lot missing from some of those countries still too. ArthurPSmith (talk) 12:47, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GRID references[edit]

Hi Arthur. Your bot created GRID Release 2017-05-22 (Q30141628), which is used in a number of articles. In an enwp discussion it was pointed out that the references generated from this were very confusing - in particular, the URL doesn't go to a GRID URL, but to figshare, which isn't very user-friendly. Would it be possible to use a URL to a grid webpage instead for this, or otherwise improve the information in entries like this so that it can be used to generate more useful references? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:08, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike - I assumed including the direct GRID link in the reference was redundant since it's there in the external ID section, but I could add that, sure. ArthurPSmith (talk) 02:34, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That would be useful, please. The DOI in the infobox also seems to point to Figshare rather than GRID, though. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 13:53, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it would be good practice to put as reference the identifier the statement was drawn from. That is useful even if the identifier itself is input as a statement, for a lot of reasons. If identifier X happens to be wrong, it is easy to remove everything that was derived from X - and recursively: if another identifier Y was derived from X, we should remove all statements derived from Y, and so on… My identifier edits (adding an ISNI from a GRID, or adding a Ringgold from an ISNI) have already been reverted multiple times because the source identifier was wrong, so it would definitely be useful in these cases. Unless it has already been done, I think it would make sense to formalize that as an "essay" or something like that. − Pintoch (talk) 12:06, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Peel: the DOI points to the permanent data repository for that edition of GRID - it happens to be on figshare, that's where you would download it. It is I think exactly what you want in a source reference: a persistent identifier pointing to the source. That source (where the GRID dataset is downloaded from) is exactly where the bot that entered these values got the information from so it really is the source of the information. However, I can appreciate people like to have more direct dereferenceable links. But I would add that only as a convenience, the source entry right now is accurate and complete. ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:35, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Pintoch: are you suggesting to use GRID ID (P2427) rather than reference URL (P854) to provide the link? That's reasonable I think, and it does actually add slightly to the specificity of the source reference, so it makes some sense also for future tracking as you suggest. ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:36, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would use GRID ID (P2427) directly as a reference (probably along with GRID Release 2017-05-22 (Q30141628)). − Pintoch (talk) 14:57, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

stated in (P248) -> GRID (Q27982662), GRID ID (P2427) -> number, edition number (P393) -> GRID Release 2017-05-22 (Q30141628) would be better from my perspective, but that might be getting a bit too complex. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:19, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Pintoch, Mike Peel: I've pulled in about 1400 new institutions from the latest GRID release and used this method in the source fields, does it look ok? See for example Federación Alba Andalucía (Q41568673). I don't currently have a bot script to update old records along these lines but I'll look into that next. ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:03, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure this helps much - try {{wikidata|references|Q41568673|P571}} on enwp... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:22, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's an issue with Wikipedia's rendering of the Wikidata citation, we cannot do much about that in Wikidata. I think the citations are great like that, thanks Arthur! − Pintoch (talk) 08:16, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata:Property proposal/VBL Spieler-ID[edit]

Hello there! May I have this property created now? Thierry Caro (talk) 13:29, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going through the backlog and trying to get the ones that have been hanging around the longest or which otherwise have a lot of support done first - it takes a while to do each one! I'm sure I'll get to it soon, unless somebody else does first... ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:25, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can deal with the declarations on the property itself and all the rest. I just need the creation per se. But OK. I guess I'll wait. We have a lot of sports properties rady if you want to take care of them. Thierry Caro (talk) 14:31, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Thierry Caro: Ok, see VBL people ID (P4298). ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:50, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, and thank you. May I now get Wikidata:Property proposal/SpeedskatingResults.com ID, and possibly the few other sports properties that are ready for creation? Again, I'll take them even with absolutely no development on your behalf. Thierry Caro (talk) 13:37, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These others that are ready are Wikidata:Property proposal/SwimSwam ID, Wikidata:Property proposal/Scottish Sports Hall of Fame ID, Wikidata:Property proposal/Eliteprospects.com staff ID. Would you mind providing me with these too? I'm ready to deal with them. Thierry Caro (talk) 16:36, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to leave new properties hanging with no attributes though. I could work on this tomorrow (Tuesday October 10) - what is a good time (UTC) that you could do the fixing up if I create them? ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:45, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tomorrow is complicated. If you have time right now, I'm OK. Otherwise later in the week. Thank you whatever. Thierry Caro (talk) 20:51, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, OK. There are only two left and I'll be online today, Western European time, to deal with them. Thierry Caro (talk) 08:54, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Thierry Caro: ok, see properties 4318 and 4319. ArthurPSmith (talk) 12:41, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK.

