Disputatio Vicipaediae:Paginae quas omnibus Wikipediis contineri oportet/Expansio/Biologia
Nonmatching articles?
[fontem recensere]A couple of questions:
- Why doesn't our Sphenisciformes count as a match for "en:Penguin fr:Sphenisciformes it:Spheniscidae de:Pinguine"?
- Why doesn't our Hydrophiidae count as a match for "en:Hydrophiinae fr:Hydrophiinae it:Hydrophiinae de:Seeschlangen"?
If we're losing points at Meta because our pertinent articles haven't been marked properly within the wikidata system, we should make the appropriate changes! Could you help with that? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:42, 2 Martii 2018 (UTC)
- Actually it's a bit complicated. There are edit wars going on at Wikidata, I gather, and there are also customs, rules, and policies that Wikidata insiders know and the rest of us don't. When it's obvious what's going on, I do correct the Wikidata entries -- but sometimes my corrections get reverted, sometimes legitimately. I'm not sure what the deal is with these two articles, and if there's actually a subtle taxonomic argument, your background is better suited than mine to participating in it; in the case of the sea serpents, there are probably different Wikidata entries (and articles in at least one WP language) for the hydrophiidae and the hydrophiinae, which our article groups together. You'll see that as I worked on the tables yesterday I did make a few corrections in Wikidata, and found at least one place where I understood what they were doing and made a mental note to add us a new article -- Functio exponentialis has now been divided into the natural function e^x and the general functions a^x for any a, and although I think that's over-kill, I recognize that it's not unreasonable to have two different articles. Every language is affected here, though -- there are several recent changes to Wikidata that mean English loses points in the standings at Meta. So on balance we're not actually losing any significant amount of ground. Short form: go fix things in Wikidata if you care to, or else add piles of teeny-tiny hairsplitting short articles to conform to the Wikidata-geeks' version of reality if that seems useful. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 15:15, 3 Martii 2018 (UTC)
- I've found that editing Wikidata is easy and nearly always productive. In those very few cases where one is reverted, life's too short to trouble about it. It's still better than the old system, the links at the foot of the page: those, too, were occasionally fought over. In the case of the penguins there may be one or two wikis that have separate articles for "penguins" and "sphenisciformes" ... and notice the Italian "spheniscidae" ... leading to at least two wikidata items and much inconsistency. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:19, 3 Martii 2018 (UTC)
- Actually it's a bit complicated. There are edit wars going on at Wikidata, I gather, and there are also customs, rules, and policies that Wikidata insiders know and the rest of us don't. When it's obvious what's going on, I do correct the Wikidata entries -- but sometimes my corrections get reverted, sometimes legitimately. I'm not sure what the deal is with these two articles, and if there's actually a subtle taxonomic argument, your background is better suited than mine to participating in it; in the case of the sea serpents, there are probably different Wikidata entries (and articles in at least one WP language) for the hydrophiidae and the hydrophiinae, which our article groups together. You'll see that as I worked on the tables yesterday I did make a few corrections in Wikidata, and found at least one place where I understood what they were doing and made a mental note to add us a new article -- Functio exponentialis has now been divided into the natural function e^x and the general functions a^x for any a, and although I think that's over-kill, I recognize that it's not unreasonable to have two different articles. Every language is affected here, though -- there are several recent changes to Wikidata that mean English loses points in the standings at Meta. So on balance we're not actually losing any significant amount of ground. Short form: go fix things in Wikidata if you care to, or else add piles of teeny-tiny hairsplitting short articles to conform to the Wikidata-geeks' version of reality if that seems useful. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 15:15, 3 Martii 2018 (UTC)
Artichoke
[fontem recensere]I reverted the change about Cynara scolymus because it is actually not linked to en:Artichoke in Wikidata. And only Wikidata matters for this purpose. Wikidata has one item for C. scolymus and another for "artichoke," and they refer to each other (so it's not a screw-up). A. Mahoney (disputatio) 20:37, 18 Iulii 2018 (UTC)
- OK, but how, then, are we ever going to have an appropriate article for the topic? Should we use the English word artichoke as the lemma?! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 21:09, 18 Iulii 2018 (UTC)
- To answer my own question: we need to have an article whose lemma will be Cynara cardunculus var. scolymus. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 21:16, 18 Iulii 2018 (UTC)
- Done. Is Cynara cardunculus var. scolymus now the correct analogue of Wikidata's "artichoke"? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 21:24, 18 Iulii 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, but it's not yet linked to it in Wikidata -- it has a separate Wikidata item, which isn't what you wanted. I think you need to merge that item into "artichoke." A. Mahoney (disputatio) 13:37, 20 Iulii 2018 (UTC)
- Done. Is Cynara cardunculus var. scolymus now the correct analogue of Wikidata's "artichoke"? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 21:24, 18 Iulii 2018 (UTC)
- To answer my own question: we need to have an article whose lemma will be Cynara cardunculus var. scolymus. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 21:16, 18 Iulii 2018 (UTC)