Logo of Wikidata

Welcome to Wikidata, Arch2all!

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! Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:38, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Statements from archINFORMEdit

Hallo Arch2all,
seit heute habe ich viele neue references entdeckt, die Du hinzugefügt hast, und auch neue statements, vielen Dank! Eine Anmerkung zu located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) statements (und vielleicht anderen?): Dieses statement hätte – denke ich – nicht so hinzugefügt werden sollen, da das bereits vorhandene präziser war. Ich habe es hier nun gelöst und das bereits vorher vorhandene auf „preferred rank“ gesetzt. Ich schlage vor andere Fälle neu hinzugefügter zweiter Werte für located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) von archINFORM zu kontrollieren und die ranks entsprechend zu setzen oder das Hinzufügen weniger präziser Werte im Voraus zu vermeiden. Beste Grüße, --Marsupium (talk) 11:18, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Marsupium, bin gerade dabei die Inhalte mit der archINFORM-Datenbank (in Teilen) abzugleichen und entsprechend zu referenzieren. Bei located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) mache ich das derzeit starr auf "city level". Ich könnte auch auf einen feineren Level gehen (Ortsbezirk/Ortsteil/Ortsviertel/...). Leider sind die WD-Ortseinträge solcher administrativen Untereinheiten aber oft noch nicht entsprechend mit den übergeordneten Einheiten verknüpft. Deshalb setze ich erstmal lieber einen weiteren located in the administrative territorial entity (P131)-Eintrag. Ist außerdem viel einfacher zu realisieren. Für die Zukunft plane ich aber den niedrigstmöglichen Level zu verwenden (und übergeordnete Einträge zu löschen). Ranks zu setzen ist auch kompliziert (da ja eine Prüfung vorausgehen muss, welcher Eintrag am genauesten ist). Falls es ein wirkliches Problem mit den Mehrfacheinträgen sein sollte, kann ich darauf auch in Zukunft erstmal von absehen --Arch2all (talk) 11:59, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
OK, Software ist überarbeitet, ab sofort werden von mir nur noch die präzisesten located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) statements eingefügt und übergeordnete entfernt.--Arch2all (talk) 17:07, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Radio Kootwijk located in the administrative territorial entityEdit

This is incorrect. Kootwijk (Q2372373) is just a village, not a municipality. The municipality is Apeldoorn. Can you please correct this and any other edits in the Netherlands? Thank you, Multichill (talk) 19:26, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

A village isn't indeed a municipality, but also an administrative territorial entity. I don't see an error. --Arch2all (talk) 19:31, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
So I looked into more of your edits. You seem to be using a bot, editing way too fast and doing incorrect edits. Please stop editing now before you cause more damage. Multichill (talk) 19:33, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Stopped editing for now. Uploader respects usage policy, uses maxlag parameter and no parallel requests. What edits are wrong? --Arch2all (talk) 19:40, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
About the contents of your edits: You are mixing up location (P276) and located in the administrative territorial entity (P131). There is no such thing as a village administrative level so most (if not all) of your edits are incorrect. I see you also made similar mistakes in other countries ([1]).
That's exactly why we have a bot policy: To prevent ignorant people causing a huge mess with an automated tool.
Your batch of edits might contain good edits, but because it contains so many bad edits, the only solution for now is to rollback everything and start over.
To be clear: If you restart this bot without prior approval, you will be blocked. Multichill (talk) 19:46, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
A not so quick query reveals that you seem to have introduced more than a thousand constraint violations (of the about 13.000 statements supported by archINFORM project ID (P5383)):
SELECT ?item ?location  WHERE {
  ?ref pr:P5383 [] .
  ?statement prov:wasDerivedFrom ?ref . 
  ?item p:P131 ?statement .. 
  ?statement ps:P131 ?location .
  MINUS { ?location wdt:P31/wdt:P279* wd:Q56061 } 
  } LIMIT 10000
Try it!
If I focus on the Netherlands it's about one in three (and that doesn't include Amsterdam-Centrum (Q478282) which we generally not use).
Did you keep some sort of log so you can undo the changes without removing all the references? Multichill (talk) 20:17, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
It's not very helpful (and gentle) to revert immediately all my edits, just because there are some incorrect stuff in the last time. Talking before acting would be nice. Seems that I not the only ignorant user around here ;) And please remember, that my intention was to help wikidata not to disturb... --Arch2all (talk) 21:00, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Changed the uploader to exclude located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) related information and start it now again to repair the missing references, etc from your reverts. --Arch2all (talk) 13:04, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
You are essentially running an unapproved bot. Please stop and file a bot request, so that the community could evaluate the validity of the edits. Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 04:53, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Created a request: [2] --Arch2all (talk) 07:02, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
My apologies, I am on holidays and was probably too brief. What I meant is creating a request at Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Bot. What you did is normally used for asking others to run their bot. Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:23, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
No problem, moved it to the proper page --Arch2all (talk) 19:35, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

