Geanixx
Welcome to Wikidata, Geanixx!
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! Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi, you reverted this edit of me, and I would like to understand why. ridge (Q740445) is described as a "chain of mountains or hills that form a continuous elevated crest for some distance", like Wallhornkamm (Q17326878). In contrast, mountain chain (Q2624046) is described as "type of mountain range". When keeping in mind that subclass of (P279) states that any instance of subclass item are also instances of the 'overclass', hence according to you any ridge would also neccessarily be a mountain chain or even a mountain range, a statement which I consider at least highly questionable and misses the actual point. For sure, the terms are referring similar things not clearly delimited from each other, but I see the relationship between them not as one being subclass of the other but rather in their difference in size: A mountain chain is a larger feature, stretching over a greater distance and covering a bigger area than a ridge, that's the main difference in my point of view. If you agree, I'm open to discuss how we best implement this hierarchical structure; otherwise let me know. Best regards, Arjoopy (talk) 10:47, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
- The problem was not that edit in itself, but the sum of all the four edits you made. When you removed all subclass of (P279) statements it is no longer defined what ridge (Q740445) is, and this created a host of error messages in other items. I noticed this when I created the item Geavvogeašoaivvit, and if you revert my edit on ridge (Q740445) I think you will see the error messages. This was the direct reason for my revert. AFAIK all items needs to have either a instance of (P31) or a subclass of (P279) statement, but if there are other ways to avoid these errors I would like to know.
- Your edits defined ridge (Q740445) as part of mountain range (Q46831). But the labels and descriptions on Q46831 in english (and the other languages I understand) and german are quite different. In fact, the german description on mountain chain (Q2624046) seems to fit better with the english description on Q46831, while the german description on Q46831 seems more or less identical to mountain (Q8502). I don't if this has any relevance to the problem at hand, but the items seems mixed up somehow.
- I see from your user page that you are attempting to create a classification scheme for mountains/hills/etc, and I applaud this effort. However, from my own work on rivers I know that this kind of effort is fraught with difficulty, as nature has a way of finding exeptions to the nicely defined categories one tries to make. Not to mention that things are defined differently depending on where you live and what language you speak. Brgds --Geanixx (talk) 11:39, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
- Hi Geanixx, I appreciate your explanations. The german description of mountain range (Q46831) was actually bogus, I updated it. Regarding ridge (Q740445) – I noticed, that actually several mountain-related objects, like summit (Q207326), were subclass of (P279) geomorphological unit (Q12766313), which is in my opinion (compared to other items in geomorphological unit (Q12766313)) too generic. So I created alpine landform (Q122830194), which would also fit as an 'overclass' for ridge (Q740445) pretty fine in my opinion. Then we could refrain from using the inapplicable subclass of (P279) mountain chain (Q2624046) relation. I'd appreciate your thoughts. Best, Arjoopy (talk) 18:24, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
- Hi Arjoopy. I agree that subclass of (P279) geomorphological unit (Q12766313) is too generic. But alpine landform (Q122830194) appears to be specifically concerning mountains (Hochgebirge), while the term ridge (Q740445) is mainly referring to hills and lower mountains (Hügeln/Mittelgebirge). In my opinion, the item elevation (Q106589819) would propably be a better fit as an "overclass" for any type of hill, mountain, etc. Brgds --Geanixx (talk) 11:41, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- Hi Geanixx, I appreciate your explanations. The german description of mountain range (Q46831) was actually bogus, I updated it. Regarding ridge (Q740445) – I noticed, that actually several mountain-related objects, like summit (Q207326), were subclass of (P279) geomorphological unit (Q12766313), which is in my opinion (compared to other items in geomorphological unit (Q12766313)) too generic. So I created alpine landform (Q122830194), which would also fit as an 'overclass' for ridge (Q740445) pretty fine in my opinion. Then we could refrain from using the inapplicable subclass of (P279) mountain chain (Q2624046) relation. I'd appreciate your thoughts. Best, Arjoopy (talk) 18:24, 26 September 2023 (UTC)