User talk:Infovarius/Archive/2014

parent taxon (P171)

Do you really think am already working with it? Less than a tenth of items with taxon name (P225) has parent taxon (P171). Have fun. --Succu (talk) 21:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

[1] Your dicussing style is strange... --Succu (talk) 21:35, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I just defend useful report. Look at Wrong types - there is a finite set of errors which can be corrected if we have such constraint. --Infovarius (talk) 21:42, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Sure there are one or two dozen issues revealed via types statistics. And then you start to fix the other 50082 violations? --Succu (talk) 23:09, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Why exactly are violations bad? Why exactly does someone need to be actively fixing them for them to be generated? --Izno (talk) 23:35, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I think violations should motivate people to fix them, not to encourage them by the sheer number. Did you ever tried to fix more than 10,000 constraint violations? I did! (eg. P74 (P74)). A step be by step aproach (eg. IUCN conservation status (P141)) is more helpful. --Succu (talk) 23:49, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

And so the both of you edit war over what is essentially a different preference. Really?… I've hand-deprecated ship type and am now working to clean all of these bot-imported links. I know how painful it is to slog through a mess. That doesn't mean we should cover the mess up. No-one is going to be motivated to fix them if they aren't even known about. The violations just are, while you seem to think that that means something more than it does. All it means is that there is something that needs to be cleaned up. Nothing more and nothing less. If you have suggestions on how people could best spend their time, maybe that should be something put on WD:WikiProject Taxonomy or WD:Community portal. --Izno (talk) 00:02, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Dear Izno, thanks for calling me or my action „dumb”. The matter was allready discussed a little time ago. Than our host added the constraint again. I tried to talk with him, but got no answer. He added it as a comment again. To my astonishment the out commented constraint was processed, so I removed it. This was reverted four days later. I tried again to communicate.

Most of the issues could be resolved by a bot run. So it's a waste of time todo it manually. Especially if it's done the wrong way. Regards --Succu (talk) 13:44, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Your action was dumb. (You are not.) This is because you know better than to edit war, especially if you're smart enough to attempt to discuss the issue. Regardless of where it was discussed, apparently he thinks differently. And in fact, the discussion there included three people; hardly the consensus necessary to edit war, if such a consensus exists for most things (vandalism, perhaps). If you are having problems communicating with any user, you know to raise a comment at WD:AN.

That aside, I happen to agree with his goals, if not the fact that he also edit warred, so suddenly your consensus of 2 versus 1 is now 2 versus 2. In that case, you should have raised the discussion again at WD:WikiProject Taxonomy or elsewhere. This is regardless of the practicality of fixing the constraints by hand versus with a bot, and it's his prerogative to fix it how he chooses, or how any person chooses (as I said before, if no-one knows about a problem, it's not going to get fixed by any one).

@Infovarius: Clearly you need to be more communicative. I suggest you talk more in the future. And if you should have a problem with another user, please notify an administrator or WD:AN. --Izno (talk) 15:02, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

A lot of work you are willing to do. Constrain page loading will be awesome. Making them useless. Again: have fun. --Succu (talk) 21:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Q9042797

I didn't notice that these are templates. I mixed mistakenly between the two. Makki98 (talk) 00:46, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Nolinoideae (Q161408)

Please do not add wrong statements. Thanks. --Succu (talk) 09:15, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Ruscaceae=Nolinoideae? I was trying to fix this, because there are 2 items and 2 categories in Commons. Now they are mixed again. --Infovarius (talk) 09:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

It depends: Nolinoideae of Asparagaceae s.l. are Ruscaceae s.l., Ruscaceae s.str. is a different circumscription. --Succu (talk) 10:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok. Please describe in items as appropriate. Infovarius (talk) 13:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Xanthomonas (Q15633561)

To delete an item, you can start an request for deletions on WD:RFD or use the gadget RequestDeletion. --Pasleim (talk) 22:02, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes I am reusing deleted items. Infovarius (talk) 14:49, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

administrative division of a state --> table of administrative divisions by country

I guess that your change here https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q1423994&diff=104307207&oldid=103891151 caused the increase of about 36'000 constraint violations here https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata%3ADatabase_reports%2FConstraint_violations%2FP132&diff=104303836&oldid=104044483 . How to proceed? --Zuphilip (talk) 19:25, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

main-namespace page

Wikimedia article page (Q15138389) is only article in Wikimedia, but neither main-namespace page in nonWMF wikis and items. Do you think items are articles? Do you think main pages are articles?--GZWDer (talk) 04:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah, you mean non-Wikimedia wikis also, I see. Infovarius (talk) 20:46, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Q1456631

Please see Talk:Q1456631.

