User talk:Bernice Heiderman

Hi! You merged two elements:

• 1: is a television channel launched in 2009 (1)
• 2: is a TV show that started in 1995 (2

Can you tell me why you merged it? Pallor (talk) 23:16, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pallor: Hi, I must have been mistaken.--Bernice Heiderman (talk) 08:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You merged these two elements:

• An unskilled worker working in any sector of agriculture (e.g. forestry, animal husbandry, fishing, etc.) (1)
• A worker working in cultivation (plant cultivation) (e.g. cotton picking worker) (2)

Can you fix it? Thanks Pallor (talk) 09:38, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pallor: In which language is the problem? BTW: Have you mixed up (1) and (2)?

I will unmerge them but move all occurrences of the generic farm worker like farm hand and lavoratore to agricultural worker (Q19261760).

Maybe you could note crop production (Q9366924) at crop production worker (Q110002200)?

--Bernice Heiderman (talk) 10:28, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean which language is the problem? It's not even the same label in English. But it is not the same in Slovenian, Belarusian, Catalan, Italian and Russian. The label is different in six languages, but you merged it anyway. What you did is logically so wrong, what for example merging the element of the SUN with the element of the SOLAR SYSTEM, because one is a part of the other, but at the same time they are completely different.

I wanted to point out that you are being too superficial with the amalgamation, even though only good intentions can cause amazing damage. If you merge two elements incorrectly, the link will change in all elements that refer to them. If some time passes, there is no living person who can sort out from where and to which element the link pointed. But I'm showing you another error caused by superficial editing: today you revoked my edit, which made the Hungarian description of this element: Auto Motor Sport, and the German one: Motor Presse TV. Before you touched it, it was completely uniform. Do you think your edit helped clarify the situation now? I do not think so.

So please pay more attention, use google translate, or ask on native language forums if you don't understand what is written there. It's much less unpleasant than combining two elements incorrectly.

Can you correct what I asked? Pallor (talk) 21:43, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS: is there a particular reason why you didn't write the language competences on your user page? It would be useful.

@Pallor: I've ventured (as you called it superficially) into farm worker while trying to separate agronomist (Q1781198) and agricultural scientist (Q126368762). From the structure of 19th and early 20th century agriculture agricultural worker (Q19261760) were usually not needed for milking thus have been crop production worker (Q110002200) in practice. I've went from Danish landbrugsmedarbejder and the English synonyms which supported a merge.

What is still wrong according to you?--Bernice Heiderman (talk) 21:54, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing it! Pallor (talk) 22:06, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting correct short descriptions like here is vandalism.-- Maxeto0910 (talk) 12:34, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Maxeto0910: Please discuss this on the talk page of Q55155641. According to English and German Wikipedia it refers to any Q118371929 and not just YouTubers, which I have corrected.--Bernice Heiderman (talk) 12:40, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Same here, here, and here. There was absolutely nothing factually or formally wrong with these descriptions, neither in terms of content nor length or style. Therefore, please stop reverting correct edits, which is vandalism; it's absolutely not necessary at all to change a description. Maxeto0910 (talk) 22:18, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in Wikidata:Property proposal/Imperial University of Dorpat student ID, a proposal that could improve the quality of Wikidata on items related to GND, BBLD, EADB, Geni. The student ID is used in several printed works. BergwachtBern (talk) 15:07, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't speak German, but the text of de:Weg seems to suggest it has a physical/material existence, unlike e.g. itinerary (Q1322323). That's consistent with thoroughfare (Q83620) being a subclass of path (Q127162195). line (Q1228250), however, is a subclass (indirectly) of abstract entity (Q7048977). Making path (Q127162195) a subclass of line (Q1228250) creates incorrect inferences like Tehachapi Loop (Q1126676)instance of (P31)abstract entity (Q7048977). linear construction site (Q1826691) seems to refer to a constructed entity, according to the cs and pl Wikipedia articles and the English, Czech, and Norwegian descriptions -- German is the odd one out by identifying it as a type of construction site. The fix to that inconsistency is to move the German Wikipedia article and labels/description to a new Wikidata item: linear construction site (Q127510091). With that done, I believe it will be accurate to say that a path (Q127162195) is a subclass of linear construction site (Q1826691). Swpb (talk) 18:50, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Swpb: Hi Swpb. The same word may be used for road, but the article makes it clear that it has multiple meaning. I've created this item for the first, most generic meaning:

Weg ist eine Verbindung zwischen zwei geografischen Positionen (Orten)

This has nothing do to with a physical incarnation; it may be used for shipping lines or detours. Better think of it as a connection from graph theory (Q131476)!

