User talk:Petr Matas

Ahoj, chtěl bych tě poprosit, abys nevytvářel položky s odkazy na podstránky šablon. Podle pravidla o významnosti sem do Wikidat nepatří. Díky. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 17:06, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ahoj Matěji, už si přesně nevzpomínám, které podstránky šablon jsem propojoval, ale podle zmíněného pravidla jsou takové datové položky přípustné, pokud propojují alespoň dva jazyky a nejedná se o dokumentaci apod. Cožpak jsem toto někde nedodržel? Petr Matas (talk) 20:41, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I když jsem proti tomu, aby se propojovaly jakékoliv podstránky, řídím se pravidly, takže jsem smazal jen tři tebou vytvořené položky Q17552543 (Modul:Convert/data/src/Dokumentace), Q17552080 (Šablona:Převod/doc), Q17552196 (Modul:Convert/data/Dokumentace). Nic se neděje, na všechno stejně upozornila značka. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 07:22, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you check it is working now? I remove delete function and i did 10+ tests and works until what i've done.--DangSunM (talk) 04:39, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Už jsi slyšel o Hře? Mohl by tě třeba zajímat její repozitář se zdrojovým kódem. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 14:59, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, budu ji muset vyzkoušet. :) Petr Matas 16:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Petr, it is exactly not an en:Subset (which I think would be related to part of (P361)), but an en:Subclass (set theory). This is unfortunately at most a redirect in all the languages I checked, I could find only it:Sottoclasse (insiemistica) = subclass (Q3965271). O.k. to use that? -- Gymel (talk) 11:55, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect :) Petr Matas 12:05, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...and a "thank you" for reverting back my edit without noticing the reason... S019161 (talk) 17:36, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Petr,

you reverted my changes (Q460178, Q1518604, Q1518609, Q1518608) with the comment that the original items (Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung (Q15829892), private limited company (Q17376040), besloten vennootschap (Q2050349)) are more specific than private limited company (Q18624259). Let me explain why I did the change initially.

The items refer "arbitrary" bundlings of company types that are only related by using the same name in certain languages (Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung, ...). They are not coming from a legal/conceptual point of view. We need those items only to have helpful Interwikis until the "Bonnie and Clyde" problem is solved. The moment the problem is solved or the involved Wikipedias decide to split their articles into country specific ones, those items are no longer needed or can be converted into disambiguation items. Therefore I'd rather not rely on those items for representing subclass of (P279) between private limited company (Q18624259) and the national implementations of this concept like limited liability company (Q1518608).

I hope you see the reasoning and I'd be glad if we could revert to the structure I put into place. Thanks, --S.K. (talk) 04:58, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@S.K.: I see. It seems that both structures are useful, so I suggest that we add both links to each of the items. By the way, you might have a look at my proposal for solution to the "Bonnie and Clyde" problem. Petr Matas 07:18, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, sounds gut but I'd rather use a different property to describe the relationships for those additional articles. See my just added proposal for a solution to the "Bonnie and Clyde" problem. --S.K. (talk) 11:36, 11 January 2015 (UTC) PS: I implemented my idea exemplary in Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung (Q460178) and Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung (Q15829892).[reply]

@S.K.: The structure, that you have just created, looks similar to my Bonnie and Clyde proposal and I have a few remarks:

• The statement Q460178described by source (P1343)Q460178 provides no information at all and should be dropped.
• In the statement Q460178described by source (P1343)Q15829892, the qualifier Wikimedia language code (P424)en is useless, because all sitelinks from Q15829892 are relevant.
• A mutual connection between Q15829892 and Q16726180 is needed, but described by source (P1343) cannot be used for that, because you have changed Q15829892 into an information source.
• I don't like the completely different types of Q460178 (an ordinary item) and Q15829892 (an information source), because for example Ernst Klett Verlag (Q1358989) can be considered as an instance of all Q460178, Q15829892 and Q18624259. The item Q15829892 can also have properties shared by all GmbH implementations, which would be invalid for an information source.
• If we keep Q15829892 as an ordinary item, we can use property Similar item instead of described by source (P1343) to create all the needed Bonnie and Clyde links:

  Q460178Similar itemQ15829892

  Q15829892Similar itemQ16726180

  Q16726180Similar itemQ15829892

• In addition to this Bonnie and Clyde solution, both subclass of (P279) links should be used, I think:

  Q460178subclass of (P279)Q18624259

  Q460178subclass of (P279)Q15829892

  Q15829892subclass of (P279)Q18624259

Keeping all these relations does not conflict with anything, does it? Petr Matas 01:03, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the detailed answer! Let me try to explain my idea some more and reply to your points.

The basic idea is that a concept and the description of the concept (in our context normally via a Wikipedia article but could be a e.g. Wikivoyage article as well) are not the same.

• The statement Q460178described by source (P1343)Q460178 provides no information at all and should be dropped.

The idea here is, that this statement (together with the qualifier Wikimedia language code (P424)de) says:

The concept "German GmbH" (Q460178) is described in the German Wikipedia article Q460178 (this would/should be an independent item with type Wikimedia article page (Q15138389), but I didn't want to create one just for this example).

So I don't see it providing no information at all. :-)

• In the statement Q460178described by source (P1343)Q15829892, the qualifier Wikimedia language code (P424)en is useless, because all sitelinks from Q15829892 are relevant.

