CaLéValab

Welcome to Wikidata, CaLéValab!

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!

--Horcrux (talk) 16:35, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

genre Comedy

Please do not make a mass removal of data from data items. Literary works may have their genre included. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:47, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey:Hi EncycloPetey, I don't understand your remark. I just made a batch to replace comedy (Q40831) by comedy (Q5151421) when the entity is a play (Q25379) CaLéValab (talk) 18:54, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

That is an incorrect change. Many dramatic works (play (Q25379)) are comedy (Q40831), but not comedy (Q5151421). The latter is a subset of the more general comedy (Q40831). The general and preferred term is comedy (Q40831). Please revert your changes. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:57, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: isn't comedy (Q5151421) just the intersection between comedy (Q40831) and play (Q25379) ? One is "genre of dramatic works intended to be humorous" the other "theatrical genre intended to make an audience laugh". Am I wrong somewhere ? CaLéValab (talk) 19:02, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

NO. comedy (Q5151421) exists because English Wikipedia has a separate article; it is essentially a duplicate. comedy (Q40831) is the genre for dramatic works, including plays of all kinds. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:04, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

And @EncycloPetey: no need to undo manually the changes, I made a batch quickstatement. I'll undo it myself once I understood your point. CaLéValab (talk) 19:05, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. We are moving towards disentangling "form" of a work from "genre" of a work. So "genre" should merely be genre, not an intersection of form (play) and genre (comedy). Otherwise, we will have comedy play, comedy teleplay, comedy film, comedy novel, comedy short story, etc. Each of those things should be separated into "form" and "genre". The group organizing musical works has already started making those changes, and I hope the book / literature group will follow soon. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:09, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: So, I should not have done comedy (Q40831) to comedy (Q5151421) but comedy (Q5151421) to comedy (Q40831) + play (Q25379) ? With comedy (Q40831) as the genre and play (Q25379) as the form ? CaLéValab (talk) 19:32, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, use form of creative work (P7937): play (Q25379). Making that change will be a huge help, as it's fairly new. As I say, the music editors have only recently been adding form of creative work (P7937). --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:39, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Genres

You have added broad genres to items that already had specific ones such as adding fantasy (Q132311) to Mandricardo (Q107343033) when it already had speculative/fantastic fiction novel (Q10992055), or romantic fiction (Q19765983) to Silent Night (Q107090565) when it already had romance novel (Q858330). Was that intentional? I noticed that you used the more specific novel genres elsewhere so I'm wondering if you just used the wrong one. —Xezbeth (talk) 18:05, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

@Xezbeth:Hi Xezbeth,

I'm running a batch, it's not finished yet. I'm splitting genre and form for every book. For example, genre speculative/fantastic fiction novel (Q10992055) will become genre fantasy (Q132311) + form novel (Q8261). speculative/fantastic fiction novel (Q10992055) will then be removed from the book. CaLéValab (talk) 18:56, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Why not more exact speculative/fantastic fiction literature (Q5240628)? Why do you change adventure novel (Q319226) with less exact adventure fiction (Q21802675)? Have you discussed it somewhere?? --Infovarius (talk) 13:50, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Infovarius:, like I said on your discussion page, and like EncycloPetey said on my discussion page on the subject just above this one, the book wikiproject wants to disentangle form and genre. So genre adventure novel (Q319226) becomes form novel (Q8261) + genre adventure fiction (Q21802675) for every books. CaLéValab (talk) 13:56, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Q58483083

The dramatico-musical work (Q58483083) is not a genre. It is a subclass of dramatic works, literary works, and musical compositions. --EncycloPetey (talk)

My bad CaLéValab (talk) 23:05, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Warning

