Jcb
Welcome to Wikidata, Jcb!
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!
Structures of chemical entities
editWikidata is not Wikipedia, all data here must relate strictly to a given topic. In addition, they must be easily available for reuse without the need for human intervention. That being said, this edit is not correct. It is not possible to tell which structure refers to which stereoisomer. Each of these files should be put only in an item about a specific stereoisomer ((E)-aconitic acid (Q27104227) / (Z)-aconitic acid (Q27104226)). In (EZ)-aconitic acid (Q288782) the only valid structure would be the one with the undefined double bond configuration marked. Other structures like these two could only be added via related image (P6802).
And by the way: all your edits so far in items about chemical entity needed correction, it is incorrect to use image (P18) when you should use chemical structure (P117) or image of molecular model or crystal lattice model (P8224). Please, keep this in mind for the future. Wostr (talk) 14:01, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- It looks more to me that you in some way are enforcing your own rules to this project. You somehow seem to want the P18 claim as absent as possible in chemical topics, which seems counter productive. This claim is helpful foor Wikipedia projects to make sure that images are added to articles when available, there are various check categories to support that. You are basically impeding this process by your edits. Jcb (talk) 14:42, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
- This is what it is at the moment and discussing the validity of it approach with you here is counterproductive for me. If you have a different perspective, you can start the discussion in Wikiproject Chemistry or in Project Chat, but until then most of the illustrations for chemical entities must be put in P117 or P8224. P18 is reserved for illustrations that are neither chemical structure diagrams nor 3D structure models. Wostr (talk) 15:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- Apparently some people have forgotten that Wikidata has been designed to facilitate the encyclopedia, not as a goal in itself. Jcb (talk) 16:25, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- Wikidata is an independent project, however, as I wrote, further discussion on this topic makes no sense here. Wostr (talk) 21:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- You are mistaken about that, Wikidata was never meant to be independent. It's an auxiliary project, like Commons, with the main purpose of serving other projects. Look e.g. at es:Amstel Gold Race 1969. The infobox of that article gets its content directly from Wikidata. As soon as I added an image to the P18 claim of that subject, it was automatically included at the ES, NO and FR article. Many templates at Wikipedia rely on relevant claims like P18 NOT categorically being emptied by some user at Wikidata. Jcb (talk) 21:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- No, the one who is mistakene here is you. If you have problem with infobox in a Wikipedia project, fix this infobox in this project. The distinction between P18/P117/P8224 in Wikidata is clear and does not need fixing nor you trying to force changes to something that has been working for years and has been agreed upon by many people. I warn you that further such attempts of forceful changes without proper discussion will be reported to the administrators. Wostr (talk) 21:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- No, the infoboxes are fine. It's counter productive to try to empty as many P18 claims as you can. You have indeed been doing this for years, I have seen pages where you have reverted 3 or 4 different users over the years who correctly filled the P18 claim and you may be the main cause of chemical articles being excessively populating maintenance categories. And don't threaten me, such behaviour has no place in any Wikimedia project. Jcb (talk) 21:42, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- The last time I'll try to explain this to you. In items about chemical entities in Wikidata we use mainly three properties: chemical structure (P117) for chemical structure diagrams, image of molecular model or crystal lattice model (P8224) for 3D models of molecules or crystal structures, image (P18) mainly for images of chemical substances samples. Statements using these three properties must strictly correspond to the item concept, illustrations less related to the topic are placed, for example, in schematic (P5555) or in related image (P6802) – although in my opinion this is pointless anyway, because these statements are practically unreusable. This is how it works in Wikidata for many years and was properly discussed and agreed upon between Wikidata users. Any changes to this established practice would require a discussion in Wikidata. What's more, this is not exclusive to chemical items – we have dozens, if not hundreds, subproperties of image (P18) in many areas, which help organise the data in WD. Given your attitude towards this project (as subordinate to Wikipedia and not as independent as it actually is) I really don't care about your problems in some infoboxes in a Wikipedia project, but I can tell you this – the problem is on your side (Wikipedia's side) and results from the incorrect code of such infobox and a failure to adapt it to the data model in Wikidata. I don't have the time or inclination to deal with the behaviour you're displaying. Further edits of this kind will be reported in the appropriate place as I see now that you do not intend to adapt to the established standards or seriously discuss it, but only to force your vision. Wostr (talk) 21:59, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- I have been around here since 2004 and seen all corners of the Wikimedia/Wikipedia projects. It's not that I don't understand how things work. I am also not the one who is forcing anything, you are. I don't understand why you are doing this. I have tried to be helpful to you, also filling your favorite P117 and P8224 claims where images were available and then you come online again and start moving things around after which pages pop up in maintenance categories again. Is there any policy page