The idea here is, that this statement says:

The concept "German GmbH" (Q460178) is described in the English Wikipedia article Q15829892.

This is to be seen in context of the proposal to convert sitelinks to normal properties. So there wouldn't be multiple sitelinks per Wikimedia type and language.

Overall there would be statements for the German Wikipedia (every concept has its own article)

• Q460178described by source (P1343)Q460178 (concept "German GmbH" is described in a dedicated article)
• Q1518608described by source (P1343)Q1518608 (concept "Swiss GmbH" is described in a dedicated article)

vs for the English Wikipedia (all concepts are in one article)

• Q460178described by source (P1343)Q15829892 (concept "German GmbH" is described in the overview article)
• Q1518608described by source (P1343)Q15829892 (concept "Swiss GmbH" is described in the overview article)

Actually one can be a bit less "radical" and not represent every Wikimedia article with a dedicated Wikidata item by using properties of type sitelink in the concepts (but this would be less "clean" and not provide other benefits as described by Wikidata:Requests for comment/One vs. several sitelink-item correspondence):

• Q460178described by source (P1343)de:Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung (Deutschland) (concept "German GmbH" is described in a dedicated article)
• Q1518608described by source (P1343)de:Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung (Schweiz) (concept "Swiss GmbH" is described in a dedicated article)

vs for the English Wikipedia (all concepts are in one article)

• Q460178described by source (P1343)en:Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung (concept "German GmbH" is described in an overview article)
• Q1518608described by source (P1343)en:Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung (concept "Swiss GmbH" is described in an overview article)

Cotinuing with your other points:

A mutual connection between Q15829892 and Q16726180 is needed, but described by source (P1343) cannot be used for that, because you have changed Q15829892 into an information source.

I don't see the need for the connection, because Q15829892 is a normal Wikipedia article describing multiple (similar) concepts, while Q16726180 is a Wikimedia disambiguation page (Q4167410) dealing with lexical similarity, which here (by chance) also implies conceptual similarity.

• I don't like the completely different types of Q460178 (an ordinary item) and Q15829892 (an information source), because for example Ernst Klett Verlag (Q1358989) can be considered as an instance of all Q460178, Q15829892 and Q18624259. The item Q15829892 can also have properties shared by all GmbH implementations, which would be invalid for an information source.

That's my point: Q15829892 is not something at the conceptual level. The similarity between Q460178 (German GmbH) and Q1518608 (Swiss GmbH) is not greater than the similarity between Q460178 (German GmbH) and other children of private limited company (Q18624259) like limited liability company (Q149789) or Sp. z o.o. (Q2624661). They happen just to use the same word for the concept. If and only if there would be a similarity at the conceptual level between the GmbHs in the German-speaking countries, then yes, there should be an item at the conceptual level modeled via subclass of (P279) private limited company (Q18624259).

• If we keep Q15829892 as an ordinary item, we can use property Similar item instead of described by source (P1343) to create all the needed Bonnie and Clyde links:
• [...]
• Q15829892subclass of (P279)Q18624259

While this could work, I think as described above that it is less clean/close to the "real" situation, since in my view the statement Q15829892subclass of (P279)Q18624259 is "wrong".

What do you think in light of this (long :-)) explanation? --S.K. (talk) 06:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@S.K.: It makes sense, although it will be applicable only if your Bonnie and Clyde solution (which I am still opposed to) gets adopted. Still, if you open en:Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung and you wish to switch to German, I think that you should end up at de:Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung and vice versa - due to the disambiguation page dealing with similarity of (titles and) concepts, which can be summarized into a pseudoconcept exactly corresponding to Q15829892. That's why I think that Q15829892 and Q16726180 should be linked somehow. Remember that Wikidata's primary function is to provide backing information store for its sister projects.

For now, we have to work out a solution compliant with current sitelink structure - can you re-evaluate my comment from this point of view, please? Petr Matas 07:53, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I see you created this item but I cannot really see the point in having a item that covers both real and fictional subclasses. It is unusal to create such items, so could you please explain me your use case ? -Ash Crow (talk) 13:56, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ash Crow: This item is used in the value type constraint on located on astronomical body. Now that it seems that multiple classes can be used in this type of constraint, it should not be needed anymore. Petr Matas 19:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm interested in which cotext you introduced Q21814422, Q21814353... why I'm asking? Only because it broke a really stupid unit test...

Expected :[Q12916]
Actual   :[Q12916, Q21814422, Q21814353]

--Physikerwelt (talk) 16:16, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, these are used as definition domain (P1568) of some trigonometric functions and the like. See What links here or Reasonator. Petr Matas 22:37, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

We are about to drop the mw.config.get( 'wbEntity') config value, that is deprecated for two years. Starting on Wednesday, July 24th, scripts that use this value may encounter issues.

I noticed that the folliwng scripts are still using this value:

• User:Petr Matas/ExportClaims.js
• User:Petr Matas/Gadget-AuthorityControl.js
• User:Petr Matas/Gadget-Move.js

I suggest that you update it, for example by using the hook wikibase.entityPage.entityLoaded (see an example here).

If you have any questions or need help, feel free to leave a comment under the related task.

Thanks for your understanding, Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 09:09, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]