I came here to advice you to be more careful because I found one of your edits had deleted a referenced statement, but I see several complaints from other users. Please stop doing any mass edits until you reach a consensus. There's clearly some opposition to your edits, so you need to address all raised issues before continuing. Listening to what other editors tell you is the only way to keep editing in a collaborative project. Andreasm ^{háblame / just talk to me} 02:28, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Andreasmperu: I'm not sure to understand your remark on mass edits, since every mass edits I made are in line with the book wikiproject consensus about disentangling genre and other types of categorization (like form, target audience, literary movement, etc). I've addressed every question I've received from other contributors and corrected my edits when I was wrong. You could see that on my discussion page, and the discussion page of other contributors. I even made sure to do batch edits, so that I can easily revert all my edits in case I really get something wrong. I'm really careful about that. About the deleted referenced statement remark, yes indeed, my batch edits may have deleted some of them. I'm not sure there are many, so I can try to retrieve the name of the entities with deleted statements from my batch, and correct it manually. Thank you for having pointing it out to me. CaLéValab (talk) 13:03, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you CaLéValab for your work on this, I think 99% of the edits are without problems. As for references, you can try to retrieve at least most of them using a SPARQL query and then load these into QuickStatements - in the same way you probably load the values themselves.Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 12:13, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Vojtěch Dostál:, thank you for your message. For my new batches, I now add a few lines in my SPARQL queries to prevent me from selecting statements with references. But for my old batches, I tried yesterday to find a way to retrieve the statements which had references, and which I removed with my batches. I tried to use Wikidata:History Query Service but it does not contain history after 2019. Do you think of a way to do so ? CaLéValab (talk) 13:23, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I cannot think of a good solution for this. Maybe you could download your edit history and check the edits which remove most bytes from items? These are likely to be those where you removed some references. Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 13:36, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

literary vs dramatic

Wikidata has literary work (Q7725634), which is expressly a form of written work. For play (Q25379), we need a label "dramatic work", since plays are meant to be performed, not read. Unfortunately, there is no data item for "dramatic work"; it is incorporated into "play" (and should not be). We may need a discussion to ensure we can have a separate "dramatic work" that would have dramatico-musical work (Q58483083) as a sub-item. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:17, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi EncycloPetey, does that mean that there will be two items for each play on wikidata, one for the play as a "dramatic work" and another for the play as a "literary work" ? CaLéValab (talk) 18:30, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

No need to. We can set "dramatic work" as a subclass of "creative work". I would use "literary work" for most things published in print, but use "dramatic work" for performance works like plays, unless they are musical plays, like Andrew Lloyd Weber's "The Phantom of the Opera" or "The Sound of Music", and also operas like Mozart's "Die Zauberflöte". For those dramatico-musical work (Q58483083) is more appropriate. But the question could be asked. It may be that having both "dramatic work " and "literary work" would be a good idea. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:56, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Speculative fiction / Fantastique

Hi. At the moment it seems to me that the only possible solution to the problem of overlapping regional concepts would be to create a single item that would combine both meanings and labels in different languages:

speculative fiction/fantastique = major category for an international concept with shared meanings, put there all the articles describing this as the main working category of the region; this will be a superclass for all other subtypes of both terms

• speculative fiction = subclass of the above, with linked articles on the specific meaning and use of the term, indicating English-language usage, and specifying that it is intended to be used in comparison to another term, with no connected subclasses
• fantastique = the same, with the connection of articles on the specific meaning and use of the term, indicating the use of the term in non-English speaking countries and listing the differences between them, no linked subclasses. Solidest (talk) 21:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it seems like a good solution to me. I also thought of another solution, but not sure it is good : to put every wikipedia article about speculative fiction (according to English signification) in the item "speculative fiction" and every article about fantastique (according to French signification) in the item "fantastique", even if some languages use a word that looks like the word "fantastique" to actually speak of the genre called "speculative fiction" in English. Wikidata should be word-blind but meaning-smart right ? The problem is that some languages have two different articles about the category called "speculative fiction" in English, only with two different words (like the two Russian articles for example). CaLéValab (talk) 22:38, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

With the Russian wiki, the choice is easy to make. Fantastique describes a major genre of works and category concept. While speculative fiction is about the term and its application in Western culture. I guess other wikipedias will have something similar as well. So my approach is precisely aimed at this kind of situations. Solidest (talk) 00:36, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Ok then, let's do as you've suggested. CaLéValab (talk) 00:40, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi. I've noticed that you have removed the French article from this item: https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q5240628&type=revision&diff=1528176999&oldid=1507916050. Where do you think it should be? Solidest (talk) 16:10, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Solidest:, ideally in "speculative fiction literature" but it doesn't exist. However, the French wikipedia article associated to "speculative fiction" is already a redirection to "littérature de l'imaginaire". Is it needed to put it in two places ? CaLéValab (talk) 16:58, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

speculative/fantastic fiction literature (Q5240628) should represent the same concept as the above for a general fiction, i.e. it should be defined as "speculative fiction or fantastic literature". And yeah, literature article should not be linked with a general fiction item. Solidest (talk) 17:04, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

