User talk:ChristianKl

Jump to: navigation, search

About this board

Logo of Wikidata

Welcome to Wikidata, ChristianKl!

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.
  • Contents – The main help page for editing and using the site.
  • Project chat – Discussions about the project.
  • Tools – A collection of user-developed JavaScript tools to allow for easier completion of some tasks.

If you have any questions, please ask me on my talk page. 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! Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 11:46, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Previous discussion was archived at User talk:ChristianKl/Archive 1 on 2016-08-31.

By clicking "Add topic", you agree to our Terms of Use and agree to irrevocably release your text under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and GFDL
Thierry Caro (talkcontribs)

Hello again! Wikidata:Property proposal/Soccerdonna ID and Wikidata:Property proposal/LFB ID are ready and I'm ready to deal with them. Would you mind having a look at them?

Thierry Caro (talkcontribs)

Hello again. Those above have been created. But now I'm ready for Wikidata:Property proposal/Tennessee Sports Hall of Fame ID. May you have a look, possibly?

Thierry Caro (talkcontribs)

Thank you very much. Wikidata:Property proposal/TheSports.org ID, Wikidata:Property proposal/Alberta Sports Hall of Fame and Museum ID, Wikidata:Property proposal/BC Sports Hall of Fame ID, Wikidata:Property proposal/Canada's Sports Hall of Fame ID and Wikidata:Property proposal/International Paralympic Committee ID are the next ones ready. would you be OK to create one, two or possibly all of them?

Thierry Caro (talkcontribs)

Thank you. I have Wikidata:Property proposal/Ontario Sports Hall of Fame ID waiting. Would you mind having a look at this too?

Reply to "Sports properties again"
Роман Беккер (talkcontribs)

Hello, dear Christian!

A week after the proposals Wikidata:Property proposal/BrainInfo ID (hierarchical) and Wikidata:Property proposal/BrainInfo ID has gone, and there are at least 1-2 votes to support the creation, with none opposing.

May I ask for the creation of those properties?

ChristianKl (talkcontribs)

I created them. I hope you make good use of them. It would also be great to have your input on the encephalon (Q75865) talk page.

Роман Беккер (talkcontribs)

Thanks a lot :)

Regarding the encephalon, I will come to the talk page, but not right now: need several days to check all the lang versions I can understand, check dictionaries, google translate etc, and then to come with reasonable arguments :)

ChristianKl (talkcontribs)

There's no need to rush. Take you time :) I'm looking from hearing from you.

Reply to "NeuroNames ID"

Interwiki link "de:Betriebswirtschaftslehre"

9
Jneubert (talkcontribs)

Hallo Christian, ich wollte meinen Dank für deinen Hinweis mit einem Link auf die angezettelte Diskussion verbinden. Nun ist der Eintrag schon archiviert - deshalb auf diesem Wege. Über eine Beteiligung von dir vor allem in Bezug auf die "Verlinkungsmechanik" würde ich mich sehr freuen. Jneubert (talk) 09:07, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

ChristianKl (talkcontribs)

Ich hab kein Domainwissen um einen neuen Artikel zu erstellen. Eine Möglichkeit das Problem zu lösen wäre Redirect Seiten zu erstellen.

Jneubert (talkcontribs)

Hmm - von wo nach wo redirecten meinst du?

ChristianKl (talkcontribs)

Einen neuen Artikel für "Business administration" in deutsch erstellen, der ein Redirekt auf Betriebswirtschaftslehre ist und der in dem entsprechenden Wikidata Objekt verlinkt ist.

Jneubert (talkcontribs)

Vielen Dank! Den Eintrag https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Administration gibt es tatsächlich auch schon. Ich wusste nur nicht, dass es legal wäre, ihn in Wikidata einzutragen. Von WD aus ist das also lösbar. Bleibt noch die Frage, wie ich von der deutschen WP-Seite aus Hinweise auf die anderen beiden einschlägigen Wikidata-Items (mit den daran hängenden WP-Seiten) erstellen könnte.

ChristianKl (talkcontribs)

"Legal" ist so eine Sache. Momentan kann man den Link nicht direkt eintragen. Es ist jedoch möglich den Redirect kurz zu unterbrechen, dann das Wikidata Object verlinken und dann den Redirect wieder herstellen. Es gibt ein RfC dafür das grundsätzlich ohne Umweg zu erlauben ( Wikidata:Requests for comment/Allow the creation of links to redirects in Wikidata ).

