User talk:Horcrux

From Wikidata
(Redirected from User talk:Horcrux92)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Logo of Wikidata

Welcome to Wikidata, Horcrux!

Wikidata is a free knowledge base that you can edit! It can be read and edited by humans and machines alike and you can go to any item page now and add to this ever-growing database!

Need some help getting started? Here are some pages you can familiarize yourself with:

  • Introduction – An introduction to the project.
  • Wikidata tours – Interactive tutorials to show you how Wikidata works.
  • Community portal – The portal for community members.
  • User options – including the 'Babel' extension, to set your language preferences.
  • Contents – The main help page for editing and using the site.
  • Project chat – Discussions about the project.
  • Tools – A collection of user-developed tools to allow for easier completion of some tasks.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

If you have any questions, 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!

Jon Harald Søby (talk) 20:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Creating items[edit]

Hi! To respond to your question on WD:RFD: The way I create items, at least, is to always go through Special:ItemByTitle. There you enter the relevant language code, and the title of the page. If there already is an item for the article, you will be forwarded to that item. If there isn't, there will be a message about it, and a link to create a new item (pre-filled with the language code and title). That is the best way to do it, as far as I know. Jon Harald Søby (talk) 20:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! And there is a way to create a item all in one time, instead of doing like this? --Horcrux92 (talk) 01:33, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
(I like keeping discussions in one place, so moving here.) Yeah, there are several useful gadgets in Special:Preferences. Even though I mostly only use a few of them, I've turned on all of the Wikidata-centric gadgets for myself, just so I will have the possibility to do something (even if I do it rarely). For adding several links, the one called slurpInterwiki is what you want. Hope that helps. :-) Jon Harald Søby (talk) 01:38, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

it:Categoria:Giardini della Germania[edit]

Sicuro che non vada meglio in Category:Gardens in Germany (Q8480948)? --Ricordisamoa 01:49, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


Per unire rapidamente più elementi puoi provare questo gadget semi-automatico. --Ricordisamoa 01:53, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Club Natació Sabadell[edit]

Grazie :-) Ary29 (talk) 13:35, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Mi sono scordata :-( Cercherò di ricordarmelo la prossima volta. Ciao, Ary29 (talk) 13:47, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


But in pl-wiki page pl:Karapaks does function as disambiguation page. In pl-wiki we don't have article about carapace (Q666115)!

Instead of this we have
1. arthropods' carapace (Q16565454) - about Crustacea and Arachnida only
2. turtle shell (Q13486671) - about turtles (Testudines) only.

Please help in solving this interwiki conflict. --WTM (talk) 08:40, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

More careful merges[edit]

Same here, "Lippisch Ente" is not a disambiguation page. --Horcrux92 (talk) 10:17, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello Horcrux, thank you for your restoration. It was obviously my mistake. --Sisyph 14:13, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Canoe/kayak vs canoe[edit]

I see you've moved many sitelinks to second item. Are you sure about all these languages that they don't include kayak? E.g. in enwiki there's phrase "In some parts of Europe canoeing refers to both canoeing and kayaking, with a canoe being called a Canadian canoe." --Infovarius (talk) 10:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


Re: furnishing (Q31807746)! The two items you merged are not quite the same thing. The old Q31807746 was “furnishing” (noun), a thing or creative work like a cushion or carpet. You merged in “furnishing” (verb) the technique or process of adding furnishings to a room, which should be a separate item. I’d like to separate these Items again. - PKM (talk) 20:10, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

@PKM: Ok! Done. --Horcrux92 (talk) 20:38, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

transmitter mast (Q1068623)[edit]

Thank you for correcting my mistake editing transmitter mast (Q1068623) (I merged to items). 〈 RoberPL Dígame 〉 12:45, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Re: Contiene l'insieme...[edit]

OK, hai ragione, grazie della segnalazione ;) --BohemianRhapsody (talk) 14:04, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Has part of the type[edit]

I’m the proposer of « has part of the type ». This revert and your initial modification is incorrect in the spirit of the proposal ( ). The point of the proposal was that « may arm is part of my body » both with « arm part of body » could be considered correct, but « my body has part arm » confused the levels between the instance level (my arm) and the class level (my body). « has part of the type » was intended to be used only in this case of level confusion. « has part » is routinely used in other ontologies to link between « arm » and « body », both being classes of real world objects. author  TomT0m / talk page 11:42, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@TomT0m: Therefore I think that the property description is ambiguous. It reports "Any individual «this subject»", that can be interpreted as "Any instance of «this subject»". Why talking about "Any individual" if the subject is just "my body" (not "any body")? --Horcrux (talk) 15:24, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
@TomT0m: I saw you changed the description. I have another question: if « body has part arm » and « my body instance of body », why should we care about the statement « my body has part of the type arm »? Since we already know that every « body has part arm », isn't useless (and redundant, therefore source of possible errors) to state that each « "instance of body" has part of the type arm »?
Is there a case in which this property is really useful, according to this interpretation? --Horcrux (talk) 08:58, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
There is at least one usecase : stating the number of such part :
< my body > has parts of the class (P2670) View with SQID < arm >
quantity (P1114) View with SQID < 2 >
. author  TomT0m / talk page 11:18, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
There is also other usecases : classes are suitable and appropriate for objects that shares a lot of properties, they are less suitable to model peculiarities of individual objects, for example a car prototype may be the unique of its kind, and stating it’s an instance of car will not imply at all it has a unique part of some kind. It’s useful then if we want to describe it to have this kind of properties. author  TomT0m / talk page 12:45, 15 November 2018 (UTC)