Hi. Could you leave it, please? We really need it in our wikipedia, and it's not wrong. Please?
Topic on User talk:MisterSynergy
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Hey IKhitron, that was not clear to me. What’s the purpose of this claim? Generally different from (P1889) is meant to be used on items which are often confused. I don’t see any potential to confuse something here, but I might me wrong…
Do you maybe look for another property instead? Thanks for your comment, and regards!
Hi. The problem is that we have a tracking category for the articles that need to be added a gender field in wikidata. We try to keep it empty. So it should not include articles that have no need in gender. The code I wrote checks this property for this purpose, and excludes the article. There are about five articles where I added this property. Please?
Wojtek (Q1055802) and American Idol (Q201052) are the only others.
different from (P1889) was not made to serve that purpose, that’s why it is not surprising that your claims are being removed. Could you implement a different approach in which your template/module checks whether P31:Q5 is there, and if not, then exclude it from the required gender tracking category? This would be much more robust in the long run…
The problem is it should work nevertheless there is already p31:q5. Almost always it isn't. Does it disturb to somebody?
And it's also Russian Military Police (Q2895987), Murder of Avi Sasportas and Ilan Saadon (Q11120414), Murder of Oleg Shaichat (Q4166672).
In some sense: yes it does, that’s why I’m suggesting to improve the claims. different from (P1889) is a symmetric property, which means is should be used on both items of the pair to differentiate them. It would be impossible to add all these claims to human (Q5) just because of internal reasons. (Btw. the other listed items do not have P1889:Q5 set right now.)
Humans should be tagged by P31:Q5 anyway. There are methods to do this, e.g. by comparing human-only categories with Wikidata with the Petscan-Tool. It is then easy to batch-process all items which still lack P31:Q5 with Petscan as well, and then you can start to look for P21 as well.
Would you mind showing me the template/module code at hewiki? I already found the tracking category, but I did not find the code in question.
I know about other methods, but we think categories is much better, for the work and psychologically.
NB: Of course, phab:T60954 is ways better. But it's still open.
Yep, very annoying. We still have to purge or nulledit pages and/or categories to see the actual categorization. I’d not expect to have this solved in the near future, but I’d be happy if they changed it.
I talked about about a boolean query {#isincategory:categoryname|pagename}.
Okay, it is almost fully hebrew and used in many templates and pages. I am not going to touch it :-)
I understand the desire to have tracking categories to maintain associated Wikidata items. But I am still not convinced that this is the only way you can achieve that. This tracking category has three subcategories:
- not connected to Wikidata (empty right now)
- P21 missing for humans (56 elements)
- and P21 “missing”, but not actually a person (13 elements)
You can easily add another tracking category such as “P31 missing” in cases where there is no P31 at all in the connected Wikidata item. If P31 is there, you can decide whether to put it to the human category (if P31:Q5) or to the other one (P31:not Q5). Right?
Yap. But I don't want to decide. I want the code decide it automatically. And I REALLY don't want to create a whitelist as a huge #switch.
The code should and can decide without a switch. Flowchart in pseudo code:
if (article is connected to Wikidata) {
--> if (Wikidata item has any P31 claim) {
--> --> if (Wikidata item has P31:Q5) {
--> --> --> if (Wikidata item does not have P21) {
--> --> --> --> add to category:"human needs P21 at Wikidata" (56 elements at the moment)
--> --> --> } else {
--> --> --> --> do nothing, since no action is required
--> --> --> }
--> -->} else {
--> --> --> do nothing, since no action is required, or add to category:“no P21 at Wikidata, but nothing to do” (the 13 elements category)
--> -->}
--> } else{
--> --> add to category:"Wikidata item does not have any P31 claim" (does not exist right now)
--> }
} else {
--> add to category:"article without Wikidata item" (empty right now)
}
What do you mean in "do nothing, since no action is required, or add to category:“no P21 at Wikidata, but nothing to do” (the 13 elements category)"?
https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A7%D7%98%D7%92%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%94:%D7%A7%D7%91%D7%95%D7%A6%D7%95%D7%AA_%D7%97%D7%A1%D7%A8%D7%99_%D7%9E%D7%92%D7%93%D7%A8_%D7%91%D7%95%D7%95%D7%99%D7%A7%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%AA%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%9D (sorry, don’t know how to properly use an internal link here)
All elements of that category don’t need a P21 claim, but the category does not do anything else than to say that there is no P21 (if I understand correctly). Thus, an editor can do nothing to fix this “problem” and the categorization can be omitted.
(All assuming I get the scope of this category correctly using Google Translate.)
Sorry. I still do not understand you at all. How does the code recognizes, for something without P21 and P31, if it is a person that needs P31 or not a person at all? There are no other diffences, just that one you want me to remove.