Jneubert (talkcontribs)

Danke für den Hinweis auf die Bonnie&Clyde-Diskussion. Sie trifft ein Problem, mit dem ich mich schon oft rumgeschlagen habe, das ich aber längst nicht so schön auf den Punkt bringen konnte. Nach kurzem Reinlesen war meine erste spontane Idee: Vielleicht bräuchten wir einen mapping_relation qualifier für Sitelinks. Das wollte ich schon als „just joking …“ hinschreiben, aber inzwischen denke ich, dass es vielleicht tatsächlich das Problem konzeptionell lösen könnte: Es würde, von WD aus gesehen, die einzelnen Wikipedias als jeweils „just another knowledge organization system“ sehen und behandeln. Die Leute dort haben mitunter seltsame Ideen, was ein Konzept ausmacht. Daran ist nun mal nichts zu ändern, und jede/r hat in seiner Welt erstmal recht. Die Mappings zwischen den Konzepten könnten das berücksichtigen, indem sie eben nicht nur exakte Gleichheit unterstellen, sondern weitere (SKOS-)Relationen unterstützen:

  • die Items für Bonnie und Clyde könnten jeweils per broadMatch auf Bonnie&Clyde verweisen, wo es sie nicht einzeln gibt. In die Gegenrichtung würde Bonnie&Clyde per narrowMatch auf Bonnie und auf Clyde verweisen, und vielleicht per weiteren (abgeleiteten) closeMatches auf Bonnie&Clyde in anderen Sprachen (da leider aus A < B und B > C nicht A = C folgt) (das unterstellt jetzt eine Situation, wo es in WD Bonnie und Clyde nur einzeln gibt)
  • der Archäologe könnte durch relatedMatch mit der Archäologie vernknüpft werden
  • Business adminstration/economics/studies könnten auf die entsprechenden englischen Pages per exactMatch verweisen, und auf die deutsche Betriebswirtschaftslehre jeweils als closeMatch. Umgekehrt hätte die BWL-Seite für die englische Wikipedia drei Links, und für alle anderen Sprachen, die mit den drei Items verknüpft sind, mindestens einen.

Das User Interface stellt das vor ernstliche Herausforderungen, und was es für die innere Verlinkungsmechanik bedeutet, überblicke ich überhaupt nicht. Aber die Beziehungen zu erweitern scheint mir sauberer, als auf etwas zu verweisen, was anders denkende Menschen innerhalb ihrer Logik zum bloßen Synonym eines Begriffs erklärt haben.

Es würde mich sehr interessieren, was du von diesen Überlegungen hältst.

ChristianKl (talkcontribs)

Das System Sitelinks speziel zu behandeln hat Vorteile und Nachteile. Es komplett umzustoßen würde zu mehr Aufwand führen, als einfach Redirekts zu erlauben und sie eventuell sichtbar zu kennzeichnen.

Der RfC sieht momentan so aus, als ob er bald erfolgreich geschloßen wird :)

Jneubert (talkcontribs)

Danke für das Feedback - dass an den Sitelinks sehr viel dran hängt, und wahrscheinlich noch dazu an vielen verschieden Stellen mit entsprechend vielen Stakeholdern, kann ich sofort nachvollziehen. Trotzdem ist der Gedanke, dass es vielleicht auch ganz anders gehen könnte, verlockend ... Danke auch für die Property Creation, und schöne Grüße, Joachim

Reply to "Interwiki link "de:Betriebswirtschaftslehre""

Isn't there a problem with cyclical subclassing?

7
Роман Беккер (talkcontribs)

Hi.

You just have added a claim that encephalon (Q75865) is a subclass of {{Q|1073}} (brain). But the entity brain (Q1073) already contains a claim that it, itself, is a subclass of encephalon (Q75865). Isn't such a recursive cyclical subclassing a problem in database consistency?

ChristianKl (talkcontribs)

When trying to figure out the difference between the terms I looked at the French Wiki. The French Wiki says that brain (Q1073) is for Bilateria (Q5173) while encephalon (Q75865) is for Chordata (Q10915). Given that all members of Chordata are also members of the Bilateria that means that encephalon is the subclass of brain and not the other way around. Thus I removed the existing subclass claim. I know added found in taxon (P703) to make it more clear.

It might very well be that currently other languages currently make different distinctions. Mappings like this are quite messy when they evolved without well-defined terms. We also have human brain (Q492038) for the human brain.

Of course this might require chaning the mapping on other pages. Cases like this require a bit of untangling.

