Specifically I'm asking Q67012972 and Q66901184, both Hong Kong (Q8646) and Macau (Q14773) are not countries, so why do you link both by country (P17)? Are you supporting Hong Kong independence movement (Q113301) and independence of Macau (Q41517526)?
User talk:Bouzinac
About this board
Welcome to Wikidata, Bouzinac!
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) 09:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Previous discussion was archived at User talk:Bouzinac/Archive 1 on 2018-08-08.
?!? There are for time being checkpoints between HG + Macao and mainland China so there is a kind of border. The same with Q67374552 ... whilst Martinique (Q17054) is not independent...
In that example, I see applies to jurisdiction (P1001) is used instead of country (P17), so I decide to change HK+MO as P1001 values.
Que penses-tu de la conversion des codes liés à l'aviation proposée à Wikidata:Project_chat#Proposals_to_change_data_types?
A l'époque, on les avait laissé en "string" car certains sont régulièrement ré-attribués et d'autres utilisés pour différents entités en même temps.
Si cette modification implique que le code IATA soit totalement unique alors non... car ça bouge avec le temps exemple IST s'appliquait à Istanbul ataturk jusqu'en 2018 et ensuite "Istanbul airport (le nouveau)"
Et puis aussi certains aéroports sont partagés entre le militaire et le civil et le code IATA s'applique aux deux en même temps...
Share your experience in this survey
Hi V7p6yjkxb8bqhk50,
A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.
Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.
This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).
Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.
Sincerely,
RMaung (WMF) 19:54, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi. I would like to elaborate on this. While it might not be necessarily wrong to say that instance of boundary marker is part of political border (Q1292279) class, it's still rather meaningless. That's why I removed this claim. It's similar to saying that London is part of territorial entity (Q1496967) instead of saying that it's part of United Kingdom, or that church bell Joseph (Q54801176) is part of church building (Q16970) instead of saying that it's part of Saint Amand's Church in Uitkerke. We are dealing with abstract and concrete objects, i.e. classes and instances on Wikidata. Considering this distinction it makes more sense that parts of an abstract object are also abstract and parts of a concete object are also concrete. So boundary marker (Q921099) would be part of (political) border class and if there will be an entity on border between Palupera and Aakre municipalites than Q18625187 would be part of it. niUitkerke. itkerke
Hi there, It is useful to have political border (Q1292279) on this, to help separate between "true" political and international borders (such as this list If you remove MINUS { ?item p:P361 [ps:P361 wd:Q1292279 ; pq:P576 ?P576 ] . }, you will have too many borders that are not really international borders markers, hence I put Q1292279 on Q18625187.
So you consider political border as not international border, eventhough international border is a subclass of political border? That seems arbitrary and counter-productive to me. There must be better and self-evident ways to separate between international and non-international boundary markers. E.g. you might want to introduce separate items "international boundary marker" and "sub-country boundary marker", or alike. Or, in your query, to get only international boundary markers (and other international transborder entities), then you might want to simply query objects that are part of an object which is an instance of international border (Q12413618), like this.
Hello, I want to talk about such edits too. I believe that political border (Q1292279) is about boundaries between states, not intra-boundaries. Most sitelinks say so. If de-article is about another, it should be moved somewhere.
Hello, ok I've created this one Q67457910 so as to keep political border (Q1292279) more "upper level border"
Share your experience in this survey
Hi V72pggsoo1szf6xt,
The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with Wikidata and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.
Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.
This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).
Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.
Sincerely,
RMaung (WMF) 17:38, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
About Special:Diff/1008945153. This item nonetheless is about the current settlement which is not divided by national border. You might be seeking for Walk (Q991548) which is about historical town. Though, that one might be about pre-national border era.
The nowadays Valga/Valka will be forever a divided city by a border. People might feel they're in their own country but the city is a result of a division. About Lutepää (Q2028146), I don't agree with you removing the border town (Q902814) because the border has an impact on the life in this village (you have to drive the road carefully and cannot wander in the countryside as a butterfly, because Russian guards are there.
Theoretically, yes, there is an urban area which is divided by a border. But Valga (Q193905) is specifically about settlement in Estonia, it has designated area in Estonia and only in Estonia. Similarly Valka (Q323774) is on Latvian side. If sources discuss this cross-border urban area as distinct from historical Walk and it's a notable entity, then you might consider creating a separate item for it.
As for Lutepää, firstly, not all settlements are towns or cities. Lutepää is a small village. Secondly, impact that border has on this settlement is rather vague or imaginary. The entire area of Estonia is divided between settlements (mostly dispersed ones). The fact some of these settlements happen to be by the national border in itself doesn't make them different in any significant way. If a town is described that border town then this usually means that there's a check point or border otherwise has an import impact on town, say, economically. This is obviously not the case for all settlements that happen to be by the border.
Have you thought about adding values for this (in my opinion) underused property to items for various airports?
Hi Mahir, yes, I wish too it was densely populated amongst airports wikielements. See for instance Q583453
However, I am facing two problems for this property :
- how do I have a reliable file containing links between airports (+ companies) ? I'd be happy pushing it into the wikidata
- how can one update wikidata as it is very "fragile" information (closure/opening of schedules, airline bankrupcy,etc)
- what's the use for it? Since wikidata is disliked by wikipedia users... and hard to find a correct table(or Lua) template that would present a readable table with the sparql result for P521...
