Logo of Wikidata

Welcome to Wikidata, Cavernia!

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! Jon Harald Søby (talk) 18:02, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Personlig rekordEdit

Hei Cavernia. Dette med personal best (P2415) igjen. Se gjerne på hvilke kvalifikatorer som er brukt ved denne propertien på Wikidata-eksempelet: Usain Bolt (Q1189), med bruk av for eksempel propertien sports discipline competed in (P2416), location (P276) og point in time (P585). For mere komplett info på wikidata. Med vennlig hilsen Migrant (talk) 19:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Ja, jeg er klar over det, men de kildene jeg legger inn fra nå mangler stort sett disse ekstra parametrene, dermed må det tas en ny runde for å få komplettert disse. Må også se nærmere på hvordan rekordene skal hentes inn i malen infoboks sportbiografi ettersom det ikke ser så skapelig ut i f.eks. artikkelen om nevnte Usain Bolt. Jeg har prøvd å finne ut om disse hentes automatisk i andre wikier, men dessverre ikke funnet det. --Cavernia (talk) 20:09, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Beklager at jeg glemte bort å svare igjen... Men veldig flott at du prøver å finne ut en mulig måte og løse det på ? er spent på om du finner ut av det. Lykke til !! Ps. Mulig tips for å finne ut av mulig bruk fra wikidata, om mulig noe tungvint kanskje, men prøv å følg noen av redigeringene til de som var mest for å inkludere propertien på wikidata ved opprettelsen av den her. Med vennlig hilsen Migrant (talk) 23:39, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Prøvde tipset ditt, fikk god respons, men svaret var deprimerende. Det er tilsynelatende ikke utviklet noen mekanisme for å hente qualifiers fra Wikidata. Trenger noen med kompetanse på Lua. --Cavernia (talk) 22:09, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Flott med respons da men... og dessverre så kan ikke jeg heller noe særlig Lua. Med vennlig hilsen Migrant (talk) 00:24, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Ikke helt uventet at man blir stående igjen med Lua i hånden. --Cavernia (talk) 08:13, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Why are you adding incomplete info about ski jumpers personal records? It should contain not only distance but also a place and date. 99kerob (talk) 12:53, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Sure, but when the source is not complete it takes time to locate this additional information. The most important thing is to update the personal record, as this information is directly used in Wikipedia articles. --Cavernia (talk) 13:02, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

