Re: [Wikidata-l] Reasonator ignores of qualifier
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 6:13 PM, Derric Atzrott datzr...@alizeepathology.com wrote: @Magus, I've submitted a pull request that fixes that problem I was complaining about. Its not an ideal fix, but its good enough to satisfy me. Thanks, merged and live now! Cheers, Magnus ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Re: [Wikidata-l] first draft for new user interface design
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 10:37 PM, Thomas Douillard thomas.douill...@gmail.com wrote: Interesting. My first feeling is for references cloning : I had in mind some kind of boxes like the one on the left collumn to collect statements references, that could be drag and dropped or copy paste to statements to add reference to them. Do you think you can do a quick mockup of what you have in mind? Also please let's keep feedback at https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:UI_redesign_input. That'll make it much easier to get an overview and reduce duplicate discussions. Thanks :) Cheers Lydia -- Lydia Pintscher - http://about.me/lydia.pintscher Product Manager for Wikidata Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 10963 Berlin www.wikimedia.de Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 Nz. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985. ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Re: [Wikidata-l] first draft for new user interface design
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 11:35 PM, David Cuenca dacu...@gmail.com wrote: Considering how hard is to please everyone I think it is a good start. The color scheme is much better than the omg-this-is-so-depressing grey that we have right now. And the picture plus the boxes look like they have the right size. I'm not so sure about the statements size, but if they can be shown collapsed, ok. Thanks! :) As Thomas I also miss a collection of all references in a box on the right that could be drag and dropped on any item. Can you make a simple mockup of what you have in mind? And some sorting options, like alphabetical, by property number, or some other basic property sorting (metadata properties on top). *nod* The only thing I'm not convinced about is the edition of label/alias statements. Labels/aliases should be edited as statements so we can have more variety and add qualifiers and references to them. I really don't want us to add this additional complexity at this point. We're trying really hard to make editing friendlier and easier to understand. I think this would go in the opposite direction. Let's move the discussion to https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:UI_redesign_input please. Cheers Lydia -- Lydia Pintscher - http://about.me/lydia.pintscher Product Manager for Wikidata Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 10963 Berlin www.wikimedia.de Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 Nz. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985. ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Re: [Wikidata-l] first draft for new user interface design
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 11:55 PM, Liangent liang...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, Maybe we can have design of language label stuff included natively in this new UI somehow? I realized in my previous GSoC project that it's a more difficult thing to build a good UI design, than to have the language fallback feature itself implemented. Yes language fallbacks will need to be included. We're not quite at that stage of the design yet. Cheers Lydia -- Lydia Pintscher - http://about.me/lydia.pintscher Product Manager for Wikidata Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 10963 Berlin www.wikimedia.de Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 Nz. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985. ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Re: [Wikidata-l] first draft for new user interface design
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Lydia Pintscher lydia.pintsc...@wikimedia.de wrote: I really don't want us to add this additional complexity at this point. We're trying really hard to make editing friendlier and easier to understand. I think this would go in the opposite direction. Not necessarily. It is just the same concept as statements, just in a different section. I have left a mockup on the ui page. Let's move the discussion to https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:UI_redesign_input please. Ok! :-) Micru ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Re: [Wikidata-l] Reasonator ignores of qualifier
On 17 June 2014 03:41, John Mark Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote: Yeah, there seem to be some cognitive dissonance going on here, it's weird. Andy wants an item about himself. I want policy, particularly the notability policy, to be applied consistently and honestly. 'The Community' said 'no, not yet'. Not so. There was no emerging consensus before the item was deleted; and further on-Wikidata discussion effectively prohibited. Andy regularly raises this as an inconsistency. I do? Regularly? Where? When? Items for contributors is a special-case problem that the community needs to solve with a focused RFC, Is it? We have items for other contributors; there is no policy prohibiting them,. but maybe now isnt the right time, I raised the issue of notability; not a specific item, because it seemed apposite to the then-current discussion. (I responded to the comment It is even said in the notability criteria that if we can clearly identify the concept, like with an id in some authority or national database, then it is notable. With evidence of a counter view being applied; it soon became clear that I'm not the only person to have observed this. It is you who has instead chosen to make it about the specific case. and raising it in every discussion that touches on notability is not helpful. every discussion...? -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Re: [Wikidata-l] Reasonator ignores of qualifier
