User talk:Bencemac/Archive 1

Welcome to Wikidata, Bencemac!

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! Jon Harald Søby (talk) 07:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Q435809

You can't use monument (Q4989906) in heritage designation (P1435), monument (Q4989906) is about a monument in the steet or a place for commemorating a event or a person. heritage designation (P1435) is for a legal status, like classified historical monument (Q10387684), national historic site of Canada (Q1568567) or National Register of Historic Places listed place (Q19558910). The solution, if the legal statuses of Hungary (Q28) don't exist in Wikidata is to create a item for this status. --Fralambert (talk) 22:31, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

@Fralambert: The building of the school is a monument, see „védettség – műemléki védelem“ or the Hungarian article's infobox. „monument (Q4989906) is about a monument in the steet“ – this is exactly the case, the school's legal status is monument (Q4989906) (műemlék in Hungarian). I've reverted your edit. Bencemac (talk) 14:24, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I understand the problem. It seem to be a interwiki problem. The Hungarian wiki should have is own item, since it don't have the deffinition of the other language. Il created historic monument of Hungary (Q52064171) and moved the huwiki link into it. --Fralambert (talk) 01:08, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

@Fralambert: I still cannot understand why monument (Q4989906) is not applicable in this case: if I see right, the English article's and the Hungarian one's subject is exactly the same. Furthermore, with creating historic monument of Hungary (Q52064171), the Hungarian article currently doesn't have interwikis, which is a huge problem. The school is a „historical building“, so I truly don't understand what the problem is with monument (Q4989906). Bencemac (talk) 08:49, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

The Engish or French deffinition is about a three dimentional sculpture done in the purpose for commemorating a event and a person. The deffinition of the Hungarian Wiki seem nearer of heritage site (Q358). Not having interwiki is no a problem, National Register of Historic Places listed place (Q19558910) don't have interwiki. Having is own item have some advantage, like having a link to c:Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Hungary instead of c:Category:Monuments and memorials. --Fralambert (talk) 12:19, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I'd ask Rlevente's opinion, who is very experienced about Hungarian monuments. My biggest fair is that if monument (Q4989906) is not suitable for Hungarian buildings, then we have to fix every affected items (which use it). @Rlevente: Megtennéd, hogy átolvasod a szakaszt? Amennyiben monument (Q4989906) valóban nem használható épületek heritage designation (P1435) értékeként, javítanunk kell mindenhol. Sajnos nem vagyok hozzáértő, ezért bízom benne, hogy tudsz segíteni. Bencemac (talk) 12:44, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Szia, első ránézésre úgy tűnik, a műemlék és az emlékmű keveredik. Angolul mindkettő monument. Végig kell olvasni a hivatkozásokat, akkor tudok érdemben hozzászólni, de most nincs időm. Lehet, hogy @Samat: is tud segíteni. --Rlevente (talk) 12:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Na, végigolvastam és -kattintgattam a fentieket. A fő probléma az, hogy a Q4989906 (angolul monument) elem tévesen lett műemléknek nevezve magyarul. Ez emlékmű kellene, hogy legyen, és ezért nem is szabad használni örökségvédelmi besorolásként. Hogy miben különbözik a Q5003624 (angolul memorial) elemtől, azt nem tudom, ennyire nem tudok jól angolul. Talán @Csigabi: tud segíteni, ő jó angolos és a Wikidatát is ismeri. --Rlevente (talk) 13:01, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

@Rlevente: szerintem is az a probléma, hogy a monument (Q4989906) az az emlékmű, köztéri szobor stb. Most hirtelen nem tudtam jobban elmerülni a kérdésben, csak megnéztem pár osztrák műemléket példának, hogyan szerepelnek a Wikidatában. Nekem úgy tűnik, hogy a műemlékre a instance of (P31)-nél a cultural property (Q2065736) a használatos, plusz a heritage designation (P1435)-re a Listed objects in Austria (Q1188447). Samat (talk) 21:25, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

the person is still alive, don't add P570

well P570 was set to no value which, i think, means is alive. just having it not set indicates, we don't know it. Don't you agree? --Shisma (talk) 17:51, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

@Shisma: If the person is alive, why do we need date of death (P570)? P570 is needed after he died. We spotted Alexander Gerst (Q71248) (and many others) during a small campaign when we had fixed huwiki articles about living people and their items with date of death (P570) and place of death (P20). Bencemac (talk) 18:15, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

to distinguish missing data from non-existent data. however someone in the irc noted, somewhat correctly I think, no value should be reserved for cases where no value will be true forever. Maybe we should add no value and the date someone checked for the last time :D --Shisma (talk) 19:48, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Ovi és az alma mater

Szia! Az angol Wikipédia szerint alma mater = this is largely referring to a school or university from which an individual has graduated. Ovi a Pembroke College-ot nem végezte el. Jó lenne, ha törölnéd a bejegyzésedet. Köszi. Csigabi (talk) 19:14, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

