User talk:Mitarica

Please stop adding both literary work (Q7725634) and version, edition or translation (Q3331189) as instance of (P31) to Q107648205. This is incorrect modeling. Please see Wikidata:WikiProject Books --Emu (talk) 17:37, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but, I’m not sure, why is that a problem? Please, can you help me. For example, is there a problem here (Q106936424)? Mitarica (talk) 17:59, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata uses a data model for books that requires two items: One for the written work, on for each edition/version. It’s the same problem with Q106936424. I don’t speak Serbian, so I can’t fix the items, but Q108187180 and Q108187174 could serve as examples how to do it. Emu (talk) 18:31, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Emu, thank you, I understand know. Is there any posibillity to delete (Q7725634) from all books which were published in (Q106927517), because it is necessary to be only (Q3331189)? Can you check if everything is fine here and if the word number qualifier is correct (Q109027069)? Thank you for your hard work. Mitarica (talk) 18:45, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop changing data item descriptions to say this. It removes vitally identifying information necessary to distinguish the item from others. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:48, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, and in the next phase of my work, I will change the descriptions and fill them in with more information such as the name of the author and the date of publication. Mitarica (talk) 19:55, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It usually is not good to add the date of publication for the general data item. George Eliot's novels, for example were published in magazines before they were printed as books, so the "first date of publication will differ depending on whether you mean the 1st magazine edition or the first book edition. They have also been printed many times in many editions. Dates are always good to include in descriptions of editions, but usually not appropriate or meaningful for the general data item for the work.

I also noticed several instances where you created a data item for a "first edition" where a data item for that edition already existed and was linked in the location where you added the duplicate. Please do not create and link duplicate data items where one already exists. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:59, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! This is very useful information. I was afraid of that and I tried to be very careful and use Open Refine to see if there was a duplicate. What can I do to remove duplicates? I have also seen in some novels that there is a date for the publication as statement. Is that okay or not? I will add the date of publication in the description of editions. Mitarica (talk) 20:09, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is not wrong to have a date on the data item for the novel, but it can be confusing and is not "best practices" to have it in the description of a work.

But for editions, having the date in the description is very useful. I always include the language and the date on a data item for an edition, since it helps to distinguish it from all other editions. If I know the translator, I include that too, for example "1907 Polish translation by Hoffman". The publication date (P577) is used for the publication date of both works and editions, but on a work data item, this value is not always meaningful, as I described above, especially for older works of literature. I work most often in Classical literature, where a "publication date" is not meaningful at all.

I do not know of the best way to spot and remove duplicates. If you do find a duplicate, you can merge it with the previously existing copy of the same edition. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:29, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are adding Gutenberg edition data items. Please see The Red Badge of Courage (Q55816148) as a model for how these should be handled. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:01, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I will create items based on this one. Mitarica (talk) 20:13, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Descriptions are used to differentiate one item from another that might have the same label. So changes like this where you removed the date and location of printing, are detrimental. "print edition of the novel" would not distinguish the various printed editions. Usually for an edition, we want the date as well as the country or publisher, and perhaps even the language. "print edition" describes every printed edition (there will be many) and "of the novel" does not help distinguish either. The description field is used to differentiate items from others where the label fields might be the same. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:49, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll change that, I thought it wouldn't change with automatic changes. Mitarica (talk) 06:53, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Mitarica:, I think you are creating duplicated items, such as Madame Bovary (première édition) (Q111372621) and Madame Bovary (édition imprimée) (Q111372777), which seem to refer to the same edition. CaLéValab (talk) 17:29, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[1]: How sphalerite (Q105006)subclass of (P279)sulfide class of minerals (Q927407) is a correct statement? It already has sphalerite (Q105006)subclass of (P279)sphalerite mineral group (Q3777816) which has sphalerite mineral group (Q3777816)subclass of (P279)sulfide class of minerals (Q927407)... This is really redundant and is true for many others edits made by you. Wostr (talk) 18:23, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but that is maybe redundant, but it is correct. I will make some corrections. I done that using https://geoliss.mre.gov.rs/. Mitarica (talk) 19:36, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You added P279=native element mineral (Q723127) statement to iron (Q677), gold (Q897), mercury (Q925). These elements in native form however are considered different, items telluric iron (Q2248028), native gold (Q898406), mercury (native) (Q1250358) exist for these, respectively. The latter already were set as subclasses of (subclasses of) native element mineral (Q723127). 2001:7D0:81E6:EF80:BC5D:65A7:D9D8:DA68 16:12, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have reverted your batch. published in (P1433) is used for articles in journals, chapters in books, etc., that are part of the same entity from inception, not for later made collections. Beside, if I understand correctly what is SrpKor: Corpus of the contemporary Serbian language (Q117079024) (which is difficult with only a P31 and Serbian label/description), a corpus can only be made of editions, so it's incorrect to link it to work items. I'd suggest you start with creating the relevant editions of those works, link them to their work with the reverse properties edition or translation of (P629)/has edition or translation (P747), and then link the edition to the corpus. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 18:02, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have reverted your edits in this element about Jamala's song. Could you check why they were done? It does not seem like they were the correct edits. --Base (talk) 19:29, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Just a quick message to let you know that you created (at least) two duplicate items that I merged: The White Wolf (Q111366735) (The White Wolf (Q3224087) already existed) and Le Loup blanc (Q111372760) (for Le Loup blanc (Q105658722)).

Cheers, VIGNERON en résidence (talk) 17:15, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You created a blank item Sarajevo Publishing (Q117319721) and then linked hundreds of items to it. Please do not leave items as blank. Especially highly linked items should not be blank. BrokenSegue (talk) 17:04, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will remove that and create something else. That was only for control, because I edit 660 items, and I needed to have something that will be good for control with SPARQL queries. Mitarica (talk) 12:18, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

it's still there... please just put some statements on this item or remove it. BrokenSegue (talk) 17:26, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I removed incorrect is a number of (P11279) usage as a qualifier on some items. It should already be implied by number of words (P6570) that this is a number of words. Lectrician1 (talk) 00:45, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]