Open main menu

admin 2Edit

Hey. You were asked a year ago, but maybe now you´d like to be made an admin? Whaddaya say? Wanna sign up? --Wonderfool Dec 2018 (talk) 13:33, 1 January 2019 (UTC)


Do you know whether the second sense at Sonntagsschrift is dated or archaic? It doesn't seem to be used a lot in recent news articles or in the German Wikipedia. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 08:37, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

@Lingo Bingo Dingo: It's probably analogous to Zeitschrift, but I've never heard it used in that sense, and I doubt most speakers today would understand it. I checked a newspaper corpus and the last time it was used in that sense was 1977. The first sense should probably be marked as colloquial. – Jberkel 08:55, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


Can you please show my entry run into that mistake; Thanks.Angelucci (talk) 14:24, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

@Angelucci: Specifically, this: Special:Diff/49078674/52441141Jberkel 14:28, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Chalcis#Translingual imageEdit

DCDuring (talk) 20:14, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Looks quite pleasant! The Wikipedia link was probably wrong? – Jberkel 20:54, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
I thought you'd be slightly amused. It must have been something like that. I often find bad links to WP for taxonomic names. I try to check the links for entries I edit, but it gets tedious, so I skip it sometimes. And then sometimes there is some reform at WP which kills the link. DCDuring (talk) 22:04, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
The link checking can probably be automated. Unfortunately I lost the code but I'll restart the project one day. – Jberkel 22:08, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
I just discovered that every single entry for the species of mushroom genus Cortinarius had an image of Cortinarius archeri. That means 49 errors out of 50 insertions. Please do not insert any images relying on Wikidata until they have some assurance of data quality, some convenient means for non WikiData folks like me to report errors, and some system for flagging items that have claims of error. They may also need a generous supplement of humility. DCDuring (talk) 12:23, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
@DCDuring: The problem is that most species of that genus point to the same Wikipedia page (of the genus w:Cortinarius), there is nothing wrong with Wikidata itself. The script makes the assumption that the links to Wikipedia are correct. Before attempting another run we should do some sort of link verification first. – Jberkel 14:40, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
I know: Guns don't kill people; people kill people.
It doesn't matter to me whether the problem is the gun, the ammo, or the person firing it.
If the data in Wikidata is bad, then it should not be used until there is a good mechanism for correcting the data based on input from other projects and there is an acceptable base rate of error. This particular instance in egregious, but I find other, lesser errors regularly. If you think it is tedious to check the data on WikiData, consider the tedium of discovering and unwinding the misapplication in our entries, knowing that the correction won't prevent misuse of the data on other projects. DCDuring (talk) 14:51, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
I know there have been instances where Wikidata had wrong images, but the examples you mentioned above have nothing to do with it. As I said, we need to make sure our data is good before blaming Wikidata/Wikipedia etc. – Jberkel 15:12, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Tell me about the instances of Wiktionary problems.
Are you saying that it's our fault because you relied on a link appearing in a species entry that went to an article on a genus or family at Wikipedia? Why would you assume that a WP link was relevant rather than the page title? WP doesn't have an article on most species, not even for many of the species that we happen to cover. But it does have material relevant to the species in articles on the genus, family, etc. That is what I link to if there is no species article. DCDuring (talk) 18:26, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
@DCDuring: The WP link provides an easy mapping to Wikidata items, so that's why it's used instead of the name. And yes, the assumption is that the WP link matches the entry. If that's not always the case the logic needs to be changed. Jberkel 23:53, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
It is not always the case. Wikicommons would be better, but the same problem can arise: if there is no Commons entry (yet), I often have a link to a higher taxon. In any event, the images that WP may have often do not suit our needs. Eg, for plants I try to use a botanical illustration, preferably with color rather than a photo, because one herb, liand, shrub, or tree, looks an awful lot like every other one from a distance. I also try to find images that support the etymology of the vernacular or taxonomic name. Eg, I'd like the image for the greenish warbler to be greenish.

Wanted pages june and beyond?Edit

Hello! I greatly appreciate your wanted pages, and I'm trying to fill in the swedish list [1]. I'm just wondering if there will be more updates for these lists. For example for 20190601. Are you the one compiling these and will they continue? Thanks a lot!

--Fringilla (talk) 10:34, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

@Fringilla: glad to hear it's useful, I'll publish some new lists soon – Jberkel 11:07, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
@Fringilla:   DoneJberkel 22:09, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
@Jberkel: Thanks man! --Fringilla (talk) 13:09, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

de: NestlingEdit

Dear Jberkel, Nestling is in German not synonymous with Nesthocker. A Nestling is an individual bird in a certain stage of its ontogenesis: The bird sits in the nest, unable to leave (antonym: Ästling; the same bird after leaving the nest, but still fed by the parents). Nesthocker is an ecological(?) concept that describes the behaviour of the progeny of certain bird species that, immediately after hatching, are able to care for food etc. for themselves (antonym: Nestflüchter). Greetings -- 10:59, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I mostly followed wikt:de:Nesthocker which lists Nestling as a synonym. So could it be listed as hypernym? A Nestling is a Nesthocker ? – Jberkel 12:36, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
The connection is that Nestlinge only exist in Nesthocker species, but it´s not a part-whole relationship, the levels are different: Nestling is an individual bird, Nesthocker are types of birds (species or other phyla). E.g. one could say "Alle Watvögel sind Nestflüchter.", but **"Alle Singvögel sind Nestlinge." doesn´t make sense, it would say that at this moment all song birds are hatchlings sitting in the nest. I hope that does make sense to you. -- 15:13, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Polish "se"Edit

Hi. I saw you reverted my edition. Is it because of wrong format or something else? Tashi (talk) 13:24, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

@Tashi: Yes, I can't judge the content of your contribution but the formatting is totally off, please have a look at other entries (and especially WT:EL) to get an idea of how entries are / should be formatted. "Reflexive pronoun" is not a valid Part-of-Speech, header, your entry is missing a "headword line", and the pronunciation information needs to be grouped under a ===Pronunciation=== header. Individual words in usage examples should not be linked. You'll also need to add a separator line (----) at the bottom of your entry. – Jberkel 14:23, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights SurveyEdit

RMaung (WMF) 14:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Jberkel".