Rua
Welcome to Wikidata, Rua!
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!
IPA in gronostaj edit
Hi, regarding this change https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Lexeme%3AL21318&type=revision&diff=747103674&oldid=746937759 there is actually false statement after your edit. My edit was sourced with imported from Wikimedia project (P143)=Polish Wiktionary (Q33109097) and it is stated there. After your edit value of IPA is no more according to this statement so you have to put another source or remove source statement completly. KaMan (talk) 14:15, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- My source is the English Wiktionary. —Rua (mew) 14:28, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- I would prefer if the Polish lexemes could have pronounciation taken from Polish Wiktionary since its the natural source. There is whole automatic system of building IPA established on Polish Wiktionary (described in Polish here). KaMan (talk) 14:42, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- Ok, but is the pronunciation scheme used there phonemic (with //) or phonetic (with [])? English Wiktionary uses a phonemic scheme. There should be both phonetic and phonemic pronunciations on a form, so that people can learn both the phonemes and the pronunciation details. —Rua (mew) 14:52, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not specialist in IPA, see wikt:pl:gronostaj. KaMan (talk) 14:55, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- It's phonetic, indicated by the []. You should include the [] marks on Wikidata as well, they are important for the pronunciation information. The phonetic information from the Polish Wiktionary can exist side-by-side with the phonemic information from English Wiktionary, both should be provided. —Rua (mew) 14:57, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- Ok, I edited gronostaj (L21318), thanks. KaMan (talk) 15:01, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- It's phonetic, indicated by the []. You should include the [] marks on Wikidata as well, they are important for the pronunciation information. The phonetic information from the Polish Wiktionary can exist side-by-side with the phonemic information from English Wiktionary, both should be provided. —Rua (mew) 14:57, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- Because earlier I entered many IPAs without this [] markup I added this task to ideas of maintanance queries for future once lexemes will be enabled for queries. KaMan (talk) 07:53, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not specialist in IPA, see wikt:pl:gronostaj. KaMan (talk) 14:55, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- Ok, but is the pronunciation scheme used there phonemic (with //) or phonetic (with [])? English Wiktionary uses a phonemic scheme. There should be both phonetic and phonemic pronunciations on a form, so that people can learn both the phonemes and the pronunciation details. —Rua (mew) 14:52, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- I would prefer if the Polish lexemes could have pronounciation taken from Polish Wiktionary since its the natural source. There is whole automatic system of building IPA established on Polish Wiktionary (described in Polish here). KaMan (talk) 14:42, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Your bot logs edit
Could you please look into your bot logs if there is anything strange when it is finishing his creations of lexemes? Look at https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:NewPages?namespace=146&tagfilter=&username=&size-mode=min&size=&wpFormIdentifier=newpagesform . Your bot was running in two parts. From L23897 to L23899 and from L23909 to L23912, but every time it finished his part there is hole in numbering of lexemes. There is no lexeme L23900 and no lexeme L23913. I read every lexeme created and these are only holes recently (there were also holes in your contributions but you stated that your bot was running under your account). Could you run your bot again for 3 entries and then create one lexeme by hand and check if there is again hole in numbering between your bot and lexeme created by hand? KaMan (talk) 14:38, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
- When creating a new page, you don't specify an ID, the website picks one for you. So if the numbering is acting strange, it's not the bot doing it. —Rua (mew) 14:40, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, I know. I don't blame your bot. But it seems somehow related and to report bug in phabricator some diagnosing is needed. It can be bug in the API because editing by hand use different parts of interface. KaMan (talk) 15:02, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
- Ok, I did some edits under the User:MewBot account, then I created *ëktë (L23927) by hand. —Rua (mew) 15:06, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
- Ok, thank you. There is no hole now, so that was false trail. I will be observing it. It's just that these holes happen from time to time and it is hard to notice any regularity. KaMan (talk) 15:16, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
- Ok, I did some edits under the User:MewBot account, then I created *ëktë (L23927) by hand. —Rua (mew) 15:06, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, I know. I don't blame your bot. But it seems somehow related and to report bug in phabricator some diagnosing is needed. It can be bug in the API because editing by hand use different parts of interface. KaMan (talk) 15:02, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Saami inflection patterns edit
- Q56633409/Q56633433: I think I corrected it now. Sobreira (talk) 11:57, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you. I noticed the same on inflection class (Q56633378) and paradigm class (P5911) as well. —Rua (mew) 11:58, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Why can't I link inflection class and conjugation class through a simple See also? Sobreira (talk) 12:20, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
- I don't know, what happens if you try? —Rua (mew) 12:23, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Sobreira: related property (P1659) connects P-items (properties) while inflection class (Q56633378) and conjugation class (Q53996674) are Q-items. KaMan (talk) 12:46, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
- @KaMan: Later I guessed that restriction to P, but how to connect Q to Q elements then? Like two subclasses of the same class? Mainly when there's no hyperonym. Sobreira (talk) 22:28, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Sobreira: AFAIK there is rule to not create properties which can be obtained by the query. But I'm fairly new to Wikidata world, you can find more answers by asking in Wikidata:Project chat. KaMan (talk) 05:10, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
- @KaMan: Later I guessed that restriction to P, but how to connect Q to Q elements then? Like two subclasses of the same class? Mainly when there's no hyperonym. Sobreira (talk) 22:28, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Sobreira: related property (P1659) connects P-items (properties) while inflection class (Q56633378) and conjugation class (Q53996674) are Q-items. KaMan (talk) 12:46, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Merging of Q1136860 and Q1082861 edit
Hi Rua
Please note that there are a difference between Long wave/low frequency (Q1082861, 30 – 300 kHz) - and broadcast at longwave/low frequency (Q1082861, 148.5-283.5 KHz, center carrier wave to center carrier wave: 153-279 kHz; 9kHz channel bandwidth).
