Open main menu

User talk:Pere prlpz

Logo of Wikidata

Welcome to Wikidata, Pere prlpz!

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) 12:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Requests for deletionEdit

It would be very helpful if you could include the item you merged something to when requesting deletion of the now-empty item -- admins are supposed to verify that the merger was correct before deleting something and being able to easily see where something was merged to is the best way to do this. Thanks. Courcelles (talk) 15:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Commons categoryEdit

Hi, one small note: if simple remove invalid value of Property:P373, then bot will create it again. No value marker is better way to say, that there is no corresponding category on Commons. — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 19:39, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Merging itemsEdit

Hallo Pere prlpz,

When you are merging items, please use the Merge.js gadget. It helps you 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.

With regards, -      - (Cycn/talk) 15:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Editing speedEdit

If you keep editing on this speed, please request a flood flag. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 12:42, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

reEdit

They are updated only manually. You can you the links or script in Module:Statistical data/by project/classes to do so.--GZWDer (talk) 13:45, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Estadístiques actualitzadesEdit

He actualitzat manualment les nostres estadístiques a Wikidata. Com ho veus?

  • Hem passat de 100 000 a 60 000 ítems sense P31/P279 (diria que jo almanco he fet net de categories)
  • Hem superat dels 100 000 articles de geografia (etiquetats)
  • Hem passat de 42 000 a 57 000 categories etiquetades com a tals
  • Hem passat de 8 000 a 22 000 edificis
  • Tenim mil objectes artificials menys dels que teníem fa dos mesos.

L'anterior gràfic. Paucabot (talk) 11:48, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

@Paucabot: Bona feina. Si els altres estan actualitzats tenim un dels percentatges de no identificats més baixos de totes les viquipèdies que no són botopèdies.--Pere prlpz (talk) 14:07, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
La majoria de les altres Viquipèdies no tenen les dades actualitzades. Posa la data just a baix del gràfic autogenerat. Paucabot (talk) 15:03, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Una darrera cosa: hem passat de 513 000 a 537 000 ítems a Wikidata. Paucabot (talk) 09:38, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
@Paucabot: Si de l'1 de juliol a l'1 de setembre la Viquipèdia ha autgmentat en 7000 articles, vol dir que el nombre d'articles per pujar a Wikidata ha d'haver baixat en uns 17.000 (en realitat alguns menys, perquè no estic tenint en compte les categories). Anem pel bon camí.
Ara, amb els monuments importats amb bot, suposo que tornem a tenir una colla d'edificis que els podem posar la propietat P31. O ara, o quan estiguin ben categoritzats com a edificis.--Pere prlpz (talk) 20:17, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

CommonsEdit

The problems are still there [1], [2]. - Brya (talk) 05:00, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

