Logo of Wikidata

Welcome to Wikidata, Esquilo!

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!

--Bill william compton (talk) 11:24, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Mer än enEdit

Du vet att systemet tillåter mer än en coa i samma item? -- Lavallen (block) 09:50, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Ja, det är väl ganska få properties som är single-valued. Men bra att du påpekade det, då kan jag plocka in lilla riksvapnet där också. /Esquilo (talk) 10:38, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Om jag minns rätt så var det de båda jag lade in från början, varefter ngn bytte ut dem mot den du nu tog bort. -- Lavallen (block) 10:47, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Och nej, det finns nog ingen property som är single-valued, men det finns några där bara en enda är "rätt". Ingen fransk kommun har två kommunkoder tex. -- Lavallen (block) 11:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

P150 vs P527 etcEdit

contains administrative territorial entity (P150) är för administrativ indelning och has part (P527) är för icke-administrativ dito. (Knöligt, men det är så det fungerar på det här stället.) Samma sak med located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) respektive part of (P361) åt andra hållet.

located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) och part of (P361) hade jag koll på, men has part (P527) har jag inte använt. Kanske dags att börja med det.

Jag har haft mina funderingar på vad i Sverige som är "administrativt" och inte. Landet Sverige så klart och alla län och kommuner, samt även landsting/regioner.

För mig är det rätt självklart att Sverige är indelat i län (som administreras av en länsstyrelse). Länen är i sin tur indelade i kommuner. Somliga kommuner (som Stockholms kommun) är så stora att de i sin tur delar upp administrationen på kommundelar.

Sedan blir det genast mycket krångligare. Landskapen är inte administrativa. De kanske har varit det en gång (åtminstone de flesta), men inte idag, trots att de används flitigt fortfarande. Kanske går det att se landskapen relativt socknarna som "administrativa" så länge de relaterar till varann.

Därför använder jag aldrig landskapsindelning. Stockholm archipelago (Q764547) har jag velat dela in öar och fjärdar i, och då har jag använt part of (P361), just för att indelningen inte är administrativ.

Och nu till den lilla pudelkärnan där jag observerar dina redigeringar runt Stockholm. Stadsdels-/kommundel-områden som stöds av en stadsdels-/kommundelsnämnd tycker jag absolut passar att kalla "administrativ". De flesta kommuner har dock inte någon sådan, men det hindrar inte att man delar upp kommunen i "kommundelar" för det. Hur ska vi betrakta det, som "administrativ" eller "icke-administrativ"?

Om de har en kommundelsnämnd så är de administrativa, annars inte.

Sedan ser jag att du har under Enskede-Årsta-Vantör city district (Q606458) lagt ett antal mindre enheter, Bandhagen mfl. De här kanske är "icke-administrativa"?

Absolut, jag ändrar till has part (P527).

Sedan en lite observation runt användning av P132 (P132). Det är en fördel om vi kan vara så precisa som möjligt där. (I kontrast till allt annat som ska vara så generellt som möjligt.) Hellre "kommun i Sverige" än bara "kommun" tex. Jag tror att jag sett något så specifikt som "stadsdelar i Stockholm", så använd gärna det!

Varför det? När jag använder instance of (P31) så försöker jag verkligen vara så precis som möjligt, men när det gäller P132 (P132) så har jag svårt att förstå vitsen.
Resonerade nog som du i början, men man försöker specifiera att ett "county i Kalifornien" inte har mer gemensamt med ett "county i Massachusetts" än det har med ett "county i England". Varför förstår man nog när man översätter "County" till Svenska. Det blir liksom 'County' i USA, 'grevskap' i England, 'Powiat' i Polen, 'Oblast' i Ryssland och 'Län' i Sverige och Finland. I vissa länder/delstater har ett county omfattande självstyre, medan man i andra bara använder det för statistik. Det är på tvärs mot mycket annat, men det är så man arbetar. Jag har tom sett förslag på att det ska skapas två item för varje "ledare av den lokala förvaltningen". Låter som en mardröm: "Kommunalråd i Ale kommun", "Lista över kommunalråd i Ale kommun", "Kommunalråd i Alingsås kommun", etc.... Jag tror jag inte lägger så mycket möda där... -- Lavallen (block) 14:04, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Sedan passar kanske den här disken bättre på Wikidatas Bybrunn, men den är väl mer eller mindre stendöd... -- Lavallen (block) 13:39, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Jo, det är väl inte så många som har hittat hit ännu. Och de flesta som har gjort det redigerar i stort sett bara interwikidata. /Esquilo (talk) 13:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

LandstingenEdit

Re: detta.

Landstingen ger mig lite smått huvudvärk. De passar inte alls in i det system som man bygger här. Några andra ideer om var de ska ligga? -- Lavallen (block) 10:09, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Jag förstår det. Landstingen är rätt underliga djur. Jag skulle nog sätta executive body (P208) för den i stället. /Esquilo (talk) 10:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Hur tänk du då? De är ju egna organisationer... -- Lavallen (block) 10:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Äsch, nu blandade jag ihop landsting med länsstyrelser. /Esquilo (talk) 10:28, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Ja, det passar som en bra beskrivning på en länsstyrelse. Ett landsting känns mer geografilöst, som om landstinget bara existerar när man går in på en hälsocentral eller ett sjukhus, dvs som ett komplement till kommunerna, som har hand om andra uppgifter. Det är därför jag lade dem i samma nivå som primärkommunerna. Det sk-ter dock till sig när man ska beskriva hur landsting slås ihop och delas, eller hur Hallands landsting är uppdelat på två sjukvårdsregioner. -- Lavallen (block) 10:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Jag tror att det är så man får betrakta dem; Som geografilösa organisationer. Ungefär som vilket sjukvårds- eller lokaltrafikföretag som helst. /Esquilo (talk) 10:47, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Men hur åstadkommer man det förutom att byta ut P107 (P107) från "geografiskt" till "organisation"? Eftersom de är administrativa till sin karaktär blir det ändå under contains administrative territorial entity (P150) i respektive län, eller? -- Lavallen (block) 11:29, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Om ett landsting täcker flera län så kan väl inte län contains administrative territorial entity (P150) landsting? /Esquilo (talk) 11:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Det vet jag inte att det någonsin har förekommit, men det har förekommit flera landsting i ett län. Kalmar var uppdelat på två, Göteborgs kommun och tidigare Gbg stad mfl fungerade som Gotlands gör nu. -- Lavallen (block) 11:49, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Subclass and instance ofEdit

Hi! You have a reply here: User_talk:Danrok#.22instance_of.22_vs_.22subclass_of.22. Danrok (talk) 14:25, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I see you are still using the basic membership properties incorrectly, please read Help:Basic membership properties where the use of these properties is explained. Danrok (talk) 14:21, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
No I do not. If you think so, you have not understood them. /Esquilo (talk) 14:23, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Care to explain how this, Exocet, can be described as an instance? Danrok (talk) 15:11, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit-warringEdit

As I've explained at WD:AN, I will be forced to block you temporarily if you make any more reverts on Q177218. The same goes for Danrok, so I can assure you that this is an even-handed warning.