Done Thank you. Thierry Caro (talk) 14:31, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again! May I get Wikidata:Property proposal/DSMHOF ID as an empty property? I'm ready to deal with it. Thierry Caro (talk) 12:19, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Thierry Caro: Ok - Delaware Sports Hall of Fame ID (P4363) ArthurPSmith (talk) 12:23, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'm actually going to need the help of your URL formatting tool for this property. The # part of IDs messes things up. The URLs Wikidata generates turn this into %23. Thierry Caro (talk) 13:45, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

it should work as is just subbing in this property number and the proper URL - I've updated the formatter URL already to do this, can you check it? ArthurPSmith (talk) 13:52, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It's now working. Many thanks. Thierry Caro (talk) 13:56, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May I possibly also get Wikidata:Property proposal/Georgia Sports Hall of Fame ID now? This one should work perfectly straight away. Thierry Caro (talk) 15:28, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

looks like you spotted it already - done! ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:41, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again! Wikidata:Property proposal/Soccerdonna ID and Wikidata:Property proposal/LFB ID are ready and I'm ready to deal with them. Would you mind having a look at them? Thierry Caro (talk) 17:32, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok! ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:45, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. May I get Wikidata:Property proposal/Women's Collegiate Tennis Hall of Fame ID too? I can deal with it. Thierry Caro (talk) 19:51, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, see P4402 - however, I'm probably done for today. ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:04, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Today I can deal with Wikidata:Property proposal/NLBPA ID. Would you be OK to initiate this other property? Thierry Caro (talk) 19:05, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK. This has been done by someone else. Whatever, and of course if you are still OK, I'll need you a few more times before we're done with the current batch of new properties to create. I'll let you know soon again. Thierry Caro (talk) 02:15, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. We're almost done. Next one to be created could be Wikidata:Property proposal/Ontario Sports Hall of Fame ID. May you have a look there? Thierry Caro (talk) 18:04, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also take care of Wikidata:Property proposal/New Zealand Sport Hall of Fame, of course if you can create this too. Thierry Caro (talk) 20:17, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quora username[edit]

Please would you review the consensus at Wikidata:Property proposal/Quora username and act according to it, as soon as convenient? I wish to include the outcome in my WikidataCon presentation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:10, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Quora username (P4411). I need to work on my wikidatacon stuff so not sure I'll have time for any more this week! ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:12, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's great; thank you. See you in Berlin! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:20, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A new ID for photographers[edit]

Hi, I saw you created an ID specific for photographer and you are interested in science. Could you please leave a comment on en:w:Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Photography#A_new_ID_for_wikidata, if it interestes you. Thank you in advance.--Alexmar983 (talk) 05:50, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chart of nuclides[edit]

Hi Arthur, I have a new idea to improve the quality and the usability of the chart of nuclides. I think it would be really interesting to open a popup message when the user over a specific box. This popup would display the information related to the nuclides (half-life, mass, spin-parity, ...). BTW, thanks for having fix all the mess with the nuclide items. Pamputt (talk) 10:46, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I've thought about doing something like that. I don't think it would be too hard to do... Are you offering to look into this? :) ArthurPSmith (talk) 11:15, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Actually I am not sure I am able to find time to help you on this task. I am already involved in other stuff I would like to finish first. That's said, I keep in mind this task and if you do not implement this soon, I could come back to you in few months. Note that we still need to add several nuclear data, such as atomic mass, binding energy (P2154),mass excess (P2160), ... All this data are available here. Pamputt (talk) 12:29, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relations[edit]

About last edits, from my set theory course book: "Any set R is a binary relation if and only if its members are ordered couples. It's called domain the set of the first elements in said couples, range or codomain the set of the second elements in the couples" (The book also reports the proofs of the existence of said sets).

