III. Restructure Wikidata items
I read your comments on Wikidata:Requests for comment/Commons links#III. Restructure Wikidata items, and agree completely. JMK (talk) 16:07, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
I noticed you add occasionally the above property. I thought you might be interested in the similar Wikidata:Property_proposal/list_combines_topics. I find it would be an improvement over the existing properties and could help putting the lists to better use.
--- Jura 05:40, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment on Norsemen. Maybe you are interested in this instances-of-Q5-related RFC. 126.96.36.199 16:50, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Possible WikiProject for year discussion
I have inquired at Wikidata talk:WikiProject Calendar Dates#Expand to cover year items? to see if that project would like to be a more enduring place to discuss and document the year-related discussions currently going on at Wikidata:Project chat. Since you have participated, I wanted to invite you to the discussion. Perhaps we shouldn't advertise the WikiProject in Project chat until a consensus emerges about whether the WikiProject wants to take on years or not. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:02, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Mike Peel: I don't remember the details, sorry, Actually, I explained it at Talk:Q1410688. The problem I found is that a category like en:Category:Women isn't about adult female humans, but about female humans in general. It contains pages like en:Girl, and there's no category on enwiki for adult human females. The header at the top, "The main article for this category is Woman", is misleading. Ghouston (talk) 23:50, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
- If you still think it's an issue, then I suggest raising it at either at the project chat here, or the village pump on enwp, as appropriate. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:17, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
- It's normal practice on Wikidata to have separate items for a TV series, The Rising of the Shield Hero (Q61093402), and a list of episodes for the TV series, list of The Rising of the Shield Hero episodes (Q61602996). Ghouston (talk) 10:24, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
2020-02 processor tree
FYI: https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-todo/tree.html?q=Q1466064&rp=279&lang=en Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:07, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- Interesting. But Wikidata isn't a category system: there are other properties besides subclass that would affect the tree, e.g., part of the series (P179), developer (P178). I think generally, once something is recorded via some other property, it doesn't need to be in the subclass as well. Ghouston (talk) 21:43, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- Although perhaps part of the series (P179) doesn't work too well with microprocessors. The problem is that every series has subseries and each member of the subseries has variants, e.g., with different clock speeds. Using items like AMD microprocessor (Q12047069) still seems questionable to me. What does it really mean, brand, developer, manufacturer? All these can be recorded with individual properties. Ghouston (talk) 21:49, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- Maybe it would be useful to make a few lists with listeria: processors by brand, developer and manufacturer. Brand can also be difficult, since there could be multiple brands on a single device, e.g., "Intel" and "Pentium". And I'm not sure if listeria can display a class hierarchy. And AMD Ryzen 5 3600 (Q65584693) has two manufacturers, neither of which is AMD. Ghouston (talk) 22:12, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
The external identifiers you deprecated at Lawrence Kaplan (Q87065562) and added to Lawrence S. Kaplan (Q87065536) and Lawrence Kaplan (Q87065555) conflate both of these authors. Although they appear to have the correct names and dates of birth, the list of publications under each identifier includes works by both authors. We're currently discussing how to handle this kind of thing at Wikidata:Project_chat#Conflation_Of. Any suggestions about what does and doesn't work would be very helpful.--DrGavinR (talk) 07:41, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
- Aha, I wondered why they weren't on the new items. I'd say in this case, since the names and years of birth are clear on VIAF, I wouldn't worry about the errors in the publications. Ghouston (talk) 07:45, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
OCLC explicitly refers to the precise same scan as the WD item. Their information may contain errors, but the ID in their database is explicitly for the same object. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:01, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
- The item links to passagetoindiafors00fors, which is also the linked scan on Commons. The Open Library item links to passagetoindiasyed00fors, which seems to be an earlier printing because the name of the publisher is written differently and it doesn't have the renewal date. The Library of Congress entry also refers to this older printing, giving c1924, since it seems the publisher wasn't recording the printing date. Ghouston (talk) 23:48, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
I noticed your message on Wikidata chat page, which led me to look up your profile. Thank you for all the hard work!
I’m reaching out to you because I’m working on a research project about understanding what motivates editors like you to contribute to Wikidata. We’re also interested in learning about how you feel your contributions are being used outside of Wikidata. Since you are such an active community member, I thought you might also be interested in helping to build the broader community’s knowledge about Wikidata, and why it matters.
If you’re interested, let’s schedule a time to talk over Zoom, or whichever platform you prefer. You could leave a direct message or fill in a questionnaire. The conversation should take about 30 min.
Hope you have a great day,
My first thought was "no way" as a reaction to the lengthy and heated debate in 2016 over the distinction between localities and suburbs on the Australian noticeboard on English Wikipedia! But I think I understand your thinking now and it's quite a good idea. As I understand it, you are talking about modelling officially bounded and named gazetted localities as per the definitive PSMA dataset, and the current designation or classification in Wikidata, but still retaining "unofficial" suburbs, neighbourhoods, unbounded localities and town centres. I think this sort of thing is already done for Victoria, where gazetted locality of Victoria (Q45242174) is applied in these cases in addition to instance of locality/suburb/town, etc. and this would expand that concept to other states and territories. Also anything is better than human settlement (Q486972) on everything! --Canley (talk) 02:05, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
- It would make it possible for example to produce a table of population counts by these areas which collectively perhaps cover the entirety of each state or territory. There are also items like West Coast (Q97704227) where locality (Q3257686) doesn't seem appropriate, because it's not referring to a populated settlement, but to a largely uninhabited area. I'm not sure that there would need to be a separate suburb/locality item for each state and territory, since I think it's already possible to find the state/territory by following a chain of located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) values, but I suppose it could be convenient for some uses. Ghouston (talk) 02:16, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
- But given gazetted locality of Victoria (Q45242174) and Category:Localities in New South Wales (Q8600928), I suppose per-state/territory is the way to go. I'd name them like "suburb/locality of Tasmania" with description "gazetted geographic subdivision of Tasmania". Ghouston (talk) 04:18, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
We sent you an e-mail
Really sorry for the inconvenience. This is a gentle note to request that you check your email. We sent you a message titled "The Community Insights survey is coming!". If you have questions, email firstname.lastname@example.org.
You can see my explanation here.
When there is a "name" (given and family) item and other two items (given name, family name) I establish the relation between these as "part of / has part", simply because I have always seen like that. I use the "different from" only with relation to disam pages. Now I just saw that you used the "different from" formula between names. I'm a bit confused about this detail. Best. --E4024 (talk) 03:42, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- I just added "different from" to make it harder to merge the items. "part of / has part" is probably better in this case. I'm not really sure: is the given name really "part of" the name used as either a given name and surname? It probably doesn't matter much. Ghouston (talk) 03:47, 31 December 2020 (UTC)