That's a pretty thorough import for that airport (though I wonder if P931 and P518 are better left on the items for the airports rather than as qualifiers). As for your points...
- I am going to go through some schedules for Indian airlines soon, and the first thing I do once I find a stable link to a schedule is save it in the Wayback Machine. That way there is at least a constant record of a flight between two places at a point in time that can be used as a reference.
- This is certainly a valid point which applies to many concepts besides airline destinations in Wikidata. I don't think there's a good way to avoid the volatility inherent in flight schedules, which can be affected by any of flight accidents as well as domestic and international affairs. If the bloat on airport items becomes too great for a single item when representing flight destinations, then finding a way to represent these consistently in tabular form may be necessary.
- (I'm sure @Joshbaumgartner: has a better answer than I do regarding the use of this property and @GZWDer: has a better answer than I do regarding the lack of use.) As to the latter part of your question, you're working on something here because you find a purpose for it, no? :-)
BTW, I have a gut feeling that you're using everything (Q2165236) improperly when importing patronages. (Linking to the metaphysical concept seems a bit strange.) Although I admit I'm not sure what a good alternative to this would be (in the same way that for e.g. populations there are different properties for various sub-populations), I'd suggest not using Q2165236 further and if possible changing it to something else. Feel free to ask around about it.
Hi @Mahir256: it's interesting that you wish to populate scheduled service destination (P521) for Indian airports .
Will you input on this basis for one airport (for instance Mumbai/BOM) :
P521={Delhi airport/DEL} operator (P137) = {airlines X and Y} applies to part (P518)={yearly}
P521={some other airport} operator (P137) ={airlines Z} applies to part (P518)={only on summer/season}
For your between remark, yes... some other people have raised an eyebrow... (discussion in French there: Topic:Ut1bx85v7iopca3l) still not closed. The trouble is that I wanted to populate Q with data from airport patronages. They are very often furnished with (international passengers/domestic passengers/grand total passengers). I thought it was a good idea using P518 = (everything (Q2165236)/rest of the world (Q61029267)/(the name of the country as domestic).
And now, so as to keep Wikidata simple, I only populate with the grand total :) If you have references (statistical institute or whatever) with data for Indian airports, I'd be happy to populate them. Sincerely
Hi Mahir256 (talk • contribs • logs), I've populated Indian airports with monthly traffic data, so that one can sum Jan-Dec for total years.
Hi, why are you giving Swedish airports the name of the city they are in or close to? Not good and confusing. Please revert.
Hi, I aliased them because it's easier to "OpenRefine" statistics among them (for example, file with only city name + IATA code more easy to update). Please note it's only in alias and not true name.
Thanks for the response. You got a point there ("... it's only in alias"), but I still think it is a poor alias. I understand "Barcelona" being an alias for "FC Barcelona", people say that. But I don't think one would say "JÖNKÖPING" when meaning the airport of that city.
Well… it's not me calling them "JONKOPING" but the swedish agency of statistics : see this : https://www.transportstyrelsen.se/sv/luftfart/Statistik/Flygplatsstatistik-/ Having them in alias helps Wikidata to find them when uploading data for these statistics.
Hello Bouzinac,
I do not understand why you declare the Bulgarian Empire a "subclass of" empire. This is a clear instance of "empire" as you correctly define. Thanks for the clarification. - FabC
Not a single Bulgarian empires. There has been several Bulgarian empires, see this :
SELECT ?empires_bulgares ?empires_bulgaresLabel WHERE {
SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE],en". }
?empires_bulgares wdt:P31 wd:Q2067184.}
hence the need to keep this as a subclass of empires.
If this is a class then many properties should be removed from the item: P571, P36, probably P140 (not single religion to many of empires), P576, P242, P41, P94 and they should go to specific instances of such empire. Are you sure in these changes?
Sounds good and well presented in https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-todo/tree.html?lang=en&q=Q6256&rp=279. May I suggest to remove "instance of" from Bulgarian Empire (Q2067184) ? That would keep separate and clean the class from the instances. Thanks and success!
ok
What do you think of Mediterranean countries (Q51576574), a bit bizarro, isn't it ?
It is. Please, see my note in the talk page "Talk:Q51576574".
And Western world (Q160381) ?
At least this one seems to be created by a bot. It is a concept, we can hardly identifies countries that belong to this class. And this is justified by the pages thank link to it https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Q160381: no country names. I would remove the "subclass of" statement.
The statement instance of Q3622002 is even more strange...
Je ne comprends pas la démarche. Tu mets « sous-classe » parce que tu considères qu’il y a eu plusieurs Empire perses ? L’utilisation de « valeur inconnue » me semble aussi un peu étrange, surtout que le qualificateur reste.
oui, il y a eu les sassanides, les afcharides, etc. il n'y a pas d'empire perse au sens "unique, continu";
j'ai mis valeur inconnue car je ne sais pas trop à quoi rattacher ce genre de page qui en fait recense les différents empires perse qui se sont succédés.