Talk:Q889

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Autodescription — Afghanistan (Q889)

description: country in Central and South Asia
Useful links:
Generic queries for administrative territorial entities

This list of queries is designed for all instances of administrative territorial entity (Q56061). It is generated using {{TP administrative area}}.

🌎 Geography 🌎

👥 People 👥

🎭 Arts and fictions 🎭

See also


Massive removal of full English names of provinces and districts

[edit]

 Oppose User:Joshbaumgartner (Oppose label added, since the removing party placed such a label somewhere below.)

Massive removal of full names by User:Joshbaumgartner, listing five provinces as example:

and five districts as example:

Some benefits of full names:

And one major data quality problem:

  • inconsistencies are not seen by looking at the page of "Mingajik"/"Mingajk District", e.g. [1] shows "is in Jowzjan Province" or "is in Jowzjan" and shows "district of Faryab, Afghanistan": If one would know that Faryab means Faryab Province and that Jowzjan means Jowzjan Province, one would immediately assume that one of the claims is false, since any district of Afghanistan is rarely located in two provinces at the same time.

Tamawashi (talk) 03:13, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Tamawashi, I brought this up on your talk page (though I noticed you immediately deleted that entry) for discussion with you, not so you could try and start an edit war. Your addition of disambiguation information to labels is not generally appropriate. I set the labels for these provinces in accordance with Wikidata label guidelines. There are a number of reasons to use the real name of the province, and not add the disambiguation "Province" or "District" onto the end of it:

  • Labels are not intended to carry statements within them or include disambiguation information. The class of an item is rightly placed as a statement, and not in the label. It is "Germany", not "Germany Country" and "Oregon", not "Oregon State". It would be equally silly to have to label the "Eurofighter Typhoon" changed to "Eurofighter Typhoon Fighter Aircraft". Likewise, "Badakhshan" is preferable to "Badakhshan Province". See: Help:Label#Disambiguation information belongs into the description
  • Wikidata labels should be concise and compact. "Badakhshan" is more compact than "Badakhshan Province"
  • Wikidata labels can be ambiguous, so there is no need to add extra words just to make them unique. Help:Label#Labels can be ambiguous
  • Wikidata should be easily human- and machine-readable. If one wishes to display the name with class following, it is easy to access the label "Badakhshan" and append the class "Province" (by reading the appropriate statement) to it on the client side...much easier than stripping the "Province" portion from the label "Badakhshan Province".
  • Wikidata is not constrained by the same limits imposed on article names in English Wikipedia, Commons, or other Wikis. This is intentional, and cleaner and more concise labels, something we should take advantage of. "There is no requirement that an item's label be the same as the page name on its corresponding Wikimedia site. In fact there are several cases ... in which it is actually desirable for the Wikidata label to be different from the Wikimedia page title." - Help:Label
  • Wikipedia article names are often a poor representation of broad usage (again, this is often a result of the limitations on article names that affect English Wikipedia, but not Wikidata). If you look across languages, you will find that even on Wikis, adding the "Province" portion to the name is hardly universal, with each language going its own way.

As for your data quality problem, I'm not sure how adding "District" to the label addresses this. If a district is listed with a statement saying it "is in Jowzjan" and one saying it "is in Faryab", a simple data check will reveal that it has an 'is in' statement for two different entities that both are 'instance of province of Afghanistan', thus highlighting the problem easily and without any need to clutter up the labels.

Trying to make this an edit war and deleting my comments on the matter are not the way to make your point. Your list above was a much more constructive approach, and I appreciate you bringing your rationale to the floor for discussion. However, it is clear that much of that rationale is out of line with Wikidata label guidelines and instead is guided by the mistaken principle that Wikidata labels should mimic Wikipedia article names when clearly, Wikidata has its own, different, constraints and objectives. Wikidata is NOT Wikipedia and thus it rightly has different guidelines for labels than Wikipedia has for article names. See Help:Label for more information. Thank you and I look forward to working with you to further improve the project!

Joshbaumgartner (talk) 06:29, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joshbaumgartner, I completely agree with you. History repeating, I wonder how many other location items have been affected by Tamawashi's edits. Multichill (talk) 09:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Joshbaumgartner Contrary to what you claim I did not immediately delete your comments on my talk page, but at first wrote an answer here. I removed your comments on my talk page since they were related to Afghanistan and I gave a pointer to this Afghanistan page and pinged you. I thought I did you a courtesy by not including them here, since it would have revealed that you request something from me, that you did not do yourself in the first place. You simply deleted one naming variant while requesting from me to prevent this from happening. Your removals are linked above, no aliases created for the item of Balkh Province.

The data quality example was related to non-existed term "province" in relation with two province names stated to be the location where the district is located.

I don't know why you suggest "Germany Country". This is no name found in Wikipedia nor commons.

Regarding "Labels should be short and compact", what would you do here:

?

Classname removal leads to statements like: "Akhlan" borders "Akhlan", is located in "Akhlan" and has parts "Akhlan" and "Akhlan", where the latter has one part called "Akhlan". With classnames it would read: "Akhlan District" borders "Akhlan City", is located in "Akhlan Region" and has parts "Akhlan Rural District" and "Akhlan Urban District", where the latter has one part called "Akhlan Municipality".

I am well aware that Wikidata has its own constraints: Talk:Q749#Groningen in Groningen and Groningen. One is that people can change labels so that pages become un-readable. Tamawashi (talk) 10:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Let me clarify and make this very succinct for you, Tamawashi. I oppose your contention that disambiguation information should be included in Afghan district and province labels. I oppose your mass adding these to not just Afghan locations, but others as well, as has been noted and opposed by Multichill for Dutch entities (see Talk:Q134390). Despite clearly being notified that your mass editing was in contradiction to Wikidata labeling guidelines and that multiple users objected to your practices, you not only have continued them, but you have aggressive editing to override any attempt to correct your labels. This is something I strenuously oppose. As this is an issue that pertains to more than just Afghanistan, I have raised the question on Wikidata talk:Political geography task force#Political entity labels and asked for comment. Joshbaumgartner (talk) 07:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And I oppose your initial mass removal of class names. Despite clearly being notified that your mass editing was in contradiction to Wikidata labeling guidelines - This did not happen. Please do refer to the relevant point in the labeling guideline and where editing was done in contradiction. Tamawashi (talk) 11:28, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You alone object to the initial labels I gave to these items more than a year ago (the initial ones were just bot assigned based on the en:wiki transfer). You keep trying to repose the argument against me as if I am the one running roughshod over everyone else's work. Many people have cited numerous guidelines and policies that you are contravening, so I doubt more will do anything to convince you. Clearly your proposal to add "Province" and "District" to all Afghan places is not something that is agreed to. Joshbaumgartner (talk) 03:28, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The initial labels were given by bots, not by you. "Many people have cited numerous guidelines and policies that you are contravening" - If you speak the truth here, then probably you can provide evidence. "Clearly your proposal to add "Province" and "District" to all Afghan places" - where is such a proposal? Tamawashi (talk) 14:02, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly, there is no support for your addition of disambiguation words to Afghan locations other than that which you have manufactured. Kindly remove those additions or leave it to others to do so unimpeded. Thank you. Joshbaumgartner (talk) 00:25, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that, @Tamawashi:, I'm the first ever man who  Support those removals, due to the back of Taliban government, as currently unclear that what's the actual official name of Afghanistan due to multiple governments' co-existing issue. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 06:19, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Q889&oldid=1534793662"