Роман Беккер (talkcontribs)

Yyes there is a problem in Russian, hehehe - and that also was why I was asking is that right... :)

The Russian description tells us that the "encephalon" is "мозг". In Russian, the "мозг" may have several meanings, unlike the very well defined meaning of the term "encephalon". In one meaning, it means the "brain" (ie, that part inside the skull or head) plus the "spinal cord" together, ie, it equals "central nervous system". In another meaning it can mean a central ganglion of any bilateria, not only chordates, including an ant or a bee, so I can say "мозг муравья" and be right. In the third, narrower, meaning it can be used as a synonym of the part inside the skull/head, so it is only chordates... and does not include the spinal cord, so it's essentially the same as "brain" in chordates...

Then when we come to "brain", the Russian description says it's "головной мозг". Again, this term in Russian can be two-meaning - some insist on using it only for chordates, ie, only for those who have a skull (bone or cartilaginous, no matter) and a well-developed brain. For lower bilateria, they insist on using central ganglion - "центральный нервный узел". Some others can still use "головной мозг" for all the bilateria, like ant or bee, just in the manner in which others use "мозг" without "головной".

See how much a pain in the butt there is with terms in Russian? :) And I don't really know how to correctly solve this dilemma, will think. I think your subclassing is right, it's russian definitions that need to be corrected, but how - I have to think a lot :) ~~~~

ChristianKl (talkcontribs)

I know that this kind of anatomical puzzles can be heard when different languages try to do different things. As a general rule it helps to create multiple items for the different conceptualizations, then explain the meaning of every item with has part (P527) and found in taxon (P703).

Afterwards there the task for finding good labels and description for them (it's good when tasks have an English description because English is the common language). Then there's the couragous task of matching the Wikipedia articles to the proper items. That can be controversial as it can mean that the item doesn't have interwiki links anymore.

Applied ontology certainly isn't boring ;)

ChristianKl (talkcontribs)

It seems that there are some other opinions about what encephalon is about, we'll see ;)

Роман Беккер (talkcontribs)

I saw ;)

And I was somehow thinking that such an un-consensus situation is quite predictable with such a wide and many-meaning term :)

The encephalon/brain distinction in different languages is not just quite different, but in some languages & some contexts, like I told you about the situation in Russian language, is essentially absent, so in some contexts terms can be used interchangeably. In still other contexts, the distinction is 180 degrees opposite to the distinction in English or French, in the sense in which term we are supposed to include not just the cephalic part but also the spinal cord - in "мозг" (currently in Wikidata equated to encephalon) it is included, in "головной мозг" (currently equated to brain) it isn't... :) What a pain :)

This is not like the distinction between dorsal thalamus ("thalamus proper") and ventral thalamus ("subthalamus" or "prethalamus"), which is very clear from both anatomical (dorsal/ventral) and histological (zona limitans intrathalamica is the border) standpoints :)

ChristianKl (talkcontribs)

A while ago I went through the items for arm. We now have:

arm (excluding hand) (Q43471), free upper limb (Q24517852), upper arm (Q379859) and upper limb (Q841423)

The English word "arm" can mean all three. To solve issues like this it's valuable to create multiple item and add "has part" to each one.

Reply to "Isn't there a problem with cyclical subclassing?"
Jura1 (talkcontribs)

Hi ChristianKl

How was the point about the stability of values at in the property creation discussion resolved?

I see no trace and your closing comment didn't address it: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Property_proposal/LinkedIn_Company_ID

ChristianKl (talkcontribs)

I'm sorry that I didn't directly address it. I don't consider perfect stability to be a necessary property and 5/1 support is still enough to create a property.

Jura1 (talkcontribs)

It's a point raised in the discussion so it needs to be either explained or left un-created.

For external identifiers, the outcome from the conversion discussions is that identifiers should be stable.

You can't assess the consensus until issues such as these are addressed. You shouldn't close discussion if you actually intend to cast a possibly controversial vote. Please refrain so from doing in the future.

ChristianKl (talkcontribs)

The fact that a single person disagrees alone doesn't make a decision controversial. If you think the there's a possibility that a decision against having the property can be found, go ahead and create a request for deletion.

Jura1 (talkcontribs)

It's a premature closure ..

Reply to "P4264"
ArthurPSmith (talkcontribs)

Hi Christian - I notice you created P4350 (salinity) and closed with a Ping - but it didn't quite work: https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata%3AProperty_proposal%2Fsalinity&type=revision&diff=575828880&oldid=575471102 - you put 7 user names in the Ping template, but it only takes 6 at most, so Pigsonthewing would not have been notified. Also you missed Yair rand, Vojtěch Dostál and Scoid d who commented on the proposal. I try to make sure everybody involved gets pinged when I close a proposal, so if there's more than 6 it requires 2 (ore more) Ping templates.

