User talk:Billinghurst/Archives/2018

Active discussions

This page is an archive. Please do not modify it. Use the current page, even to continue an old discussion.

Mess in music terminology

Hi Billinghurst. I am a Polish wikipedist. I've found a small mess in enwiki regarding to some music terms:

  • Concertino (disambig) (Q44290780)
  • Concertino (composition) (Q779024)
  • Concertino (group) – redirecting to a section of Concerto grosso (Q210216)
  • Concert piece (Q1783700)


Correct terminology:

In fact there should be only 2 terms:

  • Concertino as a group of solo instruments in concerto grosso – the word (originally from Italian) is used in all European countries (also in American, but that's not a point now)
  • Concertino as a composition – the word (originally from Italian) is used in almost all European countries, except the German-speaking ones, where they call it Konzertstück; this is the name of a specific musician genre /type of a composition.

The term "Concert piece" is just a literal translation from German "Konzertstück", and is rarely used in a formal musical terminology; in a popular sense it may have many ambiguous meanings.


Source:

The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians (Q1422837) records only 2 meanings (in 3 terms):

  • Concertino (i) – "The group of soloists in a Baroque concerto grosso"
  • Concertino (ii) – "A work with solo instrument, or instruments [...] German practice is to use the term Konzertstück"
  • Konzertstück [Concertstück] – again "A work for solo instrument or instruments [...] In Germany the term is applied to works called ‘concertino’."

"Concert piece" is not even mentioned in the Dictionary.


Interwiki comparison:

  • on dewiki
Konzertstück (Q1783700)
Concertino (Q16769660)
  • on plwiki
Concertino (disambig) (Q44290780)
Concertino (musical form) (Q1783700)
Concertino (group of instruments) (Q16769660)


My suggestion for quick solution (on enwiki): two articles: "Concertino (composition)" (Q779024) and "Concert piece" (Q1783700) should be mergered and called "Concertino (composition)" (Q1783700).

I can not do this myself due to my non perfect English. Hope my explanation is clear for you. Let me know if you have any questions. --Fiszka (talk) 17:34, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@Fiszka: Not my area of knowledge really, my work on Grove's is primarily working on the contributors to the work. I think that your discussion is probably part of Wikidata:WikiProject Music so I would suggest that this discussion at Wikidata talk:WikiProject Music.

Wikidata relies on the Wikipedias to determine their own notability for expressions/terms/articles and doesn't make judgements on their validity here. Once a Wikipedia has an article, it is created here, or added to an existing item.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:17, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikinews and elephants

Hi. I only just noticed (through a spot-check) that way back in May 2017 you had moved the link for en.wn topic category "Elephants". This is (so I gather) one of the more easily confused principles of item linking from Wikidata: Wikinews topic categories are one of several cases where non-content pages on a sister project correspond to Wikipedia articles (another that comes to mind is Wikisource author-space pages). So that n:en:Category:Elephants corresponds to w:en:Elephant, not w:en:Category:Elephants. (Just letting you know; I've fixed it, so, no further action needed atm on that particular item.) --Pi zero (talk) 12:54, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

@Pi zero: yep /Archives/2017#Wikinews_categories  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:57, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
(Ah! That explains my feeling of deja vu. Thx.) --Pi zero (talk) 14:32, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Deja vu? I have a feeling that I have had that before. :-)  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:56, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Margaret McLarty

Hi Billinghurst. I'm looking for references to support the date of birth and date of death of Margaret McLarty (Q15429233) which you added. This was over a year ago so you might not remember but where did you get that information? Cheers. Pichpich (talk) 17:58, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

@Pichpich: That would appear to be VIAF-supplied data that I added. I have done a little search, and found birth date in a secondary record, though it looks sound (1929 and 1961 supplied). And as I am typing, I have found an obituary.  — billinghurst sDrewth 20:56, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
... and I thought I was actually pretty good at hunting down references... This is great, thanks. :-) Pichpich (talk) 21:02, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
The scan I see for the obituary is pretty ordinary and only the first page, someone with good library access should be able to get you a better copy of the obituary for the article. You probably are good, I have similar goodness, adding good access, and many years of people research experience, though will admit to be better on older time periods.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:06, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
@Pichpich:Noting that I don't see either a death in GRO for 1996, nor a probate in England 1996, 97, 98, so not seemingly dying in England. I don't have access to Scottish records from here, would have to check those another time.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:16, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
The obituary is good enough. It only provides the year of birth/death but we're talking about a really marginal biography here so I'd say you've already spent too much time on this! Cheers, Pichpich (talk) 21:25, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Hah! You should see my obsessiveness with working through s:Category:Authors with unidentified initials‎‎ and other such obscure author categories identifying them for posterity.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:35, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikisource

Hey Billinghurst, this edit leaves an empty item, and the sitelink apparently isn’t connected to Wikidata right now. Is this the desired solution, and what do we do with the empty item now? Thanks, MisterSynergy (talk) 06:15, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

@MisterSynergy: I would have nominated it for deletion following removing the link. I don't know why that wasn't undertaken. It isn't a notable part of the book, so it shouldn't have an item, and should be deleted. There were some other pages from the same work that I processed similarly, and I don't know whether they were deleted or not. As the items are not labelled for action, and after deletion they are unrecognisable, it is a hard process to monitor. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:18, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, now deleted (see next comment). I wouldn't be surprised if someone showed up to request undeletion, to be honest. Help:Import NBD from enwikisource/lists/other pages lists a couple of similar items. —MisterSynergy (talk) 07:29, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Okay, already undeleted. It was RfD’d by you at Wikidata:Requests for deletions/Archive/2018/04/09#Q23989688, but User:Jura1 and User:علاء decided to keep it. I also re-add the sitelink to prevent that someone creates another item for it, but I don’t express any preference for this solution hereby. Maybe Jura and Alaa want to comment as well here. —MisterSynergy (talk) 07:35, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
@MisterSynergy: A pretty rubbish decision process IMNSHO, and not what I consider in line with Wikidata talk:Wikisource when it was discussed what was notability to be included. Under this new undiscussed methodology I look forward to each chapter of every novel being included, every index in every biographical and non-fiction work, and every table of contents, each on a level of these pages. Hey we may as well add in the advertisements and the like in the front matter and the end matter. It is a nonsense, and brings no value to the Wikisource work. The pages that I identified are contextual to the work to themselves, and not relevant outside of the work. If it is simply a wikidatian making a decision on inclusivity criteria without reference to the Wikisources, and the discussion on inclusion, especially by parties who did not participate when WS was rolled out. The subpages to be included are those that are referential to the outside world, so those with biographical detail, and references.  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:17, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
As I indicated, I do not express preference for the current situation ("no deletion"). I undeleted the item due to the fact that I overlooked relevant previous discussions, and thus the deletion was a formal mistake. Wikidata talk:Wikisource is a bit imprecise to learn about Wikisource sitelinks. There is Wikidata:Wikisource/How to help#Works; if I get it right, the items listed in Help:Import NBD from enwikisource/lists/other pages are not really covered by it… —MisterSynergy (talk) 08:29, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

items for Maupassant's editions and works

Hi, recently, I've been working on Maupassant's works, and systematically creating and linking frws editions. Each time I found en editions on the work item, I removed them, and created the edition item with title, language, author, translator when I could find it.

Just wanted to let you know, in case I let some slip through, or forgot to re-create the item for enws. Please let me know if I you find mistakes :) --Hsarrazin (talk) 14:32, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

@Hsarrazin: I love working with a knowledgeable professional. Not certain that I would even know what we have, though will keep an eye out.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
also, for your info, Tpt has created a nice script that allows to auto-import author, translator, publisher, date, etc. from the header in frws [1]. Maybe samwilson would be interested in adapting it for enws : it really saves a lot of time, especially for poems and short stories grouped in a collection ;) --Hsarrazin (talk) 14:49, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
sorry, just realized I forgot the link User:Tpt/ws2wd.js --Hsarrazin (talk) 14:51, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
^^^ @Samwilson:  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:53, 6 May 2018 (UTC)


Æsop and La Fontaine tales

Hi Billinghurst,

I just began disantangling Aesop's and La Fontaine's tales, that have been mixed up, because of similar title, and probably to have direct interwiki links.

On Aesop's tales, there are generally a lot of wikisource links. For enws, links are like s:en:The_Lion_and_the_Mouse_(Aesop), which makes me hesitate to leave them on the work item, because there are 4 translations of the same original greek text, which then could not be separate editions.

What do you think I should do with those ? leave them on work item ou create a (fictive) en edition one ?

PS : on frws, we would have each translation on a separate page, which would be simpler ;) --Hsarrazin (talk) 11:58, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

@Hsarrazin: They are old transcriptions for us, and we wouldn't do them that way now (same with the Bible pages). Issue is that no one has gone and split them apart, and probably due to lack of clear edition data. I would suggest that in this ugly state that they should be linked to the literary work, as when/if we split them the pages would be a versions page ("disambiguation" equivalents).  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:51, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
OK. That's what I would do on fr, but I couldn't be sure enws would do the same.
Feel free to help with them if you want ;D - thanks. --Hsarrazin (talk) 13:15, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Still fixing DNB linking at enWS, day 8, or thereabouts.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:30, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

publisher vs name authority

@billinghurst: I think that Joel Asaph Allen is also John Alphaeus Allen. The taxonomy name authorities abbreviate names, journals, anything, the important part is the name of the species it is following.

