Logo of Wikidata

Welcome to Wikidata, Herzi Pinki!

Wikidata is a free knowledge base that you can edit! It can be read and edited by humans and machines alike and you can go to any item page now and add to this ever-growing database!

Need some help getting started? Here are some pages you can familiarize yourself with:

  • Introduction – An introduction to the project.
  • Wikidata tours – Interactive tutorials to show you how Wikidata works.
  • Community portal – The portal for community members.
  • User options – including the 'Babel' extension, to set your language preferences.
  • Contents – The main help page for editing and using the site.
  • Project chat – Discussions about the project.
  • Tools – A collection of user-developed tools to allow for easier completion of some tasks.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask on Project chat. If you want to try out editing, you can use the sandbox to try. Once again, welcome, and I hope you quickly feel comfortable here, and become an active editor for Wikidata.

Best regards! Taketa

Import Steirische GemeindestrukturreformEdit

Manuell umgesetzte Beispiele:

Fallunterscheidung

  1. Gemeinde GAlt hört mit 31.12.2014 als Gemeinde zu existieren auf und wird Teil von GNeu ab 1.1.2015. Dann sind folgende Einzelschritte in WD notwendig:
    1. Das Objekt GAlt ändert die Beschreibung(en) von 'Gemeinde in Österreich' auf 'Ehemalige Gemeinde in Österreich bis Ende 2014'; von 'municipality in Austria' auf 'former municipality in Austria till end of 2014'; …
    2. Das Objekt GAlt terminiert die Eigenschaft Austrian municipality key (P964), mit dem Qualifier end time (P582) = 2014-12-31
    3. Das Objekt GAlt terminiert die Eigenschaft instance of (P31), mit dem Qualifier end time (P582) = 2014-12-31 für alle Werte, die Unterklassen oder die Klasse selbst von 'Gemeinde' sind, also etwa 'Landgemeinde in Österreich' und 'Gemeinde in Österreich' und 'Stadtgemeinde in Österreich', 'Marktgemeinde'
    4. Das Objekt GAlt terminiert die Eigenschaft located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) für alle Werte, die instance of (P31) Bezirk in Österreich sind mit dem Qualifier end time (P582) = 2014-12-31
    5. Das Objekt GAlt bekommt die neue Eigenschaft located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) mit GNeu und dem Qualifier start time (P580) = 2015-01-01
    6. Das Objekt Bezirk terminiert die Eigenschaft contains administrative territorial entity (P150) für GAlt mit dem Qualifier end time (P582) = 2014-12-31
    7. Beschreibung: Fall 1: Eingemeindung GAlt GNeu Bezirk
  2. Gemeinde GNeu beginnt mit 1.1.2015 zu existieren (~ Umbenennung). Dann sind folgende Einzelschritte in WD notwendig:
    1. Das Objekt GNeu ist anzulegen (falls es noch nicht existiert - vermutlich sind die alle angelegt, aber jedenfalls nicht vollständig)
    2. Das Objekt GNeu bekommt die Beschreibung 'Gemeinde in Österreich', 'municipality in Austria', …
    3. Das Objekt GNeu bekommt die neue Eigenschaft instance of (P31) municipality of Austria (Q667509) mit dem Qualifier start time (P580) = 2015-01-01, falls die Eigenschaft schon existiert, ist der Startzeitpunkt nachzutragen.
    4. Das Objekt GNeu bekommt die neue Eigenschaft located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) zum Bezirk mit dem Qualifier start time (P580) = 2015-01-01, falls die Eigenschaft schon existiert, ist der Startzeitpunkt nachzutragen.
