朝彦

Welcome to Wikidata, 朝彦!

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!

--DangSunM (talk) 23:44, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

art museum / art gallery

Hello, this is actually a bit different. An art gallery can also be a commercial structure whose purpose is to sale, not exhibit artworks. --Zolo (talk) 05:38, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I have tried to clean things up using a new item (art gallery (Q15090577)) but this is a bit difficult given that the sense of "gallery" may vary depending on language, and more annoyingly, depending on context even within a single language. --Zolo (talk) 06:33, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. For art museum (Q207694) and art museum (Q3196771), I (prematurely) thought that they were just synonyms given that the labels were identical in many of the languages and that I was seeing public museum items linking to both items. For the issue here, the commercial aspect of it should be emphasized in its description so that the distinction is not lost in translation. Whether that means we should use the word that corresponds to "gallery" or have an adjective to disambiguate so is up to the language. I'll leave Français up to you. For the English terminology, I consulted w:Art museum#Types of galleries. Since using only the word "gallery" results in an ambiguity even between American and British usage, it would be better to clarify as private or commercial art gallery. For the hierarchy, I saw that (non-profit / public / exhibition-oriented) art museum (Q207694) was a subclass of (they-sell-art-also) art gallery (Q15090577). If we're going to make the above distinction, both of above should be a direct subclass of arts venue (Q15090615), which is how w:Category:Arts venues seems to be structured anyway. How does that sound? --朝彦/Asahiko (talk) 13:46, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually "art gallery" can at least refer to three concepts :

1. art museum
2. a commercial art gallery, that is an institution that exhibits and usually sells artworks
3. a gallery, in the sense of a place to show artworks (it can be part of a museum or an independent space).

nl:Galerie is clearly about #2. French Spanish are badly structured, but are more about #3, - even though I find it odd given that out of context "galerie" usually means #2, not #3.

There seems to be a fourth sense: the union of #1 and #2. And this is indeed the topic of it:Galleria d'arte. In that sense "art museum" is really a subclass of "art gallery". So, it seems that if we want something really accurate, we need four items. Should we do that ? I would be fine with it, but I am a bit concerned that it looks confusing, and that it loses some interwikis. --Zolo (talk) 16:38, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I'm inclined towards maintaining the accurate semantic structure, looking at how strictly all the terms in the natural sciences are structured. I understand that Wikidata is a project that potentially should cover all the ideas, objects, and data in a structured way so that it is machine-readable, and Wikipedia interlinks being only one of the many applications. Therefore, we should preserve semantic differences that we're aware of. My idea is as follows. Indentation indicates subclasses.

• [a] arts venue (Q15090615)
  • [b] Any place where multiple works of art are collected and put on display; permanent or temporary, private or public, non-profit or commercial
    • [c1] Permanent institutions (or its buildings) for exhibition, preservation, and research of art; typically called by what is equivalent to "museum of arts" in many European languages
    • [c2] An independent venue where art is being exhibited and sold; "art gallery" in the narrower sense

The "union" sense should be linked to [b]. Also, any item that does not belong in either of the [c] should be an instance of [b] (e.g. a "gallery room" in some larger building). In this scheme, any WP article that has something like "galería de arte o museo de arte" (Spanish ver.) belongs to [b]. This way, we don't need four items, and we get to make the necessary distinction between an art dealer's single-room gallery and the Louvre. I hope this is not too complex? --朝彦/Asahiko (talk) 03:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The French article says that that a galerie can be either an indepedent space or a part of a museum, it does not mention entire museums. I would think it is fine to say that is is [b] nonetheless, but it means that b can be either an entire museum or a part of a museum.

As a side note, we also have another structural issue, even though it is arguably not related to this. In the usual sense, when speaking of a museum, and most of the time, of a gallery as well, we are talking about both an institution and a building. All the meanings proposed here seem to be about the building, but the Wikipedia article is often more about the institution than about the building, but Wikipedia articles are often primarily about the institution (for instance en:Template:Infobox Museum has an "established" parameter that seems to correspond to the foundation of the institution) . We may need to make a mass creation of items so that data about the building are clearly distinguished from data about the institution. --Zolo (talk) 07:31, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you about "part of a museum" belonging to [b]. Now that I think about it, [c1] seems to be pretty well-defined, but [c2] not as much. Maybe we could start with only [a], [b], and [c1], with anything that does not meet the definition of [c1] going into [b]. (AFAIK [c2] does not have a corresponding Wikipedia article in any language, does it?)

As for the distinction between institution and the building: Yes, strictly speaking, a museum can be both a building as well as an institution. But on the other hand, practical usage does not make that distinction. (This I know that you're already aware of; since you brought up en:Template:Infobox Museum, where we can find parameters such as "coordinates", "public transit", and "car park" also.) Even if there were multiple buildings that belong to a single institution, the typical thing people would do is to have a main article (for the institution & the site) and a secondary article (for the 2nd site). (Example: en:Metropolitan Museum of Art and en:The Cloisters.) In fact, this goes for most other organizations too, such as Sony Group (Q41187) having coordinate location (P625) even if the item is a big company (Q783794) (and hence has sites all over the globe). People would not be accustomed to the distinction, and might confuse many of the users. Practically, I think that the properties for institution and the site/building can distinguished even if they reside in the same item, and consolidating them should not be too harmful. One possible exception is inception (P571), because this can be either when the institution was founded or when the building was built. (Example: en:Metropolitan Museum of Art was established in 1870, and the building was built in 1874.) Using a qualifier is a possible solution. --朝彦/Asahiko (talk) 23:44, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, nl:Galerie seems to be about [c2].

It is true that the distinction between building and institution is not often made in practice, but I think it would be useful to make it in Wikidata, as conflating them may result in some ambiguity (for instance if we state "opened in 1990", we are not sure whether it means the building or the institution, and sometimes, this is different. In some cases, we already have two items, like in Louvre Museum (Q19675) and Louvre Palace (Q1075988). We also have headquarters location (P159). I would say that we should either have an item about the headquarters of Sony and put the coordinates there or or add the coordinates of Sony a qualifier of the headquarters properties. Of course, this sort of thing would make data difficult to use as long as we can't (transclude data stored in another item), but this is a technical issue that will need to be solved anyway. --Zolo (talk) 07:03, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

via /common.js subpagxo

Rilate al user:朝彦/common.js. Bv. noti helpeton cxe User:Rotsaert8000. Antauxdankon! Kun amikaj salutoj el Munkeno לערי ריינהארט (talk) 19:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Merging items

Hallo 朝彦,

If you were not already using it, you may want to check out the merge.js gadget for merging items. It has an option "Request deletion for extra items on RfD" to automatically nominate the page you are merging from for deletion. This way of nominating also makes it easier for the admins to process such requests. For support and other options you can check the help page about merging.

With regards, - cycŋ - (talk • contribs • logs) 07:59, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I am using merge.js and I checked the box for RFD. Did I miss something? --朝彦/Asahiko (talk) 15:24, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Help needed

Dear ja-N user, please see: User talk:Liuxinyu970226#Merger needed. --Je suis Nigérian (talk) 21:31, 22 June 2016 (UTC)