P131 usageEdit

For located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) in Germany please do not add quarters of municipalities as you did at Steag-Zentrale (Q2335250). In case of cities like Essen (Q2066) one might regard Stadtbezirk (Q2740635) as the lowest administrative unit (here: Essen (Q54803595)), but not a "Stadtteil". This can be defined using location (P276). Thanks.--Te750iv (talk) 02:32, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Ok, a "Stadtteil" is not an administrative division, but why did You add Essen as P131 and not Essen (Q54803595). As far as I know, the lowest possible administrative division should be used there. --Arch2all (talk) 07:07, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


I granted the bot flag for your Arch2bot. Lymantria (talk) 13:36, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Great, thank You! --Arch2all (talk) 15:12, 16 August 2018 (UTC)



I just noticed that edit. I don’t think it is correct, these are clearly different elements. I did not find a link to a page regarding that import − is there one where I could raise this?


Jean-Fred (talk) 20:52, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jean-Fred, thanks for this info. It's indeed an error. I edited the entry and now the link points to the right archINFORM entry. Backlink from archINFORM is changed, too. Maybe old state is still in cache for a while. --Arch2all (talk) 07:28, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi, also you've added some self-values for P131 like in Q199618. --Infovarius (talk) 21:39, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Q3953219 - archinfoEdit

I write to you for this edit, the property archinfo 2268 is already present in element Q56163711, how can you make sure that the bot does not insert it every month on a wrong page, thanks? --ZioNicco (talk) 16:24, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I.C. G.Gamerra Pisa (Q56163711) is a duplicate of I.C. G.Gamerra Pisa (Q3953219). I merged all info into the ladder. Someone (with the rights to do that) should delete Q56163711. --Arch2all (talk) 17:15, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
they really were not duplicates, one was the building and the other was the educational institution that also includes other schools. --ZioNicco (talk) 07:58, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
As long as there are not any wikipedia articles for the educational institution itself or other buildings of this institution, it is pretty overprecise to create two different entries in wikidata! Please look at similar schools/buildings. --Arch2all (talk) 16:50, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
It is desired to be "overprecise" regardless of the existence of Wikipedia articles. I would have to dig in the talk page archives of WD:WPVA or WD:WPSOAP to find previous decisions. Help:Modelling/Other domains#Architecture says “While an institution and the building where it is housed are often conflate into a single item, it is often useful to have separate items for the two […].” It's not demanded to create separate items, but existing separate items definitely shouldn't be merged. Separate items for institutions and buildings help to prevent a lot of mistakes. Please unmerge the items! Thanks a lot in advance, --Marsupium (talk) 12:27, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
The item about the institution was omly a stub with nearly no own information. I think that it's only useful to keep two separate items, if they are both welldefined. Otherwise it is only confusing for most user. --Arch2all (talk) 13:13, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
(stumlin' upon this again) I disagree and this is against current consensus afaict (cf. cit. above). If you want to change this it should be done in general and discussion at WD:PC would probably be the best way to go. Otherwise, I'd prefer if you revert the merge. (Vielen Dank für die neuesten Ergänzungen für archINFORM project ID (P5383) im Übrigen!) --Marsupium (talk) 00:36, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Also, ich halte es wirklich nicht für sinnvoll einen spärlichen WD-Eintrag aus semantischen Gründen in noch spärlichere WD-Stubs aufzusplitten (ausser vlt in einer Wikipedia-Version gibt es dazu separate Artikel). Wenn der WD-Schuleintrag jetzt an Informationen überquellen würde und Gebäude- und Institutionsinfos nicht mehr auseinanderzuhalten wären, dann OK. Aber in diesem Falle halte ich sogar einen Merge für angebracht. Ich denke, dies ist auch ganz im Rahmen der genannten Diskussionen/Consensus. Und solange ich nicht überzeugt bin, möchte ich natürlich auch nicht selbst den merge rückgängig machen... --Arch2all (talk) 07:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough! :-) Es ist – denke ich – grundsätzlich genau das durchaus wünschenswert, aus semantischen Gründen zwei Einträge zu haben – ganz gleich wieviel Informationen nun in diesen enthalten ist. Und in diesem konkreten Falle ist es tatsächlich gegenwärtig so sinnentstellend (ein Gebäude hat occupant (P466)). Soweit ich es verstehe und wie es ZioNicco oben wohl mit „that also includes other schools“ meinte, ist das istituto comprensivo G.Gamerra Pisa eine Überorganisation, welche sechs Schulen an unterschiedlichen Orten umfasst, von denen sich eine, Moretti (Q52844370)/[3], in der Via Ximenes N.5, dem von Massimo Carmassi entworfenen Gebäude befindet und die anderen an anderen Orten. Wenn man nun das Gebäude und die darin befindlichen Institution mergen wollte, dann wohl eher Moretti (Q52844370) und das ehemalige I.C. G.Gamerra Pisa (Q56163711), auch wenn sie eben andere Namen haben, das Gebäude schätze ich den Namen der Institution, die dort zur Bauzeit war. Sauberer ist es aber wohl drei Einträge zu haben und sie (hier mit den zuvor so dedizierten Einträgen) wie hier beschrieben so zu verknüpfen:
I.C. G.Gamerra Pisa (Q56163711) occupant (P466) Moretti (Q52844370)
I.C. G.Gamerra Pisa (Q3953219) headquarters location (P159) I.C. G.Gamerra Pisa (Q56163711)
Wahrscheinlich haben auch alle drei Dinge unterschiedliche inception (P571), wird mir aber jedenfalls hier nicht so deutlich. Das ist alles sauberer und ich denke auch verständlicher mit getrennten Einträgen imho. --Marsupium (talk) 11:38, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Ist nur blöd, dass sich bei dieser semantischen Aufteilerei dann meist mehrere WD-Einträge auf einen WP-Artikel (bei den Wikipedias wird jedenfalls das semantische Zerstückeln nicht gerne gesehen) beziehen. Es gibt zwar einen umständlichen Behelf über das Einrichten von Redirects, aber dies ist wirklich nur eine Notlösung. Naja, aber in diesem Fall, nachdem du dich so ausführlich mit diesem Istituto beschäftigt hast, da mach doch einfach mal so wie du denkst und produziere ein semantisches Wikidata-Meisterstück ;) --Arch2all (talk) 13:43, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights SurveyEdit