@Csigabi: A kérdéses állítás 2013-ban került bele, én csak bővítettem (ha már arra jártam). Ezek szerint educated at (P69) nem használható ösztöndíjas, pár szemeszternyi tanulmányokra sem? Bencemac (talk) 19:29, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Látod, ezt nem tudom, de Ovi idő előtt otthagyta azt az oktatási intézményt. Nem kapott ott semmiféle diplomát. Csigabi (talk) 19:32, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Kiszedtem. Elég frusztráló, hogy nem tudok megadni szerkesztési összefoglalót. Bencemac (talk) 19:39, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Macskass

Itt valamit nagyon elnéztél. :-) --Regasterios (talk) 13:50, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@Regasterios: '16-ban az eszköz még gyengélkedett a nem-Commonsos képek felismerésében, ezért vakon elhitte, hogy az infobox képe egyenlő a Commonsban lévővel. A mai viszonyokhoz képest akkor kőkorszaki állapotok uralkodtak, ezért is es(het)tek meg hasonlók. Bencemac (talk) 14:14, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Statement deletion

What's wrong with the statement you deleted at [1]. Are you aware of Help:Ranking#Deprecated rank ? If you delete correctly evaluated references from Wikidata, people are bound to repeat these errors.
--- Jura 08:49, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

@Jura1: It appeared on the “dead on Wikidata, alive on Hungarian Wikipedia” list. I do not think that adding hoaxes to living people's items is a good idea (see Wikidata:Living people). Then we should add these false information every time a famous person “dies”, right? You should ask page protection if somebody (or some people) constantly vandalises an item. Bencemac (talk) 13:52, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

• The query you are using makes an incorrect assumption about Wikidata's data model. Deprecated statements are not considered correct statements. Please re-read Help:Ranking#Deprecated rank. Here is a corrected version of the query [2].
  --- Jura 15:12, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

• Please refrain from deleting deprecated statements.
  --- Jura 22:02, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Zoltán Szentirmai (Q1296964)'s death date was imported from Commons without any source. [3] and [4] says that he is still alive. It was not an “error ”or “outdated knowledge”, it was unsourced false information on a living person's item. See Wikidata:Living people. Bencemac (talk) 16:14, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

• It's an error. So please treat it as such. We really going in circles if you expect us to re-assess it every time we come across it.
  --- Jura 16:18, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

No, it is not. Unsourced (and probably false) information made in a living person's item are not errors. For example, Mario Ochoa (Q509602)' death date was probably vandalism and needed Spanish user's help to remove it. Bencemac (talk) 17:19, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

• I probably repeat myself, but deprecation marks the statements as being incorrect.
  --- Jura 18:54, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Szerzetesrend

Szia! Mit értesz "egyházi rend" alatt? Ez a kifejezés alapesetben valami egész mást jelent, lásd [5]. Emiatt én elég félrevezetőnek érzem a használatát. --Antissimo (talk) 08:17, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

@Antissimo: Lásd Wikidata item of this property (P1629): religious order (Q2061186), en:Religious order. Ahogy látom, elég nagy a kavarodás a magyar címkék és interwikik között; a tulajdonság olyan vallásokat is „kiszolgál”, amelyekben nincs szerzetesség. Bencemac (talk) 08:33, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Én ez alapján úgy látom, hogy a "szerzetesrend" mindenképpen pontosabb név lenne, mert a tulajdonság definíciója és a "tulajdonsághoz kapcsolódó elem" is erre mutat. Az angol "religious order" is ezt jelenti. (Az "egyházi rend" magyarul a papi rendet jelenti, ami biztosan nem egyezik az elem tartalmával). --Antissimo (talk) 08:42, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

@Antissimo: Technikailag bármelyik néven meg lehet találni a tulajdonságot, de ha át akarjuk nevezni, mindenképp érdemes lenne ellenőrizni a kapcsolódó szócikkekés párosításait; jó lenne ezt felvetni valahol. Bencemac (talk) 18:47, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Átpörgettem a "mi hivatkozik erre" első 2500 találatát, és random megnéztem belőle néhány tucatot. Kb. 95%-ban katolikus szerzetesrendekhez kapcsolódó elemek (szerzetesek, kolostorok, intézmények), ill. néhány buddhista.
Mivel az "egyházi rend" (a google segítségét is kérve) csak mint "papi rend", illetve szórványosan mint történelmileg az egyháziakból álló (feudális) rend használatos, ebben a kontextusban hibás és félrevezető, ezért törlöm. (Csak a status quo miatt ne őrizgessünk egy félrefordítást...)
A tulajdonság helyes neve egyértelműen "szerzetesrend", erre utal a tulajdonság definíciója, a "tulajdonsághoz kapcsolódó elem" ami a szerzetesrend szócikkre mutat, valamint a példák is csak ilyet tartalmaznak. Üdv: --Antissimo (talk) 21:10, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Q26877490

Hi Bencemac,

Thanks for your fixes to instances of above. To reduce this, I think I had added it based on a category that included mostly these, but also a few others. Retrospectively a bad idea. Can you spot others on [6]?
--- Jura 11:21, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

@Jura1: Most of them are okay, but I think I will check them one by one and add properties too; slowly but surely, 117 items do not look that many. Bencemac (talk) 12:01, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

@Jura1:  Done. Bencemac (talk) 15:35, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Congratulations, Dear Administrator!