While we don't have a formal policy on the matter, behavior like this is obviously disruptive, and cannot be tolerated. Please use the article's talk page or the project chat to gain consensus, as opposed to reverting each other. Thanks. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 10:57, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning, I'll leave Q177218 unedited until this matter is resolved. /Esquilo (talk) 11:14, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
I see you are continuing to undo edits, see Tomahawk (Q150115). Exactly how have you resolved this? Danrok (talk) 02:29, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
I promised to refrain from editing Q177218. That is a promise I intend to keep. /Esquilo (talk) 07:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
You have not gained consensus regarding your undoing of edits to Tomahawk (Q150115), have you? Danrok (talk) 00:50, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Property:P624 "guidance system",Edit

Hi,

The above property is now available and can be used on items. I noticed you first proposed its creation. --  Docu  at 21:26, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! /Esquilo (talk) 07:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Q2594353Edit

Hello

I just found Q2594353 and I want to tell you that this is the best entry about ship what I found on Wikidata. Do you have other examples of "Featured Entries"? For example for destroyer? Or do you have liest of all properities for warships? PMG (talk) 21:51, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Also - I found your entry by this site Wikidata:Database reports/Constraint violations/P121. Probably this airplanes should be in Property:P520, because they were weapon of this ship. PMG (talk) 21:54, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I have tried to add data for all ships of the Swedish navy in Wikidata. You can have a look at HMS Halland (Q10513230) as an example of a destroyer. And no, I don't have any list of properities for warships. I use Wikidata:List of properties and apply properties that appear to be appropriate. /Esquilo (talk) 09:07, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Lake ID (Sweden) (P761)Edit

The property Lake ID (Sweden) (P761) that you first proposed is available now. --  Docu  at 14:38, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

There seem to be issue about me creating properties like the above, please see Wikidata:Administrators'_noticeboard#User:Docu_and_the_property_creator_permission. --  Docu  at 18:04, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

New propertyEdit

Hi,

One or several properties you proposed or supported are now available: pennant number (P879) --  Docu  at 22:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

has partEdit

Your use of 'has part' for ship classes is not very good. You should use instance of on the particular ships to specify that they are a particular kind of ship (and together compose the class). A better use, for example, might be "nuclear submarine" has part "nuclear reactor", because we need the subclasses and instances of 'nuclear submarine' to inherit the fact that the subclass has a nuclear reactor.

I started using subdivieds into, which made perfectly good sense untill someone launched the idea that P150 was for administrative subdivisions only. So I started using consists of which also made good sens until someone come up with a new usage for that property too. So what property am I supposed to use!? /Esquilo (talk) 06:49, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
None of the above. Don't make those claims, or anything of that sort, on the class pages. You should use instance of as a claim made on the particular boat/ship's page (as well as ship class, apparently; this is a duplication of data, but until ship class is deleted apparently a favored duplication...) to indicate that the boat belongs to the class. Which is another reason edits like this one are (also) incorrect; you should use the most specific claim for instance of/subclass of, and in this case, it should be instance of the particular ship class. --Izno (talk) 16:23, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
That, if any, is duplication of data. I know you voted for deletion of vessel class (P289) but it was not deleted. It is the property that should be used to specify the class membership of a ship.
Also, for Wikidata phase II to be usable for infoboxes regarding ship classes there must be a way to extract what ships that are members of a ship class. /Esquilo (talk) 08:45, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm fine with 'ship class' being used until such time as it is deleted (or if it's never deleted, so be it). However, the proper instance of claim for a particular watercraft uses the same claim as what would go in ship class. As for whether phase 2 works or not with the property, I believe that it is more than possible to do something like:
If instance of claim on the boat, follow that claim to the item. If that item has an instance of claim, and that instance of claim is "ship class", then the ship class of the boat is the same as the instance of claim. (This is also the same way you would get 'type' of ship, except you would look for subclass of on the parent item.)
But I'm not here to argue about ship class claims, I'm here to tell you that it's more appropriate to use instance of "class" item as the instance of claim on the boat item than to use a more general class, such as 'frigate'. :) --Izno (talk) 16:15, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
You missunderstand. If there is no claim in the ship class referring to the members of the class, it does not matter how many instances you follow, you will never extract that information anyway unless you use the "links to" function. /Esquilo (talk) 18:30, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
That's an API problem, not anything else. We shouldn't sacrifice the data model because the API doesn't support it (yet!). There are a number of bugs filed currently. And, actually, it is supported on the Wikibase repo (this wiki), just not on the clients. See the stuff they've been doing with the taxonomy task force, which has a working infobox on this wiki based only on the parent taxon claim. --Izno (talk) 00:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
No, it is a structure problem. All properties the describes tree-like membership structure should have a corresponding Inverse property. That is the reason structures like contains administrative territorial entity (P150) <=> located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) and part of (P361) <=> has part (P527) exist. /Esquilo (talk) 11:39, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Uh... no. There's no reason to have inverse properties and a large reason not to, the biggest of which is that it causes data duplication. It also causes items to get really large and have slow rendering (but this is a side reason). As for P150, that's only been kept at PFD by no-consensus !votes. You talk to me below of "if the consensus community doesn't need to explain itself", yet your only reason to claim its a structure problem is to say that those properties exist. That's a circular argument.
As I said for part of/has part, there are good reasons to have has part—if you have some quality that you would like a subclass or an instance to inherit, you would use has part. Example: nuclear submarine (Q757554) has part (P527) nuclear reactor (Q80877). All nuclear submarines have a nuclear reactor, which means that all instances of nuclear submarines have nuclear reactors. This is a useful place to use the 'has part' relation. (If we wanted to, we could do data validation for the property propulsion = nuclear propulsion claim this way, but that's a little further in the future probably.) --Izno (talk) 00:48, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
There is no inheritance-mechanism in Wikidata and I'm not going to pretend that there is one. Also nuclear submarine (Q757554) has part (P527) nuclear reactor (Q80877) is pretty useless as inheritance. has part (P527) nuclear reactor (Q80877) won't add any usable information to for example Los Angeles-class submarine (Q665249), while powered by (P516) S6G reactor (Q767482) does. /Esquilo (talk) 13:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
I've also started to revert your edits where you duplicate "instance of" and "ship class". Wikidata:List of properties/Generic says generic properties should not be used when there are more specific properties available. /Esquilo (talk) 05:55, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Unindent: And I've reverted (in a number of cases). I don't put much faith in what those lists says. We should follow best practice across the wiki, and that's the use of instance of. As I said, of course, until such time as "ship class" is deleted, instance of should duplicate the information there exactly. 1) This makes it easier to delete the ship class property later (deprecating ship type has been an absolute pain) and 2) it makes it easier for when we start doing queries in phase 3, and even now in phase 2, like Magnus' tool does. --Izno (talk) 17:51, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

That is definitly not the best practise. Virginia Woolf (Q40909) is not instance of (P31) writer (Q36180), she has occupation (P106) writer (Q36180). She will eventually be instance of (P31) person (Q215627) whenever (if ever) P107 (P107) is deleted. /Esquilo (talk) 06:24, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
There are good reasons for that, the largest of which is that there is a consensus to treat them in that fashion. Ships are not the same, because they do not have consensus (and I have seen multiple cases where mine would be the position agreed with). On top of that, The same information (more!) can be conveyed with a statement that a ship is an instance of a ship class than if the ship is an instance of generic type of ship. It also makes "what links here" much more convenient and easy to use—I should expect most things linking to "ship" or "attack submarine" to be classes of ships, rather than instances of ships or attack submarines. Which means that it is easier to run constraint checking. --Izno (talk) 22:40, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
On a side note, a writer is not necessarily a person. Odd thought perhaps, but no-less true because of it. That's another reason why we should use "person" (or "human"—see the current RFC on options) and the profession they choose. We lose no information by referring to a more specific class. --Izno (talk) 22:43, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

