Open main menu

User talk:Mormegil

Logo of Wikidata

Welcome to Wikidata, Mormegil!

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!

Tentokrát jste to teda vylepšil... Littledogboy (talk) 11:39, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Já váš překlad nevylepšoval. Stěžujte si u tvůrců TUXu, že nedetekuje/nezobrazuje/ignoruje editační konflikty… --Mormegil (talk) 12:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Aha. Jinak za vaše předešlé korekce mých méně zdařilých překladů tady i na translatewiki vám děkuji. Littledogboy (talk) 13:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Contents

autopatrollerEdit

Template:Autopatroller/text/en Littledogboy (talk) 11:30, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

MayEdit

[1] × [2] ([3]) ? Littledogboy (talk) 15:56, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Ano. Gratuluji; zatímco ten, který na tu stránku novinek napsal chybný klíč, způsobil drobnou chybu v lokalizacích té stránky, vám se na několik dní (než se opět aktualizují překlady na mnou vrácenou verzi) podařilo rozbít překlad jednoho vcelku elementárního hlášení na všech projektech nadace:
  • ...
  • 1. 3.
  • 1. 4.
  • 1. 5.
  • 1. 6.
  • 1. 7.
  • ...
Opravdu jste věřil tomu, že překlad takového základního hlášení byl pět let úplně špatně?
--Mormegil (talk) 16:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
To mě mrzí. Předpoklad byl, že všechny měsíce budou řešeny vzájemně analogicky, a že tedy postačí se podívat do tří dalších stránek MediaWiki:MONTH/cs. Jaktože ne?! Littledogboy (talk) 17:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Protože „May“ je v angličtině současně jak celý název měsíce, tak jeho zkratka (Jan, Feb, …). Takže máme MediaWiki:January, MediaWiki:February, …, ale současně máme MediaWiki:Jan, MediaWiki:Feb, pročež u MediaWiki:May nám to jaksi koliduje, takže tam je zkratka a plný název je na MediaWiki:May long. Netvrdím, že to je kdovíjak chytře navržený systém, ale prostě to tak bylo naimplementováno. --Mormegil (talk) 06:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Člen Národního shromáždění ... ale kterého?Edit

Zdravím, můžete se prosím podívat na User talk:GerardM#Q17320547: member of which National Assembly of Czechoslovakia? Všiml jsem si v historii položky, že jste k ní (jako jediný z česko-wikidatové komunity) také cosi přispěl, tak zkouším, jestli byste nám pomohl pohnout se z místa. Sice bych se rád pletl, ale od stvořitele položky moc účinnou pomoc neočekávám :( --Shlomo (talk) 15:45, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Shlomo: Zdravím. To je hezká otázka; když jsem to editoval, tak se přiznám, že jsem to příliš nezkoumal, jen jsem víceméně bezmyšlenkovitě přidal český štítek. Když na to tak koukám, tak mám dojem, že reálně se ta položka ve skutečnosti odkazuje u poslanců Federálního shromáždění, resp. že byla pro její naplnění použita cs:Kategorie:Poslanci československého Federálního shromáždění (Q9023661). Nepodařilo se mi najít (namátkově) nikoho, kdo by odkazoval na tuhle položku, a přitom byl jen poslancem Národního shromáždění (před rokem 1969). U takových poslanců bývá jen tvrzení odkazující na obecnější Q486839.
Je otázkou, jak přesně bychom to vlastně chtěli použít. V zásadě bych si myslel, že je vcelku rozumné použít stejné rozdělení jako na Wikipedii, tzn. mít položku pro poslance Národního shromáždění, zákonodárného sboru Československa, který pracoval v období od 14. listopadu 1918 do 21. března 1939 a po okupaci od 21. října 1945 do 31. prosince 1968 a vedle toho druhou položku pro poslance Federálního shromáždění ČSSR (později ČSFR) po celou dobu trvání tohoto zákonodárného sboru, tedy od 1. ledna 1969 do 31. prosince 1992, a to jak členy Sněmovny lidu, tak Sněmovny národů. A jak už jsem uvedl, vypadá to, že stávající Q17320547 se reálně používá spíše pro to druhé, byť štítek má opačný. Nejjednodušší by tedy asi bylo změnit její štítek na poslanec Federálního shromáždění a založit novou položku pro poslanec Národního shromáždění (a odkázat ji z Q9445298).
Detailnější dělení (jako např. vyčleňování poslanců, kteří byli jen v Prozatímním národním shromáždění atp.) by asi bylo zbytečné a složité a (zatím) bych se do toho nepouštěl. I tak je otázkou, jestli neexistují poslanci Národního shromáždění, kteří odkazují na tu stávající položku, které bychom přejmenováním té položky rozbili. Ale to se dá případně napravit jednotlivě, tolik chyb jako Gerard jistě nenasekáme. :-)
--Mormegil (talk) 16:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Okouknul jsem to přes autolist a zdá se, že jste to odhadl přesně. 1806 položek s position held (P39) member of the Federal Assembly of Czechoslovakia (Q17320547) a 1807 v kategorii cs:Kategorie:Poslanci československého Federálního shromáždění. Navíc se kryjí, ten jeden navíc (nějaký Alois Neuman (Q2650370)) byl jak v NS, tak v FS, takže ani u něj chybu neuděláme. Není mi sice jasné, jaká je výhoda ve výroku position held (P39) member of the Federal Assembly of Czechoslovakia (Q17320547) s kvaifikátorem of (P642) a příslušnou sněmovnou, oproti stavu s výrokem position held (P39) deputy (Q1055894) s kvaifikátorem of (P642) a příslušnou přesně specifikovanou instancí NS, popřípadě sněmovnou FS; ale budiž, pokud to bude správně nadefinováno a přiřazeno, dá se s tím žít...--Shlomo (talk) 20:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
To, jak se na Wikidatech vybírá mezi několika různými, ale na první pohled ekvivalentními vyjádřeními téhož, je mi záhadou obecně (přiznám se, že mi třeba není jasný ani vztah mezi sitelinkem na Commons a vlastností Commons category (P373)). :-) Každopádně díky za opravu. --Mormegil (talk) 10:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

