Logo of Wikidata

Welcome to Wikidata, EncycloPetey!

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! --Bill william compton (talk) 03:08, 16 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Bot errors

edit

It's correct. Wikidata:Infoboxes_task_force. --Kizar (talk) 21:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

As you can see here [1], there are only 6 main types and taxo is not one of them. --Kizar (talk) 21:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
Maybe here or here. --Kizar (talk) 21:12, 9 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Magnoliidae

edit

Something went wrong. Please restore this version. --Succu (talk) 06:40, 5 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

No, that version would be wrong. Not all of those articles are about a particular subclass name as used in the Cronquist system of classification. All of those articles are about the group of plants, but only some of them are about the right group. Brya incorrectly split off a whole group of articles (based solely on the article name?), and created (incorrectly) a new data item for them. Some of them appear to use the Cronquist system, but many others are not. Look at the Korean article, for example, which is clearly about the magnoliids (sensu APG III), as it is obviously a translation of the article from the English Wikipedia. It belongs with the original data item, and not with this new one. Restoring the version you indicated would restore all the incorrect links. The links will need to be checked and corrected individually, as Brya did not check them. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:40, 5 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
I don't talk about interwikilinks, but taxon name (P225) etc. These claims are correct. --Succu (talk) 15:25, 5 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
Only some of those claims are correct. For example, it gives two different parent taxon statements, but only one is correct for the Cronquist system. As I said, the page had a lot of errors, so each item will need to be checked individually. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:17, 6 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
Then check them individually. I found no errors and restored Bryas version. --Succu (talk) 07:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
Then you did not read the errors I pointed out above. Please give me time to check them instead of simply reverting my changes. Show some patience. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:23, 7 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
The taxon name (P225) Magnoliidae (Q13582382) is used at the rank of a subclass (Q5867051) in An Integrated System of Classification of Flowering Plants (Q14244038) and A phylogenetic classification of the land plants to accompany APG III (Q13626292) with different parent taxon (P171) Magnoliopsida (Q1307404) and Equisetopsida (Q134677). All you had to do, was to check the sources of the claims. --Succu (talk) 10:33, 7 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
I'm sorry that you're so impatient and not understanding at all. You have said I needed to check the sources for the claims, and I have and did. I own copies of both sources and keep them at hand. One of the claims is wholly incorrect; Equisetopsida is not, and has never been part of the Cronquist System, it is a proposal made by members who were part of the APG III, which is an entirely different system of classification. The data item therefore claims one classification, but is listed as if it were part of another one as well. In addition, you still have not acknowledged the many other problems I noted previously. Clearly this is an "owned" data item and so any edits, changes, and comments that I might make are not welcomed on Wikidata. I will not be wasting my time here trying to talk to you any more. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:39, 7 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
To tell the truth: I never suggested Equisetopsida is part of the Cronquist System (see this). The data item is not about the Cronquist System (that is Cronquist system (Q213094)), but about the taxon name Magnoliidae (Q13582382). Thats different. --Succu (talk) 15:40, 7 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
But aside from the German article, and maybe the Catalan one, none of the included articles are about the name as a topic. The English article is about the circumscription sensu Reveal & Chase, which is strictly an APG definition, and the Korean article is about the magnoliids as a group of plants under APG III, not about the name. You keep insisting that all the links be put back, even though they are mostly wrong. It is fine to have a data item about the name Magnoliidae, but nothing in the data item indicates it is solely the name and not the group of plants, and the links and information given are unclear about that as well. It is also important that such a data item actually have articles to go with it, and only the articles that go with it. As it stands, the data item is a mish-mash of multiple concepts, with no clear guidance as to what the data item is actually for. As such, it is either useless or redundant, but it is not possible to tell which. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:40, 7 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Merge requests

edit

You can do a merge yourself via Special:MergeItems, activate the merge gadget in your preferences or request it at WD:RFD, but please do not add a {{Delete}} to the talk page to request a merge. That's not how it works. Mbch331 (talk) 06:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

I looked, but couldn't find any instructions anywhere for how to do a merge. If you want people to do merges themselves, then there needs to be clear information about how to do it. And people have to be able to find that information. --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:35, 5 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
Did you check Help:Merge? Mbch331 (talk) 13:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
I did not find that page. Where was it listed? I started at the community portal looking for a link to something that would tell me what to do. --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:45, 5 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
Don't know where it's listed. Just followed my logic. I want to know more about merging items, so I assumed there was a help page about that and just typed in Help:Merge in the search box. But I must say it indeed isn't easy to find. I'll address it at Project Chat, maybe someone there knows the best way to implement that information. Mbch331 (talk) 13:52, 5 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
Indeed. I found the page about requests for deletion, which told me about the deletion template and the decision to prefer merging, but there wasn't any information about how to do a merge. On most projects, merging content is restricted to admins, so I assumed that an admin would take care of that when handling deletion requests. The process and decision wasn't clear at all. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:26, 5 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Greek tragedies

edit

Thanks for adding the titles of many tragedies ... I've continued your work, you can see the results here:

Tomorrow I will probably control Aristophanes. Thanks, --Epìdosis 20:04, 4 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yes, thank you very much for adding more information / merging items. I have a table of authors and titles on my user page, if that helps. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:13, 4 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

There is no data redundancy

edit

Maybe you are entirely new to metadata, but there is no metadata redundancy. Currently is technically most easy to extract that a given page have a category on Commons directly by a property than first requesting if the data isn't available on a page linked by a property. It isn't user intuitive, but is a current tech limit issue. Please stop acting like a revert bot: try to understand first why some is done in a current way than being the "OMG I'm the boy with divine powers that will fix the world!". Best. Lugusto (talk) 16:27, 26 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

I am not new to metadata, no. I have been working with collections data and databasing for decades now. Yes, I know that Wikidata has difficulties accessing related data because they put information information on separate pages; this is a huge problem for Wikisource, where every edition / translation of a single work of literature is a separate data item. That becomes an issue for Phabricator, not a reason to add data incorrectly. Instead of reverting my edits, insisting on keeping flaws in the data, and treating me like an idiot, try to understand what I'm doing and help to correct the problem. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:51, 26 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Please stop. Be so kind and read Property talk:P373. P373 is not a property to be used as a qualifier. Andreasm háblame / just talk to me 21:28, 26 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Then Wikidata has a lot of cleaning up to do, because I am following examples elsewhere that link in precisely this way. Please point me to the Wikidata page that explains correct linking to Commons; I cannot find it. I have opened a discussion on the administrator's discussion board because you have yet to provide any explanation for reversions. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:30, 26 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Please read...

edit

... Wikidata:WikiProject Taxonomy/Tutorial. --Succu (talk) 19:50, 1 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, but the page as I found it was for a species, and needed to be merged. I have now corrected the basionym page to be a page about a nomenclatural synonym instead. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:31, 1 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
And removed two basic properties? BTW: taxon author (P405) and year of publication of scientific name for taxon (P574) are used as qualifiers for taxon name (P225). --Succu (talk) 22:42, 1 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
Names are not properties of names, they are properties of taxa. Is the Anthoceros laevis supposed to be a data item for a taxon or for the basionym? It can't be both. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:27, 1 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
Again: Please read Wikidata:WikiProject Taxonomy/Tutorial (before reverting!). --Succu (talk) 23:33, 1 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
I have read it. Please respond to my comments and concerns before reverting. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:41, 1 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
Then try to understand it... --Succu (talk) 23:47, 1 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
Done. Now please discuss before reverting. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:48, 1 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
[2]: taxon author (P405) and year of publication of scientific name for taxon (P574) are used as qualifiers for taxon name (P225). --Succu (talk)
OK. I have removed those. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:54, 1 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

If you want to discuss Wikidata:WikiProject Taxonomy/Tutorial go to Wikidata:WikiProject Taxonomy, but your actions seems very different from doing this. --Succu (talk)

None of the issues involved in my corrections are discussed as part of the tutorial, so the Tutorial does not need discussion. My concerns are with data structure and the logical error of an item being simultaneously a name entry and a taxon entry. It must be one or the other.
The tutorial gives plenty of instruction on how to set up pages for taxa, but no help at all for setting up the page of a basionym (taxonomic name). --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:09, 2 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
See Taxon author(s) and year of description and The botanical Code (now ICNafp, formerly ICBN). A Basionym has the same four basic statements as all other items. If you need clarification (e.g. how to model taxonomic concepts) then discuss it there please. Your changes at Anthoceros laevis (Q17295302) caused a lot of constraint violation which I'll fix now again. If you want to change our modell discuss it there and stop reverting. --Succu (talk) 06:46, 2 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
No, a basionym is a name. It is not a taxon, so to label the page as a taxon, but use it only as a basionym is to use entirely the wrong set of properties. I say again: the tutorial gives NO INSTRUCTION AT ALL about the formatting of a basionym page. It gives information about formatting taxa only. You keep asserting that a basionym page is the same as a taxon page, but that is NOT expressed anywhere in the tutorial, and cannot possibly be correct. It is like having separate pages for a woman and for her maiden name, and then placing biographical information at the page for her maiden name. A name is a label, and is not a taxon. --EncycloPetey (talk) 07:12, 2 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

STOP vandalsim! --Succu (talk) 07:25, 2 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

I am stopping your vandalism. When I have corrected information, it is vandalism for you to put the incorrect information back into the item. --EncycloPetey (talk) 07:26, 2 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

The discussion is now here. --Succu (talk) 07:44, 2 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

"persona non grata"

edit

Please stop such attacks. --Succu (talk) 18:45, 18 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Please stop harassing me. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:27, 18 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
If you need to talk in public... I don't care. --Succu (talk) 23:28, 18 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
Next time I'd liked to be informed if you are talking about me @Administrators' noticeboard. Thanks! --Succu (talk) 23:45, 18 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
Stay away from my talk page. Stop harassing me. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:21, 19 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Descriptions in other languages

edit

Instead of creating and merging new items, try "labelLister" (the fifth in your "Preferences" > "Gadgets"). When your are in the item, click "Labels list", then "edit", then the language code. Bye, --Epìdosis 20:21, 13 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I will try that. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:22, 13 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Playwright or poet

edit

What's the difference between Eupolis (Q459517) ("Athenian poet of Old Comedy") and Menander (Q118992) ("Athenian playwright of New Comedy")? Thank you, --Epìdosis 13:38, 25 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

