User talk:Billinghurst/Archives/2020

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


Q85509262 Q85509262

 — billinghurst sDrewth 13:11, 4 February 2020 (UTC)



I've got a question about the item award subsidiary in rank to later award (Q41787617) you created and putting deprecated rank to out-of-date awards. It's seems to me to be incoherent with the habits and the documentation like Help:Ranking and Help:Deprecation (especially Help:Deprecation#Outdated statements and 'end date').

Am I missing something? Is there a page wear I can learn more about this (seems-to-be) exception for award subsidiary in rank to later award (Q41787617).

Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 11:41, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

@VIGNERON: In the Commonwealth awards systems, when someone is granted a higher award in the same order, the lower award is basically deprecated by the higher award. So it is not a preference issue where the highest in the order takes place, you move ranks, so the previous award while still awarded is deprecated. Order of the British Empire: MBE > OBE > CBE > KBE > GBE; Order of Australia: OAM > AM > AO > AC > AK. Where a higher award is received in the same order the lower order is returned. You can see the protocol explained here  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:11, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
@billinghurst: thanks I totally get that part (it's more or less the same in most system as far as I know), my concern is that « deprecated » in this context seems contradictory with « deprecated » in the Wikidata ranking system context.
See Help:Deprecation :
Statements in Wikidata should be ranked as deprecated (and not removed) if they are:
  • superseded (as opposed to "outdated"; see note on 'end date', below)
  • now known to be wrong, but were once thought correct
We are not in the first case (look at the note) and clearly not in the second.
Ranking in Wikidata can be quite tricky, so I'm only 70% sure here.
Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 12:20, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
@VIGNERON: The higher award is an archetypal version of superseded, and it is not outdated. Yes they will have a date they are superseded, but it is still superseded. As of date A, they had award X, at date B, they had award X+, at date C … <shrug>  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:30, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
@billinghurst: I'm not sure to understand how it fits "superseded" in Wikidata ranking system context, the documentation page five other examples where superseded facts should not use the deprecated rank (ie. population, spouse and position) which feels similar to awards to me. May I ask on the Wikidata:Project chat to have more input? Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 12:54, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
The page uses the English words superseded and deprecation, and this is what the award system does. They get one, it is superseded by the awarding of a later of a higher rank, and the original is deprecated. Those are the words in the help document. It is not a population on a continuum, it is not a marriage where each marriage is of equal value with different people; it is not a position. It is not outdated, it is a rank, then it is another rank with the original identified, but now not applied. If they use English words, with English meanings, they will get applied. One cannot used "preferred" as it is not about preference. Beyond that I cannot help you.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:11, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Your logic is a bit strange. I will ask on Wikidata:Project chat to have a clearer view. Thanks anyway for the clarifications. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 14:33, 4 April 2020 (UTC)


I want to let you know it saddens me tremendously to see you remove all connections from Wikimedia Commons to the list of mayors, of which I, in a mayor effort, created about five hundred, if not more, to have the Commons category linked to the lists of mayors on Wikipedia. I want to treat the lists as any other 'normal' article, mainly because the lists are complete and the Wikipedia categories are not (and there are no articles 'Mayors of ...' on Wikipedia). This is a returning kind of 'vandalism', and I am too tired of it to again fight it, but it makes me very unhappy to get all these messages. Eissink (talk) 11:09, 1 August 2020 (UTC).