Regards. --. HombreDHojalata.^talk 18:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Пастафарианство

Здравствуйте. В пояснении к правке вы написали: «в статье с маленькой написано». Не пойму никак в какой статье? А даже если где-то с маленькой, ведь реч идёт о названии страницы викидаты на русском языке, и название пишут с большой буквы. Поясните, не пойму логику? --Flint1972 (talk) 20:40, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Очевидно, в русской статье. В Викиданных названием страницы является слово-понятие. Если оно нарицательное, то название пишется с маленькой буквы, если собственное - с большой. Это более точно, чем если без разбора писать везде большую. --Infovarius (talk) 03:36, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Infovarius. You have new messages at Wylve's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Wylve (talk) 11:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Mixing of disambiguation pages and name articles in one item

Hello, I have seen [2]. You mixed clear disambiguation pages with articles about names. Do you know Wikidata:Disambiguation pages task force and the guidelines? I think if you want to change the rule that disambigs and articles should be kept separate on Wikidata, you should discuss first. Holger1959 (talk) 21:22, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Clear? Do you really think that 일리야 can be associated with only one of Ilya/Ilja? And イリヤ? I know that Илья corresponds to both Ilya and Ilja. --Infovarius (talk) 21:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes and no. :) Clear that these pages (es:Ilya, pt:Ilya, ko:일리야 and ja:イリヤ) are disambigs, and not count as name articles for Wikidata like ru:Илья does. Per definition of most Wikipedias a name article, in contrast to pure disambiguations, should contain at least some explaining text (for example about the origin and distribution of the name). But especially enwiki handles this bad in my opinion. They have these set index pages (intermediate between disambig and article). But if you look at many set index pages, often called "name (surname)" or "name (given name)", the only difference between set index pages and real disambigs is a different template. One problem is, that some Wikidata users use these set index pages for disambiguation items, and others use them for article items (like enwiki claims). Either way, we have to decide, and this often breaks formerly existing interwiki links.

So for 일리야/イリヤ I'm not really clear if a further split could make sense. I also sometimes see smaller Wikipedias mixing 2 or more words (sequence of letters) on 1 disambig page, but bigger Wikipedias (enwiki and some others) usually have separated pages for different spellings. Following the Wikidata rules items should only contain links to identical pages (or pages with identical spelling or meanings). So in the strict sense in this case a new disambig item for combined Ilya/Ilja (jawiki and kowiki) would be needed. In the past I left jawiki and kowiki links at the item where they were, only touching them when really wrong. I feel all this is not ideal yet, but every Wikipedia decides if or how it splits and sorts such pages. Wikidata only reflects these structures.

See also some popular names where we have one item for disambiguation (listing maybe people, but also town, volcanos, species, companies, movies, bands, albums etc. with this name), one item for the given name, one item for the family name, and maybe another item for "personal name" (given name and family name on one page, where you can't put it to only one of the other items). – For example see "Michel": disambig Michel (Q408442), given name Michel (Q14626626), family name Michel (Q12036851), and personal name Michel (Q1196473). Holger1959 (talk) 23:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Name article items as subclasses of disambig items

Now I see at Elias (Q1620786) that you added [3] (the name article item is now a subclass of a disambiguation page item). Are you really sure this makes sense? I think you can't use subclass of (P279) for disambiguation items. Holger1959 (talk) 21:33, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

It's just experimental now. But often (in many Wikipedias) name article is just a subset of other meanings of the word. Don't know if part of (P361) would be better. Infovarius (talk) 21:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

as far as I know disambig items should only have instance of (P31) with Wikimedia disambiguation page (Q4167410), nothing else. And subclasses can only be used for items that represent a class/subclass. At the moment there is a break in the subclass tree like:

• name item Elias (Q1620786) = subclass of disambig item for the same spelling Elias (Q1328975)
• --break-- disambig item Elias (Q1328975) is a (P31) Wikimedia disambiguation page (Q4167410), but not a subclass (P279) of it
• Wikimedia disambiguation page = subclass of Wikimedia article page (Q15138389)

I don't think part of (P361) would make a difference. Can a name really be part of a disambiguation? Wouldn't it be needed then to also add "is part of name disambig" to items for all cities, companies or other meanings if a disambiguation exists? don't know if this is wanted. Maybe you can open a discussion at the project chat? Holger1959 (talk) 23:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

QGIS

Hey! Do you have time to move the Russian Quantum GIS page to "QGIS" (ru:Quantum GIS)? The project has officially changed its name. QGIS (Q1329181). Thanks! --Tobias1984 (talk) 10:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Undid revision 112831860 of the Item Germany (Q183)

Hello Infovarius,

You deleted my posts around the property "owner" in the item belonging to Germany Germany (Q183). I think there is a good reason for that. Could you please explain it to me. In my opinion the federal republic of germany is simply the owner of the Railway company "Deutsche Bahn". It. is the same with the other companies I listed. My sources confirm that even the Federal Ministry of Finance considers, the companies are the property of the Federal Republic of Germany.

