About this board

Logo of Wikidata

Welcome to Wikidata, Vojtěch Dostál!

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, don't hesitate to ask on Project chat. 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! --Tobias1984 (talk) 22:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Previous discussion was archived at User talk:Vojtěch Dostál/Archive 1 on 2022-06-21.

Summary by Vojtěch Dostál

Merged Q811534 with Q10065268. Remaining issue is if to use P1435 for trees - if case we find consensus on that, let me know.

VIGNERON (talkcontribs)

Hi,

I see that you imported a lot of trees from the Czech Republic. That a great work, thanks a lot ! we might take inspiration for importing trees from France.

Thad said, I have a couple of question: why use arbre remarquable (Q811534) in nature de l’élément (P31) and not arbre (Q10884) in nature de l’élément (P31) and distinction reçue (P166) or statut patrimonial (P1435) (like we do for protected buildings). Some data are a bit strange and contradictory, Q26779918 is not a tree but a group of trees, why not just leave bosquet (Q1510380)? Also the quantity in comprend des éléments de type (P2670) are strange, is there 2, 3 or 8 trees? (looking at the source it seems it's 3 trees with only 2 of them protected but it's unclear and my Czech is not good).

I'd love to hear what you think.

Cheers,

ŠJů (talkcontribs)

The DRÚSOP register has two columns: "poč vyhl." (počet vyhlášený, number of originally declared) and "poč. souč." (počet současný, current count). The importer did not use any qualifiers to distinguish the two numbers.

Vojtěch Dostál (talkcontribs)

Hi, it's been some time since the import happened and it's true that I would change some modelling nowadays.

At first glance, having P31 : strom (Q10884) or skupina stromů (Q1510380) sounds like a good idea but I am not sure where to put památný strom (Q811534). Protected tree is something like a nature reserve (a category of protected area) in the Czech Republic and we tend to use P31 for these protected area designations (see Prachovské skály (Q452242) for example). Therefore, we understand památný strom (Q811534) as a type of protection designation similar to national monument or national reserve, no matter how many trees are included. The strange data in zahrnuje (P2670) are a mistake by LinkedPipes ETL Bot and I'll try to look into it when time allows...

VIGNERON (talkcontribs)

Thank for the quick answer.

As I said, I would put arbre remarquable (Q811534) (or a more specific sublass?) in distinction reçue (P166) or statut patrimonial (P1435). For me, a label or a protection is the same, wether it's a Nobel prize, a protected building or a protected tree.

There is no hurry, we can take time to think about it. For more point of view, I'm also pinging Nikola Tulechki who worked on trees in Bulgaria, Nemo bis for Italia, Lodewicus de Honsvels in Germany and Pere prlpz in Catalonia.

Pere prlpz (talkcontribs)

Hello.

In my view, arbre singular (Q811534) means any notable tree, that is any tree that is covered individually by reputable sources. Some of them are included in official natural heritage catalogues or have some kind of legal protection, like arbre d'interès local (Q115867635). However, arbre singular (Q811534) is a value of instància de (P31), but arbre d'interès local (Q115867635) is a value of estatus patrimonial (P1435), as we do for buildings.

It would be possible to use arbre (Q10884) as instància de (P31) instead of using arbre singular (Q811534) and it would be fairly reasonable, but I see a couple of problems with that:

Of course, there is an inconsistency in Wikidata between how we treat trees, buildings and people, specially in instància de (P31). For buildings we take a quite concrete instància de (P31) (like church or cathedral), for people we stick to human and all individual characteristics go to other properties and for living beings we take the middle ground of animal individual (Q26401003) and arbre singular (Q811534). I suppose we could take a different and unified approach and try to reduce the number of values of instància de (P31) (or expand them) across Wikidata, but that would go far beyond trees.

Where I'm usually doubtful is about what to do with small sets of trees, but also small sets of anything else (two buildings, two people, two hills...). To make things more complex, as far as I know, such sets of a few trees are usually protected in Barcelona as arbre d'interès local (Q115867635) and not as the equivalent protection for groves ("arbreda d'interès local", still not present in Wikidata). Therefore, I tend to use for them the same properties as for a single tree, which doesn't feel like a very satisfactory solution - although I think I've encountered only a few of such cases.

