Open main menu

User talk:Neo-Jay

Logo of Wikidata

Welcome to Wikidata, Neo-Jay!

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!

--Ymblanter (talk) 08:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. --Neo-Jay (talk) 08:26, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

MergeEdit

Hallo Neo-Jay,
When you merge items, please use the Merge.js gadget. It helps you merging, nominating, gives the option to always keep the lower number (which is older, so preferable) and makes it a lot easier for the admins to process the requests.
If you don't have account, you may have to Create Account. With regards,--by Revi at 04:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for your notice. Now I can use it. :) --Neo-Jay (talk) 11:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

SexEdit

Thanks for your contribution on adding the sex of people, but please use the following values for sex or gender (P21):

--Zolo (talk) 06:20, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your notice. --Neo-Jay (talk) 06:24, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

MergeEdit

Hi, Pne. Thanks for your contributions. When you remove a link from an item and add it to anther item, if the removal leaves one item without any link (e.g. your edit on Q12311080 and edit on Q13907976), then please directly merge the items, not delete and add the same link. Thanks. --Neo-Jay (talk) 15:00, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
—My message left at, User talk:Pne

Hi there, I saw your message on my talk page requesting to merge rather than delete-and-add. I agree that that makes sense but I saw no option in the UI to do so. Telling me to "please directly merge the items" without telling me how to do so is not helpful. -- Pne (talk) 16:44, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

@Pne: Thanks for your reply. I though that you knew how to merge since you had done so (e.g., your this edit on 1 June 2015). Click "More" at the upper right corner of an item, you will see "Merge with..." and clicking it can help you merge this item with another one. Best regards. --Neo-Jay (talk) 17:02, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply on my talk page! I don't remember that edit and I don't know how I did it. Also, when I go to one of the two links in your message (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q12311080 and https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q13907976&redirect=no), I don't see any "More" at the upper right -- just "edit" on the first one and nothing in the second one. Can you please tell me more specifically where to look? Here's a screenshot: <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/pne/18559948764" title="fatherbrother by Philip Newton, on Flickr"><img src="https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/452/18559948764_2f93ba4bc9.jpg" width="500" height="354" alt="fatherbrother"></a>  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pne (talk • contribs) at 18:49, 26 June 2015 (UTC) (UTC).
@Pne: For how to merge automatically, please see Help:Merge#Automatic merge. Hope that is helpful. --Neo-Jay (talk) 03:49, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Taiwan (Q865)Edit

Hi Neo-Jay, I noticed you renamed the label of Taiwan (Q865) from "Republic of China" to "Taiwan". Political controversies aside, wouldn't this rename bring confusion to the humans that use the item for country of citizenship (P27) when the government was still in control of mainland China? It would be strange seeing that Lu Xun (Q23114) has the citizenship of Taiwan. —Wylve (talk) 10:41, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

@Wylve: English Wikipedia renamed Republic of China to Taiwan more than three years ago (22 March 2012, see discussion here). The English label of this item (Q865) should also be changed, shouldn't it? The pre-1949 citizenship (Property:P27) of those persons such as Lu Xun (Q23114) should use Republic of China (1912-1949) (Q13426199), which is more appropriate and accurate. What do you think? --Neo-Jay (talk) 12:11, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
English labels do not actually have to match English Wikipedia article titles. Also note that many other Wikipedias did not split off pre-1949 RoC. Strictly speaking, these are not independent legal entities, and splitting them on Wikidata causes a bunch of problems with regard to historical data of the Republic of China. --Yair rand (talk) 13:50, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
@Yair rand: Strictly speaking, pre-1949 citizenship of Chinese persons should use Republic of China (1912-1949) (Q13426199), not the current country in Taiwan (Q865). There will be no problem if we distinguish them in item properties. --Neo-Jay (talk) 13:58, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
As to the conceptual difference between Republic of China (1912–1949) (Q13426199) and Taiwan (Q865), the current government in Taiwan does not regard itself to be a separate government from the government founded by Sun Yat-sen in 1911. Republic of China (1912–1949) (Q13426199) and Taiwan (Q865) could not be regarded as two different sovereignties. The main difference between the two is the actual territorial governed, which is independent of the concept of sovereignty. —Wylve (talk) 14:04, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
@Wylve: The political question you raised is less relevant to the item label issue. Actually it had been throughly discussed at English Wikipedia before it decided to move Republic of China to Taiwan. The people in the current county in Taiwan are usually called Taiwanese. It is appropriate to use Taiwan as their citizenship. --Neo-Jay (talk) 14:12, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
@Neo-Jay: On Wikidata, each item represents a unique entity. We are to make calls as to what constitutes the same entity and what constitutes different entities that warrant an item. It does not matter what Wikipedia has decided. country of citizenship (P27) concerns nationality laws and we must take into account that the current sovereign, legal entity in Taiwan is the same entity that existed before 1949. If you accept that Republic of China (1912–1949) (Q13426199) merely details a period in history and not a sovereign entity, then there could only be one label used ("Taiwan" or "Republic of China"). "Taiwan" would not be appropriate for humans who died before 1949, for no one called themselves Taiwanese back then. "Republic of China" in contrast is suitable for both humans living in the pre-1949 period and those living in the post-1949 period. "Republic of China" is the official name of the state since 1911 and still is, even after 1949. For the reasons of suitability and accuracy, I think "Republic of China" should be used instead of "Taiwan". —Wylve (talk) 14:26, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
@Wylve: No, Q13426199 (Republic of China 1911-1949) is not merely a period in history. Property:P31 (instance of) of Q13426199 includes Q3624078 (sovereign state) and Q6256 (country). And its English Wikipedia article also defines it as "the East Asian state that governed..." (emphasis added). It is apparently acceptable to use Q13426199 as the citizenship of the pre-1949 Chinese. Using the same label "Republic of China" for both Q865 (current country in Taiwan) and Q13426199 (historical regime in mainland China) may confuse many, if not most, English-speaking users. I do not argue to change Q865's Chinese label from 中華民國 to 台灣. But its English label should conform to its most common use in English world, i.e., Taiwan. --Neo-Jay (talk) 14:39, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
@Neo-Jay: I recommend that we remove the statements that Republic of China (1912–1949) (Q13426199) is an instance of (P31) sovereign state (Q3624078) and country (Q6256), since those aspects of Republic of China (1912–1949) (Q13426199) is already represented by Taiwan (Q865). Wikipedia has a lower level of precision than that is required of on Wikidata. We need to construct logical relationships between entities here, while Wikipedia stores only plain text that have no semantic value. As to the point of confusion, I created Republic of China (1912–1949) (Q13426199) to represent only a historical period when the current government in Taiwan governed the mainland. (Edit: that's why I named it "Republic of China before 1949" then). The sovereignty remains to be represented by Taiwan (Q865). —Wylve (talk) 15:13, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
@Wylve: I don't think those statements should be removed. As I said, the English Wikipedia article Republic of China (1912–49) defines it as a state, not just a period of history. Your whole political argument is based upon the point of view of the current Taiwan (official name ROC) government. And it is strongly contested by the point of view of the People's Republic of China government. I do not take a side on this controversy. But the English label should follow the most common use in English world. --Neo-Jay (talk) 15:23, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I will have no problem with using Taiwan as a label, if it is to be used exclusively on items of people who were born after 1949. However, Chiang Kai-shek did not proclaim a new state in 1949 and you will find no references supporting the inverse. The current sovereignty in Taiwan is a continuation of the one created in 1911. The definition on enwiki is therefore inaccurate. —Wylve (talk) 16:47, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

@Wylve: I personally agree with you on the nature of the current country in Taiwan, and feel sad that English Wikipedia moved Republic of China to Taiwan on (22 March 2012) and moved People's Republic of China to China (on 20 September 2011‎). But this is just our personal point of view, which the PRC government apparently does not agree. The item label issue should not consider the political controversy and should follow the rule of common use. --Neo-Jay (talk) 17:01, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
@Neo-Jay: Yes, Taiwan would be the common name for what is legally ROC nowadays. But no one would claim that Lu Xun, Sun Yat-sen or Zhu Ziqing as having citizenship in "Taiwan". Whereas "Republic of China" would make sense for both people living post-1949 and pre-1949. I know that you've suggested that we use Republic of China (1912–1949) (Q13426199) instead of Taiwan (Q865) for people before 1949, but this would mean semantically that there were/are two Republic of Chinas. I still don't see Republic of China (1912–1949) (Q13426199) as a separate sovereignty, but a period in time in Taiwan (Q865). A lot of statement on Taiwan (Q865) right now relies on the fact that ROC was officially established in 1912. If we were to regard Republic of China (1912–1949) (Q13426199) and Taiwan (Q865) as different countries, then, for instance, who is their respective founder? You can say that Republic of China (1912–1949) (Q13426199) was founded by Sun Yat-sen, but how can you state that Taiwan (Q865) is founded by Sun Yat-sen when Taiwan (Q865) is supposedly created in 1949, 25 years after Sun's death? The illogic that this separation creates needs to be resolved. —Wylve (talk) 17:15, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
@Wylve: If you look at the infoboxes at en:Republic of China (1912–49) and en:Taiwan, you can find that both of them claim 1912 as the date of the republic establishment. Why not live with that? If an English Wikipedia reader finds that the nationality of a pre-1949 Chinese is "Republic of China", and he/she wants to click the country's link to acquire more background knowledge about this person, which article is more relevant, en:Taiwan or en:Republic of China (1912–49)? I think it is the latter one. Again, whether the Republic of China 1912-1949 was a dissolved state succeed by PRC or just a period of time of an existing country is a political controversy and not relevant to the item label issue, which should follow the common use. --Neo-Jay (talk) 17:47, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
@Neo-Jay: I can't live with that because that would mean two Republic of Chinas existed (and co-existed for some time), which is simply untrue in the real world. Remember that collecting and organizing sitelinks is only one of the functions of Wikidata (and a minor one IMO). It is also used to facilitate non-Wikimedia clients and create semantic relationships between entities, so that non-humans can understand the data. I would not place reader accessibility over semantic/factual correctness, if one is to be sacrificed. Whether Republic of China 1912-1949 is a state is relevant to the label issue, as I believe that there should only one item representing the state and that is Taiwan (Q865). When there is only one item that we should be using, there is a conflict of labels. My solution to the conflict of labels is to use "Republic of China", which is applicable and accurate vis-a-vis pre-1949 and post-1949 humans. Just because something is controversial doesn't mean we shouldn't engage in it. It's not a matter of politics, but factual correctness in the database. —Wylve (talk) 18:41, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
@Wylve: Labeling Q865 as Republic of China, not Taiwan, cannot solve your problem. There are still two Republic of Chinas existed unless you remove the statements of "instance of country (or former country)" from Q13426199. en:Republic of China (1912–49)'s current version puts it into the categories of "Former countries in Asia", "States and territories established in 1912", "States and territories disestablished in 1949", "Former republics", "1912 establishments in China", "1949 disestablishments in Asia", "Former polities of the Cold War", "Former polities of the interwar period", all of which indicate that this was a country/state. Are you arguing that all of these claims are semantically/factually wrong and should be removed? And en:Taiwan's history section provides a narrative from Taiwan's point of view: Prehistoric Taiwan > Opening in the 17th century > Qing rule > Japanese rule > After World War II > Chinese Nationalist one-party rule > Democratization, which has nothing to do with the Republic of China's rule on mainland 1912 to 1949. Therefore en:Republic of China (1912–49) and en:Taiwan at English Wikipedia can be seen as two separated entities. For semantic/factual correctness, en:Taiwan and zh:中華民國 should also be separated into two Wikidata items, one for the island country Taiwan, and one for the ROC 1912-present. Otherwise Q865 cannot ever be semantically/factually correct. But for now, before we decide to partition Q865, stating the citizenship of pre-1949 Chinese is Q13426199 (ROC 1912-1949) is acceptable even if Q13426199 was just a period of Q148 (en:China/zh:中华人民共和国) or of Q865 (en:Taiwan/zh:中華民國).--Neo-Jay (talk) 19:30, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I do intend to remove country/former country from Republic of China (1912–1949) (Q13426199) and anything that would make it an instance of a state. Again, I do regard en.wiki's depiction of ROC 1912-1949 as inaccurate (maybe that's why zh.wiki doesn't have this distinction):
  • ROC 1912-1949 should not be placed in "Former countries in Asia", because it still exists in Taiwan.
  • "States and territories established in 1912", should be removed, because the state and territories part is covered by the "Taiwan" article on en.wiki. But duplication is not really a problem on Wikipedias.
  • "States and territories disestablished in 1949", is simply wrong, because there is no disestablishment; the Chiang government simply relocated to Taiwan.
  • "Former republics": again, still existing.
  • "1912 establishments in China": should be retained, since it makes no claim on whether it is a state.
  • "1949 disestablishments in Asia": should be removed, as ROC was not disestablished and there is no "second republic".
  • "Former polities of the Cold War": ROC is not a former polity, but an existing one.
  • "Former polities of the interwar period": ROC is not a former polity, but an existing one.
I'm also not very sure why enwiki neglected to describe ROC as a whole. zh.wiki has, on the other hand, a comprehensive coverage of KMT's rule on the mainland. However, it does not really matter how Wikipedia has depicted ROC 1912-1949; not every sitelink will fit 100% to our items. Taiwan (Q865) can be fully semantically correct if we accept that the 1949 retreat was simply a territorial change instead of a disestablishment and a re-establishment of a new state. A territorial change would not require an item. Finally, a period would not be appropriate for a human item to have for the value of country of citizenship (P27). This would make items like 1850 in the United States (Q2810207) available to human items as sources of citizenship. A state (or rather its government), as a conscious entity, grants citizenship. A period, as an unconscious entity, cannot grant citizenship. I would also like to ask other users to voice their opinion on this. I'm not sure when this will be resolved if we can't come to a consensus. —Wylve (talk) 07:06, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
@Wylve: I strongly oppose your plan to remove country/former country from Q13426199 (ROC 1912-1949). Simply a territorial change instead of a disestablishment and a re-establishment of a new state might require an item. You may argue that the Northern Yuan was simply a territorial change of the Yuan Dynasty, or the Southern Ming was simply a territorial change of the Ming Dynasty. But almost all historians agree that they can be treated as separated entities. In PRC government's point of view, the ROC finished just like Yuan or Ming Dynasty, and the government in Taiwan now is at most like Northern Yuan or Southern Ming, which, although nominally still the same as its predecessor, was actually a different local entity. I personally don't buy the PRC's point of view. But I admit that that's also just my point of view. I put it again: whether ROC 1912-1949 was a dissolved state succeed by PRC or just a period of history of an existing country is a political controversy. It is not a matter of fact, but a matter of politics. The fact is that, on the one hand, English Wikipedia accepts PRC's point of view to create the article en:Taiwan (not a state established in 1912, but an island country which happens to be ruled by a government originally coming from mainland China) and the article en:Republic of China (1912–49) (a former country which ceased to exist in 1949 and was succeed by PRC), and, on the other hand, Chinese Wikipedia accepts ROC/Taiwan's point of view to create the article zh:中華民國 (a country continually existing from 1912 to present). Strictly speaking, en:Taiwan and zh:中華民國 should be placed in different Wikidata items. But if they are still be placed in one item, its English label has to conform to its English Wikipedia perception. Q13426199 (ROC 1912-1949) has no Chinese Wikipedia link. If you like, you can create another Wikidata item without any sitelink for just a period of ROC history, not a former country. But Q13426199 should be kept as what it is, i.e., a former country. If you insist on removing the relevant statements from Q13426199, then a new Wikidata item has to be created to include Q13426199's current wikilinks and refer to the concept embodied by those Wikipedia articles. --Neo-Jay (talk) 07:35, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
The crucial question in any discussion on merging or splitting items is What are the statements we can make about this item? Are there statements which we can only make if we split these items? On that basis we need an item for ROC pre 1949 and another for ROC post 1949. There may even be a case for an overall "ROC" item listing the pre and post 1949 items as part of this. This is in addition to the items for Taiwan Island, Taiwan province, Taiwan under the Japanese and Taiwan under the Qing, all of which already exist I believe. Hope this helps. Filceolaire (talk) 20:33, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
@Filceolaire: I don't thinks that we must split Q865. The key question discussed here is whether Q865, in the current situation (no splitting), should use "Taiwan" or "Republic of China" as its English label, and whether Q13426199 (Republic of China 1912-1949) can be used as citizenship for human items. --Neo-Jay (talk) 21:17, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

