User talk:Danrok

From Wikidata
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Descriptions[edit]

Hi there! Just so you know, per this policy (well, proposed policy, but the general idea has fairly strong consensus), items' descriptions shouldn't begin with an article. That's a fine point, though, and don't let it discourage you – you're doing great work, and should feel free to submit a request for autopatroller. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 01:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

René Lévesque, founder of the PQ[edit]

Hi. Did you remove my statement that René Lévesque founded the Parti Quebecois intentionally? If so, why? thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:31, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the use of "founder" was incorrect. René Lévesque was not founded by Parti Quebecois. So, René Lévesque would need to be specified as a founder on the Parti Quebecois page. Danrok (talk) 18:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Humans are not founded - they have human parents. 18:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Got it, thanks. (Although I should probably find out more about how babies are made).--Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:08, 21 February 2013 (UTC) 19:08, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Removed logo of Lufthansa Q9325[edit]

I undid your change to Q9325 Lufthansa, since the referenced logo does not exist on Wikicommons. I did not find a current logo of Lufthansa on Wikicommons (only commons:File:Lufthansa_wordmark.svg, which is not a logo, but a wordmark). Seems like there is a licensing conflict. Do you think we should use the wordmark as a logo reference? --Faux (talk) 19:27, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! My mistake, and yes I would say that the wordmark is vaild, it is one of their logos. Danrok (talk) 19:54, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Knife grinders and grindstones[edit]

Hi, you moved the links da:Skærsliber and de:Scherenschleifer from Q4990607 to Q4990615, but these two articles deal with wandering knife grinders (people). I’ll revert the moves. Related discussion: Wikidata:Interwiki conflicts#Q4990607/Q4990615. --Silvonen (talk) 02:01, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Buildings[edit]

Hello, I saw that you added the type "hotel" to the Ritz. Actually, it was built as a hôtel particulier, so that may typically be a case where the "main use" property would come in handy (type: hôtel particulier, use: hotel). It might also make sense to have two items, one for the historical building, and another for the hotel as such, but it seems that it is not yet the case. --Zolo (talk) 17:32, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

You're right, hotel doesn't work well as a structure type, it's more of a function/use. Danrok (talk) 20:35, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
changed :). --Zolo (talk) 21:35, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

IMO number[edit]

Hi Danrok. I think the IMO number should have the data type number, not string. This data type will be released within the next 1-3 weeks. Would you please change your proposal to number? As far as I googled there are no cases where alphabetic characters are in the IMO code. --Nightwish62 (talk) 15:24, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Strictly speaking it is a string of characters because according to the IMO the number should be prefixed with "IMO", see: IMO identification number scheme. That is how it is used on Commons, see: Ships by IMO number. It's also plausible that the IMO may start using alpha characters in the "number", but who can say for sure. Danrok (talk) 20:26, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
You're right, but IMO is the prefix as you say itself, and is not part of the value itself. Yes it could be that anytime in future they starts with alphabetic characters, but I either believe they will increase the number of digits. And even not, it would be possible to create a new data type (string) and transfer all values. On the other site the datatype number will bring some advantages. I already listed it in another post, see here (INSEE code, first posting). For the same reason I suggest to take number for IMO also. --Nightwish62 (talk) 10:23, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
OK, I have no objection to it being changed. By all means, change it as you see fit. Danrok (talk) 12:57, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Property:P415[edit]

Hi,

The above property is now available and can be used on items. I noticed you participated in its discussion. --  Docu  at 10:49, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


Property:P414[edit]

Hi,

The above property is now available and can be used on items. I noticed you participated in its discussion. --  Docu  at 10:52, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


Property:P463 "member of"[edit]

Hi,

The above property is now available and can be used on items. I noticed you participated in its discussion. --  Docu  at 16:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


Property:P504 "home port"[edit]

Hi,

The above property is now available and can be used on items. I noticed you first proposed its creation. Maybe we should create "port of registry" too. --  Docu  at 09:56, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Here we go: Wikidata:Property_proposal/Term#Port_of_registry. --  Docu  at 06:16, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
done as Property:P532. --  Docu  at 11:00, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Property:P511 "honorific prefix"[edit]

Hi,

The above property is now available and can be used on items. I noticed you proposed its creation. --  Docu  at 18:18, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Starring role[edit]

See here Property_talk:P161#Starring_--.3E_Actors --Nightwish62 (talk) 17:16, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Danrok. You have new messages at ValterVB's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.


Property:P201[edit]

Please see Wikidata:Properties_for_deletion#Property:P201. --  Docu  at 08:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Admin?[edit]

Have you considered running for adminship? You seem like a good candidate. AutomaticStrikeout 00:12, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

"instance of" vs "subclass of"[edit]

I have noticed that you change "instance of" to "subclass of", for example in P-15 Termit (Q177218). I believe this is wrong. anti-ship missile (Q643532) describes a "missile type". The P-15 is a missile type, but an individual missile is not. An individual missile should be an instance of Q177218, not Q643532. /Esquilo (talk) 08:40, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

No, P-15 Termit (Q177218) is not an instance of a missile, the article describes the type of missile, all of them and not an individual missile. An instance is a singular thing, such as Avro Vulcan XM655 (Q4829496) which is an instance of Avro Vulcan (Q218931). Danrok (talk) 13:23, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Exactly. Avro Vulcan XM655 (Q4829496) is an instance of Avro Vulcan (Q218931), not an instance of strategic bomber (Q507720). Avro Vulcan (Q218931) is an instance of strategic bomber (Q507720). /Esquilo (talk) 14:28, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
So, what has led you to believe that P-15 Termit (Q177218) is an instance? It's not, it is a class of missile, of which many instances were manufactured. This concept is extremely simple! Danrok (talk) 14:33, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Avro Vulcan XM655 (Q4829496) is an instance because it is an individual plane with the serial number XM655. Danrok (talk) 14:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
It is an instance of the type of missile called "anti-ship missile". An individual missile is not an instance of a missile type, it is an instance of that particular missile modell. /Esquilo (talk) 14:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
No. Only a single missile, one of the individual items which was produced in a factory is an instance. Nothing else above it is an instance, they're all classes (subclass of). This is a class of missile: Exocet not an instance (they made lots of them), it is a subclass of. This is explained on the help page. Danrok (talk) 14:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Other examples: iPhone 4 (Q300890) is a class of phone, only the one you have in your hand is an instance. Nimitz-class aircraft carrier (Q309336) is a class, it's even in the title. orange (Q13191) is a subclass of fruit, only the one you ate is an instance. Danrok (talk) 14:55, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Nimitz-class aircraft carrier (Q309336) is an instance of ship class (Q559026). USS Nimitz (Q463161) is not. Missiles work the same way. /Esquilo (talk) 15:17, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Exocet is not an instance, the lead text provides a clue "anti-ship missile whose various versions". The article does not describe a singular item, it describes a class of missile, of which many instances have been made (single concrete objects). Danrok (talk) 15:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree, Nimitz-class aircraft carrier (Q309336) is an instance of ship class (Q559026), but that is not the issue. Danrok (talk) 15:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Meanwhile, here's one you have claimed correctly as subclass of: Harpoon (Q331436). Danrok (talk) 15:42, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  1. This was discussed one month ago on Chemistry task force talk page. The problem was that instantiating chemical compounds as individual molecules is ridiculous and useless. The conclusion was that an item has to be distinguishable from other similar items to be instantiable. P-15 Termit (Q177218) is distinguishable from other anti-ship missile (Q643532). "The missile that sunk INS Eliat" is not distinguishable from other missiles other than beeing a P-15 Termite.
  2. This is the level on which it is logcial an convenient to instantiate items. If I ask you to name a strategic bomber, you may answer Avro Vulcan. You will probably not answer XM655. /Esquilo (talk) 07:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
No. Each missile is an instance. P-15 Termite is a class of missile, hence subclass of, of which several variants were made, see Versions. It is not a singular item. Danrok (talk) 14:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Re: Subclass of[edit]

Hi. I think your understanding is correct that P-15 Termit is a class of missile, not an instance. Regards, --Stevenliuyi (talk) 16:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit-warring[edit]

As I've explained at WD:AN, I will be forced to block you temporarily if you make any more reverts on Q177218. The same goes for Esquilo, so I can assure you that this is an even-handed warning.

