Ein Dahmer

Welcome to Wikidata, Ein Dahmer!

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) 17:54, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Mississippi Queen

Regarding this revert: commons:Category:Mississippi Queen (ship, 1987) is still unconnected, and Queen (Q63676401) does already have another Commons sitelink. Maybe those categories are kind of duplicates or categorization mistakes at Commons, but you cannot simply remove one of the sitelinks and leave it unconnected. Quite likely that there will be some bot which creates another new duplicated item for it. So can you please solve this duplication problem at Commons, or re-add the sitelink to Category:Mississippi Queen (ship, 1987) (Q63648354)? —MisterSynergy (talk) 16:03, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Moin, so richtig verstehe ich das Problem nicht. Üblicherweise werden bei Schiffen mit einer Schiffsnummer (IMO oder ENI) Wikidataobjekte zu den Schiffsnummerkategorien angelegt. Das ist bei Queen (Q63676401) der Fall und verlinkt zusätzlich auf den deutschsprachigen Artikel. Category:Mississippi Queen (ship, 1987) (Q63648354) ist in der Tat nicht verknüpft und müsste gelöscht werden. --Ein Dahmer (talk) 18:12, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Müsste dann nicht auch die Commons-Kategorie gelöscht werden? —MisterSynergy (talk) 19:31, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Welche Commons-Kategorie? Möglicherweise liegt hier ein Verständnisproblem vor: Schiffe erhalten mit dem Bau eine Schiffsnummer, vergleichbar mit der Fahrgestellnummer eines Kfz. Wie bei einem Kfz, kann sich der Eigner und bei Schiffen insbesondere auch der Schiffsname ändern. Aus diesem Grund ist es überaus sinnvoll und gängige Praxis, die einzelnen Schiffsnamenkategorien unter der Schiffsnummerkategorie zu bündeln, siehe zum Beispiel Astoria (Q1934435). Vor diesem Hintergrund ist Category:Mississippi Queen (ship, 1987) (Q63648354) wahrscheinlich von einem bot generierter Datenmüll. --Ein Dahmer (talk) 19:52, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Das Objekt wurde von User:Clemens Stockner angelegt, augenscheinlich nicht bot-generiert. Ich kenne mich in dem Bereich nicht sonderlich aus, aber letztlich haben wir folgende Lösungsoptionen: Sitelink wieder zu Q63648354 ergänzen, oder Löschantrag auf das Objekt stellen und dafür sorgen, dass für die Kategorie in Zukunft nicht erneut ein Objekt angelegt wird. —MisterSynergy (talk) 20:27, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Ich will ja nicht jammern, aber warum du, Ein Dahmer, in Wikidata einen Tag später eine Neuanlage gemacht hast anstatt einfach mein Datenobjekt weiter zu bearbeiten, ist mir ein Rätsel. Sinnvolle Praxis ist das für mich nicht. --Clemens Stockner (talk) 08:27, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Ah, ich denke, das Problem rührt daher, dass es bei Schiffen eben zwei Commons-Kategorien gibt und ich (scheinbar) die „falsche“ verlinkt habe. Aber sollte diese Schiffsnummer einmal neu vergeben werden, macht die Verlinkung so doch keinen Sinn mehr, oder sehe ich das falsch? --Clemens Stockner (talk) 08:36, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

MV Wakashio

Hi, Ein Dahmer. There's a ship, the MV Wakashio, known around the world right now as the MV Wakashio. And so you decided in your wisdom the best thing to do would be to change its item's label to its IMO number and DELETE ALTOGETHER the name by which it is known around the world. That does not seem to me to be a very useful thing to do; indeed, given the IMO is already a property of the item, and used by precisely no-one as the common name of the ship, it seems wholly counterproductive. See also Help:Label: "The label is the most common name that the item would be known by." --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:42, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but you haven't seen the main problem. There are two wikidata sets for this desaster: Q98114907 (linked to ca, de, fr, ja) and Q98138630 (linked to ca, en, es, fr, hi, pt, zh). I tried to solve this problem, but there must be a hidden link that I haven't found yet. According to NKK the ship's name is Wakashio, MV is only a prefix. --Ein Dahmer (talk) 13:12, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Help:Label: A label is like a page title, but is the smallest unit of information that names an item (e.g. "Paris", not "Paris, France"), so Wakashio is correct, MV Wakashio not! --Ein Dahmer (talk) 17:55, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Q99739786