So, any binary relation (Q130901) R is part of (P361) of the Cartesian product (Q173740) dom R x rng R . Conversely, a Cartesian product (Q173740) is a (subclass of (P279)) binary relation (Q130901) because its elements are ordered couples. I can't miss to notice the intricacies and apparent loops due to lack of ways to refer directly to objects in specific statements or nesting triples.

For example, n-tuple (Q600590) are a subclass of ordered pair (Q191290), since the same book above define them by induction on ordered couple. How could we model that? --Ogoorcs (talk) 14:58, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ogoorcs: It's important to remember the meanings of the subclass and instance properties. "relation" is a class, whose instances are specific relations. "Cartesian product" is a class, whose instances are specific cartesian products. So while a specific relation can be described as a subset of a specific Cartesian product, that means in general a relation is not a Cartesian product, but a subset of one. If you were looking at a specific relation (for example a simple function like square (Q111124) on a specific domain, say set of real numbers (Q26851380)) then you could add a statement that in a sense this function is a subclass of the cartesian product of its domain and range. However, that doesn't seem a very useful statement to make in the specific case. And when you go up to the class level that subclass relation is not true, the relation is not a cartesian product in general, but a subset of it. As to tuple and ordered pair - you can certainly define a tuple that way, but it is a warping of definitions to make that a subclass relationship: an ordered pair is an ordered set with exactly 2 elements, while a tuple can have any finite number of elements, so the subclass relation goes the other way. ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ArthurPSmith: I agree that relations are not cartesian products, instead subsets of cartesian products, so binary relation (Q130901) is part of (P361) Cartesian product (Q173740) (this is what Elementi di teoria degli insiemi (Q42886736) says!). Every relation is part of a cartesian product in set theory. EDIT: of course it does not mean that every relation is is part of every cartesian product, but every relation is part of a certain cartesian products.

What do you mean as warping of definitions? In set theory, tuple ARE ordered couples defined recursively (see on enwiki); for coherence's stake that is the correct definition. Could you help me model correctly this information in tuple page? --Ogoorcs (talk) 15:57, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The enwiki page provides several different definitions, only one of which is the ordered pair recursion one. In the computer-science sense (which is part of the meaning of tuple in wikipedia and so in wikidata also) a tuple has to be different from an ordered pair, because while one of the elements of a pair may be a list (and so allow recursion) that is a concretely different object. (1,2,3) is NOT equal to (1,(2,3)). There is an extra step involved in going from (1,(2,3)) to (1,2,3), some form of list concatenation. This is obscured in the math definition you highlight, but it is a real distinction. There is no need to model any of this confusion on the tuple page. ArthurPSmith (talk) 16:04, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are three definitions: one as functions (which mathematically are relations), one as ordered pairs recursion and one as sets recursion, which are equivalent and both from kuratowski, actually. I didn't understood what you said about lists and the need for not considering tuple as recursive ordered pairs. So, to you mathematics is not to be modeled in Wikidata? --Ogoorcs (talk) 16:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata is about a lot more than mathematics. In any case, somebody already added defining formula (P2534) in this case which provides the definition you like - perhaps you can add a reference to that, but I don't see that any more is needed. "Ordered pair" is clearly a subclass of "tuple", so that relationship between the two is fine and already exists in wikidata. ArthurPSmith (talk) 16:22, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is not fine, because in set theory tuple are ordered couple and not viceversa, going the other way will soon get you in loops and omitting inclusions is not an optimal way to avoid them. Example:

you want to say that tuples are sequences? Well, ordered couples are tuple, which are sequences, which are functions, which are binary relations, which are sets of ordered couples. Loop.

