Mormegil

Template:Autopatroller/text/en Littledogboy (talk) 11:30, 27 July 2013 (UTC) Reply

[1] × [2] ([3]) ? Littledogboy (talk) 15:56, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ano. Gratuluji; zatímco ten, který na tu stránku novinek napsal chybný klíč, způsobil drobnou chybu v lokalizacích té stránky, vám se na několik dní (než se opět aktualizují překlady na mnou vrácenou verzi) podařilo rozbít překlad jednoho vcelku elementárního hlášení na všech projektech nadace:

• ...
• 1. 3.
• 1. 4.
• 1. 5.
• 1. 6.
• 1. 7.
• ...

Opravdu jste věřil tomu, že překlad takového základního hlášení byl pět let úplně špatně?

--Mormegil (talk) 16:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

To mě mrzí. Předpoklad byl, že všechny měsíce budou řešeny vzájemně analogicky, a že tedy postačí se podívat do tří dalších stránek MediaWiki:MONTH/cs. Jaktože ne?! Littledogboy (talk) 17:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Protože „May“ je v angličtině současně jak celý název měsíce, tak jeho zkratka (Jan, Feb, …). Takže máme MediaWiki:January, MediaWiki:February, …, ale současně máme MediaWiki:Jan, MediaWiki:Feb, pročež u MediaWiki:May nám to jaksi koliduje, takže tam je zkratka a plný název je na MediaWiki:May long. Netvrdím, že to je kdovíjak chytře navržený systém, ale prostě to tak bylo naimplementováno. --Mormegil (talk) 06:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Zdravím, můžete se prosím podívat na User talk:GerardM#Q17320547: member of which National Assembly of Czechoslovakia? Všiml jsem si v historii položky, že jste k ní (jako jediný z česko-wikidatové komunity) také cosi přispěl, tak zkouším, jestli byste nám pomohl pohnout se z místa. Sice bych se rád pletl, ale od stvořitele položky moc účinnou pomoc neočekávám :( --Shlomo (talk) 15:45, 5 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Shlomo: Zdravím. To je hezká otázka; když jsem to editoval, tak se přiznám, že jsem to příliš nezkoumal, jen jsem víceméně bezmyšlenkovitě přidal český štítek. Když na to tak koukám, tak mám dojem, že reálně se ta položka ve skutečnosti odkazuje u poslanců Federálního shromáždění, resp. že byla pro její naplnění použita cs:Kategorie:Poslanci československého Federálního shromáždění (Q9023661). Nepodařilo se mi najít (namátkově) nikoho, kdo by odkazoval na tuhle položku, a přitom byl jen poslancem Národního shromáždění (před rokem 1969). U takových poslanců bývá jen tvrzení odkazující na obecnější Q486839.

Je otázkou, jak přesně bychom to vlastně chtěli použít. V zásadě bych si myslel, že je vcelku rozumné použít stejné rozdělení jako na Wikipedii, tzn. mít položku pro poslance Národního shromáždění, zákonodárného sboru Československa, který pracoval v období od 14. listopadu 1918 do 21. března 1939 a po okupaci od 21. října 1945 do 31. prosince 1968 a vedle toho druhou položku pro poslance Federálního shromáždění ČSSR (později ČSFR) po celou dobu trvání tohoto zákonodárného sboru, tedy od 1. ledna 1969 do 31. prosince 1992, a to jak členy Sněmovny lidu, tak Sněmovny národů. A jak už jsem uvedl, vypadá to, že stávající Q17320547 se reálně používá spíše pro to druhé, byť štítek má opačný. Nejjednodušší by tedy asi bylo změnit její štítek na poslanec Federálního shromáždění a založit novou položku pro poslanec Národního shromáždění (a odkázat ji z Q9445298).

Detailnější dělení (jako např. vyčleňování poslanců, kteří byli jen v Prozatímním národním shromáždění atp.) by asi bylo zbytečné a složité a (zatím) bych se do toho nepouštěl. I tak je otázkou, jestli neexistují poslanci Národního shromáždění, kteří odkazují na tu stávající položku, které bychom přejmenováním té položky rozbili. Ale to se dá případně napravit jednotlivě, tolik chyb jako Gerard jistě nenasekáme. :-)

--Mormegil (talk) 16:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Okouknul jsem to přes autolist a zdá se, že jste to odhadl přesně. 1806 položek s position held (P39) member of the Federal Assembly of Czechoslovakia (Q17320547) a 1807 v kategorii cs:Kategorie:Poslanci československého Federálního shromáždění. Navíc se kryjí, ten jeden navíc (nějaký Alois Neuman (Q2650370)) byl jak v NS, tak v FS, takže ani u něj chybu neuděláme. Není mi sice jasné, jaká je výhoda ve výroku position held (P39) member of the Federal Assembly of Czechoslovakia (Q17320547) s kvaifikátorem of (P642) a příslušnou sněmovnou, oproti stavu s výrokem position held (P39) deputy (Q1055894) s kvaifikátorem of (P642) a příslušnou přesně specifikovanou instancí NS, popřípadě sněmovnou FS; ale budiž, pokud to bude správně nadefinováno a přiřazeno, dá se s tím žít...--Shlomo (talk) 20:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