    5. Das Objekt GNeu bekommt die neue Eigenschaft Austrian municipality key (P964) mit dem Wert der Gemeindekennziffer mit dem Qualifier start time (P580) = 2015-01-01, falls die Eigenschaft schon existiert, ist der Startzeitpunkt nachzutragen.
    6. Das Objekt Bezirk erzeugt die Eigenschaft contains administrative territorial entity (P150) für GNeu mit dem Qualifier start time (P580) = 2015-01-01
    7. Eigentlich ist das Objekt komplett nach dem Muster anderer Gemeinden zu erstellen, an einigen Stellen fehlt alles: Sankt Veit in der Südsteiermark (Q17591686)
    8. Beschreibung: Fall 2: Neugemeinde GNeu Bezirk GKZ
  3. Gemeinde G (Gemeinde existiert vorher und nachher) bekommt mit 1.1.2015 eine neue Austrian municipality key (P964). Dann sind folgende Einzelschritte in WD notwendig:
    1. Das Objekt G terminiert die Eigenschaft Austrian municipality key (P964) mit dem Qualifier end time (P582) = 2014-12-31
    2. Das Objekt G bekommt die Eigenschaft Austrian municipality key (P964) mit der neuen GKZ und dem Qualifier start time (P580) = 2014-01-01
    3. Beschreibung: Fall 3: NeueGKZ GNeu GKZ
  4. Gemeinde G wechselt mit 1.1.2015 den Bezirk von BAlt auf BNeu. G ist dabei immer eine Gemeinde, die vorher und nachher unter gleichem Namen existiert. Dann sind folgende Einzelschritte in WD notwendig: kommt nicht vor.
  5. Gemeinde GAlt hört mit 31.12.2014 als Gemeinde zu existieren auf und wird ab 1.1.2015 auf mehrere Gemeinden (2) aufgeteilt. Es gibt keine modellierte Eigenschaft located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) zu einer Nachfolgegemeinde. Dann sind folgende Einzelschritte in WD notwendig:
    1. Das Objekt GAlt ändert die Beschreibung(en) von 'Gemeinde in Österreich' auf 'Ehemalige Gemeinde in Österreich bis Ende 2014'; von 'municipality in Austria' auf 'former municipality in Austria till end of 2014'; …
    2. Das Objekt GAlt terminiert die Eigenschaft Austrian municipality key (P964), mit dem Qualifier end time (P582) = 2014-12-31
    3. Das Objekt GAlt terminiert die Eigenschaft instance of (P31), mit dem Qualifier end time (P582) = 2014-12-31 für alle Werte, die Unterklassen oder die Klasse selbst von 'Gemeinde' sind, also etwa 'Landgemeinde in Österreich' und 'Gemeinde in Österreich' und 'Stadtgemeinde in Österreich', 'Marktgemeinde'
    4. Das Objekt GAlt terminiert die Eigenschaft located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) für alle Werte, die instance of (P31) Bezirk in Österreich sind mit dem Qualifier end time (P582) = 2014-12-31
    5. Das Objekt GAlt bekommt die neue Eigenschaft located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) mit GNeu und dem Qualifier start time (P580) = 2015-01-01
    6. Das Objekt Bezirk terminiert die Eigenschaft contains administrative territorial entity (P150) für GAlt mit dem Qualifier end time (P582) = 2014-12-31
    7. Beschreibung: Fall 1a: Auflösung GAlt Bezirk (bis auf den einen Schritt identisch mit Fall 1)
  6. Komplizierte Fälle werden per Hand abgearbeitet und scheinen maximal zu Dokumentationszwecken auf.
    1. Beschreibung: Fall ?: Kompliziert

Alle Änderungen bitte mit Einzelnachweis stated in (P248) und Wert Q20870909 versehen.


offene Punkte: Ist dissolved, abolished or demolished date (P576) für ehemalige Gemeinden besser als end time (P582)? Wegen [1]