Nemo bis (talkcontribs)

I've not looked into the import and I don't have a specific opinion to add. Where there is some doubt, I prefer a statement to be repeated in multiple properties: if Q811534 is stated both in P31 and P1435, then it will be easier for people to find what they need with an individual query even if they're not aware of the more specific classes or properties. What matters is only that it's possible for those who care to narrow down the results to more specific definitions (e.g. designations which use a specific official source as reference).

(Unrelatedly, P1435 has a horrible label in French and Italian, as "patrimonio" sounds like everything needs to be treated for its property/capital/money value. I despise it.)

Pere prlpz (talkcontribs)

A few informative queries about instància de (P31):

There are some thousands of arbre singular (Q811534) https://w.wiki/7gET but only a couple of arbre (Q10884) https://w.wiki/7gEW

By looking at the map of all items with coordinates and individu del tàxon (P10241) https://w.wiki/7gEb I would say that:

  • Somebody in Portugal, Estonia or some Austrian land may be interested in this discussion. I can't check now and notify.
  • There are a lot of legal status used as instància de (P31). That's different of what we do with buildings, AFAIK, where we put the status in estatus patrimonial (P1435).
Vojtěch Dostál (talkcontribs)
ŠJů (talkcontribs)

There is some inconsistency in labels (and aliases) of "Q811534". Some of them mean a specific type of protection (regardless of the number), some of them a general significance of any type, and in some languages ("es" and surroundings) just any "single tree".

VIGNERON (talkcontribs)

My current reasoning is as follow :

What do you think?

Cheers,

Pere prlpz (talkcontribs)

The wordings of labels of arbre singular (Q811534) are quite different but the ones I can understand convey a similar meaning "tree of interest", "tree of heritage value", "tree of cultural or natural significance", "notable tree"... I am missing labels that mean a specific type or protection or that imply legal protection?

Alias are more varied and sometimes have disparate meanings for the same language (for example, for Romanian I'd say they range from individual tree to protected tree). I take this just as a consequence of not having items for protected tree or monument tree and using a single item for the instances of all individual trees.

About the inconsistency between meanings "individual tree" and "notable tree":

  • By now, I would say that they are quite equivalent in Wikidata. If a tree has an item, it follows the rules in Wikidata:Notability and this means that it has been described as a reliable source. Therefore, all individual trees present in Wikidata are notable trees, just as all animal individual (Q26401003) are notable animals (Talk:Q26401003#Label is an interesting short debate about the same question for animals).
  • Notability threshold in Wikidata is pretty low. After seeing that somebody uploaded to Wikidata all streets of Brussels or Toulouse, all hotels in Barcelona or all houses in some neighbourhoods of Prague among other sets of non famous things, I wonder if somebody else will eventually create items for all individual trees int he streets of Paris or Sidney. If that happens we could need different items for "notable tree" and "individual tree", although at the moment I can't see that coming.
Pere prlpz (talkcontribs)

My previous answer was written at the same time as Vigneron's. This is an addition after reading his one.

I don't oppose creating different items for "famous/notable tree" and "individual tree", although I find difficult to tell apart one from the other. The only criteria I can think of is that "notable trees" have a proper name or legal protection as an individual tree or small group, and I'm not sure if this criteria is consistent even in my city.

VIGNERON (talkcontribs)

For me, and if you get rid of the notion remarkable tree than mean everying and nothing, the difference seems easy an obvious : all trees are indivudual trees, only the few ones with a specific protection or award are protected/awarded trees. Hence, we use P31 = tree (and just that) for all of them and for the others we complete with P166 or P1435.

Pere prlpz (talkcontribs)

You have a point that remarkable tree means everything and nothing.