DescriptionEdit

Also, for English descriptions, do not start the description with an article, like 'a' or 'the'. --Izno (talk) 05:08, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes they do! There is no way a infobox-maker can have any idea whether the description-string should be prefixed to construct a gramatically correct sentence. /Esquilo (talk) 06:49, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Huh? See Help:Description, something which is basically a guideline at this point. The description string is not supposed to be a grammatically correct sentence. --Izno (talk) 16:23, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
The section "No initial articles" does not make any sense to me and the omission of initial articles are not motivated, so I'm going to ignore that guidline for the time being. /Esquilo (talk) 08:45, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Um... no. Guidelines are guidelines for a reason—they have broad community consensus. If you would like to discuss them to change them, please feel free. Ignoring them is not a choice you have.... (Though, given the lack of the equivalent guideline in several languages, there's obviously nothing to go by, say, for Swedish.) --Izno (talk) 16:15, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Consensus is not a reason. It is (evidently) fully possible to gain consensus for any random rule or guideline without any reason. Consensus is just a matter of how many people agree on it. /Esquilo (talk) 18:30, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Um.... You have apparently never edited on any Wikimedia wiki that I know of. Consensus is pretty much the standard. If you want to change a rule, then get consensus for the change. That's not negotiable. I don't care how—WD:RFC, or just use the talk page—but please abide by it until such time as your idea has consensus. Alternatively, start a guideline page for your own preferred language. There's nothing to say that English description rules and Swedish description rules must match. --Izno (talk) 00:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Every Wikipedia I'edited on have guidelines, but I am very surprised and very worried about the fact that Wikidata seems to be the only Wikimedia project where rules and guidelines does not include any reason of existence. If the consensus-making comunity on Wikidata does not have to justify their decisions it is extremly alarming. /Esquilo (talk) 06:17, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that page gives a reason.... Even if it doesn't, my reasons for it being that way are one) the description doesn't need to be a grammatically correct sentence; two) a/an/the are just fluff words if that's the case; and three) the description really only exists for the purpose of disambiguation. The extra words are unnecessary. --Izno (talk) 00:48, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
It does not, but if there is one I'll be more tham happy to add it. /Esquilo (talk) 13:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Udda disk, jag tror vi kan komma överens, utan komsomsnus och riktade linjer att en description på svenska ska kort beskriva ett objekt, främst för att särskilja det från andra objekt och få ett begrepp om vad det handlar om utan att gå till WP. Och din observation om att man på detta projekt ofta har riktlinjer utan tydligt syfte kan jag instämma i. Jag har försökt rösta emot där man försökt anta policys och riktlinjer där jag inte sett något behov av dem, specifikt engelska sidor, som den ovan, har jag dock inte lagt ngn möda på. Jag tror en del av användarna från de stora projekten känner sig vilsna här utan en hel bibel av direktiv. -- Lavallen (talk) 09:12, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

p910Edit

Grejt jobbat med P910 i svenska kommuner. Jag uppdaterade nu denna sida med den informationen, och du ser inte ut att ha hoppat över ngt. (Jag startade körningen innan du kommit till Ö.) -- Lavallen (talk) 08:26, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Tack! Jag har gjort samma genomgång av Sveriges län också. Jag tänkte fortsätta med länder någon annan dag. /Esquilo (talk) 08:55, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Gott, jag kan bekräfta efter senaste körning att alla 290 kommuner fick varsin P910. Jag plockar därför bort den kolumnen i nästa körning. -- Lavallen (talk) 12:55, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

svensk labelEdit

Förstår att du har engelska inställningar här, och det kan vara praktiskt. Men lägg gärna in svensk label i objekten också, åtminstone så länge det har någon beröring till svenska projekt! - Om du inte märkt det redan, så påverkar användandet av {{#Babel:en|sv|etc...}} användagränssnittet, vilket gör att man ser om det saknas label på ett för sig själv bekant språk. -- Lavallen (talk) 15:45, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Jag gick faktiskt igenom Stockholms stadsdelar igen idag och kollade att alla hade labels på svenska. Har jag glömt några? /Esquilo (talk) 16:16, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Det var då kanske en miss i Solna som jag råkade besöka! Shit happens... Jag är ovan vid att stalka andras bidragslistor.  . -- Lavallen (talk) 16:29, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

P706Edit

Hi, located on terrain feature (P706) should not be used with city areas, but only for landforms (waterbody, forest, etc), according to the current definition. Michiel1972 (talk) 15:09, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Then what property am I supposed tu use for city areas that are not administrative units? /Esquilo (talk) 15:12, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
For items in Stockholm I'll keep on using P706. The urban districts in Stockholm are well defined geographicaly (separated by water etc). /Esquilo (talk) 16:34, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

M vs mEdit

RE: Detta. Det ser i min watchlist ut som mr J ändrat i varenda en av de 290 kommunerna. -- Lavallen (talk) 13:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Solna kommun var inte ändrad när jag kollade nyss. Det var därför jag ändade tillbaka Stockholms kommun. /Esquilo (talk) 14:00, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Även det svenska namnet har lagts in som engelskt alias. -- Lavallen (talk) 14:31, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

P364Edit

När jag skriver "orginalspråk" som property så händer ingenting. Jag kommer aldrig dithän att jag tillåts fylla i något värde. Om jag istället fyller i P364 så får jag välja mellan "orginalspråk" och kommer därvid vidare. Jag vet inte vad det här strulet kommer av, men kanske att två properties råkat få samma "namn", så att mjukvaran varken vet ut eller in? Är du medveten om någon sådan ändring i någon property? -- Lavallen (talk) 08:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

P364 heter originalspråk, inte orginalspråk. Kan det vara det som spökar för dig? /ℇsquilo 08:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
:) -- Lavallen (talk) 10:29, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Resarö mfl...Edit

Enl Census 1960 (Q15056488) låg Resarö, Rydbo och Åkersberga i Österåkers landskommun per 1961. Om jag förstått saken rätt så följde Rydbo och Åkersberga med tillbaka till Österåkers kommun per 1983, men Resarö blev kvar i Vaxholm? -- Lavallen (talk) 15:25, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Resarö verkar i alla fall ha legat i Österåkers landskommun 1960, och idag ligger den i Vaxholms kommun. Jag har svårt att tänka mig att det här gått till på något annat sätt än det du beskriver. /ℇsquilo 15:44, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Jag tror för övrigt att vi på sikt kommer att tvingas dela på sådana objekt som Resarö. Ett objekt om både en ö och en tätort tror jag inte funkar att hålla isär begreppen om. (Folkmängd=X, Area=Y, men för ön eller tätorten?) Det pågår lite diskussioner på diverse platser om det, så vi får se vad som händer. Det betyder dock inte att vi måste dela upp WP-artikeln. Och det är ingen panik... -- Lavallen (talk) 16:13, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Det går att hålla isär begreppen med hjälp av applies to part (P518), men det tenderar att bli rätt rörigt. Det är helt klart bättre att ha olika objekt. Svwp har ett bra utgångsläge eftersom vi har olika artiklar om kommuner och deras huvudorter, något som många andra språkversioner inte har. /ℇsquilo 18:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
För Sverige, ja. Räcker att gå till Norge för att hitta problemet. -- Lavallen (talk) 19:11, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Merging itemsEdit

Hallo Esquilo,

For merging items, you may want to use the merge.js gadget from help page about merging. It has an option "Request deletion for extra items on RfD" to automatically place a request to delete the emptied page. This way of nominating makes it a lot easier for the admins to process the requests.

