User talk:Freddy eduardo

Welcome to Wikidata, Freddy eduardo!

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!

--Alexmar983 (talk) 21:22, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Category:American gay men

This has now been at least the third time I’ve had to revert your edits. "Homosexuales" may mean gay men or women in the Spanish language but the Spanish Wikipedia has a category for lesbians and if you look in the "Homosexuales" category, the subjects in those categories are men. Please leave the wikidata items as they are.

Giovanni 0331 (talk) 08:55, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

LGBT vs. LGBT culture

Доброго времени суток. Просьба: не объединять элементы ЛГБТ и культуры ЛГБТ - это разные элементы, потому что вторые являются частью первых. Online translation: Good time of day. Request: not to combine elements of LGBT and LGBT culture are different elements, because the latter are part of the former. Ыфь77 (talk) 06:14, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

There is a confusion in the way the English Wikipedia abords this topic. If you look at the articles, they are translations of each others, so they have the same content. It's just a different naming convention that is being used in English for some reason.--Freddy eduardo (talk) 06:34, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Вы не правы: ЛГБТ = люди, культура ЛГБТ = культура, результат деятельности людей. Online translation: You are wrong: LGBT = people, LGBT culture = culture, the result of people's activities. Ыфь77 (talk) 06:38, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Если это смешивается в каких-то статьях, то те статьи надо переименовать согласно текста. Online translation: If this is mixed up in some articles, then those articles should be renamed according to the text. Ыфь77 (talk) 06:40, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

2 Во многих элементах (например, Q1287069) смешаны ЛГБТ и права ЛГБТ. Такие элементы нужно разделять. Поэтому не стоит увеличивать количество смешанных элементов. Online translation: Many elements (e.g. Q1287069) mix LGBT and LGBT rights. Such elements need to be separated. Therefore, it is not necessary to increase the number of mixed elements. --Ыфь77 (talk) 06:50, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

No, the LGBT articles in an area are not about the people, they are about all the aspects at once, including, history, culture, rights, entertainment, acceptance, etc. All the articles in English wikipedia by city talk about all these different factors, but their naming convention is different. But the articles are the same, they are translations of each other.--Freddy eduardo (talk) 14:11, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Всё равно: обзорная статья о ЛГБТ на территории или статья только о культуре ЛГБТ на этой территории должны быть в разных элементах, потому что объект элемента разный. Online translation: It doesn't matter: a review article about LGBT in the territory or an article only about LGBT culture in this territory should be in different elements, because the object of the element is different. Ыфь77 (talk) 15:03, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

But they are not different! They have exactly the same content, they are the same articles. It's just a naming convention, but the content, which is what defines an entity, is the same.--Freddy eduardo (talk) 15:18, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Online translation: So this is an incorrect naming convention. Ыфь77 (talk) 17:02, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I would say that yes, there is an error in the naming convention in the English Wikipedia, or at least a very big inconsistency with the other languages. But we are reproducing the error here.--Freddy eduardo (talk) 17:05, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Exactly, we need to have clear naming convention here, with general items called (in alias or label, does not matter)

• LGBT in country (convention in French Wikipedia)
• Sexual diversity in country (convention in Spanish Wikipedia)
• Sexual and gender minorities in country (convention in French Wikipedia as well)

And these items should be linked to "LGBT rights in country" (English Wikipedia) but not have this name as an alias, since there are articles specifically about the rights. And same for culture.

For instance LGBT in France (Q96063058) has a good structure and the wikipedia links are ok, but LGBT culture in Paris (Q97277681) and LGBT in Paris (Q18206835) are links to the same articles but with different names.

Another solution would be to have data structured correctly in Wikidata, and have multiples redirect in each Wikipedia so that wikipedia:fr:LGBT à Paris and wikipedia:en:LGBT culture in Paris are linked. I think it's the best thing to do but it's a lot of work. Léna (talk) 17:30, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

P136

Hi! genre (P136) should not be used with values such as "short story". If it's a work, then the correct property is form of creative work (P7937). If it's an human, then it should be occupation (P106) with the value short story writer (Q15949613). Harmonia Amanda (talk) 17:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Harmonia Amanda! That is not correct. The occupation is writer, and a writer can write in many different genres. A writer does not have six or seven different occupations depending on the genre in which they write. If they only specialize in a single form of writing, then they might be called a novelist or a poet, but you are adding in some cases more than five careers to a person which is a writer in many genres. This is not the right way to model the data.--Freddy eduardo (talk) 17:17, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

A person can have many different occupations, that has always been the case; {P|136}} is supposed to be used with values such as fantasy (Q132311) not short story. If you want to change the data modelling on a large scale, please start a discussion on the Wikiprojects. --Harmonia Amanda (talk) 17:21, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

With all due respect, but you are the one that is changing the modelling on a large scale, and this is impairing functionality in wikipedias that take this value from writers to add categories. A person can have many careers, but adding "short-story writer" to a person has writer short stories as part of their career does not make any sense. A writer can encompass many genres. This is not the right way to model the data.--Freddy eduardo (talk) 17:24, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