So you can not mix them.
Broadcast at longwave/low frequency is defined by ITU-R:
--Glenn (talk) 05:33, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm aware, I was fixing that yesterday. Many Wikipedia articles were wrongly categorised. —Rua (mew) 10:20, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- da:Langbølgebåndet and de:Langwellenrundfunk (and the english names "broadcast at longwave" and "radio broadcast band") belongs til [1] (which you have changed to a redirect to Q1082861 ).
- The danish Q1082861 is da:Langbølger and the german is de:Langwelle. There is no english article about the longwave band. But it is mentioned in en:Radio_spectrum#Broadcasting ("Longwave AM Radio = 148.5 kHz – 283.5 kHz (LF)") - and here en:Low_frequency#Radio_broadcasting ("AM broadcasting is authorized in the longwave band on frequencies between 148.5 and 283.5 kHz in Europe and parts of Asia").
- Please note that (Longwave Q1082861 10 km - 1 km; 300/0.03 - 300/0.3) and ( Low frequency Q17156810 exact 30 kHz – 300 kHz) are about the same frequency interval 30 kHz – 300 kHz.
- I do not think it is a good idea to mix Longwave and Low frequency because many wikis has separate articles about them.
- Therefore for example: da:Langbølger and the german is de:Langwelle do not belong to Q17156810.
- --Glenn (talk) 07:55, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- The English article about the longwave band is w:Longwave. It also talks about other things, but most of it is about the broadcast band and it is very clearly not about the range 30-300 kHz. The article about the Low Frequency range is w:Low frequency. Both have their own Wikidata items. Before, there were three items when there were only two concepts, therefore I merged the two items that were both about longwave broadcasting while making sure that articles were correctly placed under either long wave (Q1082861) or low frequency (Q17156810). The former is about the broadcast band, per its description, while the latter is about the range 30-300 kHz, also per its description. They are not about the same thing. —Rua (mew) 10:18, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- By ITU definition the name w:Longwave (and w:low frequency) refers to the wavelength interval 10 km - 1 km, frequency interval 30-300 kHz.
- Source: itu.int: Radio Regulations, edition of 2016; RR2016Vol-I_EA5.pdf CHAPTER I Terminology and technical characteristics. Section I – Frequency and wavelength bands. 2.1. page 27. backup, main page.
- By ITU definition the names longwave band/low frequency band refers to the range center carrier wave to center carrier wave: 148.5-283.5 KHz, interval with channel AM-modulation 153-279 kHz; 9kHz (+-4.5kHz) channel bandwidth.
- Source: ITU-R: Frequency bands allocated for terrestrial broadcasting services
- These refers mainly to longwave/low frequency 10 km - 1 km, 30-300 kHz:
- --Glenn (talk) 17:16, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- So what do you want? The two concepts are correctly separated as they should be right now. You only seem to be arguing about English terminology at this point. ca:Ona llarga cannot be placed at low frequency (Q17156810) because there is already a Catalan article there. The same for Persian and Swedish. nn:Låg frekvens is about the longwave broadcast band, so it's placed correctly. —Rua (mew) 17:23, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- Suggestion:
- Make [2] "active" and move the relevant items from Q17156810 to Q1136860.