To, jak se na Wikidatech vybírá mezi několika různými, ale na první pohled ekvivalentními vyjádřeními téhož, je mi záhadou obecně (přiznám se, že mi třeba není jasný ani vztah mezi sitelinkem na Commons a vlastností Commons category (P373)). :-) Každopádně díky za opravu. --Mormegil (talk) 10:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

I just noticed there's no property for this when I saw your edits on Ondřej Hudeček (Q23001100). I just requested it on WD:PP/AC. If you think it could be useful, please support the request. Mbch331 (talk) 18:25, 4 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

You just added property "Film" to Q7720274 and Q7739552.[4][5] Do you have any non-circular basis for doing so? Do you have any reason to believe they even exist? Don't bother with IMDB. Any IMDB listing is just as unreliable or fraudulent as the original data blindly bot-imported from EnWiki.

They both fail Wikidata's WD:N Notability policy and need to be deleted. If this were EnWiki I'd tag them for Speedy Delete, Proposed Deletion, or Articles For Deletion. However I don't see how to do that here. Could you please handle deletion of the entire items? While you're at it, could you also handle deletion of Q12125125 Q4880863 Q7970106 Q12124713 Q8045794 Q4742701? They all also fail Wikidata's Notability policy. Thanx. Alsee (talk) 20:48, 26 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Alsee: Basically, you left the items in internally inconsistent state, claiming they are English-language adventure films, but without the basic “instance of” property. I just fixed that (with the impression you doubted the detailed information, not the existence of the film as a whole). If you doubt the films even exist (and all the external information including the IMDb entries are parts of a hoax), feel free to propose their deletion, but you cannot just remove random parts of items. Prima facie, the entries look fine, definitely not as an obvious hoax eligible for speedy deletion (existence in IMDb, ElFilm, ČSFD (however those might be imports from IMDb), TCM, …), if you have arguments why they should be deleted, great, go ahead and propose that, I won’t even oppose. --Mormegil (talk) 08:58, 27 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the deletion request link. I have opened the deletion request at WD:Requests_for_deletions#Bulk_deletion_request:_Chaneyverse. I will skip the details here, and strongly urge you to read it there. However I can't resist doing a Chaneyverse-examination of the TCM reviews you linked.

The TCM reviews show the hallmarks of our sock user. The posts were made in 2011, which is when our sock user was adding the content on EnWiki and when very similar user reviews popped up on other sites. Just look at the absurd username "Film Review Digest". The same or similar username appears on other sites commenting in connection to Warren Chaney. Our sock goes to excessive lengths trying to make their posted content look authoritative. I see other similarities to posts elsewhere, but I'll note how these two comments are abnormally similar to each other. They start and end virtually identically, and in the middle they both oddly claim the cast did their own stunts. How would an ordinary viewer know cast did their own stunts, and what is the likelihood of two supposed random reviewers saying it?

• First sentence:
  • The Hidden Jungle is quite imaginative for a children's film
  • The Hidden Jungle is a novel and quite imaginative feature film produced for the younger set
• Middle:
  • ...lead actors did many of their own stunts...
  • ...cast members doing many of the stunts...
• The final sentence has an order reversal, but makes an identical closing point:
  • (for a kid-pic) it is (not too shabby) an effort.
  • (above the average fare) frequently offered up (for children).

The final sentence in isolation may be thin evidence for a sockpuppet match. However consider it in context with the deceptive user name, the duplications noted above, and my claim of investigating this sock's work on and off wiki.

Something by the name of The Hidden Jungle may or may not exist. It may or may not have been completed. It may or may not have had some sort of commercial release. Your link to TCM.com only establishes that Turner Classic Movies does not have it. We also know that the MPAA's rating system has never heard of this "feature film". Theaters that play MPAA movies are contractually prohibited from showing movies without MPAA ratings. Therefore we also know it was never shown in any normal U.S. theater. If it exists, if it had some commercial showing or sale, it was so insignificant that no reliable independent record has been located. All we know for sure is that someone has put a staggering amount of work into photoshopped images and other falsified evidence relating to Warren Chaney. Alsee (talk) 10:09, 28 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello Mormegil,

Can you please explain this. Geagea (talk) 11:08, 1 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Geagea: Well, isn’t it obvious that a famous Czech photographer living 1851–1928 is not the same person as a still living hydrochemist? Why would you think they are the same person? --Mormegil (talk) 12:01, 1 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

See the list her. Geagea (talk) 12:03, 1 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

OK, I see your point now. You are correct. Geagea (talk) 12:06, 1 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

My mistake, I was looking on my Wiki page and didn't notice somebody tied it with KLAS, not Class. I guess it's better to move Třida into Q3679160 directly. So every local Wiki could see the Czech page in the links. Dobrou noc!

Hi Mormegil,

I noticed your making this edit. As you probably know, one of the best-known kinds of type is the type genus (Q842832). Presumably, you would agree that a genus can never be any kind of specimen? - Brya (talk) 05:03, 5 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Brya: I only noticed the item is missing the basic piece of information: What is it? After adding the best class I found, I noticed it had been there until you removed it, so I did not continue adding further statements.