My biggest doubt in using P31 = tree for all trees is what happens if at some point Wikidata is flooded with trees from an exhaustive register of trees of somewhere, because we would need some way tho tell apart the notable ones (the ones covered individually by some reliable source) from all trees. That situation seems unlikely for trees in the short term, but something similar happened in France with instal·lació esportiva (Q1076486) and since even the smallest private sports center has P31 of sports venue it would be very hard to make a list of notable sports venues in France (libraries in Spain are in a similar situation).

Using legal protection and awards may be useful, but there are notable trees (covered by reputable sources) that don't have legal protection. For example, https://patrimonicultural.diba.cat/element/roure-sam or the trees marked (with a proper name) in Mapa Topogràfic de Catalunya (Q63431924), both of which are official reputable sources but aren't legal protections nor heritage classifications.

Maybe I'm overthinking this and I'm preparing for a too unlikely risk.

VIGNERON (talkcontribs)

I hear your concerns (and yes, sport venues/facilities are a mess in France, with a lot of duplicates) and you're right, it may happens with trees *but* there is still WD:N to solve that, and I don't think that "instance of tree" instead "instance of remarkable tree" will really impact this.

Pere prlpz (talkcontribs)
Vojtěch Dostál (talkcontribs)

Both items have sitelinks to Czech Wikipedia so we can use those articles as hints. památný strom (Q811534) is for trees protected by state, while významný strom (Q10065268) is for just about any remarkable tree. This distinction was introduced to Czech Wikipedia by @Xth-Floor and he might be interested in this discussion. I am afraid that the other sitelinks in those two items do not correspond to 'our' definition and it may need some reshuffling, but let's see.

Pere prlpz (talkcontribs)

The sitelinks of arbre singular (Q811534) seem to be mixing both meanings, sometimes in the same article. You have a point that we could use an item for "tree" and another for "protected tree", although that's quite different of what we do for buildings.

Pere prlpz (talkcontribs)
Pere prlpz (talkcontribs)

I notify @Gikü and @GoEThe in case they may be interested in this discussion.

GoEThe (talkcontribs)

Thank you for pinging me. I will certainly follow this discussion and I can try to apply the consensus to the Árvore de Interesse Público (Q52062847) instances I imported, but I do not have strong feelings about what the "proper" way is. I would certainly like them to be in better alignment with other protected trees in Wikidata, to make them more findable, so any tips in this regard are welcome.

Quelet (talkcontribs)

I am currently working in importing all trees in my hometown in OpenStreetMap. That makes some sense, because this allows to detect fallen, sick or missing trees to my local community. But just a few trees are notable, i.e., have a name. In my opinion, only those having a name/being notalbe in some sense, should have the right to be in WD. A similar analysis for streets shows a key difference: streets have a name, importing them in WD may allow to carry out analysis of names, length, etc - even though you might do it as well from OSM data - if OSM streets were well labeled with proper keys.

Vojtěch Dostál (talkcontribs)

Hello @VIGNERON @Pere prlpz @Nemo bis Can we try to wrap up this discussion and identify the key action points, before this discussion is archived?

VIGNERON (talkcontribs)

I agree but I'm not sure what conclusion can be drawn (and since I started the discussion, it's maybe better if someone else close it).

Nemo bis (talkcontribs)

I've not re-read everything but I can't identify any action points here except that it would be nice to document how some of these properties and classes have been used so far. Is there an appropriate project page?

Pere prlpz (talkcontribs)

I can try to make a summary, but I'm afraid it will be a summary about how we disagree, because we didn't agree on much despite the very interesting talk.

In light or our disagreements, any global action we could take or any global recommendation will either leave a lot of redundancy or go against the opinions and practices of some participants, and therefore I can't see a good conclusion that more or less pleases everyone:

VIGNERON (talkcontribs)
Vojtěch Dostál (talkcontribs)

Thanks @Pere prlpz! After reading the conversation again, I think I will merge významný strom (Q10065268) to památný strom (Q811534) and make it clear in Czech label and description that památný strom (Q811534) is not *only* about trees protected by law, as they now suggest. The official item for Czech law-protected trees will then be památný strom v Česku (Q21296252). We can keep památný strom (Q811534) in the instances while památný strom v Česku (Q21296252) should go to památkový status (P1435) if we agree to use this property.