Q21878939 merged to Q21873068Edit

I was trying to merge the newer one to older one and turn Q21878939 into a redirect so that both items can be kept as well as their history. I thought I was doing the right thing, but I did not fix the typo error after merging. I am sorry for any inconvenience caused. Regards, 94rain (talk) 08:28, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

no problem. I thought, that keeping a silly spelling error is not worth it. Just nuke it. Are you ok with the current situation? --Herzi Pinki (talk) 08:38, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
OK for me. Just save time for some extra work that is not really necessary. -- 94rain (talk) 08:54, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

cemetery chapel Purkersdorf (Q37974221)Edit

Von dieser Änderung bin ich nicht gerade überzeugt, da das Objekt hier gelistet ist. --D-Kuru (talk) 10:49, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, User:AliciaFagervingWMSE-bot hat in einer eher unkoordinierten Aktion aus der Denkmaldatenbank die wikidata-Einträge erzeugt. Seit 2 1/2 Jahren bin ich am bereinigen. Dabei wurde gerade instance of (P31) geraten und bei fehlender Fantasie cultural property (Q2065736) eingesetzt. Das Raten erfolgte aufgrund des Namens. Siehe etwa P31 bei Q37902103, Q37987514, Duckhütte (Q38017629), Schöffelstein-Denkmal (Q1321319). Bisher habe ich immer versucht, das nichtssagende Kulturgut durch ein konkretes Objekt zu ersetzen. Über heritage designation (P1435) wird ja ohnehin der Schutzstatus abgebildet. Für mich ist Denkmalschutz gleichartig mit Rot, ich käme nicht auf die Idee rote Objekte über instance of (P31) als solche zu bezeichnen, sondern würde dafür eine Property Farbe verwenden wollen. lg --Herzi Pinki (talk) 11:12, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
~8800 Objekte der insgesamt rund 38000 denkmalgeschützten Objekte instance of (P31) cultural property (Q2065736). --Herzi Pinki (talk) 11:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Q96581737Edit

Bezüglich [2]: Wie soll sonst eingetragen werden, dass es ehemals militärisch genutzt wurde und jetzt die gleiche Anlage ein Museum ist? --D-Kuru (talk) 18:15, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Hallo, ich weiß keine Antwort auf deine Frage. Für mich ist ein militärischer Stützpunkt was anderes als ein Museum. Worauf soll sich end time (P582) beziehen? Nicht auf instance of (P31): Bunkermuseum. Ich würde die beiden Objekte trennen (Gräber?), wenn du das als ein Objekt beschreiben willst, dann mit qualifier end time (P582) für den Stützpunkt und start time (P580) für das Museum. lg --Herzi Pinki (talk) 18:34, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Ontology issuesEdit

I hope you have seen my reply to your well-motivated question about subclasses vs instances. I have been working with Wikidata for just a little over two months, and my overall impression is that the class tree is a partial mess due to many editors being unfamiliar with the concepts of class logic, but also due to lack of stringent terminology in the various natural languages used. Every language has its homographs and ambiguities, but as English Wikipedia is probably Wikidata's biggest single source of lexical terms, English is probably over-represented when it comes to ontological confusion over the semantic properties (rather than Wikidata properties) of certain Wikidata items. It has come to the point that I have essentially given up trying to correct individual errors as I encounter them, because I find myself outnumbered by editors determined to correct my edits for being ignorant of their assumptions.

Due to my self-prescribed restraint against changing the edits of others, I fortunately haven't become involved in too many disputes myself (and some reverts of my edits have actually been quite reasonable and motivated, which I have used as an opportunity to learn rather than argue), but as I have gotten into the habit of reviewing the edit histories, talk page discussions, item labels, descriptions and aliases, Wikipedia article contents in any language Google is able to translate for me, edit histories of those pages, yet more talk pages, and now also the lexeme database, you may be able to imagine the number of "facepalm" moments I have had recently...

In the case you reported, I happened to agree with the revert because there is no difference in level of abstraction between conglomerate (Q191704) and Lindabrunn Conglomerate (Q1825913) (Lindabrunn conglomerate); both are instances of rock (Gesteinsart, bergart) as far as I can tell. But as I traversed the subclsss links towards the most generic type (or instance) of rock, I found that even stone (Q22731) itself is defined as a subclass of rock (Q8063)! Besides, "stone" is labelled as synonymous with "rock". Now tell me, exactly what subclass of rock (Q8063) would not also be a stone, or a subclass of stone? A "hard place" maybe, that thing between which and a rock you don't want to be caught..?

