CactiStaccingCrane
Recent Starship changes edit
I wanted to drop a line to explain a few of my reversions and changes at Starship (Q62833385).
- I removed the extra entries from inception (P571) as they more properly belonged in significant event (P793). Well, the Design entry did not, and doesn't belong anywhere since it's far too nebulous a concept to tie to a timeframe. SpaceX has been designing and iterating since 2005, and they continue to do so, so assigning any kind of date to "Design" is inappropriate.
- The specific vehicle entries under significant event (P793), on the other hand, are things that need to go in their individual item pages rather than in the top-level programmatic items. Don't apply information about specific items to broader concepts, otherwise we'll be stuffing literally everything into those broader concepts, which serves no one.
- Please be careful when using the Preferred, Normal, and Deprecated ranks, because they have specific uses. Also, they're not necessarily well named for their use. Preferred is for when everything in a group is correct, but one or more items are the most current or correct, or acting as primary identifiers. Deprecated is for when a statement was once considered correct (i.e., source-able) but was not correct (taken somewhat liberally), not merely when the statement is outdated but correct at a previous time. So, under name (P2561), all those previous statements were once correct, but Starship is the most correct, rather than the old statements actually being wrong. If that makes sense, which...it probably doesn't, because the damn interface is simply too limited at times.
- I really don't understand why you want to remove "Replaces: Big Falcon Rocket". I won't restore it at this time, though.
- There is almost never a time when both country (P17) and country of origin (P495) should be used at the same time, since the latter is a subproperty of the former. located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) are for things that are fixed in place, such as specific monuments, buildings, towns, geographic features, etc. It wouldn't be appropriate here since Starship is not fixed in place. For that matter, I would only use located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) for now-fixed-but-previously-weren't items, like Starhopper, if dating could be defined to show when it became that way.
- I'm concerned about the use of SN20 and BN4 as "model item" since those are by no means final designs, so they cannot meet the criteria of being "best practices". — Huntster (t @ c) 15:37, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- About the Big Falcon Rocket, I going to merge it here and make the values as depreciated. Other than that, thanks a lot for correcting my mistakes! I just finished my unified infobox here with wikidata, if you want to have a look:
- Why merge? We also have Interplanetary Transport System (Q27044183). It's not bad to leave historical items alone. For example, it's incredibly frustrating at times trying to include a specific manufacturer or whatnot that used to exist but was either bought by another company or merged, but no individual record exists on WD because it's been absorbed by the newer entity. Means there's no paper trail, no way to set up "follows/followed by" or "replaces/replaced by". Not to mention, it could be very confusing to end users to see a particular business referenced somewhere, but in reality it was a different company altogether, sometimes with only tangential industrial relation. Just something to consider. — Huntster (t @ c) 17:02, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- That reasoning makes a ton of sense! I added the followed property to Starship and followed by to BFR. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:04, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- I also gonna make each prior names a wikidata item as well, when I have time... CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:05, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- Do remember that there's a different between replaces (P1365)/replaced by (P1366) and follows (P155)/followed by (P156). Follows is most appropriate for related items that are sequential, but may exist at the same time (like ship classes, for example. one class may be the successor to another, but they usually work at the same time), whereas Replaces is most appropriate for related items that wholly take the place of their predecessors (for example, the previous item ceases to exist upon inception of the next item, such as a company being bought by another, or a research program that takes the place of a previous program). — Huntster (t @ c) 18:36, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- Hmm, it's interesting that both can be applied here. BFR both is a predecessor and being replaced by Starship, but I gonna go with the latter because BFR does not get mentioned after Starship is announced. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:05, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- Exactly correct. Many entities could in some way could use "Followed", but a much smaller subset can use "Replaced". For this particular developmental process, once each new revision or iteration of the vessel began, the previous revision became obsolete and development stopped. So, "Replaced". — Huntster (t @ c) 02:09, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- Hmm, it's interesting that both can be applied here. BFR both is a predecessor and being replaced by Starship, but I gonna go with the latter because BFR does not get mentioned after Starship is announced. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:05, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- Do remember that there's a different between replaces (P1365)/replaced by (P1366) and follows (P155)/followed by (P156). Follows is most appropriate for related items that are sequential, but may exist at the same time (like ship classes, for example. one class may be the successor to another, but they usually work at the same time), whereas Replaces is most appropriate for related items that wholly take the place of their predecessors (for example, the previous item ceases to exist upon inception of the next item, such as a company being bought by another, or a research program that takes the place of a previous program). — Huntster (t @ c) 18:36, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- I also gonna make each prior names a wikidata item as well, when I have time... CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:05, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- That reasoning makes a ton of sense! I added the followed property to Starship and followed by to BFR. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:04, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- Why merge? We also have Interplanetary Transport System (Q27044183). It's not bad to leave historical items alone. For example, it's incredibly frustrating at times trying to include a specific manufacturer or whatnot that used to exist but was either bought by another company or merged, but no individual record exists on WD because it's been absorbed by the newer entity. Means there's no paper trail, no way to set up "follows/followed by" or "replaces/replaced by". Not to mention, it could be very confusing to end users to see a particular business referenced somewhere, but in reality it was a different company altogether, sometimes with only tangential industrial relation. Just something to consider. — Huntster (t @ c) 17:02, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- Regarding Starship (Q56650652), you changed vehicle model (Q29048322) to spacecraft (Q40218). The problem here is that it is already a subclass of reusable spacecraft (Q96401666), which is a subclass of spacecraft (Q40218), so this is redundant. Additionally, Starship (Q56650652) is not an instance of, meaning a unique entity, of spacecraft (Q40218), in the way that, say, Ship 20 (Q108824404) is a unique instance of Starship (Q56650652) or B1024 (Q109567240) is a unique instance of Falcon 9 Full Thrust (Q22808999). It can sometimes be a fine line, but think of it this way: Starship (Q56650652) can be subdivided into further unique instances of itself, whereas Ship 20 (Q108824404) cannot. Starship (Q56650652) is most properly an instance of a vehicle model (Q29048322), since all manufactured entities are of (essentially) the same model, like a Renault Mascott (Q1500058). — Huntster (t @ c) 06:22, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- Actually, I just had a startling realisation: it would be vehicle model series (Q29048319). We have at least five known variations of Starship: the current developmental series, and the future Passenger, Cargo, Tanker, and HLS verions. Huh. — Huntster (t @ c) 07:23, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Call for participation in a task-based online experiment edit
Dear CactiStaccingCrane,
I hope you are doing good,
I am Kholoud, a researcher at King's College London, and I work on a project as part of my PhD research, in which I have developed a personalised recommender system that suggests Wikidata items for the editors based on their past edits. I am collaborating on this project with Elena Simperl and Miaojing Shi.
I am inviting you to a task-based study that will ask you to provide your judgments about the relevance of the items suggested by our system based on your previous edits. Participation is completely voluntary, and your cooperation will enable us to evaluate the accuracy of the recommender system in suggesting relevant items to you. We will analyse the results anonymised, and they will be published to a research venue.
The study will start in late January 2022 or early February 2022, and it should take no more than 30 minutes.
If you agree to participate in this study, please either contact me at kholoud.alghamdi@kcl.ac.uk or use this form https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSees9WzFXR0Vl3mHLkZCaByeFHRrBy51kBca53euq9nt3XWog/viewform?usp=sf_link I will contact you with the link to start the study.
For more information about the study, please read this post: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User:Kholoudsaa In case you have further questions or require more information, don't hesitate to contact me through my mentioned email.
Thank you for considering taking part in this research.
Regards
Starship edit
Re: this revert; except Starship isn't a Russian vehicle operating by Russian definitions. Not sure why you would feel the need to define the vehicle that way. It's inappropriate. — Huntster (t @ c) 13:10, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- Huntster, I think I misunderstood your intent. Sorry, reverting back now. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:24, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, I apologize if I was unclear in my edit summary. My initial revert was purely for that reason...that the U.S. and Russia have different definitions. I would love it if everything was standardized, but the nations cannot even agree on the definition of the edge of space! hah. — Huntster (t @ c) 17:46, 23 June 2022 (UTC)