Hi! I (accidentally) saw you create Q110456810 for use by Q6256938, but it seems like it's a translation (and duplicate) of Q16849727? Is the new item a different occupation? — HELLKNOWZ ∣ TALK ∣ enWiki 14:37, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Topic on User talk:Salgo60
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Thanks for asking. Could be but I think its important that we have the same naming as in the source.... see https://portrattarkiv.se/details/sj9PGLAlnmUAAAAAABfRCg
- in general occupations is a mess....
- in this case I feel its very historical incorrect swedish naming to call a person "verksamhetskonsult " when active 1950....
- we had this merging problem for "botanist" vs. "botaniker" see Talk:Q46058221 .... then it was Google Translate that said its the same.... when I asked the national archives they said they didnt know ;-)
The basic problem I feel is that we in Wikidata has no common goal/vision if the source is the most important or if "Google translate" should decide if its same as
Sounds good and thanks for the detailed clarification! I was just concerned if it's a mistake or not. Do what you think is best, since I don't know anything about the subject, this occupation, nor do I speak Swedish. :)
Hi as said this is complex.... and I guess neither you and me are domain specialists.... I have looked into how occupations are handled by the archives in Sweden and its even worse see GITHUB in Swedish https://github.com/salgo60/HISCOKoder
My wild guess ....
- before professionals has problem organize occupations so they are consistent between sources we will get even more mess in WIkidata as we import from everywhere
- maybe we should use Lexeme
- maybe use SKOS exact match (P2888) / broader concept (P4900) .....
- try to use external classifications for historical occupations as HISCO
My opinion
until we have a strategy add whats in the source and dont merge