Ok, so what is this substance called "rock" (aka "stone") a subclass of? natural material (Q3405827). And then? material (Q214609) (one of multiple choices). Then product (Q2424752). Then artificial physical object (Q8205328). Then artificial entity (Q16686448). Then entity (Q35120), and we have reached the class tree root, which isn't a subclass of anything, but is instead an instance of both variable-order class (Q23958852) and concept (Q151885).

Sorry for my rant. I actually came here to notify you that I began looking into the history of the stone/rock confusion, but as I'm approaching 100 simultaneous tabs in my Wikidata browser I'm getting increasingly concerned I will never finish this. Maybe we can approach this issue in a more productive way through some joint effort? Swedish and German have a lot in common that we may benefit from in order to resolve some of the English-specific semantic issues... --SM5POR (talk) 00:50, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, @SM5POR: for your comment. It is appreciated. Thanks also for pointing out that language issues might influence the modelling because of language specific homonyms. I still do not share your view on the root cause of this discussion. But I can live with almost everything.
Beyond the stone (Q22731) and rock (Q8063) stuff, I'm missing a stringent modelling all over wikidata. I had a discussion on how to model graves recently, without a result. I have fundamental non-understanding on how some sub-units of municipalities have been setup in wikidata (e.g. Q96463723 with the qualifier object has role (P3831)). I do not understand, why metaconstructs of the wikipedias (lists, categories, etc) have managed to become first class objects of wikidata, where they are modelled like other real world objects. Now, doing modelling by gusto makes it much more difficult, if not impossible, to retrieve data using sparql etc. There is the technical design of wikidata (items, properties, constraints, etc., still with flaws; covered by development), there is a process on how to create new properties, there is detailed and sometimes quite obscured metamodelling (e.g. different from (P1889)) but there should also be a stringent (and enforced) design of the content of wikidata based on classes and instances and where to put which information. This part of the modelling guidelines I do miss painfully. There is some information about modelling the real world, but it is incomplete and volatile (based on the wiki process, subject to unconsolidated change). I'm thinking about the Lindabrunn Conglomerate (Q1825913) issue. For the general problems with wikidata I do not have much hope that these might get resolved. There is too much incentives around for pushing even more stuff to wikidata (rewards for the quantity as opposed to the quality) and bots & tools & games are the rulers here. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 05:08, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Of course, having been here for a mere two months, I probably haven't seen everything yet. And you, six years? I have great respect for your experience (and patience, I would assume). Lists... I had no idea there were so many lakes named "Gäddträsket" in Sweden. I started out joining the Ontology Wikiproject, saw they had issues with subclass loops, figured that might be a reason for my SPARQL queries timing out (not so sure about that any longer) and tried to resolve some. One of those edits was reverted. What? I looked into the issue again and found that the revert was actually proper; I had merely examined the English-language WP pages, but they had somehow been switched with respect to the corresponding WD items, while the Russian pages had maintained the original meaning all along. 1-0 to the Russians this time. I became "hooked on a hookworm" for a while, and you can find the results of my investigations on my User:SM5POR page, but I grew tired of it and put it on hold while trying to learn something new instead.