ČSFD Person IDEdit

I just noticed there's no property for this when I saw your edits on Ondřej Hudeček (Q23001100). I just requested it on WD:PP/AC. If you think it could be useful, please support the request. Mbch331 (talk) 18:25, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Non-notable or hoax itemsEdit

You just added property "Film" to Q7720274 and Q7739552.[4][5] Do you have any non-circular basis for doing so? Do you have any reason to believe they even exist? Don't bother with IMDB. Any IMDB listing is just as unreliable or fraudulent as the original data blindly bot-imported from EnWiki.

They both fail Wikidata's WD:N Notability policy and need to be deleted. If this were EnWiki I'd tag them for Speedy Delete, Proposed Deletion, or Articles For Deletion. However I don't see how to do that here. Could you please handle deletion of the entire items? While you're at it, could you also handle deletion of Q12125125 Q4880863 Q7970106 Q12124713 Q8045794 Q4742701? They all also fail Wikidata's Notability policy. Thanx. Alsee (talk) 20:48, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

@Alsee: Basically, you left the items in internally inconsistent state, claiming they are English-language adventure films, but without the basic “instance of” property. I just fixed that (with the impression you doubted the detailed information, not the existence of the film as a whole). If you doubt the films even exist (and all the external information including the IMDb entries are parts of a hoax), feel free to propose their deletion, but you cannot just remove random parts of items. Prima facie, the entries look fine, definitely not as an obvious hoax eligible for speedy deletion (existence in IMDb, ElFilm, ČSFD (however those might be imports from IMDb), TCM, …), if you have arguments why they should be deleted, great, go ahead and propose that, I won’t even oppose. --Mormegil (talk) 08:58, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the deletion request link. I have opened the deletion request at WD:Requests_for_deletions#Bulk_deletion_request:_Chaneyverse. I will skip the details here, and strongly urge you to read it there. However I can't resist doing a Chaneyverse-examination of the TCM reviews you linked.
The TCM reviews show the hallmarks of our sock user. The posts were made in 2011, which is when our sock user was adding the content on EnWiki and when very similar user reviews popped up on other sites. Just look at the absurd username "Film Review Digest". The same or similar username appears on other sites commenting in connection to Warren Chaney. Our sock goes to excessive lengths trying to make their posted content look authoritative. I see other similarities to posts elsewhere, but I'll note how these two comments are abnormally similar to each other. They start and end virtually identically, and in the middle they both oddly claim the cast did their own stunts. How would an ordinary viewer know cast did their own stunts, and what is the likelihood of two supposed random reviewers saying it?
  • First sentence:
    • The Hidden Jungle is quite imaginative for a children's film
    • The Hidden Jungle is a novel and quite imaginative feature film produced for the younger set
  • Middle:
    • ...lead actors did many of their own stunts...
    • ...cast members doing many of the stunts...
  • The final sentence has an order reversal, but makes an identical closing point:
    • (for a kid-pic) it is (not too shabby) an effort.
    • (above the average fare) frequently offered up (for children).
The final sentence in isolation may be thin evidence for a sockpuppet match. However consider it in context with the deceptive user name, the duplications noted above, and my claim of investigating this sock's work on and off wiki.
