User talk:ChristianKl

Jump to: navigation, search

About this board

Edit description
Logo of Wikidata

Welcome to Wikidata, ChristianKl!

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.
  • Contents – The main help page for editing and using the site.
  • Project chat – Discussions about the project.
  • Tools – A collection of user-developed JavaScript tools to allow for easier completion of some tasks.

If you have any questions, please ask me on my talk page. 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! Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 11:46, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Previous discussion was archived at User talk:ChristianKl/Archive 1 on 2016-08-31.

By clicking "Add topic", you agree to our Terms of Use and agree to irrevocably release your text under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and GFDL
Ymblanter (talkcontribs)

Congratulations, Dear Administrator!

Deutsch | English | español | français | italiano | Nederlands | português | русский | +/−

An offering for our new administrator from your comrades... (our gift is better than the one at Commons or Meta)

You have your gun; now here's your badge: {{User admin}}/{{#babel:admin}} and {{Admin topicon}}. Enjoy!

Trew7d5j69scbygc, congratulations! You now have the rights of administrator on Wikidata. Please take a moment to read the Wikidata:Administrators page and watchlist related pages (in particular Wikidata:Project chat, Wikidata:Requests for comment, and Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard), before launching yourself into page deletions, page protections, account blockings, or modifications of protected pages.

Please feel free to join us on IRC: #wikidata-admin @ irc.freenode.net. If you need access, you can flag someone down at @ irc.freenode.net. You may find Wikidata:Guide to Adminship to be useful reading. You may also want to consider adding yourself to meta:Template:Wikidata/Ambassadors, and to any similar page on your home wiki if one exists. (Check Wikipedia:Wikidata/Wikidatans (Q14964498).)

Please also add/update the languages you speak to your listing at Wikidata:List of administrators. You may also like to add your username to this list if you would not like that items you delete at RfD get marked as deleted automatically. Again, welcome to the admin corps!

Succu (talkcontribs)

Auf gutes Gelingen.;)

Reply to "Welcome to the admin corps"
Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick (talkcontribs)

Hi ChristianKl. Can you create properties about classification on Wikidata:Property proposal/Event. It lacks these properties to continue the different fonctions on Module:Cycling race.

ChristianKl (talkcontribs)

I see three issues:

① It's not clear to me that the solution of having multiple different "best X classifications" is better than a solution that uses a qualifier.

② The properties currently have the name copied in the description instead of a description that explains what the property is about.

③ The domain is defined quite narrowly and the language of the property names is more broad.

Thierry Caro (talkcontribs)

Hello, and sorry to hijack this discussion. The request is pretty much the same. Creating sports properties. Would you mind initiating Wikidata:Property proposal/DLV ID?

ChristianKl (talkcontribs)

@Thierry Caro I created the property. Given that you do care about the sport properties what's your opinion on the classification properties? Should there be a solution where every classification get's it's own property?

Thierry Caro (talkcontribs)

I honestly don't know. There is a feeling that this should be done in another way. But how? Unfortunately, I don't know!

Thierry Caro (talkcontribs)

I'll come back to read all the discussion in the coming days.

ChristianKl (talkcontribs)

I created https://test.wikidata.org/wiki/Q55267 as basic example of how a qualifier example might look like (names aren't well chosen).

Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick (talkcontribs)

We already have properties for classifications of stage, general, points, teams by time and teams by points. Functions have been developped as fr:Modèle:Cycling race/pointsclassification, fr:Modèle:Cycling race/teamsclassificationbytime, fr:Modèle:Cycling race/teamsclassificationbypoints. There is no reason to use a different process. So you can create them and I will ask to our users to make the translations and enter datas.

ChristianKl (talkcontribs)

The fact that you claim there's no reason to use a different process suggest that you don't understand why Thierry and myself have a feeling that the presently proposed solution isn't optimal.

If you want to convince other people it's useful to try to understand first where they are coming from.

This comment was hidden by ChristianKl (history)
Jklamo (talkcontribs)

Seems that there is a problem with precision (see https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q242&curid=384&diff=476801205&oldid=476801165 etc).

ChristianKl (talkcontribs)

I overrated the functionality of the new Quickstatements. Unfortunately it also doesn't allow stopping a batch, so I will likely try to delete the afterwards.

Multichill (talkcontribs)

Hi ChristianKl, please check out Wikidata:Property_creators#Steps_when_creating_properties. You missed a couple of these steps for the recent properties you created. Can you please follow these steps when you create properties in the future? Thank you,

ChristianKl (talkcontribs)

Previous discussion of this topic indicates that it's generally welcome that I create properties this way. The fact that you point to recently created properties is also telling, because while I create properties like this now for over half a year, it's only the recently created that don't have their statements filled out.

