20:18, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Supresión de propiedades
Hola Moebeus. Hace un tiempo que falla la presentación en la ficha de album (Infobox album) que importan los datos de WD. Ahora he visto que has añadido P361 con la secuencia de albums publicados, me parece muy correcto, pero al mismo tiempo has borrado follows (P155) y followed by (P156) de donde importan las plantillas de cawiki los datos. Pienso que la forma de actuar en WD es no suprimir nada que no sea extrictamente necesario porque comporta este tipo de problemas y por mucho que he buscado no he encotrado ninguna discusión en que se consensuara esta eliminación. Pueden convivir varias formas de guardar la información y todas ellas ser estructuralmente válidas.
Hi there! I hope it's okay to answer in English, my written Spanish is not that great.
I believe that follows / followed by without context is problematic, as some wikis go by studio albums and live albums in separate chronologies, others separate by what country the release comes from (e.g. "US discography" and "UK discography" both present in the infobox). Said another way: The chronology in Italian Wiki might be totally different from English Wiki and Polish wiki. The result is a mess in Wikidata and later a problem for any infoboxes that try to import conflicting data.
But I agree that different methods can co-exist and I see your point. If it helps I will stop deleting these statements going forward.
No hay ningún problema en que escribas en inglés, el español tampoco es mi idioma, normalmente hablo en catalán.
Sí, ya me imaginaba algo parecido y tienes toda la razón pero se necesita un tiempo para reconvertir/rehacer el código de las infoboxes para adaptar el cambio y importar los datos correctamente. En cawiki lo tendremos solucionado pronto. Gracias
Perfecte. Bon cap de setmana!
Moltes gràcies. Bon cap de setmana!
Hei Moebeus! Ja he adaptat el codi de la infotaual (infobox), pots veure una mostra de com queda aqui: ca:The Wall. Tusen takk!
¡guay! That happened way faster than I was expecting, very cool 🙏👏👌:-D
Now I'm extra happy I made this a while back: Q56753368 🤓🎶🎵
And it looks like that: ca:Banda Sonora d'Un Temps, d'Un País. Good job!
@Dennis Radaelli: is saying that "main entry is for the single, not for the song". From my experience I think it is inversely.
Every Wikipedia entry is dedicated to the single. Is there a particular rule about this?
No but practise is we connect interwiki with song instead of single. If you read lead at EN WP it says "is a song by", not "is a single by".
I understand what you mean. But technically why creating a single entry and a song entry since they are basically the same thing? OK: a single is always a song, and a song is not always a single, but I don't get this.
No. Look at Angels Ain't Listening (Q91933505). There is separate item for single, song, lyric video, promotional single, audio track and every release of single has own item.
I can't understand why we should do so many entries for a single element. Why can't we do a simple entry just like on Wikipedia?
Single, song, audio track and lyric video are different items, which would not be notable in Wikipedia as standalone articles (with a few exceptions).
The model is composition >< audio track/recording >< release
song and single are not at all the same thing, and the link in-between is a recording. While it can be "boring" to create extra items for a single with only one track, that doesn't mean we shouldn't do it.
The strength of the model starts to show when a recording is present on more than one release, like a single first, then as part of an album, and then a few compilations after that. And when more than artist record a song (cover versions).
Wikidata is not a one-to-one of Wikipedia, we have a level of granularity that would never work on Wikipedia.
@Dennis Radaelli: Wasn't it explained enough?
There are more then one option for the Hebrew name זאב in English so Q87768670 probebaly wrong. If I will add it to someone with the name זאב in Hebrew he might be Zeev in English. So it's make problems also in Commons.
that's the way names are modelled. If there is more than one English translation of the name you can simply add it to P2440, it's quite common and happens a lot with Greek and Russian too. Sometimes the English label will be set to something like "Zeev / Ze'ev" to indicate variant spellings exist
It is against the whole concept of Wikidata. It's like saying that the a person's is a male or female and also we open categories in Commons with Zeev / Ze'ev.
It is against the whole concept of Wikidata. It's like saying that the a person's gender is a male or female and also we open categories in Commons with "Zeev / Ze'ev".
What is it you're asking me to do exactly? I'm not sure I understand your problem correctly. A name in one script can have several translations in another script, that's just the way it is. A Hebrew, Russian, Arab, Greek, Chinese name can be translated in many different ways in Latin script, often differing wildly between German, English, French, Italian, etc. Sometimes several translations in the same language exists too. It's just the way it is? Not trying to be difficult here, but like I said: I don't think I understand what you're asking me.
Hey. Have you idea what to do in case of "Angels Ain't Listening"? Similar or same release? (PowerHouse under exclusive license to Roton Music - we would said it's PowerHouse release, not Roton Music) while (Roton) has only "Roton". There is also and which looks the same.
I think I would say it's record label = Roton Music, then add a statement copyright holder = PowerHouse with qualifier applies to part = Q64490964
Does that work for you?
I will add it as separate item and I got the other idea too. Do you know how to include information about platform where single is released like iTunes, Spotify or Beatport? There is property for distributed by (P750) iTunes is retailer I think.
"distributed by" is probably the best option, yes.
There is difference between retailer and distributor.
in this case iTunes would be both retailer and distributor, the way I see it?
I'm no expert on digital, so I don't really know any more than you do. Since iTunes master the songs specifically for their platform I would call them a distributor too, but I could be wrong