If wikidata has to describe mathematics it has to use its concepts. Mathematical theories use sets and classes.

Otherwise we need other items, for tuple in elementary set theory and for tuple far each mathematics foundational theory.

This brings another point, which is that probably Wikidata doesn't have enough expressiveness, as it is now, to express many meaningful things in mathematics. -- Ogoorcs (talk) 18:20, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Subclass and instance relations are not a proxy for the logical development of mathematics by definitions etc. In fact rather the reverse - the more abstract or general concepts (defined via definitions) tend to be the classes or superclasses of more concrete things which would be the general logical origin of any definitions. Also note what you have pointed out here is not an ontological loop because a "set of ordered couples" is not the same thing as one "ordered couple". However, are you asserting that an ordered pair is not an example of a tuple? An ordered set with two elements is surely both a tuple and an ordered pair, right? ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:47, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, could you rephrase the first two sentences?

"Any ordered couple being a set of ordered couple" is indeed a loop, just iterate. After a few times you get that any ordered couple is a set of a set of a set of a set of ordered couples, which is false and in general it's recursive because you're describing an element using itself, which is (in some case unfortunately) now forbidden.

Anyway, I think I've found what's the problem here. With Kuratowski definition, (t+1)-uples are a subclass of tuples; in fact triples are a proper subclass of ordered couples because there are no restrictions on what can be in a couple, while triples must have a couple as first element.

So from a mathematics foundation theory point of view, since (t+1)-uples are nested in t-uple up to 2-uples, a generic t-uple element (with t not specified) and ordered couples just form the same class and are indeed the same thing.

Aaaand this is why we need at least two distinct items for ordered couples :-D --Ogoorcs (talk) 02:45, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ogoorcs: Ok, a number of issues here -

Rephrasing: Wikidata is a structured database of information about the world. It is not a mathematical definition/proof system. In particular, the subclass and instance of (P279 and P31) properties have specific ontological meanings within wikidata, with logical entailment (which could for example be implemented via RDF + OWL) including a partial ordering on the subclass relation. That very clearly requires that if A P279 B, then A is "smaller than or the same as" B, and if A P279 B and B P279 A then A and B are the same thing. What you have done by stating "ordered pair" P279 "tuple" and "tuple" P279 "ordered pair" is to logically entail that "ordered pair" and "tuple" are identical. This is wrong. It has absolutely no bearing on how the various different entities are defined in mathematics. Mathematics proceeds from axioms (the set theory axioms being a common starting point) and defines and builds structures on top of those starting elements. Often these definitions are done by some sort of extension process (like recursion) that creates something more general out of something very specific - for example the construction of the real numbers. Real numbers are defined in terms of the natural numbers (in their constructive definitions, either via the rational numbers or decimal representations), but it is completely false to say that real numbers are therefore a subclass of natural numbers. Rather the other way around - the mathematical definition/generalization process is here creating the class or superclass from a more specific subclass or instance. This is a very general observation: the things closest to real world objects which would form the basis of defining anything else are generally at the lowest, not the highest levels of the wikidata class hierarchy.
Either "Any ordered couple being a set of ordered couple" makes sense, or it doesn't, there's no additional sense or nonsense added by iterating. And the "sense" of the statement comes from the path taken to get to it: let's take (9, 17) as our ordered pair. Obviously it's also a tuple, and a sequence of length 2. Sequences are functions on the natural numbers, so the function here is the one that takes the value 1 to the value 9, 2 to the value 17, and is undefined for all other values. As a binary relation that can be expressed as {(1,9), (2,17)}. Which is clearly a set of ordered pairs, as demanded. Now in what sense is (9, 17) the same as {(1,9), (2,17)}? It is the same in the sense that the latter is expressing a function that is the defining function for a sequence. That process of slightly modified meaning up the class chain is a perfectly normal process of more abstract representation. There is no ambiguity or loss in this, it works and makes sense.
You mention Kuratowski (and have added that named person as a reference in statements in the item for tuple) but not an actual source - please provide some sort of work, not just a name. "Stated in" a "person" is invalid as a reference (and you should note the constraint violation there).
You appear to indeed be asserting that "ordered pair" and "tuple" are the same thing. Therefore you should not express this via P279, but should use said to be the same as (P460) with the references you have provided for this.
You once again removed sequence (Q133250) as superclass for tuple, rather than adding an additional P279 statement. If you insist on references I can certainly add some for this, even though it seems obvious. More concerning is that this is your third revert of me on this in the last day, which is clear edit warring.

ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:25, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh - one more thing: () is a tuple. Also (X). How are either of these an ordered pair? ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:34, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Truncating aliases for elements?[edit]

Hi, I'm not trying to do any automated or semiautomated edits; some descriptions of elements in Polish had atomic numbers in it, some had periodic groups, most of elements had only 'chemical element' and per WD helpage, description field is meant only for disambiguation purpose. In this case 'chemical element' is sufficient and (now) identical for all elements (in Polish). Any other information, like atomic number or periodic group, can be (and is) properly indicated using properties. Also, I don't know how it would be possible in the future to use WD 'aliases' field in pl.wikipedia (in chemical element infobox or other templates), if there are entries in that field which are not in fact 'other names'. Chemical element's symbol is indicated in property and that's IMHO sufficient. Regards, Wostr (talk) 21:52, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On the descriptions I guess that's ok to try to be consistent, and it is good to keep descriptions short. Aliases are however useful for search purposes (both in the wikidata UI and the API) - searching doesn't look at property values, so by removing those from aliases you may make it hard for Polish wikidata users to find the elements. ArthurPSmith (talk) 22:33, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Survey of Scottish Witchcraft[edit]

Hi,

Could I trouble you to review Wikidata:Property proposal/Survey of Scottish Witchcraft - Person ID, please? A prompt decision was requested by the proponent, who has people waiting to carry out the data upload. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:04, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Survey of Scottish Witchcraft - Person ID (P4524) is done! ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:36, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:04, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The terms[edit]

Hello.Please help here.Thank you David (talk) 17:28, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi newbie![edit]

Stop vandalising! Not every musician is a performer! ~~Idiot, you!~~ 213.39.186.16 15:31, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for changing the claims. Please take care with whom you call vandal (see project chat). It may heavily backfire. Best regards, you are able to learn, very good. Hope we can fix the classification (also of the identifiers messed up by JakobVoss). 77.180.22.68 19:18, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page vandalism[edit]

Your talk page had been vandalised: https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ArthurPSmith&diff=605444912&oldid=605443951 77.180.22.68 19:14, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I hear your name is Tobias. What did you do to get yourself banned? Stuff like this? Why do you keep trying to edit here then? ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:17, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My name isn't Tobias, you heard the wrong voice talking to you. I am not trying, I am doing. You faker. 77.180.22.68 19:21, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on administrators noticeboard[edit]

Hi, there.

Let's answer about the fact that that in some cases I added informations without providing source. At my beginnings it was true; I accept I have done errors; but I have paid for this (I have been blocked for a week), and I have taken a responsible, careful and rigorous attitude, so I'm quits with it. Please keep in mind that the request is not about me, and that DDR3 is obviously attempting of create a diversion by (one more time) slandering me and spreading kilometers of bytes; and please consider that I endure this tracking from DDR3 since months. Also, I refuse categorically to get in contact with DDR3, who has a so despicable behavior regarding myself and uses so dirty methods. Do not hesistate if you have more questions. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 21:21, 8 December 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Property proposal labels[edit]

