Fundriver
Welcome to Wikidata, Fundriver!
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:
- Wikidata:About – About the project.
- Wikidata:Introduction – Another introduction to the project.
- Help:Contents – The main help portal for editing and using the site.
- Wikidata:Project chat – Discussions about the project.
- Wikidata:Tools – A collection of user-developed Javascript tools to allow for easier completion of some tasks.
If you have any questions, please ask me on my talk page. If you want to try out editing, you can use the sandbox to try. Once again, welcome, and I hope you quickly feel comfortable here, and become an active editor for Wikidata.
Best regards, Lukas²³ talk in German Contribs 13:45, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Deletion of pages edit
Merging items edit
Hallo Fundriver,
If you were not already using it, you may want to check out the merge.js gadget for merging items. It has an option "Request deletion for extra items on RfD" to automatically nominate the page you are merging from for deletion. This way of nominating also makes it easier for the admins to process such requests. For support and other options you can check the help page about merging.
With regards, - cycŋ - (talk • contribs • logs) 06:47, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
- And please don't put comments like {{delete}} in labels, please. Just nominate here, preferable with the merge.js gadget. - cycŋ - (talk • contribs • logs) 13:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah that was a try because i read the {{delete}} somewhere, thought i had deleted it again, sorry. Fundriver (talk) 06:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Re:What is the sense of those changes? edit
Hi Fundriver, thank you for you ping and sorry for the edits. I'm doing these changes as part of WLM 2018 in Switzerland, because the situation with monuments in Switzerland (elements with P381) was very confusing with P131: there were monuments with only the cantons and without municipality, others with municipality and districts, other with sub-division of the municipality, and so on. As part of the team of WLMch, I was "standardizing" the situation. But you are right, and the edit that you notified me is incorrect. Maybe it would have been better to use P276 or just to use the ranking. What do you think? Sorry again. --CristianNX (talk) 07:08, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
- Hello Christian,
- well according to the Property (well if it is even the right one is a second thing) the way I implemented it wouldn't be correct, too. Because the Property tells us only to use the lowest administrative sub-division (as in the example of the Eiffel Tower, where they took the 7th Arrondisment of Paris, where it is located in Paris), but I also kept the higher ones.
- For me personally it was okay how i had it in the Winterthur-sided buildings - this is where I saw your edits removing all the sub-divisions. If you want to standartize it in my opinion, you even should think about to just keep the lowest sub-division. But I actually don't know if there is any consensus about this and also saw, that there are a lot of elements with multiple P131. And well, I also noticed the element P276 but tbh I dont really know, where I should use this and where the other - but also didn't thought too much about it and just used P381 most of the time because I just compared with other items that were the same way and what they used.
- Best regards, Manuel Fundriver (talk) 07:58, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, you're right, indications tell us to use the lowest sub-division, but for some cases (as you example of the Eiffel Tower) it has less sense, because we have to indicate Paris. For the same reason, I think that a good standardization need that we indicate almost the municipality. That wasn't the case of your building in Winterthur, but I assure you that it was missing in a lot of Swiss monuments! ;-) For me personally (but it's only my opinion, without any pretension to be right) the municipality is the lowest "official" division, and quarters or so on has to be moved to P276. The majority of the municipalities (in Switzerland but everywhere) are small, so the municipality is the lowest level: if we indicate, for big cities, the sub-divisions, we will have different situation in the same country. But, you're right again, it will be better if we discuss on them and on the right use of P131. --CristianNX (talk) 17:46, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
- Hello Christian, well Paris and all the upper divisions are already indicated by P131, so if you query Wikidata, you can trace it down yourself. Fundriver (talk) 07:30, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, you're right, indications tell us to use the lowest sub-division, but for some cases (as you example of the Eiffel Tower) it has less sense, because we have to indicate Paris. For the same reason, I think that a good standardization need that we indicate almost the municipality. That wasn't the case of your building in Winterthur, but I assure you that it was missing in a lot of Swiss monuments! ;-) For me personally (but it's only my opinion, without any pretension to be right) the municipality is the lowest "official" division, and quarters or so on has to be moved to P276. The majority of the municipalities (in Switzerland but everywhere) are small, so the municipality is the lowest level: if we indicate, for big cities, the sub-divisions, we will have different situation in the same country. But, you're right again, it will be better if we discuss on them and on the right use of P131. --CristianNX (talk) 17:46, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Winterthur museums edit
Hi - I noticed your edit - can you clarify the relationship of the Oskar Reinhart collection to the buildings housing it over time? Commons also appears quite messy. Thx. Jane023 (talk) 08:55, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
- Please refrain from using the character "|" in labels - this is what drew me to this edit to beegin with. When it comes to museums, for various reasons it is best to use the most common form of name used by the institution's own website, and in this case, it is one website for two locations. Jane023 (talk) 08:59, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
- Hello @Jane023:,
- actually according to Wikipedia-articles there is first of a mix between collection, building and museum. This Wikidata-object combines them anyway - as well as for the other three mentioned objects.
