Logo of Wikidata

Welcome to Wikidata, Hannes Röst!

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!

Nomen ad hoc (talk) 16:43, 10 June 2020 (UTC).

Data dumps into WikidataEdit


Just to clarify my revert note: data add to Wikidata should be properly formatted. For monolingual strings, this means determining the appropriate language code. Codes are are likely to be fr,it,de-ch,rm or "mul" (=multiple languages). If you are not sure how to do it, or don't have time to do, please use Wikidata:Bot_requests. You might notice that cleaning this up, takes more time than doing it correctly to start with.

If users want unformatted data, they could merely download that form the external source. --- Jura 19:48, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I dont think I understand your point - adding official names (as listed by BFS) to the districts of Switzerland is important for matching them to official sources. How would users be helped if this data is not included in Wikidata by "downloading it from the external source" if there is no way to map the BFS districts to wikidata items? While I agree that it would be more useful to know the exact language in this case the data is already very useful since it allows a 1:1 mapping between Wikidata and a government source. I also dont see how a bot would be doing this "correctly" since the official source does not list the language, the only way to do it is manually. --Hannes Röst (talk) 19:53, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Bot ops can figure it out. Now someone just has to redo all your edits. --- Jura 08:59, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
I have looked at automatic deduction and I think its possible from looking at either "distretto" or "district d'" or "Bezirk" so I have done that. I could have made a reasonable guess based on the canton and for example put all strings in certain cantons in a certain language (Italian in Ticino) but that would be error prone. Some cantons are bilingual and some strings are multilingual. There is of course a question whether you would prefer an automated (but sometimes wrong) language annotation or whether its better to say "unknown" language and simply state that no information was present on the language of the string (which is why we have "und"). --Hannes Röst (talk) 12:26, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Well, I guess someone could add another statement on every item with preferred rank and the correct language code for it to be complete. Not that great.
If the language can be determined from the label, all the better. Following a similar issue with municipalities, I fixed most statements on these .. some for VS/FR/BE still need to be done .. maybe easier once you did the districts ;). --- Jura 13:20, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
@Jura1: I am currently fixing the districts. There are only a few that dont match the easy rules "distretto" or "district d'" or "Bezirk" and I will fix those by hand. But that is a cool idea, maybe we can look up the name of the district in which the municipality is located in and determine its language and from this deduce the language of the municipality name? e.g Bauma (Q67145) is in Pfäffikon District (Q660395) which we know uses German, therefore Bauma (Q67145) official name should also be in German. --Hannes Röst (talk)
This gives a current overview. If forgot to mention GR above ;) --- Jura 13:27, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Map. Addding langs by district probably works except for GR. BTW, I used "de-ch" instead of "de". --- Jura 14:50, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
BTW, the district number would generally be the better way to match them, but we lack a property for that. --- Jura 09:04, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, that is also what I thought but you are right we do not have a property for this and I am not sure whether one is warranted (there are only 308 districts) for this. Do you think we should propose a property for this? --Hannes Röst (talk) 12:26, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
If you are interested in them, why not. There are many similar properties, e.g. for France, Czech Republic. Personally, I avoid districts, as they change frequently and are of varying importance. Maybe even more a reason to number them ;) --- Jura 13:20, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
BTW, the districts are just the first step and the next one is the municipalities. There automated deduction wont be easy and will have to be done by canton. Do you think its acceptable to simply assign all municipalities in a certain canton a specific language or how would you approach this? --Hannes Röst (talk) 12:26, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
See above. --- Jura 13:20, 27 June 2020 (UTC)


Hallo Hannes,

du hast offenbar alle Tössbrücken in der Wikipedia erfasst. Diese sind jedoch im Kanton Zürich, nicht im Kanton Thurgau (und dies sogar noch als Einzelnachweis mit der Quelle deutschsprachige Wikipedia markiert). Kannst du dies noch korrigieren?