where I can read that your rigid statements about the P18 claims in chemical articles are actually official? A claim that 'many users agreed upon' something is not helpful, because nobody can verify such a claim. Jcb (talk) 22:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- Wikidata started about 2013/2014 not in 2004. And I'm not sure how you can say that you understand Wikidata and ask such questions. The main goal of Wikidata is to collect data in a structured way. This is so that someone using this data can get what they want, not a random collection of information. Properties exist to define the scope of information stored in them. Given the amount of information in Wikidata, it is not possible to check the data after import, so what you get from WD must be predictable. So on the one hand, it cannot be the case that there are two chemical structures next to each other, one in image (P18), the other in chemical structure (P117) - correctly imported chemical structure (P117) will already give the appropriate chemical structure, so there should be something different in image (P18), otherwise someone will get the chemical structure twice. On the other hand, structured data also means that you use the most detailed properties that exist. image (P18) exists as the most general property, the superproperty for all others related to illustrations. The property documentation itself tells you to use more specific properties whenever possible. chemical structure (P117) and image of molecular model or crystal lattice model (P8224) are just such properties. By using these properties correctly, the reuser has more freedom in deciding what exactly he wants to import and what he doesn't want to import. Thus, a properly built infobox in Wikipedia will import a chemical structure where necessary, a 3D model where necessary, and not completely random graphics that may not even fit this infobox at all (e.g. a synthesis diagram, a box of drugs containing the active substance or anything else that people like to post on the basis of "because there must be some graphics, even if they are completely unrelated").
- I am not able to present to you a specific discussion in which something was agreed. There are discussions about introducing specific properties, many discussions about the scope of image (P18). Finding it would take a disproportionate amount of time. If you think otherwise or don't believe me – just start a discussion, e.g. in Wikiproject Chemistry or in a more general place. I'm pretty sure you'll get similar responses.
- And as a side note: in Commons infoboxes there are no problems with appropriately presenting the properties associated with illustrations. Wostr (talk) 23:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- I have been around here since 2004 and seen all corners of the Wikimedia/Wikipedia projects. It's not that I don't understand how things work. I am also not the one who is forcing anything, you are. I don't understand why you are doing this. I have tried to be helpful to you, also filling your favorite P117 and P8224 claims where images were available and then you come online again and start moving things around after which pages pop up in maintenance categories again. Is there any policy page where I can read that your rigid statements about the P18 claims in chemical articles are actually official? A claim that 'many users agreed upon' something is not helpful, because nobody can verify such a claim. Jcb (talk) 22:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- The last time I'll try to explain this to you. In items about chemical entities in Wikidata we use mainly three properties: chemical structure (P117) for chemical structure diagrams, image of molecular model or crystal lattice model (P8224) for 3D models of molecules or crystal structures, image (P18) mainly for images of chemical substances samples. Statements using these three properties must strictly correspond to the item concept, illustrations less related to the topic are placed, for example, in schematic (P5555) or in related image (P6802) – although in my opinion this is pointless anyway, because these statements are practically unreusable. This is how it works in Wikidata for many years and was properly discussed and agreed upon between Wikidata users. Any changes to this established practice would require a discussion in Wikidata. What's more, this is not exclusive to chemical items – we have dozens, if not hundreds, subproperties of image (P18) in many areas, which help organise the data in WD. Given your attitude towards this project (as subordinate to Wikipedia and not as independent as it actually is) I really don't care about your problems in some infoboxes in a Wikipedia project, but I can tell you this – the problem is on your side (Wikipedia's side) and results from the incorrect code of such infobox and a failure to adapt it to the data model in Wikidata. I don't have the time or inclination to deal with the behaviour you're displaying. Further edits of this kind will be reported in the appropriate place as I see now that you do not intend to adapt to the established standards or seriously discuss it, but only to force your vision. Wostr (talk) 21:59, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- No, the infoboxes are fine. It's counter productive to try to empty as many P18 claims as you can. You have indeed been doing this for years, I have seen pages where you have reverted 3 or 4 different users over the years who correctly filled the P18 claim and you may be the main cause of chemical articles being excessively populating maintenance categories. And don't threaten me, such behaviour has no place in any Wikimedia project. Jcb (talk) 21:42, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- No, the one who is mistakene here is you. If you have problem with infobox in a Wikipedia project, fix this infobox in this project. The distinction between P18/P117/P8224 in Wikidata is clear and does not need fixing nor you trying to force changes to something that has been working for years and has been agreed upon by many people. I warn you that further such attempts of forceful changes without proper discussion will be reported to the administrators. Wostr (talk) 21:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- You