Hoi, The problem of a lack of discussion in Wikidata has been raised before. Ignoring it as has been the observable practice so far is demotivating, dispiriting, infuriating and it splits the community in the ones wielding the stick and the ones being stricken. Thanks, GerardM On 17 June 2014 15:57, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote: On 17 June 2014 03:41, John Mark Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote: Yeah, there seem to be some cognitive dissonance going on here, it's weird. Andy wants an item about himself. I want policy, particularly the notability policy, to be applied consistently and honestly. 'The Community' said 'no, not yet'. Not so. There was no emerging consensus before the item was deleted; and further on-Wikidata discussion effectively prohibited. Andy regularly raises this as an inconsistency. I do? Regularly? Where? When? Items for contributors is a special-case problem that the community needs to solve with a focused RFC, Is it? We have items for other contributors; there is no policy prohibiting them,. but maybe now isnt the right time, I raised the issue of notability; not a specific item, because it seemed apposite to the then-current discussion. (I responded to the comment It is even said in the notability criteria that if we can clearly identify the concept, like with an id in some authority or national database, then it is notable. With evidence of a counter view being applied; it soon became clear that I'm not the only person to have observed this. It is you who has instead chosen to make it about the specific case. and raising it in every discussion that touches on notability is not helpful. every discussion...? -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Re: [Wikidata-l] Reasonator ignores of qualifier
Sad to see the Deletionists taking hold on Wikidata too. Tom On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 4:31 PM, Thomas Douillard thomas.douill...@gmail.com wrote: Yeah, there seem to be some cognitive dissonance going on here, it's weird. 2014-06-16 22:08 GMT+02:00 Derric Atzrott datzr...@alizeepathology.com: That's certainly what the policy says. It's not what some admins accept, though. A direct quote from one, from as recently as March this year: * The general spirit of the notability policy is that Wikipedia finds [the subject] notable This was also the general vibe that I had gotten that informed my understanding of notability on Wikidata before someone pointed out that policy actually says differently. Thank you, Derric Atzrott ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Re: [Wikidata-l] Reasonator ignores of qualifier
So far as data types go I'd look at the structure here http://www.freebase.com/business/employment_tenure?schema= Something parallel to this satisfies the major requirements for describing who was the Mayor of Where When; perhaps the Mayor of New York is particularly notable, but sum total of significance of all mayors surely is greater and enough to be notable. Of course an uncountable number of composite concepts that people might want to reference that can be derived from a generic instance. For instance, Economy of Japan might be a good LCSH heading, but even the LCSH creates headings like that in a faceted organization that recognizes that there is an Economy of [place] for any [place]. If all of the useful composite concepts were materialized, you could puff Wikidata up by orders of magnitudes. ᐧ On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Tom Morris tfmor...@gmail.com wrote: Sad to see the Deletionists taking hold on Wikidata too. Tom On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 4:31 PM, Thomas Douillard thomas.douill...@gmail.com wrote: Yeah, there seem to be some cognitive dissonance going on here, it's weird. 2014-06-16 22:08 GMT+02:00 Derric Atzrott datzr...@alizeepathology.com: That's certainly what the policy says. It's not what some admins accept, though. A direct quote from one, from as recently as March this year: * The general spirit of the notability policy is that Wikipedia finds [the subject] notable This was also the general vibe that I had gotten that informed my understanding of notability on Wikidata before someone pointed out that policy actually says differently. Thank you, Derric Atzrott ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l -- Paul Houle Expert on Freebase, DBpedia, Hadoop and RDF (607) 539 6254paul.houle on Skype ontolo...@gmail.com ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Re: [Wikidata-l] Reasonator ignores of qualifier