However, if

1. "type genus is the genus which defines a biological family" (
   ⟨ type genus (Q842832)      ⟩ subclass of (P279)   ⟨ genus (Q34740)      ⟩
   )
2. "type is a particular specimen (or in some cases a group of specimens) of an organism" (
   ⟨ type (Q3707858)      ⟩ subclass of (P279)   ⟨ biological specimen (Q2075980)      ⟩
   seems quite in order).

Then maybe

⟨ type genus (Q842832)      ⟩ subclass of (P279)   ⟨ type (Q3707858)      ⟩

is the problem here.

But however you look at it, you cannot just remove P279 and be done with it. --Mormegil (talk) 08:51, 5 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Actually, both "type genus is the genus which defines a biological family" and "type is a particular specimen (or in some cases a group of specimens) of an organism" are wildly incorrect. It is not for nothing that there is a maxim "Wikipedia is not a source": enwiki has lots of false statements.

        I am not sure it would be so bad to leave the item without an "instance of" or "subclass of". The thing is that "type" is not itself closely defined, but is a collective term for several concepts which are formally defined in the several Codes of nomenclature. It could be an "instance of : term (Q1969448)" or "instance of : biological nomenclature (Q522190)", but neither is all that satisfactory. - Brya (talk) 09:18, 5 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

You keep saying everything is wrong, but you are not saying what is correct; now you are even saying the type is such an ephemeral thing it cannot be even defined. In that case, let's delete the item altogether? Nope, that does not make sense. Type must mean something.

If you believe multiple nomenclatures use the word in different meanings, that is no problem, the item could be split, see e.g. section (Q3181348) vs. section (Q10861426). Either way, removing statements without replacement is not a way forward.

--Mormegil (talk) 21:57, 5 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Oh, deletion is not an option as there are sitelinks. Besides, there already are items for 'botany' and for zoology. Surely, avoiding putting in utterly false 'information' must be a top-priority. Better to leave something blank than putting in a lie. - Brya (talk) 04:57, 6 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yes, this is not the best. But I am trying to get all EN descriptions into the same form, tending to year / country / genre / type / directed by ... since this is useful for spotting duplicates. Besides being the proper sort of OCD one expects on this site. So now it's "2012 animated film directed by Jay Oliva - part 1". Does that wash? Let me know. There's a part 2 out there somewhere, too. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:11, 30 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Tagishsimon: I am not sure if this desire is the best idea, and especially if it long-term sustainable (are you going to revert people who would be e.g. adding details to the descriptions?), but as long as it improves on the state of the things, it’s fine by me. The current version is… workable, but still: the original “part 1 of a 2012 animated film directed by Jay Oliva” seems to contain the same information but more grammatically. The broken “2012 part 1 of a animated film directed by Jay Oliva” is completely ungrammatical, but has the advantage of being factually correct in pointing out that this first part is a 2012 film, the sequel is a 2013 film… The current version is both not-grammatically-great, and not-entirely-correct in that sense. So, why this one instead of the original form, better in both ways? (And “[part {part}] {year} {type} {genre} directed by {director}” is quite universal, isn’t it?) --Mormegil (talk) 15:40, 30 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

As the EN title has Part 1, Part 2, I've removed part 1 & part 2 from the EN descriptions. “[part {part}] {year} {type} {genre} directed by {director}” is conspicuous only by its complete absence. 53 EN descriptions have "part " in them, mostly announcing that they're a two-part film or that they're part of a named series; there was a single pair of film items that announced in the description that they're part 1, part 2. I think they could be termed outliers.

I've found the action of curating the EN description, the publication date, and adding EN titles where they've previously been added as non-EN titles, has allowed me to identify & merge several hundred duplicates, so it all seems vaguely worthwhile. That a single description pattern is followed - to greater or lesser extents - by better than ~95% of films tends to suggest I need not fret about sustainability. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:57, 30 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Ahoj, ad tohle - ono to tak - zřejmě je - viz http://www.polymer.cz/en/Contacts/Pages/default.aspx. ale uznávám, taky mě to zmátlo. --Frettie (talk) 12:08, 24 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Frettie: Co to tak je? Že Polymer Institute Brno sídlí v Litvínově a jmenuje se „UNIPETROL RPA, s.r.o.“? To snad ne. --Mormegil (talk) 12:41, 24 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

No, dle IČ jo. Jinak ten institut asi nepůsobí. Ale ok, necháme to tak. Případně zkusím tu položku časem předělat.--Frettie (talk) 14:37, 24 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Cože. Přestaň přemýšlet prismatem nějakých importů odněkud někam a vezmi to normálně selským rozumem. O čem pojednává položka Polymer Institute Brno (Q30258689)? O Unipetrolu, jeho organizační složce, nebo případně něčem úplně jiném? Jestli o Unipetrolu, tak to je blbě, protože o něm máme jinou položku. Jestli o Polymer Institute Brno, tak nemá co tvrdit, že se jmenuje Unipetrol a sídlí v Litvínově, bez ohledu na to, že jako organizační složka nemá vlastní IČO. Můžeme se bavit, jestli má mít položka o organizační složce tvrzení IČO, když žádné vlastní nemá; můžeme se bavit, jestli má mít vůbec vlastní položku; ale určitě se nemůžeme bavit o tom, že když má vlastní položku, jestli v ní má být napsáno totéž co v položce mateřské společnosti, to je snad zjevná blbost, ne? --Mormegil (talk) 14:46, 24 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Mormegil! Why did you removed merging of absolutely the same thing Q3054155 and Q378679? It now disconnected on wikipedia again. You can't rely on google translate. Маргарита Бабовникова (talk) 08:36, 23 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