Therefore it is a true statement to say: the Federal Republic of Germany is the Owner of such companies.

Thanks for the reply and your work that you invest here.

Regards, David

@DavidMar86hdf:, because your statements mean: "Deutsche Bahn" is the owner of Germany. See item about DB - I've placed the correct statement there. Infovarius (talk) 19:49, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

@Infovarius: Thank you for your answer. Did I understand correct, that I have to go to each company`s item to express such an relationship? Is there a good reason why there is no property "owner of". Maybe it is a good idea to express such relationship from both perspectives: the owner and the entity that is owned

Regards, David

I don’t think a property “owner of” would be a good idea. Items like Germany or the US surely have thousands of other items that they own – you can’t add all of these relations, for the practical reason alone that no browser could handle the huge item pages :D (properties like Parent and Child are different because there are only a few items in each relation, and people are usually interested in both directions.) --DSGalaktos (talk) 22:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Q55307

I am not particularly happy with the merge for Discoglossidae (Q55307). Both DISCOGLOSSIDAE and ALYTIDAE can be found in the literature and deserve an item of their own. Whether or not they represent the same taxon is mostly a taxonomic question (dewiki accepts both families, side by side), and Wikidata is not supposed to make taxonomic decisions. The intent is to represent the taxonomic decisions in the literature, and give taxonomic sources. - Brya (talk) 06:04, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I was not happy while finishing merge too :) May be we should divide back (and duplicate some information). --Infovarius (talk) 06:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

That would be safest, but there is no ideal solution in such cases. For the moment there is no outright conflict, but there may arise one any moment. - Brya (talk) 17:45, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, please revert this. At least above genus level, each taxon name should have its own item as nearly always they have represented a different concept once (even if being now considered as synonym).  — Felix Reimann (talk) 11:25, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Abstract object versus concept

This might lead us far away, but : [4] a concept and an abstract object aren't some kind of very close things ? I removed the claim because it seemed redundant, and the abstract object item do kind of have a lose definition as is ... TomT0m ^(talk) 21:26, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Delacour (Q5253061)

Hey. I undid your undeletion. Delacour (Q5253061) is a hamlet, which is in not an administrative entity in Alberta. Your comment there must be some type is just wrong, because P132 (P132) should only be used for adnimistrative entities. Otherwise, please use instance of (P31). --Pasleim (talk) 08:06, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

consists of (P527)

Hi! I believe that has part(s) (P527) should not be used at artist (Q483501) . I posted a message at user talk:Paulbe, please answer there. Thanks in advance! לערי ריינהארט (talk) 10:38, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't have concrete opinion. --Infovarius (talk) 14:58, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Bezirk (Q264441)

you merged with the disambiguation!! I changed back by hand, reset did not work. Can a merge be reverted?--Oursana (talk) 15:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I suppose that these disambiguation are about only administrative units (look into them!), so they are "topical disambigs", so they can be linked with equally-meaning articles. In other words - we can remove template {disambig} from them, and the meanings remain the same. P.S. Reverting a merge is hard though. Infovarius (talk) 10:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I never heard this before, that should at least be discussed on Project chat or the German Forum. Bezirk (Q16531994) there were three disambiguation pages and you changed the labels etc for the nine linked article items + ca about 20 more in different languages. That is certainly not how it works. I never saw a merger of artcle and disambiguation pages. --Oursana (talk) 15:23, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Do not link again, see Wikidata:Forum#mergen von Artikel und Begriffsklärungsseiten: Bezirk (Q264441) Artikel (9), Bezirk (Q16531994) Begriffsklärungsseiten (3)--Oursana (talk) 20:48, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

intellectual work (Q15621286)

on this items talkpage is stated, that it is not subclass of (P279):artificial physical object (Q15222213). Instead you installed this property/qualifier and were reverted with comment on the talk page. I cannot understand what you were thinking about when you created even a duplicate item artificial object (Q16686448) afterwards against your better judgement and used this duplicate again. For me that looks like double vandalism. I made DR and reverted--Oursana (talk) 20:06, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

be-x-old/be-tarask

you have a be-x-old-language babel on your user page. please don't add labels, descriptions or aliases in be-x-old. they should instead be made in be-tarask. see Wikidata:Project_chat#'als'/'gsw'? 'de-formal'?. --Akkakk 06:15, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

capitalization

Hi! I have noticed "иерархия" at https://www.wikidata.org/?diff=11968380&oldid=7567097#top . Are you interested in a list of items where I changed the capitalization in other languages? You may make the changes at languages using the Cyrillic script (Q8209) . If interested I can email you the list. Regards gangLeri לערי ריינהארט (talk) 13:50, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

