[07:50:00] Sigh, so many taxons seem to be missing their mandatory constraints for author and year [11:37:48] Hi there. We are working on a research project at the University of Graz where we are dealing with cooking recipes from the Middle Ages. And my question would be if it would be ok to add "instance of" = {{P|31}} "food ingredient" = {{Q|25403900}} to taxons like {{Q|81110}} (carp) or even a genus of plants like {{Q|475629}} (Birthroot)? Because [11:37:49] there are thousands of edible plants and animals that we find in our recipes and want to indicate that they are or were used as a food ingredient. I am aware that for the popular food ingredients a differentiation was made between the species of the plant or animal and the food used from it (e.g. garlic= {{Q|21546392}} and species garlic [11:37:49] 10[1] 1010https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Template:Property - Redirección desde 10https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Template:P?redirect=no13 => [11:37:49] ={{Q|23400}}). So the other option I was thinking about was to create new items for all these foods. However, in fact in most cases we can't distinguish which part of e.g. a carp = {{Q|81110}} was eaten, so this could lead to redundancy. Any opinion very much appreciated! [11:37:52] 10[2] 10https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Template:Q [11:37:52] 10[3] 10https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Template:Q [11:37:53] 10[4] 10https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Template:Q [11:44:22] chstnr: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q2751223 (carp) already has it, FWIW [11:44:54] But that's a different carp item, I guess :) [11:45:27] because I used it as an example [11:45:56] Oh. I saw it was added in June so I thought it wasn't connected :) [11:46:51] the question is weather this makes sense or if there should actually be an item that represents "carp" as a food and not as a "species of fish" [11:49:46] I find it a bit weird to see something claimed as "instance of food ingredient" [11:49:55] I would probably expect to see it listed with https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P366 instead [11:51:01] That doesn't really answer your question about taxa though, and I'm honestly not sure about that one [11:51:18] nikki, sjoerddebruin, Lucas_WMDE: smarter people than me, do you have opinions? ^ :) [11:52:33] yes. I have also thought about this. So "taxon" "use" "food". That would actually work but then again I thought that the properties of a taxon are different from those of a food ingredient. So creating items for the foodstuff would give us more freedom in adding information ... [11:52:58] I wanted to avoid redundancy though and jump to conclusions too quickly [11:53:17] I would probably not create a new item for the food ingredient, at least [11:53:30] I get using "onion" instead of "Allium cepa" because it's a specific part of the onion the recipe calls for, but that's less true of fish, where I guess you're more likely to use the whole thing. For meat I'd expect to see an item for the specific cut because recipes don't usually say "use whatever bunch of a cow you can find" but a specific one [11:54:18] So I guess if the recipe calls for "carp eye", I'd add that as an item, but if it's just "a carp", I probably wouldn't [11:54:23] But I'm certainly not an authority here [11:54:39] https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:WikiProject_Food is a thing, but I'm not sure how active it is [11:54:47] I wonder if the relation between medieval ingredient and modern taxon is always clear? [11:54:56] if we went back a bit further, Silphium would be a counterexample, I think [11:55:09] that might be another reason to prefer separate items [11:55:43] That is fair - https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q2751223 for carp for example is not the taxon, but an instance of "group of organisms known by one particular common name" [11:55:55] ah, ok [11:56:07] (but I'm sure that's not the case with a bunch of fish) [11:56:25] https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q3127419 same is true for herring, at least [11:56:51] But tuna for example seems to just be a bunch of taza [11:56:52] *taxa [11:57:41] yes ..that's an entire other question. but thinking about modern ingredients only we find the discrepancy of the taxon and the food. for the popular food (onions e.g.) this seems clear and be common sense ..but can we use this for all taxons used for food? [11:58:03] I suspect in most cases there *will* be a difference [11:58:26] so fish are just one example where this becomes obvious [11:58:36] For most things I can think of in my kitchen right now, almost none of them are really a full instance of the species [11:58:47] It's either the seeds, or the fruit, or the leaves, etc [11:59:15] I think the cases where a separate item is not needed might be rare enough that tbh now that I look at it like that it might be easier to just default to having an item [12:00:00] plants is another one. there are thousands of edible plants. if a recipes says "use ginger" , we know they mean the root. .. [12:00:04] Pretty much the only case I can think about right now where we just eat the whole thing as-is are small fishes [12:00:20] (because for bigger ones people at least take the bones out...) [12:00:31] And insects, for whoever eats those, I guess [12:01:19] that is true [12:01:52] so from this standpoint it would actually make more sense to create new items if non-existent [12:02:50] even more so as our project deal with historical data and we would have to add this somehow to some foods used [12:38:08] another quick question: what to do if I see vandalism? I just queried for all {{Q|55983715}} and saw that the label "cat" was changed to "Simicz Zalán" [12:38:08] 10[5] 10https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Template:Q [12:39:35] chstnr: ideally, rollback (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Wikidata:Rollbackers) [12:39:49] if you don’t have the rights for that, undoing the bad edit and marking it as patrolled is probably the next best thing [12:40:06] and check the user’s contributions for similar edits [12:41:42] ok thanks [12:44:41] how do I mark something as patrolled? [12:45:44] there would be a link in the diff page [12:45:49] (but I already marked that one as patrolled) [12:45:59] oh ok [12:46:15] but you can look for unpatrolled changes in the recent changes and try it out there :) [12:46:51] https://w.wiki/A4h [12:52:24] ahh ..I get it now:) ..thanks! [12:53:39] gah, looking at that page is depressing [12:53:41] so much vandalism… [12:56:11] you mean cat? [12:56:42] nah, the unpatrolled recent changes [18:43:35] https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#Proposal:_Change_Data_type_of_ICD-9-CM_(P1692)_from_String_to_External_identifier [18:56:07] many that need fixing [19:59:17] there's a very lot in WD that needs 'fixing' :) [20:00:03] Indeed :) [20:03:54] go for it.