User talk:LEW21

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Logo of Wikidata Welcome to Wikidata, LEW21!

Wikidata is a free knowledge base that you can edit! It can be read and edited by humans and machines alike and you can go to any item page now and add to this ever-growing database!

Need some help getting started? Here are some pages you can familiarize yourself with:

  • Introduction – An introduction to the project.
  • Wikidata tours – Interactive tutorials to show you how Wikidata works.
  • Community portal – The portal for community members.
  • User options – including the 'Babel' extension, to set your language preferences.
  • Contents – The main help page for editing and using the site.
  • Project chat – Discussions about the project.
  • Tools – A collection of user-developed tools to allow for easier completion of some tasks.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask on Project chat. If you want to try out editing, you can use the sandbox to try. Once again, welcome, and I hope you quickly feel comfortable here, and become an active editor for Wikidata.

Best regards! MisterSynergy (talk) 22:11, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your mergers

[edit]

Hey LEW21, I see that you are trying to merge items about sports-related concepts which are heavily linked from other items. This should be done with great care only, and a thourough discussion in advance. There is with no doubt a lot of potential for improvements regarding several structual items related to sports and sports competitions; however, if you simply merge items that are intentionally kept apart, you are about to create a huge mess that can barely be undone later. There is Wikidata:WikiProject Sports for discussions, or Wikidata:Project chat for a larger audience. —MisterSynergy (talk) 22:11, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, sorry. With sporting event (Q16510064) I've got confused because it's listed as a subclass of sports competition (Q13406554) (while looking at their names and the Wikipedia categories - it should be the other way around), and the description doesn't match anything (neither the name, nor STW 27687-3). I guess the subclass order should just be reversed, and the description updated.
And with race (Q22938576) I've assumed that it's unnecessary, because all the Wikipedia pages are linked to racing (Q878123) - and for example the Polish description of Q878123 is talking about the race, not about racing. LEW21 (talk) 22:29, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the definition of those items is not optimal.
  • Sitelinks only tell one part of the story, and in this case it is not the important part. Quite often, Wikipedia users tend to cluster sitelinks of related entities in one item, in order to have "better" interwikilinks. Rearranging them is relatively easy, as it only requires one edit per sitelink, and there are usually only a few available. Mind that I did not undo your move of the nlwiki sitelink from sporting event (Q16510064) to sports competition (Q13406554), for this exact reason, although I have no idea whether it is correct doing so or not.
  • What's more important here is the use of sports competition (Q13406554) and sporting event (Q16510064) in other items. You can either evaluate this in full detail with the Query Service [1][2], or get a first impression via Special:WhatLinksHere/Q13406554 and Special:WhatLinksHere/Q16510064. You can see that both items are linked heavily with thousands of backlinks each. There are bots which quite soon after a merge update all the backlinks to a merged items as well, in order to resolve redirects (this is necessary to allow efficient querying). Once the bots were there, it is basically very complicated to undo a merge. This is why I undid it very quickly.
  • That said, the definition of both items is still poor, and it is unclear whether they should subclass each other in any way. The difficulty is that the way how sports events are organized varies a lot between different sports, and a "one fits all" solution requires a lot of overview. With the current setup, the idea is basically that you have one or many sporting event (Q16510064) that are held within a sports competition (Q13406554):
    • The FIFA World Cup is an example with one sporting event per sports competition: the "men's football world championship" is the only event of that sports competition, which has a tournament format.
    • Athletics, swimming, rowing, and many other sports usually have a format where there are several sporting events (e.g. "men's 100 metres", "women's 200 metres", "women's javelin throw", "men's discus throw") held within the same sports competition ("2019 World Athletics Championships").
  • Regarding terminology: I am only sure regarding the German labels of both items (which are poor as well), and everything else should be improved by native speakers of other languages. In English, unfortunately, the term "event" has multiple meanings apparenty, and it is used in different contexts in the field of sport.
Alltogether, we definitely need two items here, but the definition should be improved. I have this in mind for a long time, but hesitate to do it somehow…
Regards, MisterSynergy (talk) 08:41, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So:
What do you think about it? LEW21 (talk) 09:32, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Let me answer point by point:
—MisterSynergy (talk) 12:09, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at the festival subgraph which is relatively clean, I still don't think we should add sports competition (Q13406554) ("sports festival") there with its messy substructure. But that is a minor detail. I have no problems with using the "festival" terminology as in "sports festival", however.
  • I did not think of non-competitive sporting events yet, and automatically implied that sporting event (Q16510064) is about competitive events as this is sort of the standard practice currently. There are probably not many, if any, items about non-competitive sporting events in Wikidata. I'd rather have a dedicated class "non-competitive sporting event" for that which has no hierarchical relation to sporting event (Q16510064), and leave sporting event (Q16510064) as it is.
—MisterSynergy (talk) 08:09, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on…

[edit]

… you’re going a bit too fast with the "sports festival" and the "sports festival edition" items, and this seems to be incorrect partially. I would recommend to stop for discussions, unfortunately I don't have time right now. Can we continue during the weekend? —MisterSynergy (talk) 22:00, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I've mostly did the renaming (as that's easy to revert), some categorization fixes (that should have happened either way - like making some recurring festivals instances of the recurring recurring sporting event (Q18608583)), and some subclass changes (recurring sporting event (Q18608583) -> festival (Q132241) -> recurring event (Q15275719) and sports competition (Q13406554) -> festival occurence (Q27968043) -> recurrent event edition (Q27968055)) that seem natural, and also should be easily revertable. I've left the topic of part of the series (P179) for further consideration, as that would actually be a pretty breaking change. LEW21 (talk) 22:14, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I will have another look this weekend. No time right now. You seem to have a sense for the flaws in the data model (and there are many), but some of your fixing attempts don't really work out I think :-P Let's see whether someone else already reverts this night, otherwise we will probably do this tomorrow, write an actual plan, and implement it *thereafter*. When fiddling with these class items, one can break actually a lot, and there are lots of considerations to make. The flawed ontology that we currently have is in fact so messy because it is *really* difficult to overview the full implications of any changes. —MisterSynergy (talk) 22:21, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know: I have not forgotten this, but it takes me some time to get an overview of the situation. It is too late here now, thus I continue tomorrow. —MisterSynergy (talk) 23:13, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Have you seen my Festival hierarchy proposal]? LEW21 (talk) 08:01, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I have. You have left your footprint on quite a bunch of pages which sort of complicates a proper response right now. But I'm on it… —MisterSynergy (talk) 08:11, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LEW21&oldid=1117105117"