Hoi,
Yes I do. I did explain why. As far as I am concerned abot should remove
all redirects.
Tjanks,
GerardM
Op 20 okt. 2014 13:22 schreef James Heald j.he...@ucl.ac.uk:
Well actually, we *do* support redirects. One just has to be a bit crafty
in how one creates them.
Do you have a
Yes I do. I did explain why. As far as I am concerned
abot should remove all redirects.
I'm not sure anyone in this thread is understanding
anyone else. I'm frustrated at this point.
We still don't seem to understand where the harm in
having them comes from, and you still don't seem to
Gerard how do you, within wikidata, properly handle the case where an
article is there on enwp, and a paragraph and a redirect to it is there on
dewp?
Rupert
On Oct 18, 2014 1:21 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hoi,
As you correctly quote, one of the requirements is an
Hoi,
We do not support redirects. We do not support paragraphs.Wikidata is not
designed to support either.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 20 October 2014 10:39, rupert THURNER rupert.thur...@gmail.com wrote:
Gerard how do you, within wikidata, properly handle the case where an
article is there on
Well actually, we *do* support redirects. One just has to be a bit
crafty in how one creates them.
Do you have a problem with that?
If so, what is your problem?
-- James.
On 20/10/2014 11:45, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi,
We do not support redirects. We do not support paragraphs.Wikidata
On Saturday, 18 October 2014, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com
wrote:
One of the requirements is an article.
One of three requirements. Only one has to be true for an item to be
notable. Please could you stop taking this out of context making it look
like Wikidata requires articles
Hoi,
As you correctly quote, one of the requirements is an article. So what
is your point ?
Thanks,
GerardM
On 18 October 2014 12:52, John Lewis johnflewi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, 18 October 2014, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com
wrote:
One of the requirements is an
On 15 October 2014 13:22, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote:
Wikidata is NOT Wikipedia driven so the notion of redirects
Perhaps not, but I have just created Q18289539, about thw BBC's new
'Genome' online database:
http://genome.ch.bbc.co.uk/
I have also created:
Could you do me a favor please and try to link it out of Wikipedia and then
tell how I should have done it?
On Oct 13, 2014 6:29 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hoi,
This issue was mentioned before. There are two distinct concepts as I
recall. One article can only be
There are multiple issues with linking the German Wikipedia's afrikanische
Pflaume to the French Wikipedia's safou:
1) A tree can only interwikilink to a tree or combined article on the tree
+ fruit and a fruit can only interwikilink to a fruit or a combined article
on the tree + fruit (this is
Citiranje Jane Darnell jane...@gmail.com:
2) There is no way of making an interwikilink for a redirect, and the
German Wikipedia's afrikanische Pflaume is currently a redirect to
Prunus
You should still be able to make an interwiki link for a redirect the old way,
are you not?
nope
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 6:23 PM, Smolenski Nikola smole...@eunet.rs wrote:
Citiranje Jane Darnell jane...@gmail.com:
2) There is no way of making an interwikilink for a redirect, and the
German Wikipedia's afrikanische Pflaume is currently a redirect to
Prunus
You should still be
French safou should be fruit, because the tree is safoutier. German
afrikanische Pflaume is fruit as well. This is a 1:1 match. Prunus contains
tens of fruits which do exist as dedicated articles in enwp. If no link can
be made to redirects and not to paragraphs this looks like a serious
Am 12.10.2014 17:02, schrieb Romaine Wiki:
Hello Lydia,
This is a different problem from the other issue I described in an other mail.
I notice two different problems that occur with the same version. One is about
the workflow, one is about less experienced/less technical users have
Il 13/ott/2014 14:07 Daniel Kinzler daniel.kinz...@wikimedia.de ha
scritto:
Can you identify which change exactly is the problem, and why it is
problematic?
+1
I'm sorry, but I edited today Wikidata after a while, and I didn't noticed
anything *that* problematic to prevented me to edit.
L.
On Oct 13, 2014 2:07 PM, Daniel Kinzler daniel.kinz...@wikimedia.de
wrote:
Am 12.10.2014 17:02, schrieb Romaine Wiki:
Hello Lydia,
This is a different problem from the other issue I described in an
other mail.
I notice two different problems that occur with the same version. One
is about
Hoi,
This issue was mentioned before. There are two distinct concepts as I
recall. One article can only be linked from one project to only one
concept.
So in essence you link an item to a Q and not to safou. There have
been no changes at all about this from the start of Wikidata.
Thanks,
On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 4:01 AM, Romaine Wiki romaine.w...@gmail.com wrote:
For more than a year I am asking users to add their articles to Wikidata
when they have written it. That seems succesful, they added their articles
more and more and did understand how to do that. Until recently. Now I
Hoi,
The complaint that Wikidata serves an in-crowd is something that I feel is
correct. It follows from being overly interested in the academic side of
things. All the work by the professional developers is for esoteric things
and much if not most of the work does not translate into things that
Hi!
I would like to do advocacy for taking advantage of Wikidata to
wikimedians, researchers, the public sector and GLAMs (and others), but I
lack the tools and methods to do so.
Wikimedians: Very few wikimedians in our country participate in the
Wikidata community. There is not a local
Hoi,
Susanna you are completely right. Wikidata is there to serve a purpose. It
means that we should work on realising tools that use Wikidata and do a
better job at it. I blogged today about awards and how Wikidata can make a
difference [1]. It takes not much to realise it but I have all but
Hello Lydia,
This is a different problem from the other issue I described in an other
mail.
I notice two different problems that occur with the same version. One is
about the workflow, one is about less experienced/less technical users have
difficulties in adding site links.
I am happy hearing
The impression I get from experienced users is that they are much annoyed
and use now some work around to get things done, but they do not understand
it.
Less experienced users do not understand it either and also aren't able to
add site links any more. Instead they ask experienced users to add it
23 matches
Mail list logo