The proposed category:"Wikidata item does not have any P31 claim" does not care about whether it is an article about a human or not. Almost all items at Wikidata need a P31, so if there is none, the article can be put into a such a category.
Once the item has P31 (either with or without Q5), one could continue and suggest to add P21 via tracking categories, if P31:Q5.
Maybe I'm really stupid. But I can't understand you. Let's try again. There are two articles, A and B. A is not a person, but it falls under the characteristic "should be checked". As not person, it have no P21 and P31:Q5. B is a person that still not have P21 and P31:Q5. Will they be in the same category?
You’re definitely not stupid. Not at all.
Yes, both articles would be in the same tracking category. The purpose of this tracking category would be that users can browse through the elements and decide that A is not a person (by adding at Wikidata P31:any value other than Q5) and that B is a person (by adding P31:Q5 at Wikidata). The template/module then recognizes the changed situation and automatically re-categorizes the article into the tracking category "P21 missing at Wikidata" – for the human articles only. The other ones (not humans) will not appear any longer in any tracking category, and you particularly do not need a marker “not a person” at Wikidata, which different from (P1889) human (Q5) in fact is.
Well, I unserstand you now. Do you mean P31 can have only one value any time?
P31 can have multiple values, but this is a rare situation. The presence of a P31:Q5 claim makes the item describing a human. The absence of P31:Q5 means either the opposite (not a human) or that this claim has not yet been added. It is extremely rare that an item about a human has already a P31 claim, but not with Q5 as value.
So, A and not-yet-classified will be in the same category?
“A” will leave the category once it has a P31 claim, no matter whether it is Q5 or not. There are only “not-yet-classified” articles in this category (humans and non-humans).
I see. Let me think about that a couple of days. I'll be back. Thanks.
No problem. Feel free to ask me again in case of questions – I’d be happy if I can help. Regards!
Thank you again.
Hi. Remember me? Sorry, I has no time until today. Now I checked this, created in Excel a 128-lines table for all possible combinations, and made it only 24 for the relevant ones. Here are the results:
I think there should be a difference in the code you proposed, to catch much more cases: If the item has P21 and does not have P31:Q5, it should go to a new tracking category, that should be regularly emptied.
This way we catch 20 cases from 24.
2 more cases are not our problem, it's Wikidata vandalism - not persons that have P21 and P31:Q5.
The last two are problematic - persons that have now some P31, but not Q5, and have not P21. They will be in the 13-elements category, when they should not. What do you think? Thank you.
Hey IKhitron, sure I remember you.
I'm on a holiday trip this week without a suitable device for Wikidata work. I will look into your comment next week and reply here on my talk page. Kind regards!
?
Uhm sorry, I completely forgot this thread (I’m much more busy in real life than earlier this year). I will look into it again this weekend!
No problem. Believe me, I was sure you are not silent in purpose.
Hey again, now there should be some time to solve this issue.
Let me first summarize what we did until now, to make sure that we talk about the same issue:
- You work at hewiki in the field of lua modules that track Wikidata items associated with hewiki articles
- The idea is to sort hewiki articles into maintenance categories, if one can improve their Wikidata items
Right?
I don’t really have an overview of the 24 cases you’d like to track. As far as I understand, most of them already work as desired, there are only two (?) cases which we need to think about (your comment from Feb 28). Those are person articles, whose Wikidata item don’t have either P31:Q5 or P21, and thus go to a maintenance category that they are not supposed to be in.
All right so far? If you confirm, I continue here… Best Regards!
Hi. Thank you for your answer.
Almost.
It's Lua or templates.
Yes, this is the idea.
The 24 are just all the world.
It will be only 2 rest, if you agree with my suggestion to change your algorithm. What do you say?
They indeed do not have P31:Q5 and P21, but they do have some other P31.
All the rest is right.
Which suggestion do you refer to? “I think there should be a difference in the code you proposed, to catch much more cases: If the item has P21 and does not have P31:Q5, it should go to a new tracking category, that should be regularly emptied.” from Feb 28?
Indeed.
Yes, good idea.
Does it already solve all your problems, or do you have more?
Great, thanks.
As I said, there is a last problem I don't know how to solve.
Which is the problem of person items with a P31, but no P31:Q5 and no P21, I guess.
Good question what to do in that case. I guess the number of those items is pretty small (is it?), and they will probably be found and fixed at Wikidata without a category as well after some time. A solution could be to technically “ignore” this case in your code, and regularly look into the non-person tracking category whether any persons mistakenly show up there. I don’t see a robust procedure to find these items, unfortunately.
I see. Exactly as I was affraid. Well, I'll suggest this on our wikidata phorum, and be back with the community answer. Thank you.