@Brya: What is the problem here? Both categories exist in Commons, they aren't redirects and as far as I can see they are about the same species than the articles in Wikipedias. Why have you removed the claims?--Pere prlpz (talk) 23:50, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Wikidata has a page Mico melanurus and Commons has a page Mico melanurus: these go together. You put it in the page Callithrix melanurus, just because the sitelink of cawiki is there. - Brya (talk) 04:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
@Brya: According to Wikipedias and commons:Category:Mico melanurus, Mico melanurus, Callithrix melanurus and Callithrix melanurus are synonyms. Different projects prefer different names, but all them are about the same monkeys - that's the reason for the link in Catalan and others to be there, and it's OK to link. commons:Category:Callithrix melanura is a redirect and wouldn't be OK to link it. commons:Category:Callithrix melanurus doesn't even exist.
Furthermore, when there is an interwiki conflict - although I can't see any interwiki conflict here - the solution is to resolve the interwiki conflict. As long as a a Wikidata item has links about different unrelated subjects, people will add statements about any of these subjects.--Pere prlpz (talk) 07:26, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, I am glad you noticed that Mico melanurus is regarded as a synonym of Callithrix melanurus (and that others regard that relationship should be the reverse). Obviously there would not be much point in adding commons:Category:Callithrix melanura to the item Callithrix melanurus as it indeed is a redirect. But I should hope that it is equally clear that there is no point in adding commons:Category:Mico melanurus to the item Callithrix melanurus. It has already been added to the item Mico melanurus, where it clearly belongs. Why add it to two items? I don't see what is so hard to adding a commons category with a scientific name to a Wikidata with the same scientific name and not to items with different scientific names? - 10:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
@Brya: I'm sorry, but I'm afraid I'm missing something, because I still don't see the problem.
In Wikidata the item Callithrix melanurus is the same as the item Mico melanurus , isn't it? And its Commonscat property links to the right Commons category, doesn't it?--Pere prlpz (talk) 20:59, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
In Wikidata the item Callithrix melanurus (Q1202585) is not the same as the item Mico melanurus (Q16718009). - Brya (talk) 03:33, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
@Brya: As far as I know, Wikipedias and Wikidata don't have articles or items about words, as they have articles about subjects. Both items should be merged, and Q16718009 is just a derelict of an item linked to a ruwiki article that you moved to the other one. You did it right, but using the merge button would have merged both items. Please notice that all links are in Q1202585, whatever name they have, and they should be linked via Commonscat to the commons category with media about its subject.--Pere prlpz (talk) 08:00, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, that is a line of reasoning that one could be adopt. However, in practice it proves that merging such items works very poorly (better for some items than for others), leading to errors and confusion (and these will increase as complexity increases). As to sitelinks, there is indeed only one practical course, namely to put them all together (in one item or another), and put in enough statements (preferably properly referenced) so that it is possible to navigate the joint items. - Brya (talk) 08:15, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Then your proposed action is to put all sitelinks about the same species in the same item (whichever synonym scientific name they use) but not to put in that item the commonscat property which link to the Commons category with media about the same species if it doesn't use the same synonim as some (which ones?) of the linked sitelinks about the same species. Am I understanding well your proposal?--Pere prlpz (talk) 09:53, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
I think you understood it well, all the sitelinks are to be put together in one item or another. It will depend on circumstance if this is the item that also has the Commons link (or any of a number or other links that somebody feels is particularly important). BTW I remember seeing cases where the Commons category uses one name, but the Commons gallery uses another link. - Brya (talk) 10:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't disagree about having different items about different names to store information related to the name (not to the species), but there should be a single item for the species with all information about the species. That's what you are doing with sitelinks (and it's OK), but it should be done for the information used in articles, and commonscat property is among the information most used by articles. Since we put together all sitelinks, we should put commonscat property together with them.
Please notice that Commonscat templates in several Wikipedias use the Commonscat property in Wikidata, and that Wikipedia articles and Commons categories are about species and not about their names. All species related information should be in the species item, even if name related information is in other items.--Pere prlpz (talk) 12:01, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
I see what you mean and will think about it. Some problems are that by putting all sitelinks always in the item with the Commons link we will in effect always be following whatever taxonomy Commons is adopting, thus reinforcing the misconception that there is One Right Taxonomy. Putting all 'species-related information' in that same item may well cross the No Original Research barrier. If this about the idea to have all information for a Wikipedia page in one Wikidata item, we are past that stage. Quite a few Wikipedias have a page about "apple" as well as a page about the species (Malus pumila). So it makes sense that one day the Wikidata item about the apple will have, say, a table with nutritional values. But some Wikipedias have only one page for both apple and species and these Wikipedias will have to go across items to get their data. So this is nothing new. - Brya (talk) 18:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