A "poet" writes many kinds of poetry, but a "playwright" writes plays. Menander wrote plays. I don't know whether Eupolis wrote other kinds of poetry, so I do not know whether a change would be justified. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:46, 25 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Queries for you

edit

Enjoy these! --Epìdosis 14:17, 25 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Dutch version

edit

Maybe I didn't understand, but what's the problem being a Dutch version? AFAIK Wikisource accepts the original texts and translation in various languages (and possibly disambiguation pages if there's more than one acceptable version in a specific language: e.g. this).--Carnby (talk) 17:25, 15 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Carnby: The Dutch version is in Dutch, not in Greek. The data item you added to was for the original Greek version, not for the various translations. Translations into other languages need to be added as separate data items and listed as "editions" of the original. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:27, 15 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
So this item for the Czech version (check "translator" field) of La Marseilleise is wrong in your opinion? A possible workaround would be to create always a "soft redirect", pointing to translation(s) in a specific language (such as Template:Opera in Italian language Wikisource). Other possibilities will cause the loss of interwiki (or better intersource) links in the various languages--Carnby (talk) 17:39, 15 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
@Carnby: It's wrong, but not because of my opinion. This is the norm established here on Wikidata for editions of written works. Yes, the interwiki language links get lost, and that's an unfortunate consequence of the way Wikidata has to handle the information, but that's happening to other projects too. In this case, it happens because the works themselves are different, and must have different data coded for them.
See Oedipus Rex (Q148643) and look at what's linked from the different Wikisource projects: they are versions pages that identify the work and list the locally hosted translations. Look in the middle of the data item (just above the identifiers section) to see how links to translations are meant to be handled. Consider also: If we didn't handle translations this way, then only a single translation of each work in each language could be linked. In some cases, we have multiple translations, by multiple translators, into the same language. There would be no way to put those into a single data item regardless. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:47, 15 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
Would you agree to link the Wikidata item always to a brief summary identifying the original work in a particular language with a list of translations and not directly to the translation(s)? In the meanwhile, I fixed the Czech issue.--Carnby (talk) 21:14, 15 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
Yes, that is the preferred solution. As for interwiki links, I recall someone at Swedish (or Norwegian?) Wikisource was developing code that would generate the links from Wikidata connections. If I remember where I saw that conversation, I will let you know. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:35, 15 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

interwiki

edit

Hi,

any hints how and when do you intend to restore interwiki that you have broken here, here, here and here?

Or, maybe, you would like to suggest that such edits moving interwiki to wikidata should be considered vandalisms?

Unsure if you noticed that the way you implement the work-translation model leads to few ping-pong type edits and is ineffective. IMO, this work (its core) should be done by a bot to avoid delays. Any comment? Ankry (talk) 19:24, 29 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Ankry: I am aware of the consequences of the model. I am following Wikidata policy: each work receives its own data item. A French work, published in Paris in 1879 (with Artaud as its translator), is different from an Italian work, published in Rome in 1547 (with Romagli is its translator), is different from an English work, published in London in 1889 (with Plumptre as its translator). Each published book is a separate data item, and each edition of that book is a separate data item. It must be that way because none of the publication information is the same between the different works.
I am upset that Wikidata has no mechanism for preserving the interwiki links lost on Wikisource, but that is not my problem. I have raised the issue several times here, but Wikidata has chosen its own model, and it is different from the one Wikisource would like. I am told that the Norwegian Wikisource is working on a solution, but it is not generally available yet. Until then, the best idea is not to move interwiki links to Wikidata. On en-Wikisource, we are telling editors not to migrate the links, because they will be lost here.
The "ping-pong" edits you mention are not "ping-pong" edits. The content at the French page was originally a specific translation, so that link was moved. The page content on French Wikisource has now changed, and it is a disambiguation page for several translations. So what you think has happened, has not happened. What has actually happened is a change at French Wikisource.
I do not understand what you are saying about a bot. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:37, 29 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
Implementing the model is OK, but interwiki removed from Wikidata should be restored locally while doing so. At least till a new interwiki mechanism appears that uses the new model. Position "this is not my problem" is anti-cooperative and should not be applied on multi-use projects like Wikidata or Commons. Eg. would you accept that Commons users decide one day about standard naming schema for DjVu book files and implement it saying: "Fixing it in Wikisource is not our problem"?
A bot can be used to create the "edition or translation" Wikidata elements when splitting the "work" elements and restore local interwiki then. It was one of the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey proposals (#148 here). This work still can be done but it needs few people from various Wikisource projects (preferably bot operators) to co-operate. Moving the data manually (even the existent data) would consume a lot of time. Wasted time, IMO. Ankry (talk) 20:10, 29 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
Moving the data will almost have to be done manually. Neither Wikidata not the Wikisource projects currently have the necessary data in place for the process to be accomplished by a bot. I have been working almost exclusively with cleanup of Athenian drama (about 45 plays) to determine what needs to be done and how much work it will be. My experience is that the information is not placed so that a bot could do the job, and in many situations, I have had to hunt through several pages, or even the text of scans, to find the data necessary to set up a data item. Believing that a bot could do the job in multiple languages is naïve.
My position that "this is not my problem" comes because of your confrontational accusations that I needed to fix the problems created by Wikidata's model because you were dissatisfied. Making further accusations does nothing to help this issue. If you are interested in seeking a solution, then seek a solution. Do not drop in to tell other people that they have to solve your problems for you. If you move interwikis to Wikidata, then they will be edited according to Wikidata policies, not according to individual policies at other sites. And if pl-Wikisource wishes to preserve their interwikis, they may choose to do so, but it is not the responsibility of Wikidata, en-Wikisource, or any other project to do their work for them.
Restoring links locally to the Wikisources is also not a workable solution. For one, I find it difficult to edit in many languages, now the the Visual Editor pops up when I try to edit, and gives me a welcome and instructions in a language I cannot read. Also, in many cases, the local architecture has made changes to re-align with Wikidata. (There should be a primary data item for the original copy of any work, and set of other data items for the various editions and translations.) Without being able to read all of the linked languages, and reviewing which are which, the local links should not be restored. I have seen too many cases on en-Wikisource where the links were to the wrong work altogether. I do not imagine it will be any different elsewhere. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:19, 29 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
Moving the data will almost have to be done manually
It depends:
  • Old-style interwiki can be restored automatically with no problem
  • author information can be easily filled
  • the lins to/from work element can be set automatically
  • if the text is processed using ProofreadPage, some information can be extracted from the Index page
  • some wiki use templates that can contain extra information
Of course, some manual work is still needed. But this way it is not disruptive.
No, author information cannot be easily filled. Translations and editions typically do not get author information separately, because it duplicates data on the primary data item. And many works on various Wikisource projects have no Index page at all. There are lots of other issues, and they are different on each Wikisource. Index pages often lack necessary information. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:15, 30 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
And: I do not care much on plwikisource here; we monitor Wikidata changes and we likely will notice these. Like in this case. The problem is for small wikis with almost no active users. Who will restore interwiki there? Where to hunt for the full interwiki set when somebody dissipate them?
No idea. But Wikidata repeatedly states that its primary purpose is not maintaining wikilinks for other projects, while those projects do not seem to know that and migrate links anyway. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:15, 30 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
If you move interwikis to Wikidata
The move to wikidata was enforced in many wiki by users non active there, wikidata users, bots, etc. As I did see that 1-1 interwiki model is not good for wikisource since it was enforced (when wikidata did appear), I oposed the move as much as I could.
On en-Wikisource, we have stopped bots that do this, and reprimanded users who remove links. That is the only possible solution for now. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:16, 30 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
Observing wikidata/mediawiki development (that is Wikipedia-centric), I doubt that any new interwiki mechanism based on current work-edition wikidata model will appear earlier then in about five years. It is an epoch. And, IMO, we should have some temporary mechanism, even if not ideal. And, no, I did not observe many bogus interwikis before wikidata era. However, I observed few bogus interwiki added to wikidata by bots hunting for translations of short titles, like eg. Earth, Cat, Mud, etc.


And, yes, I know the current model, even tried to fight with its misuses (eg. separate newspaper numbers linked as editions of a novel published in 50-100 parts in the sequent numbers of the newspaper). But they will still appear if there is no good documentation with various examples.
I also doubt if it is even possible to construct a reliable interwiki solution basing on current work-edition wikidata model; especially in complex cases:
  • a translator decided to split a novel into 2-3 separate novels (sometimes the "parts" have different translators). Are all of them "editions/translations" of the original work? Or, maybe, separate works? IMO, they should be linked to the original work, but definitely should not be linked together. What happens if another translator to another language did a similar (but not exact) split? The Bible may be a good example here (Old/New Testament editions, or even smaller; should Torah be linked to OT? whole Bible?). Also noticed that in some translations of Verne's works.
  • a translator decided to merge few works of the same author (eg. a novel and its sequel) into a single translation. Is this a translation of both works? Or, maybe, a separate new work not linked to them? (eg. translations of Sophie de Ségur's works into Polish)
  • a poet decided to add extra poems to the 2nd edition of his book of poetry. A translator decided to publish only the new ones in his translation of the book of poetry. Should the books be linked? How to link to the 2nd edition only an not to the 1st? (Polish translations of Heine)
  • multilingual works published simultaneously in few languages, possibly by various publishers. Which one is the original? All? An abstract one? How to link real translations to specific original language (eg. original was English/French; German translation basing on English, Italian basing on French)?
etc. Ankry (talk) 01:17, 30 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
We are already wrestling with some of these issues at en-Wikisource. Some of them have been solved, but others have no clear solution. For example:
  • I am having to deal with a single translated "work" that was published in multiple volumes, and each volume came out in a different year. The same work then came out in a new edition with a different number of volumes.
  • I also have a work that was originally published in English, and has been translated into Japanese three time. But each Japanese translation is completely different from the other because each translator chose to leave out different material. Those translations each have several editions. And each translation came from a different edition of the English work.
  • There is no clear way to deal with anthologies. Anthologies of poetry, published in multiple editions with differences in titles and numbering are a huge headache.
  • There is a well-known book about medieval history that was originally in Dutch. The two English translations are completely different from each other. The earlier one was translated from the (unpublished) French translation which excised lots of material, and it was not translated from Dutch. The newer English translation has a different title and was translated from the original Dutch.
  • And for the Greek drama in which I work, there are no original editions. The Greek texts that exist are all editions, prepared by various editors from available source materials. So there is no "original" copy to link at all. However, the texts posted to el-Wikisource do not identify which editor prepared them, nor where they were published. So I can't create data items for them.
For these and other problems there are often no workable solutions as yet. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:15, 30 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for reverting my edit!

edit

Dear EncycloPetey,

I am responsible for this. I actually wanted to click the link "opera teatrale" on the "Wikidata usefuls" box, but i did not realize that I clicked on the wrong link ("gioco di carte" was exactly on the upper line in the list of links to click).