former country (Q3024240)Edit

First of all: Subclasses on Wikidata are not based on Wikipedia categories. Second: Country does indeed mean current country, unless specifically qualified by end time (P582) and/or dissolved, abolished or demolished (P576) (not as a qualifier). Querying for extant entities that currently have a country value type should result in only current countries, but with your change, it now includes every single former country. --Yair rand (talk) 16:37, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

@Yair rand: Please provide an English dictionary which defines "country" as "current country". If you cannot, Q3024240 (former country) is literally a subclass of Q6256 (country) unless you change the label of Q6256 from "country" to "current country". Thanks. --Neo-Jay (talk) 16:43, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand the alternative to it meaning current country. If an entity is a country from 1800 to 1900, that means it was a current country at those times. What else could it mean? Or are you saying that giving time periods for when something was a country is an inherently invalid statement? --Yair rand (talk) 16:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
@Yair rand: By current country, I mean a country existing today, while by former country, I mean a country existing formerly, or historically. Countries apparently include both current and former countries. Of course we can give time periods for when something was a country. In this case, this item is a instance of "former country", which is a subclass of "country". If my understanding of the word "current" is not correct in English, then "current" can be replaced with "existing" or whichever appropriate word. --Neo-Jay (talk) 16:55, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
I think there's some misunderstanding here. Which of the following points, if any, would you disagree with?
  1. The Soviet Union was a country in the year 1950.
  2. This can be represented by having instance of (P31) (country or some subclass) qualified by start and end date qualifiers that include that date.
  3. The Soviet Union was not a country in the year 2000.
  4. This can be represented by the same statement, with the end date qualifier before the year 2000.
  5. If the Soviet Union were still a country in 2000, that would be represented by a instance of (P31): country (or subclass), with qualifiers specifying a time range that includes the year 2000.
  6. The lack of such statements or equivalent indicate that the Soviet Union was not a country in the year 2000.
  7. The Soviet Union was not a former country as of the year 1950.
--Yair rand (talk) 18:19, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
@Yair rand: Q15180 (Soviet Union) is currently (now) written as an instance of a "former country" with inception 1922 and dissolved or abolished 1991. I agree with these statements. Do you? Just because a former country is a country, the Soviet Union, a former country existing from 1922 to 1991, can be seen as a country in 1950. The statement that X is a former country which existed from 1922 to 1991 does not means that X was a "former country" in 1950. It instead means that X was a "country" in 1950. If a former country, as you argue, is not a country, then the Soviet Union, as a former country, was not a country at all, and was therefore also not a country in 1950, which contradicts your first point. --Neo-Jay (talk) 18:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I think I understand your position more clearly now. So, to give a better example of the potential issues here: Suppose we have an entity that was a country from 1900 - 1950, and then a province or some such from 1950 - 2000. How would you structure such an item?
(Re the Soviet Union, it's also listed as an instance of communist state (Q849866), itself a subclass of country. Were either statement removed, I would be in favor of separately adding instance of: country, with start and end date qualifiers.)
It occurs to me that this system might not be possible to make internally consistent. I actually argued against ever using "former country" in the first place in the project chat a few weeks ago, but I'd rather it be at least somewhat clear if used. --Yair rand (talk) 19:18, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
@Yair rand: That item should be structured as a "former country" 1900-1950, and a province or some such 1950-2000. If only using country (with start and ending dates as qualifiers for former countries) as you suggest, then querying for entities that have a country value type will result in all countries, including every single former country. That's the exactly the same as using "former country" as a subclass of "country" and using start (inception) and end (dissolved or abolished) dates as independent values, not just qualifiers of the value "country". In your system, if a user wants to find only currently-existing countries, he/she should add qualifier to exclude former countries. Then when using "former country" as a subclass of "country", a user can also find currently-existing countries by querying "country" value minus those with "former country" value. Your system is fine for me. I am OK if Wikidata only allows to use "country", not "former country", in the country item's P31 (instance of) value. But Q3024240 (former country) as an item is still a P279 (subclass of) of Q6256 (country). And as long as "former country" is an acceptable value for country items, it has to be a subclass of "country". Take Q15180 (Soviet Union) for example. As you noticed, it is both a "former country" and a "communist state". If a "former country" is not a "country", then how could Soviet Union be a country (communist state) and not a country (former country) at the same time? --Neo-Jay (talk) 19:59, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Okay, this is making much more sense. I was thinking that something became a former country after it was a country, so the start date of former country would be the same as the end date for country. If the item is stated to be a former country for the duration of it having been a country, then I agree that the subclass makes sense. The whole "former entity" designation seems very confusing to me, and a bit conceptually off, but so long as it's in use I suppose this way is workable. Thank you. --Yair rand (talk) 22:30, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
@Yair rand: Thank you for your discussion. Best regards. --Neo-Jay (talk) 00:21, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