No, thanks :) I do it occasionally but it is not the job I want to do 100% - too many. --Infovarius (talk) 08:58, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Chopin

Hi Infovarius, I saw that you were editing some works by Chopin. I am classifying them using has part(s) (P527) / part of (P361). Here can see the tree-structure and keep adding the missing works. Thanks!--Micru (talk) 11:18, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Good job! I like it. But may be has part(s) (P527) is superfluous. Imagine something similar in Bach works. Infovarius (talk) 19:00, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I know, I know... I used it to navigate the structure easily, but it can be left out when there are too many works to organize. In any case it is not finished yet, it takes more time than it seems... and I haven't even started to source the data.--Micru (talk) 12:18, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Q25308

Hello Infovarius, could you help please. Can you change in the taxobox of Orchidaceae the ordo "Orchidales" in "Asparagales". Thanks and greetings. Orchi (talk) 11:30, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

It would be nice if the taxobox used APG III as the default (as we have asked any number of times). - Brya (talk) 17:53, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I am not an expert in this template. I suppose this question should be addressed to its author - FelixReimann. --Infovarius (talk) 11:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Свойства для групп людей

Добрый день, по поводу [5]. Там проблема не в ошибочности сведений, а в элементе, где они указаны. Свойства "дата/место рождения/смерти" используют для людей, а не для их групп. Дублировать сведения и там и там смысла нет. Только структуру организации информации делают хуже, мешают ошибки выявлять. — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 17:58, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Undid revision of the Template:Constraint:Person

The constraint person must be checked with human (Q5) and no with person (Q215627). This can be seen in the English description of the person (Q215627) element:

"being, e.g. a human, that has certain capacities or attributes constituting personhood (not for use with "instance of" [P31], instead use "human" [Q5])"

Why should we check if a property is of an instance that shouldn't be used with real persons? Every human would be detected as not valid by the constraint if we don't use human (Q5) -- Agabi10 (talk) 15:53, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Of course, each human being should be instance of (P31) human (Q5). But these constraints are the same for all type of humans and also for fictitious ones. While both human (Q5) and fictional character (Q95074) are subclasses of person (Q215627) the constraint works for both types. --Infovarius (talk) 20:11, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

group of brothers and sisters, brotherhood, ...

Hi, I'm not sure I understand and agree with the changes you made for sibling group (Q16979650)    and sibling duo (Q14073567)    . A sibling duo is a subclass of duo, for example twin actors or showmen, this is different from the set of all brother and sisters in a family (sibling (Q31184)    )) ... Similarly, a group of brothers and sister is not always the whole sibling (Q31184)    , that's why there was too items I guess. Can't we leave both ? I'm not sure about all the statements either, but this gets tricky. TomT0m ^(talk) 14:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Are you sure that we want to distinguish between 2/3 brothers and 2/2 brothers (if I understand right)? Infovarius (talk) 19:16, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Please, revert all edits. It was a bad merge. Be careful the next time, Andreasm ^{háblame / just talk to me} 17:43, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Please give me examples which should be P31'ed differently. Infovarius (talk) 19:16, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Please, do not merge items and make subsequent massive edits if you are unsure about understanding the meaning. A sibling is different from a group of siblings. Andreasm ^{háblame / just talk to me} 21:31, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

So, what is your plan exactly? Right now, you are once again wasting other people's time because of your unwillingness to revert your mistakes. Andreasm ^{háblame / just talk to me} 22:58, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry for late answer (after some accident I've spent half of week in hospital). Unfortunately none of you answered me about clear distinction between sibling (Q31184)    and sibling group (Q16979650)    (please do, and after that I shall make appropriate changes). --Infovarius (talk) 15:41, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Already two editors have tried to explain you why the merge you performed was wrong, and you failed to understand it: a group of persons (sibling group (Q16979650)) is different from a kinship relationship (sibling (Q31184)). Please, stop wasting our time (a quick look at the statements included in each item would have sufficed to understand the difference) and fix what you did. Andreasm ^{háblame / just talk to me} 18:27, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry but I don't feel the difference. For me sibling (Q31184) is a relationship and group of persons. At least russian and german labels are the same. Saying in English The Mawby Triplets (Q7750709) is a group of sibings, or simply they are siblings (subclass of sibling, if you wish), no difference. P.S. @Andreasmperu: and @TomTom:, note that you speak about different things. --Infovarius (talk) 18:30, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Link removal in association football club (Q476028)