here are my thoughts about this: MAYOR OF FOO VERSUS MAYOR OF FOO I am in favour of a separate item for every town and village which has a mayor or a council. I am against have a Mayor of Foo item for each these. If the mayor gets an item then the deputy mayor and the sheriff and the dog cacher should get items too. Much better to use the 'of' qualifier. If an administrative division has 2 councils e.g. the Senate and the Congress in many US states then create an item for Iowa Senate and use the statement office held:Senator. of:Iowa Senate so it keeps the same pattern. NOTABILITY My opinion is that a separate item should be created wherever this is necessary to record statements about a concept. If there are no useful statements you can make about it then it probably doesn't need an item. Example 1: The Iowa Senate has a foundation date, a quantity of members, a headquarters location. Iowa Senator is a subclass of Senator and there is not much more you can say. (Note that even on the English Wikipedia US Senator is a redirect to US Senate. Only the Occitan wikipedia has separate items for these. See Q13217683) Example 2: If we want to record the overall results (votes and seats won by each party) for the 2014 elections to the Iowa senate then we will need an item for 2014 Senate elections in Iowa. Example 3: If we want to record the results for each constituency the we will need an item for 2014 elections in North Iowa Senate district and for all the other electoral districts (but I hope we can come up with something so we don't have to create an item for all the failed candidates). That is what I think. Joe On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 5:05 PM, Paul Houle ontolo...@gmail.com wrote: So far as data types go I'd look at the structure here http://www.freebase.com/business/employment_tenure?schema= Something parallel to this satisfies the major requirements for describing who was the Mayor of Where When; perhaps the Mayor of New York is particularly notable, but sum total of significance of all mayors surely is greater and enough to be notable. Of course an uncountable number of composite concepts that people might want to reference that can be derived from a generic instance. For instance, Economy of Japan might be a good LCSH heading, but even the LCSH creates headings like that in a faceted organization that recognizes that there is an Economy of [place] for any [place]. If all of the useful composite concepts were materialized, you could puff Wikidata up by orders of magnitudes. ᐧ On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Tom Morris tfmor...@gmail.com wrote: Sad to see the Deletionists taking hold on Wikidata too. Tom On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 4:31 PM, Thomas Douillard thomas.douill...@gmail.com wrote: Yeah, there seem to be some cognitive dissonance going on here, it's weird. 2014-06-16 22:08 GMT+02:00 Derric Atzrott datzr...@alizeepathology.com : That's certainly what the policy says. It's not what some admins accept, though. A direct quote from one, from as recently as March this year: * The general spirit of the notability policy is that Wikipedia finds [the subject] notable This was also the general vibe that I had gotten that informed my understanding of notability on Wikidata before someone pointed out that policy actually says differently. Thank you, Derric Atzrott ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l -- Paul Houle Expert on Freebase, DBpedia, Hadoop and RDF (607) 539 6254paul.houle on Skype ontolo...@gmail.com ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Re: [Wikidata-l] Reasonator ignores of qualifier
Hoi, OK so what is is LCSH and why is it relevant ? Thanks, GerardM On 17 June 2014 18:05, Paul Houle ontolo...@gmail.com wrote: So far as data types go I'd look at the structure here http://www.freebase.com/business/employment_tenure?schema= Something parallel to this satisfies the major requirements for describing who was the Mayor of Where When; perhaps the Mayor of New York is particularly notable, but sum total of significance of all mayors surely is greater and enough to be notable. Of course an uncountable number of composite concepts that people might want to reference that can be derived from a generic instance. For instance, Economy of Japan might be a good LCSH heading, but even the LCSH creates headings like that in a faceted organization that recognizes that there is an Economy of [place] for any [place]. If all of the useful composite concepts were materialized, you could puff Wikidata up by orders of magnitudes. ᐧ On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Tom Morris tfmor...@gmail.com wrote: Sad to see the Deletionists taking hold on Wikidata too. Tom On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 4:31 PM, Thomas Douillard thomas.douill...@gmail.com wrote: Yeah, there seem to be some cognitive dissonance going on here, it's weird. 2014-06-16 22:08 GMT+02:00 Derric Atzrott datzr...@alizeepathology.com : That's certainly what the policy says. It's not what some admins accept, though. A direct quote from one, from as recently as March this year: * The general spirit of the notability policy is that Wikipedia finds [the subject] notable This was also the general vibe that I had gotten that informed my understanding of notability on Wikidata before someone pointed out that policy actually says differently. Thank you, Derric Atzrott ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l -- Paul Houle Expert on Freebase, DBpedia, Hadoop and RDF (607) 539 6254paul.houle on Skype ontolo...@gmail.com ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Re: [Wikidata-l] Reasonator ignores of qualifier