From 1922 to 1991 the Soviet Union was not a former country. Putting "former XYZ" on anything that has abolished/dissolved is improving Wikidata? Why is it "former country" but not "former communist state"? Eldizzino (talk) 16:03, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Why not have a person who died a "former person" ? The notion of former is SO brain dead.. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 19:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
@Eldizzino, GerardM: These are two different questions. One is whether "former country" can be used as a value for country items; the other is whether the item "former country" (Q3024240) is a subclass of the item "country" (Q6256). I don't have a position on the first question, and what Yair rand and I discussed about is the second one (see the edit dispute on Q3024240). And I think that the solution for the first question has nothing to do with the second one. Even if "former country" should be forbidden to be used as a value for country items, Q3024240 (former country) is still a subclass of Q6256 (country). --Neo-Jay (talk) 21:08, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Neo-Jay - Forbidding sounds good. But then: Which subclasses shall be forbidden, which allowed? Maybe allow only one value "instance of". Eldizzino (talk) 21:13, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
@Eldizzino: Again, I don't have a position on this issue. A better place to discuss this issue may be the relevant Wikidata project chat page. --Neo-Jay (talk) 21:24, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable. Thank you. Eldizzino (talk) 21:32, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your discussion. Best regards. --Neo-Jay (talk) 21:39, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
You think that those two are not connected? It is exceedingly weird to consider if something is a subclass of something else when it should not exist in the first place. It is a waste of energy and it does not result in anything worthwhile. GerardM (talk) 07:33, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
@GerardM: You think that Q3024240 (former country) should be deleted? Not every Wikidata item can be used as a value for other Wikidata items. Q3024240 should exist in the first place no matter whether it can be used as a value. And it is exceedingly weird to argue that we should not consider if something is a subclass of something else when it cannot be other items' value. --Neo-Jay (talk) 09:24, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
You are so wrong. GerardM (talk) 13:25, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
@GerardM: Obviously, it's you that are so wrong. --Neo-Jay (talk) 13:42, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

ThanksEdit

for fixing my mistake with ga:Poblachtachas. Of course it's Republicanism! Joe Filceolaire (talk) 15:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

@Filceolaire: You are welcome! --Neo-Jay (talk) 15:23, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

HabakkukEdit

The title of this book in English is "Habakkuk" and nothing more. "The book of Habakkuk" is not the title of the book, but is an expression that identifies it is "the book written by the prophet Habakkuk", in the same way that the Pentateuch is also called "the books of Moses". --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Genes and proteins are distinct conceptsEdit

Hi, I noticed a merge on a gene item and a protein item. Although related they are distinct concepts and as such should not be merged. A protein is a product of a gene. Merges like this leads to incorrect knowledge since it links gene properties to protein properties and vice versa. I took the liberty to revert the merge to the previous state of separate gene item and a separate wikidata item.  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Andrawaag (talk • contribs) at 11:07, 17 November 2015 (UTC).

@Andrawaag: Thanks for clarifying that Q18031615 (snail family zinc finger 1) refers to human gene and Q7391779 (SNAI1) refers to protein. But why did ProteinBoxBot move Wikipedia article link en:SNAI1 from Q7391779 to Q18031615 on 3 October 2015? Should en:SNAI1 be moved back to Q7391779 since article en:SNAI1 states that it's a protein? --Neo-Jay (talk) 12:20, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
@Neo-Jay: The problem is that there isn't a 1-1 mapping between items in wikidata and pages in different Wikipedias. Most Wikipedia entries on proteins are also on the encoding gene. Also, one gene can code multiple proteins. With the release of arbitrary access on Wikidata, it is now possible to use multiple Wikidata entries in a single Wikipedia entry. To fully use this functionality we need to separated gene from protein pages. We only moved the English pages, but are currently considering moving more if not all language links. The separation of these items in english is creating quite some problematic merging, of protein and gene items in Wikidata. --Andrawaag (talk) 14:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
@Andrawaag: Just because arbitrary access has been adopted, it doesn't matter whether en:SNAI1 is listed in Q18031615 or Q7391779. And since the label of Q18031615 (gene) is "snail family zinc finger 1" and the label of Q7391779 (protein) is "SNAI1", why not leave en:SNAI1 at Q7391779 with fr:SNAI1 and ko:SNAI1? The cause of the problematic merging is, in my view, the problematic separation of the same-name sitelinks. Anyway I, as a layman, will not get involved in this issue. Hope you and other professional editors can solve it. --Neo-Jay (talk) 15:46, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

The Histories (Q250816)Edit

Thanks for edit. But I don't understand this your change. Why did you remove link to Russian translation of "The Histories", but keep English one? What do you call "edition item" in this case? --Alexander Sigachov (talk) 16:46, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

@Александр Сигачёв: Thanks for your message. According to Wikidata:Wikisource, Wikisource:en:The Histories (Polybius) is a translation versions page and should be linked in the Wikidata work item, while Wikisource:ru:Всеобщая история (Полибий/Мищенко) and Wikisource:el:Ιστορίαι are edition pages and thus can not be linked to Wikidata work item (and technically should even be further split into two Wikidata items.) --Neo-Jay (talk) 17:02, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Help with pairing items of go playersEdit

Hi Neo-Jay,

in the recent past I got many notifications about you editing items of go players so I am guessing we have a common interest in them. I started to update elo ratings of the players taking data from goratings.com

To be able to update as many players as possible, I need their wikidata items. I think there might be items for many of them that dont have label in English, but maybe they do in Chinese. In this document I have the players with pairs that I already matched, I thought you would like to help me with those, that are on wikidata only in Chinese, therefore I can not find them.

For those players that there is not an item yet I will create an appropriate item containing data posted at goratings.org.