Danke und Gruss Fundriver (talk) 12:22, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

@Fundriver: Das stimmt natuerlich, das muss ein Copy-Paste Fehler sein aus einer anderen Datei (wohl Thur). Tut mir sehr leid, ich korrigere das gleich. Wie du siehst, ist die Beschreibung korrekt wie zb in Tobelbueben-Brücke (Q96592257) "Feldwegbrücke in Steg im Tösstal – Wald (ZH), Schweiz" da steht natuerlich Zurich. Bzgl bereits vorhandenen Bruecken, ich habe die gemerged wenn bereits ein Objekt vorhanden war wie bei Schlosshof-Steg (Tössbrücke) (Q29933286), Tössbrücke (A1) (Q78733557) oder Alte Tössbrücke (Römerbrücke) (Q1234108) aber ich kann nochmals drueber schauen. Ich glaube quickstatements hat gewisse Bruecken mehrmals erstellt, aber das ist jetzt auch gefixt. Gruss --Hannes Röst (talk) 13:30, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Hallo Hannes, ja ich nahm an es war ein Copy&Paste-Fehler... Da ich aber dieses QuickStatement nicht beherrsche kann ich das nur schwer korrigieren. Ich hab zuerst gemeint es seien mehr nicht gemergt in Winterthur, aber schlussendlich war es nur die Kyburgbrücke, das habe ich noch übernommen (habe aber nicht alle kontrolliert)... Gruss Fundriver (talk) 14:01, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Es sollten jetzt alle Bruecken korrigiert sein, danke fuer die schnelle Reaktion. --Hannes Röst (talk) 13:13, 29 June 2020 (UTC)


Hi. Sorry, it was a mistake of my bot. I've fixed almost all of them, but I didn't see this. Thanks. --Tinker Bell 22:36, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

QS2 #38107Edit

Grüezi Hannes Röst,

The latest changes to Yverdon-les-Bains (Q63946) caught my attention. An Item cannot replace the same Item, it seems to me, even if there are qualifiers and references. In addition, it seems to me that structure replaces (P1398) should be used in place of replaces (P1365) in view of the constraints and descriptions of the Properties. I can help you revert to a previous version (mass rb), if you need to. I would be happy to read you. Regards.

Eihel (talk) 10:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@Eihel: Yes I have seen the problem with this batch: It seems some mappings are self-mappings (eg Yverdon-les-Bains (Q63946)) where the name changed), I have removed them now. There were only 16 municipalities which had that problem out of all 2200. The problem with Yverdon-les-Bains (Q63946) was that it renamed itself on 1.1.1982 and that is why it showed up in my list.
Regarding your other point, I dont think structure replaces (P1398) is correct for all these cases: see for example Bilten (Q661545) - the municipality was abolished 31 December 2010 merged into Glarus Nord (Q70635), here I dont think "the item this building or structure replaced, at the same geographic location" (structure ou édifice qui a été remplacé par le sujet) would be correct here since we are not talking about a building that was replaced but a political entity. Similarly follows (P155) is not specific enough and replaces (P1365) is recommended here. This commonly used for political entities, e.g. Canada (Q16) replaces (P1365) Province of Canada (Q1121436). Best regards --Hannes Röst (talk) 16:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Replaces and "applies to part"Edit

The qualifier replaces (P1365) is generally used in sequences (e.g. Obama replaces Bush to qualify position held (P39)="President"). I'm not entirely convinced by the use you make of it at Q17326749. Personally, I prefer the approach at Q66903#P793. --- Jura 11:33, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

@Jura1: I agree, it is not perfect. I did some research on this and it seems to be commonly used for political entities, see Canada (Q16) replaces (P1365) Province of Canada (Q1121436). I dont think that gained territory from (P7903) is really appropriate either since its more the case that one entity ceases to exist and another starts to exist. It seems gained territory from (P7903) is more appropriate if both entities existed beforehand and then one acquired part of the other (but not all of it). This is why I think replaces (P1365) is the best current use for this. You also wouldnt say Canada (Q16) gained territory from (P7903) Province of Canada (Q1121436). What do you think? --Hannes Röst (talk) 19:01, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
The nice thing about the Canada (Q16) sample is that it's actually a 1-1 replacement. This isn't the case for most of the others. Also, if you need "applies to part", IMO, this suggests that it doesn't apply to the item as such. Maybe you could use replaces as a qualifier to the P31 statement.
gained territory from (P7903) is somewhat different as it mainly concerns itself with the territorial change. This may or may not be linked to the other. --- Jura 10:36, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

instance of vs. subclass ofEdit

Hi, if you are not sure when to use instance of (P31) or subclass of (P279), please check out Help:Basic membership properties. I know, it is a bit confusing and difficult for newcomers. --Jklamo (talk) 17:45, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Duplicated HDSEdit