@Eissink: Where like categories exist they are to be aligned, this enables ALL the sister wikis to align on such categories. We then link the list to the category. That is the agreed preference, and no different to any other article that links to a Commons category when the category item exists.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:14, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
And this was the plan that was agreed with both Commons and Wikidata, and there is information and graphic at Commons that explains this.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:17, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
@Eissink: Wikidata:Requests for comment/Commons links  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:23, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
I don't want to argue on it anymore, but see the lengthy discussion I had on this topic with Mike Peel. Sometimes one might want to revise 'agreements', but let me just say that this is not the only matter on Wikidata where 'tradition' stands in the way of logic: there is no epistemological reason whatsoever to treat 'list'-articles any different than 'normal' articles, yet "computer says no" seems to be the standard answer from Wikidata enthousiastics – I'm afraid it's the worldwide tragedy of engineers' power grasp at the expence of humanistic thought and just common sense really. I don't see how I can change any of this (let alone the zealousness of brassen Wikidata adepts), but it is annoying to get Commons messages "has been connected to Wikidata" when they had been connected already. Good luck and happy editing, Eissink (talk) 11:35, 1 August 2020 (UTC).
Please make sure to connect the category and list items in both directions with list related to category (P1753) and category related to list (P1754), and all should be OK. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:39, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
@Mike Peel: That is the job of a bot; alternatively a tool like TODO; too much faffing around.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:41, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Or a gadget that says ADD THE REVERSE. Don't make people faff around.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
*grumbles* ... *starts a new script for pi bot*. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:44, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
@Mike Peel: Adding mirror links is the MOST irritating task. From the WS end when using WEF framework that I have to go and individually go and add reverse links and the qualifying statements, eg. spouse and start & finish dates. AAAAAGH!  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:48, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
OK, coded and running for topic's main category (P910)/category's main topic (P301) and list related to category (P1753)/category related to list (P1754). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 12:09, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Brilliant. Can I also suggest "different from" if not already done.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:14, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think I have to explain why I am here again. Perhaps you can explain me, for once, why the thousands of lists of Dutch monuments (like nl:Lijst van rijksmonumenten in Diepenheim) can have the Wikidata-construction that I also favor for the Mayors, but somehow everyone seems eager to dismantle that construction for the Mayors? I am getting so tired of it, perhaps you can explain it to me. When you work with the Commons categories on mayors, it is so complicating to have the construction you just (again) added to [Mayors of Weert and others. It is so time consuming. Please give me the reason this time, please. Thanks, Eissink (talk) 11:52, 25 November 2020 (UTC).

Not only the many Rijksmonumenten have the construction, but also thousands of municipal monuments, like this one. And I'm sure there are more examples. If someone were to remove the Wikidata-constructions on the monuments, I think hell would break loose, yet somehow I keep getting harassed with the Mayors lists. It wasn't funny from the beginning, but when I have to discuss it with the same user again, it is getting even worse. Eissink (talk) 12:07, 25 November 2020 (UTC).
@Eissink: These changes are not respective to the topic matter it is the design componentry of Wikidata. When there is a Commons category and a Wikidata category item, then that is where the commons category and its interwiki belong. This happens with categories for countries, plant species, people, authors, and so on, please don't criticise me for following the plan. The linking methodology is the placement of the property linking the list item to the category item, which I have been doing at the same time.

If there is NO category item, then the placement of Commons category links has had more latitude, and they are usually against the direct item, though obviously you have been putting them against list items. Please don't criticise me for following the design, and if you wish to better understand or complain about the design, then please use Wikidata:Project chat where maybe someone can explain it better than me.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:47, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your effort, but I still don't understand any of it. I think there is something fundamentally wrong with Wikidata's architecture. I have always found it strange that Wikidata has Wikimedia categories as objects, because they are in a way self-referring and therefor tautological – what is the actual use, besides being 'part of the plan'? But I'm done with it, I quit, so good luck. Eissink (talk) 00:26, 26 November 2020 (UTC).
@Eissink: I have to disagree with your assessment when this is considered as a global model. Your methodology only works well when you consider things in terms of the one item list. You have to consider that a subject can exist, a list can exist, and a category exists, and these can exist in multiple languages in multiple sister wikis. Each wiki may have their category set up different ways and with different linking to it. This is why the schema exists as it is, and you are trying to say that for your smaller example we should shoehorn it to solely fit your lesser scope rather than global model.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:51, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
I wouldn't call my scope "lesser" than the "global model", but I'm happy the latter fits you better, even when it makes no sense. As I said, "I think there is something fundamentally wrong with Wikidata's architecture", and I'm sorry you're not able to convince me otherwise. Bye, Eissink (talk) 01:20, 27 November 2020 (UTC).

Unsigned comments

Please sign your comments, adding "--~~~~". I already did it here: Talk:Q102936549 Estopedist1 (talk) 09:43, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

<sigh> #yeahnah. If it is a discussion point, then I will. If it is just a statement of fact, sometimes one can just leverage the history.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:11, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Billinghurst/Archives/2020".