While we don't have a formal policy on the matter, behavior like this is obviously disruptive, and cannot be tolerated. Please use the article's talk page or the project chat to gain consensus, as opposed to reverting each other. Thanks. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 11:00, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Why not deal with the problem Wikidata:Administrators'_noticeboard#User:Esquilo, instead of making threats against me based on your false allegations? Danrok (talk) 11:08, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree with PinkAmpersand's judgement. Dealing with an edit war a few days ago, warning users and depending on the history blocking or protecting is best. We do not have ultimate control over content thus matters should be resolved within and not from administrator intervention. Of course if this got out of hand, administrators would need to step in. Also this is not a threat but an even sided warning to both of you. John F. Lewis (talk) 11:38, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Because there is no problem. There's a disagreement. Problems are when one user is unambiguously on the wrong side of policy, and refuses to acknowledge it. You and Esquilo are merely disagreeing on the best way to represent certain information; while the disagreement may annoy you, we can't just up and declare you the winner. It's discourteous to your fellow Wikidatan to assume that he's so wrong that you can settle the dispute by requesting the admins to intervene on your behalf. We exist to clean up messes and enforce policy, not to decide who's right and who's wrong.
Now, as for the content side of things: You may very well be right. Normally I'd take a look and add my two cents (as a humble fellow editor, of course, not as some sort of official administrative stance), but I'm not going to do that here, since that could be seen as a conflict of interest if I had to block one or both of you. If you really want to be proven right, like I said, go start a discussion. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 11:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
"If you really want to be proven right, like I said, go start a discussion." says PinkAmpersand. I already did, here on my talk page, on Esquilo's talk page, and lastly on the admin's talk page. The outcome? "I will be forced to block you temporarily...". I won't be starting any more discussions. Someone else can fix this. I've wasted enough of my time on it. Danrok (talk) 12:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

MMSI[edit]

Hello, I have created MMSI (P587) following you suggestion. Do you think it makes sense to link to http://www.marinetraffic.com/ais/fr/datasheet.aspx?alpha=S&datasource=V_SHIP&orderby=MMSI&sort_order=ASC&var_page=1 it is the only international database I see for this ? --Zolo (talk) 17:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi! Yes, I think that is a good site to link to. Danrok (talk) 18:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Ok, done (thanks to user:Ricordisamoa). I have also created structural engineer (P631) that you had proposed some time ago. --Zolo (talk) 08:19, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! Danrok (talk) 17:21, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Property:P613 "OS Grid"[edit]

Hi,

The above property is now available and can be used on items. I noticed you proposed its creation.--  Docu  at 19:26, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


Property:P617 "yard number"[edit]

Hi,

The above property is now available and can be used on items. I noticed you participated in its discussion.- --  Docu  at 20:11, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


Property:P620 "landing date"[edit]

Hi,

The above property is now available and can be used on items. I noticed you participated in its discussion. --  Docu  at 20:40, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Danrok (talk) 21:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Redundant property[edit]

Your property proposal Wikidata:Property_proposal/Organization#Motto is redundant with Wikidata:Property_proposal/Place#Motto_.2F_Wahlspruch_.2F_Devise and will be deleted. Snipre (talk) 19:02, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

ISTAT ID (P635)[edit]

The property ISTAT ID (P635) that you supported is available now. --Tobias1984 (talk) 09:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

PubChem CID (P662)[edit]

The property PubChem CID (P662) that you supported is available now. --Tobias1984 (talk) 14:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Rollbacker[edit]

Hello Danrok. I have given you rollbacker back from its removal May 31st. At the time the removal was purely due to the way the whole situation played out. My reaction probably was not the most professional way to deal with the situation and as I did a few months ago, apologies if I caused any problems for you. Purely admitting mistakes, I had completely mis judged you. You are a level headed user who indeed has a need for a use for Rollbacker so, enjoy! John F. Lewis (talk) 22:04, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

World Heritage Site ID (P757)[edit]

I created World Heritage Site ID (P757) after your proposal. (It's the first property I created since I have my right). --Fralambert (talk) 00:31, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Danrok (talk) 00:45, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

cause of destruction (P770)[edit]

The property cause of destruction (P770) is available now. I saw that you participated in the discussion. --Tobias1984 (talk) 09:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Swiss municipality code (P771)[edit]

The property Swiss municipality code (P771) is available now. I saw that you participated in the discussion. --Tobias1984 (talk) 07:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

ISO 3166-3 (P773)[edit]

The property ISO 3166-3 (P773) is available now. I saw that you participated in the discussion. --Tobias1984 (talk) 10:41, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Danrok (talk) 13:30, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

significant event (P793)[edit]

The property significant event (P793) that you proposed is available now. --Tobias1984 (talk) 17:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments on Key dates for buildings[edit]

Now that property 'significant event (P793)' has been created do you want to revisit your comments on Key dates for buildings ? Filceolaire (talk) 02:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Property proposal deletion[edit]

Your property proposal Wikidata:Property_proposal/Event#Event location will be deleted. Please use no label (P766). Snipre (talk) 09:30, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

New economic property proposals on Wikidata[edit]

Hi Danrok!

Would you possibly be interested to comment on the new economic property proposals for Wikidata? Here is a link: http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Property_proposal/Term

Thanks, Mcnabber091 (talk) 19:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Will do... Danrok (talk) 19:58, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the support. In case you're interested, here's a link to the project where the data will be used: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_Economic_Map Mcnabber091 (talk) 20:51, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Property creator[edit]

Hi Danrok! I would like to nominate you as a property crator. You have a lot of experiencing and have been very activly discussing proposals. I'm just making sure, if you feel like it. all the best. (watching your talk page).--Tobias1984 (talk) 14:58, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'd be happy to do that. I created a fair few in the past, before rights were needed. Danrok (talk) 15:00, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Wonderful. I nominated you. If nobody else gives you the right in the mean time, I will do it tomorrow (I like to let the nomination sit one day so people can comment, just in case). --Tobias1984 (talk) 15:09, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Stryn just approved you. Congrats. --Tobias1984 (talk) 17:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
OK, thanks! Danrok (talk) 17:38, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Responding to your comments of the Global Economic Map Statistics[edit]

Thanks Danrok for the help.

I responded to some of your comments on properties here: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Property_proposal/Term

Any advice? Mcnabber091 (talk) 03:46, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Global Biodiversity Information Facility ID (P846)[edit]

Global Biodiversity Information Facility ID (P846) is now available. --Tobias1984 (talk) 19:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

WoRMS-ID (P850)[edit]

WoRMS-ID (P850) is now available. --Tobias1984 (talk) 20:06, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

New property[edit]

Hi Danrok

One of the properties you supported is now available: FIPS 5-2 (code for US states) (P883). --  Docu  at 20:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


New property e-archiv.li ID (P860)[edit]

Hi,

One of the properties you supported is now available: e-archiv.li ID (P860). --  Docu  at 20:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

+ a few others ;) --  Docu  at 22:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

KSH code (P939)[edit]

Merci. Il était temps ! Ljubinka (talk) 19:22, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Grant proposal about Wikidata[edit]

Hello, I am preparing a grant proposal with the title "m:Grants:IEG/Understanding Wikidata". I would be very grateful if you could have a look and comment. Z. (talk) 19:42, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

"en:Category:Railway stations in Hertfordshire"[edit]

Regarding your Array Properties (legobot) request for "en:Category:Railway stations in Hertfordshire", is there a reason that you chose not to do recursion for the subcategories? I'm approving most of your tasks as soon as they're coming in, but I wanted to make sure that the one above was right before I threw it to the bot.