sport (P641) for sportspersons…Edit

Hey Cavernia, I see that you are currently adding lots of sport (P641) claims for sportspersons. This is actually the wrong way to relate these persons to a particular type of sport, please use occupation (P106) instead. sport (P641) does not add any value to sportsperson items, it just unnecessarily bloats them up… Regards, MisterSynergy (talk) 07:45, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Frankly, I expect you to be responsive during massive imports. I am later going to ask you to remove all the P641:Q159354 claims again (I spent a lot of work to get it the way it was). This way you just add unnecessary load to servers and watchlists… —MisterSynergy (talk) 08:03, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
This property was in use for about half of all sports athletes already (and about 90 % of all football players), and it is automatically picked up by the biography infobox in nowiki (i guess other languages too). Therefore the property is relevant as I see it. --Cavernia (talk) 08:42, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
This P641 usage in sportsperson items, particularly about football players, is a leftover of early Wikidata times, when many users did not understand how to use P106 correctly. This has changed meanwhile, thus P641 should not be systematically imported for sportspersons any longer. If Wikipedia infoboxes rely on that, they are poorly designed and should be changed to P106 usage instead. Wikidata would otherwise become overloaded with problematic claims such as this one.
The problem in this case is that P641 does not carry any useful meaning in sportsperson items. It does not tell you anything about the role a person has or had in the type of sport, which is given as the value. It could in fact be anything, such as an elite athlete, a coach, official, researcher, umpire, club owner, equipment supplier, casual supporter, inventor of this type of sport, whatever… . If a person is only known for their achievements in one type of sport, this might not be a problem. There are many persons, however, who have achieved notability in more than one type of sport in different roles, and P641 usage is the perfect path to make plain false claims about these persons. Thus, P641 should no longer be systematically used in sportspersons, not even in infoboxes. —MisterSynergy (talk) 08:55, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
I did a quick check of volleyball players (which I haven't touched), 3165 athletes have not P641 defined, and 1909 athletes have it defined. For cross country skiing it is 723/1094. I can't see any consensus for your view in the discussion page, and the documentation of the property even includes an athletes as an example of how to use the property. If you still mean that this is the wrong use of the property, you should address it in the project chat and get consensus for a change in the property definition. --Cavernia (talk) 09:08, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
There are detailed instructions in Property talk:P641 how (not) to use it, and I contributed a lot to those instructions after many discussions with different editors, also at WD:PC. The main reason not to forbid this property on sportspersons (i.e. exclude persons from domain) is that a couple of users use it to tag items without any claims, so that more experienced users can find this item and improve it. A full ban would somewhat de-legalize this useful edit behavior. Still, P641 is unable to express useful meaning for sportspersons, and it even does not provide any useful handles for queries. In properly maintained items it is nothing else than a useless burden; it has the potential to make false claims about the person described by the item; it also motivates data users (Wikipedias and externals) to use sub-optimal queries for their applications, just as it is the case with the infobox mentioned by you. —MisterSynergy (talk) 09:20, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Again, please refer to consensus about this, or else your claims are just personal opinions. --Cavernia (talk) 09:31, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
This is consensus, and the help section on Property talk:P641 is a consequence of this consensus. —MisterSynergy (talk) 09:34, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
OK, please show me this consensus you refer to there. --Cavernia (talk) 12:10, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
This consensus was not found in a single discussion, thus I cannot refer to a single section or site. It was even discussed several times over a prolonged time frame of more than a year, involving the input of several users. Yet it finally resulted in the creation of a dedicated help page for P641 in September 2016, which clearly states that P641 is far from optimal in many situations, sometimes even harmful due to its inherent ambiguity. It also offers options which properties shall be used instead, depending on the item’s entity. The creation of the help page was publicly accounced on Property talk:P641, and all interested users were invited to participate in this process. Since then, no massive P641 imports have been performed, as users are advised to check property talk pages before imports anyway.
Besides this formal notice on the property’s talk page there is still the ambiguous nature of these claims. They are not specific enough to express their intended meaning in all situations, which potentially results in false claims upon usage; their vast amount also encourages data users to rely on these claims, rather than querying better data which is already available at Wikidata. The longer we accept those problematic imports, the worse the situation becomes, and the more difficult it becomes to solve it at all at some point. A crappy Wikidata with tons of problematic legacy data from more or less ancient times is a horror scenario which we should avoid in every single edit we perform here. —MisterSynergy (talk) 13:02, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
The message about this is still more ambigous than the use of the property P641 theoretically could be. I totally agree that this is not the optimal solution, but Wikidata is far from optimal as there for example is no way to automatically pick up qualifiers. The use of P641 is even less controversial as P106 as P106 often refers to the person's career after the sports career is over (see Q669709). To use this property to describe which sport the person has performed would not work. The only major problem I see with this is that it is in conflict with the anti-redundancy principle, but as long as we don't have functionality to make use of inherited statements, this is the way to do it. The best solutions would be to change P106 to "Athlete" or "Sportsperson" and then use P641 to define which sport(s) the person has performed. Most of the athletes from before 1980 were not professionals and had a regular job in addition to their sports career, and this makes your Armagheddon scenario much more adequat for P106 compared to P641. --Cavernia (talk) 15:27, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Response in two parts:
  • P106 is not about professional occupations or regular jobs; it is about regular (paid or unpaid) notable activities during a person’s life. Granularity within its values is valuable to easily query items, thus it is the perfect property for our goal here exactly in the way it is used.
  • Wikidata data is read by machines, not by humans. This involves querying in some way, typically either by template programming (in Wikipedias) or via the Wikidata Query Service (external data users). In both ways it is fairly simple to gain additional information about a given value. For instance, all sportsperson occupations have a field of this occupation (P425) claim set, which links them to their particular type of sport, and additionally all of them subclass athlete (Q2066131). This way it is easy to distinguish between sports-related P106 values which are useful for a sportsperson infobox (for instance) and those unrelated ones which are not.
Regards, MisterSynergy (talk) 16:01, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Workshop om WikidataEdit

Hei, jeg veit ikke om du har fått det med deg, men jeg og Wikimedia Norge skal holde en workshop 18. november om Wikidata-relaterte verktøy, og siden du er ganske aktiv her så tenkte jeg kanskje det kunne være interessant for deg? Om du bor utafor Oslo-området kan Wikimedia Norge også dekke reiseutgifter. Du kan lese mer her, og si fra om det virker interessant! Jon Harald Søby (WMNO) (talk) 11:58, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global surveyEdit

WMF Surveys, 18:57, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia surveyEdit

WMF Surveys, 01:40, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

DS «Suevic» / SkytterenEdit

God aften! Jeg ser at du har satt på Brutto Tonn lik 12 531 for . Etter det jeg finner på f.eks LARDEX så er 12 531 der oppgitt som Brutto Register Tonn. gross tonnage (P1093) gjelder for Brutto Tonn som er volumet av alle lukkede rom på fartøyet ref International Convention on Tonnage Measurement of Ships (Q1979787) multiplisert med en faktor, mens Brutto Register Tonn er tonnasje målt etter Oslokonvensjonen av 1947. Mvh Pmt (talk) 22:07, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Hei, du har selvsagt helt rett, her har jeg hentet tonnasje for en lang rekke fartøy uten å oppdage at flere av dem hadde anført BRT i stedet for BT. Disse er nå reversert. --Cavernia (talk) 19:46, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Edit on Ingrid Halstensen (Q59923468)Edit