As far as the concrete policy document goes, it doesn't say that properties should (or must) only be created if every step on the list is worked through. It also does list conditions that should or must be fulfilled when creating properties and I do fulfill those.

The steps that are there do generally get done by different people after the property get's created.

Multichill (talkcontribs)

Looks like we have different expectations here. I expect the person who licked the cookie to eat it, in this case do all the steps, not just some of them. Now we apparently have a load of properties that have been created half. You mention previous discussions, but where?

Besides the procedural things, why don't you just do all steps?

ChristianKl (talkcontribs)

The core decision for the way I do this was after a project chat discussion roughly half a year ago.

If you see the act of creating a property that someone proposed because they want to use it as "licking a cookie" I think that contributes to having a huge backlog of properties that aren't created.

Out of the current batch of properties that are listed in the last Weekly Report the properties that aren't yet filled are the ProteinBoxBot properties. I expect those properties to be filled as they are used. I don't think that there's a huge batch of properties that have been created in half.

The last time I wasn't logged in in Wikidata for two weeks and thus didn't create properties that resulted in complaints about the backlog at the admin board. I think the backlog that exists on Wikidata if I don't act the way is sufficiently bad that it warrants me acting the way I do.

Pigsonthewing (talkcontribs)

Please stop removing the 'ready' status from property proposals, as you recently did [https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Property_proposal/VIVC_ID&diff=476286941&oldid=471933321 here] and on a number of others. The purpose of that status is to attract the attention of a property creator to asses the discussion and to determine (and then act according to) the community's consensus. Removing the marker from proposals which need such attention is disruptive.

ChristianKl (talkcontribs)

I remove ready-markers in two cases:

1) I think the property proposal is currently not ready and there's something missing.

2) I change the property proposal in some way.

From my perspective removing the ready-marker in cases where I change the property proposal means that if afterwards someone else readds the ready-marker I can go ahead and assume the version that exists reflects the consensus and create it.

Reply to "'Ready' markers"
GerardM (talkcontribs)

Hoi, you use the argument that the constraint for king does not have it as an occupation.. Fine, my problem with constraints is that the property "is a list of" throws errors even when it is properly used. This has been pointed out frequently but nobody seems to care.

The consequence is that the inverse is true. I now no longer care about restraints. That is not good and it is why I reach out. Thanks,

ChristianKl (talkcontribs)

Currently, Wikidata by default doesn't tell people when a constraint is violated and as a result, there are many constraint violations. When the new script will be integrated by default that will change.

I think that it's a good idea to remove bad constraints before rolling out the script more broadly.

Can you give me examples of where you think this property throws errors when properly used?

GerardM (talkcontribs)

Forget about the default, it shows the message to me because I care. So far I find that constraints are problematic because there is hardly any discussion going on. When things are pointed out, it often results in a tantrum where there is insistence on the status quo.

I use "is a list of" of categories and lists. It is effectively used to use software to include new content.

ChristianKl (talkcontribs)

I do agree that some existing constraints are problematic and it might be worth to have more discussion about the constraints. If you think a specific constraint should be different how about making proposing the corresponding change on the talk page and argue that it's required to get some examples where the property is properly used to throw no errors?

GerardM (talkcontribs)

"Might be" indicated doubt. When there is doubt to start of with, is it worth my time? I do think and I just presented an example. Convince me that it is time well spend.

ChristianKl (talkcontribs)

You gave me a property but you didn't point me to the specific items that you think get classified wrongly.

I do think that when the constraint script gets integrated more users of Wikidata will take constraints seriously. That means that constraint violating edits will be more likely to get removed. If you personally don't want to deal with constraints, I don't have a problem with that but at the same time I would expect that in the future some of your edits are going to be reverted if you simply ignore all constraints.

GerardM (talkcontribs)

Hoi, there are so many so where to begin... How about https://tools.wmflabs.org/reasonator/?&q=7234382 this one? Thanks,

ChristianKl (talkcontribs)

It seems the constraint there really doesn't make much sense. I removed it and we'll see whether someone objects.

Wikidata:Property proposal/NLI NNL (bibliographic)

8
Geagea (talkcontribs)

Hello ChristianKl,

I don't really understand which description I should to add. Can you help please.

ChristianKl (talkcontribs)

The description currently contains content that's a template. {{Q|XXX}} is a template. That template get's rendered in the Wiki view in which the proposal happens to be but it doesn't get rendered in the actual description of a property once it's created.