By the way, I'm currently having a discussion on Russian Wikipedia on the related topic (people ask to do the same cross-category as listed above), where one person say that the French use of "fantastique" is more closer to Russian's "mystics" aka supernatural fiction (Q7644030) (aka creative work with anything of supernatural involved), rather than to 'fantastic' or 'speculative fiction' (aka any creative work with presence of an element of the unrealistic or non-existent). I always thought that the latter is the only way to define it. While he asks me to move both English and French 'fantastique' to 'supernatural fiction'. What do you think on this? Solidest (talk) 17:40, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

In French, the word "fantastique" is ambiguous. The correct definition is "fiction where a supernatural element bursts in a world previously perceived as realistic" (so, for example, "Lord of the Rings" is NOT a "fantastique" book). However, sometimes the term is used to refer to every fiction containing supernatural (that's an improper use of the word). Some people then say that "Lord of the Rings" is "fantastique". But the French wikipedia article about "fantastique" uses the correct definition, the first one, not the second one. Then, the article should not be put into "supernatural fiction" (but be a subclass of "supernatural fiction"). "Fantastique" is not "mystics" nor "speculative fiction", but something even more specific. CaLéValab (talk) 19:33, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Does 'supernatural' (magic, ghosts, witchcraft, undead, vampires, etc) must necessarily be there, or is the 'unrealistic element' (based on science, technology, human body/behavior, unrealistic natural disasters, etc) would be enough? If it's only about supernatural, then it can't include 'alternative history' as well as many kinds of horror. I mostly wondering if Russian 'fantastic' = French 'fantastique' = German 'Phantastik' = English article 'Fantastique' or are they slightly different concepts. In Russian, the situation is roughly the same as you describe for French. Fantastic has two meanings - narrow and broad. The only difference is that supernatural does not play a decisive role, but instead it's all about "unrealistic element" (so Russian fantastic will include alternate worlds in both cases), while 'supernatural' stuff mostly classified as "supernatural fiction/ mystics". Solidest (talk) 10:27, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

That's a hard question. For me, yes, it has to be supernatural (I can't think of any work that I called or heard being called "fantastique" which did not include any supernatural element). The French Wikipedia article says the same. What is sure at least, is that "science-fiction" is not "fantastique" in French, same for "alternative history" (it feels wrong in French to say the opposite).

As for the English article called "Fantastique", it is about the same concept as the French article. The English article called "Fantastic" is also about the same concept (so both "Fantastique" and "Fantastic" should be merged I guess). The French article "Fantastique" and the English articles "Fantastic" and "Fantastique" seem to use the definition of Tzvetan Todorov (I don't know his work, but the three articles use him as a source for the definition given).

As for the German article, I don't really know (my German is very broken), but it seems like the article gives two definitions, one "Maximalistische Definition", which includes every supernatural fictions, and a "Minimalistische Definition", which is the same as the French article "Fantastique" and the English articles "Fantastique" and "Fantastic" (but to be verified with a German native speaker). CaLéValab (talk) 18:21, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

So it turns out that French fantastique and Russian fantastic are really different things. If Russian fantastic (and Deutsch Phantastik) has mostly the same concept as speculative fiction, then fantastique is a narrower category, that should exist separately, right? And it would be probably fair to add partially coincident with (P1382) = supernatural fiction (Q7644030)) for Fantastique? While en:Fantastic seems to be just literary counterpart of en:Fantastique. So it looks like the updated hierarchy from above should look something like this:

• speculative fiction / fantastic
  • speculative fiction [narrower articles]
  • fantastic [narrower articles, but it doesn't look like any of those exist]
  • supernatural fiction
    • fantastique
• speculative fiction / fantastic literature
  • supernatural literature
    • fantastique literature [English 'Fantastic' should be here that feels a bit weird, perhaps that article should be renamed]