@Brya: Yes, this problem is quite similar to the common problem of some Wikipedias having an article on a monotypic genus and other Wikipedias having an article on its single species, although this one is a little easier to deal with. There are similar non taxonomy related problems in Wikidata; for example every time one Wikipedia has an article on a subject about which another Wikipedia has two articles. Often, from a Wikidata-only point of view having different items seems more logical, but to be useful to Wikipedias (and other Wikimedia projects) it's much better to have all the information about a subject about a subject in the same item - e.g. to let interwikis and Commonscat templates work.
Wikipedias and Commons favour the "one right taxonomy" because every article or category has a single name, and because taxoboxes just display a single taxonomy. In Wikidata it's easier to deal with several taxonomies, because there can be more than one value for scientific names and upper taxons, and because different sitelinks with different names and different labels and alias can be linked in the same item.--Pere prlpz (talk) 18:30, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't know about policies in Commons, but in Wikipedias this pretending that there is One Right Taxononmy is a violation of the NPoV policy, the cornerstone of Wikipedia. - Brya (talk) 06:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
@Brya: Of course. As far as I understand, you are concerned about the technical needs that sometimes favour one taxonomy over other ones, as the fact of articles and categories should have just one name (one name in each project), and that in Wikidata items have just one label in each language. I also agree that this problem is only partially solved by redirects and aliases. Anyway, the existence of several valid taxonomies shouldn't obscure the still more important fact that several names refer to the same subject. Furthermore, putting in the same item sitelinks and labels that use different synonyms makes clear to readers that there isn't just one right taxonomy.--Pere prlpz (talk) 20:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, yes, ideally users should be able to rely on references, rather than be left to whatever links happen to have been made. It has proved that aliases are not part of the solution, but are a persistent cause of problems.
        Whether or not "several names refer to the same subject" will depend: a set of names that sometimes can refer to the same subject, may at other times refer to different subjects. This will vary with the kind of organism we are dealing with, if we are dealing with species of insects, these names are very likely to apply to the same subject. If we are dealing with species of plants, that is a lot more uncertain.
        The only clearcut method to avoid undue confusion is to organize things on a "one name-one item" basis. There is no guarantee that this one name will always refer to the same subject, but (at least for the foreseeable future) this is unavoidable. - Brya (talk) 04:46, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree that sometimes different names refer to different subjects (they are not exactly synonyms, then), and such names usually deserve an special treatment. Anyway, a common case is when several names are strictly synonyms and I still think that the Wikipedia articles linked together need an item with the information about their common subject. This is specially important for information the articles gather from Commons like Commonscat, and -less importantly- taxonomic information used by {{:ca:BDT}} and similar templates. Please remember that the first goal of Wikidata is to store information (like sitelinks) to be used by Wikimedia pages. The "one name-one item" might be a good approach with an individual item for each name, different from the item that holds together all sitelinks about the species.
Anyway, I would suggest trying to put all information about all different names in the species item. I think it would be simpler to achieve and put to work, because creating and maintaining one item per name could be an enormous task not very likely to be completed to any useful point, and I think the information about each name could be stored in qualifiers instead a separate item. However, it's mainly a practical choice and I let it to the people interested in uploading information about names.--Pere prlpz (talk) 08:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
In taxonomy, the general definition of a synonym is any name that applies to a taxon, besides the correct name. The taxon that a synonym applies to when it would be correct may vary hugely from the taxon that the correct name applies to: the difference may easily be more than a million to one. It is not easy to tell when synonyms apply to exactly the same taxon.
        Creating (or restoring) and maintaining one item per name is relatively easy, at least when limited to those names that are used in some Wikipedia as correct (creating an item for every name ever published would indeed be a daunting task). - Brya (talk) 11:17, 12 October 2015 (UTC)


Merge of Genes and ProteinsEdit

You merged 5 Gene items to protein items (Q7390805, Q7390812, Q17913210, Q18037084, Q18040031). Your action destroyed the Wikidata community approved data model for genes and proteins which is maintained by ProteinBoxBot. Please, avoid doing this in the future. Sebotic (talk) 01:57, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I just realized that you only merged some old protein relicts to the gene items. If you do that, please remove the 'subclass of' protein. But I will do these merges in the coming days anyway, so you would not need to invest time in them. Thanks! Sebotic (talk) 02:09, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
@Sebotic: I must admit that I didn't notice that I was merging proteins with genes. I was just trying to connect lonely items in cawiki and after checking wikipedia articles in Catalan and English I was convinced that both were about the same subject, but I didn't check if Wikidata properties fit the articles subjects. Probably I should have just moved sitelinks instead of merging items. Thank you.--Pere prlpz (talk) 08:37, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Pere prlpz".