I don’t rely (or even use) Google Translate. If you have any specific article on mind, feel free to move a single interwiki link (or maybe even a couple of them?) between those two entities. But those entities are not about the same topic (and if they were, you should have merged the items), and several interwiki links are definitely not about the same topic (see also Q6798525, Q47509789, …). I have moved cswiki link back to where it belongs, I don’t care much about the rest (and, honestly, cannot judge, really), so if you want to have ru:Золотая молодёжь link to fr:Enfant gâté and en:Spoiled child, your call, even though I doubt it is a correct solution. --Mormegil (talk) 12:43, 23 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi, you undid my edit here. While border guard border guard (Q138775) seems to be instance of profession, it is also subclass of specialist law enforcement agency. That context is what I meant, and what I think is realistically a required property constraint, see this list, for example. Perhaps border guard (Q138775) should be edited though, to be more clearly referring to the agency and not the profession of the same wording. Kissa21782 (talk) 10:08, 20 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Yes, sorry for that mistaken comment; I have realized later what you had in mind when I tried to find what problems you were trying to solve. I believe you were trying to get rid of the constraint violation at statements like Ilmari Kirjavainen (Q17381671)commander of (DEPRECATED) (P598)Finnish Border Guard (Q1418075)? I hope I have solved those by adding law enforcement agency (Q732717)subclass of (P279)armed organization (Q17149090). (On the other hand, I quite agree that mixing the profession with the institution is wrong and those two meanings should be probably separated.) --Mormegil (talk) 15:48, 20 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thats's correct, that's what prompted me to do the edit. Your solution seems much better than mine though, thanks for that. The amount of uses for border guard as a profession seems to be very small, so making a new border guard -profession item and changing all the uses by hand probably wouldn't be too big of a project. Kissa21782 (talk) 18:56, 20 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

RMaung (WMF) 17:37, 10 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

RMaung (WMF) 19:53, 20 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Ahoj, ad https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q12026107&oldid=prev&diff=1044676599 - tohle není zas tak úplně špatně - ale pravda, nemělo to jít až tak hluboko. Bohužel jestli vidím dobře, tak není vůbec snadný z toho XMLka národní knihovny nějak rozumně poznat, že to je tip "společný pseudonym". Ale víme o tom, že tam pár takovejch skupinovejch věcí je (třeba The Police nebo Bratři Ebenové). JE to v procesu a čistku provedeme v dalším kroku. --Frettie (talk) 12:53, 4 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

A taky vkládáš „uveden jako“ i tam, kde už je, a taky ho vkládáš jinak, než je tam uveden. :-( --Mormegil (talk) 13:17, 4 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Tohle je schválně, o tom vím. --Frettie (talk) 14:03, 4 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

About this edit. Please read Wikidata:Wikinews/Development. --sasha (krassotkin) 07:50, 12 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Are you trying to say that sitelinks to Wikinews categories (e.g. n:ru:Категория:История науки) belong to topic items (e.g. history of science (Q201486)) instead of Wikimedia-category items (Category:History of science (Q7130258))? OK, no problem with me, go ahead (as you already did, I see). But you cannot merge items representing Wikimedia categories with items representing real-world concepts. There is no entity which is both e.g. “a Wikimedia category” and “a kind of science”, so there should be no item which claims it is an instance of both.

But let me say that a five-year-old “draft about how Wikidata could support Wikinews” does not sound very definitive to me, and you’ll have a lot of work to fix that for all categories.

--Mormegil (talk) 08:47, 12 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

• Thank you. There was an erroneously created empty Wikidata element of Category with Wikinews only.
  In the early days of Wikidata, some users launched bots that created a lot of erroneous interwiki links. We are gradually correcting them manually. --sasha (krassotkin) 08:56, 12 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

(In relation to wikidata item Q5065109)

Hi. Kollaudace may refer to the same thing as "Certificate of occupancy" but I am sure that the Catalan term "Cèdula d'habitabilitat de primera ocupació" is too specific because 1) it only applies to residences, not to commercial premises, and 2) it only applies to a "first occupation", not to a change of use, refurbishment or renewal of the building. That's why I deleted those wikipedia pages from the wikidata item. It was linking different things together. Likewise, the term "Kollaudation" in German seems too wide to be linked to "Certificate of occupancy", which in English refers only to buildings, not to machinery, trains or other things.

Regarding documents and procedures of a specific jurisdiction, I would only link them to similar concepts of a different jurisdiction if they are really equivalent. Otherwise, I would provide a translation and an explanation, but not an identity between what, effectively, are different things, even if there is some overlap between them.