- Restore Q1082861 with the danish da:Langbølger and the german de:Langwelle. (and maybe more article references that disappeared in the merging proces)
- --Glenn (talk) 17:31, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- It should not be restored because it refers to the same concept as long wave (Q1082861). That's why I merged them in the first place. There shouldn't be two items for the same concept, the longwave broadcast band. If you feel that there should be a third item, then it should be about something else than the LW broadcast band and the 30-300 kHz range, because they both already have items dedicated to them. —Rua (mew) 17:34, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- long wave (Q1136860) is/was about the longwave (broadcasting) band (refers to the range center carrier wave to center carrier wave: 148.5-283.5 KHz, interval with channel AM-modulation 153-279 kHz; 9kHz (+-4.5kHz) channel bandwidth). Old content: [3]. This item should be recreated.
- long wave (Q1082861) was about longwaves (10 km - 1 km; correspond to 30-300 kHz) and should from now on only contain articles about longwaves (10 km - 1 km; correspond to 30-300 kHz) - not the longwave (broadcasting) band.
- low frequency (Q17156810) is about low frequency 30-300 kHz. That is fine.
- --Glenn (talk) 17:50, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- long wave (Q1082861) is about the longwave broadcasting band, and has always been about that before I even made any edits, because it always had "radio broadcast band" in the description. So long wave (Q1136860) is a duplicate. I don't know where you are getting the idea from that it was about all waves 10-1 km. That concept is already covered by low frequency (Q17156810). All I did was move articles around so that articles covering 30-300 kHz were placed under low frequency (Q17156810), and articles covering the broadcast band were placed under long wave (Q1082861). Anyway, I'm tired of this discussion because I keep having to repeat myself so I'm not going to reply any further. —Rua (mew) 17:55, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- It is our purpose to move article references, if they do not make enough sense in an item. (or discuss if we disagree)
- Please read the ITU definitions.
- Please look in the history:
- Q1082861: [4] GND=4166718-9 (Source: Imported from english Wikipedia) refers to Kilometerwelle, Radiofrequenzbereich. commons:Category:Longwaves. Kilometerwelle found here; de:Frequenzband#Übersicht.
- *da:Langbølger
- *de:Langwelle
- *(fr:Basse fréquence) Quote: "...ou LF (low frequency) désignée aussi par « grandes ondes » ou « ondes longues..."
- *pt:Onda longa
- *...
- Q1136860: [5] names at the top: Danish "Langbølgebåndet", German "Langwellenrundfunk" (rundfunk=broadcast), english "broadcast at longwave". (should have commons:Category:Longwave radio broadcasting).
- --Glenn (talk) 18:42, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- FYI: I have started a chat/discussion here. I will not discuss about the disagreement here any more, because you are quote "tired of this discussion". --Glenn (talk) 19:40, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- long wave (Q1082861) is about the longwave broadcasting band, and has always been about that before I even made any edits, because it always had "radio broadcast band" in the description. So long wave (Q1136860) is a duplicate. I don't know where you are getting the idea from that it was about all waves 10-1 km. That concept is already covered by low frequency (Q17156810). All I did was move articles around so that articles covering 30-300 kHz were placed under low frequency (Q17156810), and articles covering the broadcast band were placed under long wave (Q1082861). Anyway, I'm tired of this discussion because I keep having to repeat myself so I'm not going to reply any further. —Rua (mew) 17:55, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- It should not be restored because it refers to the same concept as long wave (Q1082861). That's why I merged them in the first place. There shouldn't be two items for the same concept, the longwave broadcast band. If you feel that there should be a third item, then it should be about something else than the LW broadcast band and the 30-300 kHz range, because they both already have items dedicated to them. —Rua (mew) 17:34, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- So what do you want? The two concepts are correctly separated as they should be right now. You only seem to be arguing about English terminology at this point. ca:Ona llarga cannot be placed at low frequency (Q17156810) because there is already a Catalan article there. The same for Persian and Swedish. nn:Låg frekvens is about the longwave broadcast band, so it's placed correctly. —Rua (mew) 17:23, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- The English article about the longwave band is w:Longwave. It also talks about other things, but most of it is about the broadcast band and it is very clearly not about the range 30-300 kHz. The article about the Low Frequency range is w:Low frequency. Both have their own Wikidata items. Before, there were three items when there were only two concepts, therefore I merged the two items that were both about longwave broadcasting while making sure that articles were correctly placed under either long wave (Q1082861) or low frequency (Q17156810). The former is about the broadcast band, per its description, while the latter is about the range 30-300 kHz, also per its description. They are not about the same thing. —Rua (mew) 10:18, 6 April 2019 (UTC)