With regards, -      - (Cycn/talk) 10:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I very rearly merge items. I more often find redundant items and request the unused ones for deletion. /ℇsquilo 10:51, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
HAde själv problem med den där gadgeten. Lyckades inte lägga upp sidor på RfD utan att det hängde sig och inget blev som det sulle. Nu när jag är admin kan jag radera istället, det är inte alls lika buggigt, trots att jag använder samma gadget... -- Lavallen (talk) 11:04, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
The gadget will do the nominations for you (if you switch that option on) and makes it a lot easier for the admins to process them. -      - (Cycn/talk) 09:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
So does the RequestDeletion gadget that I use now. /ℇsquilo 11:53, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
I still need to delete the pages you nominate manually, I notice. So the "the RequestDeletion gadget that" you use does not seem to apply top the "and makes it a lot easier for the admins to process them."-part. But maybe that was an incident; gadget can fail from time to time. -      - (Cycn/talk) 13:54, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
So, how can I make it easier for you to process my deletion requests. Note: deletions, not merges. /ℇsquilo 14:01, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Using merge.js when you merge makes it easier to process the resulting request for deletions. If someone else merged the items allready (without using merge.js) without requesting a deletion of the emptied item and you're just trying to clean up, you can still use merge.js to clean up the empty item and have it place the nomination for you. - cycŋ - (talkcontribslogs) 10:22, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Just like Lavallen I could not make this gadet to work before, but I can give it another try. /ℇsquilo 10:29, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, now it works, but I fail to see the advantage. The page is listed on Wikidata:Requests for deletions just as before. /ℇsquilo 10:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

P1080 and P1441Edit

Please, do not add P:1080 with fictional works like in this. from narrative universe (P1080) should be used with fictional universes (see the constraints and the talk page). It's present in work (P1441) that should be used for indicate in which work the item appears. I corrected it but I would appreciate if you are more careful next time. Both P1080 and P1441 have 0 constraints violations in value now and I hope it can remain so. Many thanks! --Harmonia Amanda (talk) 10:21, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Wow! Thats the first property I've ever seen that has 0 constraints violations. Usually constraints violations counts in the thousands. Good work in upkeeping the datamodel. However, it is not easy to grasp how to properly apply a property that one never used before, (even after looking at the constraints on the discussion-page). /ℇsquilo 10:39, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Isn't ATGM an anti-tank weapon?Edit

Hello, Eskil. I'm perplexed by your edit. Could you please explain it? Thanks in advance. Ain92 (talk) 16:08, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

What is there to be perplexed about? You used the wrong property. By mistake or lack of knowledge about available properties I assume. Anyhow, anti-tank missile (Q282472) is not a subclass of anti-tank warfare (Q316936). use (P366) is the right property for this relationship. tank plinking (Q7683506) can be said to be a subclas of anti-tank warfare (Q316936), but not anti-tank missile (Q282472). /ℇsquilo 08:07, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
I understood now. This is because of mix of terms in the item: Commons category (P373), bg, ca, cs, da, es, nl, pt, ru, sk, sl, uk and probably some other interwikis are linked not to warfare but to weaponry. I know about named property and moreover about manifestation of (P1557). Is the latter appropriate in this and similar cases? Ain92 (talk) 21:50, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Yes the interwiki for anti-tank warfare (Q316936) is a bit messy. I think it needs to be split up just like armoured troop (Q18198588) and armored warfare (Q568312). /ℇsquilo 07:44, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Is there a gadget to split items conveniently? BTW, Category:Armoured warfare (Q8264442) have to be divided too. And what about the manifestation? Ain92 (talk) 15:35, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I know of no such tool, but I have made the split by hand as good as I can. I also looked att Special:WhatLinksHere/Q316936 and found that many of the items should link to anti-tank gun (Q1370129) instead. Regarding manifestation of (P1557) I don't use it because I have not figured out what it is for. /ℇsquilo 20:24, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Hej kurre!Edit

Såg din anmälan på sv:WP:RH om svenska kommuner. Jag tror inte det är mycket lönt att söka sådan hjälp där.

Vad sägs om att istället formulera frågan här? Alla som har någon av följade påståenden:

P31:Q127448 (svensk kommun)
P31:Q11722303 (d:o landskommun)
P31:Q13420058 (d:o municipalsamhälle)
P31:Q12015578 (d:o stadskommun)
P31:Q10697801 (d:o köpingskommun)

ska byta P155 mot P1365 och P156 mot 1366.

jag är den som skapade dessa före vi kommit så långt som till P1300, så kan jag nog gå i godo för att ändringarna behövs! -- Innocent bystander (talk) 11:47, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm, finns det något verktyg för att lista de som har de här uttrycken, för att försäkra sig om att de bara är lagda för svenska kommuner? -- Innocent bystander (talk) 17:15, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Red: subclass of colorEdit

May I ask why you removed https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q3142&type=revision&diff=178721472&oldid=178721399 from the color red (Q3142)? "Instance of color" does not really work together if "instance of human" means an individual human. There are no real "instances of a color" because a color is not an object. - The constraint violations Wikidata:Database_reports/Constraint_violations/P465#Format of sRGB color hex triplet (P465) also rely on all colors being a subclass of (P279) of color. - The statement "instance of primary color" seems more or less ok to me. --Tobias1984 (talk) 10:50, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Also for blue: https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q1088&type=revision&diff=178722320&oldid=178722271 --Tobias1984 (talk) 10:53, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Because colours with defined sRGB color hex triplet (P465) are instance of (P31), not subclass of (P279), in the color space (P929) RGB color space (Q375677). /ℇsquilo 11:19, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
An instance of the person means that there is only one such person in the universe. What does it mean to say "instance of color". The color can be used to paint many things and it is not an object which you can draw a border around. I don't understand the reasoning. --Tobias1984 (talk) 11:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
No, there is only one color with the RGB-code #FF0000. It is uniquely defined within the specified colorspace. /ℇsquilo 11:55, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
In any case I don't understand why you are removing one ontology from Wikidata. The project can accomodate multiple ontologies. For example heptane (Q150668) has an instance of statement, but it is also the subclass of many things. If you prefer defining colors with instance of (P31) that does not mean that subclass of (P279) statements should be removed. --Tobias1984 (talk) 12:26, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
I removed it because it was an incorrect statement. /ℇsquilo 12:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Why is it incorrect? Is it false to say that red (Q3142): subclass of (P279) = shade of red (Q7460345)? --Tobias1984 (talk) 13:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
If red (Q3142) has the property sRGB color hex triplet (P465) yes. However shade of red (Q7460345) is definitely a subgroup of color (Q1075). /ℇsquilo 13:28, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
I think an RFC is a good idea to find some consistency. If you have the time, I would be happy if you could particpate: Wikidata:Requests for comment/Are colors instance-of or subclass-of color --Tobias1984 (talk) 14:05, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Q8623600Edit

Hello! Why are you doing this? You're adding a statement that clearly doesn't belong there as it's only meant for person items: Catalogus Professorum Halensis ID (P2005). Jonathan Groß (talk) 07:31, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, did not realize I used the wrong property. When I press "C" in the property field I expect to get Commons category (P373), not Catalogus Professorum Halensis ID (P2005). /ℇsquilo 07:35, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
No problem, I can relate :) Jonathan Groß (talk) 11:16, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Kategori:K-märkta fartygEdit

Kategori:K-märkta fartyg ser ut att vara en av de kategorier som vanligen saknar P31/279. Finns det något lämpligt objekt att sätta efter P31 för hela denna kategori eller bör den handpåläggas? -- Innocent bystander (talk) 11:10, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Jaa, eftersom det är en kategori så är väl instance of (P31) Wikimedia category (Q4167836) ganska given, men du kanske menar något annat? /ℇsquilo 11:13, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Det är de drygt 50 oklassade medlemmarna jag syftar på, kategorisidorna själva sk-ter jag i. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 11:52, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Åh, förlåt. Det är kategorier jag har koncentrerat mig på de senaste veckorna, så jag har nog blivit lite insnöad på dem.
Det mest pricksäkra är nog att sätta instance of (P31) till den artikel som anges som "typ" i faktamallen. Man kan ju även sätta tugboat (Q191826) på alla artiklar i Kategori:Svenska bogserbåtar. Lämplig fallback tror jag blir att sätta steamboat (Q178193) för alla som har S/S i namnet och watercraft (Q1229765) för resten. /ℇsquilo 11:59, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Misstänkte det, då är Autolist2 som länkas här inte ett lämpligt verktyg. Jag har två sådana körningar i gång nu, avseende vattendrag i Angola. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 12:41, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
För bogserbåtarna så tror jag att Autolist2 gåt utmärkt att använda. Jag kan kolla på de som blir kvar så snart jag är klar med sv:Kategori:Wikipedia:Sidor med Commonscatmall där property P373 har ett annat värde än mallen /ℇsquilo 13:04, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
@Innocent bystander:: Nu har jag gått igenom alla fartyg i sv:Kategori:K-märkta fartyg och märkt upp dem på Wikidata. /ℇsquilo 18:01, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Navigation mapEdit

Hi Esquilo,

Thanks for your edit with the nautical chart item in Wikidata. I am trying to construct a map type hierarchy, see https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-todo/tree.html?q=4006&rp=279. The purpose will also be to be able to provide a list of possible values for a map type in Wikimedia Commons with the Map template (and thus classify the maps). I think you have a point in that the extra level could be useless. The nautical chart was in the tree at the same level with aeronautical chart, under navigation map (that I created based on text in English Wikipedia). I will need to reconsider how to place the aeronautical chart, shall I leave it under navigation map or directly under Map. I will appreciate any further input! Cheers, Susannaanas (talk) 11:09, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd prefer to have it directly under map (Q4006). For me it is evident that all maps can be used for navigation is some form. /ℇsquilo 08:18, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Two thingsEdit

Hej Esquilo,

please make a difference between locator map image (P242) and image (P18) (when playing wikidata-game).--Kopiersperre (talk) 08:48, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I will pay attention to that distinction. /ℇsquilo 11:46, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

And: yachting (Q3337306) is only in Swedish a disambiguation page. I think we should remove Båtsport from that item.--Kopiersperre (talk) 08:48, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

It was until a few days ago when I made the merge. Now it is a stub. The term is important when referred to as Båtsportkort and Båtsportled. /ℇsquilo 11:46, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

You cancelled my editsEdit

I did not undersrand why you have just cancelled 23 of my edit here on wikidata. What's wrong with them?--Stolbovsky (talk) 06:47, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

You can not link articles to categories. /ℇsquilo 06:57, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Ok, got it--Stolbovsky (talk) 09:51, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Cross-namespace interwiki is not allowedEdit

Hi, I saw you undid some of my edits with the "Cross-namespace interwiki is not allowed" description. I imagine the explanation is the same as you gave to the user above, and I'm obviously not contesting that. So my question is, to link a wikidata page to Commons, I have to greate a page in Commons? Thanks, --Amendola90 (talk) 09:27, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. It's a pitty there is no path directly from a Commons category to corresponding articles in Wikipedia, but when arbitrary access is introduced in Commons I hope there will be a category-header-template that handles that. /ℇsquilo 10:08, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

unitsEdit

Please use metre (Q11573) or another appropriate unit of length as unit for properties like focal height (P2923). --Laboramus (talk) 19:20, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Any example where I have not recently? I used to use height above mean sea level (Q6452016) in the begining, but I soon realized why it was a bad idea. /ℇsquilo 06:41, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
One problem is that the units are not linked in the GUI. It is therefor difficult to verify if you have used the intended item. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 10:07, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

revertsEdit

Hi, these edits your are reverting where made through connecting a commons cateogory to an article. This is how it works automatically from Commons. Why are you reverting these edits. PLEASE STOP and talk first, thanks! Ellywa (talk) 12:14, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

See answers to previous questions above. /ℇsquilo 13:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Please point to requirement for Commons link to be a galleryEdit

Hi. You have reverted Commons category to interwiki links. I have seen this linking done previously, and when there is no gallery, nor likely to be; in fact I have often done it for author work for the Wikisources. I understand that gallery links take priority, and that where there is a matching category that it will be moved. However, I do not see the guidance for its removal like you have done.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:24, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

In support of my above statement please see Wikidata:Wikimedia Commons/Development#Linking from Commons which supports my statements about the flexibility of the linking where choice exists. And to confirm that where a gallery exists at Commons that it takes precedence over a category; and that where a Wikidata category item exists that the category should be linked there, rather than the main subject. And in the absence of a gallery, or a category item, that linking the commonscat to the main subject is acceptable.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:47, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi Esquilo, as you do not appear to answer me nor Billinghurst after 10 minutes, I will revert your reverts... about 18 in total. Ellywa (talk) 12:36, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
TEN MINUTES!!? Do you expect me to answer you in TEN MINUTES? You can not be for real! /ℇsquilo 12:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
I remove your links in line with Wikidata guidlines. Mixing category and gallery interwiki links breaks link semantics. /ℇsquilo 12:50, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
In my opinion you have misinterpreted that decision, and are ignoring the policy statement at Wikidata:Wikimedia Commons/Development. The decision that you reference stated that there was insufficient consensus to enforce one view or the other. That discussion did not set a policy, and you need to refer to the existing statements to where I directed you. If you disagree then I ask for you to seek the guidance of the community at Wikidata:Project chat to the current consensus.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:06, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
This model has so far been supported by consensus. /ℇsquilo 13:09, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Wikidata:Wikimedia Commons/Development#Linking from Wikidata is the policy as set in 2014 and updated in 2015. It well supersedes the 2013 RFC and should be your current guidance. Your file image is not policy.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:12, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
FWIW the image that you referenced is exactly what I said above. The linking that you reverted is the allowed diagonal linking where no gallery exists.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:14, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
It is not my imgage. It was created by User:Jarekt to reflect the conclusion of the RFC. I can not find any consensus discussion leading up to Wikidata:Wikimedia Commons/Development#Linking from Wikidata. It looks more like something someone made up by his/her own. /ℇsquilo 13:16, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
You are not listening! The image shows you Wikidata:Wikimedia Commons/Development#Linking from Wikidata policy and it is what I have said above
  1. Where commons category to category item exists, link
  2. where commons gallery to item exists, link
  3. where 1 and 2 do not exist, then you can link commons category to item (the diagonal)
And that construct of the page is what the community has decided at Commons and here and is the policy. Like what the other communities have constructed at Wikidata:Wikisource ... and if you wish to dispute that as the existing policy, then please bring that to Wikidata:Project chat.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:26, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
I will dispute it as long as there is no consensus discussion about this procedure. Show me the discussion where consensus about cross-namespace interwiki links have been have gained acceptance and I will rest my case. /ℇsquilo 13:29, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Really??? You are going to quote a 2013 conversation as policy for how interwiki links are to be undertaken? Do I need to remind you that conversation you cite was about Commons Gallery and Commons Category links in the body of the item. Interwiki links for Commons were not introduced until mid 2015 (from memory), so your cited RFC is simply not pertinent and cannot be cited as "policy" for interwikis.

You pointed me to an image by one of my fellow Commons admins, and it shows clearly what I have been explaining. How else would like to interpret the diagonal lines from commonscat to wikidata item? It is an allowed linking. I again invite you to seek clarification in the project chat.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:38, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

For explanation, the way how this works currently: I added these links from Commons. For instance, if you look at a category without interwiki links, c:Category:Designers_of_jewellery_from_the_Netherlands and you click on the "add links" below left, the only choice one gets is to an article on an Wikipedia. So everyone is doing this in fact. There must be zillions of these links by now. In the articles on all wikipedia's a link to the commons category is made, which is very convenient. So at the one hand... persons are adding links on Commons... while you are reverting them on Wikidata. Where is the coordination? Ellywa (talk) 13:29, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

So, this is a praxis that have gained acceptance due to how the interface is designed rather than discussion leading to a thought out conclusion? /ℇsquilo 13:37, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
I do not know this - I am just a user, using the tools :-). Like you are using the revert tool :-). There is no policy you should start reverting work of another user without talking about it. Ellywa (talk) 13:43, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) None of my graphics in c:Category:Plots by Jarek Tuszynski (like File:Commons Interwiki links - with wikidata.svg or c:File:Commons-Wikidata links - 2015.svg) reflects conclusions of any RFC, but they were used as aid in various discussions about linking from Wikidata to Commons. They were representing several conflicting sachems proposed by participants. As far as I know there was never consensus on sitelinks from wikidata article pages to commons Categories, but there are huge numbers of them. I personally use them when I find them but try not to rely on them as they can disappear or be replaced by sitelink to a gallery page. --Jarekt (talk) 13:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Let me give you an example of why it is reasonable and practical. At Wikisource we will have works by an author, they are categorised, we would not construct a gallery for that, we would construct that bibliography at the Wikisource. Similarly for a work that has been transcribed, any illustrations would be categorised to a category, we would not build a gallery for those images at Commons as we already have a ready made gallery at Wikisource called the book, which is completely contextual. We want the interwiki at WD to allow for easy linking.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:44, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I rest my case. This discussion just confirms the immaturity and lack of though that have characterized Wikidata from the start and that I for quite some time have explained in the text on my userpage. As long as Wikidata does not have a well functioning and stringent data model it's probably best to stay away. So long. /ℇsquilo 14:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

This is a pity, online discussions are always unpleasant it seems. You will note my reverts, I cannot avoid that. Good luck on Sv Wikipedia. And don't bother the chaos.... Ellywa (talk) 14:09, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Preferred English description for lighthouses in SwedenEdit

Hi Esquilo, what description would you prefer? There are some sample formats listed at Wikidata:WikiProject_Lighthouses#Descriptions. I tried with counties, but my query that didn't quite work out. I could try once more, but how about including municipality and, if available, island?
--- Jura 13:02, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

For descriptions in swedish I have mosty used the form "lighthouse in <adm2>" (note adm2, not adm1). It should be possible to fetch that string directly from located in the administrative territorial entity (P131), don't you think? /ℇsquilo 13:11, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Sure, even adm1. The question is if for non-Swedes, adm1 is useful or not. Those reading Swedish probably don't need it. For France, I tried to include the department. A report checks it regularly.
--- Jura 13:25, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Well, for those not familiar with swedish geography neither adm1 nor adm2 will be of much help. Perhaps it would be better with something like "lighthouse on the swedish west/south/baltic/bothnian coast"? /ℇsquilo 13:51, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that could help. I'm not sure how to query that though. As it's fairly easy to amend the descriptions, I think I will start out with adm2. What do you think?
--- Jura 17:44, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
I think this sectioning of municipalities should do it:
West coast: Q511228, Q501424, Q501420, Q503173, Q501442, Q338752, Q501448, Q511438, Q511394, Q293928, Q52502, Q499380, Q179180, Q508168, Q504692, Q487502 and Q499464
South coast: Q255206, Q505013, Q487648, Q502298, Q513370, Q427991, Q186662, Q503361, Q511338, Q504219, Q515266, Q505102, Q504626, Q498857, Q514830, Q515409, Q510223, Q515373, Q1128384
Baltic coast: Q515551, Q508153, Q514756, Q515250, Q509546, Q505006, Q515477, Q509997, Q515680, Q504676, Q500267, Q505246, Q505064, Q516336 (south of 59.19°), Q505090, Q113718 (south of 59.19°), Q113692, Q113730, Q946647 (except Q39415691), Q506250 (east of 18.08°), Q3120654, Q113679, Q493066, Q117728, Q500090, Q493841 and Q214048.
South bothnian coast: Q59093, Q510198, Q59858, Q510010, Q145835, Q29963, Q514805, Q504994, Q504983, Q209634, Q514815, Q298003, Q514722, Q507709
North bothnian coast: Q507670, Q430780, Q507656, Q177019, Q117091 and Q510310.
Or is geographic box searches better? /ℇsquilo 19:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Looks good. Something like "lighthouse in Borgholm Municipality, Baltic coast, Sweden" could work. It might just be slightly off for lighthouses that are on islands or on a lake.
--- Jura 20:55, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that would be okey. There are only four municipalities that have lighthouses on both lakes and and the Baltic sea; Södertälje Municipality (Q516336), Botkyrka Municipality (Q113718), Stockholm Municipality (Q506250) and Nacka Municipality (Q946647). The first three have lighthouses in lake Mälaren, so they can be sorted out by filtering located in or next to body of water (P206) != Mälaren (Q184492). Nacka only have three lighthouses of which one (Järlasjön lighthouse (Q39415691)) is on a lake. /ℇsquilo 09:13, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Apart from them there are also lighthouses on the islands Gotland (Q1027830), Fårö (Q1004693) and Gotska Sandön (Q387843) (all belonging to Gotland Municipality (Q374794)) and on the four big lakes Vänern (Q173596), Vättern (Q188195), Mälaren (Q184492), Hjälmaren (Q211425). /ℇsquilo 09:21, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Here is an attempt: [].
--- Jura 09:52, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Looks good. /ℇsquilo 09:58, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Added 4 of the lakes as well: []. Still needs some work.
--- Jura 08:59, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
That looks great! I have to learn how to make the dots in different colors. That makes it easy to see where I have missed located in or next to body of water (P206).
I can see two lighthouses that are a bit "off". Q37915480 has been moved, so it shows up in the new location with the wrong colour. Q41549969 looks wrong too. Did I forget Håbo Municipality (Q511253) in the municipality list? /ℇsquilo 11:17, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
I added the new municipality in preferred rank for Q37915480. Here with Håbo Municipality (Q511253) and all lakes: [1]
I still need to the check "south of 59.19°". To color dots differently, it works with ?layer or ?layerLabel in the SELECT .. not sure how to set the actual color.
--- Jura 12:35, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Ah, Q41549969 was placed in wrong municipality. You don't need to bother about "south of 59.19°" if you use located in or next to body of water (P206). 59.19° is where the sluice in Södertälje is. Lighthouses north of there are all in Mälaren. /ℇsquilo 13:46, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

P31 > use (P366)Edit

Hi Esquilo, some time ago we moved values for approach lighthouse (Q37171269), coastal lighthouse (Q30448674) from P31 to P366. I wonder if we should do the same for sector light, lower light and upper light, e.g. at Q10431416.
--- Jura 17:08, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

For upper light (Q33129347) and lower light (Q33129345) it makes sense. But sector light (Q787078) has nothing to do with usage, it is a physical property. /ℇsquilo 17:13, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Not sure if that matters. I'd see it as a matter of fonction or light characteristics. If you rather have them in P31, I don't mind. I can change the other two.
--- Jura 06:10, 27 February 2018 (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)
Already did. /ℇsquilo 06:53, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

P5130 (P5130)Edit

Hello. This is the new property for islands. You should now use this instead of located on terrain feature (P706). Thierry Caro (talk) 10:51, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely not! Replacing located on terrain feature (P706) with P5130 (P5130) is a very bad idea! Several other users have questioned the use of this property at Property_talk:P5130. /ℇsquilo 10:53, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Please stop changing evertyhing and come back to the discussion first. Thierry Caro (talk) 10:56, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
If you feel that you really need a new property for location on islands, than add it, but you must absolutely not remove a well established property that is in use! I have to revert your changes. /ℇsquilo 10:59, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
We can change the templates still using located on terrain feature (P706). Please stop in between to make it easier. There's no emergency! Thierry Caro (talk) 11:02, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
No, it has to be located on terrain feature (P706). Lighthouses for example can be placed either on a island (Q23442) or a peninsula (Q34763). We can't have different properties to describe the location just because some of them happens to be on isles. /ℇsquilo 11:05, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
We can tell the template to pick one and then the other is the first one is missing. Thierry Caro (talk) 11:06, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Stop! Please! If you ignore others, others will ignore you! Thierry Caro (talk) 11:07, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
What are you doing, seriously? I've never met such a reckless behaviour here! Thierry Caro (talk) 11:08, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
If you break things, someone else have to fix them. /ℇsquilo 11:09, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Can you stop and just come to talk first? We need to find a solution to your problem and we can do that together. For the third time, which are the templates that have a problem? I'm starting to wonder if they do exist! Thierry Caro (talk) 11:11, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Wikidata:WikiProject Lighthouses/lists/lighthouses by country/Sweden. Same list exists for many other countries. /ℇsquilo 11:14, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. We can fix this, no problem. I'll be doing this in the coming days. Thierry Caro (talk) 11:16, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Note that I'm not removing P5130 (P5130). That would be disruptive. But neither should you remove located on terrain feature (P706) as long as it is in use. /ℇsquilo 11:17, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
It's disruptive to keep acting when told to stop. I've seen you do this and keep going after being told again at least twice. So you've lost part of your credibility on this. Also note that what you are putting back is now a deprecated way to store data – located on terrain feature (P706) should not be used for islands anymore – and you should expect to see your moves canceled within days or weeks, just because this will be part of a cleanup. You should have come to the table first. The question of peninsulas was a good one and we've just missed an opportunity to discuss this seriously because of your urge to ignore others, even for a few minutes. On top of that, the templates you've mentioned are not even on Wikipedia! Seriously, we should have talked. Thierry Caro (talk) 11:22, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
I sincerely doubt there is any consensus for deprecating located on terrain feature (P706). Only two votes for creating P5130 (P5130) does not look like there has been much discussion about this, and so is the comments at Property talk:P5130. Do you remember the controversy about deprecating the property "GND main"? /ℇsquilo 11:30, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
If you feel so, this is why we should have talked! You are preaching against your own behaviour, honestly. As for me, I think it's quite logical that located on terrain feature (P706) should go when P5130 (P5130) is there. The latter has been designed to clean located on terrain feature (P706) and from a reality-based point of view, well, if you're on an island you're on a 'terrain feature', whatever this is supposed to mean. That said, there might be some concern about the separation of similar items through different properties because one is on an island and another is not. So yeah, maybe the scope of the new property should be reviewed. Should it include peninsulas and island groups or should it accept strictly limited landmasses only, which means islands only? This is, I believe, where we have space to improve things. This said, I've had enough of this for today. Thierry Caro (talk) 11:41, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
That should have been done before removing a well-used property from thousands of items. The praxis is to revert to status quo when there is a controversy, and that means to restore located on terrain feature (P706). /ℇsquilo 11:45, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Nikon lensEdit

Hi, I think the Nikon Nikkor lenses should have two brand (P1716) values, Nikon (Q63868416) and Nikkor (Q2468852), since they typically seem to have both brands printed on the lens, and are also known as something like "Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor". Ghouston (talk) 22:56, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Ok, that will work. /ℇsquilo 06:14, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

integral lighthouse vs maison-phareEdit

Hi, "integral lighthouse" and "maison-phare" are not quite the same. An "integral lighthouse" is a ordinary house with a lantern usually on the top of the roof, they do not have a real tower see. "maison-phare" (as as defined in french wikipedia) are construction intended for the dwelling of the guards and their families with a tower lighthouse attached or surmounted by a lighthouse. In my opinion not all the "maison-phare" as defined in french wikipedia are "integral lighthouse". --JotaCartas (talk) 15:31, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Coastal batteryEdit

Hi. As I explained in edit summary (page history): military unit and fortification are different. You merged again without explanation. Why can't we have separate item for forifications? Currently we can't classify fortifications accurately. There are many coastal batteries for which military unit (military structure under someone's command) was disbanded long ago, but the fortification still exists in nature, for example as cultural heritage object. This should be cleared up shortly, so that redirect solving bot wouldn't mess things up again. 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:74BA:F7FB:967F:F972 09:47, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I now notice that your merge was a bit different than previous merge. Currently coastal artillery (Q1358324) also exists for military unit, so you might have wanted to merge the item you created for military unit with Q1358324 instead. 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:74BA:F7FB:967F:F972 09:53, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
coastal artillery (Q1358324) is a military branch which is not really a military unit. And a fortification is a fortification. It can be used for coastal artillery but not necessarily. The relation is closer than the one between an air-force unit and an airbase because the fort also provides the arment for the unit. Large fortresses like Vaxholm Fortress (Q2627611) and Fort Copacabana (Q5470982) can have their own objects, but battery size fortifications like Arholma Coastal Artillery Battery (Q32904803) are usually indistinguishable from the unit just like a warship is indistinguishable from its crew. /ℇsquilo 13:24, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Warship is indistinguishable from its crew? This makes little sense to me. One ship can have multiple crews over time, ship can remain as, say, museum ship long after it was used by any crew. Situation with battery as fortification and as unit/branch is similar. Some Wikipedias also have separate articles about these (see Q56344492). In any case, if other people find that this distinction is clear and useful, then hopefully you don't mind if separate item is restored. 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:8C08:F986:5B46:F52E 15:57, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Du you have any example of a wikidata-object of a crew or other military unit consisting of only one warship? I'm pretty sure they don't exist because there is no point in distinguishing the ship and the crew. When it comes to artillery battery (Q56344492) the label should really be something like "artillery battery emplacement" as it appears to be a strictly architectural object. Ok, I understand it can make sense in some situations to have such object (fortification for a battery sized artillery unit), but it is still just a subclass of fortification (Q57821). It is not a military unit type-size class (Q23905071). /ℇsquilo 19:38, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't know if there is an item about particular ship crew. If there isn't, then this rather suggests that ship crews on their own are generally not notable. Nonetheless the concept of ship's company (Q7497908) is distinct from warship (Q3114762).
Battery (fortification) is different from emplacement. Battery generally consists of several emplacements and other facilities (e.g. shelters, magazine, director's tower).
Well, that's how it was already modeled: Q56627877 was just a subclass of fortification (Q57821), and not military unit type-size class (Q23905071). 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:1DF5:5430:E394:6DC5 07:45, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
I now restored Q56627877 as fortification class as instances linking to it are fortifications. I was also going to redirect Q80359142 to Q1358324 (military unit) as that seems to have been your intention, but I now notice that current links to Q80359142 are also from items that are (almost) exclusively about fortifications (I find only Femöre Coastal Artillery Battery (Q3366184) using military branch (P241) that might also refer to military unit). 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:1DF5:5430:E394:6DC5 08:16, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Constraint between P17 and P1001Edit

Hi, I am a bit confused about this constraint you placed. The properties "country" and "applies to jurisdiction" do not stand for the same thing, as you can see in Q92290259. You can see the Act from the "official website" link; the value of P1001 is given at subsection 2 of section 1 of the Act, although it was passed, not by the local legislature but by the parliament of the country. So, a statute can apply to a certain portion of a country. Regards, Hrishikes (talk) 16:10, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

country (P17) is an instance of Wikidata property for places (Q19829914) which means it should only apply to geographical objects. National Capital Territory of Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Second Act, 2011 (Q92290259) is not a geographical object. /ℇsquilo 18:03, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
This confuses me too. I'd say that P17 is used for places, but not exclusively. While it necessarily wouldn't be a bad idea to have "located in country" property, this is not suggested by current uses of P17 nor its property label and description. Also other properties have constraints that require P17 for non-places, e.g. Czech Registration ID (P4156) for organizations or ComLaw ID (P2461) for legistlative documents (the latter specifically requires both P17 and P1001). For some cases it has been discussed and agreed that P17 and P1001 can and should be used togehter for distinct purposes, e.g. see here. As this constraint doesn't consider actual practices then it should probably be undone. 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:8872:148F:CDA5:66D9 09:41, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

BoatEdit

Hi, a boat with heritage designation (P1435):listed historical ship in Sweden (Q16501309) probably can't quit Sweden, so it' not depreciated. Also for a shipweck can have a other county in P8047 that P17, like here the shipwecks of Canadian ships located in the United States. --Fralambert (talk) 17:34, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

listed historical ship in Sweden (Q16501309) is a typical example of a object that should have applies to jurisdiction (P1001) and not country (P17). /ℇsquilo 18:09, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, your right, but I was correcting the items with heritage designation (P1435) who don't have country (P17). --Fralambert (talk) 18:15, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Do you have an example? Ships should have country of registry (P8047) and not country (P17), That is why I just reverted some of your edits in #temporary_batch_1590639740435. /ℇsquilo 18:21, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
What about these https://w.wiki/S7E ? A wreck don't gain the pavillon of the country where it is. Like the SS Edmund Fitzgerald (Q1286267) is a amrecan ship even if it's resting in Canada. --Fralambert (talk) 18:34, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Interesting question that is connected to another question that I've encountered before but never found a good answer to: Is country (P17) = no vale or country (P17) = international waters (Q25855) acceptable for shipwrecks? As I see it, when a ship sinks, it goes from being a mobile vehicle to being a stationary object. That means a lot of properties no longer apply, instead new properties apply. /ℇsquilo 18:43, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
I seen nothing on the RMS Titanic (Q25173). Note that for the monuments on Antartica, it was NO VALUE that was added. (Discovery Bay (Q218219)). --Fralambert (talk) 19:51, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
I have now added an exception for shipwreck (Q852190) from the property constraint (P2302). /ℇsquilo 08:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
While both P17 and P1001 are rather vaguely defined, P1001 here confuses me more as you'd then use word "jurisdiction" in some very loose sense (meaning pretty much just "territory"). Even most usage examples given on P1001 property page are rather meaningless (while it makes sense that legislation applies to jurisdiction, the rest implies different meanings and is obscure). 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:8872:148F:CDA5:66D9 09:41, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
country (P17) is a geographical property with the basic meaning "the coordinates of this object are within the borders of that nation". Properties like country of citizenship (P27), country of origin (P495), country of registry (P8047) and applies to jurisdiction (P1001) (and to some extent headquarters location (P159) also) have been created to describe associations to nations other than just geographical location. Organizations and other non-geographic objects should not have country (P17), located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) or coordinate location (P625). Instead they should have headquarters location (P159) and (possibly) applies to jurisdiction (P1001). /ℇsquilo 09:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't think that intended use of P17 is actually limited to places (see my comment to above topic). P17 probably can be omitted where other "country of ..." property applies instead, but to apply "applies to jurisdiction" for pretty much all other non-places is messy, and as mentioned above, P17 and P1001 are also used together for different purposes. 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:8872:148F:CDA5:66D9 10:27, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

MöjaskärgårdenEdit

Re [2], I'm not sure I understand the difference. Could you add commons:Möjaskärgården to the correct Wikidata item (or create one), please? Do you know if there is a category that corresponds to Storö-Bockö-Lökaö Nature Reserve (Q10681454) (or again, could you create one?) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:57, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

The best match for commons:Category:Möjaskärgården is East Möja archipelago (Q10728362) (I'll add the link), but Storö-Bockö-Lökaö Nature Reserve (Q10681454) include two isles; Lökaön (Q10572835) and Bockö-Storö (Q50800447) which both have their corresponding category on Commons. /ℇsquilo 20:07, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! Did I get commons:Category:Storö-Bockö-Lökaö Nature Reserve right? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:17, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes. /ℇsquilo 20:20, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject SwedenEdit

Hej! Jag tänkte bara tipsa om att det finns ett nystartat projekt som kanske kan vara av intresse: Wikidata:WikiProject Sweden.

Removed parliamentary groupEdit

Hi! (Not sure if you speak Swedish). I noticed you removed parliamentary group (P4100) as a qualifier for some statements on Håkan Winberg (Q6243875). I didn't realize you had done that before I added them back in. Are the qualifiers wrong? Popperipopp (talk) 18:01, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

@Popperipopp: Yes. It is because Moderate Party (Q110843) is not a parliamentary group (Q848197), it is a political party (Q7278). If he absolutely have to have parliamentary group (P4100) it should be Alliance (Q1324668) or something. /ℇsquilo 18:55, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
We have discussed that modeling here. Tl;DR, we conform to the rest of Wikidata on that qualifier. We can still use member of political party (P102) as "root" property though. Ainali (talk) 19:30, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
IMHO, yet another qualifier for member of the Swedish Riksdag (Q10655178) is not necessary, especially since it is redundant with member of political party (P102). start time (P580), end time (P582), electoral district (P768) and elected in (P2715) should be sufficient. parliamentary group (P4100) can be used for Member of the Second Chamber (Q81531912) and Member of the First Chamber (Q33071890), because back in those days there actually was a difference between party membership and parlamentary representation. /ℇsquilo 20:58, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
And by the way, not using the qualifier parliamentary group (P4100) at all is conformal to practice since the qualifier is not required. start time (P580) is the only qualifier that actually is required. /ℇsquilo 21:01, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
I am not sure where you got the last part from. According to P:P39#P2302 neither is required, and both are allowed. (The only required qualifier for position held (P39) is start time (P580).) Ainali (talk) 19:40, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
That is exactly what I wrote. Sorry! Cut-and-paste error. /ℇsquilo 19:48, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
But you realize that P4100 is on the allowed list? And that P39 is so flexible, it's almost impossible to require every property that could be used, because they vary across fields? And that how we figure out how to best model a certain field is hardly ever captured by the property constraints? Ainali (talk) 21:56, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Att lot of qualifiers are allowed, but that does not necessarily mean they are appropriate. Sometimes they just don't make any sense. /ℇsquilo 07:19, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Huvudkontor / SäteEdit

Hej! Jag förstår din ändring. Problemet är ju att huvudkontor och säte är två olika begrepp på svenska vad gäller företag. Säte är var företaget är registrerat juridiskt och den plats som finns omnämnd i bolagsordningen. Huvudkontor kan ligga på en annan plats än sätet. Vanligen är det samma ort, men det kan skilja. Telia Company AB har sitt säte i Stockholm, men sitt huvudkontor i Solna. --Kitayama (talk) 18:25, 6 September 2020 (UTC)