I'm looking at the ontological mess in biochemistry and noticed that you were involved in a discussion on this
Is there a way forward on questions like this? Or is Wikidata doomed to be a collection of fiefdoms, each hostile to goal of a common representation philosophy?
Bonjour @TomTom, merci pour votre message. La création de la nouvelle commune de Dunkerque en 2010 n'a rien d'absurde, c'est ce qu'il se passe lors de toutes les fusions. Rien n'est éternel et immuable, même les communes ! C'est seulement contre-intuitif parce que les communes nouvelles sont rares dans les grandes villes donc les gens n'y sont pas habitués. Et vous avez raison, il faut que l'on continue à clarifier les données.
Il y a, je pense, un compromis à trouver entre la stricte fidélité administrative et les éléments comme "Dunkerque" qui ont une portée historique qui dépasse leur situation administrative actuelle.
Si administrativement une fusion est une "re-création", dans les fait il y s'agit souvent plutôt d'une absorption …
Ah mais je viens de comprendre, il y a maintenant deux éléments, un pour l'ancienne entité administrative et un pour la nouvelle !
C'est un modèle possible, que je n'avais pas envisagé pour ma part parce que notamment … il n'y a plus d'élément pour la "ville" elle même, ce qui rend vachement compliqué le référencement dans le passé et trouver le bon élément en fonction de l'époque. Si il n'y avait pas d'entité administrative clairement définie à l'époque de la "première pierre" de la ville, on a plus rien pour référencer la commune, et c'est impossible sur Wikidata, à mon avis, trop difficile à gérer.
Par exemple sur l'article Wikipédia, j'imagine qu'on a pas réécrit tout un article sur Dunkerque parce qu'il y a eu des fusions de communes …
Il doit exister un tel élément "intemporel" si on tient vraiment à matérialiser toutes les administrations (principales) qui ont eu la ville en responsabilité avec les différentes extensions géographiques au cours du temps.
Wikidata a la possibilité de gérer plusieurs valeurs datées pour les déclaration, des dates de début et de fin, ça nous autorise à essayer de jouer avec pour garder les information sur un même élément quand c'est pratique ou pertinent. On devrait garder cette possibilité en tête et tenter de l'utiliser intelligemment quand c'est possible.
En particulier et en zieutant le modèle, il y a la possibilité d'utiliser fusionné dans (P7888) 
et pas "remplacé par" dans ce cas précis. Je pense l'avoir fait dans le passé pour modéliser certaines fusions de communes, en particulier si il n'y a pas changement de nom ça semble pertinent.
Hi TomT0m, I wanted to inform you that I did not include your suggestion of adding an "Item of the week" in the Wikidata newsletter. Typically, we don't have a section dedicated to that. However, we do showcase well-developed items in the "Did you know?" section. -~~~~
No problem, I just thought it could be a way to highlight a place where we probably lacks properties !
Dear TomT0m,
I hope you are doing well,
We are a group of researchers from King’s College London working on developing WQT (Wikidata Quality Toolkit), which will support a diverse set of editors in curating and validating Wikidata content.
We are inviting you to participate in an online workshop aimed at understanding the requirements for designing effective and easy-to-use user interfaces (UI) for three tools within WQT that can support the daily activities of Wikidata editors: recommending items to edit based on their personal preferences, finding items that need better references, and generating entity schemas automatically for better item quality.
The main activity during this workshop will be UI mockup sketching. To facilitate this, we encourage you to attend the workshop using a tablet or laptop with PowerPoint installed or any other drawing tools you prefer. This will allow for a more interactive and productive session as we delve into the UI mockup sketching activities.
Participation is completely voluntary. You should only take part if you want to and choosing not to take part will not disadvantage you in any way. However, your cooperation will be valuable for the WQT design. Please note that all data and responses collected during the workshop will be used solely for the purpose of improving the WQT and understanding editor requirements. We will analyze the results in an anonymized form, ensuring your privacy is protected. Personal information will be kept confidential and will be deleted once it has served its purpose in this research.
The online workshop, which will be held on April 5th, should take no more than 3 hours.
If you agree to participate in this workshop, please either contact me at kholoud.alghamdi@kcl.ac.uk or use this form to register your interest https://forms.office.com/e/9mrE8rXZVg Then, I will contact you with all the instructions for the workshop.
For more information about my project, please read this page: https://king-s-knowledge-graph-lab.github.io/WikidataQualityToolkit/
If you have further questions or require more information, don't hesitate to contact me at the email address mentioned above.
Thank you for considering taking part in this project.
Regards
Bonjour, je suis Eihel. Je voulais vous faire savoir qu'une ou plusieurs de vos récentes modifications de descriptions de Q17579 ne suivent pas les règles des descriptions de Wikidata. Les descriptions doivent apparaître comme si elles se trouvaient au milieu d'une phrase, commencer typiquement par une lettre minuscule et être écrites d'un point de vue neutre. Par exemple, « chanteur pop » est une meilleure description que « Il est le meilleur chanteur pop ». Si vous pensez que j'ai fait une erreur, ou si vous avez des questions, laissez moi un message sur ma page de discussion. Merci à vous.
