User talk:Thryduulf

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Logo of Wikidata

Welcome to Wikidata, Thryduulf!

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, don't hesitate to ask on Project chat. 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!

--Ymblanter (talk) 03:44, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

frequency of event (done)[edit]

event interval (P2257) is done and ready to use. Josh Baumgartner (talk) 20:08, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Thryduulf (talk: local | en.wp | en.wikt) 00:39, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Stratigraphic Units[edit]

Australian Stratigraphic Units Database ID (P2367) is ready. --Tobias1984 (talk) 13:21, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

issued by[edit]

issued by (P2378) is ready. Mbch331 (talk) 15:53, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]


diameter (P2386) is ready. Mbch331 (talk) 12:33, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

judicial sentence[edit]

P2466 (P2466) is ready. But can't find a good qualifier for the amount when it comes to the height of a fine (Q2842797). Mbch331 (talk) 20:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Really? --Jobu0101 (talk) 23:39, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A typo or maybe thinko of the finest order! Thank you for fixing. Thryduulf (talk: local | en.wp | en.wikt) 14:18, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thryduulf

Following your proposal, the above is now available.
--- Jura 11:14, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]


The property cost of damage (P2630) that yoy requested is created. --Fralambert (talk) 19:32, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Credit line[edit]

Hi Thryduulf, could you explain this edit: removal of Credit line proposal? I didn't get an alert about this and I am wondering why you removed this. Thanks. --Jane023 (talk) 09:06, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a single edit, but a combined diff of 47 different edits by 11 users,my edit just happened to be the last of them. The actual removal of the credit line proposal was done by Srittau with this edit on 28 March that archived several closed discussions. The credit line discussion was closed as "not done" with the reason "no support" by Micru on 20 March with this edit. Thryduulf (talk: local | en.wp | en.wikt) 15:21, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I apologize! Thanks for taking the time to figure this out too, because I wasn't notified. --Jane023 (talk) 07:24, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Place of marriage[edit]

place of marriage (P2842) is done. --Tobias1984 (talk) 19:10, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Many thanks for your help on Wikidata:Property proposal/Entity label in sign language (video). GAllegre (talk) 13:33, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all. Thryduulf (talk: local | en.wp | en.wikt) 20:31, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thryduulf, I created the publication frequency/interval property you proposed. Please evaluate the way I tried to implement 10 per year in Journal of the American Academy of Audiology (Q2840472). The alternative would be to simply say that it is a monthly publication, but this seems better, not? Thank you. Lymantria (talk) 09:48, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, in the absence of an "except" qualifier it's this or "1.2 month" but I think that latter gives an incorrect impression. Thryduulf (talk: local | en.wp | en.wikt) 11:47, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AN stuff[edit]

Hey Thryduulf,

I just wanted to follow up regarding that discussion on AN here. Basically, the discussion now seems to be moving on to specific ways forward - I thank you for your help in getting that done. The previous discussion had been sitting open for a long time, and I was hoping to get an actual resolution for it rather than continuing the same trend that had been going on the entire time. I do apologize if my methods were not good - to be totally honest, dispute resolution is something I have no stomach for and rarely engage in, and so I don't have much experience in actually resolving issues like that. But sometimes, if I notice there is a problem, then I try to step in if I can see a favourable outcome somewhere in there. Anyway, I wasn't trying to stifle discussion, just move it forward, and I'm glad it's happening now :-)

Thanks also for educating me on the need for that property. I agree that properties need not be widely used to be kept, so that should be good to create once the discussion is over barring other opposition. All the best, Ajraddatz (talk) 07:04, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message. One of the things that irritates me the most is when something gets archived without a resolution one way or the other, trying to ensure that happens without going too far into demanding things I have no right to can sometimes be a fine line! Thryduulf (talk: local | en.wp | en.wikt) 11:02, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, read this but forgot to respond. It's definitely a balancing act; I know with myself trying to get back into enwiki a couple months back, I was never sure when to complain about something I felt wasn't being done well, given the existing local practices and such. For what it's worth, I think you handled it pretty well overall - I certainly don't have any hard feelings over it. Hopefully you like how Wikidata works overall. ~300 less policies than enwiki, but things still seem to run here :-) Ajraddatz (talk) 18:15, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the property deletion is the only area I feel policy is really lacking here. Overall it's a nice place to spend time. Thryduulf (talk) 21:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata meetup[edit]

Hi! I saw that you are attending Wikidata meetup at Wikimania. See you there! :) --Lingveno (talk) 04:30, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some review needed[edit]

Hi! I plan to do some mass(?)-description adding sometime. To do it right, need some English native speaker :) Could you tell if these descriptions would be ok from language POV for music single/album, movie, TV episode? Polish them as much as needed.

