# User talk:Alphos

Active discussions

Welcome to Wikidata, Alphos!

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! --Harmonia Amanda (talk) 17:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

## P:P150

Bonjour Alphos. Merci pour tes contribution sur contains administrative territorial entity (P150), mais ajouter, comme tu en prends le chemin, les 36500 communes de France comme subdivision de France (Q142) ne me parait pas franchement une bonne idée. Il parait plus raisonnable de ne mettre que les région comme subdivision de France, les départements comme subdivision des régions, etc. --Zolo (talk) 09:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

L'approche me laisse un peu dubitatif aussi .. --- Jura 11:22, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Bonjour,
Je n'ai fait que "recopier" les relations déjà indiquées sur les entités des communes par located in the administrative territorial entity (P131), à ma connaissance. J'avoue n'avoir pas vérifié une par une que France (Q142) n'était en located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) sur aucune commune, ni même pensé que cela pouvait être le cas (vu que la relation indiquée par located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) devrait être immédiate à la première entité supérieure et non générale pour toutes les entités supérieures), mais si c'est le cas pour certaines d'entre elles (ce qui semble être le cas pour Lille (Q648) par exemple, mais c'est apparemment assez rare), tu m'en vois absolument désolé : je repasserai "derrière moi-même" pour réverter en un coup une fois toutes les bêtises faites (inutile de faire 200 edits là où un seul suffit), bien évidemment ; et j'en profiterai pour corriger les pages des communes (ou anciennes communes) correspondantes.
Je pense que Quick Statements en a encore pour un jour ou deux, je m'en occuperai donc dès lundi.
Merci d'avoir été plus attentif que moi !
Alphos (talk) 11:40, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Bonjour,
Je n'ai fait que "recopier" les relations déjà indiquées sur les entités des communes par located in the administrative territorial entity (P131), à ma connaissance. J'avoue n'avoir pas vérifié une par une que France (Q142) n'était en located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) sur aucune commune, ni même pensé que cela pouvait être le cas (vu que la relation indiquée par located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) devrait être immédiate à la première entité supérieure et non générale pour toutes les entités supérieures), mais si c'est le cas pour certaines d'entre elles (ce qui semble être le cas pour Lille (Q648) par exemple, mais c'est apparemment assez rare), tu m'en vois absolument désolé : je repasserai "derrière moi-même" pour réverter en un coup une fois toutes les bêtises faites (inutile de faire 200 edits là où un seul suffit), bien évidemment ; et j'en profiterai pour corriger les pages des communes (ou anciennes communes) correspondantes.
Je pense que Quick Statements en a encore pour un jour ou deux, je m'en occuperai donc dès lundi.
Merci d'avoir été plus attentif que moi !
Alphos (talk) 11:40, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Les entités pour les communes peuvent contenir plusieurs niveaux dans P131 alors que P150 est utile surtout avec le niveau immédiatement inférieur. --- Jura 11:46, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Je l'ignorais, tout comme User:Harmonia Amanda à qui j'ai posé la question avant de commencer le travail. Mais le nombre de modifications erronées semble très restreint comparé au nombre total, j'en conclus donc que la pratique d'indiquer plusieurs niveaux de P131 n'est pas courante : compare les 8 modifications effectuées sur France (Q142) avec les quelques dizaines de milliers déjà effectuées. Alphos (talk) 11:54, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Q142 n'est pas imporant, car Q142 ne devrait déjà pas être dans P131.
C'est plutôt les communes qui ne sont pas très utile dans les régions (p.e. Pays de la Loire (Q16994) ). Pour les départements, ça se discute. --- Jura 12:20, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Absolument d'accord. Mais il me semble que les communes ne devraient pas avoir de régions en P131 non plus. Je comprendrais pour arrondissement, canton, et département, mais les régions me semblent bien trop éloignées administrativement du niveau des communes pour que cela puisse avoir un sens.
Comme promis, je m'y attèle au plus tard lundi, dès que Quick Statements en aura fini : je reviendrai à la dernière version avant mon passage sur les entités des régions, de la France, et de l'Europe (Lille par exemple indiquait ces deux dernières comme P131), et j'en profiterai pour corriger "dans l'autre sens", supprimant donc les P131 qui sont la cause des P150 excessives que je suis en train d'ajouter.
Alphos (talk) 12:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

## Invitation to Wikidata user study

Dear Alphos,
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) 23:03, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

## Find A Public Company

Dear Alphos, excellent post here: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Request_a_query#Find_a_public_company. Thanks!