here are my thoughts about this: MAYOR OF FOO VERSUS MAYOR OF FOO I am in favour of a separate item for every town and village which has a mayor or a council. I am against have a Mayor of Foo item for each these. If the mayor gets an item then the deputy mayor and the sheriff and the dog cacher should get items too. Much better to use the 'of' qualifier. If an administrative division has 2 councils e.g. the Senate and the Congress in many US states then create an item for Iowa Senate and use the statement office held:Senator. of:Iowa Senate so it keeps the same pattern. This is along the same lines that I am thinking. NOTABILITY My opinion is that a separate item should be created wherever this is necessary to record statements about a concept. If there are no useful statements you can make about it then it probably doesn't need an item. Example 1: The Iowa Senate has a foundation date, a quantity of members, a headquarters location. Iowa Senator is a subclass of Senator and there is not much more you can say. (Note that even on the English Wikipedia US Senator is a redirect to US Senate. Only the Occitan wikipedia has separate items for these. See Q13217683) To make this work there will need to be a lot more qualifiers in existence. Generally though I would agree with this too. Maybe it would be worth making an RFC on-wiki about notability to ask whether or not this is the intended way to interpret it and if we can change the requirements to this? It would also be a good time to address the dissonance between what the policy says and what is standard operating procedure. Thank you, Derric Atzrott ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Re: [Wikidata-l] Reasonator ignores of qualifier
Hoi, First of all, we are talking about Wikidata. What a Wikipedia does, any Wikipedia does gets reflected in Wikidata but Wikidata does not need to stop there. When there is a Mayor of Foo, you can easily query for all the mayors of Foo. With more difficulty we can do a similar thing when we have composite queries for office held mayor and in the administrative dadida Foo. (by implication Foo has a mayor and not a president). My problem is that functionality like Reasonator does not support this. I thoroughly hate all the arguments that are theoretical and not practical. This is a splitter and lumper issue where Wikidata itself does not support us at all and is unlikely to do so as far as I understand things. I love to learn that I am wrong and that we can make all the mayors just mayor. NOTABILITY When the Occitan Wikipedia makes a useful distinction, we have to deal with it. When the English Wikipedia does not, it makes no difference whatsoever. Notability in Wikidata is about relevance and relevance in Wikidata only.. An example: in the Esperanto Wikipedia people can be notable because they speak Esperanto. Often not more than that can be said about these humans. Given that eo.wp includes them they are notable in Wikidata. Thanks, GerardM On 17 June 2014 19:56, Joe Filceolaire filceola...@gmail.com wrote: here are my thoughts about this: MAYOR OF FOO VERSUS MAYOR OF FOO I am in favour of a separate item for every town and village which has a mayor or a council. I am against have a Mayor of Foo item for each these. If the mayor gets an item then the deputy mayor and the sheriff and the dog cacher should get items too. Much better to use the 'of' qualifier. If an administrative division has 2 councils e.g. the Senate and the Congress in many US states then create an item for Iowa Senate and use the statement office held:Senator. of:Iowa Senate so it keeps the same pattern. NOTABILITY My opinion is that a separate item should be created wherever this is necessary to record statements about a concept. If there are no useful statements you can make about it then it probably doesn't need an item. Example 1: The Iowa Senate has a foundation date, a quantity of members, a headquarters location. Iowa Senator is a subclass of Senator and there is not much more you can say. (Note that even on the English Wikipedia US Senator is a redirect to US Senate. Only the Occitan wikipedia has separate items for these. See Q13217683) Example 2: If we want to record the overall results (votes and seats won by each party) for the 2014 elections to the Iowa senate then we will need an item for 2014 Senate elections in Iowa. Example 3: If we want to record the results for each constituency the we will need an item for 2014 elections in North Iowa Senate district and for all the other electoral districts (but I hope we can come up with something so we don't have to create an item for all the failed candidates). That is what I think. Joe On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 5:05 PM, Paul Houle ontolo...@gmail.com wrote: So far as data types go I'd look at the structure here http://www.freebase.com/business/employment_tenure?schema= Something parallel to this satisfies the major requirements for describing who was the Mayor of Where When; perhaps the Mayor of New York is particularly notable, but sum total of significance of all mayors surely is greater and enough to be notable. Of course an uncountable number of composite concepts that people might want to reference that can be derived from a generic instance. For instance, Economy of Japan might be a good LCSH heading, but even the LCSH creates headings like that in a faceted organization that recognizes that there is an Economy of [place] for any [place]. If all of the useful composite concepts were materialized, you could puff Wikidata up by orders of magnitudes. ᐧ On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Tom Morris tfmor...