That is, the general "spec-fi / fantastic" group would include articles of fiction, characterised by "unrealistic element" also linked with subgenres such as sci-fi, alternate history, horrors, fantasy. Whereas fantastique would denote a narrower regional group, subclass of supernatural fiction. The articles can probably be broken up in this way. But with categories it will be difficult to do so. Besides, articles with the similar titles are likely to be in 3 different items (which may look like a mistake to some people). Solidest (talk) 21:02, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Solidest, yes, French "fantastique" is definitely a narrower category, which is subclass of "supernatural fiction". The hierarchy looks fine for the French side. CaLéValab (talk) 16:28, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

play or literary work

At Nightie-Night (Q104072274) where you are changing instance_of=play to instance_of=literary_work, IBDB_ID gives an error message not to use an IBDB_ID for instance_of=literary_work. Someone pointed this out to you a few messages ago, but the changes you made are still there. --RAN (talk) 22:40, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): I understand what you say, but no one pointed this out to me. There is no message about "IBDB_ID" in here nor any message about an error generated by the batch you're talking about. Before my batch, lots of major plays were already instance of "literary work", like Romeo and Juliet (Q83186) and Le Bourgeois gentilhomme (Q1054372) (which also have IBDB ids by the way). My batch were only here to end the implementation of a policy of the book Wikiproject described here : Wikidata:Property proposal/literary form two years ago. The policy is to put literary forms in the P7937 property, and to put "literary work" in P31. play (Q25379) today is described as a literary form, and is even used as an example on the form of creative work (P7937) page. That being said, the theatrical ontology is very messy, and like @EncycloPetey: said on my discussion page a few weeks ago, maybe there should be two entities instead of one for "play". One for the dramatic work, and one for the literary form (like screenplay (Q103076) is the literary counterpart of "movie" and libretto (Q131084) the literary counterpart of "opera"). @Solidest: created this entity : theatrical work (Q110013395) a few days ago, which is in line with the proposition of EncycloPetey. Maybe we could do a batch which put "instance of theatrical work (Q110013395)" to every literary work with P7937 = play ? CaLéValab (talk) 00:00, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

• I don't know how best to resolve it, you are more the expert on the topic than me. Maybe the solution is discuss it at IBDB_ID to get more input from the people that work on plays. I am only working on the topic because of the images of theater marquees from 1920 at the Library of Congress. See for instance: File:Casino theater playing the musical The Little Whopper in 1920.jpg --RAN (talk) 00:05, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

  Alright, thank you for the insight on IBDB ids. What are EncycloPetey and Solidest thinking about my batch proposal ? Is it wise ? CaLéValab (talk) 00:12, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

  It seems to me that we shouldn't do full-scale batches yet, until we've established the right model. First, we need to sort out the metaclasses of drama (Q25372) and related things. Here's I was trying to think through how it should look like: Talk:Q25372#Dramas (even now I'm looking at this a bit differently). And I'm still not sure how to properly model drama - is it a genre or a mode or a manifestation of narrative or is it just a genre of fiction? On this depends whether our model really needs such a thing as "dramatic work", or whether it would be akin to "creative work in the genre of fiction: drama". Also, I already doubt that theatrical work (Q110013395) was something that we really need and if it should have been separated from play (Q25379). I originally thought there would be many types of such work, but it turns out that most of it is more of a dramatico-musical work (Q58483083) kind of thing. (although I just remembered that there are also many types of Asian theatre where we have to decide between genres and type of work). A hierarchy for dramatico-musical work also needs to be built/reworked. My original plan on that was:

  • type of work of arts
    • type of visual arts work
      • ...
    • type of literary work
    • type of performing work
      • type of dance
      • type of theatrical/dramatic work
    • type of musical work
      • type of musical composition (not necessarily split this at this point)
    • more types here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_arts

  But because of "drama", it turned out to be a bit more complicated, and I'm still thinking about a better implementation - whether or not to include "narrative work" here.

  We also have things like performing arts production (Q43099500) and theatrical production (Q7777570) to fit into the model as well.