Did you know that all of China (the PRC) officially runs on Beijing time? Did you also know that some 700,000 Chinese towns and villages each have their own timezone statement in Wikidata? There are over 6,000 timezone statements for Swedish localities alone. When inquiring about the reason for this, I was told it's because some countries use multiple timezones, and the timezone boundaries don't always follow state or local administrative ones in the United States, so they need to look up the timezone property of the nearest geographical entity, anywhere in the world. What if a number of European countries decide to drop daylight savings time? I asked. "No problem, we'll use robots to update the timezone statements!" - Facepalm again! And thus I began looking for inherited property values.
A Swedish wikipedian (I haven't been doing much with WP myself before, maybe 50 edits in total on Swedish WP) who has been working with the Infoboxes told me many WP editors, not only Swedish ones, disliked the wordings "instance of" and "subclass of" (in translation, I suppose) appearing in Infoboxes, and as they were advised not to change the property labels in Wikidata, they preferred using part of (P361) instead... Another facepalm moment for me, I replied that I would try to find a better solution than tweaking the backbone ontology to suit WP stylistic concerns and began working on a Lua module (it has been several years since last time I embraced and learned another programming language) to generate Infoboxes in a language-independent manner, really got into the unresolved issue of generalized property value inheritance, began reading the WD project chat, and here I am, with some 100 open WD browser tabs. Look, another butterfly! But as it's just a conceptual and thus abstract butterfly, not a living one, it must be a class rather than an instance, right?
Have you perhaps made an explicit list of your unresolved Wikidata issues? I have made a few such lists myself (again, see my User:SM5POR page and the linked topical pages for details). I'd be happy to either link to your issues, or include them as my own (provided I agree with them). I realize now I even have a backlog of issues worked on but not yet listed, such as the calendar-vs-astronomical-year, oil-and-container-shipping-via-public-transit-centers or countries-at-occurrence issues; must nail down those Schmetterlings as well...
But will I be able to maintain this intense hobby for six years? No way. --SM5POR (talk) 08:31, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
@SM5POR: Although I see your concerns, I don't feel strong and stubborn enough, to support you in getting the modelling here on wikidata right. I'm beyond my limits since years, no capacity to take another burden. The processes in the wikiverse are somehow broken and do not scale well. Especially do the processes not scale well for a diminishing number of contributors. So sorry, I will not commit to your intentions. I do write phabricator tasks from time to time (also about wikidata issues), the software development departments and the nth level supports are also not to my satisfaction. So punctually you might ask for my support on general issues, but I'm out of capacity to thrive any kind of quality improvement processes here. best --Herzi Pinki (talk) 12:14, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
No worries, please, as I don't actually require assistance; I made an offer of cooperation just in case you wanted to share your tasks with someone, seeing that you have have encountered some of the same issues as myself. I'm 59 and may retire in a few years; I'll see if I'm still concerned about Wikidata by then. I can well understand your doubts about the future of Wikidata, but as long as I don't need to invest anything beyond my spare time, I view it as an interesting challenge and learning opportunity rather than as a dead end. "There is no problem without a solution, but there are solutions without a problem." --SM5POR (talk) 12:56, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the offer. I'll come back, when it feels appropriate. For now, as you are from Sweden, in general it would be good to find ways to cleanup the stuff created by Lsjbot, here in Wikidata as well as on the Swedish (and cebuano) WP. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 15:00, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm barely familiar with Lsjbot, though I understand it has been created by a Swedish Wikipedia editor/coder and generated lots of stub-like articles in Swedish or Cebuano (a language I had hardly heard about before). I have seen various remarks about it injecting incorrect data in articles, and I have also encountered such articles myself and wondered where it has got its data from, but never actually investigated the matter closer.