I'm writing to thank you for your quick revert and to assure that I was in total good faith. I am sorry to have caused confusion. - OrbiliusMagister (talk) 09:18, 22 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit

Good morning. I would like to know why you reverted my edits on the element The Clouds (Les Nuées). As you can see, the only page about The Clouds on french wikisource is fr:s:Les Nuées, and no one else. There is no other way to link the different pages on the different Wikisources. If you have a better solution to resolve this question of interwiki links, I will listen. --Consulnico (talk) 09:07, 7 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Consulnico: If you want to have interwikis, then you can add interwikis at French Wikisource.
The reason for reversion is that all those translations are different books, published in different years, in different languages, by different people, through different publishers. Each different book or edition must have a separate data item at Wikidata, so that the data about that book or edition can be recorded. It is incorrect to merge items with different data. --EncycloPetey (talk) 09:36, 7 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
I understand there are different translations, it's my job to correct them on wikisource, thank you. You are currently linking the wikimedia sites between them in the old and wrong way. I will not use manual interwiki links on fr.wikisource, just because you refuse to link the pages on Wikidata. For now, there is only one translation of The Clouds (Les Nuées) on fr.wikisource, so I link this translation with the other pages of the same subject on Wikidata. It's the way it has been presented for years. For instance, you can see it's done the same way for en.wikisource. So why acting differently for the two wikimedia sites ? --Consulnico (talk) 10:11, 7 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
No, it is not done that way on en-Wikisource (except where the links were added incorrectly by a bot). I and others are correcting this problem. The sites are being done the same way, but there is much to fix. Wikidata has policy that each book and each translation have a separate data item. If the French Wikisource wants to link differently, the links must be done at French Wikisource. Wikidata stores the data about the books, and must have separate data items to do that. The Clouds (Q868447) is the data item for the original version written in ancient Greek, so no translations into other languages should be there except as "editions/translations", which is the way they are currently placed there. This is the way that Wikidata has chosen to handle the issue of editions and translations. --EncycloPetey (talk) 10:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
So, if you have only one translation of a text, you can not have an interwiki link with Wikipedia or other Wikisources on Wikidata ? --Consulnico (talk) 10:21, 7 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
There should never be interwiki links through Wikidata between two different items. The number of translations does not matter, because translations are never linked between different Wikisources on Wikidata. It does not matter whether there is one translation, two translations, or twelve. They should not be linked on Wikidata unless they are the same item. --EncycloPetey (talk) 11:02, 7 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
So why is there a link between en.wikisource (your wikisource !) and Wikidata on The Clouds (Les Nuées) ? Just to understand the correct way. --Consulnico (talk) 11:05, 7 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Go visit the page. It is a versions page that describes the work, and which lists the translations that have been published in English. It is the same thing you have at fr, Wikisource for Iphigenia in Tauris (Q523227): a list of translations. --EncycloPetey (talk) 11:08, 7 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Why didn't you explain that in the first place, and waited for your 4th answer to give clear explanations about your reverts ? Do you always revert contributions without any discussion with people ? --Consulnico (talk) 13:42, 7 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
You didn't ask that in the first place. And I had seen that you had been linking versions pages from fr.Wikisource, so I knew that you knew what they were, and how to correctly link them. I assume from your reply that you didn't bother to follow the link before I asked you to do so, which means that this is entirely a failure to understand on your part. I have patiently replied to each of your inquiries, offering explanation each time, but am being met with rudeness and accusations. You can see plainly that I don't "always revert contributions without any discussion", because I am discussing it, here. If you have nothing constructive to say, then this conversation is ended. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:23, 7 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

P451 reversions

edit

Thanks for checking out and reverting some of my edits on unmarried partner (P451). Actually I was amending symmetric violations on the property. It is likely that if mistakes are not amended from both sides they would eventually pop up again. Cheers! --Jey (talk) 22:02, 11 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Abacuc

edit

Sorry, my bad, I mistook one item for another. There's a mistake on VIAF, they mistook an Italian contemporary painter for the Biblical person. --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 14:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Yes, that happened from time to time. We had a whole series of Renaissance Italians mistakenly added on to an ancient Greek poet a while back. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
edit

Stop! Please dont' remove those. They are accurate and WILL be usable at some point. Jonathan Groß (talk) 16:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

They generate only an error message. The links do not go anywhere. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:09, 24 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
They do if you have access to the TLG. You are a classicist aren't you? This is THE resource for Ancient and Byzantine Greek texts. Regardless if there's a link or not, the IDs are a valid and valuable reference. Please don't remove them! Cheers, Jonathan Groß (talk) 16:10, 24 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

clade as rank

edit

Hello,
About your revert.
Of course clades are not a rank in phylogeny litterature.
But here were are building a database.
The main problem is having instance of (P31)=taxon (Q16521) or monotypic taxon (Q310890) or fossil taxon (Q23038290) or clade (Q713623) or species aggregate (Q1297859)
This is human understandable but NOT computer reasonable.
It mixes different informations: it is a taxon + it is monotypic + it is extinct + it is monophyletic (clade)
We will require all combination like "extinct + monophyletic", "extinct + monotypic", "extinct + monophyletic + monotypic" ...
Conclusion we should have instance of (P31)=taxonOrClade, extinct=<yes|no>, monotypic=<yes|no>, monophyletic=<yes|no> rank=Always set (clade included)
Regards Liné1 (talk) 19:22, 30 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

For that reason, you will never find a taxonomy database (I know many many of them) with rank=<empty> for a clade.
Regards Liné1 (talk) 19:23, 30 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
But that's not what the property of a taxon rank is for on Wikidata. The "Rank" of a taxon is the name of a taxonomic level at which that taxon is placed in the hierarchy. Saying it is a "clade" is a description of what the object is, not its rank. The property is for identifying traditional ranks in the Linnaean hierarchy. There may be a need for some additional property to capture what you are trying to do, but what you have done is a misuse of that property. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:27, 30 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
I agree. I had to revert some of your changes today, Liné1. --Succu (talk) 19:41, 30 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
Here the rank was not absent, It was empty/blank ! Reader can understand "there is a rank but we don't provide it", "we don't know the rank" ...
Why not age=<empty/blank> , locality=<empty/blank> , sex=<empty/blank> because it has no meaning for a taxon?
What you want is rank=noneBecauseItIsAClade which is not clearly explained by rank=<empty/blank>.
Regards Liné1 (talk) 19:51, 30 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
Logically, that is a combination of two separate claims: (1) that the item has no assigned rank, and (2) it is recognized as monotypic (a clade). Only the first claim belongs in the property of "taxon rank". --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:54, 30 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
Sorry I missed your meaning.
You think that rank=empty/blank is normal ?
empty/blank means "has no assigned rank" ?
If that is the case, it is quite confusing.
Regards Liné1 (talk) 19:59, 30 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
The reason that "magnoliids" has no rank is that it does not conform to the requirements of the Code for plant names. It does not matter whether the taxon is monophyletic, because a monophyletic taxon can be given a rank (the clade Animalia has the rank of kingdom; the clade Insecta has the rank of a class; the clade Orchidaceae has the rank of a family). And a taxon that is not monophyletic can be named and given a rank (the paraphyletic group Reptilia, which excludes the birds, is given the rank of a class). So calling something a "clade" has nothing to do with its rank. It is inappropriate to call "clade" a rank.
The value of empty signifies that the taxon has no rank; no rank is assigned because it is not published according to the Code, and was not given a rank by the authors who named the clade. It has no assigned rank. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:05, 30 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
Your last sentense respond to my question. rank=blank has a meaning, even if not clear: no assigned rank. Regards Liné1 (talk) 20:09, 30 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Strange possible values for instance of (P31)

edit

I think that it is bad for a taxon to have instance of (P31)=taxon (Q16521) or monotypic taxon (Q310890) or fossil taxon (Q23038290) or clade (Q713623) or ...
It mixes different informations: it is a taxon + it is monotypic + it is extinct + it is monophyletic (clade)
We will require all combination like "extinct + monophyletic", "extinct + monotypic", "extinct + monophyletic + monotypic" ...
Conclusion we should have instance of (P31)=taxon|clade, extinct=<yes|no>, monotypic=<yes|no>, monophyletic=<yes|no> rank=Always set except in case of clades without rank
Regards Liné1 (talk) 20:11, 30 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Indeed. Splitting those property makes sense.
The only one I'm doubtful about is "monotypic", because it has three different meanings. It can mean (1) "containing only one living species"; (2) "containing only one published species (living or extinct)", or (3) "containing only one subordinate taxon". For this reason alone, monotypy becomes a difficult thing to code. Besides which, a taxon can cease to be monotypic is a second member is added, by discovery of a new species, by splitting an existing species, by reassignment of an established species, etc. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:27, 30 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
I totally agree on monotypic. People setting it are not aware of extinct species in most cases.
But even more reason to avoid instance of (P31)=monotypic taxon (Q310890)
Best regards Liné1 (talk) 20:30, 30 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

unhelpful edits, save your time

edit

edit

from discussion:

don't start any mass changes yet

somehow it is different from what you state

please do not remove data - consensus was to merge but NOT make changes yet

d1g (talk) 00:20, 23 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Please stop making mass changes and deleting information. The matter of migration of the property is still being discussed at the very page you linked to. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:24, 23 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
Ancient Greek should be specified at proper item Victory Odes (Q1347171), not The Extant Odes of Pindar (Q29051090).