Thank you for your help with matching items and players or any tip on how to match them in different way. --Wesalius (talk) 07:53, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

@Wesalius: Thanks for your message. I cannot access your document for I am in China and docs.google.com links are blocked by GFW. It will be great if you could make your list of Go players available at a subpage of your user page. Thank you so much for your contributions on Go items! --Neo-Jay (talk) 08:23, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I am looking forward to working with you. The table is available here. The columns with properties and items are there for eventual item creation on those players that we miss on wikidata. --Wesalius (talk) 10:20, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
@Wesalius: Great! I will try to find missing Wikidata items and add them to your table. BTW, I usually use Go professional (Q3186699) as the occupation of those professional Go players and use Go player (Q12039558) for those amateur Go players. --Neo-Jay (talk) 12:09, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Awesome :-) We should find consensus if the table should use Go professional (Q3186699) or Go player (Q12039558). Is it safe to assume that all these people on the list are professionals? --Wesalius (talk) 12:12, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
@Wesalius: I am not sure whether all the Go players in this long list are professional. But since Go professional (Q3186699) is a subclass of Go player (Q12039558), it's safe to use Go player (Q12039558) as the occupation for those players we are not sure about. --Neo-Jay (talk) 12:17, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you so far for the pairing (how do you find them in different asian languages?!). When you think you are done, just message me, so I can setup new items for the rest and start updating elo ratings. --Wesalius (talk) 09:19, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
@Wesalius: I firstly find the Go players' simplified-Chinese-character names at goratings.org (this website unfortunately does not provide Japanese kanji or Korean Hangul names), and then search Chinese Wikipedia and check relevant categories in Japanese Wikipedia (e.g., categories Japanese Go players, Chinese Go players, and South Korean Go players). Fortunately Japanese kanji look similar to Chinese characters. But it will be more difficult for me if the available article is only at Korean Wikipedia, whose article titles do not use Chinese characters or Korean hanja. I have to find the Hangul spelling of the Go player's family name and click every article with that family name in Korean Wikipedia's relevant categories (e.g., category South Korean Go players) to see whether there is the article I am looking for (fortunately Korean Wikipedia often, if not usually, provides Korean hanja for a Korean person's name in his/her article text). The process is time-consuming and it will take at least several days for me to complete it. I will let you know when I think I'm done. Thanks for your waiting. --Neo-Jay (talk) 19:24, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Oh, that is rather tedious task. I would have helped you, but I cant see any way I would repeat the steps you described since I dont read any of those languages. If you have any idea of how I could help you with this, then let me know. Thank you for your help. --Wesalius (talk) 05:07, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
@Wesalius: Thanks for your offering help. I think that I can handle it myself. Just need time. And I found a easier way to get relevant Korean articles: searching for the Go player's traditional-Chinese-character name in Korean Wikipedia. If his/her Korean hanja name is provided in article text and its form happens to be same as traditional Chinese characters, then I can directly find the article and do not need to go through the Hangul family name check. --Neo-Jay (talk) 06:02, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
If you find any more mistakes like this one, then just fix it in the item, you dont have to fix it in the table, because the table gets generated by ListeriaBot automatically according to values in the items. --Wesalius (talk) 06:50, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
@Wesalius: Oh, I see. Thanks for your message. --Neo-Jay (talk) 07:14, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

@Neo-Jay:Hi, how is the work on Go players matching going? Can I start importing their elo-ratings? --Wesalius (talk) 15:31, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

@Wesalius: Right now I cannot find any unmatched Wikipedia article for the Go players listed on Goratings.org. And it seems that you have created Wikidata items for most of the unmatched Go players. Please feel free to import their Elo-ratings. Thank you. --Neo-Jay (talk) 16:55, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

About Q343953Edit

I am not sure. Maybe Q343953 is a disambiguation page which is the transcriptions of the word "Solidarity". The problem is that the w:zh:团结_(消歧义) is not only the disambiguation page which is the meaning of the word "Solidarity", but also it have some item of the transcriptions of the word "Solidarity", like en:Solidarity (Australia), en:Solidarity_(Switzerland) , etc. If the zh's page doesn't have the item of transcriptions of the word "Solidarity", it will be a disambiguation page which is the meaning of the word "Solidarity" and would not add into Q343953. So I think they can be together. --Cwek (talk) 07:25, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@Cwek: A Chinese disambiguation page can have some same disambiguation entries as an English disambiguation page. But this does not necessarily mean that they should be included in a same Wikidata item. Wikidata:WikiProject Disambiguation pages/guidelines clearly says that "The item should only contain links to Wikipedia disambiguation pages with the exact same spelling". So you may create a new Wikidata item for zh:团结 (消歧义). But please don't add it to Q343953. Thank you. --Neo-Jay (talk) 07:32, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

電子遊戲Edit

您好,我認為zh:电子游戏條目事實上介紹的內容和英文的「video game」相對應,應該關連到video game (Q7889),而不是看字面關連到electronic game (Q2249149)。英文的「electronic game」可以翻譯為「用電驅動的遊戲」,但中文界似乎沒有一個獨佔的詞來表示這個概念,或許可以建立個zh:電子遊戲 (廣義的)對應electronic game (Q2249149)?--A Sword in the Wind (talk) 03:08, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

@風中的刀劍(A Sword in the Wind): 感谢您的留言。“用电驱动”的英文应该是“electric”,而不是“electronic”。Electronic games就是“电子”游戏。英文维基en:Electronic game也并没有把诸如“用电动手臂抓取毛绒玩具”这样的“用电驱动”的游戏当做electronic game。而zh:电子游戏写的是:“西方游戏界往往将电子游戏(Electronic games)细分为影像游戏(Video game)和听觉游戏(Audio game)等,而中文游戏界则习惯一律以“电子游戏”指代。”这句话的意思我觉得很明显,就是说中文的“电子游戏”就是指英文的“Electronic games”,只不过没有像西方那样进一步细分为video game和audio game,而是统称为“电子游戏”。之所以中文维基百科的电子游戏条目主要介绍的是video game,原因应该很好理解,是因为video game比audio game要广泛和流行得多。电子游戏主流是video game,但并不能说电子游戏就等于是video game。正如en:Electronic game所写的那样:“ Video game is the most common form today, and for this reason the two terms are often mistakenly used synonymously(如今video game是(电子游戏)最普通的形式,正因为如此,这两个术语常被错误地当成同义词来使用) ” --Neo-Jay (talk) 22:33, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
您说的也对。唯一的问题是中文里没有专门表述video game的词,之前有跨语言链接的时候,都有中文维基编辑把video game字面翻译成“视频游戏”这个业界不用的词语。现在没跨语言链接罩着,估计这样翻译的就更多了╮(╯▽╰)╭--A Sword in the Wind (talk) 10:40, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
@風中的刀劍(A Sword in the Wind): 的确,中文里“视频游戏”一词确实不常用。我个人觉得,中文除了用“电子游戏”对应英文“electronic game”之外,也应该发展出一个常用词汇对应英文的“video game”,然而这已经不是维基编辑能够决定的了,而是要看中文使用者的约定俗成。不过,既然video game从属于“电子游戏”,那么在日常语言中把video game说成是电子游戏也没错,只要不把video game等同于“电子游戏”即可。 --Neo-Jay (talk) 11:15, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Q43452224Edit

