User talk:Loominade

USS Grissom (Q10386185) USS Monitor (Q10387054) USS Saratoga (Q10387060) USS Farragut (Q18467654) talk

Previous discussion was archived at User talk:Loominade/Archive 1 on 2019-09-11.

Please stop creating nonsense items such as Q113592804 and Q113593786.

These are not nonsense items. I just didn't research their names jet

But it was a different Niels Nielsen (Q97481659) Niels Nielsen (Q113607255): so I understand the confusion. I apologise for my harsh reaction 😅

Hi,

You put plurale tantum (Q138246) as the lexical category of negh/ (L643988) but it is wrong as plurale tantum is not lexical category. I suspect this is a noun. Could you take a look and correct it?

hi,

according to negh | Definition of {negh} at Klingon Language Wiki this word is:

This is an inherently plural form.

maybe plurale tantum (Q138246) should be instance of (P31)?

It seems that there is no clear consensus between has quality (P1552) and instance of (P31), see https://w.wiki/5Vqa I'll let you choose, both seems ok.

But what is clear is that Q138246 should not be be in lexical category ;)

thanks for reaching out

Hello Loominade,

As you changed the model that Denny and I used for Kyiv/Kiev (respectively Kyiv (L646189) / Kiev (L501167) and Kyiv (L646273) / Kiev (L578412)), without discussion, nor notifying us, I reverted you.

Cheers,

Given that the two words have different etymologies (one stemming from the autonym, the other from the Russian exonym) it seems that those are two lexemes?

well I can't realistically ask everyone for permission before doing any changes 😅

I thought those are spelling variants and that's what forms are for (?). But I'm neither an expert nor passionate about the subject. I'm sorry for causing trouble.

You're not at all! Thanks for the edits, just wanted to check if indeed you have a strong opinion on it, that we would need to discuss more to find consensus. All good!

so at least in German, there are different spelling variants for the same word, usually for loan words which in professional dictionaries are considered to be part of the same lexeme. For instance Geo­gra­fie, Geo­gra­phie (see Duden or DWDS)

In this case everything except the spelling is identical and we would avoid a lot of redundancy by having a single lexeme with double the amount of forms. Usually one of the forms is chosen to be the canonical one which is then used as it's lemma.

I checked the English and French Wiktionary which state that indeed Kyiv is a Variante de Kiev and Kyjiv is an Alternative form of Kyiv. I don't know if the same logic applies on all these languages or on this particular word.

One could argue that Geo­gra­fie is derived from an earlier transliterated form Geo­gra­phie but I doubt that is always the case.

Anyway, it would be nice if the same logic could be applied to all lexemes when possible. Whatever that logic might be. 🤓

I'm not asking you to ask for permission for every change. But when you see that the same model is used on several lexemes / languages, it may be for a reason, and it may be better to discuss it before or while changing it. It's what we're doing here, so it's fine for me. Thanks for your help! 😉

As explained by Denny, in these cases, the difference is not only spelling, but also etymology: one word is derived from Ukrainian and the other one from Russian.

👌

I see that you've moved a representation for 学校/がっこう (L305975) into a romanization property. A while back I pinged you in phab:T267737; I wonder if you still have thoughts on that.

@Nikki: changed a lot of lexemes in this way so I thought, that's how it should be done instead. She also posted in the issue you mentioned. I am not opinionated. We can agree to close the ticket.

Ticket has been closed

I'm trying to add this qualifier to TV Tropes identifiers. Am i doing it righ?

I'm not an expert, but it would seem to me that this id (Characters/OverwatchDamageAToI) is not about that particular character (Genji (Q60740335)) even though it might appear in a paragraph and thus should not be used as its id. 🤷

We have an qualifier called 'identifier shared with' so it would seem this is the intended use.

I don't think it's a good idea. IDs should only be used if the Q-item is the main subject of an external ID. But you should maybe ask a bigger audience 🤷

I am planning to use this item as a model item for anime television series episodes. Would you be okay with that?

sure

Congrats! we made it to the Current highlights on the Main page! 🤣

Nice!

But i think we should stick with reference url rather than stated in. What do you think?

Compromise?

it's not a valid AniDB episode ID. It should be numerical

compromise?

Hello Vunj8o8m2wp80e4x,

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.

Hi,

can you please explain why you changed the English label of Property:P1433 ("published in") ? This property is used in very many items, like journal articles. Perhaps you should have discussed it first? Many greetings, --~~~~

hey, I accidentally used it for countries because i was confused by the label. published in Italy (Q38) sounds reasonable but is wrong. 🤷‍♂️

Is there consensus for this change?

Do you have an opinion about it?

I don't. I use the property a lot, so I just want to be sure I can use it while the discussion regarding the change continues.

I didn't radically change what this property is to be used for. I literally copies two words (larger work) from the description (larger work that a given work was published…), to the label.

If there is a larger consensus against that change, it can be reverted as if it never happened. 🤷‍♀️

Your edit to Andromeda Galaxy (Q2469) is being discussed at Wikidata:Project chat#Fiction database IDs for real items? Jc3s5h (talk) 16:39, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Share your experience in this survey

Hi V7p6xpiappdrfllr,

A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

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