is still being discussed at the very page you linked to

Are you sure? d1g (talk) 00:32, 23 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
Your comments do not help resolve the issue, nor is this the proper place to discuss them. Please limit policy discussions to suitable pages, not talk pages of individuals. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:06, 23 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

  Comment @EncycloPetey: you can subscribe to Wikidata:WikiProject Books/Participants to keep track on important discussions. Same about other projects you have strong interest in. d1g (talk) 00:56, 23 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Undo

edit

Hoi, you choose to undo my edit. This edit was correct based on the information available. Your notion that it was incorrect is not here nor there, you could have deleted the statement. It would have been less confrontational. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 14:28, 14 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

There was no statement to delete, and it took several requests for you to even suggest where the problem was. It does not help when you refuse to answer questions. There still was never any source for the information you added. And even after the incorrect category tag was removed in thge WP article, you continued to revert. Try talking next time. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:01, 14 August 2017 (UTC)Reply
I think that somebody assigned Q2892444 to every person mentioned here. @GerardM: but only translators were awarded (most of them not notable), not the original work's authors. Ankry (talk) 23:05, 19 August 2017 (UTC)Reply
@Ankry: I don't think you need to discuss here, if EncycloPetey is an actual edit war (Q764327) fun, just report to WD:AN. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 07:27, 7 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
@Liuxinyu970226: My opinion is that EncycloPetey was right reverting this edit. Regardless the way how this was done. I was pointing to them more similar incorrect edits. I do not see any need for WD:AN here. Ankry (talk) 08:48, 7 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Authors in editions

edit

Hi Petey, in this edit summary you say "author is placed in the work data item; not the edition data items". Part of the usefulness of the work/edition split, as I understand it, is that we can say how an author is named in different editions. If a book is written by Liz Smith and each edition is credited to Liz Smith, then that's a dull example and you might say it's uninformative. However, with some books, including important historical books, the author name will be stated differently in each edition. Maybe early editions will have a pseudonym e.g. "A gentleman of Oxford" and later have the real name. Maybe an author will be credited with her maiden name in one edition, full married name in later edition, name minus middle name later than that. That's why an author property on an edition can be informative, even when it just repeats the name associated with the work. It's data that's useful to bibliographers. Are you taking the position that author properties should never be attached to works, or just that this case was not worth recording? MartinPoulter (talk) 17:16, 17 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Author properties should always be attached to works. My position is that author properties do not belong in editions. If you think we need a separate property to mark attribution as given on the title page, or some such, then that would be a new property to be proposed. All the various forms of an author's name is a property associated with a person, not of a book or edition. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:05, 17 November 2017 (UTC)Reply
Hi @MartinPoulter, EncycloPetey:
This is indeed quite strange and we shouldn't do it everytime but the current model is to put the author(s) both in the work item *and* the edition item (see Wikidata:WikiProject Books and the talks, for example P50 of edition (when there is already the same P50 on works)).
For attribution as given on the title page there is several existaing properties and qualifiers that can maybe be used, for instance possible creator (P1779) and/or author (P50) with subject named as (P1810) as qualifier.
For both subjects, don't hesitate to create a new section onf the Books project.
Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 11:45, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
@MartinPoulter, EncycloPetey: We should never be doing that. Firstly because it make no logical sense, but more practically, it confuses the people running bots to tag data items, and people doing searches. Any time I've had an edition with a P50 statement on the item, someone will tag is as "book by X" in their own language. This becomes a problem because it prevents the work item from being tagged this way, as it creates a duplicate label. It also misleads data editors using the search function. They will see the "book by x" (or Buch von x, etc.) as a description and incorrectly assume they have found the "work" instead of an edition. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:13, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
Maybe (probably ?) we shouldn't it but this a what the project ask us to do for the moment. That's why I said we should have a discussion on the project to discuss about changing that (the discussion I mention last July was not conclusive as people talked about others subjects). My point of view is in between : we should remove it when the value is the same in both the work and the edition and we should add the author in the edition only when there is something different (like difference in the name of the author, different authors in re-edtion of technical manuals, etc.), or in some other limited exceptions. Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 17:47, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
@EncycloPetey: I've come across this in creating a timeline of books by Voltaire: the fact is that a lot of editions have a author (P50) property, and the simple response is to use the query to filter out editions. Like VIGNERON says, it makes no logical sense to create a new property for how an author name is stated when we already have author (P50)/subject named as (P1810). If editors using the search function are misled by inaccurate descriptions, then those descriptions need to be fixed: this doesn't affect whether the items should have a author (P50) property. "All the various forms of an author's name is a property associated with a person, not of a book or edition." - this obviously doesn't fix the problem of how to represent that one edition is credited to the author under one name, another edition under another name. And it doesn't even need fixing because we already have a way to represent that. @VIGNERON: Your suggestion sounds sensible but the only worry I have is that if an edition lacks a author (P50)/subject named as (P1810) property that could mean the edition either has the author name stated exactly as for the book, or that we don't know how the author name was stated in that edition. For bibliography, that is a significant difference. MartinPoulter (talk) 11:13, 7 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
@MartinPoulter:I'd like to say that, the first half of your response assumes an issue was raised that wasn't in fact mentioned. You are arguing against a strawman that no one had mentioned, but then dismsiss it. You say "If editors using the search function are misled by inaccurate descriptions, then those descriptions need to be fixed". No one said they are being misled by inaccurate descriptions. The problem is that we have led them to believe that author (P50) is a property of a "work", and my point is that (logically) that is what it should be. You then say that my explanation of the situation doesn't solve the problem. An explanation is never intended to solve the problem, it is intended to point it out and clarify the issue. At that point people should work together to find a solution, instead of dismissing the problem out of hand, as you have done. Finally, there is no reason to "ping" me on my own talk page. You do know that? --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:49, 7 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
"It also misleads data editors using the search function. They will see the "book by x" (or Buch von x, etc.) as a description and incorrectly assume they have found the "work" instead of an edition." This is where you raised the problem caused by incorrect descriptions. If a description of an edition describes it as book, it is incorrect. "You are arguing against a strawman that no one had mentioned [...] No one said they are being misled by inaccurate descriptions." On the contrary, I'm addressing a point that you yourself made in the previous quote. "You then say that my explanation of the situation doesn't solve the problem. An explanation is never intended to solve the problem, it is intended to point it out and clarify the issue." Here you are arguing against a straw man of your own invention. I never suggested that your explanation was intended to solve the problem. I suggested that the situation described in your explanation leaves a problem unsolved. "people should work together to find a solution, instead of dismissing the problem out of hand, as you have done." This is contradicted by the previous discussion: I have raised a problem which you are dismissing out of hand. Apologies for the inconvenience caused by pinging you here: force of habit. MartinPoulter (talk) 15:14, 7 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
@MartinPoulter: (1) And what is causing bot operators to add the incorrect descriptions? Answer: The defective model currently in place. The problem is not the incorrect descriptions, but the defective model that leads to the creation of incorrect descriptions. (2) That is why I summarized the problem, which (3) you said "obviously doesn't fix the problem" and in English "fix" is a synonym of "solve", and thus you dismissed the summary of the problem for something it was not intended to do, thereby attempting to justify not fixing the problem. (4) Claiming that there is no problem is the only way that is certain to not solve any problem. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:35, 7 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

The Comedies of Aristophanes (Q21286489)

edit

I don't understand why I'm not right on The Comedies of Aristophanes (Q21286489), in particular I can't see any conceptual difference to your edits on The Dramas of Aeschylus (Q22810109) [3]. --Pasleim (talk) 21:55, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

That's what we're currently hashing out in Wikiproject Books. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:10, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
But why did you write "you weren't right" if you did the same edits [4]? --Pasleim (talk) 09:38, 4 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
As with other times you've commented, you didn't look at which I actually did, did you? First, go look at what you linked, then look at what I linked, and you will see enormous differences. Second, we're currently in the process of deciding how we should be doing all of this, so initiating any changes may turn out to be wasted effort, or at the very least may require lots of additional cleanup. Hence, my previous comment. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:17, 4 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
I looked in advance at your edits and I tried to model The Comedies of Aristophanes (Q21286489) in precisely the same way as you did with other ancient greek works. That's why I'm so troubled by your reverts and comments. Also at the second glance, I still can't see any difference. --Pasleim (talk) 15:34, 4 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

If someone has occupation=essayist, then their field of work (among other things) is also essay

edit

Hi I am responding to your reversion here. Actually the term essayist is redundan because the occupation is writer. You can have it both ways, but you can't remove one and not the other. Jane023 (talk) 17:19, 31 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Jane023: No, actually I'm not "having it both ways". Eliot was employed as an essayist separately from her employment as a literary editor or as a translator. These were separate positions held, paid by different employers. However, her field of work is "writing". An "essay" is not a field of work; it is a form in which a writer can work. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:23, 31 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
Then her field of work was also essay. Jane023 (talk) 17:28, 31 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

To be clear, I am not saying that her field of work should not be writing. There should be a match for each field of work and occupation. Jane023 (talk) 17:31, 31 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

And I am saying that your argument is not valid. If someone's occupation is "violinist", their field of work is not "violin"; it is "music". If someone is a "violinist, pianist, and conductor", their field of work is still simply "music", not "violin, piano, orchestra". You are confusing form of a work with field of work. Eliot's field of work is writing, or perhaps literature. "Essay" is not ever a field of work any more than "violin" is a field of work. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:35, 31 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

About "Different from"

edit

Hi, I agree that people reading items that are already pretty detailed can figure if they are indeed different but games and bots identifying merge candidates will more easily figure if items are different with am explicit P1889 statement. It doesn't hurt, no? LaddΩ chat ;) 00:48, 19 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Laddo: It isn't necessary for the cases I reverted. Bots are taught to know the difference between a human (Q5) and hamlet (Q5084). And each translated edition (Q39811647) and version, edition or translation (Q3331189) is already marked as such, so there is no reason to double tag. You should probably learn more about Wikidata structure before adding more properties. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:18, 19 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Follows

edit

Why this removal? It's certainly how I've seen it handled for film series; I would think this is exactly analogous. - Jmabel (talk) 04:08, 5 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

It's not used that way in Project Books. The film project may have some rationale for it, but it doesn't add any information about the work. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:10, 5 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
Sure it does. It makes it explicit that nothing in the series precedes it, as against possibly having been accidentally omitted. - Jmabel (talk) 04:23, 6 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
The description as "part 1" already does that. I can see how follows" might be useful in a sequence of variable length, or an open-ended run, but not with a trilogy. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:50, 6 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

The 6th edition is also a "book" as well as a version

edit

The 6th edition has different versions. What an interesting book that has had at least 6 rewrites? I will fix this here tomorrow.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 03:04, 31 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Portal problems

edit

I am making a data item for an encyclopedia. I dislike that Portal:Encyclopedia exists Q15657000, perhaps it works like the Catagory data items do for the commonscats but I really want to merge that Portal data item with encyclopedias Q5292 because of confusing redundancies and the open source link at the later.