Hallo. Eine Frage zu den Schiffstypen. Die Oder-Klasse (Q17616853) sind doch Eisbrecher? Was ist an "ist ein(e) (P31): Eisbrecher (Q14978)" falsch?
Der Hersteller "Gebr. Wiemann" ist der Vorläufer von "Ernst Thälmann Werft" - Q1497107, sollter der einschließlich Baunummer nicht genannt werden?
Die neueste Versin von Q1497107 meldet unter "Schiffsklasse" und "Herstellungsort" Probleme, wie ist damit umzugehen?
Viele Grüße Georgfotoart (talk) 20:07, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Moin Georgfotoart, bei der Oder-Klasse (Q17616853) handelt es sich um eine Schiffsklasse und nicht um einen Schiffstyp. Die Werft "Gebr. Wiemann" hat in den 1940er Jahre aufgehört zu existieren und kann somit nicht der Hersteller eines Schiffes von 1958 sein! Die Verlinkung mit Q1497107 ist historisch falsch und darf, wenn man korrekt editiert, für Neubauten des "VEB Ernst Thälmann Werft" nicht verwendet werden. Dafür müsste ein eigener Wikidatensatz kreiert werden. Gruß von der Küste --Ein Dahmer (talk) 20:36, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Vielen Dank Georgfotoart (talk) 20:40, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

IMO number and ship name

Hi, you have reverted one of my edits, replacing ship name with IMO number. I have now reinserted the changes, as best practice is to use the current ship name as label, and IMO number as alias. Former names can be added as aliases as well. The reason so many ship elements are using IMO number as label is that the elements have been imported in a batch (without considering the ship names), and I have run a script to change the label to the ship name by using the Commons Category attached. --Cavernia (talk) 12:44, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are wrong: Creating a new data set, the IMO number appears as default, not the ships name! The name of the ship is the title for the subsequent Wikimedia category. Your scripts are often incomplete, e.g. changing the port of registry without changing the country of registry is more confusing than helpful. Please try more class than mass. --Ein Dahmer (talk) 18:58, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Please refer to consensus about this. --Cavernia (talk) 21:49, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Can you please stop the reverting of home ports immediately? The items I ran the script on had the wrong entry of Majuro set, now you are reinserting the wrong entries. --Cavernia (talk) 20:49, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

No, because you are definitely wrong and superficial with your scripts! --Ein Dahmer (talk) 20:55, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Then please explain why about 800 ships were registered with Majuro (Q12919) before I started migrating the 172 ships that were registered with Majuro Atoll (Q14523617). --Cavernia (talk) 21:19, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but I feel only responsible for my created data sets. If there are „about 800 ships“ with an incorrect port of registry, you should change these ones. Fact is: The capital of the Marshall Islands is Majuro and not Majuro-Atoll. Majuro is always written on the stern of the ship and in the resp. ship registers (for example [1]). The Commonscat is also titled as Ships registered in Majuro and Majuro-Atoll makes no sense in the wikidata infobox. We had this discussion a couple of months ago, but it's unfortunately forgotten. --Ein Dahmer (talk) 21:41, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Please link to the discussion you refer to. Only German and one other languages point to Majuro (Q12919) as the atoll and to Majuro Atoll (Q14523617) as the city, the rest of the languages refer to the capital (and the atoll). This situation is not unique, in Norway we have separate items for city and municipality, but at least contributors agree to use the same item for all the ships instead of splitting them into several items. --Cavernia (talk) 21:59, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Rufzeichen