Thanks for taking a look at it. Regards. Mafaldo Felipe (talk) 16:06, 9 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Actually, I am not quite sure what those Wikipedia links are intended to mean, maybe they can be left until a more specific article is created. Mafaldo Felipe (talk) 18:56, 9 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Dobré poledne, děkuji za úpravy mých editací. Prosím Vás jak je to s velkými písmeny? Jiné jazyky je mají velké, ale Vy jste moje editace vždy upravil na malé... tak v tom mám hokej. Díky za odpověď a přeji Vám dobrou chuť k obědu :-)--F.ponizil (talk) 10:52, 10 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Štítek i popis se mají psát stejně, jako by stály běžně uprostřed věty, tzn. zpravidla s malým počátečním písmenem, velká písmena pouze tam, kde se v češtině píšou vždy (vlastní jména). Tedy např. „stůl“, ale „Praha“ atp. Existuje spousta položek, u kterých jsou chybně velká, protože se ty položky importovaly z Wikipedie, kde je první písmeno názvu článku vždycky velké, a od importu to ještě nikdo neopravil. Vedle toho pak třeba němčina píše s velkým písmenem všechna podstatná jména, takže jsou tak psané i německé štítky. --Mormegil (talk) 13:24, 11 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Dobré odpoledne, díky moc za vysvětlení, s němčinou je to jasná věc :-)--F.ponizil (talk) 13:48, 11 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Ahoj, ad tahle editace - z mýho pohledu je to fotografie budovy, ne ulice. --Frettie (talk) 09:29, 15 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Jasně, není to úplně ideální obrázek, jestli máš lepší, tak sem (tam) s ním. Ale rozhodně to je použitelný obrázek, lepší než nic; vybíral jsem naschvál takový, kde je vidět i trochu ta ulice, navíc i obrázek jednoho domu poskytuje poměrně dobrou představu o tom, jak ta ulice vypadá. Pokud nemám lepší a ten obrázek není vyloženě chybný, určitě bych existující obrázek nemazal. --Mormegil (talk) 09:22, 16 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Ok, tohle zní rozumně, budu se tím řídit. Dík. --Frettie (talk) 09:41, 16 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

They are the same thing, Q804732] and Q804732. Philly jawn (talk) 05:36, 26 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Yes, yes, they are. :-) I guess you meant Bald Mountain (Q804732) and Lysá hora (Q243202). Obviously, the names mean the same thing in English and in Czech. However, disambiguation pages are usually linked only for ± literally identical titles. Sometimes we are more strict, sometimes we are less strict, but in the end, when a single Wikipedia has separate disambiguation pages for both variants (ceb:Lysá hora, ceb:Bald Mountain), what can you do? You obviously cannot merge two items with a conflicting sitelink. So the only sensible thing is not to merge them, keep the sitelinks according to the exact title, and link the items with said to be the same as (P460). --Mormegil (talk) 08:45, 26 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello Mormegil,

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 surveys@wikimedia.org.

You can see my explanation here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:46, 25 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Mormegil. Please explain your vision about Q33215, Q3247505 and Q104804164. For me constructed language (Q33215) are human languages, artificial language (Q3247505) is more general class including formal and computer languages (as explained in simple-wiki) and artificial language (Q104804164) is a duplicate of either of them. So I insist that Yerkish (Q153630) should be Q3247505 and not Q33215. Another interesting example for which we should choose superclass is musical language (Q3832952). --Infovarius (talk) 23:36, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Sure. First, my edits were not trying to do a rework to a perfect model of languages. I just fixed an obvious (for me) error with the previous representation. artificial language (Q104804164) needed to be split from artificial language (Q3247505), as it represents a very narrow class of artificial languages, as explained in its description and the enwiki article (“languages of a typically very limited size which emerge either in computer simulations between artificial agents”), e.g. Esperanto is obviously not an instance of Q104804164 in that sense (I’d like the (English) label of Q104804164 to be somehow different/more specific, but I have no idea what other label could be used, if any), which was the case prior to that. I hope you agree with this general part.

For the specifics, I agree with your basic characterizations. As for Yerkish (Q153630), I’d say this is a language created by humans and seems to me basically a type of conlang, if quite specific. You seem to insist on the “human language” part of the definition you created but I am not too sure of that (and note the language was created by humans). Consider fictional languages like Quenya (Q56383): this is not a “human language”, it is an “Elvish language”, but still, this is a typical conlang, I’d say, not that different from Yerkish (Q153630) in that regard. But I don’t consider that too important (and I am not an expert on the matter), so I won’t object to your change of Yerkish (Q153630)instance of (P31)constructed language (Q33215) → Yerkish (Q153630)instance of (P31)artificial language (Q3247505); however, I don’t know why you reverted all my changes of the item, so that now Yerkish (Q153630) is now a class of great ape language (Q2628518) (and at the same time, an instance of animal language (Q1643092), which great ape language (Q2628518) is itself a subclass of). I believe you should have just taken my version and only change the class from Q33215 to Q3247505.

And as for musical language (Q3832952), I’d say it’s quite clear as even the enwiki article begins with the definition of “Musical languages are constructed languages […]” so the current classification is correct, IMHO.

