Up and Go
Joined 22 August 2017
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Amadalvarez in topic Genealogy in relative (P1038)
Genealogy in relative (P1038) edit
I see that you have completed the genealogy of Íñigo Méndez de Vigo Montojo (Q291887) very exhaustively. Do you think it is correct to reach levels beyond two direct generations (parents, grandparents, uncles, first-degree cousins)? What are the limits in your opinion? If we need to build a family tree, we should do chaining levels, not containing the whole tree within the item of the person.
Thanks for your anwer, Amadalvarez (talk) 16:36, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Amadalvarez: The limit is the ability of the language to describe a relation? For instance, parents don't go in relative (P1038) but in and mother (P25) and father (P22). Apparently, there may be also some objection to grandpas (although not to the inverse relation: grandchildren). The link between political power and family relations is a thing to see in Spanish politics. In any case, sorry for the Godwin but it is not unheard of: Adolf Hitler (Q352)--Up and Go (talk) 18:14, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
- In my opinion it should not store those level that you can get by relationship with previous one. Uncle are brother/sister of father/mother and grandpas, the same rule. However, it sound reasonable to have this second layer. But, to me, relatives as grandaunt (Q11972456), great-great-great-grandparent (Q20827882), fourth cousin (Q61386388) are unnecessary. The fact that somebody did an exaggerated work with Hitler, doesn't justify we repeat the mistake. Regarding the long familiar links of spanish power is an interesting work. Would you try to make an "oligarquia map" ?, not only with families, but also with members of boards of IBEX-35 people, for instance ?.Amadalvarez (talk) 18:55, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Amadalvarez: Grandpas are apparently disawoved through constraints if you look at it (unlike the rest). I think it is a recent constraint and I am not sure it's here to stay. This guy has a relatively renowned parentela. I frankly don't see much problem here. In fact, I'd say most of the linked relatives of this guy are actually notable out for themselves; I mean, not many current day politicians are going to be normally that "beefed up" in terms of relatives (holders of nobiliary titles and early 20th century politicians are another thing, though). In any case, emberdá, I think there is a problem when alleged limits about data here come from users worried about the wikipedias, when the exploitation of data from wikidata suitable to their needs it's something they have to arrange for themselves there rather than here. In the case of infoboxes: through filters (here that may be somewhat tricky, I concede), collapsed content (I supposed it is very easy to implement in this case), a simple "opt-out" call at a certain parameter (also easy to implement), et. al. If you may, up to this point, until further notice, I'd say pass on ad-hoc rules of proximity not present in the property talk page (particularly if the problem is that it doesn't look nice in some wikipedia infobox, as I imagine there are other approachs to deal with that "problem" locally). Regarding IBEX-35, I suppose the most natural way to store it could be through member of (P463) of an instance of (P31) board of directors (Q188628). That's some work (creating items for the Board of Directors of each big company, and I am still not sure of the best way to link those items to the items of the companies). Aside from pure genealogy sources (which are fine), there are several scholar studies dealing with the relations of the elites in Spain, at least back to Manuel Tuñón de Lara (Q3179473). this recent study looks interesting in that regard. It may be "enfermizo", but I like when a "web relation" between Miguel Bosé, Isabel Pantoja and Miguel Primo de Rivera can be established. Here in this rather developed cluster, you can see that "big nodes" of relationships such as Frederick I of Prussia (Q151826) are not uncommon. Regards.--Up and Go (talk) 20:38, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
