User talk:Swpb

Welcome to Wikidata, Swpb!

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.
• Contents – The main help page for editing and using the site.
• Project chat – Discussions about the project.
• Tools – A collection of user-developed JavaScript tools to allow for easier completion of some tasks.

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! Please, never create any items for any userpages or subtemplates. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 13:12, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Previous discussion was archived at User talk:Swpb/Archive 1 on 2016-01-05.

Deprecation in the general sense ? What does that mean ? Is seems for example that the deprecation of a software feature SHOULD NOT imply a deprecation in Wikidata. Only an end date, as it has been true that the software had this feature. Deprecation on Wikidata is for stuffs that have never been true, just were thought true.

It seem to me that that something that was thought true but is not anymore is deprecated in the general sense does not add any information. What are your usecases ?

For example Q3267033#P197 this deprecation seems wrong

First of all, follow BRD. You were reverted and you started a thread, so far so good. In the mean time, status quo rules, and it's wrong of you to put your change back again.

Now. No one is suggesting deprecation of software implies deprecation on Wikidata. But deprecation on WD is NOT just for things that were NEVER true, it's also for things that USED TO be true and no longer are. That's why other reasons for deprecation include replacement (Q23009439), demotion (Q464858), resignation (Q796919).

Finding examples of misuse, like your rail station, obviously does not imply that an item is always misused. There are plenty of legitimate ways to use deprecation (Q280943) as a Wikidata reason for deprecation (Q27949697). Take one example: dog's bollocks (Q18612566) part of (P361) British English (Q7979) / reason for deprecation (P2241) deprecation (Q280943). The construction was part of British English, but isn't any longer, so the Wikidata statement is deprecated. Why? Because the construction is deprecated. The reason for deprecation (on Wikidata) is deprecation (in the real world). Swpb (talk) 13:07, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

See Help:Ranking#Deprecated_rank that contradicts your claim. Also see the Wikibase data model : https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikibase/DataModel#Ranks_of_Statements that states the same thing. Deprecated rank is NOT for stuffs that used to be true but are no more.

Ok.

For more information, please see Help:Evolving knowledge, also.

I removed the « process subclass of sequence » claim you added.

The reason is : A process instance is something that happens in the real world, for example the disparition of the sand of some beach can be an instance of erosion ( for example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5T2oDDE2cs this instance)

Now erosion is a process, for sure, but I don’t think it’s a subclass of process. If it were, we would have

< the event of this video above > instance of (P31) < process >

. For sure we have

< the event of this video above > instance of (P31) < erosion >

But it’s not a process itself, it’s just a (sequence of) event(s). I think that therefore we have something like

< erosion > instance of (P31) < process >

and that process is a metaclass. It’s a kind of type of events.

So … it’s not a subclass of « series of events », at most it’s a (abstract) sequence of kind of events.

I see you reverted my exception to constraint. How would you model an artwork where the material is dis-assembled silk flowers? - ~~~~

The material is silk. Silk flowers are a part, not a material. Also, that's not how exceptions work. You made it such that the constraint wouldn't apply to a statement on the item flower. Swpb (talk) 02:23, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Hey, you've reverted the one-of constraint I set, it wasn't meant as a constraint, but to fill the suggestion list for the property, that's why I've set the rank to deprecated, that way it's not processed as a constraint but still used for the suggestions – at least that's what was the last state on that I had. You think that use is ok and we can restore the constraint? Thanks in advance for your help! Best,

Yes, that's fine; I've restored your edit. My apologies for not understanding the subtlety (maybe not so subtle) of the deprecation. Thanks for your patience. Swpb (talk) 13:47, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

No worry! My bad, actually I should have used constraint clarification (P6607)! I've done that now and by looking for another example found it at grammatical gender (P5185) where you have edited such a text yourself it seems. :-) Thanks for pointing out the issue, the constraint was indeed mistakable! Cheers!

Hi, here is the context. Regards,

This contributed to published work (P3919) property is for people items to list "published works" rather than for an organisation. You may consider the 'participant' type properties for what you are looking to link.

[deleted]

Hi. The reason why I removed the Japanese alias was that the entry was renamed and the former alias is now the entry name. As of now, The Japanese "Label" and the "Also knows as" are identical, which is not right, I suppose. So can you please undo your undo?

@Himazu: Removing the label is not the right answer. A correct label should never be removed. If the alias is the same as the label, it is the alias that should be removed. I've done so. Swpb (talk) 13:29, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

(That message in other languages: العربية • ‎bosanski • ‎català • ‎Deutsch • ‎Esperanto • ‎français • ‎עברית • ‎polski • ‎português • ‎português do Brasil • ‎русский • ‎اردو • ‎中文 – ‎translate that message)

Hello!

Like some other community members, you are using Flow.

An increasing number of communities now use Flow or are considering it. Although Flow itself is not scheduled for major development during 2016 fiscal year, the Collaboration Team remains interested in the project and in providing an improved system for structured discussions.

You can help us make decisions about the way forward in this area by sharing your thoughts about Flow — what works, doesn't work or should be improved?

Please fill out this survey (available in multiple languages), which is administered by a third-party service. It will not require an email or your username. See our privacy statement.

Thanks for your ideas and opinions about Flow!

Trizek (WMF), on behalf of the Collaboration team, 11:56, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Swpb, I saw your proposal at Wikidata:Property_proposal/Organization. Would it be an idea to stretch it to organizations, to make it even more generic? What would be a good title in that case?

I think it can apply to most formal organizations without a name change--the "corporate" in the term doesn't imply any particular legal structure. "Corporate officer" is a widely-used term with an agreed-upon meaning; I'm not sure there exists a more generic-sounding term that carries the same precision. I also want to make sure the property is limited to persons with specific, named, well-defined roles in an organization; we don't want to create a generic "employee" inverse of employer (P108) that will invite attempts to add all known members of an organization. Swpb (talk) 17:39, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I understand. It will be my backgroun in another language that corporate sounds as "business". Thank you!. I will create the property in a few minutes.