Hi,
the link removal to the simplewiki in association football club (Q476028) is correct, the association football team article got removed, they now redirect this to the "team in the sports that are known as football" article. That's not the same, I fixed it. --Bthfan (talk) 19:19, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

The correct redirect is also ok as sitelink. Infovarius (talk) 01:17, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

No, it's not ok. "association football team" is different from "football team"! There's no point having a redirect there at the moment. It's confusing and provides wrong interwiki links to other wikipedias. As you can see at football club (Q17270000) there's already a link to simplewiki for the "football team" item that covers this topic. --Bthfan (talk) 16:51, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

If the redirect exists it can be used as sitelink. Its title is appropriate for association football club (Q476028). If you don't like the redirection simple:association football team -> simple:football team you can ask its deletion at simplewiki. --Infovarius (talk) 20:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

To be honest I don't care that much about what simplewiki does. But we can control what we do at Wikidata. And that is to add links to Wikidata items that fit to the topic that the item is about :) we should try to be better than others, quality matters ;) --Bthfan (talk) 21:01, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

And in Wikidata title of simplewiki redirect fits to the item. --Infovarius (talk) 06:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Note that from a technical point of view including links to redirects is not supported at the moment anyway. It just worked in this case as reverting an edit works differently from a technical point of view. Anyway, it looks like your opinion on this differs from the opinion of multiple other persons. If you're interested in further discussion, lets discuss this at Wikidata:Project chat‎. --Bthfan (talk) 07:08, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Structor

Succu (talk • contribs • logs) posted here that you are running an unauthorized bot on this account. You are required to either get a flood flag or a bot flag in order to do such mass automated edits, so I ask that you please stop that editing for now. --Jasper Deng (talk) 07:19, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I've updated my bot request. --Infovarius (talk) 11:47, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

This edit was wrong. --Succu (talk) 07:31, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Succu. I'll exclude duplicates in my filtration. --Infovarius (talk) 11:47, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

??

[6] ???--Hubertl (talk) 23:31, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Because it has more exact occupation (P106) poet (Q49757) and screenwriter (Q28389) which are subclasses of author (Q482980). Better you should have asked GerardM who was adding redundant classes. --Infovarius (talk) 11:36, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

thx--Hubertl (talk) 14:51, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

SKA SKA (Q257585)

Hi,
I removed "sports club" as almost all Wikipedia links there link to disambiguation pages. If we want to describe that a sports club was an army sports club, I think instance of (P31)=armed forces sports club (Q4792966) should be used instead (though that's not 100% correct either as that article talks about the "sport society" in general). --Bthfan (talk) 06:33, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Format doesn't matter - even disambiguation pages are about the same - about several army sports clubs, so the statements are correct. Infovarius (talk) 18:10, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Take a look at the English wiki page for SKA, it lists a lot more than just army sports clubs. --Bthfan (talk) 18:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Lethargy

Hi! Not sure that your edits are correct. As far as I could understand the languages, those articles deal with the matter of Q1651205 (en:Torpor), not with the disease. I think that when I made my edits, I moved all those sitelinks that had to be moved. DmitTrix (talk) 12:40, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, may be you right. Infovarius (talk) 13:28, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Labels and descriptions task force

Are you still using Wikidata:Labels and descriptions task force/ru? I started to deleted other language versions of this page. I think they caused only troubles, because they were extremly outdated. --Pasleim (talk) 18:53, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I am checking it (and deleting updated items) from time to time. And yes, it's outdated, but it is of some use while it is not empty. Infovarius (talk) 19:13, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Alias with parentheses

Why do you add alias with parentheses?

• “Шмидт (фамилия)” for Q15240355 (diff)
• “терция (интервал)”, “терция (музыка)” and “терция (музыкальный интервал)” for Q224074 (diff)

--Fomafix (talk) 14:51, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

• It is more convenient when choosing the item as target of some property (typing and disambiguating simultaneously). Infovarius (talk) 11:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

  For the disambiguation the description is the right place. The description is show in the suggestion field. The current problem is that it is not possible to select the right description by typing. But I think it is a very bad solution to add millions of parentheses to avoid this problem. --Fomafix (talk) 12:31, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

  It is convenient now, and I don't know better solution yet. Infovarius (talk) 12:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q15132612#sitelinks-wikipedia

Hello, you have reverted my changes in https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q15132612#sitelinks-wikipedia

