This page is an archive. Please do not modify it. Use the current page, even to continue an old discussion.
Odd instance of
Presidential vs Parliamentary Elections
Please be careful when merging elections. For example, I think you've merged the Gabonese parliamentary elections of 1973 into Gabonese presidential election, 1973 (Q3586573) which was specifically the Presidential election. These are quite different things, with different offiices contested, vote counts, winners, and even which election follows each (the next Presidential election was 1979, but the next Parliamentary elections were 1980. In many cases individual language wikipedias only have a single page for all the elections together, but on Wikidata it's best to keep them separate, and have an overarching instance of general election (Q23688069) to tie them together. --Oravrattas (talk) 14:43, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
- OK @Oravrattas:, thanks for letting me know. I saw after-the-fact that different wikipedias were distinguishing the two election types, but I could not tell whether they were always happening together or not. Actually the merge suggestion was based on other items (Q2381043, Q3031394, Q3586572, Q3586574, Q3586575, Q3586576) where FR and TR languages are both linked, similar to what I tried to do with Q3586571-Q17006439 and Q3586573-Q17004638. -- LaddΩ chat ;) 02:28, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Shihuiyao cun (Q13904074)
Salut, je vois que tu as remis en place un lien que je venais de supprimer. La raison de la suppression est que Shihuiyao cun (Q13904074) concerne un village situé dans la province du Hebei 40°52'45"N, 118°14'19"E (tout comme l'article de zh.wp), alors que Shihuiyao cun dans fr.wp concerne un village homonyme situé dans la province du Qinghai. Bonne continuation et cdt, --Tiger Chair (talk) 09:04, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Tiger Chair: Merci d'avoir relevé l'erreur. Je pensais bien avoir comparé les caractères chinois avant de le faire, mais de toute évidence, incorrectement. J'ai maintenant créé Shihuiyao cun (Q29858902) pour le village du Qinghai et ajouté different from (P1889) pour éviter une erreur similaire dans le futur.
- Autre point, le Q13904074 du Hebei était partie de deux located in the administrative territorial entity (P131), dont le canton de Shihuiyao huizu xiang (Q14038714)... qui se trouve dans le Qinghai ! Je l'ai supprimé; c'est le nouveau Shihuiyao cun (Q29858902) qui a pris sa place.
- Ce serait utile d'associer au nouvel item un China administrative division code (P442), mais j'ignore comment le trouver... J'ai lui ai tout de même ajouté des labels de toutes les langues indiquées dans l'article de wpfr. STP m'en faire part si j'ai fait quelque chose de douteux. A+ -- LaddΩ chat ;) 00:28, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Je venais de supprimer le lien vers w:fr:Pratique de Q10354783 car je trouve que le contenu n'a pas grand chose à voir : d'un côté (wp:fr) on est sur un concept entre technique/habitude/activité, et de l'autre (les 2 autres wp) on parle méthode scientifique... Qu'en penses-tu ? --Rinaku (t · c) 16:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Rinaku: Les deux autres articles semblent directement traduits l'un de l'autre; en effet ils décrivent plus la dualité pratique-théorie, cependant la pratique telle qu'elle y est expliquée est bien une mise en action; selon moi c'est le même concept, mis à part que la distinction avec la théorie n'est pas abordée dans l'article français. Mais si tu penses que ça mérite la distinction dans WD, crée un nouvel item pour w:fr:Pratique et ajoutes-y different from (P1889) vers practice (Q10354783) pour assurer qu'ils ne seront plus des candidats à la fusion. Cheers -- LaddΩ chat ;) 19:18, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
At first I didn't understand why I'd merged them in the first place, but I had another look at The Naze (Q26248704) and Morro (Q21470700) and I do think they are the same. Where did you get Vega Island from for Special:Diff/525541878? If it was from the coordinates taken from GeoNames, you should find a source which explicitly says it's on Vega Island rather than relying on where the coordinates point to. Coordinates in GeoNames are often imprecise (how imprecise depends on which source they imported the data from) and therefore don't always point to exact locations (this is also why GeoNames will often have an entry for an island which points to a point in the sea somewhere near the island and other things like that).
The name and coordinates in GeoNames match the Argentinian data at https://data.aad.gov.au/aadc/gaz/scar/display_name.cfm?gaz_id=101616 so that is most likely where the GeoNames entry came from. That page says that it is the same object that the Americans list as "The Naze". The precision for the coordinates is unknown, so we don't know how far off the coordinates are from the actual item, but if you round the American coordinates down to the nearest 10 minutes, you get the Argentinian coordinates.
- @Nikki: Hi,I took the location on Vega Island from the first paragraph of the cebuano wiki, w:ceb:Morro (punta). I agree that the coords of Morro (Q21470700) point to the center of that island, but I suspect that the peninsula is actually the piece of land protruding to the south - right beside The Naze that points to the north from the James Ross island, next to the south (map). I have no proof of that though, but it would explain why they get confused on GeoNames. -- LaddΩ chat ;) 14:21, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- That article was automatically generated from GeoNames, so that's the same as using the coordinates. If you don't have any reliable external sources to support these being different, I think Vega Island should be marked as deprecated and the items merged again, because we have a source which says they are the same (and that it's on James Ross Island) and no sources which contradict that (that part of James Ross Island is within the range of locations covered by the Argentinian coordinates, because of their imprecision). I've tried to find evidence for a Cabo Morro on Vega Island but the only results when I search for the Spanish names "Cabo Morro" and "Isla Vega" are references to a paper titled "Nuevos invertebrados fosiles de Cabo Lamb (Isla Vega) y Cabo Morro (Isla James Ross)". - Nikki (talk) 16:47, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Fafe vs. Fafe Municipality
Hi Laddo, Your edits in these items were NOT incorrect .. but .. a changed them just to keep a standard with all he others (308) Municipalities in Portugal. Indeed "Fafe" is a city and different of "Fafe Municipality" which is a municipality. In reality Fafe is the head (capital) of Fafe Municipality ... and so on. But, in practice, 307 of the 308 Municipalities have the name of its capital - (just 1 is different, the town "Vila Baleira" is the capital of Porto Santo Municipality) - and in Portuguese Wikipedia there is only 1 Category and 1 Article for each city/municipality, and in Commons is the same. Well, I rest my case, but will be happy to give you more information if you request so. regards --JotaCartas (talk) 10:35, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
- @JotaCartas: Hi, it's OK if your opinion is that such items should be merged, though the philosophy of Wikidata is to have one item for one concept - and as far as no Wikipedia created two articles for these two items. Keep in mind to check the history and the Talk pages to ensure you are not doing the exact opposite of what others did (e.g. separating these two concepts) and starting an edit war.
- Regarding my change (adding different from (P1889)), I am simply reproducing what other contributors listed in these pages, and both Fafe (Q17166804) and Fafe (Q551080) were listed on Wikidata:Do not merge/1. In the case that you refer to, I tend to agree with them and disagree with you, but I won't make a case about it :)
- Cheers -- LaddΩ chat ;) 11:59, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
- Hi again. I have little time right now .. but: 1st - I have no intention at all to start an edition war (never in my mind); 2nd- I think that your opinion is the correct and perhaps we can do things right here even if in Wikipedia and commons are not very well done; 3rd - One problem is to change all the 307 others municipalities (perhaps is better to get a consensus); 4th - At the end we will get 307 cities/towns with the links and data they have now and more 307 municipalities (with the same name) with no links and very few data. Finally, I'm more inclined to agree with your opinion, just i think is better get more opinions to prevent any nasty war, and I am available (as I am Portuguese) to made the necessary corrections if that's the way to go. regards --JotaCartas (talk) 12:28, 10 August 2017 (UTC)