User talk:Vollbracht

Welcome to Wikidata, Vollbracht!

Wikidata is a free knowledge base that you can edit! It can be read and edited by humans and machines alike and you can go to any item page now and add to this ever-growing database!

Need some help getting started? Here are some pages you can familiarize yourself with:

Introduction – An introduction to the project.
Wikidata tours – Interactive tutorials to show you how Wikidata works.
Community portal – The portal for community members.
User options – including the 'Babel' extension, to set your language preferences.
Contents – The main help page for editing and using the site.
Project chat – Discussions about the project.
Tools – A collection of user-developed tools to allow for easier completion of some tasks.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask on Project chat. If you want to try out editing, you can use the sandbox to try. Once again, welcome, and I hope you quickly feel comfortable here, and become an active editor for Wikidata.

Best regards! M2k~dewiki (talk) 11:41, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Häufig gestellte Fragen

Hallo, häufig gestellte Fragen sind unter

de:Benutzer:M2k~dewiki/FAQ

zusammengefasst, unter anderem

. --M2k~dewiki (talk) 10:10, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your work in maintaining Wikidata. I have a small suggestion to improve your future work. If you notice that two items are duplicates, please merge them instead of blanking one of them as you did with the item Q112194301. External sites use Wikidata identifiers, so it is important that we preserve the chain of references. We do this by making one item a redirect for the other. In particular, item ids are intended to be a permanent identifier, so we never reuse them for another concept. See Help:Merge for more information on how to merge items, and consider installing the Merge Gadget. Thanks! Bovlb (talk) 16:47, 1 June 2022 (UTC) --Bovlb (talk) 16:47, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! And yes, I appreciate the hint and will use it, whenever it's about an item which is more than 30 min. of age. Vollbracht (talk) 18:22, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate or not?

Hallo,

I'm not entirely sure to understand, what is the difference between dictionary entry (Q1580166) and reference work entry (Q3055347) ? (if there is realle one, right now I would tend to merge these items)

Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 07:15, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lemma according to Brockhaus Enzyklopädie, 1990 is Latin Title / Headline based on grc all you take and has 2 meanings. In our case it's the first (non mathematicians) one. This word is used for the headlines of an entry mainly for an encyclopedia but for dictionaries as well.

Actually dictionary entry sometimes is equalized with its lemma and may be called a subclass of lemma. But to be more precise the entry comprises all the text belonging to a lemma where the lemma does not. On the other hand Wikipedia is no dictionary and has lemmas.

Don't merge! Vollbracht (talk) 07:53, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Use of instance of (P31) on pharaohs

Hi Vollbracht, for humans instance of (P31) should only be set to human (Q5), not to anything else. I moved the statements you added on Neferirkare Kakai (Q268576) to position held (P39). Not sure if that's the best place to put it, but much better than instance of (P31). Multichill (talk) 10:41, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed I know this claim but I disagree. On one hand Pharaos claim to be divine (not human). This means that they themselves claimed not to be children of man but of some god (or perhaps goddess in rare cases) at least from their enthronization on, and very much of their lives have been filled with preparation for their postmortal duties. In addition all their divine children died out due to incest. As a result their divine heirs after very few generations have been natural children no more than they themselves have been descendants of their natural ancestors but of some Pharaohs that reigned before instead.

If Pharaoh were just a job of a human, we wouldn't capitalize that word then. But now not their humanity but their social and political impact are of note.

Finally you might say Kakai foremost was a human (whose date of birth has been completely unknown) that became Pharao but Neferikare has not been born but invented (as a "child of Re"; date roughly known). Vollbracht (talk) 19:39, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vollbracht, I am sorry but your arguments seem very poor. Sure Pharaos claimed to be divine, but does it really make them ? Maybe yes or maybe no. We can't know. But today most people see them as humans so at the very least the preferred value for instance of (P31) should be set to human (Q5).

You mention their children dying due to incest, but that seems very human to me. Why would a deity die unless killed by another deity, like Osiris. --Melderick (talk) 21:28, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deities are not necessarily "immortal". The bible e.g. describes Mose being set as a god (for Pharaoh). Of course many belief systems bind immortality to divinity. The old Semitic obviously don't. Especially the Egypt is mainly cyclic and the main task of priests and Pharaohs is keep these cycles going.

And an other point: Neferikare was a pharaoh of the 5th dynasty. And you might call Pharaoh a job (which I wouldn't support) but never ever could pharaohs of Fifth Dynasty of Egypt (Q110556685) be a job. Vollbracht (talk) 21:46, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to mention that since pharaohs of Fifth Dynasty of Egypt (Q110556685) is a subclass of pharaohs of old Kingdown of Egypt (Q110518305), you don't need to have both of them (Q110518305 can be removed). --Melderick (talk) 21:43, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on that. But should that be forbidden or may it be helpful for listings? Vollbracht (talk) 21:49, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[1] is not the way to model this. Please do it differently or get consensus before changing instance of (P31). Multichill (talk) 23:02, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neferirkare Kakai (Q268576) was pharaohs of Fifth Dynasty of Egypt (Q110556685). This is foremost fact. Why should it be necessary to add the information that he was human as well? What is the aim of foremost modelling him as human? Vollbracht (talk) 23:12, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because that's how we model humans here on Wikidata. We decided that we use instance of (P31) -> human (Q5) on humans and everything else in different statements. So not instance of (P31) -> male (Q6581097) or King of the Netherlands (Q2045066) for Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands (Q154952), just human (Q5). Multichill (talk) 23:30, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is no answer on my question. Of course Kakai was a human and most important is the fact who his parents and children might have been. But although frWiki states different it is not clear whether Sahure was father or brother of Neferikare. And it doesn't matter. He was his predecessor. I can't see that the information whether Neferikare was human is of any use. But it is important that he was Pharaoh.

