Apple farmer

Welcome to Wikidata, Apple farmer!

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! Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 07:33, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

sport: rowing

Hey Apple farmer, I saw your recent edits in Birger Knudtzon (Q4916226), Otto Krogh (Q7109688), Ingolf Kristiansen (Q16104900) and just want to let you know that a statement sport (P641)rowing (Q159354) is not necessary if occupation (P106)rower (Q13382576) is already available. The reason is that the latter is much more precise by defining the role of a person in the sport of rowing, so that the former is no longer useful for anything. In general I would recommend to prefer occupation (P106) over sport (P641) for person items where possible, and to use P641 only as a fallback if there is absolutely no better way to describe a connection between two entities. Nevertheless: Thanks for editing and Regards, MisterSynergy (talk) 15:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello MisterSynergy, I'm aware of the discussions on both occupation (P106) and sport (P641), but it doesn't seem to be any clear conclusion regarding the matter? The examples listed for occupation (P106) includes Gediminas Grinius (Q20731566)... We have already started using data from WikiData in our infoboxes at nowiki, and the infobox for sports person fetches field of sports from occupation (P106) at WikiData, so it is very useful to have for our use. See https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Krogh for an example. This can of course be changed, but this hasn't been done so far. Best regards, --Apple farmer (talk) 16:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I am fully aware of the fact that sport (P641) is technically a valid statement for persons, and this is indeed indicated by the Gediminas Grinius (Q20731566) example on the property page. The question is what it is good for in the case of sports persons. sport (P641)rowing (Q159354) does not tell at all which role a person has or had. It could be a rower (Q13382576), coxswain (Q1690874), ocean rower (Q21081635), rowing coach (Q21121588), rowing administrator (Q21578283), or something that has no Wikidata item yet (but could be created as a structural item). I am sure that for other (larger) fields of sport there are even much more possible roles. P641 was nevertheless used for sports persons for quite some time, since many P106-suitable structural items were missing and it was not clear that P106 should be used for notable, but non-professional occupations as well. Meanwhile there is – to my opinion – consensus in this question and we should try to define our statements as precise as possible.

Now, what does that mean for the mentioned infobox? First of all, it is unfortunately not listed on Property talk:P641, thus it is difficult for Wikidata users to take notice of nowikis P641 usage. I would recommend, however, to adapt the P106 statements in the infobox as well, perhaps in a manner that: (1) P106 is displayed; (2) if P106 is not available, P641 is used as a fallback; (3) if none is available, nothing is shown. That would allow the most flexible usage of the (still incoherent) Wikidata data in this issue on your local Wikipedia. —MisterSynergy (talk) 16:48, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you, but then the description for occupation (P106) is to narrow, since it mainly covers profession (also known as job, work, career, employment, craft). The Norwegian description also includes income, and at least the "old" athletes were not professionals and had no income from their sports activities, since as far as I remember the Olympic charter stated that they should be amateurs and were for instance not allowed to receive prize money. For modern athletes which is truly professionals and have their income from their sports activities P106 is the obvious choice. Best regards, --Apple farmer (talk) 18:30, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, technically it has Wikidata item of this property (P1629)occupation (Q13516667), which means that non-professional occupations are perfectly fine (by occupation (Q13516667)’s en/de-description). It think P106 was initially designed for professional occupations, but since these are typically handled discretely, we do not really know about them. The description in P106 has changed by time as well, I would recommend to adapt the English definition as exactly as possible to Norwegian. —MisterSynergy (talk) 20:52, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Takk

Ville bare takke for innlegging av flere profil-bilder på wikidata (som f.eks. på Brit Pettersen) slik at vi ikke trenger å velge spesifikt i norsk WP for å få bilde på disse skisportsutøverne. Med vennlig hilsen Migrant (talk) 21:42, 2 October 2021 (UTC)