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.

Hello! The entities Q1030197 and Q5611339 are differents, they should not be merged. The best regards

Explain how you think they are different. The statements are identical.

A question. Do you know Russian or Ukrainian?

No, that's why I asked you how they are different. Your edits today to Q1030197 seem to provide that explanation, to my satisfaction.

What's the reason of this action?

S.y.

Accident.

Hi! I believe that transposition (Q2666112) is about mathematical concept of transposition as a permutation (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_permutation#Transpositions), not about general concept of swapping or something like this, so https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q22279528&diff=888080943&oldid=856849113, https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q2666112&diff=888112053&oldid=888111708 and a couple of your other edits are wrong. In particular, "reversal" and "инверсия" has a strong hint about inverse permutation that is a concept completely different from transposition. Can you take a look?

There is a need for an item about, as you put it, the "general concept of swapping", beyond mathematics. If transposition (Q2666112) isn't appropriate for this role, then a new item, transposition (Q78082099) should work. However, the statements on the two items are identical, so I question whether the distinction is splitting hairs.

Hello, I am undoing your change from 11/12/19: https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q174834&type=revision&diff=1051352130&oldid=1047325198

Reason: It causes existing businesses to become "creative work". For example, see this chain:

National Film Board of Canada (Q1530721)

P31 Canadian federal department or agency (Q27865755)

P279 government agency (Q327333)

P279 organ (Q895526)

P279 authority (Q174834)

P279 rights (Q780687)

P279 accord (Q321839)

P279 agreement (Q2006324)

P279 document (Q49848)

P279 written work (Q47461344)

P279 creative work (Q17537576)

The (biggest) problem in that chain is organ (Q895526) subclass of (P279) authority (Q174834), I've removed that incorrect statement. It's also not universally true that agreement (Q2006324) subclass of (P279) document (Q49848), and I've added a qualifier there to clarify. It's also not universally true that written work (Q47461344) subclass of (P279) creative work (Q17537576), given that the latter is currently defined as an artistic work, and not all written works are artistic (or at least, not all documents; my shopping receipt is not a work of art). I've put another qualifier there, and maybe creative work (Q17537576) should be renamed "artistic work".

When these erroneous statements are dealt with, the (accurate) statementauthority (Q174834) subclass of (P279) rights (Q780687) can be re-added without creating problems. The point is, when there is a chain of statements that leads to a logical absurdity, you can't assume that the most recent link in the chain is to blame; you have to look at all the links.

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]