@Adam Hauner @Xth-Floor FYI

Adam Hauner (talkcontribs)

@Vojtěch Dostál, thank you for letting me know about this. I'm not sure, if památkový status (P1435) is appropriate: protection of "památný strom v Česku (Q21296252)" is primary protection of part of nature/natural enviroment, only some of such protected trees are also protected for cultural heritage or historical significance. Could you find better suited property from area of the nature protection?

U. M. Owen (talkcontribs)

Hi Vojtěch,

do you have a list with all items of your recent societies from NKC import?

I would like to add weblinks.

Vojtěch Dostál (talkcontribs)
U. M. Owen (talkcontribs)

Hi Vojtěch,

I'm sorry and never downloaded the link. Google is usually blocking my browser.

May you please recreate it?

Vojtěch Dostál (talkcontribs)
Trilotat (talkcontribs)

Can you provide series ordinal to the authors and author strings? Thank you.

Můžete autorům poskytnout seriály a autorské řetězce? Děkuji. (via Google Translate)

Vojtěch Dostál (talkcontribs)

Hello Trilotat, I am afraid that I am not able to do that, it would be really difficult for me. But it is a good suggestion, it would be very helpful indeed to have those there. I'll try to think about it in future imports.

Gduffner (talkcontribs)

Hi,

I've seen your addition of the NKČR ID for Q1624214. Do you happen to know if the authority record is identifying the institution “WU Library” or the building “WU Library & Learning Center”? If the former, we’ll have to request a deduplication at VIAF, if the latter, however, the NKČR ID and the corresponding VIAF ID should go into Q108823236.

Thank you!

Vojtěch Dostál (talkcontribs)
Gduffner (talkcontribs)

Hi, that solution is fine for me :-)

U. M. Owen (talkcontribs)
Vojtěch Dostál (talkcontribs)

Unfortunately the LC entry is not linked from the NKC entry as far as I see...

U. M. Owen (talkcontribs)

Hi Vojtěch,

is there a specific reason why the 2nd batch was excluded at the first time?

Vojtěch Dostál (talkcontribs)

It's just a Batch 2 of the "NKC authorities to be used as authors in Czech National Bibliography". The 1st batch was a testing subset of a few dozen items, uploaded a few hours before the 2nd batch.

U. M. Owen (talkcontribs)
Vojtěch Dostál (talkcontribs)

Yes, there will be about 500 VIAF ID duplicates. In about half the cases I checked, it's actually two people incorrectly put together in the VIAF cluster. In the other half, it is legitimate duplication which will need to be merged.

U. M. Owen (talkcontribs)

když se kácí les, létají třísky ;)

Emu (talkcontribs)
Vojtěch Dostál (talkcontribs)

Indeed, there was a mistake by a MixnMatch user. Fixed thanks!

Emu (talkcontribs)
Vojtěch Dostál (talkcontribs)

Yes, fixed, and tagging @Jindřich Rubeš: who seems to be behind these edits :-)

Jindřich Rubeš (talkcontribs)

Thanks for the tag @Vojtěch Dostál. I went through my edits again and found one more bad one. I apologize for the inconvenience.

TDKIV English labels and aliases

3
Epìdosis (talkcontribs)

Hi! Today I had a look at some of the very interesting concept-items containing identificativo TDKIV (P5398); I have noticed that unfortunately, although the entries seem to always contain an English label (and sometimes aliases), more than 1k items have no English label but only the Czech one; entering in the entries I copied the English labels and I managed to merge some duplicates (terminological dictionary (Q20524647), dictionary catalog (Q62681903), administrative metadata (Q66555539), dizionario bio-bibliografico (Q79244545); and could you check quickly art print (Q12018421), which leaves me some doubts?) - but I think I could easily discover. Would it be easy for you extracting from TDKIV all the missing labels? Thanks very much as always!