Like yourself, I'm very skeptical towards the notion of "content-creating" robots. I have no problem with an experimental AI system set up to interpret natural language statements or questions, inferring information from those, and producing answers to said questions or its own written statements, like Wolfram Alpha (which I have barely used myself) and even Google to some extent. But setting up any kind of robot, whether a sophisticated AI engine or a mere tabular lookup service, to generate the human-readable answers to any question not yet asked, and storing those answers in another database, is a broken idea from the very beginning, even if the data were 100 percent correct and the output grammatically impeccable.
If you have, say, a timezone table stating the timezone of each country and administrative territory on Earth (I guess there are 500 of those) in a compact format like |DE|+1|, what is the point of having a robot systematically translate each such record into a format like The normal (winter) timezone used in Germany is MET (UTC+1) and store those 500 strings in another table? To make the data available in a human-readable format? The human will still have to use a computer to access those text strings anyway, and that computer might just as well read the original, compact table and regenerate the text whenever the information is requested. Likewise with determining the time zone of any particular locality, like the 6,000 localities in Sweden, which all have the same timezone value (normally MET, but MET DST during summers).
As I referred to earlier (see above), I actually asked how we should deal with the possibility that Sweden and several other European countries decide to abandon the annual DST procedure. "No problem, we'll send out a robot to update all those localities with their new timezone statement" was the facepalm-inducing reply I received. I dropped out of that discussion and began working on my inherited property resolution mechanism instead. There is little point in talking about these methods without being able to show how they work. "We can't possibly use such a simple algorithm", I imagine they might say; "a particular place in Arizona, USA, may have a time zone different from the rest of Arizona". And their solution? "We'll send out a robot to assign a timezone value to each of 700,000 particular places in the People's Republic of China". As if first asking "does this country/state/administrative territory have multiple time zones or not?" whenever someone needs to find out is too complicated...
Regarding Lsjbot, I'm not sure how I can help though. Translating from/to Swedish when Google Translate isn't up to the task, or searching Swedish Wikipedia for information? Certainly. But I probably have no more control over that robot than you have yourself, I'm afraid. --SM5POR (talk) 13:59, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Lsjbot is a pain in the ass, no help expected. hopelessness. But as you said you're Swedish, ..., you might run across some discussion about Lsjbot.
regarding the timezone. In object, inheritance thinking there conceptually is a member method item.getCurrentTimezone(), which asks the parent administrative unit / the container administrative unit to return it's time zone, if not set locally. a one-liner in oo programming, pseudocode: return local value set ? local value : container.getCurrentTimezone();. And there is no need to clutter all the data with replicated data (it is not expensive, so even caching is weird). I never was involved with oo databases, but retrieving attribute values on the flight should be an easy task. So I agree with your opinion on storing derived data as the timeZone.
regarding the abandoning of the annual DST procedure in Europe, this cannot be solved by running just a bot on all objects with timezones set. But needs historization of timezone information, IMHO. Getting the local time in 2000 based on UTC value, might yield a different value than in 2030. If there are UTC stored somewhere. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 14:20, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