Then the main subject with priority can point to the proper portal. It'd be EasyPeasy and very pretty.

If I could add things to the portal data item -- but there seems to be no way to link to it.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 03:36, 3 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

You can't and shouldn't merge those data items. They are doing different things. One is a label to be used on items that are encyclopedias. The other is for Wikimedia Portals about encyclopedias.
But from your explanation, I can't tell why you would even want to merge the items or what the problem is. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:54, 3 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
Also, Portals and Lists are not the same thing. Lists exist in the Mainspace at Wikipedia; Portals on Wikimedia projects exist in the Portal namespace. A data item cannot be both. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:57, 3 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
The portals needs something like Property:P935 or Property:P373. Q56444212 is an example of its use, since I figured it out.... I used them correctly, finally, as reflected at s:en:Domestic Encyclopædia (1802)/Cabbage-palm. Putting the portal there makes sense to me, as well as the wiktionary, species, etc.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 19:45, 3 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
I still have no idea what you are seeking to do, but linking a gallery and category for a species under a specific article in an encylcopedia is incorrect linkages. What you probably want is to link the gallery and category at Wikisource directly, and not through Wikidata. Or else, link to the species data item using main subject (P921). --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:05, 3 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

WikiClassics

edit

Hi! I'm involved in creating a new user group WikiClassics in order to discuss problems related to classical antiquity and archaeology between users from different projects and coordinate efforts to improve both the single linguistic projects (Wikipedias, Wikisources ...) and the multilingual ones (Commons and Wikidata). I hope you could be interested in joining our discussions! We will really start working in a month, I hope. Bye, --Epìdosis 22:07, 23 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Las avispas = Σφῆκες

edit

Hi, bro. Las avispas is a translation to Spanish of the Classical Greek comedy Σφήκες by Aristophanes. Why did you revert this edition? --Pompilos (talk) 14:17, 11 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Pompilos: Because the Ancient Greek text is not written in Spanish. Las avispas (Q63089514) is the data item for the 1881 Spanish translation published in Madrid by Federico Baraibar Zumárraga. The 1907 Greek text edited by F.W. Hall and W.M. Geldart needs a separate data item (Wasps (Q63098372)) because it is written in a different language, by different editors, in a different year, and published by a different publisher. Each published edition must be given a separate data item because the publication data will be different. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:21, 11 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Sofokles

edit

The Greeks have only 496 and 406. Also the new dates 497/496 and 406/405 are in minority (two scholars), the rest gives traditional dates 496 and 406. — Paelius (talk) 21:30, 28 August 2019 (UTC) PS. I don't have notifications enabled, so could You answer on my discussion page. — Paelius (talk) 21:32, 28 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

BiTraGa

edit

Dear EncycloPetey: The BiTraGa items includes all the translations done into Galician language, as you can see for exemple in The Hobbit. The item for Ethan Frome (book) includes the item for Ethan Frome (2016 galician edition).

Thanks for revising! --Estevoaei (talk) 01:03, 4 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Estevoaei: Yes, I see that it links to the translation as well, but the item itself specifically states it is for the first edition (1ª edición) of 1911, not for the work in general. Wikidata uses separate data items for works and editions. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:07, 4 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
Dear EncycloPetey: I do know that in WikiData there are items for the work and each edition; please, understand how BiTraGa works. There are two kind of items in BiTraGa: when the url incloudes the word "publicacions", it is for the work, not for the edition; when the url incloudes the word "traduccions" it is for the specific edition. In Q5402934 I'm putting the item for the book, publicacions_ver.php?id=5421; if any day I make an Q for the galician edition, I shall put the item for the edition, traduccions_ver.php?id=6257. Could you please put it back? Thanks a lot! --Estevoaei (talk) 01:12, 4 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Estevoaei: No, that is not what BiTraGa is doing. The information on the "publicacions" page is for the original, and in this case it gives information about a particular edition: including the year of publication, the edition number, the language, and the fact that it is monolingual. This is not information about the work, but information about the first edition of that work. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:18, 4 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
This point was explained one year ago, when the use of Bitraga work ID was claimed: the "Original" section refers to the original works in their first editions, while the "Translation" section can show several translated editions of the same work in other languages than the original. The formatter URLs are different as well (http://bibliotraducion.uvigo.es/publicacions_ver.php?id= for originals, http://bibliotraducion.uvigo.es/traduccions_ver.php?id= for the translated editions). --Estevoaei (talk) 01:34, 4 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
But that's exactly the problem. The "original" is an edition, not a work, and should be paired with the first edition, not the work. Note that only two editors supported the creating of the property, and of the two people who discussed the edition problem, neither one supported the property. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Your revert

edit

P1773 (P1773) is deprecated and shouldn't used that way any more, please don't revert me … continuing … --Marsupium (talk) 21:38, 29 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Marsupium: You didn't remove the deprecated parameter; you removed the statement that the work was published anonymously. Please do not remove valid data. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:40, 29 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
(edit conflict) I know, because the statements weren't references and I didn't want to leave the statements changed to something different I don't have any reference for. Thanks for helping and removing the P1773 (P1773) qualifiers. If you could even add references for the changed statements that would be great I think. Best, --Marsupium (talk) 21:47, 29 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
You want a reference for the fact that the translator isn't identified on the work? How would you recommend documenting the absence of data beyond stating that the work is "anonymous"? This fact would be self-referential. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:03, 29 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
Yep, get your point. For the attribution to Oscar Wilde a reference would be good, but if you don't add it again it can stay like this I guess. Best, --Marsupium (talk) 22:16, 29 November 2019 (UTC)--Marsupium (talk) 22:16, 29 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Q217352

edit

You've just undid my edition in "Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde" item. As you can read "2017" just refers to magazine's publication year in which was written something about 1886 novella by Robert Louis Stevenson. That's all. As I can see you don't speak in Polish, so please do not change/undo versions by somebody whose Polish is native language. In these data repositories "100" is related to main name of sth, 400 is for alternative names, 667 is for (library, etc.) item's (100) description. Of course, 670 refers to main item, but it only tells us from which source item data has been collected. Can you write back just that you won't undo other's edits changing/adding NLP identifier (in similar cases)? Regards. --Pit rock (talk) 18:09, 3 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Pit rock: Please document field value meanings on the appropriate property. Without documentation, it is impossible to verify whether an item is for a particular work or about a particular work. The 2017 article by Kokot is clearly a different work. You are correct that I do not speak Polish, but I do read some because of my work from the Słownik Staropolskich Nazw Obobovych (of which I own a copy). I am adept enough to work with bibliographic and onomastic data. I will undo incorrect edits, so please do not ask me to say that I won't.
Please also refer to the limitations of use on PLWABN ID (P7293) and NLP ID (old) (P1695). These properties have been approved for use on data items for persons only, and not for published works. Please do not use these properties in ways that have not been approved. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:44, 3 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Revert

edit

Hello. I've seen that you have revert one edition of mine in Q25347. In your summary of edition you mention: "I can't tell what the audio is saying, but it isn't "Bryophyta". Please add this to the appropriate lexeme rather than here." Could you explain better what you mean? In Euskera the name for that is Goroldio, so, the audio to know how it is pronounced in that language should be that, and not Bryophyta. It is like saying that for Q144 "Hund" or "dog" or "perro" are not right and the audios should pronounce "Canis lupus familiaris". --Millars (talk) 00:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Millars: That data item moss (Q25347) is for the taxon "Bryophyta". You can see the taxon name (P225) is "Bryophyta". The Wikipedia page on the Basque Wikipedia may use a different name, but every page for a taxon has a taxon name (P225), and audio files for a taxon should be pronunciation of the scientific name, and not of some other name. If you look at dog (Q144) is has no audio pronunciation files. The only audio files are for the sound of a dog barking, and for the full text of the Dutch Wikipedia article.
Lexemes are coordinated by Wikidata:Lexicographical data, and these are the words from languages that appear in dictionaries. To learn how to add audio files for dictionary words, contact that project. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:16, 19 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
Please, could you link to the rule where especifies that "but every page for a taxon has a taxon name (P225), and audio files for a taxon should be pronunciation of the scientific name, and not of some other name". I don't find it. Thanks. --Millars (talk) 00:24, 19 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
I can easily point you to the recent discussion where a bot was blocked for making the same edits you are making. User_talk:0x010C#Q25347. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:07, 19 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
I read the threat and the discussion archieved about that but I don't find the rule where it is said that only the pronunciation of the scientific name can be added. If you revert other users I supose you have it located. Thanks. With that I don not want to have an argument, but to be sure that we are working following consensued rules. --Millars (talk) 12:22, 19 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

A Passage to India (Q81542894)

edit

Please see my talk page for this discussion but evidently OCLC considers the Internet Archive putting a scan of a book on their website a publication event worthy of a separate OCLC number/record entry. Which should we put on the WD record? I wonder if OCLC will make a record for the Wikisource "publication" you are transcribing. A publication event in the digital age is questionable and confusing. —Uzume (talk) 02:16, 10 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

fighting a losing battle

edit

Sigh. I can't say this there, but it's becoming clear that the real reasons to have so many aliases at Virgil (Q1398) are:

  • Some of the aliases in ULAN are good and useful.
  • It's much less work to import all the aliases from ULAN than to do so more selectively.
  • Bot operators are unsung heroes; it's wrong to criticize them by suggesting improvements.

I'm particularly chagrined to be phrasing the third bullet in that way, because it's perfectly true that bot operators are unsung heroes. (I'm a bot operator myself. I know how thankless a task it can be. I know how frustrating it is when my bot misbehaves, and someone points it out as if it's my job to fix it, and especially if I'm busy with something else that day.)

