User talk:白布飘扬

Welcome to Wikidata, 白布飘扬!

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! --Bill william compton (talk) 04:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata:Property proposal/Baidu Baike ID

How do you think about it, this was rejected years ago but now has a lot of users who just make support votes. --117.136.54.99 02:28, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

References

Please use Phylogenetic classification of bony fishes (Q33883775) for your references, not the plain DOI. Thanks. --Succu (talk) 15:50, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Q36955170

我不太同意这一系列修订：said to be the same as (P460)的意思是有些权威或者文化认为这两个概念相同但其他权威或文化反对；partially coincident with (P1382)的意思是两个概念涵盖的部分有重叠但不完全相同。用partially coincident with (P1382)来代表 Chan / Chen 等等标明是拉丁字母但对应某些相同汉字姓的项目组合，来得比said to be the same as (P460)清晰得多。Deryck Chan (talk) 18:59, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

其实对我来说partially coincident with (P1382)及said to be the same as (P460)原则上均可使用，所以两者的资讯是其实重复的，只是partially coincident with (P1382)比较多用于逻辑性比较强的子集、母集、合集、交集之类的关系上，比如物理、地理、数理或化学性质上的，而said to be the same as (P460)则多用于比较抽象的文化、文字词解上，所以我倾向在使用后者。——白布飘扬 (talk) 19:15, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

最主要的是，参考了其他语言的处理方式，比如Ann (Q558067)处理同源名，或者如Taira (Q26215456)处理同字异读或同音异字的姓氏，都是列在said to be the same as (P460)。--白布飘扬 (talk) 20:38, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Q39918 / Q15545507

Don't you want to explain what is happening with two these items? --Wolverène (talk) 09:53, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Just to applied the latest taxonomic information. Prunus amygdalus is now an accepted name and Prunus dulcis has been declared as superfluous name and not longer valid by Melbourne Code, since 2012. --白布飘扬 (talk) 10:03, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Most of Wikipedia articles still accept P. dulcus as the valid name. It will just lead to confusion. --Wolverène (talk) 10:05, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

That is just mean that most article may need to update later. We can't help all language version to keep their information always up-to-dated but we can update in wikidata to let them aware and follow up. --白布飘扬 (talk) 10:14, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Ideograph components

Thanks for your contributions to Mandarin lexemes! I noticed that you've created invalid ID (L642631) to help describe the structure of 们/們 (L641351). Given that this character is also in use in other languages, shouldn't this actually be an item connected to 們 (Q109737540) and 们 (Q109737144), rather than a lexeme? (Kanxi radical 9 (⼈) (Q93331) seems like it might be the right item.) Mahir256 (talk) 16:31, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Also, may I ask why you are opting to keep Simplified and Traditional characters as separate forms, rather than as separate form representations as was previously the case? Mahir256 (talk) 21:14, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

mmm.. I found that ama/𒂼 (L1) do so. Then, I think we maybe just keep this two form separately since the auto-translation between two forms is not allowed in usage example (P5831). In addition, user may also have more choice to picking each of them and describe it alone, just like what happen in Wiktionary. Anyway, this is just experimental and open for discussion. 白布飘扬 (talk) 21:49, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Ah, I see. (Note that no one is actively working on Sumerian, and even if people were working on it, what works for that language may not be optimal for Mandarin.)

With respect to P5831, I'd suggest that keeping only the traditional example might be best, since it would at least help clarify which character is meant in a given context. Also just because enwikt has separate pages for the traditional and simplified characters needn't mean that they must correspond with separate forms (there are likely exceptions to this, but I highly doubt that this character is one of them).

Note also that the lexeme namespace is intended for words, affixes, phrases, and the like, and not so much for the individual characters which compose them. I pointed you to two items for the Unicode characters for the simplified and traditional versions of that affix, onto which the composition of that character (the radical and its phonograph, which are currently "combines lexemes" but are probably better as "has part" items for radicals/other characters—and I see now that you're adding P5753, whose examples of use are applied to items for characters and not lexemes/forms) and its different stroke orders can go. That way the two forms can be merged back into each other and reduce duplication of the pronunciation information. Mahir256 (talk) 22:01, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Ya, I also just realized that characters info has been done in 們 (Q109737540). So look like too many duplicate work I've just done now. It would be better for me to focus only in the lexeme. Thanks for your guide. 白布飘扬 (talk) 22:15, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Lexeme translations

If two lexeme senses have the same "item for this sense" value, you do not need to add "translation" links between them. Mahir256 (talk) 04:19, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I see. That's mean translation only for those abstraction or missing item. 白布飘扬 (talk) 04:24, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, precisely! (That also doesn't mean that every lexeme sense needs a corresponding item either!) Mahir256 (talk) 04:30, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Yun Huang

Hello @白布飘扬,

for Yun Huang (Q106638502) you changed family and given name:

• given: from Yun (Q96240457) via Yun (Q105640438) to Yun (Q94551012)
• family: from Huang (Q93273838) to Huang (Q845104)

Do you have any reference for that? As you‘ve seen yourself, there are multiple original Chinese names that have the same transliteration. So selecting one without a reference is not a good idea. 80.187.103.132 03:37, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Her information at google will be automatically translated to "黃雲" when using Tradition Chinese as browser language. So, I just put that as the most possible original name since no other source can verify that. 白布飘扬 (talk) 04:40, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Okay, but while this might be okay for selecting a label, it is not good enough for the statements regarding first and given name. Yun (Q96240457) and Huang (Q93273838) are the right choice as long as we only know the transliteration and don‘t have a reference what the real Chinese name is. I‘ll therefore revert to the previous statements until we find an reliable source what the real name is. Thanks, 80.187.103.132 04:56, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Property:P361

恐怕不适合用“所在”一词，因为该属性鲜少用于地理实体项目，问了一个讲德语的管理员也指出该属性本意与地理无关。 Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 08:44, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

好吧，英文的“part of”容易理解却难翻译，最直接的“作为某某一部分”不适用作标签，“含于实体”、“所在实体”、“处于实体”、“所组成实体”、“所构成实体”又太狭义，“所属实体”比较广泛但有点“belongs to”（所有者）的味道，但目前也想不到更好的，还是用回“所属实体”吧。 白布飘扬 (talk) 09:05, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Q15909294

您好，是这样的，标题所引这一条对应的人物由于同名的缘故，被各位编辑者在编辑过程中误会为Q45705388而加入了部分本应属于后者的信息，导致该条现在的信息是混杂的，在下有意对此进行清理，但在核实各信息中留意到阁下最近添加的“名字 文英”一项，暂查不到资料，想请问您是本意加给台南的许南英还是直隶的许南英？叨扰了。 银色雪莉 (talk) 16:29, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

是我的失误，应该是之前批量加人名时混杂在名单中，已修正。 白布飘扬 (talk) 04:13, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

好的，感谢释疑。 银色雪莉 (talk) 06:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)