Please see Wikidata:Project_chat#Possible_duplicated_information and revert your batches adding a second property with the same information. --- Jura 07:01, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

@Jura1: thanks for your comment, but I am not adding duplicated information but rather I am teasing apart usage of HDS ID (P902) as identifier and as link to an external article. Clearly HDS ID (P902) is intended as an identifier but often there are two articles with the same identifier, these are the cases that I am teasing apart. Take for example Thurgau (Q12713) and history of Thurgau (Q1517423) which both had HDS ID (P902) "007393" which implies that GND number "4119605-3" applies to both of them which is clearly not the case. It also implies that the ontology " Politische Einheiten / Kanton " applies to both of them which is also not the case. I therefore changed the two statements to Thurgau (Q12713) HDS ID (P902) "007393" and history of Thurgau (Q1517423) described by source (P1343) Historical Dictionary of Switzerland (Q642074) / HDS ID (P902) "007393". Does that sound good? @Jura1: --Hannes Röst (talk) 13:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I see, though I'm not really convinced by it. As it's the HDS, isn't it expected that the article is about its history? Also, I don't see why we would add to the fairly granular identifiers additional statements for every place (with the same name) that may be mentioned. --- Jura 07:44, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
@Jura1: I agree with you, and as you can see Thurgau (Q12713) does *not* have the described by source (P1343) Historical Dictionary of Switzerland (Q642074) / HDS ID (P902) "007393" . My suggestion is to
this avoids duplication and keeps information / leads the reader to further reading if desired. I am currently in the process of going through all articles and deciding which one should be the "main" one that describes the concept and which one the "auxiliary" one. At the end of the process, all articles should look like the example above, one "main" article and one or more "auxiliary" ones. (the reason there are so many problems is due to imports from German Wikipedia where HLS is used in the "source" section and it was incorrectly imported as a identifier). One of the problems is that an encyclopedic article is not always a unique identifier to a single entity but may discuss multiple things. Therefore my suggestion in this case is to use 007393 as an identifier to Thurgau (Q12713) and use it described by source (P1343) Historical Dictionary of Switzerland (Q642074) / HDS ID (P902) "007393" for all other somewhat related articles (eg History of / Geography of / Economy of / Culture of). This also has implications for links to other identifiers, for example if you look at the end of the article there is a link to [d-nb.info/gnd/4119605-3 GND] and the GND link is the one for the concept of the canton, therefore linking that GND to history of Thurgau (Q1517423) would be wrong. I hope that makes sense to you. An alternative would be of course to delete all described by source (P1343) statements and only keep the main identifier. --Hannes Röst (talk) 13:15, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Personally, I prefer the initial approach we had (identifier e.g. at Q11972#P902), but if you really want go through it, I wont try to stop you. So Q11972#P1343 would get deleted in any case, as Q11972#P902 is present? --- Jura 08:00, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
@Jura1:. I am not sure what you mean with the "initial approach", do you mean https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q11972#P902 and https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1167176#P902 as a good example? I am not sure I would agree that this is the way to go. Also yes, Q11972#P1343 will get deleted. --Hannes Röst (talk) 18:26, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
I think Q1167176#P902 is an error that happened just recently. It might have come from some people changing the format definition of P902.
To sum it up: Q1167176#P902 and Q11972#Q11972$8C370C57-E42E-4B90-B1E9-4DEBE9167958 should be deleted. --- Jura 14:33, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

We sent you an e-mailEdit

Hello Hannes Röst,

Really sorry for the inconvenience. This is a gentle note to request that you check your email. We sent you a message titled "The Community Insights survey is coming!". If you have questions, email surveys@wikimedia.org.