Still learning wikidata and getting used to the model, how would I modify this to include extracting additional data items from the organization "record?" Ie, suppose I also am looking for the list of CEOs and list of subsidiaries. I understand CEO to be P169 and subsidiary to be P355. But when I modify:

```SELECT ?Org ?OrgLabel ?StockExchange ?StockExchangeLabel ?Ticker
WHERE {
?Org p:P414 ?SE . # look for an entity with a "stock exchange" statement
?SE ps:P414 ?StockExchange . # of which we get the value
?SE pq:P249 ?Ticker . # and the "ticker symbol" qualifier
FILTER(?Ticker="FB") . #and we restrict the value of that qualifier to "FB"
SERVICE wikibase:label {
bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "en" .
}
}
```
Try it!

To:

```SELECT ?Org ?OrgLabel ?StockExchange ?StockExchangeLabel ?Ceo ?CeoLabel ?Subsidiary ?SubsidiaryLabel ?Ticker
WHERE {
?Org p:P414 ?SE . # look for an entity with a "stock exchange" statement
?SE ps:P414 ?StockExchange . # of which we get the value
?SE pq:P249 ?Ticker . # and the "ticker symbol" qualifier
?Org p:P169 ?Ceo .        # Entity has Ceo
?Org p:P355 ?Subsidiary . # Entity has Subsidiary
FILTER(?Ticker="FB") . #and we restrict the value of that qualifier to "FB"
SERVICE wikibase:label {
bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "en" .
}
}
```
Try it!

The results I get for the linked entities of CEO and Subsidiary seem to just point back to FB itself. I think my misunderstanding is:

1. There is an intermediate thing I need to specify, just like you did with exchange, right? I need to say something like "?Org some_prefix:rel ?Person ." and then "?Person p:P169 ?Ceo ." or something like that?
2. Where is the right place to discover the prefixes you used for these relationships? I was using wd: and wdt: but you used p: pq: and ps:, which seem the same in the sense of the numbers that come after them.

If you have any reading resources you'd recommend to cook up queries as well as you do, I'd appreciate learning!  :) Thanks!

You're welcome
I'm afraid my suggestion is "RTFM", but please don't take it badly ^^
I urge you to read the documentation for SPARQL itself, along with this help page. It may seem complicated at first, but I assure you, like most documentations, you'll find it's actually easy once you get to understand how every bit intermeshes with the other bits.
As for your issue with FB's CEO and all, you want the `wdt` prefix rather than the `p` prefix.
The `wdt` prefix denotes truthness ("the thing on the right is definitely marked as the thing in the middle for the thing on the left").
The `p` prefix selects statements ("the thing on the left has a relationship to something, and that relationship looks like the thing on the right")
For your attempt, you might try this one :
```SELECT ?Org ?OrgLabel ?StockExchange ?StockExchangeLabel ?Ceo ?CeoLabel ?Subsidiary ?SubsidiaryLabel ?SubsidiaryCEO ?SubsidiaryCEOLabel ?Ticker
WHERE {
?Org p:P414 ?SE . # look for an entity with a "stock exchange" statement
?SE ps:P414 ?StockExchange . # of which we get the value
?SE pq:P249 ?Ticker . # and the "ticker symbol" qualifier
?Org wdt:P169 ?Ceo .        # Entity has Ceo
?Org wdt:P355 ?Subsidiary . # Entity has Subsidiary
OPTIONAL {
?Subsidiary wdt:P169 ?SubsidiaryCEO .
}
FILTER(?Ticker="FB") . #and we restrict the value of that qualifier to "FB"
SERVICE wikibase:label {
bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "en" .
}
```
Try it! }
Notice the presence of the `OPTIONAL` clause, which means we get the data if present, but we get a blank field if that part of the data is absent.
It is better in this situation than not using `OPTIONAL`, which for Boeing for instance (ticker "BA") would yield one result (Boeing Commercial Airplanes (Q8793)) instead of ten with `OPTIONAL`, since the other nine have no chief executive officer (P169) property attached.
Alphos (talk) 13:47, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