--Mormegil (talk) 08:46, 15 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees is organizing a call for feedback about community selection processes between February 1 and March 14. While the Wikimedia Foundation and the movement have grown about five times in the past ten years, the Board’s structure and processes have remained basically the same. As the Board is designed today, we have a problem of capacity, performance, and lack of representation of the movement’s diversity. Our current processes to select individual volunteer and affiliate seats have some limitations. Direct elections tend to favor candidates from the leading language communities, regardless of how relevant their skills and experience might be in serving as a Board member, or contributing to the ability of the Board to perform its specific responsibilities. It is also a fact that the current processes have favored volunteers from North America and Western Europe. In the upcoming months, we need to renew three community seats and appoint three more community members in the new seats. This call for feedback is to see what processes can we all collaboratively design to promote and choose candidates that represent our movement and are prepared with the experience, skills, and insight to perform as trustees?

In this regard, two rounds of feedback meetings are being hosted to collect feedback from the Wikidata community. Two rounds are being hosted with the same agenda, to accomodate people from various time zones across the globe. We will be discussing ideas proposed by the Board and the community to address the above mentioned problems. Please sign-up according to whatever is most comfortable to you. You are welcome to participate in both as well!

• Round 1 - Feb 24, 4:00 pm UTC
• Round 2 - Mar 3, 4:00 am UTC
• Sign-up and meeting details: Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees/Call for feedback: Community Board seats/Conversations/Wikidata

Also, please share this with other volunteers who might be interested in this. Let me know if you have any questions. KCVelaga (WMF), 14:33, 21 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Actually it was nonsense, since the English Wikipedia redirects Ministry of Science and Technology to Ministry of Science (containing articles with the title "Ministry of Science and Technology", and Q15902280 refers to MOST, Q1313096 refers to MOS, these two Wikidata pages no doubt should be merged.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:19, 1 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Those two Wikidata items cannot be merged because one of them represents a disambiguation page and the other is a content item. You cannot merge disambiguations with real-word items. An entity can be either “a Wikimedia disambiguation page”, or it can be “a type of ministry”, no entity can be both at the same time. If e.g. zh:科技部 stops being a disambiguation, its sitelink can be moved to Q1313096 (ditto for the disambiguations at ko and jp). But it still won’t be merging of the two items. --Mormegil (talk) 17:09, 1 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Ahoj, můžu se zeptat, proč jsi mě tolikrát revertoval? Udělal jsem něco špatně nebo jde o chybu ze Tvé strany? Patrik L. (talk) 12:58, 14 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Jak vidím, tak je v tom i David V. Patrik L. (talk) 13:19, 14 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

No prostě proto, že tvoje změny přidávaly duplicitní identifikátory; ty identifikátory ČSFD tam už byly předtím, takže po mém revertu jsou tam opět jen jednou. --Mormegil (talk) 13:36, 14 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Dobře, díky za info. Já jsem čekal, že se při případném duplicitním zadání zobrazí chyba. Ještě jednou díky a příště na to dám pozor. Patrik L. (talk) 13:42, 14 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Zobrazí se tam chybová ikonka. Ale nestane se tak před uložením, ale až po uložení, tzn. pokud se nepodívám předem, jestli tam ten identifikátor už není, je potřeba sledovat stránku po uložení. (Drobný hint: pokud po uložení zůstane rámeček s novým tvrzením na svém místě, ještě tam ta vlastnost nebyla. Pokud tam už byla, rámeček „zmizí“ a objeví se rovnou u té už existující hodnoty.) --Mormegil (talk) 13:53, 14 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Dear Mormegil,

I hope you are doing good,

I am Kholoud, a researcher at King's College London, and I work on a project as part of my PhD research, in which I have developed a personalised recommender system that suggests Wikidata items for the editors based on their past edits. I am collaborating on this project with Elena Simperl and Miaojing Shi.

I am inviting you to a task-based study that will ask you to provide your judgments about the relevance of the items suggested by our system based on your previous edits. Participation is completely voluntary, and your cooperation will enable us to evaluate the accuracy of the recommender system in suggesting relevant items to you. We will analyse the results anonymised, and they will be published to a research venue.

The study will start in late January 2022 or early February 2022, and it should take no more than 30 minutes.

If you agree to participate in this study, please either contact me at kholoud.alghamdi@kcl.ac.uk or use this form https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSees9WzFXR0Vl3mHLkZCaByeFHRrBy51kBca53euq9nt3XWog/viewform?usp=sf_link I will contact you with the link to start the study.

For more information about the study, please read this post: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User:Kholoudsaa In case you have further questions or require more information, don't hesitate to contact me through my mentioned email.

Thank you for considering taking part in this research.

Regards

Kholoudsaa (talk) 17:39, 3 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Promiň, toto René Levínský (Q106199530) nejsem schopen uhlídat. Ale hned zítra se podívám, jestli jsem náhodou někde nepřidával místa narození a úmrtí k položkám, kde byla ta samá hodnota zavržena - to jsem zapomněl odchytit. Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 21:56, 26 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Srdečně Vás zveme na český a slovenský Wikimedia Hackathon 2022, který se bude konat 21.5. od 9:00 do 16:00 hybridně - paralelně online (na tomto odkazu) a paralelně offline (na adrese Slovenská 1705/21 v Praze 2 v sídle spolku Wikimedia Česká republika, který akci pořádá). Letošní hackathon bude věnovaný slovenským wikidatům a budování slovenské Wikidata komunity. Celý Hackathon bude v českém a slovenském jazyce. Více o programu Hackathonu se dozvíte na tomto odkazu nebo na FB události. Těšíme se na Vás! S pozdravem, --Vojtěch Dostál (talk) & Eva Vele (WMCZ) (talk) 18:20, 17 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