English | español | français | Nederlands | русский | +/−

An offering for our new administrator from your comrades... (our gift is better than the one at Commons or Meta)

You have your gun; now here's your badge: {{User admin}}/{{#babel:admin}} and {{Admin topicon}}. Enjoy!

Congratulations! You now have the rights of administrator on Wikidata. Please take a moment to read the Wikidata:Administrators page and watchlist related pages (in particular Wikidata:Project chat, Wikidata:Requests for comment, and Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard), before launching yourself into page deletions, page protections, account blockings, or modifications of protected pages.

Please feel free to join us on IRC: #wikidata-admin @ irc.freenode.net. If you need access, you can flag someone down at @ irc.freenode.net. You may find Wikidata:Guide to Adminship to be useful reading. You may also want to consider adding yourself to meta:Template:Wikidata/Ambassadors, and to any similar page on your home wiki if one exists. (Check Wikipedia:Wikidata/Wikidatans (Q14964498).)

Please also add/update the languages you speak to your listing at Wikidata:List of administrators. You may also like to add your username to this list if you would not like that items you delete at RfD get marked as deleted automatically. Again, welcome to the admin corps!

--Ymblanter (talk) 20:00, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: Thank you! I think I finished my first steps (documentation, etc.) but if I do not completely, please let me know. Bencemac (talk) 07:07, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Törlések

Szia! Ma töröltél egy rakat magyar vonatkozású elemet. Ezeket azért törölted, mert nem volt róluk szócikk? Van köztük, amely ettől még nevezetes a második pont alapján, ezeket vissza kellene állítani. Ilyen például a Q29552496, de potenciálisan akármennyi lehet. – Máté (talk) 18:44, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Q26827094 szócikke dettó nem a nevezetesség hiánya miatt lett törölve, csak a szócikk minősége volt gyenge. – Máté (talk) 18:50, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

@Máté: Az elemeket azért töröltem, mert nem mutatott rájuk hivatkozás, illetve oldalhivatkozás sem volt kapcsolva. Death Waltz (Q29552496) valóban kérdéses; helyreállítom és törlésre jelölöm, a későbbiekre precedensként alkalmazom. Loránd Mertz (Q26827094) esete már más, mert vonatkozik rá az élő személyek elemeinek irányelve. A cikk törlésével eltűnt az elem ellenőrizhető „forrása”, eddigi tapasztalataim szerint hasonló elemeket törölni szoktuk. Bencemac (talk) 07:02, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Az eddigi tapasztalataim szernt, akkor töröljük, ha üres a megmaradt elem vagy kvázi üres. Az (oldal)hivatkozás nem szükséges feltétele a nevezetességnek. A második pontot, a megbízható forrással leírhatóságat az a gyanúm, hogy a legtöbb elem teljesíthette. Ezt most nincs kapacitásom ellenőrizni. Valamint szeretném felhívni a figyelmed, hogy az imént nem egy irányelvre, hanem egy irányelvtervezetre hivatkoztál félrevezetően. – Máté (talk) 08:49, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Az irányelv: Wikidata:Living people. Bencemac (talk) 08:57, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Menten jobb, köszönöm :). Ezek alapján viszont nekem úgy tűnik, hogy nem az elemet kell törölni az egyébként nevezetes személyeknél, csak azokat a forrásolatlan tulajdonságokat az elemről, amelyek sérthetik az alany magánélethez való jogait. – Máté (talk) 19:02, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Please restore Loránd Mertz (Q26827094) / Loránd Mertz / This item is listed in several catalogs, including in VIAF and ISNI. You broke the backlinks from them. Wikidata:Notability: "It refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity. The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references. " ISNI and VIAF are serious and publicly available references, or do you think they are not? VIAF: http://viaf.org/viaf/121395818, ISNI: http://isni.org/isni/0000000079488993 85.181.253.66 23:28, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Bencemac (talk) 17:55, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Q202307

Why you have revert edits? There is a source for that! --151.49.89.130 19:10, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

You wrote that she had one AND two children at the same time between 1972 and 1979, which is nonsense. Furthermore, as the warning and the documentation says “end time is not a valid qualifier for number of children”. Do not add false statements and not valid qualifiers. Bencemac (talk) 17:45, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Her first child born in 1939 and dead in 1979, the second child born in 1972...--151.95.10.85 18:01, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I know but number of children (P1971) is still just a number, not a person. We do not mark with that property that “children number 1 lived from X till Y”. Bencemac (talk) 07:34, 23 August 2018 (UTC)