@gmail.com wrote: Sad to see the Deletionists taking hold on Wikidata too. Tom On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 4:31 PM, Thomas Douillard thomas.douill...@gmail.com wrote: Yeah, there seem to be some cognitive dissonance going on here, it's weird. 2014-06-16 22:08 GMT+02:00 Derric Atzrott datzr...@alizeepathology.com: That's certainly what the policy says. It's not what some admins accept, though. A direct quote from one, from as recently as March this year: * The general spirit of the notability policy is that Wikipedia finds [the subject] notable This was also the general vibe that I had gotten that informed my understanding of notability on Wikidata before someone pointed out that policy actually says differently. Thank you, Derric Atzrott ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Re: [Wikidata-l] Reasonator ignores of qualifier
Hoi Gerard If we standardise on the Mayor of New York pattern and add a qualifier equivalent to:Mayor of New York for those cases where we do have a specific property then would Reasonator be able to cope with that? On the other hand I've been doing some more poking on en:Wikipedia and I found a List of United States Senators from Georgia (and for many other offices) which, as I see it, is equivalent to an item for United States Senator from Georgia (just needs a rename) so I guess we could make the statement Office held:United States Senator from Georgia. I'm guessing most wikipedias would consider lists like this to be notable, even for local mayors, so maybe that office is notable and should have an item separate from that for the district. Confused now. Joe On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 7:15 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote: Hoi, First of all, we are talking about Wikidata. What a Wikipedia does, any Wikipedia does gets reflected in Wikidata but Wikidata does not need to stop there. When there is a Mayor of Foo, you can easily query for all the mayors of Foo. With more difficulty we can do a similar thing when we have composite queries for office held mayor and in the administrative dadida Foo. (by implication Foo has a mayor and not a president). My problem is that functionality like Reasonator does not support this. I thoroughly hate all the arguments that are theoretical and not practical. This is a splitter and lumper issue where Wikidata itself does not support us at all and is unlikely to do so as far as I understand things. I love to learn that I am wrong and that we can make all the mayors just mayor. NOTABILITY When the Occitan Wikipedia makes a useful distinction, we have to deal with it. When the English Wikipedia does not, it makes no difference whatsoever. Notability in Wikidata is about relevance and relevance in Wikidata only.. An example: in the Esperanto Wikipedia people can be notable because they speak Esperanto. Often not more than that can be said about these humans. Given that eo.wp includes them they are notable in Wikidata. Thanks, GerardM On 17 June 2014 19:56, Joe Filceolaire filceola...@gmail.com wrote: here are my thoughts about this: MAYOR OF FOO VERSUS MAYOR OF FOO I am in favour of a separate item for every town and village which has a mayor or a council. I am against have a Mayor of Foo item for each these. If the mayor gets an item then the deputy mayor and the sheriff and the dog cacher should get items too. Much better to use the 'of' qualifier. If an administrative division has 2 councils e.g. the Senate and the Congress in many US states then create an item for Iowa Senate and use the statement office held:Senator. of:Iowa Senate so it keeps the same pattern. NOTABILITY My opinion is that a separate item should be created wherever this is necessary to record statements about a concept. If there are no useful statements you can make about it then it probably doesn't need an item. Example 1: The Iowa Senate has a foundation date, a quantity of members, a headquarters location. Iowa Senator is a subclass of Senator and there is not much more you can say. (Note that even on the English Wikipedia US Senator is a redirect to US Senate. Only the Occitan wikipedia has separate items for these. See Q13217683) Example 2: If we want to record the overall results (votes and seats won by each party) for the 2014 elections to the Iowa senate then we will need an item for 2014 Senate elections in Iowa. Example 3: If we want to record the results for each constituency the we will need an item for 2014 elections in North Iowa Senate district and for all the other electoral districts (but I hope we can come up with something so we don't have to create an item for all the failed candidates). That is what I think. Joe On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 5:05 PM, Paul Houle ontolo...@gmail.com wrote: So far as data types go I'd look at the structure here http://www.freebase.com/business/employment_tenure?schema= Something parallel to this satisfies the major requirements for describing who was the Mayor of Where When; perhaps the Mayor of New York is particularly notable, but sum total of significance of all mayors surely is greater and enough to be notable. Of course an uncountable number of composite concepts that people might want to reference that can be derived from a generic instance. For instance, Economy of Japan might be a good LCSH heading, but even the LCSH creates headings like that in a faceted organization that recognizes that there is an Economy of [place] for any [place]. If all of the useful composite concepts were materialized, you could puff Wikidata up by orders of magnitudes. ᐧ On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Tom Morris tfmor...@gmail.com wrote: Sad to see the Deletionists taking hold on Wikidata too. Tom On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 4:31 PM,