We cordially invite you to the Czech and Slovak Wikimedia Hackathon 2022, which will take place on 21 May from 9:00 - 16:00 in a hybrid way - parallel online (at this link) and parallel offline: at Slovenská 1705/21 in Prague 2 at the headquarters of the Wikimedia Czech Republic, which organizes the event. This year's hackathon will be dedicated to Slovak Wikidata and building the Slovak Wikidata community. More information about the Hackathon program can be found at this link or on the FB event. The whole Hackathon will be in Czech and Slovak language only. We look forward to seeing you there! Best regards, --Vojtěch Dostál (talk) & Eva Vele (WMCZ) (talk) 18:20, 17 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Ahoj, není toto omyl? Spíš bych tipoval Q66364248. Gumruch (talk) 13:07, 1 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Není. w:cs:Ministerstvo pro hospodářskou politiku a rozvoj České republiky#Vývoj. V některých položkách jsem přidával upřesňující vymezení typu "platí pro část: věda a výzkum", ale tady jsem zjevně byl línější... Mormegil (talk) 17:12, 1 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Dobry den, vsiml jsem si, ze jste znovu odstranil muj popis 'znacka' u Q115684151, s poznamkou „navigační systém“ jistě není jedním konkrétním exemplářem „předmětu sloužícího k označení místa“. Podle me to jednoznacne _jsou_ znacky a slouzi k oznaceni mista; jestli je jedna nebo jich je vic, podle me neni podstatne. Take na ostatnich popisech, ktere jste odstranil, jsem neshledal nic spatneho; je jasne, ze jde o nestandardni 'objekt', ktery hure zapada do beznych kategorii. Nehodlam se poustet do revertacnich bitev; povazuji za vhodnejsi pouzivat reverty jen ve vyjimecnych pripadech, kdy je naprosto jasne, ze predchozi editace byla chybna. --JiriMatejicek (talk) 11:50, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Ano, navigační systém Jižního města se skládá ze značek, ale není značkou. Klidně by tam mohlo přibýt tvrzení Graphical navigation system Jižní Město II (Q115684151)has part(s) of the class (P2670)physical sign (Q105449313) (vedle toho k sculpture (Q860861), které jsem také převzal z vaší původní verze, i když si nejsem 100%, jak moc je to vhodné/přesné), jakkoli takové tvrzení je asi dosti obecné a platí pro každý navigační systém. --Mormegil (talk) 12:11, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Nejvystiznejsi je asi to 'signage system', co jste pridal dnes; o tom jsem driv nevedel. --JiriMatejicek (talk) 13:19, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Ahoj @Mormegil - I see you use bot to add info on when people created Mastodon accounts. As I am advocate for more use of standards like Fediverse by Wikimedians and in Wikimedia as policy I wonder if you have skills and interest to use this data to render a kind of map and-or timeline of Fediverse adoption across Wikimedia? -- Zblace (talk) 07:34, 23 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Well, I was already curious so I tried to make a chart of Mastodon adoption, as recorded on Wikidata, see https://w.wiki/6s6a --Mormegil (talk) 08:38, 23 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi, thanks for catching and fixing the duplicate Mastodon accounts. Sorry that happened; I should have realized the possibility. Egon Willighagen (talk) 19:12, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, the dupes are not a problem, those are quite easily fixable and not that problematic anyway. I am a bit more concerned about the mismatched assignments like Andy MacLeod (Q4760972), Bill Hooker (Q9171702), or Doctor Spectro (Q5287389) (!)… Were the Mastodon accounts matched only by a name+surname match? That’s not very reliable, is it? And those are not machine detectable and quite problematic. --Mormegil (talk) 20:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

This was done with OpenRefine and I scanned through them one by one. This was based on my social network and I know people I interact with. Clearly not working 100%. I am sorry about the inconvenience. So, no, the intention never was just name+surname match. I still need to check what happened. Egon Willighagen (talk) 08:06, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

That's good news. Some errors can happen but it's reassuring these should be rare exceptions. Thanks! --Mormegil (talk) 10:13, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Is there a dedicated Property for Czech titles like ing., JUDr. or MUDr.? Vlk (talk) 12:29, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Well, these are just normal academic degree (P512). And there are engineer's degree (Q15206450), Doctor of Laws (Q959320), Doctor of Medicine (Q913404) as values. --Mormegil (talk) 19:33, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Děkují, Mormegilu. Jsem teď správně doplňoval Q37800486, anebo využivat P512 v tomto přípádu není zvykem? Vlk (talk) 14:39, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Je to zcela platné tvrzení, klidně to tak může být. Není to úplně časté, protože „důležitější“ jsou akademické tituly u vědců apod. či např. od Doctor of Philosophy (Q752297) výše, takže u spousty lidí s inženýrským, magisterským, popř. ještě nižší titulem uvedeny nejsou. Ale není nic špatného na tom, je uvést. …tedy až na to, že ta vlastnost vyžaduje referenci, která tam teď není… --Mormegil (talk) 14:28, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Reference přidána. Vlk (talk) 14:40, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Please reconsider your edit on Ágnes Keleti (Q233572): 1952 Summer Olympics (Q8407) is in fact not written there, all of the other items are referring to the 1956 Summer Olympics. Bencemac (talk) 08:46, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