所有的虐童事件頁面都已被重定向至此,請先看wikipedia那邊的頁面再編輯。--Tb095811zhwiki (talk) 08:32, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

我這次不會回退閣下的編輯,留字只是為了告訴你,你錯了。--Tb095811zhwiki (talk) 08:34, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
@Tb095811zhwiki: Wikidata的item指向很明确,Q43452224的性质(P31)是企业,不是事件,即使在中文Wikipedia上虐童事件被重定向到红黄蓝公司,也并不能在Wikidata上的企业item里链接某个相关的维基新闻,因为这两者性质根本不同。Wikipedia上的重定向只是体现了重定向页和目标页之间的相关性,并不能把Wikipedia上的重定向页都添加到Wikidata item上。如果Wikinews上有红黄蓝公司的category,您可以把Wikinews的该category添加到Q43452224(详见Wikidata:Wikinews),谢谢。--Neo-Jay (talk) 09:02, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
閣下這理論不荒謬嗎?為了單一新聞事件,所以我們得在wikinews創建一個category,以便加入Wikidata?wikipedia已將單一新聞事件併入企业頁面,難道閣下現在的意思,是要我將新聞頁面連結至一個重定向頁面?閣下得先弄明白Wikidata存在的原因再來回復,我們不可能單純僅為了一家企業的一則新聞,就在維基新聞創建一個category,事情不是這麼做的,這點與百科一樣;反之,Wikidata是知识库(Knowledge base)的概念,新聞與百科都是其下的分支,閣下樓上的回覆,顯見你根本不清楚自己在做什麼。--Tb095811zhwiki (talk) 11:27, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
我并没有要求为每一个Wikinews新闻条目创建一个category,我说的是“如果(注意,是“如果”)Wikinews上有红黄蓝公司的category,您可以把Wikinews的该category添加到Q43452224”。您当然可以不必为Wikinews的这个新闻创建一个category,但您也不能把该新闻添加到Q43452224中去,而是需要创建另一个Wikidata item。是您需要先弄明白Wikidata存在的原因再来回复,Wikidata是数据库,而非只是为了解决各Wikimedia页面的跨语言链接问题。Wikidata上的一个item有明确的语义定义,不是随便可以把Wikimedia各个项目上的相关链接都添加到一个item里来,事实上Wikidata上存在着大量根本没有任何Wikimedia项目链接的items。而且关于红黄蓝公司的Wikinews新闻可能不止一个,怎么可以把只是一个新闻添到企业item里?更何况这则Wikinews新闻的标题为《“红黄蓝教育”股票暴跌,面临集体法律诉讼》,表明该新闻主要内容还并不是虐童事件本身,而只是虐童事件的一个相关新闻。总之,这则虐童新闻只是和Q43452224(红黄蓝公司)具有相关性,但并不等于该企业,就像该虐童新闻还和Q167191(虐童)、Q25290(2017年)也都具有相关性一样,这并不能成为把该虐童新闻添加到Q43452224这一item里的理由。在Wikipedia上可以用重定向来处理,并不意味着在Wikidata上就一定能合并进同一个item。我们可以假设一下,如果英文Wikipedia上有一个红黄蓝幼儿园虐童事件的条目而没有红黄蓝公司的条目,那么即使在中文Wikipedia上虐童事件是重定向到红黄蓝公司的,在Wikidata上也只能分别建立两个items,一个是事件item,一个是企业item,分别对应英文和中文两个Wikipedia条目。同样的,中文Wikinews上的这个新闻,从性质上只能属于另一个独立的item,性质(P31)为事件(或丑闻、虐童等)。您可以创建一个新的Wikidata item,把该Wikinews新闻条目添加进去,然后在Q43452224中添加P793(重大事件),链接到这个新闻事件item。另外,您也可以在中文Wikipedia的zh:红黄蓝教育条目中手动添加Wikinews:zh:“红黄蓝教育”股票暴跌,面临集体法律诉讼的链接。谢谢。--Neo-Jay (talk) 12:58, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
你這根本是強辯。我說的是知识库(Knowledge base)。wikinews與wikinews兩者都是廣義的數據庫,wikidata是整合不同wiki項目的計畫,即一群數據庫的集合,如下所示
  • wikidata
    • wikinews
    • wikipedia

換言之,可以把wikidata想成父目錄,WN和WP是子目錄。這樣解釋還不明白?舉例。想像有個機器人叫wikidata,我想用wikidata查「紅黃藍幼兒園」,wikidata會給我WP;同時,wikidata會給我紅黃藍的相關新聞,就是WN,讀者不用再另外多費一次工夫再重新查找一次,一個item原本就對應一個data。另外,沒有發生事件,不會被維基新聞錄入。所以,有新聞頁面不一定有百科頁面;反之有百科頁面也不一定有新聞頁面。wikidata並非僵固不變的,如果有更新的新聞,自然可以置換現有的值。否則按照你的觀點推論下去,wikidata的圖像永遠都不能換,藝人改名或國籍變了,wikidata也不准動,都得另創一個item。如果WP有單獨的紅黃藍虐童事件條目,我當然會將WN頁面編輯在相同的item,但問題WP目前是重定向頁。所以,就算我編輯在重定向頁,最後仍指向企業條目,那我編輯在重定向頁的意義是什麼?總之,按照你的觀點,目前WP將新聞事件與企業合併成單一條目是錯的,因為企業歸企業,事件歸事件,這是你的論點我尊重,不予置評;但wikidata不是維基百科,你上方的回復,仍舊將維基百科或維基新聞的概念拿來談論wikidata,你沒發現?

wikidata是在一個item之中不停地加入輔助人們聯想的「標記」,WP或WN都是其中之一的「標記」,因此item不變,但標記可以變。今日關於紅黃藍教育只有一則維基新聞,所以就加最新的維基新聞,以後有新的新聞再換新的WN連接,而維基新聞永遠不會單獨為了紅藍黃教育寫一則文章,沒有事件,WN不會錄入,就這麼簡單。承認錯誤對你來說有這麼困難?算了,反正我也沒有回退閣下的編輯,話不投機,恕不奉陪!--Tb095811zhwiki (talk) 14:45, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