You can see my explanation here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:45, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Discussion Content in a museumEdit

@Hannes Röst: God afternoon! Its seems to be a bit unorder in our postings for this discussin. Do yuo mind if I reaarange it a bit. Do revert if you find it wrong of course. Pmt (talk) 20:28, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

sure, no problem. --Hannes Röst (talk) 15:42, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Saline / MeerwassersalineEdit

Hallo Hannes, du hattest zusätzlich zu dem lange existierenden Q244326 noch eine übergeordnete Klasse Q100166391 angelegt. Grundsätzlich finde ich die Unterscheidung "Saline allgemein" zu Meerwassersaline gut, aber so wie du es jetzt gemacht hast sind alle Binnensalinen die bisher Q244326 waren nun plötzlich Meerwassersalinen, weil du die Bedeutung von Q244326 geändert hast. Zum Beispiel Q18620698. Wie kommen wir da wieder raus? -- Gerd Fahrenhorst (talk) 10:10, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@Gerd Fahrenhorst: ja ich habe mir das Problem auch ueberlegt, allerdings war das vorher schon kaputt: auf Englisch war salt evaporation pond (Q244326) schon vorher "salt evaporation pond" = "shallow artificial pond designed to extract salts from sea water or other brines" und dasselbe auf Franzoesisch und Italienisch etc. Ich habe also in meinen Edits nur die deutsche Definition korrigiert. Du hast aber recht, das vorher und jetzt sehr viele Salinen inkorrekt als Meerwassersalinen dargestellt sind. Nicht weil ich die Bedeuting geaendert habe sondern weil es vorher schon falsch war. Ich habe mir damals ueberlegt (i) das item salt evaporation pond (Q244326) in allen Sprachen umzubennen in eine Definition die salt production facility (Q100166391) entspricht, aber das haette bedeutet auch alle WP links zu verschieben oder (ii) ein neue uebergeordnete Klasse zu salt evaporation pond (Q244326) zu schaffen. Ich habe mich fuer (ii) entschieden weil der Fehler nur auf Deutsch bestand und alle anderen Sprachen richtig kategorisiert waren. Was ich vorschlage ist dass wir wohl durch alle 88 Eintraege manuell durchgehen muessen und sie korrekt kategorisieren, allerdings denke ich sind es wohl nur die 14 Eintraege in Deutschland, alle anderen sollten hoffentlich korrekt sein. Diese Salinen sollten dann wohl als open-pan salt workshop (Q100166380) kategorisiert werden und es sollten eigentlich keine direkt als salt evaporation pond (Q244326) kategorisiert werden? Gruss --Hannes Röst (talk) 15:53, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Hallo Hannes, eigentlich entspricht doch die englische Definition der deutschen, weil beide auf flüssiges Ausgangsmaterial setzen und beide nicht auf Meerwasser beschränkt sind ("other brines"). Der Unterschied wäre m.E. nicht Meerwasser/Binnenwasser sondern ob der Übergang flüssig->fest durch Verdunstung oder durch Sieden geschieht. Das ergäbe folgende Systematik: Basisklasse Salzgewinnungsanlagen unterschieden in Unterklassen für fest (Salzbergwerk) oder für Sole (Saline). Saline dann weiter unterschieden nach Verdunstung oder Sieden. Was meinst du dazu? - Zu deinem Ansatz: wo würdest du denn :de:Saline hinpacken? Auf Q244326 kann es nicht bleiben weil nicht Meerwasser, auf Q100166391 passt es nicht weil es keine Salzbergwerke enthält. -- Gerd Fahrenhorst (talk) 19:00, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Your modificationsEdit

Grüezi Hannes  ,
Could I have some explanation of your modifications, please?

  • En français, l'Item est libellé sous « état fédérel de 1848 ». So why shouldn't Q355857 have Switzerland as a federal state (Q355857) instance of (P31) federation (Q43702) ? Maybe it's reading the Label in another language that is not ideal for you? But this P31 is fair. In addition, you remove a data with a reference !
  • P155 can be with P1365 and P1366. The problem with removing these two properties is that they generate constraint violations on other Items. I came just before you in this article to correct this problem. replaces (P1365) is typically used for states (see description). This Query showing that only 7 countries have your property follows (P155) (7 errors).