Is this something you can work through?--RaboKarbakian (talk) 17:27, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

@RaboKarbakian: They are different people with different dates of life, so they are not for merging. If you believe that incorrect attributions have been made for authority names, etc., then the best place to take that for discussion is to Wikidata talk:WikiProject Taxonomy; that community usually does well in sorting out such matters.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:26, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

deprecated

What I perceive to be a misuse of the word 'deprecated' hurt your credibility with me elsewhere. I did not look the word up before writing this. To me it means that the software is:

  • No longer maintained
  • Possibly/probably broken
  • Might disappear at any moment.

I think you used it to mean "we no longer do things that way" as the nicer way to do things is more likely to be deprecated before the other thing.

My outrage is undeserved and blown way out of proportion; yet it still persists. Truly, I have to mentally backtrack much to get in step again, if that is ever to happen.

The misuse of the word, especially if just to make a stronger statement and assure the approval of an opinion is a lot worse than the mis-spelling of a possibly fictional author name. That is my opinion. Not so bad if it just innocently used for lack of a different word.

"A great implementation of" is far more syllables.... I will work on it.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 16:09, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Help:Rank -> Help:Deprecation @RaboKarbakian: make of it what you want, it is the word used.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:36, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
The examples given both involve two different informations where one is wrong and the other is correct. This is like saying "we don't use the engine, only the car" which is very different from the conflicting information examples.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 23:38, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
You can have your semantics argument, however, having it with me isn't going to do anything. If think that you should have it then Wikidata:Project chat though I think that it may be considered shouting at clouds.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:13, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Shouting is rare by me. This was supposed to let you know of a misunderstanding which was detrimental to communication. It was about a union of information and software and a word which has a specific meaning when discussing software. I probably should have just repaired the wrong statement at the Help page -- serious documentation, I tried it once, wrote the docs in the style I most prefer and was then accused of writing like a German for whom English is a second (or third) language. So, I apparently will not be making any repairs, either with you or the seriously broken (emotionally charged) documentation.
I apologize for any "shouting" you might have imagined. It did not come from me. From me, it was more like a very very sad disclosure.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 01:56, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Two viaf, one person?

I started with a signature on an engraving, "C. Gray", the publication from 1844. I found https://viaf.org/viaf/310520702/ first. Then I found Q53501683 which mentions https://viaf.org/viaf/36706759/

I think that all 4 are the same. No, not so definite, more like "I have a strong feeling".

My feelings are in total deference to your decree and any instructions on how I should handle this (email to the viafizens, a phone call to my congressman, a note from the local librarian, whatever...) are welcome. --RaboKarbakian (talk) 01:50, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree, so I have added the first-mentioned VIAF to the Wikidata item, and marked it as a duplicate. At some point, by some process, VIAF does some sort of reconciliation of Wikidata and VIAF and reviews and makes corrections. What/where is the fourth item to be managed/merged. If it is of the subject matter of Gray, then quite likely, and the engraving would have its own item, and then would have Gray as the creator/engraver [we do have some works about engravers at enWS in the not proofread status if you want to dig, ping me there if you want a direct pointer]. FWIW did you follow the VIAF record to the LCCN?  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:51, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes I did, and the list of works added to my confusion. That the artist worked for two different engravers (one specializing in literature and the other in science) makes it all make more sense.
And thank goodness for all of the bot-overlords and their reconciliation skills!! (And your time for this.)
I was looking at https://archive.org/stream/talesfromshakspe01lamb#page/139/mode/1up --RaboKarbakian (talk) 14:06, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Q56163367

The VIAF you added for this author, along with birth/death years, do not seem to be correct. The VIAF ID is of Debendra Chandra Basu-Mallik, not Debendra Chandra Mallik. The first one was a student in 1905 (see here) when s:Chandrashekhar (Mullick) was published, but the second one was already a high court pleader (see title page of the book). Hrishikes (talk) 15:06, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Okay, VIAF search is buggy tonight, and having issues, didn't think it was that bad. I had backed off with it, and will let you fix it. Apologies.  — billinghurst sDrewth 15:10, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Images for human

I read the description of human. What is wrong with the images? --Eulenspiegel1 (talk) 16:08, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Atlas of Living Australia

Some time ago, you asked about collaboration with the Atlas of Living Australia. Did anything come of that? Was a Wikidata property ever proposed? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:17, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I had no response. I am unaware of any creation. I have moved on from the politics and activism within WD, practically now I populate WS and Commons items.  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:38, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
oops @Pigsonthewing:  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:00, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Billinghurst/Archives/2018".