ChristianKl (talkcontribs)

Okay, thanks.

your removal of FMA code for the archicortex

10
Роман Беккер (talkcontribs)

Can I see the reason for that?

Check:

http://www.ontobee.org/ontology/UBERON?iri=http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/UBERON_0002961 - there's archicortex is listed as having FMA code 62424

and when you open the A14.1.09.302 archicortex in Terminologia Anatomica 98 on-line:

http://www.unifr.ch/ifaa/Public/EntryPage/TA98%20Tree/Entity%20TA98%20EN/14.1.09.302%20Entity%20TA98%20EN.htm

you also can see that the archicortex A14.1.09.302 is strictly equivalent with the FMA entity having code 62424

So why?

Роман Беккер (talkcontribs)

ah, sorry, understood, you have removed a duplicate item

ChristianKl (talkcontribs)

Archicortex used to have in our database two FMA numbers assigned 62424 and 74038. 74038 is for Hippocampal formation (Q5768408) and I moved the number to the correct item. We also had two different items for the Hippocampal formation and I merged the two.

Роман Беккер (talkcontribs)

Thanks a lot for making the things clear to me.

By the way, I'd like to have available a property to add NeuroNames ID (BrainInfo ID from http://braininfo.rprc.washington.edu/SearchByName.aspx), and if possible, there should be ability to add several identifiers, say in hier mode and in normal mode. But there is no such property available. How could I create a proposal for it? And do you think that it would receive the needed support from the community?

Роман Беккер (talkcontribs)

And maybe SNOMED ID would also be very useful, especially because it is quite long a number, a unique one, and anyone can just google the number, not even knowing anything about SNOMED database or about how to search in it, and in less than a second he/she will receive as a first page in Google - an anatomical description of the given structure from SNOMED.

ChristianKl (talkcontribs)

I see no reason why such a property wouldn't find support in our community. You can create a new proposal for the property at Wikidata:Property proposal/Natural science . After you created the base proposal I can look it over if there's anything missing.

I'm not actually sure what you mean with hier mode and normal mode. If you tell me more I might have a better idea about how to solve that issue.

Роман Беккер (talkcontribs)

I've made a proposal for that:

Wikidata:Property proposal/Natural science#.D0.9C.D0.B5.D0.B4.D0.B8.D1.86.D0.B8.D0.BD.D0.B0

And, regarding the issue with "hier mode" and "normal mode"... see, there in the BrainInfo database are several different IDs for every brain structure, and those IDs are not numerically the same - those are different numbers, describing one and the same brain entity. And when you "search by name" on the BrainInfo site, it uses so-called Plain or Normal mode, and gives you one value for the NeuroNames ID it returns. And you can then format a URL like: http://braininfo.rprc.washington.edu/centraldirectory.aspx?ID=$1 (for Thalamus, use 300) and get the correct info. The same works for BrainInfo IDs or URLs copied from UBERON entity of the same brain structure.

But when you copy the BrainInfo number from the same brain entity you found on NeuroLex wiki, and try to use this ID in an URL formed like that, you get totally wrong info about an absolutely different, often even unrelated, brain structure, or get a 404 "not found". Why? Because NeuroLex stores in its wiki not "normal" BrainInfo IDs, but "hierarchical mode" ones. And if you form an URL for plain mode with this number, you get wrong. But, if you use an URL looking like: http://braininfo.rprc.washington.edu/Scripts/hiercentraldirectory.aspx?ID=$2 (for Thalamus, use 283), which redirects to http://braininfo.rprc.washington.edu/centraldirectory.aspx?type=h&ID=283 (note type=h in the final URL) - it works.

And the Wikipedia infoboxes mostly use the hierarchical, or sometimes ancillary ( with URLs like http://braininfo.rprc.washington.edu/Scripts/ancilcentraldirectory.aspx?ID=2336 ) mode to form BrainInfo URLs, and they use relevant "hierarchical" or "ancillary" number IDs, not plain ones.

ChristianKl (talkcontribs)

Is there a description of the different ID's somewhere on the Braininfo website? Maybe we should have one property called "BrainInfo standard ID" and one "BrainInfo hierarchical ID"? Is NeuroNames an entirely different ID? If so it might make sense to also create a proposal for it.

When it comes to proposals I can't create properties directly that I proposed myself, so everything works likely faster when you write proposals. Like this it needs 7 days and at least one support vote.

