Topic on User talk:SCIdude

I started page on Jenaer Forst on en wikipedia and then linked it to (Q32063053), but then I found Jenaer Forst (Q61685796) on de wikipedia. When I tried to merge them, I could not as they are already linked. (Q61685796) seems to specifically relate to the Naturschutzgebiet and has "Naturschutzgebiet Jenaer Forst". However the German article also has specific information outside the NSG: "Der Kernbereich des Kasernenkomplexes wurde nach einer letzten Nutzung als Erstaufnahmeeinrichtung für Asylsuchende renaturiert, liegt aber großteils nicht im NSG." This relates to information I want to develop on the page in en eikipedia. Therefore, I am asking:

1) Should (Q61685796) be renamed "Naturschutzgebiet", or is there a better solution?

2) Would you be able to resolve this matter?

3) If you feel the status quo should be maintained, could you provide a rationale that would be helpful as regards future entries concerning ''Forst''.

This would be very helpful. User:Leutha

This is not a "status quo", both are different concepts obviously. You seem to be a Wikipedia writer, and you are used to merging concepts, in order to get a readable article. Unfortunately, the de-wiki article merges both concepts. This is a common problem in Wikipedia and can only be resolved there. Other than that, I don't see exactly what problem you have, can you plz elaborate?

Just a hint as to the solution, why do you think these two exist? and

It is just the notion that every Wikipedia article has to be "readable". I think it is quite possible that the general solution lies in the definition of that term. Where is it defined anyway and who is behind it?

Thanks for your response. By "status quo (Q201610)" I meant as things stand at the moment. I apologise for a mistake in my suggestion as I meant to put "Naturschutzgebiet Jenaer Forst (Q61685796)". Thanks for the example you offer of Lüneburg Heath Nature Park (Q1508609) and Lüneburg Heath (Q311124) which have distinct names, and bear a similar - but not identical - relationship each other. By having distinct labels when items appear in other languages it will then make it much clearer what would be the best wikidata link to make. I hope that clarifies my suggestion.

I'm afraid my knowledge of German is not sufficient to do any major work on on the de-wiki, however I will make sure the same problem does not occur on the en wiki

As for the term "readable", wikidata has: human-readable (Q16716513) and machine-readableness (Q36822946), but I don't understand why these should be seen as opposites rather than complementary, particularly in light of the statement on the wikidata main page: "Wikidata is a free and open knowledge base that can be read and edited by both humans and machines." I think your question is long and deep.

Yes, that is right, different concepts should be given different names. However, this is not always possible or necessary, as the main difference of Wikidata items is always found in the instance-of and subclass-of statements. All the WD statements define the concept, not the names (labels).

That said, I don't think anyone would object if you change the label. It's not as relevant as the statements, or the connected sitelinks.