But it's starting to look like, if one of the costs of the current ULAN import scheme is that the alias list at Q1398 looks crufty, that's a cost that Wikidata collectively is currently willing to bear. —Scs (talk) 11:57, 27 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

No point in cleaning up our content, then, unless I learn to run a bot. Then the bots can fight it out. --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:51, 27 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Property:P1417

edit

Basic standards suggest giving even a reason in the edit description. reference URL (P854) can't be used here, see property constraints (especially property constraint (P2302)format constraint (Q21502404)). Wostr (talk) 15:56, 9 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

You will need to explain that to the Community before making that change. We have many high profile identifiers that use this. Documentation on properties often lags behind practice. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:59, 9 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Does reference URL (P854) is used anywhere here? In any gadget or something similar? In some properties there is reference URL (P854), in some there is Wikimedia import URL (P4656). Documentation of both properties is clear, so if there is no other reason for using reference URL (P854), I will restore my edit. Wostr (talk) 18:04, 9 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
You haven't explained a reason for making that edit. Without justification, that kind of change to a high-profile ID should not be made. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:05, 9 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
The explanation is in the documentation of both properties. Just read it. Constraints are also very clear about it. So there are two options: use Wikimedia import URL (P4656) or add exception in reference URL (P854) for this and every other property that uses reference URL (P854) against the documentation/constraint. Wostr (talk) 21:55, 9 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
IF you won't provide an explanation, then say so. Don't say "it's over there, go look for it." The onus of explanation is upon you who want to chance a high-profile property. It is not up to others to guess what you think. --EncycloPetey (talk)

reverts on biography used as P31

edit

Hi, back in 2018, I changed the instance of (P31) of a batch of items from biography (Q36279) to written work (Q47461344) (while making sure that biography (Q36279) was set as genre (P136)), follow the recommendations of Wikidata:WikiProject_Books, but you reverted several of them. Examples: Susanna Wesley (Q41976673), Emily Brontë (Q42313280), Mary Wollstonecraft Godwin (Q42281284). I'm now considering restarting a batch to do the same operation, so I would like to know if you have still have your 2018 position on the matter, and if you do, what's the reasoning behind it. Bests -- Maxlath (talk) 14:07, 9 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

The Wikidata:WikiProject_Books recommendation is not that every written work should be described solely as a written work (Q47461344), rather that description is the minimum. Any subclass of that class is acceptable, and we have had multiple discussions at Wikidata:WikiProject_Books about this topic. If you believe that all subclasses of "written work" should be reduced to "written work" instead of something more specific, you should make that proposal at Wikidata talk:WikiProject Books, because that project does not recommend doing so. There is a discussion there that touches on this very issue, with members poiting out that such an edit loses information.
But it looks as though you didn't even wait for my response; you went ahead with mass changes before even getting a reply, so it looks as though you were set on making these changes regardless of what anyone says. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:40, 9 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
@EncycloPetey: I see your answer only now. I'm a bit overwhelmed by the amount of discussions in Wikidata:WikiProject_Books, and was doing those edits based on an understanding of the consensus that might be out-dated. If you think my changes are absolutely wrong, you can undo them in bulk via their EditGroups: [5], [6], [7]. I remain concerned by the recommendation to use subclasses of written work, which makes reusing bibliographic data a very fragile process (i.e. it only takes one edit, which happens from time to time, to make all instances of version, edition or translation (Q3331189) a sublclass of written work, breaking any code relying on this distinction). (cc @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): who seem to also have expressed concern regarding those edits) -- Maxlath (talk) 18:36, 9 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
All of Wikidata is similarly fragile, but version, edition or translation (Q3331189) and works should always be considered separately. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:14, 9 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

The Histories of Herodotus - Welsh translation

edit

Hi EncycloPetey,

You reverted my merge (1219079933) of Cyfieithiadau o Herodotus (Q56178467) into Histories (Q746583) and seem to have overlooked that I had deprecated the only claim as it is not correct usage National Library of Wales Authority ID (P2966).

I am currently cleaning a batch of 10,000 similar sparse items that were created from Mix'n'Match almost two years ago and have been merging into existing items to avoid requesting a large number of deletions. It is not a problem that you have reverted my edit - perhaps such merging isn't best practice - but it is however frustrating that you have proceeded to turn this item into a version, edition or translation (Q3331189). There are several problems. First, I cannot find a Welsh-language translated edition of the Histories of Herodotus with the title Cyfieithiadau o Herodotus and I question whether such an edition exists. You have removed the value and qualifier from NLW Archives and Manuscripts statement and replaced them with cyfieithiadau-o-herodotus but the rank is still set to deprecated. It is accepted practice to retain incorrect identifiers with a deprecated rank and there is little point in replacing one deprecated claim with another. Finally, the identifier you have added is linking to a manuscript so the item should not be a version, edition or translation (Q3331189), which is better suited to a published edition.

I know your reversion and subsequent edits are well-intended but we now have a nonsense item and I cannot feasibly request deletion because of it is no longer a sparse, erroneously created item.

If you could contact me with the details of any of my edits you find problematic before reverting that would be preferable.

Thanks for your efforts and best wishes, Simon Cobb (User:Sic19 ; talk page) 00:17, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

The edits were made based on the data available from the linked source. If there is a problem in their database, you would need to contact them about it. Yes, the identifier I added is for an edition, and that is why the value of instance of (P31) is set to version, edition or translation (Q3331189). Regardless of any other concerns, you sould not merge a data item for a Welsh translation with the primary data item for a work originally written in ancient Greek. It would have been better to contact Wikiproject:Books with your concerns first. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:25, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Philadelphia art museum

edit

Hi, you reverted the changes from artist to person for the Philadelphia art museum, but it seems from their collection website that the id is only for artists in their collection. Not sure if you are involved but please have a look: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property_talk:P8317 --Hannolans (talk) 19:56, 15 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

I've looked at the IDs that have been added. Some of them are for persons who are not artists and have no works in their collection. The original proposal made no mention of the changes you made. The proposal was for "Philadelphia Museum of Art person ID"; if you believe the proposal was in error, you should make that claim before changing the purpose of the ID from what was voted on. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:06, 15 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

I believe a block may be called for

edit

Please communicate before throwing accusations around. --Succu (talk) 21:27, 24 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Reminder: "Stay away from my talk page. Stop harassing me." --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:21, 19 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

United Kingdom

edit

You are right. es:Categoría:Novelas de Reino Unido does not distinguish between United Kingdom (Q145) y United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (Q174193). I apologize for this. --Metrónomo (talk) 01:16, 12 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Leland

edit

Hi! Given your very deep understanding of WikiSource, I was wondering, would it be possible for you to take a quick look over

https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:WP_EMEW/Wikisource

and its talk page

https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata_talk:WP_EMEW/Wikisource

and give an idea whether on the face of it this looks to you (a) possibly viable (b) has some clear problems; or (c) a complete non-runner ?

Background

This aim is that this could be part of a collaboration with Viae Regiae (Q105547906). (Which is why those outline pages are sitting here, rather than on Wikisource).

Viae Regiae's main project is to create a detailed gazetteer of places in England and Wales in the 1500s and 1600s, with a view to understanding the evolving road network at that time. (See their GIS "CarterGraph", on which they will be plotting the results.) This could be of immense value to wikidata, giving us a really solid quality-controlled foundation for place information in England and Wales at that time. So, in the last two weeks, together with User:PKM and User:DrThneed I have been rushing to spin up a WikiProject here to partner them, Wikidata:WikiProject Early Modern England and Wales, or Wikidata:WikiProject EMEW for short. The central aim of the WikiProject will be to try to achieve 1:1 matching with their EMEW gazetteer, and also to be able to reflect any other information about the places that they bring to light.

As well as building the gazetteer from existing sources, VR are also about to kick off a couple of volunteer projects to add to it to.

The first is to try to transcribe and identify all of the places that appear on the 1570 series of county maps by Saxton, the first real county maps of England and Wales. The WikiProject is hoping to upload these to Commons, with their annotations in Commons Structured Data, as described at [[8]].

Their second volunteer project is to try to transcribe and annotate all of the places that appear in the text of Leland's 1536-1539 Itinerary of Wales. This is what the two pages above relate to, because although Wikisource wasn't originally part of their plan, I couldn't help but think that if they are going to produce a new deeply annotated edition of the text, wouldn't it be great to have a copy, with all that annotative identification, on Wikisource ?

There's no hurry -- "cycle 1" of the transcription/annotation project is booked to last 10 weeks, with no assurance that they will finish the text in that time. But I was just trying to think through the possibilities (with User:DrThneed also very interested), as to whether it might indeed be possible to get the end-product onto wikisource, and whether the rough initial thoughts above seem at all viable as the first glimmerings of a potential mark-up solution to aim for?