## UTC timezone offset (P2907) in minute (Q7727)

Hello Alphos,

as you probably saw I undid several edits of you regarding UTC timezone offset (P2907). As defined at Property talk:P2907 statements for this property shall use hour (Q25235) as unit and shall have only values in ${\displaystyle [-14;12]}$ . This has first of all technical reasons (the property is used by the Quickbar template on English Wikivoyage). Secondly this makes sure that other constraints work and improves therefore data consistency. It would be great if you could stop changing the unit. In case you have any objections feel free to discuss them at Property talk:P2907.

All the best,

-- T.seppelt (talk) 11:42, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

## Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey

1. This survey is primarily meant to get feedback on the Wikimedia Foundation's current work, not long-term strategy.
2. Legal stuff: No purchase necessary. Must be the age of majority to participate. Sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation located at 149 New Montgomery, San Francisco, CA, USA, 94105. Ends January 31, 2017. Void where prohibited. Click here for contest rules.

## Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey

(Sorry to write in Engilsh)

## User:RollBot

I had to block the bot. Please file a bot permission request and get a flag. Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:35, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't mean to be rude, but why did you have to block it ? It was :
• inactive at the time, which means the block did nothing to prevent any further action by the bot. And it was under my close supervision pretty much the entire time it was running.
• actually trying to complete its first run, as is required to actually get the bot flag. I've been trying a long time to get a proper testbed for that, and as the bot stated quite specifically in the summaries of all its edits, it was doing so by request of another owner whose bot did some mistakes. And I dare say it performed as intended, although its report could have included better information as to why it couldn't edit some pages - that's planned for the bot's next version. You can see the (somewhat informal) request of the other bot owner (which made for a great testbed for RollBot) on 0x010C's talk page.
Alphos (talk) 01:02, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
@Ymblanter: Alphos asked for a second opinion on irc. This is a correct block, the bot did many edits while unapproved, much more that would be considered a test run.
Alphos, I would suggest you update Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Bot/RollBot so people can review it and you might finally get your bot approved. Multichill (talk) 15:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
As stated on IRC, I had to go by hand over the 200+ edits the bot couldn't perform because of (mainly) missing precision in lots of geolocations (which i added, by hand), I finished late, had a bout of cluster headache (which I mentionned here as making it hard for me to work on the bot), and had a busy day the next day, which made me forget to update the request page. Alphos (talk) 16:01, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
I unblocked the bot, but pls do not run it before getting permission. After you update the RfP page, I typically would approve in several dates if there are no objections.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:04, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
It was its testbed, mandatory for the flag request. New requests will obviously wait until after the bot is approved, should they arise - which I hope they do, but at the same time kinda hope they don't : the less vandalisms or errors on Wikidata, the better. Alphos (talk) 16:13, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

## Reversions on Polinesian communes

Hi, Alphos: this message is regarding the 23 reversions you did on my "deletion of French Polynesia (Q30971)" as a located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) in several communes.

The reason I delete this value of the property is because it is not the low administrative level of the items I changed. For instance, in the case of Napuka (Q1965092): Iles Tuamotu-Gambier (Q3773321) is the lowest administrative level which Napuka belongs to (as fr:Napuka_(Polynésie_française), show). Obviously also it is included in French Polynesia (Q30971) because Iles Tuamotu-Gambier (Q3773321) is whitin it.