- My reverts relate to one thing that just is wrong like this: Kunst Museum Winterthur | Reinhart am Stadtgarten (Q689829) is not a part of Building of the Winterthur Museum of Art (Q650299), they are two different buildings and two different collections (at least in origin). What happened 2018 is, that the collections/buildings of Building of the Winterthur Museum of Art (Q650299), Kunst Museum Winterthur | Reinhart am Stadtgarten (Q689829) and Villa Flora (Q684556) got joined together in the organisation "Kunst Museum Winterthur" (Wikidata-object not yet created) under guidance of "Kunstverein Winterthur" (art club Winterthur, Wikidata-object not yet created), which receives the (higher) subsidies for the three institutions. Before this "Kunstverein Winterthur" just guided the Kunst Museum Winterthur | Reinhart am Stadtgarten (Q689829) (named "Kunstmuseum Winterthur" before, without the space). The three museums got renamed and labeled with "Kunst Museum Winterthur | <name of Museum>" to represent the new organisation - see the german label i also renamed (the other renamings you did I didn't reverted but should be clarified too, otherwise you have four objects named "Kunst Museum Winterthur" in the end.
- To the labeling of with "|". I took this from the official website of "Kunst Museum Winterthur" (https://www.kmw.ch/museum/). If it is nescessary out of technical limitations, we could use a "-" instead.
- Best regards from Winterthur Fundriver (talk) 09:39, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Jane023: And I just saw you mixed another thing up: museum collection Am Römerholz (Q682406) has nothing to do with the museums you assigned them to, I also reverted this there. The only connection is, that Kunst Museum Winterthur | Reinhart am Stadtgarten (Q689829) and museum collection Am Römerholz (Q682406) were collected by Oskar Reinhart (Q120588) - but split up in two parts, one part is now in Kunst Museum Winterthur | Reinhart am Stadtgarten (Q689829) and owned by "Kunstverein Winterthur" (given to the city of Winterthur), the other part is in museum collection Am Römerholz (Q682406) and owned by Switzerland (Q39). Best regards Fundriver (talk) 10:04, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
- Ha yes, you're right. Thanks for going through these! I was in despair yesterday trying to reconcile the items with the commons categories. As far as I could tell, there are 3, maybe four actual locations/buildings. 2 (or three) of these are downtown near the city hall, and the fourth, the villa? is out in the northern suburb. I think all of these are protected as monuments, which is why there are so many pictures on commons of the buildings. In art historical sources, paintings are referred to as being in "Winterthur museum". This kind of reference generally refers to a municipal collection, which often has paintings located in various municipal buildings (city hall, courthouse, churches, etc). If you have time it would be nice to properly help categorize these as the most important old stuff seems to be in the main museum on the corner of the Museumstrasse and Liebestrasse. I can't make items for the files if I can't see which museum it hangs in. Thx Jane023 (talk) 10:13, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
- Hello, the three united under "Kunst Museum Winterthur" are indirectly museums of the municipality - they relay on money of the city. This is why they were united as "Kunst Museum Winterthur" recently. But the collections in there are from different origins. And i wouldn't tell one of the three is the most important - even tho i'm not an expert. --Fundriver (talk) 11:34, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
- Ha yes, you're right. Thanks for going through these! I was in despair yesterday trying to reconcile the items with the commons categories. As far as I could tell, there are 3, maybe four actual locations/buildings. 2 (or three) of these are downtown near the city hall, and the fourth, the villa? is out in the northern suburb. I think all of these are protected as monuments, which is why there are so many pictures on commons of the buildings. In art historical sources, paintings are referred to as being in "Winterthur museum". This kind of reference generally refers to a municipal collection, which often has paintings located in various municipal buildings (city hall, courthouse, churches, etc). If you have time it would be nice to properly help categorize these as the most important old stuff seems to be in the main museum on the corner of the Museumstrasse and Liebestrasse. I can't make items for the files if I can't see which museum it hangs in. Thx Jane023 (talk) 10:13, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Jane023: And I just saw you mixed another thing up: museum collection Am Römerholz (Q682406) has nothing to do with the museums you assigned them to, I also reverted this there. The only connection is, that Kunst Museum Winterthur | Reinhart am Stadtgarten (Q689829) and museum collection Am Römerholz (Q682406) were collected by Oskar Reinhart (Q120588) - but split up in two parts, one part is now in Kunst Museum Winterthur | Reinhart am Stadtgarten (Q689829) and owned by "Kunstverein Winterthur" (given to the city of Winterthur), the other part is in museum collection Am Römerholz (Q682406) and owned by Switzerland (Q39). Best regards Fundriver (talk) 10:04, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi Fundriver,
There is no requirement to add any data for constraints with this status. If you don't want or can't add the information, you can just ignore it. It's important to make sure statements are consistent with mandatory constraint, but the one you attempt to delete has never been. BTW most items already had it. --- Jura 10:40, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- see answer on your page, I like to keep the discussion in one place. Fundriver (talk) 10:52, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for your answer. The information is relevant for these items. I don't see how it's problematic for you. Is there some application you use the constraint in where it results in a defect? --- Jura 10:57, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
HLS Identifier edit
Hi
The HLS identifier needs to be a 6-digit number for the links to work, is there any reason why you changed this? --Hannes Röst (talk) 16:02, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
We sent you an e-mail edit
Hello Fundriver,
Really sorry for the inconvenience. This is a gentle note to request that you check your email. We sent you a message titled "The Community Insights survey is coming!". If you have questions, email surveys@wikimedia.org.
You can see my explanation here.
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:45, 25 September 2020 (UTC)