Thank you so much if you could look at this,

Best regards, Jheald (talk) 17:43, 28 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

To do this, you'd first have to transcribe the original text, as it was published. Then, create a copy that gets annotated. I think it's doable, but would be an enormous undertaking. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:56, 28 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
So the creation of a transcription of Leland is a new thing that the VR project doesn't already cover. However all the annotations are already part of the plan, being produced in Recogito/CarterGraph. Every annotation we make already contains a transcription of the word(s) being annotated. So it doesn't seem beyond the bounds of possibility to me that someone could make a tool to match the transcribed words from Recogito to the transcribed words of a page of Leland so that annotations could be inserted automatically or at least semi-automatically. If that were the case, then it cuts down the work of creating the annotated copy to a job of matching text to insert annotations. I'm conjecturing because this isn't something I could do. And maybe that is still too large a job and not worth doing, but I do think it's worth considering, as the existence of all those annotations attached to image files is just begging to be taken one step further.DrThneed (talk) 20:49, 28 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
@EncycloPetey: Thanks, that's a really really useful note, to keep us in reality. So something I've now wondered out-loud at Wikidata_talk:WP_EMEW/Wikisource#Discussion_? is, do you think wikisource might accept a text with the annotations from Viae Regiae (Q105547906), but not necessarily fully proof-read ? Jheald (talk) 13:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
No, we always want the base textas published before accepting copies with added annotations. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:29, 1 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Open Library Work IDs

edit

Hello, I noticed you reverted my addition of OL61981W to Iliad (Q8275). This is the correct work id for The Iliad on Open Library. Open Library work identifiers (identifiers ending with "W") are not edition specific; OL61981W is associated with over 1000 editions. The 6th edition you noted has identifier OL26578366M (identifiers ending in "M" are for editions). Since only editions have scans on Internet Archive for reading, the Open Library UI will automatically choose an edition to display when visiting a work URL, but the work ID applies to all of them. As per the publication date of 1505, that is the earliest known published edition in Open Library, likely because the publication history before that is unclear. Open Library works are ~synonymous with creative work (Q17537576) here on Wikidata, and editions are ~synonymous with version, edition or translation (Q3331189). Cheers, Hardwigg (talk) 18:56, 30 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Hardwigg: Yes, I understand what the OpenLibrary items are supposed to do, but the item you linked to is set up incorrectly; it has information stating that it is a 1505 6th edition. So it is the wrong work item. Please contact OpenLibraryBot and have that correct the item, if it is supposed to be the one for Homer's Iliad. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:56, 30 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
@OpenLibraryBot: is run by a user who can correct listings at Open Library, and would be happy to assist you. We have found that many listings for Classical Greek and Latin texts are hopelessly muddled. Once the item is corrected, it can be automatically uploaded on the next Bot run. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:25, 30 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Call for participation in the interview study with Wikidata editors

edit

Dear EncycloPetey,

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 that develops a personalized recommendation system to suggest Wikidata items for the editors based on their interests and preferences. I am collaborating on this project with Elena Simperl and Miaojing Shi.

I would love to talk with you to know about your current ways to choose the items you work on in Wikidata and understand the factors that might influence such a decision. Your cooperation will give us valuable insights into building a recommender system that can help improve your editing experience.

Participation is completely voluntary. You have the option to withdraw at any time. Your data will be processed under the terms of UK data protection law (including the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR) and the Data Protection Act 2018). The information and data that you provide will remain confidential; it will only be stored on the password-protected computer of the researchers. We will use the results anonymized (?) to provide insights into the practices of the editors in item selection processes for editing and publish the results of the study to a research venue. If you decide to take part, we will ask you to sign a consent form, and you will be given a copy of this consent form to keep.

If you’re interested in participating and have 15-20 minutes to chat (I promise to keep the time!), please either contact me at kholoudsaa@gmail.com or use this form https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdmmFHaiB20nK14wrQJgfrA18PtmdagyeRib3xGtvzkdn3Lgw/viewform?usp=sf_link with your choice of the times that work for you.

I’ll follow up with you to figure out what method is the best way for us to connect.

Please contact me using the email mentioned above if you have any questions or require more information about this project.

Thank you for considering taking part in this research.

Regards

Kholoud

Date of first publication for creative works

edit

I recently added the date of first publication to the description of a creative work. You reverted my addition with the edit comment "only the first edition was published that year". I am aware that this is only the date for the first edition, but I think the date of first publication is relevant for creative works, not merely for editions. In fact, this item has a claim: Death Comes for the Archbishop (Q543116)publication date (P577) 1927. What's wrong with including this attribute in the description? Daask (talk) 22:52, 9 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

The main data item is representative of all editions and translations, not just the first edition. The description should reflect that. Dates in descriptions are useful on specific editions. Dates may reflect date of composition, date of publication, or date of the first book edition for a book that was previously serialized. The date does not serve to distinguish the data item from any other work by the other, and therefore serves no useful purpose in the description of the main data item. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:54, 9 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Iliad (Q8275)

edit

Hi EncycloPetey,

I see you have reverted some of the changes I made on Iliad (Q8275). I can't understand something : I kind of understand that poem (Q5185279) is a more a form than a genre, but epic poem (Q37484) is more a genre than a form to me. It is a poem about heroic feats. I guess it should be kept as an object of the property genre (P136), isn't it ?

Thank you,

CaLéValab (talk) 13:31, 3 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Using epic poem (Q37484) combines the form and the genre in a single label. On the Books wikiproject we've noticed that, if we allow form + genre labelling then we create thousands of combinations (epic novel, epic drama, etc.; science-fiction poetry, horror poetry, romance poetry, comedic poetry). Rather than create thousands of such labels, using the separate labels for form and genre would keep things much more orderly. Yes it's a poem (form), and yes it's epic (genre), but the combination of form and genre is problematic because it's not one or the other but a mash of the two. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:58, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Posthumous attribution

edit

Thank you for clarifying. Can you also check God Talks with Arjuna: The Bhagavad Gita (Q60755062)? It is attributed to Paramahansa Yogananda (Q312549), who died many years before the first known publication. Aavindraa (talk) 17:37, 23 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Done. Generally a "posthumous" attribution is only meaningful on the first edition, if the very first publication or performance is posthumous. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:08, 23 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

language of work or name (P407) alternative

edit

Hi EncycloPetey,

How could I specify that every work in a category is written in a certain language (like English poetry (Q2671604) for example). Seems like language of work or name (P407) applies only to a work and not a class of work. Thank you. CaLéValab (talk) 14:55, 20 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

You can't and should not. Some works that were originally written in ancient Greek survive today only in Latin or Arabic sources. I know of at least one Greek tragedy (Q34620) that was written by a Russian composer in Latin. Gluck's opera Alceste (Q1046495) is a Greek tragedy (Q34620) that was written in Italian, not Greek. A Greek tragedy (Q34620) is not a "Greek" tragedy because it was written in Greek, and does not cease to be a "Greek tragedy" because it is translated into another language. Rather, it is a genre of drama, and the term has been applied to works that were never in ancient Greek.
Even "English poetry" can include works written in Old English or Middle English, in Scots, and in regional English dialects, as well as works that are in English now, but were translated from other languages. The language of a work should be specified on the work/edition, not on its genre. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:42, 20 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Works and editions (A Princess of Mars/Sense of Wonder)

edit

Hi,

you reverted my edit linking the two items named above (https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q475589&oldid=prev&diff=1753221764), saying that this should be done at an edition item of Q475589, which represents a work. But Q114656659 also represents a work, not a specific edition; the edition item is Q114656763. Logically, shouldn't in cases like this works be linked to works and editions to editions?

~ Pfadintegral (talk) 05:45, 18 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

I have corrected Sense of Wonder: A Century of Science Fiction (Q114656659), which is an anthology, and not a literary work. However, the items linked from it are incorrect. The items included in Sense of Wonder: A Century of Science Fiction (Q114656659) should be data items for those specific editions, and not for the creative works themselves. The data item was set up incorrectly.
The creative work A Princess of Mars (Q475589) is not "part of" Sense of Wonder: A Century of Science Fiction (Q114656659); that is misuse of the property. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:36, 18 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
I did not use the property "part of", I used the property "published in" (P1433). And this property is clearly intended to indicate that one work is published in another work; indeed, all three of the Wikidata property examples given there are of exactly this type. I also do not understand how you can say that an anthology is not a literary work; according to the ontology of Wikidata, it is, given that it is an instance of "literary form" (Q4263830) which is itself a subclass of "type of literary work" (Q110169000), a metaclass of "literary work".
Of course, if one creates items not just for individual collected works, but also editions of them, then these editions should be linked to the corresponding editions of the collection. However, what makes no sense to me is linking the work item of a collection or anthology with edition items. This data scheme would immediately break down as soon as there are several different editions of a collecton or anthology. Pfadintegral (talk) 18:12, 18 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
There are many problems and inconsistencies in the Wikidata ontology. The fact that something appears a certain way in the ontology is not evidence of correct usage. An anthology is a creative collection, but is not itself a literary work. Yes, it can have editions, but not everything that has editions is a literary work. Scientific papers, for example, are not literary works (works of literature).
If you look at Sense of Wonder: A Century of Science Fiction (Q114656659), it makes use of has part(s) (P527), which pairs with the inverse property part of (P361). Since the inverse property does not apply, this should be sufficient evidence that "has part" is misused.
Take a careful look also at the examples given at published in (P1433). It does not give anthologies as examples, but rather (1) an individual poem that is considered part of a larger literary work; (b) an article that was published in a journal; (c) a short story that was originally published as part of a collection of short stories; and (d) images showing where they were published. The alternative descriptions do not allow for the kind of usage you are trying to do, as the property was never intended to be used that way. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:56, 18 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
If you would like to change the ontology Wikidata uses around works and editions, it would seem more constructive to start a general discussion about that than to attack individual edits based on current usage. And I still do not understand the basis for saying that anthologies are not literary works, which seems to go not only against the usage on Wikidata but against my understanding of the terms in general. The analogy to scientific papers is not helpful to me, since these may not be literary works - because they are not literary - but they are still works. If you consider a collection of short stories a literary work, why not an anthology? The only difference between the two is that in one case all the stories are written by the same author. That does not make them conceptually different entities, certainly not under such a broad category as "work".
As to has part/part of: Note that "published in" is a subproperty of "part of", so it is perfectly appropriate to use "has part" and "published in" symmetrically. A dedicated inverse property of "published in" might be more appropriate, but it doesn't exist (or didn't the last time I checked). Pfadintegral (talk) 05:20, 19 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
You are assuming that no discussions to change the ontology have happened, and that making a change is a simple matter. Neither assumption is correct.
A collection of works can be considered a "work" of some kind, but not necessarily a "literary work". The term "literary work" implies a unity that is not present in an edited collection.
Please review use of "part of"; you are reasoning based on the hierarchy, not on the actual usage. The fact that something is a subproperty of another property does not mean that it applies in all the situations of the larger property. Hierarchies don't work like that. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:43, 19 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
I know making a change to the ontology is no simple matter. But surely the first step should be to lay out what the proposed change is precisely and then to argue for it (preferably, not just with me). So far, I have not managed to understand what change you are even proposing. You say that an anthology should not be a literary work, though still a work - I don't think I agree with your reasoning, but okay, so far I am following. You also acknowledge that as a work it would have different editions linked to it. You seem to disagree, however, that its constituent stories should be linked to it with "part of"/"published in". I still don't know why you disagree with this - you seem to acknowledge that it is correct to do this for short story collections, and I don't see how the question of it being a "literary work" would enter into it, after all, precisely the same would be done to represent a book of scientific articles. I'm also not sure what the proposed alternative is. You say the "items included in Sense of Wonder: A Century of Science Fiction (Q114656659) should be data items for those specific editions" - but what if an anthology has, say, 20 different editions and 20 stories in it? Should the work item for the anthology then link to 400 different story edition items, but have no direct connection to the work items of the stories? Surely the edition items of the stories should be linked to the specific edition of the anthology, not the work? Are you proposing a dfferent set of properties than "part of"/"published in" for the work items, and if so, which? Or do you think the work items should not be connected at all? Or only in one direction?
I am afraid I still do not understand your criticism of the use of "part of". My hierarchical argument was not that you can use the subproperty everywhere the larger property is appropriate. My argument was that "part of" is the correct inverse property of "published in", since the latter is a subproperty of the former's symmetrically inverse property and no more specific subproperty exists. Or to put it another way: If A is "published in" B; then A is "part of" B (because of the definition of a subproperty; then B "has part" A (because of the definition of an inverse property). If the "actual usage" is something else, I'd be happy to be pointed to an example of the actual usage, perhaps that would help me understand you better. Pfadintegral (talk) 06:58, 20 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
Just because a suitable inverse property does not exist does not therefore mean data should be shoehorned into the existing property, which is inappropriate. There seem to be a great many arguments and misundersatndings here that would take a very long time to disentangle. I suggest asking at WikiProject:Books, where they can explain why we do not amass duplicate lists of places where a work was published on the main data item for the literary work, when that same information is encoded in the editions. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:06, 23 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
But Wikiproject Books literally recommends doing exactly that: "For parts of a collection of works (like a narrative published within an anthology) please use published in (P1433)", with the example provided being an item for a work, not an edition. I am now understanding you, hopefully correctly, as saying that works should not be connected with "published in" at all and this should be applied only to editions. That does seem like a coherent position to me but I can only stress again that it seems to be the exact opposite of the one currently given in all the relevant documentation of Wikidata. But I agree that it makes sense to take this discussion elsewhere. Pfadintegral (talk) 12:57, 24 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
There is a lot of bad / outdated documentation. As an example of why "published in" / "has part" is inappropriate for use with works (as opposed to editions), the particular volume you're working with contains "R.U.R", but that work is in Czech, and the anthology it is supposedly published in is entirely in English. So the anthology actually contains a translation of the work, not the original work. Likewise, A Princess of Mars was originally Under the Moons of Mars in its first edition. The anthology does not contain the original, but a later edition. It is always better to use editions when talking about specific publications. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:45, 24 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
That argument seems to conflate the concepts of work and edition to me. Yes, R.U.R. is originally in Czech, but any translation of it is still a version of the same work. And if Sense of Wonder was translated into Czech, then the corresponding editions of it would contain a Czech version of R.U.R., not an English version. Perhaps part of the problem is that conceptually, "versions" (like a specific translation of a work) lie somewhere between works and editions, but Wikidata does not really know this concept. Pfadintegral (talk) 18:09, 24 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
I say again: There seem to be a great many arguments and misunderstandings here that would take a very long time to disentangle. I do not have a very long time to help disentangle them. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:02, 26 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Work/Edition for music publication