Something by the name of The Hidden Jungle may or may not exist. It may or may not have been completed. It may or may not have had some sort of commercial release. Your link to TCM.com only establishes that Turner Classic Movies does not have it. We also know that the MPAA's rating system has never heard of this "feature film". Theaters that play MPAA movies are contractually prohibited from showing movies without MPAA ratings. Therefore we also know it was never shown in any normal U.S. theater. If it exists, if it had some commercial showing or sale, it was so insignificant that no reliable independent record has been located. All we know for sure is that someone has put a staggering amount of work into photoshopped images and other falsified evidence relating to Warren Chaney. Alsee (talk) 10:09, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Jan Nepomuk Langhans (Q12022881)Edit

Hello Mormegil,

Can you please explain this. Geagea (talk) 11:08, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

@Geagea: Well, isn’t it obvious that a famous Czech photographer living 1851–1928 is not the same person as a still living hydrochemist? Why would you think they are the same person? --Mormegil (talk) 12:01, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
See the list her. Geagea (talk) 12:03, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
OK, I see your point now. You are correct. Geagea (talk) 12:06, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

TřídaEdit

My mistake, I was looking on my Wiki page and didn't notice somebody tied it with KLAS, not Class. I guess it's better to move Třida into Q3679160 directly. So every local Wiki could see the Czech page in the links. Dobrou noc!

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

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

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia surveyEdit

WMF Surveys, 01:40, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

TypeEdit

Hi Mormegil,

I noticed your making this edit. As you probably know, one of the best-known kinds of type is the type genus (Q842832). Presumably, you would agree that a genus can never be any kind of specimen? - Brya (talk) 05:03, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@Brya: I only noticed the item is missing the basic piece of information: What is it? After adding the best class I found, I noticed it had been there until you removed it, so I did not continue adding further statements.
However, if
  1. "type genus is the genus which defines a biological family" ()
  2. "type is a particular specimen (or in some cases a group of specimens) of an organism" ( seems quite in order).

Then maybe

is the problem here.

But however you look at it, you cannot just remove P279 and be done with it. --Mormegil (talk) 08:51, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually, both "type genus is the genus which defines a biological family" and "type is a particular specimen (or in some cases a group of specimens) of an organism" are wildly incorrect. It is not for nothing that there is a maxim "Wikipedia is not a source": enwiki has lots of false statements.
        I am not sure it would be so bad to leave the item without an "instance of" or "subclass of". The thing is that "type" is not itself closely defined, but is a collective term for several concepts which are formally defined in the several Codes of nomenclature. It could be an "instance of : term (Q1969448)" or "instance of : biological nomenclature (Q522190)", but neither is all that satisfactory. - Brya (talk) 09:18, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
You keep saying everything is wrong, but you are not saying what is correct; now you are even saying the type is such an ephemeral thing it cannot be even defined. In that case, let's delete the item altogether? Nope, that does not make sense. Type must mean something.
If you believe multiple nomenclatures use the word in different meanings, that is no problem, the item could be split, see e.g. section (Q3181348) vs. section (Q10861426). Either way, removing statements without replacement is not a way forward.
--Mormegil (talk) 21:57, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Oh, deletion is not an option as there are sitelinks. Besides, there already are items for 'botany' and for zoology. Surely, avoiding putting in utterly false 'information' must be a top-priority. Better to leave something blank than putting in a lie. - Brya (talk) 04:57, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Ugly descriptionEdit