D’oh! Sorry, I’m obviously blind (and similar problems in data are common, so I paid too little attention). Hopefully fixed now. Thanks for the heads up! --Mormegil (talk) 07:51, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for expanding the item! Bencemac (talk) 20:14, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ahoj, naimportoval jsem do par desitek polozek o letistich informaci o ranvejich, ale zapomnel jsem vyloucit ty, ktere uz tyto informace maji. Nekdy to tak trochu koliduje s informacemi, ktere jsi tam pridal vetsinou ty, napriklad to pridava zbytecnou referenci. Rad bych to hromadne revertoval a udelal znovu, ale nefunguje Edit Groups, tak to musime chvili takhle vydrzet (pokud te nenapada jiny zpusob jak mych 90 editaci revertovat). Nechce se mi to rucne prochazet :)) Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 12:15, 12 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Please, I don't know how I should technically respond to you mentioning me in your edit summaries, as I have tried to explain in the property proposal discussion, that I'm not at all opposed to the creation of this property, and I agree with you on everything you say regarding it. If I can help you get this property created in any way,lease tell me what I should do.--~̴̴ SM5POR (talk) 11:02, 23 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Well, I don’t know either. AFAICT, everything was settled there. But since ChristianKl has removed the ready status, I don’t know who should do what to finalize the discussion. But I guess the proposer (I did not create the proposal) should lead this? Dunno. --Mormegil (talk) 10:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Dobrý den, prosím rozlišujte mezi pojmy „homoúsián“ (z řec. ὁμοουσιος od ὁμος - stejný) a „homoiúsián“ (z řec. ὁμοιουσιος od ὁμοιος - podobný). Homoúsián je stoupenec Nicejského vyznání, zatímco homoiúsián je stoupenec opoziční strany. K tomu také směřovala moje editace z 15. 5., protože český článek je přiřazen k nesprávnému anglickému ekvivalentu. Děkuji za pochopení. Pavel672 (talk) 10:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Díky za pošťouchnutí, ono tam toho bylo špatně provázáno spousta; zkusil jsem napravit, případně zkoukněte. Díky. --Mormegil (talk) 11:23, 17 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ahoj,

are trail (Q17455228) or walk (Q12776184) possible be the same as directed path (Q2962284) in Czech? Bernice Heiderman (talk) 02:05, 6 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

No, they are not. I believe the English labels and descriptions are correct and match the enwiki article en:Path (graph theory). "Directed path" is just a directed-graph equivalent of path (path (Q1415372)). We could have the corresponding items for directed trail (Q17455228) and directed walk (Q12776184) if we wanted (but I don't think it is that interesting).

Also, I think your addition of Kantenzug to directed path (Q2962284) is wrong: AFAICT, Kantenzug is just walk (Q12776184), it is not specific to directed graphs (de:Weg (Graphentheorie): "In einem (ungerichteten) Graphen nennt man eine Folge..."), the differing feature is the possibility of repetition. Mormegil (talk) 07:47, 6 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

According to this German PDF Kantenzug has to be walk (Q12776184). Albeit definitions have been varying in the past:

Kőnig benutzt den Begriff Kantenzug, um deutlich zu machen, dass sich keine Kanten wiederholen (engl. trail). Mitunter wird auch der Begriff Weg für Kantenzug benutzt (Steger). Auch in der englischsprachigen Literatur wird der Begriff nicht einheitlich benutzt, er wird jedoch meistens mit walk bezeichnet, mitunter aber auch als path.

--Bernice Heiderman (talk) 13:34, 6 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ahoj, dík za opravu Q117156597. Ale co s tou rychlostní kanoistikou, kam s ní? Sport je kanoistika, kam tedy psát "podsport"? Vím že je to konstruováno pro použití u sportovců, ale u jednotlivých závodů to má taky smysl. Tedy jako vymezení sportu? Packa (talk) 14:34, 6 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Nejsem si jist, jestli existuje úplně přesně standardní způsob, je v tom poněkud binec, řekl bych. Např. u athletics at the 2024 Summer Olympics – men's 200 metres (Q116495926) se používá competition class (P2094), ale už se zcela konkrétní kategorií men's 200 metres (Q55243755); to zní nejsofistikovaněji, ale pro „kanoe C-2 500 m muži“ (a další) nejspíš momentálně ani položka neexistuje. --Mormegil (talk) 15:59, 6 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ano, je v tom trochu zmatek: mísí se tu asi snaha o to co nejsofistikovanější přiřazení disciplíny s co nejjednodušším zápisem. Dík, nechám to jako vymezení. --Packa (talk) 14:38, 7 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry. It was really typed in the wrong place, you're right. Pallor (talk) 07:46, 9 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

		The Wikidata Barnstar
		Děkuji za rychlou a účinnou pomoc se šablonou Česká divadelní encyklopedie!

--Gampe (talk) 10:09, 18 October 2024 (UTC)Reply