(Is this Flow? Yucch.)
I object to your removal of the label I placed on this item. I'm willing to reword it if necessary. But I need some way to identify that an item like this is more or less identical to another, more core item, but that it is not really mergeable. So what would you suggest? StevenJ81 (talk) 18:31, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I should have started by thanking you for deleting my erroneously added item. So let me do that.
There is a property for: P460 (which is used on the item). Labels and descriptions aren't meant for that.
Is that sufficient for the average person? I've added a number of items like this in the last week. I don't want them to start getting deleted because someone decides they're the same as the P460 one. Maybe they won't—they point to different articles on ladwiki, after all. But it's not obvious to me that they won't, and I'm frankly more comfortable with a written notice there.
If there are 2 pages on ladwiki with the same label on Wikidata, they can't be merged. And deleting an item with a valid sitelink is not done.
There's another problem with all of this, though. When I created this item—and I've probably done 3 dozen in recent days, and have more to do yet—I've done so because ladwiki has two more-or-less identical articles, one in Latin script (lad:Astonomiya) and one in Hebrew script (:lad:אסטרונומיה). I'm not all the way through the alphabet quite yet, but the intention is for the Latin-script articles to be connected directly to their Wikidata items, and the Hebrew-script articles to get separate Wikidata items, identified through P460. Now, let's say that someone on some other wiki (Hawaiian, say, or Pennsylvania Dutch) creates a new article on astronomy, and is looking for the right Wikidata item to attach it to. In just about all cases it ought to be the first one (Q333 in this case), not the second one. If there is no difference in the label or description between the two, how is that person supposed to know? That person doesn't necessarily know that "P460 means it's a duplicate—use the other one". And if that person connects that new article to the wrong Wikidata item, s/he is going to be missing all the Wikidata links. There needs to be some way to inform him/her of that.
I didn't append those notices to labels or descriptions for my health, whether they are intended for that purpose or not. I was trying to communicate the point accurately. So if you have a better way to do that, let me know. Otherwise, let me continue.
Then it's better to point to the correct Q in the description as done with some properties that point to the correct P to use. Something like: This is the Hebrew language version of Q..... please add links to Q......
(1) Can you show me a particular example? (2) I was hoping to keep it slightly more general than "Hebrew-script" version (not Hebrew-language, by the way), because in at least one case I ran into another such situation. I don't recall which it was, offhand. But think of it as equivalent to if there were a Latin-script and Cyrillic-script version of the same article in the Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia. (That's a thought experiment; I don't know if they actually do that there.) And while I would want people to add the first article to Q..., if they are in a multi-script wiki it would be entirely appropriate for them to add the second article to Q[2].... So that's why I said "entry for alternate-script article in multiple-script languages". Maybe I can say "Equivalent to Q.... for alternate-script articles in multiple-script languages. Please do not add a link here unless your wiki already has an article listed at Q...." Is that better?
[Hebrew-script = Judeo-Spanish (Ladino) written in Hebrew alphabet characters. That's different from the Hebrew language itself.]
Property:P276 is an example where they point you to different Properties for different situations. And your alternative text is good. And sorry about the language/script mixup.
Thank you. I'm willing to go with that description. Still one other question, though. In the property cases you just showed me, each of the indicated properties (P276, P131, P706) has a different label. Here, you are suggesting that the two Q-items have the same (English-language) label. (I am giving them different Ladino labels, one Latin, one Hebrew, with the off one as an alias each time.) Now maybe that's not a problem, because in several of the cases there are other Q-items with the same (or same but a capital letter) name, pointing in entirely different directions. But I want to make sure on that.
There are no P's with the same label. I think they should handle Ladino the same way as English or Portuguese. (You have en, en-gb and en-ca + you have pt and pt-br), if they did something similar for ladino, all your troubles would be gone. (lad for latin script & lad-heb or something for Hebrew script) But since there aren't official iso codes as far as I know, they won't be really willing to do this, but it would solve a world of problem.
Sure. To be honest with you, while in general there are very good reasons not to want to vary 1:1 mappings between Wikidata and individual wikipedias, you can really argue that for a handful of wikis, allowing two articles (call them lad and lad-he) would be entirely appropriate. But we're not there, alas.
There aren't official ISO codes: by themselves, Latin-script and Hebrew-script are not really dialect variants, only script variants. Judeo-Spanish Wikipedia actually incorporates pages reflecting several (generally mutually intelligible) dialects; Judeo-Spanish is much like Yiddish in that regard. The original script is Hebrew, and most people who still speak this fluently still consider it more authentic. On the whole, Latin scripts are more common these days, and there are far more articles in my wiki in a Latin script than in Hebrew-script.
But there is also more than one Latin-alphabet transcription. There is a Latin-script variant that hews more closely to the related Spanish. There is one that hews more closely to Turkish, because many Sephardim landed there after the Spanish expulsion in 1492. There is one out of an institute in Israel that tries to standardize the transcription by mimicking the Spanish, but without certain Spanish idiocyncrasies (no ll or ñ, for example). There is one that tries to be more phonetic. Those four, plus Hebrew, all have home-pages on this wiki (lad:, and click through the tabs). (There are a handful of introduction pages in "Vikipedya" space that also have different variants, but only one page in mainspace that I've found [so far]; mostly, using "Latin-script" and "Hebrew-script" is sufficient for the mainspace.)
And just for yucks, even if I picked just one Latin script, it would be impossible to create a reliable 1:1 character mapping in order to use the tools available on, say, Kazakh Wikipedia to allow all pages to be shown in both scripts. So I guess I'm stuck where I am. (;-) <smile with yarmulke on head.
I still want to confirm, though: Qs with the same label in English are ok?
Qs with same label in English are ok. There are lots of them. Either they have no description or the description differs.
Looks OK to me. I noticed when using popups the part between brackets () doesn't show up and it does show up when using it in an item. Perfect solution.