Keep up the good work, Sven Manguard Wha? 02:22, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it can be recursed 2 levels, I changed the request. --Danrok (talk) 02:31, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Cool. Thanks. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:33, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Legobot/properties.js/requests[edit]

Just an FYI, you don't need to ignore "Template:" since the bot only works on pages in the main namespace (ns0). Thanks for all of your hard work! Legoktm (talk) 03:08, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks for letting me know! --Danrok (talk) 03:13, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata:Property proposal/Authority control#RSL_identifier[edit]

Hi! I just could see that you created a new property. Please see Wikidata:Property proposal/Authority control#RSL_identifier. It is pending for some weeks. Thanks for any help! לערי ריינהארט (talk) 14:51, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Precedent concept[edit]

Hi! Please see a oldid=77328298 an evaluation version of Magnus Manskes script. There are more then a dozen of properties available there. Please note that some diaspora languages as Yiddisch, Esperanto, Romani, Latin do not have country type national languages. The books are all over the world. For Esperanto the most important countries are Austria, Polland, The Nederlands, Sweden, Hungary and some other, Questions:

  1. I assume that a poposal for eacvh property must be made. This is OK for me.
  2. Do we need to wait one week for a similar property? Here only the language or country is different.
    1. I was thinking at the Precedent concept in law. Should there be a discussion about this?

Regards לערי ריינהארט (talk) 14:22, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the properties:

  1. Property:P949 NLI (Israel) identifier for Israel see linked pages
  2. Property:P950 BNE identifier for Spain see linked pages
  3. Property:P951 NSZL identifier for Hungary see linked pages

They work fine. BNE can be linkified. I will post a note later.
I revisited some pages I edited some days ago. I need to revisit them over and over again.
There is also support for NSZL identifier. Could you add NSZL as well please? I need to contact some languagee communities during nex week. Nest regards לערי ריינהארט (talk) 18:00, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! לערי ריינהארט (talk) 19:14, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi! There is support for the

  1. OeNB (ÖNB) identifier (a national library identifier not connetcted to VIAF yet)
    1. no support yet but of the same type: RNL (Romania) identifier
  2. RERO identifier (an identifier which can be imported via VIAF records)
    1. no support yet but of the same type: BIBSYS identifier

It save me a lot of time not to visit pages over and over again. Thanks for any help! Regards לערי ריינהארט (talk) 14:51, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I fixed the syntax at Wikidata:Property proposal/Authority control where required. לערי ריינהארט (talk) 15:48, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
I work on a very slow mobile internet connection via an USB stick. It makes no fun to keep 160 FF tabs open to wait to make a next edit (waiting for the new properties). I experienced many FF crashes and the whole work loading the pages is lost. It is a disaster finding all these pages again. I do not want to push you. I just that you understand my problem. Regards לערי ריינהארט (talk) 12:10, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


Hi! I verified during last days if you where online. I have seen your edits today. Can you pease assist in generating the newly proposed AC properties for wich a consensus is established.
I posted notes for support at project:Project chat variants for he: project:מזנון, nl: project:De kroeg, nn: project:Diskusjon and plan to post new notifiers at ro: and hu:.
I also contacted pages linked at Project:Embassy (Q1197883) .
The Esperanto community at Wikidata is very small. Main link at project:Diskutejo is [1].
Regards לערי ריינהארט (talk)

This is not the right place to discuss this, please discuss on the property proposal pages, or project chat. Also "I verified during last days if you where online. I have seen your edits today." - what is the purpose of this statement? --Danrok (talk) 13:17, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Legobot/properties.js[edit]

Just in case, do you know that you can add several properties in one time? For example:

{{User:Legobot/properties.js/row|fr|Category:Cathédrale en France|P107|Q618123|pid2=P31|qid2=Q2977|pid3=P17|qid3=Q142|Ayack|ignoreprefix=Liste|ignore=Histoire des cathédrales en France|create=yes|recursion=2}}

See this page for more details. Ayack (talk) 20:34, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks! --Danrok (talk) 20:54, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Q1639438 Talk Philip Mechanicus[edit]

Hi! Please see Talk:Q1639438 Talk Philip Mechanicus. It relates to your edits. Maybe one should open a Mewiawiki bugzilla request. This was addressed some years ago. לערי ריינהארט (talk) 06:17, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Sources guidelines[edit]

You add data about several book editions in the same item. This is not the appropriate way to store data about sources. Please follow the help:sources guidelines which distinguish between the work item and the edition items. And for each edition of a work a specific item has to be created. In that case please create the appropriate items for the different editions of The Colour of Magic (Q32136) where you added ISBN data of two books: it won't be possible in the future to extract specific edition data in all data about different editions are mixed together in the same item. Thank you. Snipre (talk) 17:47, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the heads-up! --Danrok (talk) 21:31, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

re[edit]

It was proposed one month ago. That is 23 September 2013.--GZWDer (talk) 05:07, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Removal of English language aliases[edit]

On Imperial German Air Service (Q678503) you removed aliases 'German Air Force', and 'Imperial German Air Service'. Both are regularly used terms when referring to this item in English. In fact, enwiki states, "In English language sources it is usually referred to as the "Imperial German Air Service"". The only en aliases you left were in fact in German, so I am wondering if there was a rationale for this change or if it was merely a case of mistakenly editing en aliases while thinking you were editing de aliases (I know this has happened to me on multiple occasions). Joshbaumgartner (talk) 11:46, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Imperial German Air Service wasn't an alias, it had been set to the main label, which is wrong. The label is , in the same way pizza is pizza, croissant is croissant, sauerkraut is sauerkraut. Imperial German Air Service is fine as an alias. --Danrok (talk) 18:47, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for adding that back to the item. As for the other english aliases you removed, what was the rationale there? I try and avoid simply reverting edits without knowing why they were made in the first place. Additionally, I don't see your logic behind your claim about the label either. Using your logic, Armée de l’air should be Armée de l’air, and not French Air Force (Q820827), which of course it is. This holds for the vast majority of military services, which are labelled by the English language translation, not their native-language title. In the case of the German Air Force (Q2564009), this is a bit different because the word Luftwaffe is so widely used in English as to have become widely understood and used as meaning Nazi Germany's air force. This is the exception, not the rule. As for Luftstreitkräfte, that term is not so widely used, particularly when aimed at audiences broader than those who may have a more casual knowledge of these services. Comparison with pizza or sauerkraut is irrelevant: those are borrow-words, nearly universally understood by english speakers as to their meaning. One would be hard-pressed to make a case that Luftstreitkräfte has anywhere near the same breadth of understanding. Joshbaumgartner (talk) 07:04, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, Armée de l’air should be exactly that. Not my logic, that's what it is called, that's what's written on the side of their aircraft. French Air Force is an alias used by some. How are you determining the widely used name for any given thing? Here we have the correct name used in the title: History of the Armée de l'Air (1909–42). There's plenty of contradictions and errors on Wikipedia. --Danrok (talk) 15:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough, I understand your premise, though I disagree, and so do many others. That's why you see so many references to 'French Air Force' or 'Imperial German Air Service' around. But to follow your logic, then correct titles for items such as 'نیروی هوایی ارتش جمهوری اسلامی ایران‎' and 'Хамгаалах Цэргийн Хүчин' would be 'نیروی هوایی ارتش جمهوری اسلامی ایران‎' and 'Хамгаалах Цэргийн Хүчин', since according to you that is an automatic. Is this what you are advocating? Or should we use English translations for these as their labels? I am sorry, but I disagree wholeheartedly with the premise that the only appropriate English label for an item is its name written in its native language. The English label should be in English so that English-speakers can understand what the heck we are talking about. Otherwise, what is the point in having English labels at all...we would just have one universal label in the native language which would be used by all languages. Joshbaumgartner (talk) 06:44, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm not advocating that we should use say Arabic as labels for Arabic names. German, French and English are a different situation because they're all Germanic languages. About 30% of English words are of German origin, and the same number again are of French origin. I am suggesting that only names should be preserved in their original form, not all words. This is what we're already doing, across millions of human names. Jacques Chirac's name is Jacques not James. Armée de l'Air is also a name. But, I think the origin of this issue lies with wikidata, a lack of thought given to data fields from the outset, a lack of design, and a lack of documentation. The help says "The label on a Wikidata entry is the most common name that the entity would be known by to readers.". Which is daft, given that it is impossible to determine "the most common name that the entity would be known by to readers". --Danrok (talk) 10:59, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Billionaires[edit]