RMaung (WMF) 17:37, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights SurveyEdit

RMaung (WMF) 19:53, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Kirche in TremmenEdit

The church in Tremmen does not belong to the Roman catholic church. It is registered as church of EKBO Tremmen in Gemeindesuche

Hans G. Oberlack (talk) 23:44, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Hebron (Q168225)Edit

Hello Arch2all, about your edits on Hebron (Q168225) please see Talk:Q168225. Thanks --Alaa :)..! 14:59, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect addition of archINFORMEdit

Hi, I noticed that your bot re-added an archINFORM project ID (P5383) statement to Duke University (Q168751) after I deliberately removed it. #8041 on archINFORM refers to Duke Chapel (Q5312747), not the university itself. I wonder if perhaps your bot could be configured to refrain from adding statements that violate constraints; adding this statement violated the distinct values constaint and the type constraint of P5383. –IagoQnsi (talk) 18:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Indeed the bot doesn't check constraint issues, but I do this manually with SPARQL queries on an irregular base for P5383. If you notice other wrong archINFORM entries, you can post them here for a faster fix. --Arch2all (talk) 19:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Charles Downing LayEdit

Can you share where the identification of this painting is disputed? The Smithsonian has identified it as C. D. Lay. [4]. Gamaliel (talk) 16:58, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

The identification is indeed not disputed, but P18 ist not suited for the works from a certain person. It should be used for images of the person (portrait of/not from C.D. Lay). --Arch2all (talk) 17:06, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
It is an image of C. D. Lay. The portrait is by his father, Oliver Ingraham Lay. Gamaliel (talk) 17:11, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Oops, I only looked at the title "Charles Downing Lay, Portrait of the Artist's Son (ca. 1881-1883).jpg" and thought the image is from C.D. Lay portraiting his son. Sorry. I restored the old state of P18 --Arch2all (talk) 17:19, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! The title is a bit ambiguous, I will change it on Commons. Gamaliel (talk) 17:20, 11 January 2021 (UTC)