--Bernice Heiderman (talk) 19:30, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If path (Q127162195) is NOT material, then thoroughfare (Q83620) should not be a subclass of it; done. And in that case, what is the difference between path (Q127162195) and trajectory (Q12799272)? Now, could you please leave linear construction site (Q1826691) as it was? Its links, labels, and statements have a consistent meaning. Only German didn't match, and that link and label/description have been moved to linear construction site (Q127510091). Swpb (talk) 19:39, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Swpb: Please enter {{Q|Q1826691}} - otherwise your links don't work. The original meaning of Q1826691 is the German one. 6 years later Q47246329 'line construction' got merged into it. You can't do a repurposing when it is perfectly avoidable!--Bernice Heiderman (talk) 19:44, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter whether someone repurposed it a long time ago, what matters is what it's used as now. The path of least effort is moving the German article and label, not restoring Q1826691 to an ancient state. Swpb (talk) 19:47, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep unlinking de:Linienbaustelle from linear construction site (Q127510091)???? That Q-item exists specifically for that article. Stop trying to move de:Linienbaustelle back to Q1826691; it doesn't belong there anymore. Swpb (talk) 19:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I give up. You want to do this the hard way for absolutely no reason? Have at it. I'll fix the wrong links you're creating in the process, it's easier than warring. Swpb (talk) 19:53, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Swpb: I have to refute your

It doesn't matter whether someone repurposed it a long time ago, what matters is what it's used as now.

IDs are made to last – repurposing them is dangerous and shall be avoided!

Shall w:de:Linienbaustelle be represented by an unambiguous item created for it in in december 2012 or by an item quickly created by yours in July 2024?--Bernice Heiderman (talk) 20:02, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a stupid way to work. If an item is 90% consistent (statements, labels, article links, wikidata links) with one meaning and 10% consistent with another, it should be synched on the 90% meaning, no matter what it started out as years ago. That approach is less work, sometimes far less work, than reverting to an ancient state and working out where to move everything that has accrued in the mean time. Yes, the item shouldn't have had its meaning changed to begin with – but once it did, and spent years accruing links and text associated with the latter meaning, the best cleanup approach is not to try to undo all that. I'm leaving this one alone. Swpb (talk) 20:08, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Swpb: Thanks for the insult! The meanings in all languages shall be made consistent. Problem arise when Anglophone users only take the English description or sitelinks into account.

"linear object" has actually spent years to accrue a total of around 5 main namespace, and 3 other namespace usages.--Bernice Heiderman (talk) 20:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't take English into account, I took 'every language but German into account. They all agreed with each other. Swpb (talk) 20:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Swpb: Good point, I admit.--Bernice Heiderman (talk) 20:34, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you removed the image again. You wrote P18 usually depicts an object, a photo of the PDF would be appropriate (but futile) but what it "usually" depicts is kind of irrelevant. I previously wrote this image is from the study and helps illustrate it, for example it shows in scholia). Could you clarify? Prototyperspective (talk) 16:25, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If different from (P1889) is intentionally added to items that usually means that such items describe different concepts and shouldn't be merged. That was the case here. dioxane (Q54875057) describes a group of isomers, i.e. 1,2-, 1,3- and 1,4-dioxane; dioxane (Q54875001) desrcibes a class of compounds, i.e. every compound with a 1,2-, 1,3- or 1,4-dioxane ring in its structure. These two items must not be merged. What's more [1] – it has been agreed several years ago that labels in English should be singular, even for groups and classes of compounds, plural names should be put as aliases. Wostr (talk) 14:31, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wostr: I'm sorry. So one means 1,{2,3,4}-dioxane and the other one substituted dioxanes? I've went after the German article and I think its wrongly placed. May you please verify?--Bernice Heiderman (talk) 14:52, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't speak German so I can only use Google Translator, but I think that the first sentence of the German article says that dioxanes are compounds composed of saturated, six-membered rings with two oxygen atoms and that there are three isomers → that would mean that De.wiki article should be moved to dioxane (Q54875057) (however, in the same time it will lose its connection to Commons category Dioxanes which is about not only these three isomers but also any substituted dioxane). Wostr (talk) 15:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Q28053264 and Q30258503 is one company, it only changed name several times. That's why I merged this items. Cmelak770 (talk) 17:09, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cmelak770: Dear Čmelák,