Hello, I have removed "instance of Steve Ballmer (Q181162)" from items. I suppose we will need to "net worth" property if we need that but I think the current guideline is that all humans should only be "instance of human (Q5)" so that thing remain clear. I think we should aboid items like Steve Ballmer (Q181162) (or city with millions of inhabitants (Q1637706)) because using a quantity-type property could give the same sort of thing, but much more precise (actually the description for billionaire states "in a given currency" so that "billinaire" without specifying the currency may not make much sense). --Zolo (talk) 11:16, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Pair properties[edit]

Hi, could you correct please: [2]. — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 19:21, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

country of origin[edit]

Legoktm was a nice fellow and has added country of origin to Magnus's script. I didn't even have to do chinese burns.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:32, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

New properties[edit]

Just created readable file format (P1072) and writable file format (P1073) --Tobias1984 (talk) 17:38, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Danrok (talk) 17:52, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Maybe your interested: Wikidata:WikiProject Informatics --Tobias1984 (talk) 18:05, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

gross tonnage (P1093)[edit]

Just created gross tonnage (P1093). --Tobias1984 (talk) 09:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

number of deaths (P1120)[edit]

Just created number of deaths (P1120). --Tobias1984 (talk) 13:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

TEU (P1124)[edit]

Just created TEU (P1124). --Tobias1984 (talk) 14:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

floors below ground (P1139)[edit]

Just created floors below ground (P1139). --Tobias1984 (talk) 18:14, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

IAAF ID (P1146)[edit]

Just created IAAF ID (P1146). --Tobias1984 (talk) 14:49, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Information icon Hello and welcome to Wikidata. When you add content to talk pages and Wikidata pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

  1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
  2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Button sig.png) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you.--GZWDer (talk) 05:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Instances of males ?[edit]

Hi Danrok, I saw this change on all these items. Can you explain why replicate what is already stated in sex or gender (P21) ? LaddΩ chat ;) 13:48, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi! Looks like a mistake on my part. Danrok (talk) 16:24, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
OK, will try to have that fixed.

Subproperties of instance of[edit]

"I think unincorporated communities should be claimed as no label (P132) = unincorporated community (Q17343829), instead of instance of (P31) = unincorporated community (Q17343829). Because a unincorporated community (Q17343829) is a type of sub-division." - I don't use subproperties of "instance of". Several have already been deleted [3]. All information they contain can be handled via "instance of". Obama instance of human. Nothing like Obama mammal type=Human. Tamawashi (talk) 01:32, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

1,279,477 items that are administrative territorial entities use "instance of" only ca 160,000 use the subproperty. [4]. Tamawashi (talk) 01:38, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Painting[edit]

Hi Danrok, I saw that you changed art of painting Q11629 back to painting. Though I think you are trying to bring this in line with the Wikipedia page, it is in fact a separate concept from painting Q3305213, and therefore it is more accurate to describe it as the art of painting on Wikidata. The first one is used as a field of profession for painters, and the other is used as an instance for many paintings. Please don't change it back. Jane023 (talk) 08:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

How have you arrived at this conclusion? You can't create data based around your own beliefs. The data should be inline with the Wikipedia article, and reliable sources. painting (Q3305213) is an object, and art of painting (Q11629) is the activity (verb) which includes ANY kind of painting, both artistic and other forms of painting. This is described correctly in the article, and that's why the article is titled painting and not the art of painting. The same applies to other languages. @Jane023: Danrok (talk) 14:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but I think you have misunderstood me. As you correctly point out, art of painting (Q11629) is the activity (verb) and my point is that the label should reflect this, and not the object. Jane023 (talk) 20:03, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Many items have the same title. This is not an issue because we have the short description below the title. That description should be worded so as to make it obvious which is which. Usually the first sentence of the Wikipedia article will serve that purpose. @Jane023: Danrok (talk) 22:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
I totally agree, which is why this item should be called ärt of painting" because that is what this item most closely represents across all language Wikipedias that link to it, including the English one. Jane023 (talk) 07:32, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't know about all languages, but peinture (fr) equals painting (en). The French for art of painting would be "art de la peinture", not just "peinture". If any of the other languages are mismatches, potentially they should be delinked, but that would need some consensus unless they're very obviously wrong. This problem does exist on many items in wikidata. There are ways to solve some cases, but we shouldn't distort the English word to match other languages. This problem can get complicated, because some languages and cultures are very different, e.g. Chinese. @Jane023: Danrok (talk) 11:04, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
There is no issue that I know of that are mismatches (unless that there is no English Wikipedia link for painting (Q3305213)). I think you are assuming that Wikipedias need a one-to-one match with Wikidata, which will not always be the case. My point is that the concept of painting as it exists on the English Wikipedia (for example) has been split on Wikidata into two items; one for the noun and one for the verb (and the verb part is really also a mix of the verb and the art of painting). If you want, we could create a third item for the act of painting, which will eventually be necessary anyway to take care of movements in art history such as action painting and various types of graffiti. My point about the name for art of painting (Q11629) is that this case is otherwise misleading for Wikidatans, as it is used to link from other items and looking it up is easier when the name reflects this. The problem is not just this case, but also for other arts - art of xxx the noun vs xxx for the verb (e.g. art of engraving vs engraving). Jane023 (talk) 12:21, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Creating a new item for "artistic painting" which is a sub-class of painting (verb) may be one way to solve this. But, what is the bigger problem you wish to solve here? Right now I am looking at Pablo Picasso (Q5593) which has the claim which tells us he is a painter painter (Q1028181), however painter (Q1028181) has what may be an invalid claim, which is field of this occupation (P425) = art of painting (Q11629). Invalid because art of painting (Q11629) is not a field of work. It is a technique used within given field's of work. A oil painting isn't always created via painting alone, some drawing or other techniques may be involved. I'd suggest that painter (Q1028181) needs to be claimed in a different way, perhaps some new properties are needed, e.g. "medium worked with" = paint, and perhaps "implements used" = brush, knife, etc. "technique used" = painting (verb), "end product" = painting (noun). @Jane023: Danrok (talk) 13:04, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

If you are not already looking at Wikidata talk:WikiProject Visual arts I hereby invite you do so! The various hierarchies of the "field of work" have not been fleshed out yet and this is a work in progress. Right now I am working on lots of oil paintings and it would be nice if when I look for the correct instance to link to for a painting that the correct one comes up. The item for engraving has not been split out yet, that still needs to be done. After splitting, changing the label in the way I have suggested adds clarity and reduces confusion. Keeping the same word for both items in each case is needlessly misleading, in my opinion. Jane023 (talk) 16:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi just checking if you still feel that all of these should be called painting still. I would like to revert your change to art of painting to make it "art of painting" again. If you still need more convincing, please chime in. Jane023 (talk) 17:00, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
No, the English title is correct as it is, as it was to begin with, as it is in the linked sources, i.e. [5], [6], and [7]. This is not based on my feelings, but on reliable sources, which are based on academic research. Painting is painting. @Jane023: Danrok (talk) 17:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. I see we are not getting anywhere. I will take this to the project for more input. Jane023 (talk) 19:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

use quick statements tool[edit]

Danrok, I want to ask you how do you use this tool to change a claim "Data type Quantity". I wrote:
Q4115189 P1106 100, but it doesn't work. Thanks.--Matlab1985 (talk) 22:07, 26 September 2014 (UTC) @Matlab1985: I don't know either. I just tried, and can't get it to work. It says "A value can be another item, a string, a time, or a location, depending on the property type." No mention of how to add a number, so perhaps it is not supported at the moment. Danrok (talk) 22:17, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

@Matlab1985: Also, you might ask [8] about it. I think he coded that tool. Danrok (talk) 22:20, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Removing GND without having P31[edit]

Removing GND=GeoObject without adding instanceOf=GeoObject or instanceOf=<any subclass of GeoObject> removes the item from being easily found, when searching for GeoObjects via GND or instanceOf-subClassOf.