After my changes the german article https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vors%C3%A4tze_f%C3%BCr_Ma%C3%9Feinheiten had many interlanguage links. After your revert it has only two. The link to the german article does not show up in many other languages any more. The aim of Wikidata interlanguage links is to provide informations in other languages as much as possible. The aim is not to group exactly the equal lemmata. -- Tirkon (talk) 04:38, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Nein, das ist nicht möglich. Jedes Datenobjekt muss genau ein Objekt beschreiben und auf die entsprechenden Artikel in den verschiedenen Sprachen verweisen. Beziehungen zwischen unterschiedlichen Datenobjekten können in Wikidata mit Aussagen hergestellt werden. --Fomafix (talk) 13:25, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Widar: instance of (P31) = taxon (Q16521)

Hi, Infovarius. I hope you'll have checked that these taxa are not monotypic. --Succu (talk) 09:20, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Succu. But what's the difference? taxon (Q16521) is correct class and anyway monotypic taxon (Q310890) is a subclass of taxon (Q16521), so later anyone can replace class with more precise. --Infovarius (talk) 09:36, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

It's about informtaion. We have around 200,000 taxa above species rank. If all these have an uncontrolled instance of (P31)=taxon (Q16521) statements, nobody hase real chance find to possible monotypic taxon (Q310890) candidates. That's the reason why my bot has not added these statements until now. --Succu (talk) 09:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Do you think that to find monotypic taxon (Q310890) among all items is easier than among all taxa? --Infovarius (talk) 09:59, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I think the motivation is higher, because a piece of information is missing. Otherwise nobody has a real reason to ask: is this taxon monotypic? That's all. But other people do the same as you. And I doubt most of them know what monotypic means. So maybe I should start my bot to fill the gap. --Succu (talk) 10:17, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I see. I suppose that according to definition monotypic candidates can be easily extracted automatically (taxa which has only one subtaxon). Harder case is monophyly (Q210958) which is the other alternative class to "taxon". --Infovarius (talk) 10:24, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

If only one species was validly described within a genus, or one genus in a family (and so on) than your counting approach is correct. In most other cases not, because to be monotypic is a taxononmic opinion. An example is the genus Kumara Medik. (1786). This genus was formerly included in Aloe. In 2013 the genus was reerected with the single species Kumara plicatilis, thus the genus was monotypic. In 2014 a second species formerly belonging to the genus Aloe (Aloe haemanthifolia) was transferred to Kumara as Kumara haemanthifolia. So the genus is no longer monotypic. --Succu (talk) 13:38, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

In such cases we can use qualifiers for time span. And we should use both "taxon" and "monotypy" with appropriate qualifiers. --Infovarius (talk) 06:24, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

It's not a matter of a time span, but someones opinion. In 2009 some authors published a revision of Pachycereus (Q136590). This included the reerection of two monotypic genera. As far as I'm aware nobody followed this opinon. --Succu (talk) 06:50, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, "is said to be monotypic" is one of the things that really need a reference. - Brya (talk) 17:21, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Sources

Infovarius, sorry for the revert, I am posting an update to clarify things. I will notify you shortly. Thanks for your patience!--Micru (talk) 07:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Object

I don't understand this revert. It is not possible to have an "(perceived) object" without having first identified it with any external or internal sense (considering that cognition is a sense).--Micru (talk) 13:20, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

@Micru:, materialistically, any object (as a part of matter) exists independetly of cognition/perceiving subjects. So information is not its intrinsical property. --Infovarius (talk) 11:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

As far as I know there hasn't been any broad discussion about what perspective we should follow, maybe we should.

from narrative universe (P1080) -> present in work (P1441)

Pourqoui replacez-vous? 1) Quelle est la difference? 2) Quel propriete la meilleur a utiliser pour le personnage de l'univers de fiction? --Infovarius (talk) 14:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

from narrative universe (P1080) link with a fictional universe (item that have instance of (P31) with fictional universe (Q559618)), present in work (P1441) link with a work. I am correcting the wrong uses. If it possible, both properties should be used (for exemple Aragorn (Q180322) has both from narrative universe (P1080) with Tolkien's legendarium (Q81738) and present in work (P1441) with The Lord of the Rings (Q15228)) but most fictional entities doesn't belong to a notable fictional universe, so we can probably use only present in work (P1441).

There was many wrong uses, linking works with P1080 instead of P1441, but I think I cleared most of those. Is that more clear? (I answered in english because you say you understand better english, but as I'm not a native speaker don't hesitate to tell me if I am not understandable). --Harmonia Amanda (talk) 20:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

ISBN

Добрый вечер! ISBN по умолчанию — либо из первого издания, либо никакого. В 1949 году (первая публикация "1984") не было никакого. 91i79 (talk) 19:06, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Why are you add redirects?