Роман Беккер (talkcontribs)

I didn't see any description of the different IDs anywhere on the BrainInfo website. More than that, I couldn't find out how to find on the site the "hierarchical" BrainInfo ID for a given structure, neither by its name, nor by its "standard", plain ID. The only way to find a "hierarchical" ID for me seems to copy it from NeuroLex or from en-wiki Infobox brain parameter BrainInfo ID when the BrainInfoType is set to "hier".

Moreover, even if you search for a given "hierarchical" or "ancillary" ID with an URL with "type=h" or "type=a", the BrainInfo, returning the correct database entry, shows you the plain, "normal" ID at the end of the text, and no other IDs. Seems to me like the "hierarchical" and "ancillary" modes were the old modes for the BrainInfo, and they moved to use a single plain ID and to show only it.

I think we can create two such properties, one for standard IDs and one for hierarchical ones, yes.

Another my thought was to still have one property but with qualifiers "hierarchical", "standard", "ancillary", and there we could store numerical values together with an attribute - mode of their use to form URL.

NeuroNames is the same as BrainInfo, it's a synonym.

Роман Беккер (talkcontribs)

Made the two proposals, one for normal plain BrainInfo ID, the other for hierarchical BrainInfo ID.

Reply to "your removal of FMA code for the archicortex"
Thierry Caro (talkcontribs)

Hello! There will be a few more sports property proposals in the coming weeks. Wikidata:Property proposal/LNV ID is the first one ready. Would you mind having a look there? That would be very helpful.

Thierry Caro (talkcontribs)

I also have Wikidata:Property proposal/KNAU ID ready now.

Thierry Caro (talkcontribs)

And also Wikidata:Property proposal/SwimSwam ID and Wikidata:Property proposal/FCI ID now.

Thierry Caro (talkcontribs)

And also Wikidata:Property proposal/VBL Spieler-ID if possible.

Thierry Caro (talkcontribs)

Wikidata:Property proposal/Wheelchair ITF ID can also be considered now.

Thierry Caro (talkcontribs)

And also Wikidata:Property proposal/THW Kiel ID, Wikidata:Property proposal/LFH ID, Wikidata:Property proposal/Legavolley.it ID or Wikidata:Property proposal/Footoféminin.fr now.

Thierry Caro (talkcontribs)

Plus Wikidata:Property proposal/FFVoile ID, if possible.

Thierry Caro (talkcontribs)

Also ready are Wikidata:Property proposal/Legavolleyfemminile.it ID and Wikidata:Property proposal/NPB ID.

Thierry Caro (talkcontribs)

And Wikidata:Property proposal/Scottish Sports Hall of Fame ID is also ready now. May you have a look?

Thierry Caro (talkcontribs)

OK. Thank you. They've all be created! There will be more ready soon but we can close this now.

Thierry Caro (talkcontribs)

Hello. It's me again! Wikidata:Property proposal/National Forest Foundation ID is now ready TO BE CREATED. Would you mind reviewing this?

Thierry Caro (talkcontribs)

Thank you. Next one ready is Wikidata:Property proposal/National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum ID. Would you mind having a look?

Blackcat (talkcontribs)

I'll have a look :) -- ~~~~

Thierry Caro (talkcontribs)

Hello again! And thank you for the effort. Now Wikidata:Property proposal/eParks ID is ready. Can you also have a look to this one?

Thierry Caro (talkcontribs)

Hi there! Wikidata:Property proposal/Tentative List ID could be the next one. Would you mind taking care of it?

Thierry Caro (talkcontribs)

Thank you. I now have Wikidata:Property proposal/America's Byways ID ready to be treated. Can you see this too?

Thierry Caro (talkcontribs)

Many thanks. I also have Wikidata:Property proposal/Instagram ID ready. Would you mind dealing with it?

Thierry Caro (talkcontribs)

Hi. Thank you for the previous one. Next one ready is Wikidata:Property proposal/National Natural Landmarks ID. I'm OK to work on this. May you have a look at it?

Thierry Caro (talkcontribs)

Bonjour ! Wikidata:Property proposal/Alljudo ID and [[Wikidata:Property proposal/LNH ID are ready. Would you mind having a look at them?

Thierry Caro (talkcontribs)

And also Wikidata:Property proposal/Rivers.gov, possibly.

Thierry Caro (talkcontribs)

Hello. May we get Wikidata:Property proposal/Pro A ID? It is ready for creation and I am ready to deal with it.

Thierry Caro (talkcontribs)

Thank you for everything.

Mdupont (talkcontribs)

https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q1503302&oldid=prev&diff=516082486 you want to talk about this

ChristianKl (talkcontribs)

Geometry and geography and two different subjects. There's no reason to merge them.

Reply to "geo"