User talk:Fralambert

Jump to: navigation, search

About this board

Edit description

Previous discussion was archived at User talk:Fralambert/Archive 1 on 2015-08-11.

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
Joakimsd (talkcontribs)

Hi,

Can you please explain why you removed subClassOf GeographicObject for Landmark?

Thanks

Joakim

Fralambert (talkcontribs)

Because human-geographic territorial entity (Q15642541) is also a subclass of geographical object (Q618123)?

Reply to "Landmark"
Summary by Fralambert

Répondu

Jura1 (talkcontribs)

Bonjour,

Quel est l'objectif poursuivi avec la fermeture de la discussion à Topic:Toottv557mzwp0td ?

Fralambert (talkcontribs)

Je n'ai en rien fermer la discussion, seulement ajouté un résumé étant donné du changement de sujet dans la discussion, qui est passé à « comment supprimer un élément sur Wikidata » à « comment démêler les MH de Toulouses ».

J'aurais plus aussi changer le titre du sujet aussi, mais je pensait que c'était plus délicat.

Summary by Fralambert

Propriété créée

YanikB (talkcontribs)

Bonjour, ne crois-tu pas qu'on devrait avoir un qualificatif pour la propriété mouth of the watercourse (P403) pour indiquer si la confluence est de rive gauche ou droite ?

Fralambert (talkcontribs)

@YanikB C'est une bonne idée. À moins qu'il y ait une propriété déjà existante, l'idéal serait que tu fasse ta propre demande de création de propriété (Wikidata:Property proposal/Place).

YanikB (talkcontribs)

Bonjour, je vois que tu as modifié la description de right bank (Q27834918) par « côté droit de la rive d'un cours d'eau à partir de l'amont » qui est pléonastique en regard de la définition de la rive. Merci quand même pour ceux qui ne connaissent pas cette définition. ;)

Fralambert (talkcontribs)

Je ne suis pas sur que c'est pléonastique et je ne suis pas certain que les Québécois, qui ont plutôt tendance à donner un point cardinal à la rive, connaissent le point de vue qui est généralement reconnu.

YanikB (talkcontribs)

Effectivement au Québec on utilise souvent le point cardinal, cela découle probablement des appellations Rive-Nord de Montréal et Rive-Sud de Montréal.

Reply to "Rive droite"
Multichill (talkcontribs)

country (P17) is usually a bit ambiguous for works of art. Is the work from that country? Is it in that country now? I generally prefer country of origin (P495). If you want to be even more precise you could also add location (P276) and location of final assembly (P1071). See for example Wikidata:WikiProject sum of all paintings/Creator/Vincent van Gogh for a painter for which this is mostly complete.

Fralambert (talkcontribs)

@Multichill I added it because it's in the constraint of heritage status (P1435). Maybe it's not a good idea for object and we should create a new property like we done with intangible cultural heritage status (P3259)? Maybe not, they often use the same statuses like in France.

Also maybe a best Idea is that we create a complexe contraint that make enable the P17/P131 for place and building and the P495/P276 for object or work of art?

Multichill (talkcontribs)

Right, that explains it! I would just see how it goes. If we add country and the more specific properties, having country (P17) on it doesn't hurt. I played around with SPARQL a bit, but setting up the constraint seems to be a bit harder. A lot of things (cementries, statues, etc) are subclassed to work of art, so the query will return all of them. See for example:

Most of them are from France so you might want to start with Palissy ID (P481):

Big pile of work.....

Fralambert (talkcontribs)

@Multichill for Palissy ID (P481), I could ask Wikidata:WikiProject France/Monuments historiques for help, they are kind of fast.

Probably the best idea wil be to disable the P131 constraint in P1435.

And two ideas for complex contraint:

  • P1435 + P17 and not P495 --> P131
  • P1435 + P495 --> P276

Just a question: what country we should ad for work of art made in a colony? The colonial empire or the colony itself? I was no label (Q18573944) who give me the idea.

Multichill (talkcontribs)

Not sure if disabling is the right path to go down. I like adding things to help people to make it better. Let's just take baby steps.

As for the colony. Former countries and the like are a pain. No clear answer for that.

BTW. You don't have to ping me on a flow board, flow will notify me anyway when you reply.

Fralambert (talkcontribs)

The idea was more to move the constraints of P131 in the complex constraints, not to make it disapear. But, you are right, we shoud take baby step. So I will inform Wikidata:WikiProject France/Monuments historiques first.

Escuse me for the ping, it's kind of a habit.

Reply to "Country and works of art"
Thierry Caro (talkcontribs)

Bonjour. Si tu as le temps aujourd'hui, je suis preneur de Wikidata:Property proposal/It's Rugby ID et Wikidata:Property proposal/PeakFinder ID. Celui qui d'habitude crée les propriétés que je propose est apparemment en vacances !

Fralambert (talkcontribs)

@Thierry Caro Je part travaillé dans quelques minutes, mais dès que je revient ce soir, je m'y mettrai.