Yes, this is not the best. But I am trying to get all EN descriptions into the same form, tending to year / country / genre / type / directed by ... since this is useful for spotting duplicates. Besides being the proper sort of OCD one expects on this site. So now it's "2012 animated film directed by Jay Oliva - part 1". Does that wash? Let me know. There's a part 2 out there somewhere, too. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:11, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

@Tagishsimon: I am not sure if this desire is the best idea, and especially if it long-term sustainable (are you going to revert people who would be e.g. adding details to the descriptions?), but as long as it improves on the state of the things, it’s fine by me. The current version is… workable, but still: the original “part 1 of a 2012 animated film directed by Jay Oliva” seems to contain the same information but more grammatically. The broken “2012 part 1 of a animated film directed by Jay Oliva” is completely ungrammatical, but has the advantage of being factually correct in pointing out that this first part is a 2012 film, the sequel is a 2013 film… The current version is both not-grammatically-great, and not-entirely-correct in that sense. So, why this one instead of the original form, better in both ways? (And “[part {part}] {year} {type} {genre} directed by {director}” is quite universal, isn’t it?) --Mormegil (talk) 15:40, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
As the EN title has Part 1, Part 2, I've removed part 1 & part 2 from the EN descriptions. “[part {part}] {year} {type} {genre} directed by {director}” is conspicuous only by its complete absence. 53 EN descriptions have "part " in them, mostly announcing that they're a two-part film or that they're part of a named series; there was a single pair of film items that announced in the description that they're part 1, part 2. I think they could be termed outliers.
I've found the action of curating the EN description, the publication date, and adding EN titles where they've previously been added as non-EN titles, has allowed me to identify & merge several hundred duplicates, so it all seems vaguely worthwhile. That a single description pattern is followed - to greater or lesser extents - by better than ~95% of films tends to suggest I need not fret about sustainability. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:57, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Polymer institute BrnoEdit

Ahoj, ad tohle - ono to tak - zřejmě je - viz http://www.polymer.cz/en/Contacts/Pages/default.aspx. ale uznávám, taky mě to zmátlo. --Frettie (talk) 12:08, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

@Frettie: Co to tak je? Že Polymer Institute Brno sídlí v Litvínově a jmenuje se „UNIPETROL RPA, s.r.o.“? To snad ne. --Mormegil (talk) 12:41, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
No, dle IČ jo. Jinak ten institut asi nepůsobí. Ale ok, necháme to tak. Případně zkusím tu položku časem předělat.--Frettie (talk) 14:37, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Cože. Přestaň přemýšlet prismatem nějakých importů odněkud někam a vezmi to normálně selským rozumem. O čem pojednává položka Polymer Institute Brno (Q30258689)? O Unipetrolu, jeho organizační složce, nebo případně něčem úplně jiném? Jestli o Unipetrolu, tak to je blbě, protože o něm máme jinou položku. Jestli o Polymer Institute Brno, tak nemá co tvrdit, že se jmenuje Unipetrol a sídlí v Litvínově, bez ohledu na to, že jako organizační složka nemá vlastní IČO. Můžeme se bavit, jestli má mít položka o organizační složce tvrzení IČO, když žádné vlastní nemá; můžeme se bavit, jestli má mít vůbec vlastní položku; ale určitě se nemůžeme bavit o tom, že když má vlastní položku, jestli v ní má být napsáno totéž co v položce mateřské společnosti, to je snad zjevná blbost, ne? --Mormegil (talk) 14:46, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Золотая молодёжьEdit

Hi, Mormegil! Why did you removed merging of absolutely the same thing Q3054155 and Q378679? It now disconnected on wikipedia again. You can't rely on google translate. Маргарита Бабовникова (talk) 08:36, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I don’t rely (or even use) Google Translate. If you have any specific article on mind, feel free to move a single interwiki link (or maybe even a couple of them?) between those two entities. But those entities are not about the same topic (and if they were, you should have merged the items), and several interwiki links are definitely not about the same topic (see also Q6798525, Q47509789, …). I have moved cswiki link back to where it belongs, I don’t care much about the rest (and, honestly, cannot judge, really), so if you want to have ru:Золотая молодёжь link to fr:Enfant gâté and en:Spoiled child, your call, even though I doubt it is a correct solution. --Mormegil (talk) 12:43, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Mormegil".