Why are you add redirects as interwikis? province of Turkey (Q48336) isn't same thing as administrative territorial entity of Turkey (Q2916486). --Treisijs (talk) 08:38, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@Treisijs:. Of course they are not the same. But the title "lv:Turcijas ili", as I understand, means "province of Turkey" so this page fits to first item. Adding redirect is good because it helps to link en/fr/other articles about provinces with lv-link which leads to the same information. Some day someone will turn the redirect into an article and all interwikis will be already in place. --Infovarius (talk) 04:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok, but if we add this redirect, then this article will be not in list of articles with most interwikis, but isn't in Latvian. Article soon will be in Latvian Wikipedia, because that is in list upper part. --Treisijs (talk) 20:40, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Good point! May be this instrument should (in future) deal with redirects too, but now it makes sense to not have redirect-interwiki, I agree. --Infovarius (talk) 11:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Franchise : which property?

Yes, I agree, franchises aren't really "works" like in P:1441, but they sure aren't fictional universes like in P:1080. I hesitated to just delete these links but on IRC we talked of this: for now, "franchises" entries are frequently used as a list of works in the franchise (using has part(s) (P527)), so instead of deleting the properties we could use temporarily P:1441 (so that we still have an idea of the works concerned). We could then use autolist to have the list of items with P1441:QcodeOfTheFranchise, and indicate the lists on the Wikidata:WikiProject Fictional universes, Wikidata:WikiProject Books (etc.) when we could ask someone who knows these works to replace the franchise by the precise work. That would mean 51 lists to correct but some of these are fairly small. (We can't use autolist right now because it don't list all, we have to wait for the next complete dump / we could reasonator, but it isn't as easy to generate lists with it...).

I think it'll be much more difficult if we don't keep a mean to list these errors. What do you suggest? To delete because franchise are no works nor universe? Do you have a better idea? --Harmonia Amanda (talk) 19:06, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you. Better to have some property than not to have any link to franchise. One other variant is part of (P361), but may be even worse. --Infovarius (talk) 04:26, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

For Dungeons & Dragons, the fictional universe nature was added recently and I don't understand why: all the interwikis speak of the roleplay game (work) from what I can understand/see with the translation of the categories for the languages I don't speak. And the D&D universe is more large than just the roleplay game, so it seems to me that it's the added "P31:fictional universe" on an item about a work that is the problem. It's on my list of errors (with Star Trek (where it's a complete imbroglio between works, universe and franchise), James Bond (books by Ian Fleming, books, books and movies adaptations, movies, franchise and universe), Dell Comics (editor, universe…), etc.). I think I'll just delete the P31:fictional universe on the D&D game and create a new item for the universe. On the bright side, there is only about fifty items with P:1080 violating the constraints now, so we see the end!

The other problem now is the use of P:1080 with "mythology". I don't think the greek mythology is a fictional universe. I would prefer part of (P361) for these (very few) cases. What do you think? --Harmonia Amanda (talk) 15:46, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

@Harmonia Amanda:, I prefer to use worshipped by (P1049). Another difficulty with Rome and Greek that I cannot fully understand yet: there are ancient Roman religion (Q337547) and Roman mythology (Q122173) - what should be the target? --Infovarius (talk) 13:26, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, good question. Is there a Wikiproject:mythology, religion or belief? Somewhere where we could ask? I'll replace from narrative universe (P1080) by worshipped by (P1049) for now (because maybe it's not the best solution but it sure is better than the current one). --Harmonia Amanda (talk) 16:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

province of the Netherlands Q134390

Hi, Infovarius, how can I do this? See also borough of Amsterdam (Q15079751). Regards--Oursana (talk) 11:57, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I can do this only as second edit. After saving "12" I see "12±1", then I change 1 to 0 and get "12±0" i.e. exactly 12. --Infovarius (talk) 12:41, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

great and thanks --Oursana (talk) 13:23, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Property:P1423 and Property:P1424

Hello, I see that you have widened the property description of template has topic (P1423) from "infobox's main topic" to "template's main topic". I did not find a place where this change was discussed beforehand, but if you do change this, then you should also change the property description of the corresponding, inverse topic's main template (P1424) accordingly from "topic's main infobox" to "topic's main template". --UV (talk) 11:36, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Special:Diff/155823393

IMHO the 'Wikipedia' section is redundant, since interwiki links appear in the sidebar now. --Ricordisamoa 11:30, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

about Q9597 and Q6309581

it's a mistake, "Bók-lō̤" (Min dong chinese)="腹"(mandarin chinese). so, Abdômen= "Bók-lō̤", Abdômen humano = "nè̤ng gì bók-lō̤".--122.90.90.141 03:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I just saw human abdomen in cdo:Bók-lō̤ and it was misleading. --Infovarius (talk) 17:10, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

