Active discussions

Re-purposing ?Edit

Looks like the sitelinks are about Chinese conversion. Maybe this should be on different item.

Script conversion probably only relates to multi-script sites, not multi-languoid ones.

BTW, ML and MS are used on Wikidata:Database reports/Wikipedia versions. If they are removed from items about Wikipedia, this pages broken.
--- Jura 05:31, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

@Jura1: "Maybe this should be on different item." While the de-facto assignment is also foggy for me, I'm not sure how splitting is possible in a lot of LC-related documents.

"not multi-languoid ones"? We have -{zh-cn:大陆用法;zh-hk:香港用法;zh-tw:台灣用法}-, and FWIW, Serbian users also want to have conversations between Ekavian and Ijekavian.

if you agree, I will add LC column in Wikidata:Database reports/Wikipedia versions as wikis that are Q15630179 available. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:04, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Also, I wonder if @Chiefwei, Hat600, Liangent, LNDDYL, Zhuyifei1999: can help clarifying here or not:
  1. Wikipedia:字词转换 (Q8989818): zh:Wikipedia:字词转换, b:zh:Wikibooks:字词转换请求或候选
  2. Q8989837: zh:Wikipedia:繁简处理, zh:Wikivoyage:繁簡處理
  3. Q8989896: zh:Wikipedia:地区词处理
  4. Chinese conversion (Q15630179) (this item): yue:Wikipedia:用字轉換, zh:Wikipedia:字詞轉換處理, voy:zh:Wikivoyage:字詞轉換處理, c:Category:Chinese conversion, m:Automatic conversion between simplified and traditional Chinese
  5. Q15630180: zh:Wikipedia:字詞轉換處理/公共轉換組, voy:Wikivoyage:字詞轉換處理/公共轉換組
  6. Writing systems/Syntax (Q28823684): zh:Help:高级字词转换语法, mw:Writing systems/Syntax
  7. Wikipedias in multiple writing systems (Q28823686): m:Wikipedias in multiple writing systems, mw:Writing systems
  8. Automatic conversion in Konkani language (Q28823687): gom:विकिपीडिया:Script converter, m:Automatic conversion in Konkani language
  9. Q28823694: zh:Help:中文维基百科的繁简、地区词处理
  10. Q28926065: zh:Wikipedia:字词转换不是什么
  11. Not linked on Wikidata but also related to LC: zh:Help:繁简处理/转换原理, zh:Help:手工字詞轉換, zh:Wikipedia:字词转换/修复请求, zh:Wikipedia:字词转换/地区词候选, iu:ᐅᐃᑭᐱᑎᐊ:Writing systems, m:Automatic conversion in Serbian language

--Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:24, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

ditto ping @GZWDer: to help ^^ --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 08:52, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  • multi-script
  • multi-languoid

were made to indicate if a Wikipedia has the same article in several scripts (e.g. one in Cyrillic and one in Latin script) or the same article in different languages (or dialects, etc.). Wikis with automatic conversion/conversation may have this, but maybe they don't. If they do, I'd generally expect items with permanent duplicated item (P2959) to appear. This is/was my primary concern. Obviously, I don't mind if you also indicate if a given Wikipedia uses other features, such as automatic conv.
--- Jura 09:22, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

@Jura1: asked at phab:T21044 so Phabricator fans (e.g. @Artoria2e5, Cscott:) can keep an eye here. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 12:55, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

The purpose of LanguageConverter is indeed a bit muddy here. I would say its initial user -- Chinese Wikipedia (and other Chinese sites) -- are using it both for MS and ML purposes, and hence the Chinese documents both talk about scripts (Hans/Hant; Latn/whatever) and "locale words" (like color/colour or trucks/lorries). Other languages either haven't seen the need of the ML part, or haven't bothered to read the documentation (the current one in English is still a bit too...) and compile a large list of parallel "locale words". After all, LC is just a little strtr() function that does some find-and-replace at its core, and people are free to use that function for whatever they want to. --Artoria2e5 (talk) 00:59, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

@Jura1: Note that your "revert" on Serbian Wikipedia (Q200386) is also foggy as multi-script Wikimedia site (Q21286559) "Can include 2 pages with the same article in different scripts.", how can two srwiki articles, that one Cyrillic one Latin, are describing one single element? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:23, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Looks like srwiki doesn't have any permanent duplicates:
    ?item wdt:P31 wd:Q21286738 .
    ?article schema:about ?item ; schema:isPartOf <> .

