Welcome to Wikidata, Mfilot!
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.
IPA in lexemesEdit
- @KaMan: Thanks, I spotted the query for IPA and will correct my edits. --Mfilot (talk) 16:12, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
- @KaMan: The performance of the query is not very good, so I had to put in some restriction. By the way its the query just above the graph with only a slight modification. I just query for translations of Tuesday starting from the German lexeme. Since the sense of the Ukrainian lexeme isn't yet linked on the German lexeme it does not appear on the graph. I ignore at with pace the graph is refreshed. I'd imagine at least when you reload the page, but there seems to be some time lag. --Mfilot (talk) 16:28, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
I noticed you updated items on parliamentarians. I was wondering what you thought of the various models at these models?
Most parliamentarians are based on approach #2, but some prefer #4. What is actually being used varies from one position ("office") to another. Ideally, we stick to one model for all of the same position. --- Jura 21:33, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Jura1:: I'd prefer #4 although a bit more complicated than #2. Data is richer. However I didn't applied it yet, since I assumed there is no consens which schema to apply. --Mfilot (talk) 07:32, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Despite doing a considerable amount of editing in the field, I haven't really figured out what's available with #4 that isn't with #2.
- Some user adds a theoretical end date of 2023 with #4. I suppose that is possible only there even though it makes #4 seem even more redundant and potentially misleading.
- Anyways, thanks for your contributions in the field. --- Jura 09:27, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Jura1:: Thanks for your feedback. I estimate approach #4 is better suited to map discontinued terms of office as in this example: Aline Trede (Q2647135) than approach #2. Furthermore I guess it's easier to query all members of a term, when a parliamentary term (P2937) is added to the entries. Adding theoretical end date i.e. in the future is in my opinion not acceptable. Did you geht any other feedback from users regarding data model for swiss politician in particular Member of the Swiss National Council (Q18510612). --Mfilot (talk) 13:26, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Oh, even #2 would use separate statements for separate (non-continous) periods in office. It might even be more suitable than #4, as there it's not clear if a user just added an incorrect or vague dates (as happened recently) or if there was actually a break. Query-wise, it shouldn't make a difference. I will try to dig up previous discussions.--- Jura 11:21, 30 January 2020 (UTC)