are mistaken about that, Wikidata was never meant to be independent. It's an auxiliary project, like Commons, with the main purpose of serving other projects. Look e.g. at es:Amstel Gold Race 1969. The infobox of that article gets its content directly from Wikidata. As soon as I added an image to the P18 claim of that subject, it was automatically included at the ES, NO and FR article. Many templates at Wikipedia rely on relevant claims like P18 NOT categorically being emptied by some user at Wikidata. Jcb (talk) 21:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- Wikidata is an independent project, however, as I wrote, further discussion on this topic makes no sense here. Wostr (talk) 21:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- Apparently some people have forgotten that Wikidata has been designed to facilitate the encyclopedia, not as a goal in itself. Jcb (talk) 16:25, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- This is what it is at the moment and discussing the validity of it approach with you here is counterproductive for me. If you have a different perspective, you can start the discussion in Wikiproject Chemistry or in Project Chat, but until then most of the illustrations for chemical entities must be put in P117 or P8224. P18 is reserved for illustrations that are neither chemical structure diagrams nor 3D structure models. Wostr (talk) 15:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
The discussions about the need for a project like Wikidata have been started around 2005/2006. Originally one of the main purposes was to store the links between articles about the same subject in different languages. Before Wikidata, we had to enter and to update those interwiki links to every separate article on every wiki, which was a lot of work. We ran robots to do it, see e.g. es:Especial:Contribuciones/RobotJcb, but it was still a lot of work. Currently Wikidata serves this purpose perfectly. "If you think otherwise or don't believe me – just start a discussion" - no, it's the other way around. You want something from me that is not logical and that I cannot find in a policy, so it's up to you to show that it's indeed the official way to do it here and not just your personal opinion. You were confident enough to threaten me about this, so now it's time to back up your claim. Jcb (talk) 06:19, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- I'm an editor of Wikimedia projects long enough to remember the times before Wikidata, don't lecture me about this. If you can't understand how things work here and why and really have no intentions to learn – I can't help you, but I won't tolerate any exceptions to an established standards in items about chemical entities. If you have a specific subproperty, you use this subproperty, not the one that is more general. So if you have chemical structure (P117) dedicated for chemical structure diagrams, you use this property for such diagrams, not a more general one that causes creating duplicated images in some cases and it adds more work to several people who edit here regularly. That is what a documentation tells you and discussions about creating such subproperties tells you. Given your view, only image (P18) should exist here with no subproperties and all images should be put with P18 – but such proposals were denied many times in the past.
- And no, I don't want anything from you. This discussion started because of your revert and I was simply explaining the reason. I gave you all the information you needed and I will continue my work here as normal, correcting your edits if necessary, reporting your actions to administrators if necessary. And no, that is not my vision and I'm not the only one that is correcting P18 → P117/P8224 statements, as several other editors do it on regular basis. Unfortunately, it turned out that among these people, I was the one who noticed your edits. Wostr (talk) 12:48, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- So far you have you have refused to show that you are talking about "established practice" rather than your personal opinion. You have not provided even one link to back up your statement. And you were the first party to start reverting my edits, not the other way round. Jcb (talk) 12:52, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Tom Boyd
editWho is Tom Boyd in the picture added to Tom Boyd (Q649524)? Maundwiki (talk) 18:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- The one with the ball on the left. Jcb (talk) 22:15, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, if you added a media legend (P2096) like this it would be easier. Maundwiki (talk) 22:41, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Colposcelis confusion
editHi! I noticed you just moved nl:Colposcelis link to Colposcelis (Q2796603), but there is a problem with this too, sorry! I will explain the problem here if it helps:
The image File:Georgiy Jacobson - Beetles Russia and Western Europe - plate 74 colposcelis longicollis.png is definitely for Colposcelis (Q2796603), as far as I'm aware.
But, I can tell that es:Colposcelis and nl:Colposcelis are actually Colposcelis Dejean (1836) non Dejean (1834) (Q107391493), because they are placed in family Chrysomelidae (also known as leaf beetles in English, bladkevers in Dutch). The trouble is, "Colposcelis" was an old name for a genus of leaf beetles, but it had to be changed to "Pagria" because a genus of darkling beetles had the same name. Somehow "Synopsis of the described Coleoptera of the World" must have kept the old name "Colposcelis" for for the leaf beetle genus, for some strange reason I don't understand, which may be why es and nl Wikipedia call it by that name and not "Pagria"? So, both es and nl Wikipedia pages called "Colposcelis" (as well as all the species pages) should really be renamed to "Pagria" and linked to Pagria (Q4046318) to be uptodate.
Hope this makes sense! Monster Iestyn (talk) 13:28, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the feedback! I am afraid that I will create a bigger mess if I try to fix this, so I have left this message to the NL wiki biologists. Jcb (talk) 19:58, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- No worries, hope they can sort it out then! Monster Iestyn (talk) 20:06, 8 April 2024 (UTC)