P1080 and P1441

Hello Infovarius, I see you used from narrative universe (P1080) with a work when it's present in work (P1441) which should be used. I'm sure you remember I spent months cleaning the mess between works and fictional universes, with these two properties. Now that I reduced the violations of the value's constraints to 0, could you please pay attention to which one you use? (maybe it's still not clear in Russian which one is used with works (P1441) and which one with fictional universes (P1080)? If that's the case can you please correct it and see the talk pages? Many thanks! --Harmonia Amanda (talk) 11:50, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello, @Harmonia Amanda:. I am sorry, I must have been more accurate. What do you suppose to do with media franchise (Q196600) as universe or creative work? --Infovarius (talk) 12:21, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

For now, as franchises are mostly used as list of works in a given fictional universe, I use present in work (P1441). It's not perfect but it seemed more logical, what do you think? --Harmonia Amanda (talk) 13:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

"A list"! So it is comprises several works like "real" fictional universe described in several works. So may be they are better aligned with universes. --Infovarius (talk) 13:44, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your answer (english isn't my native tongue), your second phrase didn't really made sense for me, sorry (what are « "real" fictional universes »? franchises use has part(s) (P527) with works, not fictional universe described in (P1445)). There is many universes with an item for the universe and another for the franchise (Star Trek (Q1092)/Star Trek universe (Q18043309), Pokémon (Q864)/Pokémon universe (Q17562848), Highlander (Q1990805)/Highlander universe (Q1032900)…) so we can't use them similarly. On the other way, a character can appears without problem both in The Hobbit (Q74287) and in The Lord of the Rings (Q15228) (and even The Fellowship of the Ring (Q208002) and The Lord of the Rings (Q15228) would be true, if a little redundant). When I see that Firefly (Q5451845) use has part(s) (P527) with the different works of the franchise (and they use part of (P361) in turn), I tend to use the item like a class including all the works. I can say Kaylee Frye (Q16499670) present in work (P1441) with the TV series, or with every episode, and it's true. I can add the concerned comics, and it's still true; but she belongs to a single fictional universe and that's Serenityverse (Q17376102). I use franchise like a class regrouping several works (which it is, but not only, it's above all concerning intellectual property, trademarks, etc.), I can't really see why they should be used as fictional; for me franchises are pretty much positioned in a real-life point of view (trademark and all that, list of works…) when the universe can still adopt an "internal" point of view (=> Kaylee can't ever say she belongs to the Firefly franchise, but she can say she belongs to an universe (which for us is the Serenityverse)). Is my opinion more clear like that? can you explicit yours (sorry I didn't understand your answer). --Harmonia Amanda (talk) 15:29, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

"Это" как синоним subclass of (P279)

Здравствуйте. Я добавил вышеуказанный алиас с двумя целями: во-первых, удобно набирать короткое слово, а во-вторых, спровоцированная мной путаница помешает новичку, который немного в теме, помешает ему добавить instance of (P31) в случае наподобие «fallout shelter (Q1571844) — это shelter (Q7493941)» (кстати, как видите, формально вполне подходит как синоним). Ain92 (talk) 17:06, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Цель, конечно, благородная. Но почему-то при наборе "это" 279 выскакивает раньше, чем 31, что неудобно. --Infovarius (talk) 19:47, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

• А почему так? Обычно же выше показывается то, что с меньшим номером? Ain92 (talk) 20:37, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
• Ну так что, я могу возвращать? Ain92 (talk) 20:54, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Q4197743

Hello Infovarius, I just saw that you undid my entry ([7]). Please give me a hint, what's wrong with a player beeing a human (P31/Q5)? Thanks a lot.--Gbeckmann (talk) 20:39, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

@Gbeckmann:, at least it is not a specific (P31) human but a class (P279) of someones. Also I don't see why we need so restricted class as humans (Q5) instead of more general (like subject (Q830077) now) - animals and fictional personnages can be players too, imho. --Infovarius (talk) 08:33, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

field of work (P101)

Per "context" and "Field/Area/Discipline/Specialism" sections in [8], this property is allowed to use in any item besides person. Probably the Russian description of the property should be changed.--GZWDer (talk) 10:32, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

•  Done Ain92 (talk) 20:54, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata:Project_chat#Statement_with_qualifier_.22applies_to_part.22_.28P:P518.29_.22Russian_Wikipedia.22

Please see the above. --- Jura 22:25, 29 December 2014 (UTC)