No, the large scale is adding it in occupation, not in artistic genre. I was doing maintenance on the small number of entries which don't follow the normal practice. We are talking 100k versus less than 1k here. I sure hope no Wikipedia template relies on your modelling, because it's very much the exception, not the rule, currently. --Harmonia Amanda (talk) 17:36, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

And can you link me to the discussion to add every single literary genre as an occupation on writers? That is 100% the wrong way to model the data. For written works, a new field was added to accomodate this. Adding it to occupation is wrong and we can not lose the data either.--Freddy eduardo (talk) 17:40, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. Only the forms of works (novel, short story, theatre play, etc.) are moved to occupations (novellist, short story writer, writer of theatre plays). Literary genres like science-fiction, horror, fantasy, thriller, etc., should stay in P136. --Harmonia Amanda (talk) 17:46, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

The way of modeling the data is wrong, a person that has written one book of short stories does not have the ocupation of a "short-story writer". They might be a writer that writes in many different genres. It's like saying a person that writes a single editorial for a newspaper on one day only should have editorial columnist (Q17342450) as an occupation. The definition of "genres" can vary on each language. In Spanish, for instance, the Real Academia de la Lengua defines poetry as a literary genre: [1]. And the Real Academia de la Lengua is the most prestigious source in the language. If they need to be separated from "fiction genres" I'm ok with that, but they should be in their own property, just as it currently is for written works with form of creative work (P7937). So if "literary genres" must be separated from "fiction genres" in writers, it should be to a separate property, not to add them as occupations when they are not.--Freddy eduardo (talk) 17:53, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I feel like I'm not understanding what part of your problem is. Someone who wrote a short story collection should 100% have the occupation "short story writer". This is the way it has been modelled for a decade on Wikidata. We do not have a cap on number of occupations. Quite a number of humans on Wikidata have twenty or more different occupations. This is not and has never been a problem.

Basically a good rule of thumb for the current modelling would be: if this item was a work, would I use form of creative work (P7937) or genre (P136)? If it's form of creative work (P7937) then for a human it should be moved to occupation, not stay in P136. I agree that the difference between form and genre is in part cultural; poetry being a particularly thorny one. Nevertheless P136 should aim for more precise values: for example "lyrical poetry" instead of the generic "poetry", in addition to "poet" as an occupation. Occupations should always be present, and all of the occupations that apply. For example an actor could have all the following occupations: "theatre actor", "film actor", "TV actor". If this actor has worked for theatres, but also made movies and TV series, they would have the three occupations.

I seem to understand you disagree with how Wikidata deals with occupations, but this is a very generic rule that apply much more largely than just for writers, as my above example shows. Does that help clarify what the current model is? I'm not quite sure what you mean by separating literary genres from thematic genres, so I hope this answer your questions. --Harmonia Amanda (talk) 18:07, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I think the issue is that literary genres are being conflated with fiction genres. The solution for works was creating a new property to make the separation. So the solution for writers should be to create a new property to make the separation as well, but right now it does not make sense to add the literary genres as occupations. For instance, in Spanish, one of the literary genres is Narrative. This refers to writers who write fiction prose. But now they are being added as narrator (Q755070) as an occupation, which is something completely different, that is a person that tells stories to an audience, not a writer of the Narrative literary genre. And this does affect us, at least in Spanish, as we are taking the wikidata values to add categories to writers.--Freddy eduardo (talk) 18:12, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree we can probably model things better (and if you have solid ideas about how to deal with things, you should come with a proposal to be discussed by the community. I admit I don't understand what your proposed property would be. My understanding would be that you want a property like "P:literary form written by this author" which would then have values of short story, novel, etc.? To which the answer would probably be that we don't need a property for that, since we are using "P106:short story writer" to model this currently. But I'll readily admit I'm not sure I understand what your idea is, and I've not yet understood why you seem to oppose specific occupations.

This would be a massive change, because very specific occupations have been used since Wikidata has had statements, and it's deeply entrenched in the current modelling. It doesn't mean it can't be changed, but you would need a very solid case to explain why it would suddenly be a problem for a human on Wikidata to be "writer, poet, short story writer, novellist, etc." all at once, which has been the way we dealt with that for a decade.

For the "narrative" problem, it seems that people adding narrator (Q755070) are making a mistake, and all those wrong occupations should be deleted. I agree that narrator (Q755070) does not mean "writer of fiction prose". The solution may be to create, if it doesn't already exist, an occupation "writer of fiction prose" which would correspond to "narrativa" and then be the correct occupation to add. I'll try to look at the uses of narrator (Q755070) to see if I can spot the wrong uses and delete them. --Harmonia Amanda (talk) 18:26, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Latinoamérica en Wikidata 2024: ¡felicitaciones!

Hola, @Freddy eduardo. Sos una de las personas que más contribuciones hizo en el concurso Latinoamérica en Wikidata 2024. Te invitamos a sumar este template a tu página de usuario:

This person won the Latin America in Wikidata Contest of 2024.

Para coordinar la entrega del vale obsequio, por favor, comunicate con Carla Toro de Wikimedia Chile por correo a carla.torowikimediachile.cl. Muchas gracias por tus aportes y ¡nos vemos en la edición 2025!

Cordialmente, --Paula (WDU) (talk) 17:27, 14 November 2024 (UTC)