[00:48:58] as always, cheap stuff attracts the most customers [01:58:34] RECOVERY - WDQS high update lag on wdqs1010 is OK: (C)3600 ge (W)1200 ge 1159 https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikidata_query_service/Runbook%23Update_lag https://grafana.wikimedia.org/dashboard/db/wikidata-query-service?orgId=1&panelId=8&fullscreen [08:00:09] hi [08:00:49] hi [11:02:20] :\ [11:02:21] :/ [11:02:29] Some people ... [11:02:55] every nervous system is part of a human [11:03:13] because of https://www.unifr.ch/ifaa/Public/EntryPage/TA98%20Tree/Entity%20TA98%20EN/14.0.00.000%20Entity%20TA98%20EN.htm [11:03:17] very good [11:04:00] Andreasmperu ++ [11:10:34] The statement might not be interpreted as "every nervous system is part of a human" but just as "every human has a nervous system" [11:10:49] So, for clarification, that might be added to Q11392181 instead [11:10:53] [[Q11392181]] [11:10:54] 10[1] 10https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q11392181 [11:11:35] I'm sure Andrea will be convinced that this Item is a better place :) [11:52:06] abian, that is literally what I did. [11:52:09] He reverted it [11:52:27] https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q11392181&diff=1011233522&oldid=1010774712 [11:52:31] abian, so no [11:52:34] not that sure [11:52:46] I mean it clearly obviously should be [11:53:02] and abian , how would you interpret it then if not as "every nervous system is part of a human" but just as "every human has a nervous system" [11:53:13] abian, if not in all cases statement should be qualified [11:53:43] abian, with something part of human body if nervous system is human [11:53:55] I don't know I think Andreasmperu is just upset that he was wrong [11:54:33] but thanks to poor selection of admins this now means I have to spend hours doing something which is patently obvious and should take 1 minute [11:54:39] ++ [11:55:32] Would like some feedback here: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Talk:Q286567 [11:56:37] eidax00, if I say a battery is part of a car, that to me means every can has a battery [11:56:51] if not then the statement "a batter is part of a car" is wrong [11:57:06] maybe I'm just really stupid [11:57:09] quite possible [11:57:20] any normal human being would just have given up on wikidata by now [12:01:38] If the statement was "A nervous system is part of a human body only if the nervous system is a human nervous system" - then it could just be simplified to "a human nervous system is a part of a human body" [12:01:46] Which is exactly what I did [12:02:34] Reading this makes me feel like I'm stroking out: "A nervous system is part of a human body only if the nervous system is a human nervous system" [12:03:12] Yeah; before "human nervous system" wasn't a subclass of "nervous system", but now it is so saying that "nervous system" is part of the human body is redundant or wrong [12:04:12] Don't worry, eidax00, usually doing everything by consensus is really slow, but there's no deadline anyway :) [12:04:25] You're doing a good job [12:04:34] okay [12:04:35] thanks [12:04:42] abian, also that is because I rasied the question: Don't worry, eidax00, usually doing everything by consensus is really slow, but there's no deadline anyway :) [12:04:44] sorry [12:04:52] wrong paste: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Talk:Q11392181 [12:05:02] But okay, will just continue with discussion [12:05:27] If anybody can weigh in here it would be helpful, to me it seems this one object should be split in 4: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Talk:Q286567 [12:05:36] What do you do if book has two releases with different ISBN-13? [12:05:38] Add both? [12:06:46] There's a difference between book and edition, https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:WikiProject_Books#Bibliographic_properties [12:07:13] ISBNs correspond to editions, and therefore yes, they should be different Items [12:07:36] abian, okay thanks [12:07:57] You're welcome :) [12:08:02] and then, if I have an international standard, and the publication which describes it, should it be different things? [12:08:32] Like in this case we have Terminologia Anatomica the standard, and Terminologia Anatomica the book which defines the standard, but there is also Terminologia Anatomica Online which defines the standard [12:09:35] maybe they should