User talk:Lewoniewski

scientist (Q901) is most of the time redundant.

Hello. You have been adding the (unsourced and vague) information that a number of scientists were indeed scientists. This is useless when the precise subject(s) are already here. Moreover in the French Wikipedia (and in other langages as well) the template « Biographie2 » directly imports assertions from wikidata in the infobox. In the case of Johann Euler your addition presented him as « Mathématicien, astronome, physicien, scientifique » , the last precision being of course redundant and totally useless (and weird). Sapphorain (talk) 09:36, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not agree with you. Sometimes people searching for scientists and they must be able to do it based on one "class" (otherwise they need to know about over 100 others class names). If we will think in your way, why we don't delete "human" alignment if somebody is an economist? --Lewoniewski (talk) 09:42, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- In Wikipedia, if somebody is in, say, "Category:Scientists" and also in the "Category:Physicists", only the latter will be listed, simply because it is a subcategory of the former. Again, by adding scientist (Q901) to a scientist you are very likely to add this at the same time to his infobox. This thus provides little improvement, but creates a problem that must then be corrected individually. Sapphorain (talk) 09:55, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wikipedia category system differs from Wikidata "classification" system. Additionally Wikidata ontology system has some problems. So we can help the Wikidata readers by providing more complete data. Maybe I can give you an example of such problem: how can I find all scientists in Wikidata? --Lewoniewski (talk) 10:07, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't know. But I will not let you do it in a way that creates a new problem. Sapphorain (talk) 10:17, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Can you precise - what is the problem? --Lewoniewski (talk) 10:22, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        I already mentioned the problem twice: in the French wikipedia (as well as in other langages), such an addition will suddenly provoque the appearance of the same addition in the list of various occupations of a scientist in his infobox. For instance such-and-such will not only be be reputed to be a mathematician, a physicist, and a biologist, but as well a .... scientist. This is inappropriate as well as ridiculous. Sapphorain (talk) 11:02, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        I putted example below (SPARQL query), to show why this approach is incomplete and sometimes can give wrong results. I didn't find the list of "general" classes that can be not added to Wikidata items when there is some specific subclass. Also there is a question about classes that are not presented in those general classes: for example Q188094 (not directly in class "scientist").--Lewoniewski (talk) 20:17, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SPARQL is specifically designed to enable one to find all items with occupation (P106)scientist (Q901) or descendants of Q901:

SELECT ?person { ?person wdt:P31 wd:Q5; wdt:P106/wdt:P279* wd:Q901 }

Try it!

The problem with edits like [1] is that cost of every statement is low, but still non-zero. If we are going to grow with current rate, we will hit some technology limitations in 2-3 years. So please avoid adding 100% redundant statements. If I can help you with sparql queries - let me know Ghuron (talk) 13:09, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the query example. However, it will show not only complete list of the scientists but also other persons (politics etc.). If we try to list all of these subclasses we will find that the list is not complete (for example don't contains Q188094) and also some of the classes are less relevant to the scientists:

SELECT ?s ?desc
WHERE
{
  ?s wdt:P279 wd:Q901 .
  OPTIONAL {
     ?s rdfs:label ?desc filter (lang(?desc) = "en").
   }
 }

Try it!

--Lewoniewski (talk) 19:48, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If we go further and run query with "Q279*" we will find over 600 classes. --Lewoniewski (talk) 20:25, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! For the reasons previously mentioned by @Sapphorain, Ghuron:, I proposed to revert all the additions of occupation (P106)scientist (Q901) made yesterday and today. Please continue the discussion here. Thanks, --Epìdosis 13:31, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop new unsourced additions of occupation (P106)scientist (Q901) until the previous discussion (Wikidata:Edit groups/QSv2T/1579418272014‎) reaches a conclusion. Thanks, --Epìdosis 22:13, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Lewoniewski

scientist (Q901) is most of the time redundant.

Navigation menu

Search