Try it!

Finds only two pages. Neither is a classical "permanent duplicate".
--- Jura 04:40, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
@Jura1: I've downgraded both as Wikimedia duplicated page (Q17362920) as no fairy perm-dup reason provided. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 06:01, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
They are permanently duplicated because of duplicating taxonomic trees in some Wikipedias. And they are not planned to be merged yet. --Infovarius (talk) 19:56, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
OK but @Infovarius: regarding Category of Chiroptera by common name (Q8919903), Category:Bats (Q7216581) doesn't have a link to pmswiki, so how to judge pms:Categorìa:Chiroptera? While regarding Category:Carnivorans (Q9710871), Category:Carnivores (Q6537341) doesn't have links to afwiki, scowiki, sqwiki, srwiki, tlwiki, and zh-min-nanwiki, so why not moving af:Kategorie:Carnivora, sco:Category:Carnivorans, sq:Kategoria:Mishngrënës, sr:Категорија:Carnivora, tl:Kategorya:Carnivora, and/or nan:Lūi-pia̍t:Chia̍h-bah-bo̍k? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:41, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Still, it isn't suitable for permanent duplicated item (P2959). Please see Wikidata:Property proposal/same as (permanently duplicated item) about its purpose.
--- Jura 04:33, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Personally I think that we should move maximum of such sitelinks to one item. But other participants of Taxonomy project may think in other way: 99of9
Achim Raschka (talk)
Andrawaag (talk)
Brya (talk)
CanadianCodhead (talk)
Dan Koehl (talk)
Daniel Mietchen (talk)
FelixReimann (talk)
Hyperik (talk)
Infomuse (talk)
Infovarius (talk)
Jean-Marc Vanel
Joel Sachs
Klortho (talk)
Lymantria (talk)
Magnefl (talk)
Mellis (talk)
Michael Goodyear
Mr. Fulano (talk)
Nis Jørgensen
Peter Coxhead
Andy Mabbett (talk)
Prot D
Rod Page
Strobilomyces (talk)
Stuchka (talk)
Succu (talk)
TiagoLubiana (talk)
Tommy Kronkvist (talk)
Tris T7 TT me
William Avery
Mike Krüger
GoEThe (talk)
  Notified participants of WikiProject Taxonomy --Infovarius (talk) 09:55, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Many of those duplicate categories are not really permanent duplicates, although they represent the same position in the taxonomy tree. In fact the subject of one may be general, the other focussing on either common name (Q502895) or scientific name (Q15730631) (There is no consistency in choosing either one or a third one as "general"). I agree to have as many links as possible moved to one "general" item. Lymantria (talk) 10:06, 10 August 2017 (UTC)


I don't understand what the discussion is about, but Category:Carnivorans (Q9710871) and Category:Carnivores (Q6537341) are on different topics, not duplicates in any way. The only problem is that Category:Carnivores (Q6537341) has some alien elements mixed in; there should be three items:

  1. Category:Carnivora,
  2. Category:Carnivores and
  3. Category of Carnivora by common name. - Brya (talk) 11:01, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
What's the difference between the first two? Do you take into account Q7238128? --Infovarius (talk) 10:24, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Well, if you had bothered to look you would have see that Carnivora is an order of mammals, while carnivores are organisms that consume meat. - Brya (talk) 10:36, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Ok, so carnivores should be at Category:Carnivory (Q7238128). And please don't mix it with Category:Carnivores (Q6537341). --Infovarius (talk) 09:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Chinese conversionEdit

Initially, this item seems to have been about Chinese script conversion. I restored that version and made a separate item for wikis with script conversion: Q36509592. Not everything is fixed, but I think we can get there.

Any suggestions what to do with the Wikimania items? I don't think either applies.

As for the terminology, I think it's "conversion" not "conversation".
--- Jura 17:11, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Return to "Q15630179" page.