If you could use P31 that would be of great help. Andrea Shan (talk) 07:48, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

PlayStation 3[edit]

Hey, please stop adding "Platform: Playstation 3" on non-video games items. Please use CLAIM[31:7889] or CLAIM[31:7058673] to filter items. Thibaut120094 (talk) 02:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

And please stop reverting without giving any explanation or i'll be forced to contact the AN. You shouldn't misuse Autolist. Thibaut120094 (talk) 12:05, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Are you losing the plot? Take a look at what you have done here: https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q388109&oldid=246419871&diff=prev Your mistake should be obvious to anyone. Danrok (talk) 12:09, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia article only says PS2 and PS4, do you have any source to support your claim? Thibaut120094 (talk) 12:11, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
The article is under the PS3 category on Wikipedia, also it is shown here: [9] Danrok (talk) 12:18, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Yeah that category who also have Pinball machines and Android apps. Thibaut120094 (talk) 12:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Ministry of Foreign Affairs[edit]

Hi, you recently creared Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Q20982727) linked to "en Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Imperial Russia)". We already have Foreign Office (Q383550), so I was wondering if this was a mistake? Leutha (talk) 05:21, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

It's no mistake. Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Q20982727) is the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Empire, whereas Foreign Office (Q383550) is something else. Foreign Office (Q383550) may be a bit of a mess, as it is, the English article is a disambiguation page and is titled Foreign Office on Wikipedia. Danrok (talk) 14:23, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Top 10 primary sources tool users[edit]

Hi @Danrok,

The primary sources tool status page says that you are in the top 10 most active users of the tool, congratulations! If you have not tried it yet, I would like to invite you to activate and play with the FBK-strephit-soccer dataset: it is a small demo dataset to support the StrepHit IEG proposal. I would really appreciate if you could endorse, join (blue buttons), or comment the idea on the proposal page.

Looking forward to your feedback.
Cheers,

--Hjfocs (talk) 09:30, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

@Danrok: thanks for joining StrepHit! Feel free to consider an endorsement as well. It would be nice to count on you as a power tester of StrepHit datasets. Let me know whether it sounds fine to you and we will keep in touch. Cheers --Hjfocs (talk) 09:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
And thanks again for the endorsement! --Hjfocs (talk) 09:32, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Problem with an element[edit]

Hi,

I saw that you just added this. Please don't do this : this person was already marked as a "writer" and specifying that she is an "author" is completely useless in French. Of course she is an "author" if she is a "writer" : she is the author of her own writings. Saying in French that someone is a "writer" and an "author" just doesnt' make sense (unless you specify of what she is an author : if for example she is an "auteur de théâtre", then we should say "playwright", in French "dramaturge"). Actually, after my exchanges with BurritoBazooka, I tend to think that having "author" as a profession may be useless in any language. The best solution might be actually to remove the "instance of (P31) : no label (Q13516667)" entry on the item author (Q482980), as it creates a complete mess on foreign-language wikipedias (at least it does in the French one) when such data is automatically imported and incorrectly translated. Cheers, Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 15:59, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

@Jean-Jacques Georges: Ultimately, it is not for us to decide. We should not be deciding whether or not a person is a writer or an author based on our own thoughts. Claims should be made according to the terms used in the original source. In the case of Maryse Condé (Q464371), she is described as an author in sources, for example here [10]. If she is described as a writer elsewhere, then it is correct to claim that she is both a writer and an author. I don't see any mess or uselessness in that. Danrok (talk) 16:34, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
No, the problem is that "writer" and "author" are the same thing if we are in a literary context. Saying that somebody who just writes books is "a writer and an author" just doesn't make any sense. She is an author... of books, hence a writer (or a novelist, if she writes novels). The problem may also be that "author" is more commonly used in english to say just "writer", while it is just lost in translation in other languages, often coming across as an anglicism. Of course, if we mention a publisher and its "authors", it is obvious that said authors are writers. In French, "auteur" can mean, depending on the context, "writer", "playwright", "songwriter", etc. Saying just "author" without giving the context (author of what), and then translating it into other languages, creates a complete mess. It's just bad data. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 16:54, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Please take into account that it's not "my own thoughts" and it's just not me. Look at what BurritoBazooka, a native english speaker if I'm not mistaken, told me : "I think just using "author" is the worst way to express their profession in data. Even in English it can mean "writer of anything"." The word is understandable and accurate in a given context, but not in data. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 16:57, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
More context for Danrok if he can read any French. I stand by what was quoted of me (I don't think being broad is not a good thing in data, and Wikipedia also describes author as a very broad term, but I must point out that I'm new to these things, only started contributing a few weeks ago, whereas Danrok has racked up ~455000 edits, been involved for more than 2 years and might have dealt with many similar issues before in that time. --BurritoBazooka (talk) 17:30, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, BurritoBazooka. I think the problem is also that while the term is broad in English, it is even more broad in other languages (it certainly is in French, where it loses almost all its meaning if the context is not given, or at least obvious), so when it is translated automatically it creates at best anglicism, and at worst gibberish. Which is why more precise terms ("novelist", "playwright", "poet" and so forth) should preferably be used, as they will not be lost in translation like "author".
Also take note that just because sources use the term "author", that does not mean we should consider it as a different concept than "writer". Take, for example, Stephen King : some sources may call him a "writer", others a "novelist", others an "author" : would you consider that he has three different professions ? Of course not, in that context they are synonimous, "author" meaning simply "writer" (although it has other meanings in other contexts). So writing "writer and author" just does not make sense : if he is a writer, then he is an author (If he is an author of something else than his books, like paintings, sculptures, etc, that should be specified. If I'm not mistaken, it's only authors of writings who can be called "authors" period in English). Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 20:35, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
For convenience's sake, can't the French Wikipedia display "authors" in English as "writer" ("écrivain")? It would be accurate most of the time, and the French Wikipedia (put through a translator for me) says that it can refer to literature or scientific writings, which pretty much embodies what "occupational author" is in English for most contexts (but not all). --BurritoBazooka (talk) 20:59, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
@BurritoBazooka: and @Jean-Jacques Georges: bear in mind that Wikidata isn't a language translation service. It is simply meant to be structured data. It's not for humans! The idea is that someone who wants the data can export it, and process it for their own use.