Re: [Wikidata-l] Reasonator ignores of qualifier
Hoi, As it is Reasonator is able to show a query for either. When Wikidata has an item for Mayor of New York [1], Reasonator shows you all the mayors of New York and it shows them in order of date when a date is available. Theoretically a similar page can be created for the result of office held mayor and is in the administrative yadiyadi New York. It has to be developed. Really important is that I can envision this to happen in Reasonator and WDQ and I would be thrilled when Wikidata itself could do this. However, I fear that this will not happen in the foreseeable future. Joe, please consider how things may work out in the first place in Wikidata and then, only then consider other projects and then, only then Wikipedia, your English Wikipedia at that. Thanks, GerardM [1] http://tools.wmflabs.org/reasonator/?q=Q785304 On 17 June 2014 20:50, Joe Filceolaire filceola...@gmail.com wrote: Hoi Gerard If we standardise on the Mayor of New York pattern and add a qualifier equivalent to:Mayor of New York for those cases where we do have a specific property then would Reasonator be able to cope with that? On the other hand I've been doing some more poking on en:Wikipedia and I found a List of United States Senators from Georgia (and for many other offices) which, as I see it, is equivalent to an item for United States Senator from Georgia (just needs a rename) so I guess we could make the statement Office held:United States Senator from Georgia. I'm guessing most wikipedias would consider lists like this to be notable, even for local mayors, so maybe that office is notable and should have an item separate from that for the district. Confused now. Joe On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 7:15 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote: Hoi, First of all, we are talking about Wikidata. What a Wikipedia does, any Wikipedia does gets reflected in Wikidata but Wikidata does not need to stop there. When there is a Mayor of Foo, you can easily query for all the mayors of Foo. With more difficulty we can do a similar thing when we have composite queries for office held mayor and in the administrative dadida Foo. (by implication Foo has a mayor and not a president). My problem is that functionality like Reasonator does not support this. I thoroughly hate all the arguments that are theoretical and not practical. This is a splitter and lumper issue where Wikidata itself does not support us at all and is unlikely to do so as far as I understand things. I love to learn that I am wrong and that we can make all the mayors just mayor. NOTABILITY When the Occitan Wikipedia makes a useful distinction, we have to deal with it. When the English Wikipedia does not, it makes no difference whatsoever. Notability in Wikidata is about relevance and relevance in Wikidata only.. An example: in the Esperanto Wikipedia people can be notable because they speak Esperanto. Often not more than that can be said about these humans. Given that eo.wp includes them they are notable in Wikidata. Thanks, GerardM On 17 June 2014 19:56, Joe Filceolaire filceola...@gmail.com wrote: here are my thoughts about this: MAYOR OF FOO VERSUS MAYOR OF FOO I am in favour of a separate item for every town and village which has a mayor or a council. I am against have a Mayor of Foo item for each these. If the mayor gets an item then the deputy mayor and the sheriff and the dog cacher should get items too. Much better to use the 'of' qualifier. If an administrative division has 2 councils e.g. the Senate and the Congress in many US states then create an item for Iowa Senate and use the statement office held:Senator. of:Iowa Senate so it keeps the same pattern. NOTABILITY My opinion is that a separate item should be created wherever this is necessary to record statements about a concept. If there are no useful statements you can make about it then it probably doesn't need an item. Example 1: The Iowa Senate has a foundation date, a quantity of members, a headquarters location. Iowa Senator is a subclass of Senator and there is not much more you can say. (Note that even on the English Wikipedia US Senator is a redirect to US Senate. Only the Occitan wikipedia has separate items for these. See Q13217683) Example 2: If we want to record the overall results (votes and seats won by each party) for the 2014 elections to the Iowa senate then we will need an item for 2014 Senate elections in Iowa. Example 3: If we want to record the results for each constituency the we will need an item for 2014 elections in North Iowa Senate district and for all the other electoral districts (but I hope we can come up with something so we don't have to create an item for all the failed candidates). That is what I think. Joe On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 5:05 PM, Paul Houle ontolo...@gmail.com wrote: So far as data types go I'd look at the structure here