You changed my version whit Tuamotus (Q183963) + French Polynesia (Q30971). In my opinion this is an error because:

Is it correct ? what is my mistake ?. Thanks for your answer,--Amadalvarez (talk) 05:00, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi !
The error is in considering Iles Tuamotu-Gambier (Q3773321) is an administrative subdivision. It is in fact a subdivision, but merely a geographic one, with no specific administration associated with it.
I had just completed a run of four hours reverting errors added since I last checked on french communes, and it was getting late, so I hope you'll forgive me if I didn't explain much then.
Alphos (talk) 07:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
I saw you are doing a great job with french communes. I have no doubt you know what you do. However, I don't know the administrative division of Polinesian, therefore, I need to get information from sources. In my case, the french and english WPs, which describe Iles Tuamotu-Gambier (Q3773321) as an administrative subdivision, and specifically say:
EN: "Administratively, the Îles Tuamotu-Gambier form one of the 5 administrative subdivisions (subdivision administratives) of French Polynesia, the administrative subdivision of the Tuamotu-Gambier (Islands) (subdivision administrative des (Îles) Tuamotu-Gambier) with 17 communes".
FR: Les îles dépendent administrativement de la subdivision Tuamotu-Gambier.
In addition, the fr:Liste des communes de la Polynésie française#Par_subdivision describe the subdivisions that gather the communes.
By the way, this is just one example. When we arrive to an agreement, I'll review the other 21 reversions. Thanks !--Amadalvarez (talk) 16:57, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
You're giving too much importance to the epithet "administrative". These subdivisions have no administration attached, no function other than geographic, per the decree that created them back in 1972 and is still in effect as far as I know. Administrative functions are deferred to the communes (and delegated to sections of communes) or remain with the overseas collectivity.
If you insist on adding them (why not, but then again, why if they are not truly administrative subdivisions, which they aren't really/really aren't), you still have to leave the actual administrative division the communes are attached to, which is Polynésie française, much in the same way we're planning on rolling out french cantons P131 statements in favor of french départements P131 statements on entities of french communes.
Rule of thumb : having an INSEE code can mean you are an administrative subdivision (with the notable exception of french cantons, de facto since 1958, de jure since 2013-2015), not having one more or less guarantees you aren't. And these subdivisions don't have an INSEE code.
Alphos (talk) 01:18, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
I Insist that it seems that you know what you do. The INSEE rule is a good clue. However, disagreements between WD and the content of the articles are a source of claims like I did. Is contradictory what you do and what the fr:Liste des communes de la Polynésie française#Par_subdivision explain. If I were you, I would change the article.
In addition, I mentioned the use of located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) you do is incorrect. Items should have just the low level what they belong to. Usually is only one. When an item have two values means that it share its territory on two entities. In the same exemple, if you confirm that commune depend directly from Polynésie française entity: why you keep Tuamotus (Q183963) in P131 ?. Is it an "administrative level" ?. If don't, it should be delete and left French Polynesia (Q30971) alone. Do you agree ?.--Amadalvarez (talk) 17:59, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
It's what I've been trying to do the whole time, so yeah, of course I agree. Geographic locations are not administrative locations. Alphos (talk) 09:23, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

## Rollback requests

As you are operating Rollbot, Can you please:

--GZWDer (talk) 17:16, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

@GZWDer: Absolutely ! It'll have to be done tomorrow however, but given that those edits are 4 months old, I doubt there's a big emergency
Could you tell me the date of the latest and earliest edits that need rolling back for each of them, if it's not their entire contribution list ?
Alphos (talk) 22:24, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
• [3] - [4] (only revert those with tag OAuth CID: 378)
• [5] - [6] (only revert those with edit summary ‎(wikibase-item-summary-clientsitelink-remove: 1, , nlwikinews) ..., some will fail and please ignore them)

--GZWDer (talk) 22:45, 7 July 2017 (UTC)