Thierry Caro (talkcontribs)

Merci bien.

Jura1 (talkcontribs)

Bonjour Fralambert,

serait-ce possible de créer Wikidata:Property proposal/nighttime view ?

Je peux me charger de la partie du documentation une fois la propriété créée.

Jura1 (talkcontribs)

Et puis Wikidata:Property_proposal/film_script? ça serait sympa.

Reply to "Propriété"

Q338112 (recreation area)

3
Summary by Fralambert

J'avais fusionner deux éléments proches, mais différent, je les ai séparé avant qu'un robot les fusionnent pour de bon.

Holger1959 (talkcontribs)

Hello Fralambert, i think you mixed different objects there: types of formally protected areas vs leisure areas (like beaches, parks in a city etc). Are you working on correcting all the different links to the item(s), or may i try to revert/fix this, before a bot changes all links to exactly this item?

Fralambert (talkcontribs)

@Holger1959 Thanks, it was because the French interwiki was in the bad place first i mixed the two.

Holger1959 (talkcontribs)

thank you for quick reaction! seems perfect now.

Summary by Fralambert

En gros il est mieux de séparer les éléments «rivière» et «vallée».

El Caro (talkcontribs)

Bonjour,

Est-ce que tu as des exemples pour assurer que sur wikidata on doit avoir deux éléments : rivière et vallée (ou bassin versant ?). Je n'en ai pas vu.

Concrètement, si on part du principe qu'il faut deux éléments, devrait-être pourrait-on lancer un bot pour créer l'autre élément quand il n'y en a qu'un ?

Dans les deux cas, je pense qu'il y aura des propriétés à créer, comme "est situé dans le bassin versant de" (si on ne crée pas les bassins versants), "s'écoule dans" "est le bassin versant de" (si on crée les deux éléments).

Fralambert (talkcontribs)

J'ai pas trop d'exemple en tête, à part peut être Matapédia Valley (Q3554041) et Matapédia River (Q3433741), bon, mais ça c'est un truc qui existe déjà. Pour un bassin versant, normalement c'est la superficie à partir de l'embouchure d'une rivière, c'est une information qu'on peut facile mettre sur l'article d'une rivière. Pour ce qui est de la vallée, ça peut être beaucoup plus compliqué, un cours d'eau peut même en traverser plusieurs, comme dans le cas du Fraser River (Q269710), qui traverse la Robson Valley (Q14874753), le Fraser Canyon (Q2936921) et la Fraser Valley (Q3554074).

El Caro (talkcontribs)

OK merci, donc il vaut mieux sans doute que je crée des éléments sur les vallées en général.

Summary by Dereckson

Entangle the sewerage items.

SJK (talkcontribs)

Hi, what was the meaning of this change? I am not sure what the difference is between sewer (Q156849) (previous value) and Sewer (Q1425971) (what you changed it to). Could you explain the reason? Thanks.

Fralambert (talkcontribs)

hum, I think there is a problem in the interwiki of sewer (Q156849). Like in French, the definition is probably nearer of Piping (Q3679502). They aslo seem to ave other language with the same problem.

SJK (talkcontribs)

I think, in English, "sewer" means anything for draning dirty water – most commonly an underground pipe, but it could also be an above-ground channel. What is difference between 'canalisation' and 'égout' in French? I think French 'canalisation' is not specific to sewer, but could mean any kind of pipe? ("canalisation" in English means to take a natural waterway and turn it into a canal, but I take it the French meaning is a bit different?) In English, a pipe is only a "sewer" if it drains dirty water (either storm water, which is only a bit dirty, or water from toilets, which is very dirty). Do you have any idea how to fix the issue with these two items?

Fralambert (talkcontribs)

ok, I think I have made the interwiki clearer. First Dereckson created Sewer (Q28147802), who was a disambiguation page. I aslo created no label (Q28147803) becose portuguese have a specific article about surface water sewage. I moved most of the article about sewage to sewer (Q1425971). So I think it should be fine. I also corrected the link to Commons.

SJK (talkcontribs)

Thanks. Should no label (Q156849) have the English label "pipeline" then? And the British English description/label should move to sewer (Q1425971)? I also think the Interlingua, Esperanto and probably Danish labels belong on sewer (Q1425971) not no label (Q156849), since they all seem to be derivatives of the Latin word cloaca, which better describes sewer (Q1425971) than no label (Q156849). Do you agree?

Dereckson (talkcontribs)

Storm drain (Q1139766) could be the same than storm sewer (Q28147803) by the way, per this TERMIUM Plus entry.

SJK (talkcontribs)

Dereckson, I agree with you, I think storm sewer (Q28147803) is really about the same thing as Storm drain (Q1139766). The reason they can't be merged is that pt:Bueiro links to Storm drain (Q1139766), but I think that is wrong, since I believe the Portugese word bueiro actually means manhole (Q532998). The Portugese Wikipedia articles pt:Bueiro and pt:Poço de visita appear to be duplicates of each other which should be merged.