Talk:Q35499
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Autodescription — Old Church Slavonic (Q35499)
description: medieval Slavic literary language, without ISO codes, preceding Church Slavonic (Q33251, cu, chu)
- Useful links:
- View it! – Images depicting the item on Commons
- Report on constraint conformation of “Old Church Slavonic” claims and statements. Constraints report for items data
For help about classification, see Wikidata:Classification.
- Parent classes (classes of items which contain this one item)
- Subclasses (classes which contain special kinds of items of this class)
- ⟨
Old Church Slavonic⟩ on wikidata tree visualisation (external tool)(depth=1) - Generic queries for classes
- See also
- This documentation is generated using
{{Item documentation}}.
ISO Code[edit]
@Infovarius: the ISO 639-2 code (P219) and ISO 639-3 code (P220) values conflict with Church Slavonic (Q33251). They should be unique. If you undo the edit please fix this conflict. Such a given code should resolve to one and only one wikidata item.
- Yes, this is a (little) problem - these codes are shared for both languages as these languages are also quite linked (one is the descent of the other I suppose). --Infovarius (talk) 20:25, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
- Well, in terms of ISO language codes, "Old Church Slavonic" is just an historical sub-variety of "Church Slavonic", and as such doesn't have a code of its own – just as "Early Modern English" doesn't have a code separate from "English", "Early New High German" doesn't have one separate from "German", and "Medieval Latin" doesn't have a code separate from "Latin". The usual solution is to not mark those properties on the subvarieties, if there are no values specific to them. I don't really see why Old Church Slavonic should be treated differently in this respect. Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk) 09:59, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
- "Early Modern English" may not have a separate code, but "Middle English" (being historical sub-variaty of English too) has. --Infovarius (talk) 20:55, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- Well, the question isn't "why does or doesn't this subvariety have a code of its own" (because that's not for us to decide). The question is "what do we do when it hasn't one?". The point I was making is: we don't include a code if there is no code. Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk) 21:07, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- But why do you say there is no code? https://iso639-3.sil.org/code/chu lists both (and other varieties/synonyms), so the code fits both. --Infovarius (talk) 04:00, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
- I removed all references to ISO codes cu&chu from this "Old Church Slavonic" Q35499, leaving them at "Church Slavonic" Q33251 only. Taylor 49 (talk) 18:55, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
- But why do you say there is no code? https://iso639-3.sil.org/code/chu lists both (and other varieties/synonyms), so the code fits both. --Infovarius (talk) 04:00, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
- Well, the question isn't "why does or doesn't this subvariety have a code of its own" (because that's not for us to decide). The question is "what do we do when it hasn't one?". The point I was making is: we don't include a code if there is no code. Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk) 21:07, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- "Early Modern English" may not have a separate code, but "Middle English" (being historical sub-variaty of English too) has. --Infovarius (talk) 20:55, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- Well, in terms of ISO language codes, "Old Church Slavonic" is just an historical sub-variety of "Church Slavonic", and as such doesn't have a code of its own – just as "Early Modern English" doesn't have a code separate from "English", "Early New High German" doesn't have one separate from "German", and "Medieval Latin" doesn't have a code separate from "Latin". The usual solution is to not mark those properties on the subvarieties, if there are no values specific to them. I don't really see why Old Church Slavonic should be treated differently in this respect. Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk) 09:59, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Reverts[edit]
User:Infovarius: sorry, I'm not getting what you're doing here. About the properties you just reintroduced:
- What is "number of speakers: 0 (start time: 10. century)" supposed to mean? That OCS had 0 speakers in the 10th century? That sounds absurd. We have no sourced information about the supposed speaker population of this language at all, so why would we want to add a property for it?
- The "main template" entry, from what I understand, is for items such as infoboxes and navboxes, i.e. things that contain substantial centralized information about a topic. What purpose has it to add a mere symbol icon?
- Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk) 19:12, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- 1) I remove "start time" because I couldn't approve it. Do you think we needn't the value (just to indicate current status)?
- 2) I don't insist on the templates, but I don't know any rule about restricting value to infoboxes and navboxes only. Kind regards, --Infovarius (talk) 20:25, 29 September 2021 (UTC)