  • 2016 (single/album) by Green Day
  • 2016 American film by (director's name)
  • 2016 The Simpsons episode (or maybe episode of The Simpsons 25th season)

--Edgars2007 (talk) 23:44, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The first one is spot on. The second, I'd say "2016 American film directed by ..." would be clearer as "by" can sometimes indicate the lead actor. For the third either is perfectly fine, but the latter is more informative so I'd go with that if it isn't too much extra work for you. Thryduulf (talk) 11:25, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks. Yes, I also like "episode of The Simpsons 25th season" better :) --Edgars2007 (talk) 11:48, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Need one more consultation. This time comes geography. Jumprava Parish (Q6311354) has en label "Jumprava Parish", but enwiki article is about "Jumprava parish". The same goes for Lielvārde Municipality (Q279004) - but in this case is vice versa. We (WD) have lowercase, but enwiki has uppercase. It should be uppercase for both parish and municipality? --Edgars2007 (talk) 10:26, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For capitalisation of the names of people and places en.wp is almost always going to be correct so we should match that unless there is a good reason we know of not to. Thryduulf (talk) 14:34, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. --Edgars2007 (talk) 15:12, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since you seem to be more expert than me in Wikidata, I would ask you where is possible to discuss changes on a field. I've tried on Property_talk:P473 but as I expected, it doesn't seems to be monitored. Let me know, --Andyrom75 (talk) 07:06, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The best thing to do is to either start a discussion on the property talk page or on Wikidata:Project chat. If a talk page post doesn't gather attention then post a note on project chat advertising it. Unfortunatley I don't have an answer to your question about local dialing code (P473). Thryduulf (talk) 14:55, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New property process[edit]

As far as you know, how much time pass from the proposal to the creation of a new property? And who is in charge of that creation and the filling via bot? --Andyrom75 (talk) 07:35, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The minimum time between a proposal being made and the property being created is a week, but there is no maximum. Once there is a clear consensus then it can be marked ready (just change the value of the "status" field in the template to "ready") and that puts it in Category:Properties ready for creation, but other than that it is just a matter of waiting for a property creator to choose to create that property and there is a large backlog. The longest I am aware of for a property proposal to be open is about a year - that is exceptional but sadly 2 months is not) Once the property is created anyone can either fill the property via a bot they have written themselves (but see WD:BOTS for the policy about bots first) or ask an existing bot owner to do it for them (see Wikidata:Bot requests) - I don't know much about bots (I don't have the skills required to create one and I'm not interested in learning how to run one) so I can't help you regarding them pretty much at all. Thryduulf (talk) 10:19, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! 2 months is a long (average) time. At this point the bot is the minimum issue. I've thought to fix all the local codes issues earlier and this is a small piece of the full picture that I have in my mind fo the migration of our it:voy templates to Wikidata. It seems that it will be long long way. --Andyrom75 (talk) 17:26, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, property creation does take too long, and people regularly complain about it but nothing ever seems to get done about it :( Thryduulf (talk) 19:17, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think we can state that Wikidata:Property proposal/Trunk prefix is approved for creation or should we wait more time? --Andyrom75 (talk) 23:54, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's already marked as ready, there is nothing we can do now other than wait for it to be created. Thryduulf (talk) 11:38, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused properties[edit]

This is a kind reminder that the following properties were created more than six months ago: average gradient (P2198), stage reached (P2443). As of today, these properties are used on less than five items. As the proposer of these properties you probably want to change the unfortunate situation by adding a few statements to items. --Pasleim (talk) 19:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Censuses of the UK — further breakdwon[edit]

I see that you created the series of UK censuses, though I feel that we are going to need to step down to the next level to have them being usable. As the censuses are England & Wales; Channel Islands; and Scotland, I think that for referencing people we need to break them into the specific year and state, which will then allow the major record numbers (eg. 1881 E&W can have Class: RG11, and specific information about its location) to be created, so if we utilise we can get low level referencing Piece: 4247; Folio: 86; Page: 20" for place of birth for William Dobson (Q18577169).  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:29, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Property proposal: Broader concept[edit]

The property proposal I mentioned, if you felt like taking a look: Wikidata:Property proposal/broader concept. Jheald (talk) 20:36, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Just noticed you had suggested Wikidata:Property proposal/month of the year. What do you think of the related proposal at Wikidata:Property proposal/day number within month?
--- Jura 06:09, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]