  It seems to me that the right way would be to use as a basis and expand the table that I published in Books Project: Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_Books#poetry (Q482) vs poem (Q5185279). Everything about the narrative seems to me to be one big blank spot that needs to be worked out and tied with the other spheres. Perhaps this table could serve as a starting point for a new WikiProject Arts (Q14942897) on Wikidata, where at first we could start with extending this table with all existing classes for all the spheres of creative arts. Solidest (talk) 10:24, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): What we really need to do is to separate "dramatic work" from "play". Currently they are the same data item, but dramatic works include many things that are not plays, and a play is just one form of dramatic work. Until we make that split between category of work and form of work, we'll have serious difficulties. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:47, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

genre poetry

poetry (Q482) is not a genre. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:18, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

It may be not a genre, but it is certainly not a class. Nothing can be "a poetry". We have no property for "compositional style", so in the meantime, it's better to put "poetry" in genre and remove it from "instance of". Isn't it ? CaLéValab (talk) 23:20, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: I quite understood your point about poetry being more a compositional style than a genre or a form, but in the meantime, the poetry/poem ontology remains extremely messy, with some items using poetry and poem interchangeably, sometimes as a genre, a form, or a class. So something has to be done. We could transfer "genre"-> "poetry" to "style"->"poetry" or whatever seems wiser. But we cannot keep the status quo. CaLéValab (talk) 23:38, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I see that "poetry" is no more described as an instance of genre here in wikidata, but is still an instance of "literary form" and "narrative form" (I forgot about it). Would it be more acceptable to use "poetry" with "P7937" instead ? CaLéValab (talk) 23:42, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

No, "poetry" would not work with form of creative work (P7937). It does not describe the form of the work. "Poetry" can be in the form of a play, a song, an epic, etc. The term describes something that we do not seem to have a property for. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:52, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Getting an overview

Hi, I see that you are working on genres. I don't envy you; I briefly looked into that a year and a half ago and found that the class tree was in such a mess that I didn't know where to start untangling it. Besides, I'm not much of an art or literature fan either; I'd rather work on math and technology. I don't run batch jobs or robots, as I don't feel confident enough I'm getting it right. If it's too much work for me to do it manually, then I probably shouldn't be doing it at all.

However, I obtained some lists and numbers concerning the class tree structure beneath Genre to try to get an overview of the situation (that's when I concluded it was a mess), and now I thought maybe you could have use for that overview as well? I think I need a group of model items somewhere to illustrate how works, genres and genre classes all fit together before I can get involved at all with editing live items.

I also made a table to try to sort out what goes under what property. I'm sorry for the lack of explanatory notes; I even find it hard myself to remember what I had in mind for those empty table cells. Maybe you have ideas I could use to improve it. --SM5POR (talk) 21:11, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi @SM5POR:, thanks for the link ! The genre ontology is indeed very messy, and it becomes worse once you've realized there are also "style", "form", "theme", "movement" and "type". @Solidest: started the Wikidata:WikiProject Arts whose goal is to clarify what we call "style", "form", "genre", etc, and to give an overview of the ontology across many art forms (literature, music, etc). You're welcome on this project ! CaLéValab (talk) 00:12, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

problème conceptuel

suite à https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?diff=1565324358&oldid=1565265826&title=Q47461344&diffmode=source je me pose des questions...

en effet, oeuvre écrite ne devrait pas être "au dessus" mais "au dessous" de document, d'un point de vue conceptuel...

de fait, j'ai ajouté cette sous-classe à cause d'une violation de contrainte sur une lettre -> dont je ne peux pas mettre le destinataire sans avoir une violation de contrainte, ce qui est tout de même assez paradoxal... Q110627242

il semblerait que l'alerte de violation de contrainte ait été résolue, mais j'ignore comment si ça n'est pas mon ajout... Hsarrazin (talk) 15:42, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

@Hsarrazin: c'est corrigé, je viens de changer la contrainte de destinataire, pour autoriser qu'une oeuvre écrite puisse avoir un destinataire (ce qui me paraît raisonnable). CaLéValab (talk) 16:02, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Merci !! Hsarrazin (talk) 16:16, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Collapsing anything

Hello, I wonder if you could take a look on this and give me your opinion, since I don't understand French: The Swedish noun "ras" has two general meanings, ras (L473476) meaning breed (Q38829) or race (Q918036) (historically also human race (Q3254959), but that sense is frowned upon as both inhumane and out of touch with modern science) and ras (L473474) meaning "geologic or structural collapse" (it can be applied to landslides and collapsing mines, bridges or buildings alike). However, ras (L473474) is incorrectly linked to breed (Q38829), and I'm therefore searching for an existing item that combines the physical collapses of soil, rock and artificial objects.