be same thing [12:10:40] If they were different Items, the representation would be correct [12:11:00] Some users might find it confusing, but it would be correct [12:18:03] eidax00: "but thanks to poor selection of admins..." → Do you think this is happening? If so, what do you think the reason is? [12:22:40] (I'm not asking about any particular admin but about the process) [12:25:12] abian, maybe I'm taking en.wiki guidelines and applyign them here, but generally admins should behave themselves well and recognize that the time spent doing what admin does is not a waste of their time but their duty [12:26:43] and if someone is not on board with that they should not be selected as admin [12:26:44] IMO [13:27:18] Okay I made this: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#Improving_Terminologia_Anatomica_(Q286567) [13:27:21] To ask for input [13:34:38] Okay, :) you can use {{ping project}} to ping the members of the [[Wikidata:WikiProject Books]] [13:34:39] 10[2] 10https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Template:ping_project13 => [13:34:42] 10[3] 10https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:WikiProject_Books [14:11:11] abian, thanks I will do that [14:40:22] okay i can't figure something out [14:40:33] why was the so wiki linked on https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q716846&oldid=980855203 here [14:40:38] but it wasn't created until 9/13 [14:40:45] but existed on wikidata well before [14:40:57] and it doesn't have additional deletions there [15:13:17] I can't see the history of it on sowiki now that it's deleted, but it was added to wikidata here: https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q65439491&action=history [15:14:09] are you sure it was created yesterday, and that's not the deletion date or a year ago or something? [15:16:43] yes i'm 100% sure [15:17:18] https://usercontent.irccloud-cdn.com/file/8Xz5nGGK/image.png [15:17:21] no other deletions [15:20:37] isn't the edit at the bottom saying the page was created in 2017 though? [15:22:33] oh [15:22:33] hah [15:22:35] * Praxidicae headdesks [15:22:38] i deleted it with another batch [15:22:43] * Praxidicae needs food [15:22:51] :D [15:23:04] at least nothing weird was going on :) [15:23:51] ugh this lta is giving me a migraine [15:27:36] <[1997kB]> And I was like we gonna found bugs :D [16:29:07] should parent taxon only be as per external taxonomy databases: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Talk:Q171283#Homo_(Q171283)_is_a_lower_taxon_of_Hominin_(Q107588) ? [20:29:46] what is best way to call for a vote on an issue: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#Discussion ? [21:12:40] eidax00: Actually I don't think you need a vote for that [21:13:28] but I need something for that [21:13:29] In fact voting isn't the best way to make decisions, argumentation and informal consensus is probably better [21:13:39] If no one answers, you can just go for it :) [21:13:48] abian, I have edited it twice, and it was reverted twice [21:14:07] I feel like 3rd time will likely get me banned if I don't have consensus [21:14:41] Now we're talking about the nervous system or the books and editions? [21:16:03] abian, nervous system [21:16:40] the books and editions I just want to be sure that the entry is appropriate for the book, just don't want to do the wrong thing there, and I'm not sure what right thing is - the nervous system I'm pretty sure my proposal is right [21:16:47] i'm 99% sure it is right [21:16:51] But all the reversions were done before "human nervous system" was subclass of "nervous system", right? [21:17:05] yes [21:17:17] Now you can say it's redundant because one is subclass of the other [21:17:46] Okay [21:17:59] In fact [[Q11392181]] has also A14.0.00.000 [21:18:00] 10[1] 10https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q11392181 [21:18:05] https://www.unifr.ch/ifaa/Public/EntryPage/TA98%20Tree/Entity%20TA98%20EN/14.0.00.000%20Entity%20TA98%20EN.htm [21:18:06] abian, yes I added it [21:18:08] As an ID [21:18:10] Let me add reference to those claims, and then I will do that [21:18:11] Ah, okay :) [21:18:20] Or will go fo rit tomorrow [21:18:37] as if it starts a fight I will not go to bed because of adrenaline [21:18:41] No problem :D [21:18:58] Tomorrow or whenever [21:19:11] thanks for advice as always [21:19:34] To you for your work :)