If Maryse Condé (Q464371) is claimed to be both an author, and a writer, it matters not so much, because writer is claimed to be a subclass of author. In other words claiming she is an author is both correct and superfluous. The claim can just be discarded automatically. Danrok (talk) 21:44, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata is for humans, quite simply because it is being imported into Wikipedia. What you apparently don't know is that the French wikipedia has created a model of biographical infobox (here) which automatically imports wikidata's info. With the results that it imports messy, and sometimes badly translated or inaccurate data, some of which seems to have been written in the first place by people whose first language is not english.
If someone is claimed to be "both a writer and an author", it does matter because in that context author means writer : the "both" doesn't make any sense. Also, "author" has been used in many occasions in a completely inaccurate manner : calling "author" a scholar who writes about his field of studies is not only too broad, it's inaccurate as it gives a wrong impression about his profession. What is the point of calling "author" someone who is simply a "historian" or a "linguist", and therefore writes about history or linguistics like historians and linguists are supposed to ? Especially if the fact that he is a historian or a linguist is not mentioned at all, which is often the case. I'm sorry, but it's not "structured data", it's just bad, or utterly incomplete, data.
I wouldn't have done all this if the French wikipedia wasn't currently being flooded with badly structured or simply incorrect data (although the situation has improved somewhat, I must say). If you think such a massive import should not be done on wikipedia at the moment, you should make it known. But we cannot just say that wikidata is "not for humans" : it is impacting the work made by humans, so it definitely is "for" humans.
BurritoBazooka has suggested that removing the "instance of (P31) : no label (Q13516667)" entry on the item author (Q482980) might be the best solution. I agree completely with him. However, I also think that a serious work must be done to improve the data, mark the playwrights as playwrights, the songwriters as songwriters, the historians as historians, etc, so we can understand who does what and have proper data which can be used properly. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 22:03, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
@Jean-Jacques Georges:, I think Danrok meant that whatever is importing the data from Wikidata (like that module) might be coded to discard "author", and as I mentioned above I think it could be coded to substitute "author" for "writer" (écrivain) wherever it encounters the use of "author". Again I'm feeling like I am commenting on something I know little about :) I still think "author" is an overly broad way of describing someone's occupation, though, but one can manage by discarding these broad terms, no? --BurritoBazooka (talk) 22:10, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Another precision for BurritoBazooka (and Danrok, since I'm on his talk page) : "écrivain" (litterally "writer", in the literary sense of the word : it is not used in French for screenwriters, for example, although such people, known in French as scénaristes, are also technically writers) is itself a broad term, although it generally refers to writers of books (or short stories). It can be used for writers of fiction or non-fiction, although for scientific authors "essayiste" (non-fiction writer) is more accurate. Playwrights are not called "écrivains" but "dramaturges" or "auteurs de théâtre" ("theater authors" : the word author, as I said, works only with the professional context). Writers of poetry are generally not called "écrivains" but "poètes", and so forth.
Also, I definitely think "author" is too broad a word to be used as an occupation. At least it definitely is in French, but that might be the case in other languages. If a solution can be found for it never to appear, it would be great. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 22:16, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
To clarify, by "discard" I don't mean "delete from the database when it finds it", but prevent it from being displayed to the user (even though it still exists in the database). --BurritoBazooka (talk) 22:19, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
BurritoBazooka exactly. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 22:32, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
@Jean-Jacques Georges: Your example underscores my point! This is not how the data should be used. The data is not being exported, that bio template is reading and displaying live data directly from Wikidata without processing or validating it. That's the root of the problem, that is very bad practice. Yes you will be seeing a lot of garbage for as long as that template has direct hooks in to Wikidata. Danrok (talk) 22:23, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Exactly : this is extremely bad practice and I've been saying this for weeks, but I've been practically called a reactionary idiot for that. So please, please, please, even if you can't write in French, could you leave a message to that effect here ? I'm at my wit's end trying to explain the problem to people who semm to think wikidata is the answer to everything. Some are actually saying that all templates should have direct hooks to wikidata. If you have any links to wikidata's developing team, or administration (whatever they are called) could you also give them the message ? Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 22:29, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Some guy - the creator of the template, actually - had been using a bot to put it everywhere : this has been clearly rejected but now they have created this script to put the infobox more quickly, like that. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 22:32, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
@Jean-Jacques Georges: Well, I was fully aware that it is possible to pull data directly from Wikidata into Wikipedia infoboxes. It has been that way for a long time now. However, I don't think it is widely used on en:Wikipedia, for obvious reasons! I just found one example here: [11] and her dates of birth and death are nonsense, somehow c. 1337 has become 1 January 1337. Fortunately, that template is barely used. And take a look this: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikidata/Technical_proposal#Not_to_be_done_by_the_project_3 essentially it says the data cannot be trusted, and should be exported and validated by the end user as they see fit. Which begs the question why should Wikipedia be reading the raw data directly? Danrok (talk) 23:02, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
@Danrok, if I understand it right you are suggesting that data should be exported to text format and the hard-coded in Wikipedia. Bar from a few sensitive or really complex cases, that seems like a very bad idea to me. en.wikipedia does use Wikidata a bit, but appears indeed to be lagging behind other languages in that respect. That is probably in part because its data retrieving templates are underdeveloped, and because it has a much bigger workforce to take care of things internally.
Some properties are especially messy or downright unreliable, and as such should possibly not be used in Wikipedia, occupation (P106) and country of citizenship (P27) come immediately to mind. It is also true that, when doable, it would be better to check data before using them in Wikipedia. But from the few observations that have been made, birth dates are at least as reliable in Wikidata as in frwiki, and geographic coordinates more so. When there are errors, it makes way more sense to fix them directly in Wikidata than in 200 local copies of Wikidata. --Zolo (talk) 05:25, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Exactly. Some people even say that if it imports crap, well that's cool because then people will go and correct wikidata, and therefore wikipedia...
Please, we really do need your experience on the French wikipedia : could you leave a message there (even in English) ? The French wikipedia might be the only project importing raw data from here, and I we've been having severe problems with this (not to mention heated debates). Your advice would be extra useful, because I think there is a major misunderstanding on how to use data... Thank you. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 05:48, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
No, French Wikipedia is absolutely not the only project using data directly from Wikidata. --Zolo (talk) 06:04, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, that may imply that other Wikipedias are experiencing similar problems. If the English wikipedia does not use data directly from Wikidata, there may indeed be a reason. Anyway, a clarification is definitely needed about what can be and should be done or not with Wikidata, because we're definitely importing a lot of garbage, mixed indiscriminately with useful data... Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 08:19, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
@Jean-Jacques Georges: You said "if I understand it right you are suggesting that data should be exported to text format and the hard-coded in Wikipedia." Not exactly. But there are so many ways to go about it. One possibility is to have 2 sets of data. Set 1 would be the data we have now in Wikidata's database, set 2 would be a copy of set 1, but not a straight copy, it would be a validated version of the data. Wikipedia would display data from this new validated database, not from Wikidata directly. The validated database would be protected to some extent, some of the data could be locked once it has been found to be correct, and could only be unlocked again by specific trusted users. The data could be validated and fixed using automated means where possible, as well as by hand if needed. Danrok (talk) 10:59, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
I repeat myself, but your advice would definitely be needed here, especially about the template. I just took the liberty to mention what you said to me. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 11:04, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
@Danrok, I was the one who said "if I understand it right you are suggesting that data should be exported to text format and the hard-coded in Wikipedia." :). Frankly, leaving aside the implementation method, I find it an odd idea. Some sensitive data should probably be protected -and I guess we will eventually need to protect some items directly here- but beyond a certain scale I just can't imagine how we could make anything approaching a validated copy of the data that would not demand an unsustainable amount of maintenance. --Zolo (talk) 14:17, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Your activity in 8½ by Federico Fellini[edit]

Dear Danrok, is there any good reason why you insist stating that https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q12018 Italian movie by Federico Fellini) was written in English and French as original languages? The movie was originally written in Italian. I will again rollback your assertions.Paolobon140 (talk) 07:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

@Paolobon140: The original languages for this movie are Italian, English, French and German according to Wikipedia and IMDb. See [12] and [13]. Even if just one line of the original movie is spoken in English, then English is one of the original languages. Danrok (talk) 13:58, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Danrok, Wikipedia can not be considered as a source, as it often contains mistakes; DMB states that the movie was released in several languages; the movie was written in Italian and then translated into other languages, still the original language remains Italian. Original language, not translations. I also would ask you to support your activity with sources which are missing. Paolobon140 (talk) 14:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
@Paolobon140: Wikipedia is currently the main source for Wikidata and has been since day one. In any case, even the best sources will contain errors and mistakes. You keep saying that my efforts no good, but have not provided a single source for your own conflicting claim regarding (Q12018). Here is yet another source for my claim: [14]. The BFI archives film scripts, etc., and is about as reliable as we're going to get. Like it or not, that is one of the original scripts for this film, and is in English. Danrok (talk) 15:22, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Danrok, I think those are the scripts used for dubbing the movie, not the original language of the movie.Paolobon140 (talk) 18:52, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Update documentation for 'full text available at' (P953)[edit]

Hey Danrok, could you help me to update the documentation of full work available at (P953)? The talk page still show the proposal discussion info and I think that it would be much better to clean it up a little bit. I could edit the talk page but I don't know if this is cannon or if there are special procedures needed before doing so (or if the talk page is the right place to make this kind of changes)

What I (wrongly?) see as messy:

  • Description
  • Domain - should mention 'books, scripts for plays and speeches, etc' or just creative work
  • Allowed values - working external links to pages that legally (with a license) host the full text of the work
  • Example - the example is nice because show that you can provide more than 1 link but the presentation is strange, is there a better way to display?
  • Format and edit filter validation - datatype is URL and discussion shown that validation is unfeasible, line should be omitted IMHO
  • Source
  • Robot and gadget jobs

Any help would be appreciated. Carlos Porto (talk) 01:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@Carlos Porto: AFAIK, anyone is permitted to edit to change that, and in case of any problem, the original is preserved in the archive. It looks like it would be a good idea to update it, the description contains too much information which isn't really needed now. Danrok (talk) 13:17, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

life expectancy (P2250)[edit]

✓ Done life expectancy (P2250) --Almondega (talk) 00:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

changes on Jersey[edit]

Hi,

I don't undersand the changes you did on Jersey (Q785), was it a mistake?

Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 17:23, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

@VIGNERON: No mistake. I am from Jersey, and live there. Jersey is not part of the UK, it has no offical capital, and the Channel Islands are just a group of islands not an admin division. Jersey and Guernsey are separate, independent entities. Danrok (talk) 17:32, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi,
Thanks you for your answer. I'm from the other side of the Channel (from Rennes in Brittany) ; I've been to Jersey (and I hope to going again someday, I loved it) and I know a bit about Jersey but you can probably teach me more about it.
Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 19:11, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
@VIGNERON: I know it says that St. Helier is a capital on Wikipedia, but it has no source. I guess this boils down to which definition of the word capital we're using, and whether or not it must be stated in an official document of some sort. As for British Islands (Q256091), that's just a term used in law, British Islands (Q256091) is not an administrative unit of any kind. The claims made in that item and British Isles (Q38272) are a bit muddled-up, perhaps because with wikidata we're making simple claims, when the reality can be more complicated, and not so easy to nail down. Out of interest, Gorey (Q639326) would have once been considered the capital of Jersey, prior to the 16th century, because the island's governor resided there, and it was the main port due to being closer to France. Danrok (talk) 21:51, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Ok, so St. Helier is not officialy the capital; but meanwhile, I found this page of the Jersey governement website : Jersey facts and figures; it's clearly written « Capital St Helier ». I think we should keep this data, the question is what is the better way: qualifier(s) and/or ranking? If you have a source, we could add Gorey (Q639326) too as capital with the proper qualifier(s).
located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) = Channel Islands (Q42314) seems wrong but part of (P361) = British Islands (Q256091) is ok, isn't it?
For located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) = Channel Islands (Q42314), maybe we should have two items : one for the polical country and one for geographical island.
Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 23:00, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
@VIGNERON: I've undone my changes, re. capital and British Islands. Danrok (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you.
I've add a qualifier (and asked on Property talk:P36 for further comments).
What do you think of splitting Jersey in two items ?
Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 08:42, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
@VIGNERON: Strictly speaking Jersey is two entities, The Bailiwick of Jersey which includes some other small islands, e.g. Écréhous (Q776075), and then the island of Jersey which is the main island only. Danrok (talk) 11:19, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
In fact there is already two items : Jersey (Q785) and Jersey (Q15706498). Can you check if every data are in the right place? Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 11:26, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

old bunbury railway station[edit]

Hi

I am trying to make sense of your changes to the item

question one - it was known (ie aka) as bunbury railway station, why remove the aka? (are aka's determined by a position in time? it was known as bunbury railway station (my photo when i was there in the 70s is a reference of sorts )

question two - you have added south west in the chain of points, but you remove western australia?

south west western australia is inadequately disambiguated on the western australian project, it is ambiguous across various meanings

I am not sure I follow what you have done, it would be very helpful if there are guidelines/policies/links

that could back up what you have done

(imho, limited as it is, I see it is important in a place like australia to specifically identify the state)

(we do have place/region/issues similar to springfield in the usa, you would never allude to springfield usa, you always need the state as the qualifier, similarly but not appreciated by outsiders we have very similar issues in australia, and I fail to see the harm of having state included)

any clues would be a help, guidelines would be appreciated, interactions similar to this (I am not pre-empting anything yet on this) have been frustatingly unhelpful and obtuse to date JarrahTree (talk) 13:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

@JarrahTree: There's two Bunbury railway stations the old and the new: Bunbury railway station (Q22329533). I only removed the alias from the old one to avoid confusion, but by all means put it back if you think it should be there. Also, we have official name (P1448) which is useful for handling name changes, just add start and end dates for each name. Note that the alias box was originally created for our convenience, it's not actual data (has no property ID), so it is best to use official name (P1448).

As for located in the administrative territorial entity (P131), you only need to specify one place, in this case Bunbury (Q256711). There is no need to claim that the station is in Western Australia (Q3206) because that claim is inherited from Bunbury (Q256711). Danrok (talk) 15:04, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much, that is the clearest answer I have received so far. Much appreciated. Thanks. JarrahTree (talk) 02:28, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Helicopter parent (Q1352982) vs Monster parents (Q20983091)[edit]

Hello there. There's currently a merger discussion between Helicopter parent (Q1352982) and Monster parents (Q20983091) on w:en:Talk:Helicopter_parent#Merger_proposal. As you have edited one or both of these Wikidata item, you are invited to contribute to that discussion. Deryck Chan (talk) 17:02, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

service entry (service entry (P729))[edit]

I dont understand - what completely it means - does it means this item is a process of service entry or place of service entry of that item is or service entry made by or is that item is a process of service entry of. do you? pls do name, at least, properties, as exact as we can, - to not do the babylon tower!!!--Avatar6 (talk) 22:30, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

@Avatar6: Perhaps your understanding of English is at fault here? Danrok (talk) 23:43, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps your understanding of what is Wikidata, what is label in Wikidata, what is other names in Wikidata, what is languages/meanings/translations in Wikidata is at fault here? Then may be you at fault here? or finaly do understant the purpose of that things? Go here--Avatar6 (talk) 10:37, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to Wikidata user study[edit]

Dear Danrok,
I am a researcher of the Web and Internet Science group of the University of Southampton.
Together with a group of other researchers from the same University, we are currently conducting a research aiming to discover how newcomers become full participants into the Wikidata community. We are interested in understanding how the usage of tools, the relationships with the community, and the knowledge and application of policy norms change from users' first approach to Wikidata to their full integration as fully active participants.
This study will take place as an interview, either by videotelephony, e.g. Skype, phone, or e-mail, according to the preference of the interviewees. The time required to answer all the questions will likely be about an hour. Further information can be found on the Research Project Page Becoming Wikidatians: evolution of participation in a collaborative structured knowledge base.
Any data collected will be treated in the strictest confidentiality, no personal information will be processed for the purpose of the research. The study, which has submission number 20117, has received ethical approval following the University of Southampton guidelines.
We aim at gathering about 20 participants, chosen among experienced Wikidata users who authored a large number of contributions.
Should you be interested in taking part or wish to receive further information, you can contact us by writing to the e-mail address ap1a14+wikidata_user_study@ecs.soton.ac.uk.
Thank you very much, your help will be much appreciated!
--Alessandro Piscopo (talk) 08:59, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not a newcomer. I've been helping with Wikidata since before it was launched. Danrok (talk) 16:00, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi Danrok, we are actually interested in experienced users and in how their participation transformed over time. We would find your opinion very valuable anyway. --Alessandro Piscopo (talk) 13:57, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
It is often difficult to use Wikidata and add languages etc. @Alessandro Piscopo: Aprilpeggy (talk) 00:06, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello[edit]

Hello! Can you add jbo:donald. trump to Q22686? I can't myself because the page is protected. I put a request on the talk page, but nobody responded to it. Thanks for your time! -Xbony2 (talk) 00:11, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

@Xbony2: It's done. Danrok (talk) 15:55, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

How do you create things so fast?[edit]

Im curious. TDC 21:11, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Using PetScan. Danrok (talk) 23:46, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Akureyri Botanical Garden[edit]

Couldn't add dewiki etc. Couldn't remove enwiki and add it together with the other languages. Couldn't merge the two Wikidata items. Aprilpeggy (talk) 23:57, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