In doing so, I have located:

• structural failure (Q1309431)
• cave-in (Q870545)
• cave-in (Q12134846) (which I merged into cave-in (Q870545))
• mining subsidence (Q2826041)
• surface subsidence (Q849953)
• sinkhole (Q188734)
• sinkhole (Q56303174)
• slide (Q3574985)
• landslide (Q167903)
• depression (Q190429)

and so on; very few with instance of (P31) or subclass of (P279) statements indicating how they are supposed to relate to each other.

Using Google Translate I got the impression that the English, Japanese, Korean, Chinese and (after my merge) Ukrainian articles linked to cave-in (Q870545) go together, but the French article seems to stand out by having more text and different illustrations. Can you tell me whether fr:Fontis matches the cave-ins that are described in the other languages, including English, or would you rather connect it to some other items listed above? --SM5POR (talk) 18:50, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello @SM5POR:, I'm not an expert in geology, and I didn't even know the word "frontis" before. But the French wikipedia article seems to describe it as any collapse of ground due to the collapse of underground structure. Looks like what is also described in the English article. So the connection is correct to me. However, "frontis", and "cave-in", do not apply to "collapse of artificial object" (except if the artificial object is a mine). So it is more precise than what "ras" means in Swedish. I can't think of any French word that would encompass geologic AND structural collapse. CaLéValab (talk) 19:11, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Utopian fiction

This item was specifically created for literary fiction, as can be seen by the identifiers. Please see the talk page at https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Talk:Q15062360. This is a big difference between the Wikidata community in general and the library/cataloging community. Fiction to us, and in our controlled vocabularies, is only literary. Fiction in a library catalog and in controlled vocabularies such as the Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) and the Library of Congress Genre/Form Terms (LCGFT) is a subclass (narrower term) under Literature only. So to a library cataloger, fiction means novels, novellas, short stories only. It does not include films, television programs, games, comics, or any other form. In LCSH and LCGFT, utopian fiction is only a type of literature therefore. Reconciling library controlled terms with Wikidata items therefore can be very imprecise. For example, LCSH and LCGFT identifiers are found on science fiction (Q24925), but these terms in the LC vocabularies are strictly literary in their meaning, whereas the item is much much broader. UWashPrincipalCataloger (talk) 22:34, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello @UWashPrincipalCataloger: thanks for your message. Wikidata tries to not be specific to literature when speaking about genres. That's why almost each genre has a relative item more specific to literature. See science fiction (Q24925) and science fiction literature (Q3238422) ; fiction (Q8253) and fiction literature (Q38072107) ; utopian fiction (Q15062360) and utopian literature (Q111972381) (that you created, thank you). It's been decided in Wikidata, some years ago, that works should use broad genres (like science fiction (Q24925)) and not specific genres (like science fiction literature (Q3238422)) to go with the property genre (P136). Since work items in Wikidata already use utopian fiction (Q15062360) as their genre, its better to keep utopian fiction (Q15062360) about the broad genre, and to not make it specific to literature. So, about the identifiers, I don't know, but moving them to utopian literature (Q111972381) might be ok. CaLéValab (talk) 16:14, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

utopian literature (Q111972381) would be for any form of utopian literature (fiction, drama, poetry), not just fiction literature. I guess I need to create a new item for utopican fiction literature. UWashPrincipalCataloger (talk) 17:40, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Contributions Wikidata au monde du théâtre

Bonjour @CaLéValab, j’ai vu que vous avez fait plusieurs modifications à des éléments Wikidata du domaine du théâtre. J’ai moi-même plusieurs jeux de données de ce type à partager et à enrichir. Plusieurs des changements que vous avez fait me semblent intéressants et audacieux. Je serais intéressé à discuter avec vous, je suis moi-même plutôt technique, mais qui évolue dans le domaine culturel québécois. Cordialement, Antoine2711 (talk) 06:39, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Bonjour @Antoine2711: je suis désolé de répondre si tard, je n'ai pas été très actif sur wiki pendant quelques semaines. Il y a sur Wikidata un projet "Livre" (ici Wikidata:WikiProject_Books) où la communauté discute des améliorations possibles concernant la littérature sur Wikidata. Peut-être pourriez-vous y lancer une discussion où vous décririez les jeux de données que vous avez à disposition. Si ce sont des bases libres de droits alors on pourra certainement les fusionner à Wikidata (manuellement si elles sont petites, automatiquement sinon).