Hallo, hier noch ein Hinweis zu IMO 9285823. Die Funkrufzeichen für Schiffe sind an den jeweiligen Schiffsnamen und den Eigner gebunden, aber nicht an die IMO-Nummer. D.h., jedesmal, wenn ein Schiff umbenannt wird, braucht es auch eine neue Funkkennung. Ich habe daher das Rufzeichen aus IMO 9285823 wieder entfernt. SVXS war das Rufzeichen für Irene SL und da wir für diesen Namen hier noch keinen Eintrag haben, brauchen wir das Rufzeichen auch erstmal nicht zu verwenden. De728631 (talk) 16:58, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Was mir auch aufgefallen ist, waren der Heimathafen und der Flaggenstaat als Eintrag auf der IMO-Seite. Auch das wechselt ja gegebenenfalls mehrfach im Laufe eines Schiffslebens. Gibt es da eine Übereinkunft, dass wir diese Daten immer auf der IMO-Seite pflegen und ggf. aktualisieren, oder sollte man das nicht besser bei den Schiffsnamen eintüten? De728631 (talk) 17:34, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Siehe auch Special:WhatLinksHere/Property:P587 und den Konflikt nach Einfügen mehrerer MMSIs auf der IMO-Seite [2]. Die MMSI und das Rufzeichen gehören da eigentlich nicht hin, sondern zum Eintrag des Schiffsnamens. De728631 (talk) 18:04, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Moin De728631, zum ersten Absatz „hot agree“. Zum zweiten Absatz: Die Programmierer von Wikidata haben sich etwas ausgedacht, womit wir jetzt leben müssen. Ich habe mal versuchweise einen Registerhafen bei einem Wikimedia-Kategorie-Datensatz eingegeben und sofort einen Problemhinweis erhalten. Bringt also nichts. Übrigens: Wikidata leidet unter einem großen Bot-Problem, bei dem mit unsauberen QuickStatements Vernunft beleidigende Einträge generiert werden. Gruß --Ein Dahmer (talk) 18:58, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Was ich meine, ist das hier: port of registry/country of registry. Nicht in der Category:Name eintragen sondern im item "Name". De728631 (talk) 19:16, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Das habe ich gerade erklärt, dass diese Einträge nicht gewollt sind! --Ein Dahmer (talk) 19:21, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Das sehe ich eben nicht so. Wo genau wurde das beschlossen? Und wenn man sich die Verlinkung von country of registry und port of registry anschaut, ist das auch eindeutig der Schiffsname. Zur Klärung werde ich aber mal auf Wikidata talk:WikiProject Ships nachfragen. De728631 (talk) 19:34, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Ja, das ist ein guter Ansatz! --Ein Dahmer (talk) 19:41, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Wahrschau! Diskussion voraus!

Skjoldnæs

Please note that Skjoldnæs (Q12325488) was originally named after the danish article. If you want an IMO item, please create another wikidata item. Also please note that I think the current system for categorizing ships is horrible, because it's making unnecessarily hard to figure out which WP articles are associated to which Commons categories. There's rarely a direct link now, like there is with almost everything else.--Hjart (talk) 11:08, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry Hjart, not the system is horrible. The IMO number is one of the unchangeable facts of a ship, the ships name may change. That's the reason for the Commons IMO categories and their subsequent ship name categories. Wikidata should reflect this system and creating a new IMO item, the IMO number of the commons category appears as default entry and not the ships name. So, who is wrong now? --Ein Dahmer (talk) 11:35, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I've been watching the system for a few years now and I really think the Commons IMO category system should be scrapped entirely. Humans can have their names changed too, move to different countries, have new jobs etc. That doesn't mean we identify them primarily by some random ID. Rather than try to make wikidata "reflect" a horribly outdated system, I think the system should be changed to exploit the advantages of wikidata. --Hjart (talk) 11:46, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

M/F Tunøfærgen

Please note that I have reverted some of your changes to M/F Tunøfærgen (Q12325489). The label must match that of the Wikipedia label, because otherwise we will not be able to easily recognise the wikidata item. IMO numbers belong in IMO ship number (P458), not anywhere else. They should never be used for labels.--Hjart (talk) 05:48, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Also please note that I have just changed ~2300 English Wikimedia category (Q4167836) labels back to "Category:*".--Hjart (talk) 07:12, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello Hjart, your statement that IMO numbers should never be used for labels is contrary to the Template:IMOcat, especially if a ship has several names during its lifetime.

Another problem of Wikidata are incoherent entries, e.g. port of registry not in the country of registry or obsolete entries from ships that already have been scrapped! As long as you and other users reverts correct entries by quickstatements, Wikidata will never be what it will be, a reliable database. What a pity! --Ein Dahmer (talk) 14:03, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Where exactly on commons:Template:IMOcat do you see that? I think you are reading it wrong. Hjart (talk) 14:22, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Also, sorry but your system unfortunately ignores the needs of other wikidata users. Hjart (talk) 14:23, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Either the programmer or you are wrong: Creating a new item the category name appears as default entry without the prefix Category:*, also IMO numbers! So, it's not my system and you should start a learning process! Please help Wikidata with the focus on corrections of incoherent data, for example Q52338480 - Monrovia as port of Denmark - also caused by a quickstatement. --Ein Dahmer (talk) 08:25, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Normally when a new wikidata item is created from an empty Commons infobox, it's correct to remove the "Category:". However, when the new wikidata item is intended to be a Wikimedia category (Q4167836), it's better that the label starts with "Category:". The system unfortunately can not know the intention beforehand, so in the case of Wikimedia category (Q4167836)s we have to either manually or programmatically add "Category:" to the (en) labels afterwards. In the case of Sea Power (Q52338480) please tip Cavernia. We all try our best and we all make mistakes in the process.--Hjart (talk) 09:12, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

