User talk:Léna

Previous discussion was archived at User talk:Léna/Archive 1 on 2019-01-02.

Welcome to Wikidata, Léna!

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, please ask me on my talk page. 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!

Both Flowering peach tree (Q24022739) and The pink peach tree (Q11751766) link to Commons:Category:The pink peach tree. Can you have a look and untangle it?

Corrected :)

Thanks. It popped up on Wikidata:WikiProject sum of all paintings/With Commons category no sitelink

(That message in other languages: العربية • ‎bosanski • ‎català • ‎Deutsch • ‎Esperanto • ‎français • ‎עברית • ‎polski • ‎português • ‎português do Brasil • ‎русский • ‎اردو • ‎中文 – ‎translate that message)

Hello!

Like some other community members, you are using Flow.

An increasing number of communities now use Flow or are considering it. Although Flow itself is not scheduled for major development during 2016 fiscal year, the Collaboration Team remains interested in the project and in providing an improved system for structured discussions.

You can help us make decisions about the way forward in this area by sharing your thoughts about Flow — what works, doesn't work or should be improved?

Please fill out this survey (available in multiple languages), which is administered by a third-party service. It will not require an email or your username. See our privacy statement.

Thanks for your ideas and opinions about Flow!

Trizek (WMF), on behalf of the Collaboration team, 11:56, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Salut,

Je vois que tu as précisé la description sur French statute (Q13408009). Sans être inutile, ce n'était pas vraiment nécessaire pour autant. Le principe d'une description est juste de donner les indications minimales pour distinguer deux éléments homonymes ou pour cerner rapidement le sujet, inutile de trop rentrer dans les détails (surtout que le diable s'y cache).

En gros, comme le dirait Saint-Exupéry, la perfection est atteinte lorsqu'il n'y a plus rien à retirer, ou KISS comme diraient les jeunes ;)

Coucou :)

J'ai modifié la description parce qu'en voyant l'ancienne "loi en vigueur en France", je me suis posé la question de si on distinguait les lois abrogées des lois en vigueur, et j'ai du aller consulter l'item pour lever cette ambiguité. J'ai donc modifié la description pour les personnes qui passeront après moi n'aient pas à se poser cette question.

Salut,

Cela part d'une très bonne intention et apporter une précision n'est pas en soi un problème, cela permet effectivement de répondre à ton questionnement. Le problème c'est qu'il y a des milliers de questions potentielles et qu'il faudra allonger à l'infini la description pour répondre à ces questions (typiquement tu as ajouter une mention du passé mais quid du futur ? il est écrit France mais de quoi parle-t-on : juste de la République Française actuelle, depuis la Révolution, depuis Charlemagne, etc. idem pour loi qui peut-être polysémique - actuellement, il n'y a que 3 éléments en sous-classe de cet élément mais des légalistes pourrait trouver à y redire - et je passe sur la notion de vigueur ; je pourrais multiplier les questions ad nauseam).

En l'occurrence c'est anodin, on peut laisser sans problème ta précision mais je note de plus en plus souvent que les gens allongent les descriptions et c'est non seulement globalement superflu mais potentiellement problématique.

PS: je m'arrête là car c'est du détail, mais je n'aime pas trop cette tendance présentiste que j'ai l'impression de plus en plus souvent déceler sur Wikidata.

Ok je comprends ton point sur la précision, il me faut un peu de temps et de réflexion pour l'assimiler complètement :)

Je ne suis pas sûre de saisir ce que tu entends par "tendance présentiste" ; je crois me faire une idée (on a un problème du genre sur Commons avec les catégories du genre "1872 in current-day Ile-de-France") ; est-ce que tu veux dire qu'en apportant la précision "passé et présent", c'est qu'on suppose qu'on est a priori dans une référence "présent uniquement", alors qu'on devrait plutôt se placer dans un référentiel universel ?

Pas de problème, j'ai moi-même mis du temps à faire de bonnes descriptions (et j'ai toujours des doutes parfois).

Oui, c'est exactement cela. Une conséquence très concrète est que si tu veux la liste des XXX actuels, la requête est super simple, par contre si tu veux la même liste il y a 1, 10 ou 100 ans, cela devient très souvent un calvaire alors qu'il est pourtant tellement facile et plus clair d'utiliser start time (P580) et end time (P582) en qualificateurs. En soi, je comprends ce besoin de mettre le présent en avant sauf que le présent c'est une illusion et quand personne ne mets à jour les données, c'est juste du passé qui cache son âge. Wikidata a 5 ans et je vois déjà apparaître des problèmes de données périmées qui ne sont pas indiquées comme tel (un peu comme les « en 2012, le bâtiment sera inauguré » sur Wikipédia).