我并没有说中文Wikipedia把虐童事件重定向到红黄蓝公司是错误的,我认为中文Wikipedia当然可以这么做,我说的是,中文Wikipedia做重定向处理,并不意味着Wikidata上就该混同到一个item里。事实上,“將維基百科或維基新聞的概念拿來談論wikidata”的,正是您,而不是我,我一直是把Wikipedia的条目合并问题和Wikidata的item内容问题分得很清楚的。Wikidata集合Wikipedia和Wikinews上的条目链接数据,并不意味着可以把性质不同的Wikinews条目和Wikipedia条目混同放在同一个Wikidata item里去。Wikdata是适合于机器阅读和理解的数据库,其item需要有明确的语义,在Wikidata上,事件和企业性质不同,就需要有不同的items来对应,因此Wikinews上的那条新闻,需要创建单独的Wikidata item。一个Wikinews的新闻条目,不一定要有对应的Wikipedia独立条目,即使没有对应的Wikipedia独立条目,也完全可以为一个Wikinews新闻条目创建一个单独的Wikidata item。item的性质(P31)里就有专门的Q17633526(維基新聞新聞稿)。您认为Q43452224这个企业item里就是要有随时更新的该企业相关Wikinews条目,这种认识是不正确的。理论上说,每一个Wikinews条目都要有相对应的Wikidata item(该item可以有也可以没有其他跨语言链接),而按照您的理解,若有多条关于红黄蓝公司的Wikinews新闻,就该在Q43452224中更新到最新的一条,那么那些旧有的Wikinews新闻条目这么办?放在Wikidata的什么地方?就直接被取代掉?在Wikidata里找不到了吗?事实上,给红黄蓝公司相关的Wikinews各条新闻创建独立的Wikidata items,然后通过在Q43452224(红黄蓝公司)中添加P793(重大事件)链接到这些新闻事件items,才更方便读者查找。至于您说的艺人改名或改国籍问题,当然需要在该艺人的Wikidata item里变更,因为艺人的Wikidata item的性质(P31)是Q5(人),改名或改国籍并不影响该item的性质,怎么会因为改名或改国籍就要另创一个item?您现在看起来有些生气,可能的确不适合继续讨论,我相信等您冷静下来再认真考虑考虑,就会有不同的认识。谢谢。--Neo-Jay (talk) 15:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  • 現在換玩偷換概念?你一開始講的又和現在不一樣是怎麼回事?你一直堅持新聞事件與公司不能混同,又說有需要可以開一個分類編入item,現在又變成說每個item是不同的,你不矛盾?自己為何不回頭看看自己樓上說的話?我已經解釋了,每個維基項目在wikidata裡頭都是一個標記,我樓上講的換圖像、改名、國籍都是標記的一部份。假設按照你的理論,那wikidata就乾脆關閉,因為沒有意義。wikidata是方便全世界人們查找資料時的知識庫,不是同好間孤芳自賞的收藏,你堅持的主觀並不符合協作計畫的精神。你將原本可以整合在一起的不同維基項目拆分成兩個,僅因你主觀認為企業歸企業,事件歸事件;我也說了維基新聞不可能沒事發生就為紅黃藍教育寫一篇新聞,有事件才會錄入;既然有這個企業的WP頁面,這又是相關新聞,我不曉得你到底在糾結什麼?最後,這本來用常識就可理解的事,你為了自己的面子做無謂的堅持,我也沒回退你的編輯,只是指出你做錯了。就這樣,你繼續鑽你的牛角尖繼續錯到底,我不會再回復。--Tb095811zhwiki (talk) 21:59, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  • 我哪有偷换概念?看来您对Wikidata item的基本知识还不够了解,需要阅读一下Wikidata Help的基本内容,我可以给您介绍一下:Wikidata item(见Help:Items)的sitelinks(见Help:Sitelinks)和statements(见Help:Statements)是两个不同的部分,各个维基项目的链接属于sitelinks,而您提到的换图像、改名、改国籍则是对statements的更新。我们的分歧在于:您认为Wikinews的虐童新闻条目应该放进Q43452224(红黄蓝公司)的sitelinks里,而我认为该虐童新闻只能出现在Q43452224的statements里(作为P793的一个value)。貌似您是把Wikidata item的sitelinks当做是和Wikipedia条目里的外部链接一样来用了,以为与这个Wikidata item相关的Wikinews新闻链接都可以加进来,然后随时更新,这种理解是错误的,Wikipedia条目里的外部链接可以含多个链接,而Wikidata item的sitelinks里,一个语言版本的Wikinews页面链接最多只能有一个,该Wikinews页面必须对应于这个Wikidata item本身,而非只是和这个Wikidata item具有相关性。Wikinews的虐童事件新闻条目,是不能出现在Q43452224(红黄蓝公司)这一企业item的sitelinks中的,但该Wikinews新闻条目在加入其它Wikidata item的sitelinks中后,可以作为P793(重大事件)的一个value(参见Help:Properties)出现在Q43452224的statements中;而如果Wikinews上有红黄蓝公司的category,则可以把Wikinews的该category放到Q43452224的sitelinks里。其原因就是Wikinews的该虐童新闻并不是指红黄蓝公司这一企业本身,而只是指这一企业的一个重大事件;而如果Wikinews上有红黄蓝公司的category,则该category对应的就是这一企业本身。希望您能理解这几个不同的概念。而且,我不清楚您到底有没有仔细读我上一条留言中的话,我可以再重复一遍相关内容:“理论上说,每一个Wikinews条目都要有相对应的Wikidata item(该item可以有也可以没有其他跨语言链接),而按照您的理解,若有多条关于红黄蓝公司的Wikinews新闻,就该在Q43452224中更新到最新的一条,那么那些旧有的Wikinews新闻条目这么办?放在Wikidata的什么地方?就直接被取代掉?在Wikidata里找不到了吗?事实上,给红黄蓝公司相关的Wikinews各条新闻创建独立的Wikidata items,然后通过在Q43452224(红黄蓝公司)中添加P793(重大事件)链接到这些新闻事件items,才更方便读者查找。”请注意,这里我说“每一个Wikinews条目都要有相对应的Wikidata item”的时候,明确解释了“该item可以有也可以没有其他跨语言链接”,也就是说,Wikinews上的新闻条目可以有对应的Wikipedia条目,也可以没有对应的Wikipedia条目,我并没有说每个Wikinews新闻都要“单独”创建一个Wikidata item,如果在Wikidata上已经有对应的item存在,当然可以将Wikinews新闻条目直接加到该item的sitelinks里,但Q43452224并不是Wikinews虐童新闻的对应Wikidata item,所以只能另外创建一个Wikidata item把该Wikinews虐童新闻条目收录到其sitelinks里,然后再把该Wikidata item添加到Q43452224P793(重大事件)的value里,将来红黄蓝公司若有新的Wikinews新闻,则可以创建新的Wikidata item加进Q43452224P793的value里(一个property可以有多个values)。按照这个方法,才更方便全世界人们在Wikidata上查找资料,而按照您的方法,只在sitelinks中保留一个最新的Wikinews相关新闻的链接,那将会有很多Wikinews的新闻页面在Wikidata上根本没有链接,又怎么能方便全世界人们在Wikidata上查找到历史上的新闻?总之,从您的留言可以看出,您对Wikidata的基本知识还不够了解,这可能和您对Wikidata的编辑经验有关,到目前为止您在Wikidata上的编辑次数只有309次(其中对items的编辑次数只有304次),相信随着您对Wikidata编辑经验的增加,您的认识会有改善。谢谢。--Neo-Jay (talk) 03:57, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

中文维基中的网状结缔组织等条目语言链接的问题Edit

您好!