@Aprilpeggy: Not sure what you mean? I'm looking at Akureyri Botanical Garden (Q894637) and it already has both de and en language links. Is there another item for the same topic? Danrok (talk) 17:31, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Net worth[edit]

celebritynetworths.org doesn't give any sources whrere there information come from. It's very likely, that this data is not public and so celebritynetworths.org can only estimate. I would like to ask you to refrain from adding any net worth estimate (P2218) statements without true sources.--Kopiersperre (talk) 08:25, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

@Kopiersperre: Well of course it is an estimate, same as Forbes Rich Lists, they are all estimates, and if you were to ask a billionaire what their net worth is they would also have to estimate because it is changing all the time, based on share prices, currency exchange rates and so on. In any case, politicians, in places in like Europe, generally have to publicly declare their assets and income, so these estimates are likely to be good. Danrok (talk) 09:31, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Are you sure? I only know, that the French ministers have disclosed their assets.--Kopiersperre (talk) 12:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
@Kopiersperre: The bottom-line is that this site is already in use as a source, for some years on Wikipedia, see here CelebrityNetWorth. For UK politicians, their declarations of financial interests are found here. Danrok (talk) 15:04, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
May I at least rename the property to "Net worth estimate"?--Kopiersperre (talk) 12:47, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
@Kopiersperre: I already have in English. By all means update the label in any other languages. Danrok (talk) 12:53, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Anglicanism[edit]

I notice that you've added Religion: Anglicanism to the Wikidata pages for many individuals. Anglicanism is a world-wide branch of Christianity: may I respectfully suggest that you could use more precise values, such as "Church of England" for English people? Stanning (talk) 13:05, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

@Stanning: On what are you basing this exactly? The Church of England is not a religion, it is a church (organisation), and a governing body. Let's not muddle up apples and oranges. In any case, I am simply following the existing established structure found on Wikipedia, which is correct. Danrok (talk) 15:10, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
By that argument, Anglicanism isn't a religion either; it's a communion of independent churches (organisations). But never mind: I'm sure you're right, from the Wikipedia point of view. Stanning (talk) 20:36, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Re: no label (P448)[edit]

Hi! I added a english label to launch pad 39A (Q24256513) and other launch pad. You really believe that P448 used as qualifier P448 is wrong? In Italian it:template:infobox missione spaziale template it works very well (eg. it:STS-121).

@Adert: Using no label (P448) as a qualifier of no label (P448) just isn't how things are being done, historically. The fact that you are able to make use of this in a template isn't relevant. I'm only telling you this as friendly advice, because it is possible that such claims may be removed by someone in the future. You could simply rename launch pad 39A (Q24256513) to Kennedy Space Center Launch Pad 39A, and just use that on it's own, thus avoiding this issue. Danrok (talk) 18:56, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Looks like she is not dead[edit]

Hi, please check Talk:Q525418. Thanks --KurtR (talk) 21:51, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

@KurtR: If someone is claimed to be dead by some sources, and not others, then we should consider making the "date of death" claim along with the qualifier statement disputed by (P1310). I'll leave it to you, or someone else, I don't really know who she is. She is seems to be unknown in the UK. Danrok (talk) 23:58, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
The last two articles about her death says that it looks like a cheat that she passed away. So I think it's best not do enter a "date of death". Btw there are different date of death mentioned in old sources. --KurtR (talk) 00:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
@KurtR: Sorry, I should have typed "along with the qualifier statement disputed by (P1310)". Danrok (talk) 02:15, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Please check your autolist/petscan additions[edit]

You have added the same erroneous claim that LaTonya Swann (Q18098433) has original language of work (P364) of English (Q1860) 4 times, which have had to be reversed. original language of work (P364) only makes sense for works, not people. You made a similar edits to Jean Keraudy (Q3172885) and Josh Earl (Q16208642) Silverfish (talk) 17:41, 3 August 2016 (UTC).

@Silverfish: The source of the problem is articles on Wikipedia being added to the wrong categories. LaTonya Swann (Q18098433) is not a TV series! Thank you for correcting this, however it would be a good idea to fix the categories on Wikipedia to avoid this happening again. Danrok (talk) 17:47, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
You can't simply blame the categories. You should check that your edits make sense, by checking for constraint violations. Even correct categories will sometimes include articles which are related indirectly to the subject of the category. For example there is list of French-language films (Q6571196) where you have added a similar claim. Silverfish (talk) 18:23, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
@Silverfish: I have made close to a 0.75 million claims, with few errors. And corrected many errors without any fuss. If you want to rant, go do it somewhere else. Danrok (talk) 20:00, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

116,600,000 square meters[edit]

This is a response to https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User_talk:Lisp.hippie.bot#116.2C600.2C000_square_meters

Thanks for your message. This data was imported from DBpedia, using a predicate whose range is denominated in sq. meters.

@Lisp.hippie: I wasn't asking where the data has come from, I am asking why have you chosen to store this as m2 instead of km2? It is a very simple to convert before saving the data, yes? Danrok (talk) 19:37, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Q15637082[edit]

no label (Q15637082) is a profession and should not be used as instance of (P31) for companies. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 15:07, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

@Sjoerddebruin: I have changed the English label to avoid confusion. A manufacturer (generally an organisation) and industrialist (person) are not the same thing. Danrok (talk) 15:34, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you very much! Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 15:35, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Self-referencing[edit]

Hi,

I see that you add some self-referenced statement on ships today, can you correct them? See for example :

< USS Fieberling (Q7869365) View with Reasonator View with SQID > named after (P138) View with SQID < USS Fieberling (Q7869365) View with Reasonator View with SQID >

The list can be found here :

SELECT ?item ?itemLabel WHERE {
	?item wdt:P138 ?item . 
	SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "en" }
}

Try it!

Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 21:27, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Map[edit]

Hi Danrok, Thanks for adding so many locations: Wikidata:WikiProject_Filming_Locations#James_Bond_films
--- Jura 22:17, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Unused property[edit]

This is a kind reminder that the following property was created more than six months ago: net tonnage (P2790). As of today, this property is used on less than five items. As the proposer of this property you probably want to change the unfortunate situation by adding a few statements to items. --Pasleim (talk) 19:10, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Movement[edit]

Are you going to add this to every painter that ever lived? Multichill (talk) 16:52, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

No. Danrok (talk) 16:57, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Why did you add this? It doesn't make any sense. Multichill (talk) 17:09, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Contemporary art does not apply to all art, as you imply. For one, it starts in the 1960s or 70s. Nor can it be assumed that the term will be used until the end of time. Danrok (talk) 18:52, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

See it[edit]

Hi!. See it, there is two items for the same topic. Q28004315 (created Decembre 13 2016) and Q28128526 (created January 5 2017). Please merge it. Good Day, sorry for my english. Barú11 (talk) 23:50, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Item to be delete[edit]

In RFD there are a lot of item proposed for the deletion created by you. If you do not agree you can participate in the debate --ValterVB (talk) 20:18, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Ship depth[edit]

Hi! I've found properties for length and width, but no property to describe the depth of a ship. Do you have something of interest to share before I post a new property proposal? --Cavernia (talk) 21:53, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Cavernia Hi! Can you say exactly what you mean by depth? Overall height or something else? Danrok (talk) 13:39, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, language problem, the correct term in English is draft. In Norwegian it's called dybde which normally is translated to depth. Found it as property P2262. --Cavernia (talk) 13:31, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

P172[edit]

ethnic group (P172) should have a trustful source (according to consensus reached in previous discussions), please don't add these unreferenced on large scale. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 13:59, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

@Sjoerddebruin: OK. Where is the consensus for this? Ordinarily, in Wikidata a very small number of people agree on something, and that is then supposed to be consensus. Somewhat laughable, eh? Danrok (talk) 14:17, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
If you look at ethnic group (P172) you can see "subject's ethnicity (consensus is that a VERY high standard of proof is needed for this field to be used. In general this means 1) the subject claims it him/herself, or 2) it is widely agreed on by scholars, or 3) is fictional and portrayed as such)." just ignoring that and massing it anyway wouldn't be very good behaviour. Multichill (talk) 17:23, 25 August 2017 (UTC)