Concernant mes contributions, je vous remercie grandement de les avoir décrites comme intéressantes et audacieuses. Le plus dur concerne "l'ontologie" littéraire, c'est-à-dire la façon de classer les oeuvres. Il y a des questions de définition (qu'est ce que l'on appelle "genre", "forme", "thème", "registre", "mouvement littéraire", etc ?), des enjeux de langues ("fantastique", "fantaisie", "merveilleux", "fiction spéculative", ne désignent pas toujours les mêmes choses d'une culture à une autre), des enjeux concernant certaines catégories spécifiques (le théâtre fait-il partie de la littérature même lorsque la pièce n'est jamais fixée à l'écrit ? Fait-il partie de l'art corporel, au même titre que la danse, même lorsque la pièce n'a jamais été représentée ? Doit-on séparer la pièce publiée à l'écrit, éditée, et que l'on retrouve chez les libraires, des représentations auxquelles on assiste en allant au théâtre ?), etc. Je serai ravi d'entendre vos idées d'amélioration sur le sujet (car il y a encore énormément à faire). CaLéValab (talk) 15:35, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Bonjour @CaLéValab !

J’ai accès à plusieurs jeux de données, et, selon la qualité de ceux-ci, je pousse certaines informations ou non.

Ce sont les questions comme celles que vous soulevez sur les thèmes, genre, et d’autres valorisations du jeu de données, comme les univers, les personnages et leurs liens de parentés, etc. que je tente d’approfondir et de mieux comprendre, dans la perspective de mieux ajouter ces données aux éléments culturels que nous avons à partager.

J'imagine que vous êtes en Europe, vu votre fuseau horaire. Je suis situé au Québec, mais mon partenaire d’affaire est en France en ce moment. Voudriez-vous discuter par courriel ? <antoine@beaubien.qc.ca> Cordialement, Antoine2711 (talk) 17:43, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in the WQT UI requirements elicitation online workshop

Dear CaLéValab,

I hope you are doing well,

We are a group of researchers from King’s College London working on developing WQT (Wikidata Quality Toolkit), which will support a diverse set of editors in curating and validating Wikidata content.

We are inviting you to participate in an online workshop aimed at understanding the requirements for designing effective and easy-to-use user interfaces (UI) for three tools within WQT that can support the daily activities of Wikidata editors: recommending items to edit based on their personal preferences, finding items that need better references, and generating entity schemas automatically for better item quality.

The main activity during this workshop will be UI mockup sketching. To facilitate this, we encourage you to attend the workshop using a tablet or laptop with PowerPoint installed or any other drawing tools you prefer. This will allow for a more interactive and productive session as we delve into the UI mockup sketching activities.

Participation is completely voluntary. You should only take part if you want to and choosing not to take part will not disadvantage you in any way. However, your cooperation will be valuable for the WQT design. Please note that all data and responses collected during the workshop will be used solely for the purpose of improving the WQT and understanding editor requirements. We will analyze the results in an anonymized form, ensuring your privacy is protected. Personal information will be kept confidential and will be deleted once it has served its purpose in this research.

The online workshop, which will be held on April 5th, should take no more than 3 hours.

If you agree to participate in this workshop, please either contact me at kholoud.alghamdi@kcl.ac.uk or use this form to register your interest https://forms.office.com/e/9mrE8rXZVg Then, I will contact you with all the instructions for the workshop.

For more information about my project, please read this page: https://king-s-knowledge-graph-lab.github.io/WikidataQualityToolkit/

If you have further questions or require more information, don't hesitate to contact me at the email address mentioned above.

Thank you for considering taking part in this project.

Regards Kholoudsaa (talk) 01:16, 18 March 2024 (UTC)