抱歉打扰了,不知为何我创立的中文维基百科中的网状结缔组织不知为何无法链接到緻密結締組織 (Q3268002)。虽然在后者页面中添加了中文条目,然而并无法在中文条目上显示其他语言版本。

类似的问题也出现在我创建的1982年格陵兰公投中,我在中文维基百科界面中链接到了其他语言,然而转进任何其它语言版本,例如英语版本,则是无法显示中文版本的存在的。

不知我应该如何解决这个问题,故而希望能从您这里得到帮助。提前先感谢了。——Unravel17 (talk) 00:11, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

@Unravel17: 您好,这种情况是由于网络更新迟延导致的,过一段时间就可以自动解决。如果不愿等待,也可以这样:先把某Wikipedia页面加入Wikidata item,然后再到Wikipedia页面中进行任何一次编辑,这样就能立刻更新该页面的跨语言链接的显示。--Neo-Jay (talk) 01:31, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
感谢!--Unravel17 (talk) 01:58, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
@Unravel17: 不客气 :) --Neo-Jay (talk) 02:05, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

关于推理小说Edit

您说的意思我明白,现在的问题是,在英文维基百科,detective literature是重定向到detective fiction的。

如果按照这样关联,就会导致英文维基百科的左侧栏不显示任何中文维基百科的链接,即使两个条目极其相近。这种情况应该如何解决? 而且,如果您阅读en:Detective fiction,99%都在讲小说,而不是别的。

或者能否这样处理,将中文的推理小说也移动到对应“detective fiction”的条目(但是我个人并不认为中文有这样的说法,至少没有常用的)?个人认为实在没有必要分裂为两个条目。--Fireattack (talk) 03:00, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

@Fireattack: 您好。如果将zh:推理小說移动到zh:推理作品以便对应en:Detective fiction,也不是不行,不过我个人认为,没有必要这样做(当然我也不反对这样做)。为什么一定要英文维基百科左侧栏有中文维基百科的链接呢?中文条目不一定要有对应的英文条目,英文条目也不一定要有对应的中文条目。现在zh:小说还没有对应的英文条目呢。Wikidata item都是有其特定语义的,而不是收录所有“意思相近”跨越语言链接的场所。Q186424是指detective fiction,Q20665028是指detective literature,两者区别明确,不能合并。如果各语言维基百科没有分别创建两个条目,那是各语言维基百科的事儿,分别按各自百科条目的含义对号入座到这两个Wikidata item里就行了。--Neo-Jay (talk) 05:07, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
关于“为什么一定要英文维基百科左侧栏有中文维基百科的链接呢”:便于读者,尤其是可以阅读多种语言的读者互相查证吧。至少从我个人的用户习惯上来说,很多条目中文内容远不如英文详实,我一般会互相参考下。尤其是对于这个例子来说,我对照过两个条目,说的基本就是同一个事物,不管是fiction还是literature。当然我同意您说的“Wikidata item都是有其特定语义的,而不是收录所有“意思相近”跨越语言链接的场所”,这是我欠考虑的地方。现在把跨语言链接统一到Wikidata之后,就难免会出现这类的问题,因为维基百科不像维基data,许多条目的范围都是很宽广和模糊的。这个条目具体怎么操作,我再思考下。
另外还是请教点题外话,Fiction在中文到底有精确的对应翻译吗?--Fireattack (talk) 09:07, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
@Fireattack: 您好,如果中文条目有对应的英文条目,那当然很好,但如果没有的话,也是没有办法的事。不过,好在zh:推理小說现在有英文的重定向页en:Detective literature做跨语言链接,可以引导读者来到en:Detective fiction条目。另外,对于fiction一词的翻译,依我浅见,在指作品类型的时候,一般就是翻译为“虚构类”,目前en:FictionQ8253)的对应中文条目是zh: 虛構作品,我觉得还是很恰当的。--Neo-Jay (talk) 09:52, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Please don't...Edit

use the revert button for changes like this. (Ancient.) The ping is a bit annoying. Natuur12 (talk) 00:28, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

@Natuur12: Yes, I could have simply removed nl:Omgeving from Q1572519 and then changed Q2348808 back to an independent item. The reason why I used the revert button was to remind other editors of the relevant Wikidata guideline ("the item should only contain links to Wikipedia disambiguation pages with the exact same spelling" per Wikidata:WikiProject Disambiguation pages/guidelines). Sorry for having annoyed you if you had already known that guideline. --Neo-Jay (talk) 01:16, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Tel AvivEdit

Please stop. We don't need new entries when the subject is slightly changed it's function. It's still the same building with almost the same function. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 09:22, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@Triggerhippie4: Your merging Q53444085 (Tel Aviv Branch Office of the Embassy of the United States) into Q2897374 (Embassy of the United States, Tel Aviv) is unacceptable. I have initiated disucssion at Talk:Q2897374. Please discuss this issue there (not here). --Neo-Jay (talk) 09:29, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Translation requestEdit

Hello.

Can you create and upload en:Category:Elections in Azerbaijan, en:Category:Presidential elections in Azerbaijan, en:Category:Azerbaijan election result templates (and if it is not too demanding en:Elections in Azerbaijan) in Chinese Wikipedia?

zh:Template:阿塞拜疆選舉 with its articles already exists in Chinese Wikipedia.

Yours sincerely, Sondrion (talk) 22:57, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

@Sondrion: Hi, thanks for your message. Unfortunately, I have been unable to access Chinese Wikipedia for years due to the Great Firewall of China. And more sadly, English Wikipedia and all the other language versions have been inaccessible to me since 23 April 2019 although I can still access Wikidata and other Wikimedia projects. Sorry that I cannot help. Best regards. --Neo-Jay (talk) 08:06, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Hello Neo-Jay. Thank you for your reply. I am sorry to hear that. I truly understand you, because I live in Turkey where the entire Wikipedia encyclopedia is inaccessible since April 2017. Only Wikidata and the Wikimedia projects are still accessible, which are our only channels of communication. Kindest regards, Sondrion (talk) 19:10, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
@Sondrion: I am also sorry to hear your story. Hope that Wikipedia can be accessible in Turkey and China one day. Thanks for your contributions. Best wishes. --Neo-Jay (talk) 20:59, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Neo-Jay".