Thanks for the help! You might like User:Multichill/Paintings by Vincent van Gogh. We still need to add the catalog code to quite a few of them. That will also make it easier to match the images. Once that is done we can probably create the missing paintings based on Commons.

You're very welcome, thanks to Wikidata and your work I can FINALLY imagine a world where every painting of van Gogh has it own category.

Creating the missing paintings based on Commons will be a lot of work, because we will have to be sure there is no match. But I see the light at the end of the tunnel :D

I already wrote some code to make the matching easier and create the missing paintings based on the catalog codes. Would be cool to get Van Gogh complete!

I felt like spending some time on this. Managed to find almost all catalog codes. Suggestions for new paintings to create are at User:Multichill/Van Gogh. Still over 400 so quite a bit of work.

A little of a noob here : what you list at User:Multichill/Van Gogh is not for Quick Statements but for another tool, right ?

It is intended for Quick statements, but inserting a tab in wikitext seems to be a bit hard. I'll have a look to see if I can tweak it.

It works really great, I was just copy/pasting wrongly from the page when you should do it from the wikicode :)

Exactly! That was the trick. Wow. You created them all :-D Some might be classified as paintings, but are actually something else (drawing, print, etc). These should stand out in User:Multichill/Paintings by Vincent van Gogh.

I cleaned out most of Commons:User:Multichill/Van Gogh. The number of images without a link to Wikidata dropped from 2000+ to about 1500.

Nice ! Do you now if there is a project to import wikiart, especially http://www.wikiart.org/en/vincent-van-gogh in wikidata ?

Not that I'm aware of. For Van Gogh we have several "fan" sites. I use http://www.vggallery.com/index.html quite often to find paintings and http://www.vangoghgallery.com/catalog/Painting/ is also a good overview. Once the current list is a bit more cleaned up, I could add some of the remaining paintings to Wikidata.

Hi, how are you doing? Still working on Van Gogh? I did some more work on it today and on https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Multichill/Zandbak I made a list of categories that are not linked from User:Multichill/Paintings by Vincent van Gogh or User:Multichill/Watercolours by Vincent van Gogh. Already managed to add quite a few missing links. Feel like helping out here?

I'm working on https://github.com/Commonists/Commons2Data to extract information from Commons categories ; not just linking the item to the right category, but as well add missing information about dates and museums when the information is available through parent categories :)

I've written code that finds the item museum of every artwork, as long it is in a subcategory of the main museum category ("main" meaning the category containing the institution template) \o/

Sounds complicated. I did some Commons to Wikidata data transfers. Generally it's quite painful to do. Too many small differences. I hope it works out better for you.

Be careful with interesting categorization. Famous paintings have a category of their own that might contain subcategories about related works. See for example Commons:Category:Works after The Night Watch by Rembrandt.

I'll be honest, I thought F... this S... at first XD

I'm going to exclude categories from Commons:Category:Derivative works of famous art but I think I might have to exclude Commons:Category:Copies and thus the paintings after Millet ><

Automation is hard.

Did this work out? I noticed quite a few of the paintings showing up at Wikidata:WikiProject sum of all paintings/Wiki monitor/commonswiki. Do you want to help with adding the missing collection (P195)? You might be interested in adding Wikidata:WikiProject sum of all paintings/Wiki monitor/frwiki to your watchlist too.

I didn't work much on that during the past months, sorry :( I'm struggling with time management (don't we all ? :D) and finding the right scale for this.

No worries, we do this for fun whenever we feel like spending some time on it :-)

I felt like spending time on it today. User:Multichill/Paintings by Vincent van Gogh grew quite a bit. I added quite a few missing paintings and missing information. Now only a few paintings are missing. The list is quite long because we seem to have classified quite a few drawing (Q93184) and watercolor painting (Q18761202) as painting (Q3305213). The difference is sometimes not very clear, I just follow what the sources have to offer. Maybe you can help a bit with the reclassification?

Today I checked Wikidata:WikiProject sum of all paintings/Creator/Vincent van Gogh with the book. All the paintings mentioned in the book are now in the list.