Geagea (talkcontribs)

This was the description before i have changed it:

National Library of Israel (Q188915) (NLI) for a bibliographic record: a specific edition (Q3331189) of a book or other publications in the National Library of Israel Online Catalog (NNL).

And this is the descrption for P1144 which is quiet similar:

Library of Congress Control Number (Q620946) (LCCN) for a bibliographic record: a specific edition (Q3331189) of a book or other publications in the U.S. Library of Congress Online Catalog (LCOC).
ChristianKl (talkcontribs)

I get your point. I opened Wikidata:Project chat#Should the description in the proposal documentation match the description of the property.3F to have a more open discussion about how the description should look like.

ChristianKl (talkcontribs)

The current answer agrees with my opinion that P1144 shouldn't have a separate description on the property talk page than it has as the property description. The property talk page can format Wikitext but the core description can't.

Geagea (talkcontribs)

Wikidata:Property proposal/NLI NNL (bibliographic) description was modified by User:ArthurPSmith. Is it ok now?

ChristianKl (talkcontribs)

Yes, I created it.

Geagea (talkcontribs)

Thanks

Andrew Su (talkcontribs)

Hello, may ask that you have a look at Wikidata:Property proposal/Natural science#Reactome ID, which seems like an uncontroversial property proposal. If you agree, creation would be much appreciated... Best, -andrew

ChristianKl (talkcontribs)

I would prefer to have a reference to the domain in the property name. I changed the name accordingly. If you are happy with the current version, can you reset the ready flag?

ChristianKl (talkcontribs)

It's now created.

Thierry Caro (talkcontribs)

Hello there. I am here to bother you once again! Would you mind creating this?

Thierry Caro (talkcontribs)

Hello again, and thank you! Next ones would be Wikidata:Property proposal/Tilastopaja female ID, Wikidata:Property proposal/Tilastopaja male ID and Wikidata:Property proposal/Red Bull ID. Can you have a look?

Thierry Caro (talkcontribs)

Hi there. Can we now get Wikidata:Property proposal/Ladies European Tour ID? Wikidata:Property proposal/Hotels.com ID, Wikidata:Property proposal/last meal and Wikidata:Property proposal/last words could be created too. Would you mind having a look at them too?

Thierry Caro (talkcontribs)

Hello, and thank you for everything you've already done! Next one ready is Wikidata:Property proposal/LoJ ID. Would you be OK to process the proposal?

Thierry Caro (talkcontribs)

It's been created by someone else. But Wikidata:Property proposal/Athletics Australia ID is another one ready now. Don't hesitate to have a look there.

ChristianKl (talkcontribs)

I created it.

Thierry Caro (talkcontribs)

Thank you again. The next ones on the list are Wikidata:Property proposal/Diamond League ID, Wikidata:Property proposal/Track and Field Statistics female ID‎, Wikidata:Property proposal/Track and Field Statistics male ID‎ and Wikidata:Property proposal/USATF ID. Can you possibly process these too?

Thierry Caro (talkcontribs)

And now there is also Wikidata:Property proposal/eWRC-results.com ID, Wikidata:Property proposal/MotoGP ID and Wikidata:Property proposal/Rallye-info.com ID. May you also process these, possibly?

ChristianKl (talkcontribs)

I created all except  Wikidata:Property proposal/Rallye-info.com ID and left comments for that property.

Thierry Caro (talkcontribs)

OK. I've changed the description accordingly. On top of that, we know have Wikidata:Property proposal/RealGM basket-ball player ID, Wikidata:Property proposal/Bmx-results.com ID‎, Wikidata:Property proposal/ALPG ID, Wikidata:Property proposal/MLL ID, Wikidata:Property proposal/NLL ID and Wikidata:Property proposal/Juwra.com ID to deal with. Can you come and see?

Reply to "More sports properties"
Jc86035 (talkcontribs)

It appears daily patronage (P3873) is a close duplicate of daily ridership (P1373), which I did not find before I made the proposal. Is the correct procedure to delete the newer one? (The older one has 22 uses.) Thanks.

ChristianKl (talkcontribs)

The correct procedure is to go to Wikidata:Properties for deletion to request the deletion of the new dublicate property. Afterwards it can also make sense to create a few new aliases in the existing property to make it easier to find.

Jc86035 (talkcontribs)

I've nominated the newer property for deletion. Should I change the older property's definition to closer match the newer property's, or is it better to wait until one of them is deleted?

ChristianKl (talkcontribs)

When it comes to adding new aliases, you can do that right away. When it comes to expanding the score, that's best done with consensus and I think that should be there in a few days via the deletion discussion.