I can edit labels and descriptions in all the languages I've got on my Babel box, but I can't display any labels in languages other than English on a property proposal page. Where do you go in the preferences to enable that? Deryck Chan (talk) 21:13, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Deryck Chan: I believe it's set in Preferences -> User Profile -> Internationalisation, there's a Language drop-down there. At least I have mine set to "English" and everything appears in English everywhere for me, so I'm assuming that's the reason. Might want to check with a non-English user though on this if it doesn't work for you! ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:47, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On how to handle branches[edit]

Hello! I've been meaning to come around here for a while, but I always end up distracted by something else, and then it's too late. You undid one of my edits a while ago (I really don't even remember what it was), and it called my attention for a recurrent problem I have found: that of branches, basically in languages and disciplines. So, we have English (Q1860) as a subclass of (P279) Anglic (Q1346342), but also as part of (P361) Anglic (Q1346342). As for disciplines, there is the additional issue of having them split as instance of (P31) academic discipline (Q11862829), specialty (Q1047113) or branch of science (Q2465832), which is a whole different mess, but makes it harder to keep track of them. Anyway, I have noticed a predominant use of P279 over P361, but it seems to depend mostly on personal preferences right now. What are your thoughts about this? Andreasm ^{háblame / just talk to me} 03:38, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Andreasmperu: I've reverted a lot of people in the last couple of weeks to try to fix problems on this list! I see you've been helping with some of those problem edits too, so thanks! On branches and P279 vs P361 - I guess I'm a little fuzzy, but my guiding principle is "can you think of this entity as a set or collection of things" (i.e. as a class) and then if the set of things that make up one of them is a subset of the set of things that make up the "bigger" one, then P279 makes sense. For a language you could think of the speakers of the language as the defining set (but we wouldn't say a speaker was an "instance of" the language) - maybe this also applies with "works" or other things that are "in the language"? Anyway, if the set of speakers (or works etc) for language A was included in the set for language B, then I think A subclass B would be appropriate. For example Swiss German (Q387066) subclass of (P279) Alemannic (Q131339) seems fine to me. But for the subclass relationship to work both A and B need to be kind of the same thing - a "language". The problem with Anglic (Q1346342) is it is not a language, but a "language group". So subclass in that case seems wrong to me. But these are rather subtle questions and maybe best handled by somebody with actual expertise in the field - linguistics I guess here. ArthurPSmith (talk) 13:49, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:ArthurPSmith/Archive/4

Contents

chart of nuclides[edit]

significant updates[edit]

still not working[edit]

Discussion[edit]

Identifier classification tree[edit]

Strange statements[edit]

Erroneous coordinate locations added by APSbot[edit]

Property creation[edit]

Proposal waiting[edit]

OpenRefine demo: incoming new features[edit]

Academic institutions from India[edit]

GRID references[edit]

Wikidata:Property proposal/VBL Spieler-ID[edit]

Quora username[edit]

A new ID for photographers[edit]

Chart of nuclides[edit]

Relations[edit]

Truncating aliases for elements?[edit]

Survey of Scottish Witchcraft[edit]

The terms[edit]

Hi newbie![edit]

Talk page vandalism[edit]

Request on administrators noticeboard[edit]

Property proposal labels[edit]

On how to handle branches[edit]

Navigation menu

User talk:ArthurPSmith/Archive/4

chart of nuclides[edit]

significant updates[edit]

still not working[edit]

Discussion[edit]

Identifier classification tree[edit]

Strange statements[edit]

Erroneous coordinate locations added by APSbot[edit]

Property creation[edit]

Proposal waiting[edit]

OpenRefine demo: incoming new features[edit]

Academic institutions from India[edit]

GRID references[edit]

Wikidata:Property proposal/VBL Spieler-ID[edit]

Quora username[edit]

A new ID for photographers[edit]

Chart of nuclides[edit]

Relations[edit]

Truncating aliases for elements?[edit]

Survey of Scottish Witchcraft[edit]

The terms[edit]

Hi newbie![edit]

Talk page vandalism[edit]

Request on administrators noticeboard[edit]

Property proposal labels[edit]

On how to handle branches[edit]

Navigation menu

Search