Hello fellow contributor! Your latest edit on Ingrid Halstensen (Q59923468) is much appreciated. But there is missing a reference to the site where you found her date of birth (P569). Hope you could take care of that at a time suitable to you. Keep up the good work. Regards Premeditated (talk) 23:37, 25 December 2018 (UTC)


Hei Cavernia. Denne redigeringen blir feil i mine øyne siden Norges Skøyteforbund kaller dette for hurtigløp og ikke skøyteløp på langbane. PS. Jeg er forøvrig litt usikker på hvordan gjøre forskjell på overkategorien for kortbaneløp og hurtigløp på skøyter for noe om det finnes noe annet begrep enn det samme som for hurtigløp. Kortbaneløp i Norge har jo aldri vært stort, så det er godt mulig det ikke finnes noe slikt godt innarbeidet begrep. Med vennlig hilsen Migrant (talk) 00:19, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Ja, jeg var obs på problemstillingen. Ettersom kortbaneløp i praksis ikke eksisterer i Norge tenker alle - inkludert skøyteforbundet - på skøyteløp som hurtigløp på langbane. Wikidata er imidlertid ikke et norsk prosjekt, og poenget her er å skille hurtigløp på langbane fra hurtigløp på kortbane. En mulig mellomløsning er å bruke beskrivelsesfeltet til å presisere at dette er skøyteløp slik det normalt oppfattes i Norge. --Cavernia (talk) 07:28, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Ja eller lengdeløp som noen påstår. Ikke enig i å skjære alle over en kam angående kortbaneløp i skøyteforbundet. jeg er forøvrig i gang med en diskusjon med Bruker lil2mas/Theilert om dette temaet på brukersiden til Løken samt at jeg også har lagt ut et spørsmål på facebook-gruppen Forum for skøytehistorie. Ps. Jeg var offisiell svingdommer under no:Sprint-VM på skøyter 1997 på Hamar, så har en relativt god innsikt i skøytesporten. Med vennlig hilsen Migrant (talk) 21:48, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights SurveyEdit

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

statement remove requestEdit

Please remove native label (P1705) from Ukrainian Wikipedia (Q199698), since already available as official name (P1448). Thanks!!! -- 19:14, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not involved there, maybe you should try the general project discussion? --Cavernia (talk) 19:18, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights SurveyEdit

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

More care needed on authors of HEP papersEdit

Hi - I just noticed that a few months ago you replaced "F. Zhang" on a number of high energy physics papers with Feng Zhang (Q47305434). However, that person is a genetics researcher, and was not an author on any of those papers. I'm working on fixing this case so don't worry about that, but in general I'd urge you to exercise a bit more care in matching up authors on these papers where we have many authors with common surnames and only an initial for first name. Thanks! ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:26, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, Chinese researcher is the worst area I've been into. I've used the tool Author Disambiguator to do these changes only on matching studies, which means that the researchers were mixed up in another study in the first place, or there are several researchers with these initials who did research together with the same researcher. Unfortunately, the quality of imported data on researchers is poor, there are thousands of dublets which are very timeconsuming to fix. Thanks a lot for you effort to try to lift the quality here! --Cavernia (talk) 17:41, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Roll back batch #temporary_batch_1581973851693Edit

country (P17) should not be used on ships as it is a geographic property. Use country of origin (P495) instead. /ℇsquilo 15:35, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

@Esquilo: Thanks for addressing this issue. I agree that country (P17) is not the ideal property to use. However, country of origin (P495) would not be any better, as the data don't reflect where the ship was built, but the country it's registered in. The only reason why I'm using country (P17) is that this has been the consensus so far, only 9 ship items use country of origin (P495). I have considered proposing Country of registry as a new property, this would solve this issue. --Cavernia (talk) 19:52, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
I agree that country (P17) is used in a lot of places where it should not be used (just like P107 (P107) used to be). There is the property port of registry (P532) that is supposed to be used to describe where a ship is registered. By the way, I realize I forgot to put a "please" in my original request. It was not supposed to sound like an order. /ℇsquilo 20:03, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
@Esquilo: Sure, the proposed property will reflect port of registry (P532) as located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) reflects country (P17). Then it could be argued that we don't need both properties, but in many cases we don't know which port the ship was registered in, only under which flag it was sailing. A port can as well change country, i.e. a ship registered in Rostock from 1985 to 1995 would have been sailing under two different flags. Regarding «please»; been there, done that ;-) --Cavernia (talk) 20:24, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Is it too bold to put flag image (P41) directly in a ship object? It will be nessesary anyway for ships that fly flags nobody else have, like Category:Götheborg (ship, 2005) (Q55290899). /ℇsquilo 06:48, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Interesting idea. But again, this could be interpreted that the flag is representing the ship. Not sure if this is the solution, and it would be difficult to retrieve the parameter from infoboxes at Wikipedia. I have now proposed a new property, appreciating your considerations there. --Cavernia (talk) 08:35, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
How will this proposed property handle navy ships? In many nations they fly a different flag from merchant ships (which in turn can fly a different flag from the state flag)? /ℇsquilo 12:30, 20 February 2020 (UTC)