As I wrote to you previously, the violations returned, so I put P31, P1365 and P1366 again. Sincerly. —Eihel (talk) 22:37, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Eihel:, the problem here is that the item is a mixture between two different concepts: the state and the historical period. For the historical period, federation (Q43702) would not be appropriate, I think we will have to split the two items at some point but I am still trying to figure out what goes where (which wiki articles should go where and how to relate to the other items). For example the Swiss federal state with the current constitution started in 1848 but the entity Switzerland as a federal state started in 1813 or before, so its hard to clearly describe this and needs more thought. Also the names in en/fr/de do not match at all: "état fédéral de 1848", "Föderalismus in der Schweiz" and "Switzerland as a federal state" all describe different concepts. But its not great that currently we have Switzerland as a federal state (Q355857) instance of (P31) federation (Q43702) and Switzerland as a federal state (Q355857) subclass of (P279) historical period (Q11514315). Currently this item is the only one with both these properties. Best --Hannes Röst (talk) 23:28, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Consensus : Switzerland as a federal state (Q355857) instance of (P31) historical country (Q3024240) like French Second Republic (Q58326). There are Switzerland in the Napoleonic era (Q7886026) and history of Switzerland since 1914 (Q3137141) considered for historical articles. Next to that, there is Helvetic Republic (Q206696). But you are right, each WP did what it wanted between Labels and sitelinks. There was the same problem for Restoration in Switzerland (Q568452) (changed to aspect of history (Q17524420)). The problem: there is a constitution and perhaps the most important historically. There is like a gap between the Switzerland of XXII and WW1. This is where I started. So there isn't Switzerland of 1848, you say? Sniff. BUT in this case, a historical item follows or precedes a historical item and not a country. Ok for another item… —Eihel (talk) 02:05, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
@Eihel: I think the correct option is to separate out historic articles from the actual entities (people, states, government) they describe and acknowledge that the temporal borders of the two do not fall neatly together. It turned out more complex than I originally thought, so I got stuck halfway between and that explains the edits that I made. So probably we need a sequence of historical items that are all subclass of (P279) historical period (Q11514315) and use follows (P155):
Switzerland in the Roman era (Q675312) -> Switzerland in the medieval time (Q626653) -> federation of three cantons (Q2992641) -> federation of eight cantons (Q340787) -> Federation of thirteen cantons (Q351537) -> Switzerland in the Napoleonic era (Q7886026) -> Restoration in Switzerland (Q568452) -> Regeneration (Q1551478) -> Switzerland as a federal state (Q355857) -> Modern history of Switzerland (Q6889003)
and then in parallel a series of items that are instance of (P31) historical country (Q3024240) which use replaces (P1365)
Old Swiss Confederacy (Q435583) -> Helvetic Republic (Q206696) -> (some new item) -> Switzerland (Q39)
I am not yet sure what to call "some new item" but this represents the Swiss state between 1803 and 1848 which was already called the Swiss Confederacy. As you can see it is not straight forward, but my proposal here would fix a lot of things, including dates not lining up (see for example https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q39#P1365 which implies that modern Switzerland started in 1914). There are some other items that do not fit yet: Act of Mediation (Q666909) (a mixture between a historic article in German and the "Act" in English), Growth of the Old Swiss Confederacy (Q668589) and Early history of Switzerland (Q1978694) (all of history before 1291 lumped together). We may have to model some of the history article not as linear graph but as branching off, for example federation of three cantons (Q2992641) may have two proceeding items: Early history of Switzerland (Q1978694) *and* Switzerland in the medieval time (Q626653). I think the items Sonderbund War (Q688297), Switzerland in World War I (Q2255851) and Switzerland during the World Wars (Q671914) would probably best be modelled as subclasses of modern Switzerland. Let me know what you think. Best --Hannes Röst (talk) 15:32, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Awesome. A good point for you. I left a message on the Wikidata talk:WikiProject Switzerland#Histoires suisses et autres considérations. —Eihel (talk) 18:18, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

La Bâtie (Beauregard)Edit

Hello Hannes! I am new to Wikidata and just noticed that there is a double entry about La Bâtie, which you created, and Bâtie-Beauregard at https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q67772264. Unfortunately, yours does not have any info yet, whereas the latter one has info but no label. Could you perhaps merge the two or teach me how to do that? Cheerio! RomanRomanDeckert (talk) 18:49, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@RomanDeckert: Thanks for noticing this, you are right! It turns out that the situation is a bit more complex as there are three castles called La Bâtie, I have now created the appropriate items and linked them to the HDS entry: Bâtie-Beauregard (Q67772264), Bastie-Mellié (Q104640778) and Rouelbeau Castle (Q2970439). For merging I usually use merge.js which is very useful for these situations. Best --Hannes Röst (talk) 15:34, 3 January 2021 (UTC)