edit

These two reversions (1, 2) seem to be based on the WikiProject Books work-edition model. The item in question is a publication of musical works—is that model supposed to apply to all printed works? Are there examples of work-edition modeling of musical works? (or even around editioning constituent works like the individual concertos that are aggregated by this publication) Thanks. -- Moosebird (talk) 20:07, 28 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

The publication data applies to a printed edition, so for that printed edition of a musical work, yes, the Books criteria would apply. For performances and recordings, a different project's criteria would apply. Orphée aux Enfers (Q57315546) is an example of a printed libretto. Cox and Box (Q19066559) is a data item for a Burnand and Sullivan operetta edition, with music and text, but the data item is missing most of its information. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:41, 28 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Sicyonians

edit

Sicyonians is indeed by Menander. I added that to the description to increase likelihood that a student would recognize the item. Please tell me a better way than author and title to fully identify the underlying work in an edition https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q105716686&oldid=prev&diff=1776252619 JBradyK (ToposText) (talk) 06:37, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

For an edited text, the editor of the text would be the best way. There are multiple editions, each edited differently, for most classical texts. Yes, the play is by Menander, but the Greek text printed in the volume is an edited reconstruction specific to that edition, and prepared by an editor, just as the translation into English is by a translator. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:22, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Long-term cross-wiki abuse

edit

For background, please see Wikidata:Requests for checkuser/Case/Σπάρτακος, and w:WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Σπάρτακος. Saluti. Elizium23 (talk) 17:38, 18 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

That doesn't explain your edits. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:01, 18 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
You mentioned "Quality Images" which is a designation on Commons. We're curious who's been nominating and voting for Quality Images. It doesn't seem fair for a banned user to stack the deck, now, does it? Elizium23 (talk) 15:30, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
If you believe there is a problem in the process at Commons, then that should be addressed at Commons. As it stands, Commons has utilized its existing procedures, and rendered a judgment. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:57, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
Community consensus at work: commons:User:Benh/Commonist Damages Elizium23 (talk) 00:57, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
Cryptic messages pointing to random pages with no context are unhelpful. If there is a problem in the process at Commons, please address it there, not here. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:07, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Pictures

edit

Hi they are taking down a lot of better photos here just because of dislike for the author of the photos like here [9] but there are many others. If you can take a look I thank you. 87.19.196.192 09:28, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Wording on Wikidata:WikiProject Books

edit

Hi,

My English is far from perfect but isn't it odd to have two following sentences starting with "mainly"? And are editions really "mainly" for Wikisource? It's the other way round, no? Right now we have 219k items for editions and only 72k (~30 %) linked to Wikisource. I'll let you have a look and - if necessary - find a better wording (maybe something closer to your comment "Wikisource copies are editions").

Cheers, VIGNERON en résidence (talk) 08:39, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Did you see the change I made? It sounds as though you did not. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:32, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Call for participation in a task-based online experiment

edit

Dear EncycloPetey,

I hope you are doing well,

I am Kholoud, a researcher at King's College London, and I am working on a project as part of my PhD research, in which I have developed a personalised recommender model 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 model 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 in a research venue.

The experiment should take no more than 15 minutes, and it will be held next week.

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/1FAIpQLSfA1wfdBfCRlcG3WhDyc-V8lzgPNx3fDFCNXkyn4CSwahXZ_A/viewform?usp=sf_link Then, I will contact you with the link to start the study.

For more information about my project, 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 Kholoudsaa (talk) 15:56, 5 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Invitation to participate in the WQT UI requirements elicitation online workshop

edit

Dear EncycloPetey,

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) 14:44, 17 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Phormio

edit

Hello again,

Regarding the edition of Phormio I could figure out the original source of the text (and also the original source of the transcription).

On The Latin Library, as you have already noticed, the text is identical to the Latin Wikisource's; but so is in the PHI Latin corpus, where the original edition is indicated: "Phormio P. Terenti Afri Comoediae, ed. R. Kauer; W. M. Lindsay; O. Skutsch, 1958" (whose text is identical to the 1926 edition by only Kauer and Lindsay, since Skutsch has just added "hic et illic" –here and there– references to the more recently found papyri, as he states in his short note at the start of the volume). Comparing the first 100 verses with a more recent critical edition I had on hand has confirmed this claim.

I am also sure that the original source of the transcription is the PHI Latin corpus since in the start of the work you can see what look like "supplements" (<ei> on Diogenes, and <³ei>³ on the website) which are present also in The Latin library and on Wikisource. These "supplements" are not present in the paper edition (where we read e͡i), but are due to a bad interpretation of the original encoding (back then they had to come up with their own encoding standards).

Also on wikisource (and nowhere else) the expunctions are moved back by one verse, but clearly who made this change though wrongly that the verse "11a" should come after verse 10 and not 11.

Similar work can be done for other texts on la.wikisource. Actually in this case it would be probably have been sufficient to compare with the PHI Latin corpus. I will now update the wikidata item and think to add the scan of the 1926 edition to wikisource.

Thank you again. SZC 03 (talk) 09:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

If all that is the case, then the upload at la.WS may have been deliberately mislabelled, since the 1926 edition would have been under copyright when the work was uploaded to la.WS (in 2008), and therefore would have been a copyright violation. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Science book vs Scholarly work

edit

We can read on the French WP that "A scientific book or science book can be defined in several ways. In certain disciplines, most often science, technology, engineering and mathematics, a work generally written by a scientist, researcher or professor, or sometimes by a non-scientist, and which is involved in the process of disseminating knowledge by dealing with topics from different scientific disciplines". And "The Osteology of the Reptiles" shares some information given by a scientist about Reptiles exactly as previous defined. And what about "scholarly work", there is no definition at all. And, at the end, a scientific book is first of all... a book. Regards. Givet (talk) 15:10, 1 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Please refer to the examples used for that item which follow the description on en.WP. As used on Wikidata, a "science book" is a popular book on the subject of science, and not a scholarly work. It is instead written to the general public, and not for other scientists.
Please also confer with the Wikiproject:Books, which discourages the use of the word "book" because a book can be a physical object, a section of a longer work, a volume in a series, and many other things. The word "book" is not useful on Wikidata. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Q540161

edit

Do you have a better option instead of just removing the P18 claim? Jcb (talk) 10:12, 19 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

If I had a good option, I would have added it. But adding book scans that display as blank page with a Google copyright notice is never a good image. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:50, 19 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I will see if I can extract something useful from that document. Jcb (talk) 16:14, 19 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Why would an extract from a 20th-century French translation be appropriate for an ancient Greek play? --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:16, 19 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
The original would be better of course, but that doesn't seem to be available. A cover of a translation is also an "image of relevant illustration of the subject", the definition of what should be in the P18 claim. And it's better applicable than the images currently used in e.g. the nl.wiki and en.wiki article. Jcb (talk) 16:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Please do not force an inappropriate image onto an item. Sometimes there is no good image, and that's fine. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:36, 19 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I understand. But in this case I think this cover is better than nothing. It may not be great, but it isn't inappropriate IMHO. Jcb (talk) 16:50, 19 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
It is inappropriate. It from 25 centuries after the play was written, and in a language that did not exist when it was written. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:52, 19 May 2024 (UTC)Reply