This is quite different to European kings. (Note: king is only title and has a small 'k'). It's very important to know what royals are member of a family. And none of them got worshiped.

You see: P31=Q5 may be discussed here. Vollbracht (talk) 23:51, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

follows / followed by

The reason that the Twelve Minor Prophets did not have a sequence is that the sequence is different in different traditions. If you're going to add follows / followed by, you'll need to add the context of which traditions use that sequence. For example, the Septuagint has a different sequence than modern English editions. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:51, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Just recognized and stopped further chaining. Vollbracht (talk) 05:47, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We also typically do not include all possible titles using the property title (P1476). Doing so repeats the values in the label (which is redundant), and favors one possible title from each language over all others in that language. In my personal library, I have English translations that say "Nahum" and others that say "Book of Nahum" as the title. That's two different English titles alone. Usually, we limit title on the main data item to the title from the original language and earliest editions. Otherwise we end up with a mess of titles, most of which appear only in translations of the work into other languages, and all of which will be repeated from the labels. --EncycloPetey (talk) 08:06, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Still I will be dependent on titles (original & current language). Nahum may be an example supporting your position. But for 1st Corinthians e. g. we typically have a sufficient label ("1. Corinthians") and a precise title saying who wrote it and whom it was sent to. In addition the label is good for describing an object. So it's a good idea to label your example "Book Nahum". But "book" is the media. It's not part of the actual title unless necessary for distinction of different items. Programmatically you are free to put media plus title into your headline as long as media is not part of the title already.

In the end I have good reasons for the way I enter a given items title. Still I am not dependent on the decision for the one and only "favored" title but on the existence of a title readable in western language characters.

And one more point: There's a difference between the bible and most other books in the world. It's property of all nations. Historically it has an original language and all foreign language contents are to be measured against it. But to be most precise the titles are not part of any Old Testament original content, so languages have their own titles for these books. Vollbracht (talk) 15:21, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But the "titles" are already in the labels. It used to be that "title" was limited to one single value. The reason that is no longer the case is that some "original" publications have more than one title printed in them. The property was never intended to support every possible title in every possible language. The German title would go on a German translation; the English title would go on an English translation. If someone needs a label in their own language, that's what the Label fields are for.

And, yes, "Book of Nahum" is the printed title of the book in some English translations, including ones I have on my shelf. Open to the first page of that book in those editions of the Bible, and the title at the top of the page is "Book of Nahum". We don't remove parts of the printed title to make our own titles; we use the title that appears in the book. "The Book of Mormon" does not have its title shortened to "Mormon"; the Egyptian "Book of the Dead" does not get shortened to "Dead"; if "Book" is printed in the title, it's a part of the title. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:54, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if necessary. It's impossible to shorten "Book of the Dead" without altering the sense.

To shorten the discussion: I won't think about intentions. Label is the "title" of the Wikidata object. Some of those data objects describe real life objects with a name. So they have a "name" property. Some have a title, so they have a title property. You might enforce removal of name properties for books and discuss that with those that expect to be dependent on them. Books have language titles and there is Wikipedia software presenting best effort language title and original title with their respective languages. This won't be changed. Vollbracht (talk) 21:42, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neubennung von Eigenschaften

Hallo Vollbracht, WD kennt nicht nur DNB edition ID (P1292), sondern mehrere Bibliothekskataloge. "DNB-Erfassung" ist zwar korrektes Deutsch, entspricht aber nicht der Bezeichnung vergleichbarer Eigenschaften ("Medienkennung" bzw. "Editionen" wg Unterschied zu Normdateien). Dein Übersetzungsversuche "DNB recording" ist irreführend, denn der Katalog erfasst nicht nur Tonaufnahmen, vgl. LCCN editions = Library of Congress Control Number (LCCN) (bibliographic) (P1144).[2]

--Kolja21 (talk) 23:30, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Danke, dass Du mit Argumenten antwortest! Editionen mag zwar zu anderen Eigenschaftswerten passen, ist aber m. E. sachlich mehr als schief. Weder in der DNB noch für die DNB werden Editionen geschaffen. Schon der Plural ist unpassend. Eine DNB-Nummer bezeichnet genau eine Ausgabe. Das kann bei einer Auflage, die gleichzeitig elektronisch erschienen ist, nur genau die pdf-Version, oder genau die Paperback-Version sein.

Und der zweite Punkt, den Du angesprochen hast, ist das englische recording. Das hat natürlich nichts mit der deutschen Sprache zu tun. Irgendwie kenne ich den Begriff record im Englischen eben nicht nur für Tonbandkasetten, sondern für Erfassung i. A.

Also langer Rede kurzer Sinn: Editionen und editions passt hier nicht. Was schlägst Du vor? Vollbracht (talk) 09:45, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Am besten sprichst du dich mit Wikidata:WikiProject Books ab, bevor du Änderungen vornimmst. Dort orientitiert man sich an der Unterscheidung work / edition. Egal, welche Bezeichnung man wählt, sie müssen einheitlich sein. --Kolja21 (talk) 23:11, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An der Unterscheidung orientiere ich mich gerne ebenfalls. Aber diese beiden Begriffe sind von der Sache nicht betroffen. Ich habe das aber dort jetzt auch noch mal angesprochen. Fühl Dich frei, Dich entsprechend dann auch dort (Diskussion) zu äußern. Gruß Vollbracht (talk) 23:51, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Obelos

Hallo Vollbracht,

have you meant Q117309902 and syriac harklean obelus (Q117311817) to be different items? Tadarrius Bean (talk) 13:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]