Vojtěch Dostál (talkcontribs)

Q12018421 merge seems allright. As for the English labels, give me some time, I'll be back with a response :).

Vojtěch Dostál (talkcontribs)

I tried to import some English labels from TDKIV but I stopped short. Not all of them are very precise translations and I don't want to import junk, so I'm gonna revert my 100 edits I've done so far. If you want, here's the data for QuickStatements, but they will have to be checked line by line.

RiniX (talkcontribs)

Ahoj, mohl by ses prosím podívat na Q12022253 a Q94852612? První je římskokatolický duchovní, druhý zpěvák a skladatel, oba dva jsou však ze stejné doby a na csWiki je pak zmíněno, že daný duchovní je znám i jako zpěvák. Existuje dvoje id na VIAF, ale jsou v rámci možností propojeny. Hádám, že to budou doopravdy duplicity. S tímto tématem se však setkávám maximálně při úpravách autoritních dat na Wiki, tak raději píšu znalejšímu. Děkuji

Vojtěch Dostál (talkcontribs)

Vypadá to skutečně jako duplicita, sedí i místo narození (Roermond) s přízviskem druhého. Na 99% to myslím bude jeden člověk, slučuji.

ŠJů (talkcontribs)

Zdravím ještě jednou. Jen aby se zase někdo nedivil - položku pošta (Q35054) jsi použil v tvrzeních u českých pošt bez ohledu na to, jestli pobočka (úřadovna) má samostatnou budovu, nebo sídlí ve víceúčelové budově. Předpokládám, že účelem této položky není rozlišovat pošty, které mají vlastní budovu, od provozoven (poboček), které zabírají pouze část budovy. Za směrodatný považuji anglický popis položky, který zní "customer service facility of a postal system" a nijak použití neomezuje na samostatně užívané budovy. V tomto smyslu jsem tedy upravil i český popis a doplnil tvrzení o nadtřídě (podle českého štítku se zdá být asi o něco vhodnější nadtřída provozovna (Q12047291) než kancelář (Q182060), ale položka provozovna (Q12047291) nemá jiný štítek než český, takže pro nečechy je poněkud jalová. V českém kontextu nám podle štítku může sedět i nadtřída pobočka (Q1410110), byť už navozuje dojem spíše organizační jednotky nežli samotných prostor. Ovšem všechny ty třídy a štítky mohou mít v každém jazyce a každé zemi trochu jiný kontext a vyznění. Tvrzení část (čeho) (P361) u položky pošta (Q35054) taky není úplně šťastné - poštovní úřadovna ve smyslu budovy či místnosti není ani tolik "částí" poštovní společnosti, jako spíš jejím působištěm, ale to je asi celkový problém Wikidat, že se ty vlastnosti a tvrzení používají dosti nesystematicky a nepřesně - to by chtělo spíš časem nějakou plošnou revizi.

Podobně problematické je, pokud se v tvrzeních instance (čeho) (P31) paralelně uvádí nějaká třída a zároveň její nadtřída, například podávací pošta (Q118143740) a současně pošta (Q35054). Měl jsi k tomu v tomto případě nějaký speciální důvod? Diskutovalo se to předem někde Mezi bajty? Chtěl jsi tím vyjádřit, že být "podávací poštou" je zpravidla pouze jednou z funkcí poštovní pobočky, protože velká část pošt je zároveň i poštou doručovací, jejichž seznam však asi není odkud importovat, protože není zveřejněn? Tedy že tvrzení o "podávací poště" vyjadřuje vlastně pouze jednu z funkcí dané pošty?

Vojtěch Dostál (talkcontribs)

V "poštách" je na Wikidatech trochu bordel v instancích a nadtřídách a nechtěl jsem se pouštět do složité diskuze, jak vlastně Q35054 definovat (zejména mezinárodní pochopení toho konceptu se může dost lišit).

Co se týče instancí, ničemu tam myslím dvě různé hodnoty nevadí, do doby, než se ty nadtřídy a instance vyjasní.

díky za zpětnou vazbu