User talk:Loominade/Archive 1

Hello, newcomer, and Welcome on Wikidata. https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q989888&diff=622530737&oldid=622530697 I think it’s way more convenient to treat this item as a class of spaceships than a « name » who does not really fit well in Wikidata data model. Or at least to keep an item about the spaceship class. Moreother, it seems the labels of the item mention it as a class, not as a name. What do you think ? author  TomT0m / talk page 12:07, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I am uncertain. There are several items about ships in the star trek universe with the same name:

• USS Grissom (Q10386185)
• USS Monitor (Q10387054)
• USS Saratoga (Q10387060)
• USS Farragut (Q18467654)

Also there are lots of Star Trek Ships instance of fictional spacecraft.--Loominade (talk) 12:18, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey

Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this survey on the project page and see how your feedback helps the Wikimedia Foundation support editors like you. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement (in English). Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through the EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys to remove you from the list.

Thank you!

WMF Surveys, 18:57, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia survey

Every response for this survey can help the Wikimedia Foundation improve your experience on the Wikimedia projects. So far, we have heard from just 29% of Wikimedia contributors. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes to be completed. Take the survey now.

If you have already taken the survey, we are sorry you've received this reminder. We have design the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. If you wish to opt-out of the next reminder or any other survey, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement. Thanks!

WMF Surveys, 01:39, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

== Zeitgeist (L5567) ==

Hi! pronunciation audio (P443) and IPA transcription (P898) are properties of every form because every form has different pronunciation. So we do not specify these properties at the level of lexeme but at the level of form. KaMan (talk) 10:29, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

== set in period (P2408) ==

Hello Loominade, why are you removing set in period (P2408) statements? - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 13:08, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

if it is a year I replace it with a point in time (P585) in narrative location (P840) example --Loominade (talk) 13:15, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

But why? It is a period. There is an own property for it. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 13:19, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

@Valentina.Anitnelav: i stopped it. Don't you think point in time (P585) is a better place to store years? --Loominade (talk) 13:23, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

It will be a lot messier to get all works set in a perod: with set in period (P2408) you can easily query for all works set in the 1940s or a part of it. Apart from this it would look like there is no time setting for this works at all. I don't think it is a good idea to multiply the places where to put informations. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 13:27, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

@Valentina.Anitnelav: I agree. with point in time (P585) you can query for the same + you can even qualify on date+location. But I see, this requires clarification. I will revert the set in period (P2408) removal batch? Okay?--Loominade (talk) 13:35, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Loominade! (I had a similar thought: you can't really infer from the statements that Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (Q46758) is set in 1997 and 1998 and that it is also set in Godric's Hollow (Q3288068) that it is set in Godric's Hollow (Q3288068) in 1997 (and not in Godric's Hollow (Q3288068) in 1998), so you could clarify this, if wanted, using point in time (P585). - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 13:43, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again, but I think that also the addition of point in time (P585) to narrative location (P840) without closer examination is not a good idea, because you are adding wrong statements in cases where there are multiple years and multiple places or the data are incomplete (like in Anne of Avonlea (Q1331757) or in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (Q46758): if I remember correct it is not set in Godric's Hollow (Q3288068) in 1998, but only in Godric's Hollow (Q3288068) in 1997... - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 13:56, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

unfortunately the revert tool does not seem to work right now--Loominade (talk) 13:59, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

@Valentina.Anitnelav: I am aware of that but I thought that is the best information we have based on the set in period (P2408)-as-a-main-property model--Loominade (talk) 14:02, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

@Valentina.Anitnelav: and you don't bother me at all 😀 --Loominade (talk) 14:08, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I agree with Valentina. It is strange to remove set in period (P2408) because you do it not in all cases. What would you do with values like future (Q344)? --Infovarius (talk) 14:51, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

@Infovarius: well ,future (Q344) is not instance of (P31) year (Q577) anyway. In any case I already reverted this batch.--Loominade (talk) 16:02, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Q59818657

Normally we do not mix fictional objects with real ones. It makes queries for exoplanets and other astronomical objects more complicated and technically there is no guarantee that fictional Alcor from Star Trek is exactly the same as Alcor (Q13088) :) If we want to express the relationship between fictional Alcor IV (Q59818657) and real Alcor (Q13088) I guess one need to create intermediate item "fictional Alcor" with fictional or mythical analog of (P1074)Alcor (Q13088) (see Earth (Q1005907) as an example) Ghuron (talk) 13:21, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

there already was a discussion about this. Maybe we should have it more publicly--Loominade (talk) 13:35, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Loominade/Archive 1,

The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with Wikidata and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 17:37, 10 September 2019 (UTC)