the former has been a národní podnik (Q12041652), the latter a private company. It is beneficial and common practice to have different Wikidata items for successive companies. Example: Q121649688, Q121650002, Q121649256.--Bernice Heiderman (talk) 17:24, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was národní podnik (Q12041652), then státní podnik (Q17991257), then akciová společnost (Q3742494) Stavostroj, then akciová společnost (Q3742494) Ammann Czech Republic and now společnost s ručením omezeným (Q15646299) Ammann Czech Republic (and maybe another type of company next year), but it is still the same company. I don't think that we should have 5 items for one company. BTW, the information in de-wiki, that Stavostroj was dissolved 2005 is completely wrong, it only changed the name in this year (it was akciová společnost (Q3742494) before 2005 and also after 2005). Cmelak770 (talk) 17:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cmelak770: When I take Q128699916 as an example I would like to refer to Stavostroj as manufacturer, and not Ammann Czech Republic – even if this is the legal successor. National libraries create different IDs for every historical form of an institution (01.11.2010-30.03.2021); this is what we should do as well.--Bernice Heiderman (talk) 17:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but now the interwiki is not correct. Because both in CZ and DE the articles describe longer period. Cmelak770 (talk) 19:08, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cmelak770: You've moved the article, not me.--Bernice Heiderman (talk) 19:13, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in cs-wiki we use usually the actual (last) name, but the article is still about one company established in 1946, which still exists, only the name was changed several times. But OK, the correct item for the cs-wiki is Ammann Czech Republic (Q30258503), because it describes the complete life of the company. de:Stavostroj is not correct, but I'm not able to correct it, because I can't speak German. So, we can close the discussion. Cmelak770 (talk) 19:38, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[2] There is no such thing as "mul" description, so there is no risk that any description will be copied to non-Latin descriptions. However, even if there was a "mul" description, InChIKey is language(and script)-independent. Wostr (talk) 22:34, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wostr: Hi Wostr, do I understand it right that these are the prymnesin-1 stereoisomers? Why do you use something as incomprehensible as the InChIKey instead of just call it prymnesin-1 stereoisomers?--Bernice Heiderman (talk) 22:38, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are not stereoisomers of any compound, this is a group of stereoisomers in which prymnesin-1 is one of the stereoisomers. InChIKey is used instead of different other options like PubChem CID (which was imported from databases), because it is the only official ID that can be successfully used instead of a proper label, which in English would be: 1-(6-{6-(6-{6-(2-{7-[(18Z)-6-amino-19-chlorononadeca-1,3,8,10,18-pentaen-12,16-diynyl]-22-hydroxy-2,6,11,15,20-pentaoxapentacyclo[12.9.0.0^3,12.0^5,10.0^16,21]tricosan-19-yl}-3-methyl-2,3,4,4a,6,7,8,8a-octahydropyrano[3,2-b]pyran-6-yl)-3,8-dihydroxy-2,3,4,4a,6,7,8,8a-octahydropyrano[3,2-b]pyran-2-yl}-8-chloro-3-hydroxy-2,3,4,4a,6,7,8,8a-octahydropyrano[3,2-b]pyran-2-yl)-3,4-dihydroxy-2,3,4,4a,6,7,8,8a-octahydropyrano[3,2-b]pyran-2-yl}-3,4,5-trihydroxyoxan-2-yl)-11-chloro-8-[5-(1,2-dihydroxyethyl)-3,4-dihydroxyoxolan-2-yl]oxy-3-[3,4-dihydroxy-5-(hydroxymethyl)oxolan-2-yl]oxy-4-(3,4,5-trihydroxyoxan-2-yl)oxyhexadeca-13,15-diyne-2,6,7,9,10-pentol. But that name exceeds the 250-character limit. The label you've added in German is incorrect for a number of reasons: Stereoisomere von Prymnesin-1 could be potentially valid only as a description, not as a label; this structure has 62 stereocenters which means that in the future hundreds of structures with different configurations of these stereocenters will be imported to WD – but you can use Stereoisomere von Prymnesin-1 only once... what name will you give if a structure appears that differs from this one in the configuration of one stereogenic center? And with another structure? And with another? Look at the Q105270642 – there are listed different stereoisomers of castalagin (so there are at least 8 stereoisomers of this compound), every one of them has a name that exceeds the limit. How would you name them? You can't name every one of them as Stereoisomere von Castalgin and in fact that wouldn't be true, because castalgine is in no way a superior or better structure than others that do not have a short name.

This is why after some discussion in WikiProject Chemistry and between members of this project, InChIKey was chosen to be a temporary label for structures for which the shortest label exceeds the 250-character limit. At least until there are technical solutions that will help us with this problem. Wostr (talk) 12:03, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wostr: What does that in the future hundreds of structures with different configurations of these stereocenters will be imported to WD mean?--Bernice Heiderman (talk) 14:24, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WD is constantly growing and new items are constantly being imported from databases such as PubChem. In chemoinformatics, there may be records for every possible combination of different configurations of a stereogenic center, even if such a structure remains only hypothetical. Additionally, there are records in which only some of the stereogenic centers are defined. In the case of this molecule, we have 62 stereogenic centers and 5 double bonds. Each stereocenter can take the R configuration, S configuration or be undefined, each double bond can have the E configuration, Z configuration or be undefined. With 67 variables that can take one of 3 values, it is not difficult to count the possible number of items in WD for just this structure. For this reason, for structures of this type, if there is no common name – and for the vast majority there is no such name – a systematic name generated by various software is used. This would be the case here, but technical limitations do not allow adding a name longer than 250 characters as a label. And for this reason it is necessary to establish some replacement name – InChIKey was chosen because it always has a fixed length, will never exceed 250 characters and is an identifier independent of language and alphabet, and it is also an identifier independent of any company, because it is developed by IUPAC. Wostr (talk) 19:35, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]