Logo of Wikidata

Welcome to Wikidata, Hercule!

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!

--Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 13:18, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Levi (Q215512)Edit

I still think your edit on Levi (Q215512) is wrong. This is because human biblical figure (Q20643955) subclass of (P279) human who may be fictional (Q21070568). With your edit you are saying he was a real person (Q5) and there is doubt if he's a real person (Q20643955). That contradicts eachother. And you claim they all have Q5, I just did a check. There are currently 146 items that have both Q20643955 and Q5. Out of those you added Q5 to 111 items today. So before you started there were only 35 items that had both claims. So claiming they "all" have that statement is mostly because of you adding the statement. The only reason I noticed it for Q215512 is because that item is on my watchlist. Mbch331 (talk) 12:43, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

We have human biblical figure (Q20643955) subclass of (P279) human who may be fictional (Q21070568) and human who may be fictional (Q21070568) said to be the same as (P460) human (Q5). My understanding of this hierarchy is that the subjects of human biblical figure (Q20643955) are all human (Q5), because it's supposed to be a human (even if it can be only fictive). And for all humans we must add human (Q5).
As I had seen that it was already the case I added it to the items that missed it. But if you tell me that only 35 were like this and 111 were not that means I'm wrong...
What is the rule for human who may be fictional (Q21070568) ? Should we never have Q21070568 + Q5 ? Should we always have Q21070568 + Q5 ?
Souldn't human biblical figure (Q20643955) only be used for human (Q5) and biblical character (Q12405827) used for the ones that are not humans ?
--Hercule (talk) 13:49, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
In my opinion Q5 should only be used on people that really existed. Q12405827 should be used on items like Gabriel (Q81989). I think Q21070568 and Q5 can be combined in cases where there is some kind of proof the person really existed. But terms like never and always don't seem to be fitting. Best way to know when to use Q20643955 or Q12405827 is to ask in WD:PC. And generalising isn't always a wise thing to do. You can't say all items with occupation (P106) film director (Q2526255) should also have occupation (P106) film editor (Q7042855), because some have both. If all Q20643955 should have Q5, Q20643955 should be a subclass of Q5. Mbch331 (talk) 13:59, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Isn't human biblical figure (Q20643955) a subclass of human (Q5) by the subclass of (P279) and said to be the same as (P460) link ? That's why I think that human biblical figure (Q20643955) must be used only if there is a reason to think that human (Q5) is true. Otherwise we should use biblical character (Q12405827), like for Cain (Q205365).
For me human (Q5) is an exception because all the humans must have this definition (that's what I was told). That's not the case for others elements, where only the most precise must be used.
--Hercule (talk) 14:15, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
I think this is a good discussion for WD:PC, as it could benefit from input by others than just us. Mbch331 (talk) 14:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Please unmerge featured portal (Q17580674)Edit

Your merge of Q17580674 has broken the labelling for the badges for the Wikisources, would you be so kind to undo that merge, and consult with @Aude: about the appropriate means to progress your issue. Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:32, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

The merge only added labels and redirected an element :
How can it break the badges for Wikisources ?
--Hercule (talk) 11:48, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Can we instead try to redirect / merge Q6540291 into Q17580674? We have some configuration (e.g. [1]) that indicates which items are badges, and this is used to fetch labels for the badges. Otherwise, we can update the config, though still would want to keep some backwards compatiblity for any usages of the old badge item. Aude (talk) 00:17, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Lots of mistakesEdit

Please pay more attention. I had to revert several of your edits because they were wrong, and I see that others users have been doing the same. If you have doubts, ask for help first. Andreasm háblame / just talk to me 01:55, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

P279 + P31Edit

About this edit. I understand your explanation but not fully. What are consequences? Should we add instance of (P31) concept (Q151885) to all classes? --Infovarius (talk) 10:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

After more reflexion I'm not sure it must be mandatory. I think it's better, but many items don't respect this.
--Hercule (talk) 10:13, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Alphabet consonantiqueEdit

Can you tell me the difference between fr:Alphabet consonantique and fr:Abjad? May be they can be merged, so as 2 items? Categories for these 2 names are still in 1 item. --Infovarius (talk) 08:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

There are two articles on fr.wikipedia, so the items can't be merged.
What the french articles explains :
I think that more articles of Q185087 should be linked to Q23021277, but I'm not confident to make the verifications, because I understand few of these languages.
--Hercule (talk) 09:52, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
What it means "classification of the arab alphabet"? Is it equal to arab alphabet? Or is it a property of it? --Infovarius (talk) 15:45, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
As I understand it's a way to order the letters of the arab alphabet, not the arab alphabet itself. --Hercule (talk) 15:48, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Subclasses of P31=Q5Edit

Hi Hercule,

Thanks for your note after my reversal. It's clear that we could have all types of subclasses, by gender, occupation, nationality, work they are featured in, hair color, etc, but the consensus is that these items always have a P31=Q5 statement. Please don't remove them. If you need help filtering queries you are trying to use, don't hesitate to ask at Wikidata:Request a query. --- Jura 15:39, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello Jura,
I did my changes by QuickStatement, so the whole batch can be easyly reverted (https://tools.wmflabs.org/editgroups/b/QSv2T/1545232405067/).
But I don't understand why we should use P31=Q5 even when there is a P31 that is in the Q5 hierarchy. Is there a page where it's explicated ?
--Hercule (talk) 15:44, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
I edited 170 entries. With this request I see that more than 600 entries with P31:Q21070568 don't have P31:Q5. So what I think is already the most applied (35 only have both, if we add my 170 items it's more than 400 vs 200). --Hercule (talk) 15:58, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't really know if all of these are human or not. You probably noticed that all other humans have P31=Q5 and some of the property constraints rely on that. --- Jura 16:50, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
If it's sure this is not human they can't have Q21070568 (human who may be fictional).
Humans that may not be fictionnal have Q5, but they don't have other P31 item that is a subclass of Q5.
--Hercule (talk) 16:59, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
As said at the beginning, if the historicity is established, please use P31:Q5. If there are different opinions, you could use several values ("may be fictional" and Q5). I don't mind if you add additional subclasses in P31, but I'd generally try to avoid that. We removed "Norse humans" not too long ago. --- Jura 05:58, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Occupation: aristocratEdit

Je reviens au problème "occupation" avec des dames nobles sans profession. Le mot anglais "occupation" fait référence au travail que quelqu'un a eu. C'est autre chose que la classe sociale à laquelle quelqu'un appartenait. L'information dans "occupation" est réutilisée pour remplir le travail de quelqu'un dans les modèles. Cela crée des erreurs sur les pages Wikipedia, entre autres, dans la version en langue néerlandaise. Je vous demande d'utiliser un champ différent pour la classe sociale, par exemple "noble title". Cordialement, --HRvO (talk) 18:46, 21 December 2018 (UTC)