Marcmiquel

2019-06 P625

Why did you add coordinate location (P625) to languoid items, such special:diff/957900384? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:53, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

The WALS Database provides a coordinate for each of these languages. I think it is a good idea to be able to depict them in a map. --Marcmiquel (talk) 22:07, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

A languoid is not a dot and is not spoken at a dot. Please revert those edits of you. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:31, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Do you think introducing the reference to WALS database would be a good idea? Whether a language should or not be represented by a coordinate, it is undeniably useful in some occasions. --Marcmiquel (talk) 20:49, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

There are WALS lect code (P1466), WALS genus code (P1467), WALS family code (P1468). Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:16, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes. But I meant the coordinate is here: https://wals.info/languoid. --Marcmiquel (talk) 21:21, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I am not familiar with https://wals.info/ website. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I do not see any problem to add this information in the case it is given by an external source (WALS now). Other source given also this information. The important point is to give the source as a reference. Usually this information is given for languages spoken by few people and so the coordinates point to the village where this language is spoek or to the district. This is somehow redundant with located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) but sources give this information so we can add it here. Pamputt (talk) 05:25, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree. I'm updating it with WALS info. --Marcmiquel (talk) 09:55, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

What do you mean by that? Is it location (place of burial?) of the most fluent speaker of such language? :) --Infovarius (talk) 20:42, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

haha! Very funny. They are the coordinates given by WALS database. It is a data entry interesting. --Marcmiquel (talk) 20:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Official languages of Romania

Hi. I noticed you added Hungarian (Q9067) as an official language (P37) of Romania (Q218), referencing this from https://www.ethnologue.com/language/hun

Although indeed spoken in parts of Romania, Hungarian does not, however, have any official status in the country at large. The source itself only mentions the presence of its speakers, and the provincial status of its use, which is not official for the country. There are many languages that have similar status in Romania, including Czech, Slovak, Turkish, Romani, German, Russian, Ukrainian etc. They are not however official languages of the country. —Andrei^talk 11:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Mulțumesc Andrei. I know Hungarian is not official in the entire Romania. I'm married to a Romanian from Cluj with Hungarian origins! haha The thing is... Does official language imply official in the entire country? I'm not sure it implies it. The rest of languages you mention do not have a provincial status in Romania according to Ethnologue. In some cases they have status 5 (p.e. Ukranian) but never 2 in the EGID scale. --Marcmiquel (talk) 11:22, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

No, it doesn't imply it. There is the qualifier applies to part (P518), see how it is used in Russia (Q159), where some federal subjects have additional official languages, but the country at large only has one.

In Romania, however, that doesn't really apply. Even though some languages other than Romanian are used in administration in some counties and municipalities (and that use is regulated by law), they still do not hold the status of official language in any region. They are all rather recognised regional/minority languages. In what regards Wikidata, they can be specified by language used (P2936). —Andrei^talk 17:04, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying Andrei. I think you are right, Language used seems a better option. --Marcmiquel (talk) 23:30, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Why did you re-add Hungarian as the official language of Q181513?

While Hungarian is spoken in this Romanian county, I had removed the statement because the reference cited did not actually say that Hungarian was its official language, only that it was "also spoken" here. I noted the issue on the talk page and encouraged others to find a proper citation. However, as the county is in Romania, it certainly merits a citation to assert that Hungarian is an official language, and only listing Hungarian as an official language. While Hungarian is one of the official languages of some Romanian counties, the 2011 census as cited on wikipedia states that less than 10% of this particular county is Hungarian. Statements about official languages carry enormous cultural and political weight. Creating unsourced wikidata statements or citing a reference which does not state that something is the "official language" but only spoken there, diminishes trust in wikidata and data reuse.

The best option seems to use "Language used" rather than official. --Marcmiquel (talk) 23:33, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I am not going to undo it immediately, but would ask you to find a conclusive citation, not https://www.ethnologue.com/language/hun where the statement about Hungarian's Status in Romania is displayed as: "2 (Provincial). Statutory provincial language in Harghita and Covasna departments (outright majoities); also in Mures, Sate Mare, Bihor and Salay departments (over 20% total county population) (2001, Local Public Administration Law No. 215, Article 40(7), others)." and Bistrița-Năsăud is only listed elsewhere in the entry as a place above where Hungarian is spoken (this is true of most of Romania). I am deeply concerned that you seem to be adding these statements in batches because your script appears to be picking up "Bistrița-Năsăud" for the wrong kind of assertion and would encourage you to review things besides this [edited to add that because your scripts are simply re-adding removed info, you are also ignoring the reasons for removal on talk pages and forcing people to come over here, as is evident by your talk page's content]. Ruthbrarian (talk) 23:04, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I had undone it. As suggested, I am reviewing my source database and my script. My apologies if it caused you trouble. Thanks. --Marcmiquel (talk) 23:21, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I think the "language used" option mentioned above is a good one! I do automated processing at work and have definitely found it hard sometimes to parse things well. Appreciated. Ruthbrarian (talk) 22:32, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Could you please fix the wrongly added official languages in other countries as well? I noticed many errors when I tried to update some country infoboxes, including:

• Turkish listed as official language in Greece
• German as official language in Denmark and Poland
• Italian as official language in Croatia ...

Thanks! Tkarcher (talk) 21:18, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that they are indeed official, just that at provincial level. Italian is spoken in Istria (Croatia), German in some Polish and Danish provinces,... However, if that annoys you because of the infoboxes, I am deleting it. --Marcmiquel (talk) 21:25, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I was annoyed, but this should never be the reason for deletions. :-) I learned a lot about official languages tonight and after reading the discussions in Property_talk:P37 and reading more about officially recognised minority languages I agree that listing them is not wrong (as I claimed earlier), but nevertheless misleading without appropriate qualifiers: I use this property to automatically update infoboxes in a German encyclopedia for kids (Klexikon (Q29413994)). Listing German as one of the official languages of Poland would not only confuse the kids, but also most parents and teachers reading this. If we somehow could add qualifiers to all regional and minority languages like it's already done in Netherlands (Q55) (and like I just did in Poland (Q36) and Croatia (Q224)), I could easily filter those out for my updates. --Tkarcher (talk) 00:05, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Languages are sensitive material, I learnt that. You are right about the possible misinterpretation. Even though the edits were correct, it is easy to bother people. At the same time it is not easy to do the edit in a way that fits perfectly. I will look for a way to post "applies to a part" for these specific cases. Thanks. --Marcmiquel (talk) 00:15, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Constraint violations for number of speakers

number of speakers, writers, or signers (P1098) requires point in time (P585) as a qualifier, which you don't seem to have added in https://tools.wmflabs.org/quickstatements/#/batch/13559. That has created almost 7000 constraint violations. Please fix your import.

Also, where are you getting this information from? You should add references if you're doing imports. It's especially important for things like number of speakers because nobody can give a definitive number.

- Nikki (talk) 11:09, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Dear @Nikki, I thought I reverted these edits but apparently it didn't. Thanks for notifying. I wanted to enrich them with the info you mentioned and the references but I am unsure about whether I can post them. For this reason I will revert them now. Best. --Marcmiquel (talk) 15:00, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Marcmiquel,

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)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Marcmiquel,

A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.

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) 19:53, 20 September 2019 (UTC)