MV Dunedin Star

Why do you destroy valid data? Hjart (talk) 15:51, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Please note that the MV Dunedin Star (Q155660) was originally about the ship built in 1935 (see enwiki) and that the item was later hijacked by mistake. All the data that claims it was built in 1950 etc. should be reverted. Hjart (talk) 15:58, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Your reverts seems to be vandalism! If you have a proper look to the ship with this IMO number, it could never be the described ship in the linked articles. It was built in 1950 and after your reverts it has taken part in the Second World War, what a nonsense. So calm yourself down and have a look to this [3]. --Ein Dahmer (talk) 16:06, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

BS. Again this item was originally about the the WW2 ship (See the history and the first creation). I've created another item for the successor. Hjart (talk) 16:16, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Ship out of service

Hi, it seems that we have realized the same problem at the same time, thousands of ship elements miss an end date. Even better would it be if we could agree about which property to use and how to use qualifiers. I have used service retirement (P730) and then the qualifier has cause (P828) to add information about the cause (ship breaking (Q336332), shipwrecking (Q906512), ship collision (Q2192508) etc). I have used service retirement (P730) because it is the complementary property (P8882) of service entry (P729) which is used to identify the year when the ship was delivered from the yard.

Now I realize that you also want to include the place where the ship is scrapped, which is excellent, and my first thought then was to use location (P276) to indicate if the ship was scrapped at Alang Ship Breaking Yard (Q336318) or somewhere else. I see that you have used end time (P582) and qualifier end cause (P1534), and I would appreciate your considerations about this before importing more data. Cavernia (talk) 19:16, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello Cavernia, the reason for using end time (P582) is, that this is the final fate of a ship. service retirement (P730) may be only for a period (laid up or due for sale) and service retirement (P730) and end time (P582) are often not in the same year, see German training ship Deutschland (Q872210). And please do me a favor, don't use horrible quickstatements for importing more data. --Ein Dahmer (talk) 14:45, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I have established the discussion at the Project Ships. What is wrong with QuickStatements? --Cavernia (talk) 15:49, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

@Ein Dahmer I don't see what's so "horrible" about QuickStatements either. Please explain. Hjart (talk) 18:03, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

For example changing country of registry (P8047) without changing port of registry (P532) or adding country of registry (P8047) for ships that already have been scrapped. QuickStatements should be used accurate and not to push own contributions. --Ein Dahmer (talk) 20:46, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

That doesn't mean QuickStatements is "horrible". You can maybe criticize some users for failing to consider some aspects of the system, but I really think it's a mistake to criticize the use of QuickStatements. I've been using QuickStatements quite a lot myself and in my experience there's quite a lot of work on Wikidata which can realistically only be done with the use of tools like that. Also, personally I don't understand what's wrong about adding country of registry (P8047) for all ships. Hjart (talk) 21:02, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

The charm with Wikidata is that the data quality relies on the data quality of the sources. As country of registry (P8047) and port of registry (P532) changes, it is a possibility that the source is only updated for one of the values, but it doesn't mean that the value is wrong. There is nothing wrong with adding country of registry (P8047) and port of registry (P532) to a scrapped ship as this is a part of the history of the ship, but of course it would be more clarifying if we know the years the ship sailed under a specific flag, and can add that as qualifiers. Of course, using QuickStatements to generate duplicate items or entries is bad, but that's related to the contributor using the tool, not the tool itself. --Cavernia (talk) 10:56, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

So we have a different understanding about the displayed entries in the Wikidata infobox. A scrapped ship isn't registered anywhere! Hot agree with you about the tool: Yes, it works accurate when the contributor works proper, but this is unfortunately very often not given. --Ein Dahmer (talk) 15:20, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@Ein Dahmer Scrapped ships used to be registered. Rather than delete country of registry (P8047) etc. we would really prefer if you added end dates, so we can see in the infoboxes when it was registerede where. Also please that it's very possible (and common) to introduce errors when doing manual edits. Finally the whole point of Wikidata actually is to have an environment, which is fairly easy to query and/or modify using semi-automatic tools. Hjart (talk) 17:02, 22 November 2022 (UTC)