Bonjour,
Je suis sur Discord, vite fait, pour t'expliquer ce qu'il en retourne. Bien sûr, il y a d'autres moyens au lieu de int, mais le souci est beaucoup plus compliqué. Pour l'instant, j'aimerais qu'il réponde pour qu'il ne recommence pas et qu'il n'emploie pas ce que tu proposes.
À toute ;)
Thank you for catching my typos. Unfortunately, since you didnt sign your comment, there was no Reply link, and my responsebecame misformatted. I hope I didn't destroyany page functionality, feel free to rrevert my edit if necessary.
There is a bug that makes using the "reply" tool inconvenient on this page, you can’t use the {{Sparql}} template correctly. So I did not use it and having lost the habit to sign, of course I forgot :)
I noticed on Property talk:P2738 that you proposed a "disjoint" property. What happened to that proposal?
EDIT: Sorry it wasn't you who proposed the property.
I still think it's a not so good idea :) This property should do the trick in most if not all cases with less redundancy risks.
There are cases that disjoint union of does not cover. For example, how can one use it to state that dog and human are disjoint? There seems to be a need for some other way of stating disjointness. I will probably put together a request for comments, as an improvement of disjointness in Wikidata is more than just a property proposal.
It definitely should work if you use inferences, it applies transitively on the classes. The actual problem is that the taxonomy project does not want to use classes :/
It should be enough to say somewhere that their smallest common ancestor taxon is Boreoeutheria (Q132666) if I searched right. It has two child taxons that should be asserted disjoint. The human taxon is subclass of one, and the other on the other, see this query.
So dogs and humans can be asserted disjoint by a "disjoint union of". The solution could be to manually handle the taxonomy case in the gadget, for example. There also lacks a way to link items like human (Q5) and https://w.wiki/8Tcm to their taxon to do this.
If we don’t want this link, we can rely on a more casual life classification on Wikidata with the (casual) "animal" class, make (disjoint) subclasses for it like "humans" "wild animal" "domestic animal", make "dog" a subclass of "domestic animal" an we are done. We get that cattle is also disjoint with humans on the process.
Actually … See The disjoint union statement on the « animal » item. It’s already stated that human are disjoint with non human animals. So it’s enough that "dog" is a subclass of "non-human animal" directly or indirectly for my gadget to catch any problem with any irl werewolf :)
I only had to add one statement to solve this problem to state that domesticated animals are non-human animals : https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q622852&diff=prev&oldid=2028039516
You can check with this templated query wether or there exist a "disjoint union of" statement that makes two classes anywhere in the tree disjoints : https://w.wiki/8TiA you can check on it that "dog" and "human" are disjoint and click on the link on the right to go to the statement.
You definitely not need to add a statement that "dog" and "human" are disjoint, then. And likely you can check that cows are also disjoint with humans with the same query.
Already possible, I should write a documentation at some point.
I make a lot of use of your script, but instead of constantly starting discussions on WikiProject Ontology, I usually fix the incorrect statements myself. That means copy-pasting the query URL from the auto-generated discussion section without hitting publish. I love the option of starting a discussion for tricky cases, but it would also be nice to get to the query from the item with one click, without having to start a discussion. Could you add that link to the script output, please? Thanks!
I think what you want is already possible, click on the arrow on the left or elsewhere on the rectangle and the query results will show on the details
What is exactly difference between fr:Javeline and fr:Javelot? One is "all such weapons" and second is "this is only about Roman times weapon"?
The frwiki article is rather short, but a bit of search gives the answer that the javeline is usually shorter and is used also as a hand weapon.
Translation by google translate of https://www.euraldic.com/lasu/tx/txt_la1905_armes.html this page :
« Polearm or throwing weapon that can be handled like a short pike or thrown like a javelin. The Javeline consists of wood, a sharp leaf-shaped iron, a metal heel, which can serve as a counterweight, and often this heel ends in a long, sharp point. The javelin is a weapon used at all times, in all countries, and that the blacks of Africa, especially in Ethiopia, still carry today, with the round shield, exactly like the Greek peltasts. The usual length of the weapon is 1.50 meters. But the javelins carried by the horsemen were longer, reaching up to 4 meters, like the spears or gay spears of the Stradiots, in the 16th century. The Frankish Framée, the Dardes of the Middle Ages were Javelines. These weapons disappear, with the XVth century, in the infantry. The Spanish genetaires, the Greek and Albanian Stradiots, the Turks and the Hungarians, however, continued to wear them. Lancers' spears, like those of modern Uhlans and dragoons, are Javelins. The name "spear" must be reserved for the large polearm, 5.50 meters to 7 meters long, which was handled with the Faucre. »