- Very interesting examples of the kind of things that I hope WD can help us. I was not really worried for the effects of the information on the infoboxes, but to avoid redundancy within WD. I'm interested in build info structures that allow us to draw complex maps of relationships that are not obvious with our ordinary knowledge, but extra redundancy sometimes produce "bad friends" results. I do not think that this is the case, but we have to be alert. Although it does not seem to you, we have more common goals than differences. Thanks. Keep in touch. Amadalvarez (talk) 21:59, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Amadalvarez: Grandpas are apparently disawoved through constraints if you look at it (unlike the rest). I think it is a recent constraint and I am not sure it's here to stay. This guy has a relatively renowned parentela. I frankly don't see much problem here. In fact, I'd say most of the linked relatives of this guy are actually notable out for themselves; I mean, not many current day politicians are going to be normally that "beefed up" in terms of relatives (holders of nobiliary titles and early 20th century politicians are another thing, though). In any case, emberdá, I think there is a problem when alleged limits about data here come from users worried about the wikipedias, when the exploitation of data from wikidata suitable to their needs it's something they have to arrange for themselves there rather than here. In the case of infoboxes: through filters (here that may be somewhat tricky, I concede), collapsed content (I supposed it is very easy to implement in this case), a simple "opt-out" call at a certain parameter (also easy to implement), et. al. If you may, up to this point, until further notice, I'd say pass on ad-hoc rules of proximity not present in the property talk page (particularly if the problem is that it doesn't look nice in some wikipedia infobox, as I imagine there are other approachs to deal with that "problem" locally). Regarding IBEX-35, I suppose the most natural way to store it could be through member of (P463) of an instance of (P31) board of directors (Q188628). That's some work (creating items for the Board of Directors of each big company, and I am still not sure of the best way to link those items to the items of the companies). Aside from pure genealogy sources (which are fine), there are several scholar studies dealing with the relations of the elites in Spain, at least back to Manuel Tuñón de Lara (Q3179473). this recent study looks interesting in that regard. It may be "enfermizo", but I like when a "web relation" between Miguel Bosé, Isabel Pantoja and Miguel Primo de Rivera can be established. Here in this rather developed cluster, you can see that "big nodes" of relationships such as Frederick I of Prussia (Q151826) are not uncommon. Regards.--Up and Go (talk) 20:38, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
- In my opinion it should not store those level that you can get by relationship with previous one. Uncle are brother/sister of father/mother and grandpas, the same rule. However, it sound reasonable to have this second layer. But, to me, relatives as grandaunt (Q11972456), great-great-great-grandparent (Q20827882), fourth cousin (Q61386388) are unnecessary. The fact that somebody did an exaggerated work with Hitler, doesn't justify we repeat the mistake. Regarding the long familiar links of spanish power is an interesting work. Would you try to make an "oligarquia map" ?, not only with families, but also with members of boards of IBEX-35 people, for instance ?.Amadalvarez (talk) 18:55, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
- Hola. Recuerdas esta conversación ?. No sé si conoces esta herramienta, pero creo que te gustarà. Salut ! Amadalvarez (talk) 04:57, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Diferencia edit
Hola, ¿qué diferencia hay entre China–European Union relations (Q3076911) y China–European Union relations (Q94771129)? Porque la etiqueta en inglés es la misma. --Davidpar (talk) 10:38, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Davidpar: China–European Union relations (Q94771129) se creó en Wikidata porque algún editor había transformado un artículo de Wikipedia en inglés originalmente sobre las relaciones entre la UE y la República Popular China en un popurrí trífido que incluía las relaciones entre la UE, la China Popular y la República de China (Taiwán), en mi opinión con no demasiado tino. Así, se creó dicho item para enlazar el artículo de la Wikipedia en inglés con esa determinada naturaleza de "remix" de dos chinas dando cuenta del cambio. Posteriormente se alcanzó un consenso para retornar la naturaleza temática del artículo de la Wikipedia en inglés a una que trate sobre relaciones UE-RPC, desgajándose un nuevo artículo sobre las relaciones informales UE-RDC (Taiwán) bajo el marco de la llamada One China Policy adoptada por todos los estados miembros de la UE. Una vez hechos los cambios respecto al artículo de la Wikipedia en inglés China–European Union relations (Q94771129) ha perdido cierta utilidad (¿ignoro si procede fusionarlo? pues, la elección del target de fusión... ¿volvería a ser un tema espinoso?). Tampoco creo que haga mucho daño más allá de que efectivamente el nombre induce a confusión. No sé si me he conseguido explicar. Si no lo he hecho, puedes seguir el proceso en la página de discusión de la Wikipedia en inglés. Un saludo.--Up and Go (talk) 11:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
- Ok, entiendo, gracias --Davidpar (talk) 12:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC)