Welcome to Wikidata, Gyrostat!

Wikidata is a free knowledge base that you can edit! It can be read and edited by humans and machines alike, and you can help. Go to any item page now and add to this ever-growing database!
Need some help getting started? Here are some pages you can familarise yourself with:

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.

Regards, --Jitrixis (talk | support my candidacy) 13:36, 1 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Q345844 and Q373021 edit

This change is in English a worsening and in German completely wrong. The problem is in crew (Q345844) and aircrew member (Q373021). Can you support for the clarification of these items? --Fomafix (talk) 12:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Well, in French aircrew member (Q373021) name only the pilots, or members of the crew with a technical role onboard. crew (Q345844) is more general and name all aircrew, including cabin crew. It seemed to me that aircrew member (Q373021) is too specific to be correct in French. Lost in translation? Gyrostat (talk) 19:06, 23 April 2015 (UTC)Reply
I see the different meaning in French. The items Q345844 and Q373021 have to split up because they are not linking the same item.
I guess currently the property topic's main category (P910) from aircrew member (Q373021) to Category:Occupations in aviation (Q6749752) is wrong in French. personnel navigant technique should be replaced by adequate a French label. Is there a suitable article in frwiki? The article fr:personnel navigant technique should get an other item. Is there already an item describing the label?
In Q345844 the German Schiffsbesatzung should be replaced by Besatzung and the Danish skibsbesætning should replaced by besætning. This is necessary to fulfill the relation aircrew member (Q373021) subclass of (P279) crew (Q345844). The dewiki artice de:Schiffsbesatzung and the dawiki article da:skibsbesætning needs a new item. Is there already an item? Is there a French name for this item? The English name is ship's crew.
Can you support this changes? --Fomafix (talk) 05:31, 24 April 2015 (UTC)Reply
MB-one changed Q345844 and reverted the change in Q19671417. Please update Q373021 in French. --Fomafix (talk) 17:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)Reply
If I understood correctly, aircrew member (Q373021) names all crew onboard, both technical and commercial, right? In this case, personnel naviguant technique should be replaced by Personnel naviguant (only a little article on fr.wp, but it seems more correct). I think the fr.wp article équipage should be the equivalent to ship's crew, as it actually mainly develops the navy term. Would that be correct? Gyrostat (talk) 17:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC)Reply
  Done, well, almost... I tried to replace personnel naviguant technique by personnel naviguant in aircrew member (Q373021), but there already is Q3376061. In this case, I should merge Q3376061 with aircrew member (Q373021), right? (Or the other way around?) Gyrostat (talk) 17:23, 25 April 2015 (UTC)Reply
Q345844 is a more general term and the new Q19830059 is for the special navy term.
Merging Q3376061 into Q373021 seams to be correct. --Fomafix (talk) 20:49, 25 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Linking edit

About this diff. Please read: Wikidata:Wikinews/Development. --sasha (krassotkin) 12:08, 14 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Arnaud Beltrame edit

Please read the official text (JORF) quoted as a source: Arnaud Beltrame has been created a colonel retroactively on 24 March!

« Didier Raoult » (Q915676) edit

Bonjour, Il y a deux problèmes. D'abord, concernant la catégorie occupation, ça doit répondre à la question quelle est l'occupation de la personne ? Donc, son occupation, c'est sa profession et non pas ce dont il est accusé par certains médias. Deuxièmement, Wikidata doit être neutre et dire que Raoult est complotiste, ça ne fait pas du tout consensus (ou quasi-consensus). Mais il faut voir : l'accusation de complotisme, ça pourrait rentrer dans une catégorie polémique si elle existait. Ou alors, c'est peut-être possible de le placer dans une case connu pour puisque la polémique est connue. Enfin, le recours aux sources a ses limites, une polémique reste une polémique, c'est la polémique qui est réélle, pas forcément le prétendu complotisme. Cordialement. --34 super héros (talk) 12:53, 17 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

P856 : site Internet edit

Bonjour, Le site Internet du 1 étant présent deux fois dans la base de donnée, j'ai supprimé la référence en trop et réintégré les informations dans la première ref. Je n'ai pas laissé de commentaire de diff, veuillez m'en excuser. --Faztek (talk) 11:01, 11 November 2021 (UTC)Reply