Talk:Q192581

Please see Wikidata:Occupations and professions task force -

A job is a paid occupation

• A job is an occupation (Q13516667) for which a salary is received
• A profession (Q28640) is a lifelong technical expertise that you exploit as part of your paid job activity (Q192581)

LaddΩ chat ;) 13:45, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

@Laddo An interest thing, this item shares same Chinese label names as occupation (Q12737077) (Why? Probably you can see Topic:Xaup1vum7pkyd9pw). Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:34, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

fusion with travail (Q268378)

this article seems to be the same of the travail (Q268378). No ?

Not sure who {{Unsigned}} this discussion. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:35, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Meaning

Thanks to Swpb trying to clean this up, but he has only considered the English description which was out of touch of the meaning e.g. in the languages of fr ('position sociale'), de and da. zh wiki even says The Chinese word "occupation" as a term sometimes refers to work (collective noun), and its concept is related to the era and socioeconomic level. Certain periods sometimes include elements of social status.

Nevertheless the item is IMHO still a conflation since vi and ko purport a different meaning.

--Washizu Iwao (talk) 07:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

@Swpb: I'm open for discussion, it is a little unprofessional of yours to revert without writing down any argument.--Washizu Iwao (talk) 15:22, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Before you mess with this item again, query how it is used, and translate some of the descriptions in various languages. You will see that both now mostly-consistently indicate a meaning of "job activity", not "position" or "occupation". If you want an item meaning the latter, there are position (Q4164871) and occupation (Q12737077) (EDIT: and profession (Q28640) and employment (Q656365) Swpb (talk) 15:47, 12 March 2024 (UTC)). I spend a lot of effort removing these erroneous meanings from job activity (Q192581) so that each item has a clear, consistent meaning. You are merely re-introducing the ambiguity that existed previously. Swpb (talk) 15:22, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

(Also: I did write down my argument, in my summary and again on your talk page before I knew you'd started a thread here.) Swpb (talk) 15:27, 12 March 2024 (UTC))

So what I'm getting from your comment is that there are still some labels/descriptions to be fixed, and possibly some Wikipedia articles that are linked to the wrong Q-item. Its my contention that of the two conflated meanings, "activity" and "position", a significant majority of statements, Wikidata links, labels, descriptions, and Wikipedia links point to the first meaning, both before I started my cleanup, and even more so now. Since that is the case, and there are already other Q-items that better fit the "position" or "occupation" meaning, the path of least effort by far is to continue to synchronize on the first meaning for this item. Swpb (talk) 15:32, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

This item seems to be a conflation. You can't say I spend a lot of effort removing these erroneous meanings from job activity (Q192581), because it is not at your discretion to set the meaning of your choice and declare the others to be erroneous. Please be so kind to first undo #temporary_batch_1709666797939 and refrain from edits manipulating the cause.--Washizu Iwao (talk) 15:35, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I did not in any way set the meaning "of my choice"!!! The item was carrying two incompatible meanings, and I determined, objectively, which one it was more consistent with (the answer was and is very clear), and I standardized on that meaning. That's how cleanup of conflated items is done!!! Why would you want to return the item to a conflated state?? Swpb (talk) 15:44, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

You shall not repurpose an item, especially not the meaning of a property – Q192581 is linked from position held (P39)!

In 2016 the meaning was IMHO undecided, but more in favor of 'work in general'.

Since February 2017 the meaning has clearly been 'role of a person in a society'. Moebus has chosen this item as meaning of position held (P39) by merging job activity (Q12046726).

Repurposing an item after 6 years is something I will not rubberstamp – please immediately stop trying to fix all the contradicting descriptions.

Kind regards--Washizu Iwao (talk) 15:53, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I determined, objectively, which one it was more consistent with (the answer was and is very clear)

This is multilingual project. How many foreign languages have you considered?

I would suggest to use (unmerged) job activity (Q16532276) for your meaning.--Washizu Iwao (talk) 15:59, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

You are simply refusing to listen. I did not "repurpose" anything!!! I took an item that was 90% consistent (across languages) with one meaning, and started fixing the inconsistent links and descriptions. This is not "my" meaning, as you like to keep saying, it has long been the meaning, with a small minority of statements/descriptions/links not concurring. So you found one statement, on position held (P39), that assumes this item to mean "position". So? We can remove that inconsistent statement! P39 already has several other, more accurate values for Wikidata item of this property (P1629). The meaning of this item was never "clearly...'role of a person in a society'": that was never its description in most languages. Its description in most languages has long been some translation of "activity done to earn money". I am considering all languages, and again, the majority of them agree, and have long agreed, that this item designates a kind of activity, not a kind of position. Likewise with the statements on the item, and the incoming Wikidata statement links to it. With how extensively the item is linked to, we cannot just leave it a conflated mess, because that leaves all sorts of nonsensical inferences. If you think there should be a permanent ambiguous Wikidata item (Q122754124) that intentionally conflates "activity" and "position", to serve as a link for some of the Wikipedia articles that do the same, we can surely create one, but it should not have incoming statement links that treat it as having a fixed meaning, like the thousands of links pointing to this item do. Swpb (talk) 16:14, 12 March 2024 (UTC)