KapellenEdit

Servus Herzi Pinki, hast du Lust mir ein bisschen Arbeit im Bereich der bayerischen Denkmäler abzunehmen? Du hast sicher schon gemerkt dass Ordercrazy und ich im Moment schwer am rödeln sind. Eines der Themen wäre die instance of (P31) und die ganzen "Gesamtanlage" aufzulösen und besser zu gliedern. Ich hab schon angefangen ein BLFD Mapping aufzubauen (hab bis jetzt 1800 Elemente) und da sind viele Kapellentypen, Kirchen und Kloster nur zusammengefasst. Es fehlt halt auch noch viel als Definition in dem Bereich und müsste strukturiert und angelegt werden. Wäre das was für dich? Gruss aus Franken --Derzno (talk) 07:20, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

sorry, bin voll mit AT & WikiDaheim ausgelastet. WD bei den österreichischen Denkmälern sauber zu machen, beschäftigt mich auch schon 4 Jahre und ist noch nicht fertig. Vielleicht in einem anderen Leben? lg --Herzi Pinki (talk) 07:30, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Q96319335Edit

[3], "depicts: inscription"? --D-Kuru (talk) 19:05, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Ich habe die Bilder zu einer Commonscat zusammengefasst. Nach meinem Wissen werden Bilder in Commons-Kategorien gesammelt, und nicht in image (P18). Die Beschreibung von image (P18) sagt: Wikidata-Eigenschaft, die zu einem repräsentativen Bild verlinkt (Unterstreichung von mir). commemorative plaque image (P1801) ist mE dann das passende, wenn die Gedenktafel auf das Kriegerdenkmal verweist. Und nicht Teil des Kriegerdenkmals ist. Soweit meine 2 cents. lg --Herzi Pinki (talk) 19:14, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Wenn ich mir die englische Beschreibung ansehe und wie es gehandhabt wird, sehe ich deine Sichtweise als so kann man es auch sehen (von den Quellen ausgehend die ich gefunden habe).
Ich schätze dein Zitat stammt aus der deutschen Version von Wikidata:Liste der Eigenschaften. Wenn ich mir die englische Version ansehe steht dort "Wikidata property linking to a representative image". Was dort nicht steht ist "a single representative image" bzw. "einem einzigen repräsentativen Bild". Somit sehe ich deine Leseweise als möglich an, im Abgleich mit der gelebten Praxis kann ich dir aber nicht recht geben.
Germany (Q183) ist dabei ein Beispiel unter vielen. flag image (P41) ist auch auf der Liste. Das Item hat gleich fünf Flaggenbilder und ein leeres Bild. Wikidata ist nicht Wikipedia und die Flaggen wären auf Commons genau so gut aufgehoben, oder?
Generell sehe ich die Verwendung unter ein paar Bedingungen als korrekt an:
  • Gegenstand im Bild hat kein eigenes Item
  • Bild kann nicht mit einem anderen Property verwendet werden (z.B. nighttime view (P3451), image of interior (P5775), aerial view (P8592), etc.)
  • Gegenstand kann mit einem Qualifier+Item beschrieben werden
  • Erstes Bild zeigt dieses Detail/diese Ansicht nicht oder nur ungenügend
  • Erstes Bild zeigt diesen Aggregatzustand nicht oder nur ungenügend
Beispiel: Was soll man für Donauturm (Q686544) als Bild für view (P8517) nehmen? Mehr Richtung Süden oder doch eher Richtung Westen? Hier haben wir glück, weil wir haben ein 360 Grad Panorama. Was machen wir, wenn wir diesen Luxus nicht haben, oder dieser nicht Möglich ist? Beispielsweise wie eine Parkanlage auf einem Hügel. Je nachdem wo man steht, hat man eine andere Ansicht, was hier ein repräsentatives Bild ist. Wenn man für den Donauturm kein 360 Grad Bild hat, könnte man meiner Ansicht nach mehrere nehmen und diese mit heading (P7787) der jeweiligen Sichtrichtung zuordnen.
Nachdem es aber eh für alles ein eigenes Bild-Property gibt, bin ich auch zufrieden, wenn es eigenes Property für Inschriften gitb.
--D-Kuru (talk) 10:48, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
1) Ich habe hier ein Property Proposal erstellt.
2) Im Proposal kann man mit "allowed units" festlegen wie viele einträge ein Property haben darf (wenn vorhanden gleich unter allowed values). Wie auf Property talk:P18 zu sehen ist, hat P18 hier keine Einschränkung.
--D-Kuru (talk) 11:58, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Danke für deine Initiative diesbezüglich. lg --Herzi Pinki (talk) 14:19, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

SorryEdit

dafür - bin so gewohnt den zweiten Eintrag zu ändern, dass ich die TKK-IDs falsch eingetragen hab :-/ LG, Braveheart (talk) 12:00, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Sollt jetzt richtig sein - wieder mal so ein Fall, wo das TKK lieber jede Kreuzwegstation einzeln beschreibt ;-) Braveheart (talk) 12:07, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

BurgenlandEdit

Grüß dich, ich hätte das Ziel den Geonames/Cebuano-Komplex im Burgenland auf Wikidata so weit aufzuräumen, dass er wieder guten Gewissens für WikiDaheim verwendet werden kann. Bei den Bergen sind mir bei Stichproben deine Korrekturen untergekommen. Kannst du dich erinnern, ob du das Burgenland bei den Bergen schon komplett durch hast? Oder zumindest, dass wenn ich in der Versionsgeschichte einen Edit von dir bei einem burgenländischen Berg entdecke, dass du dann jedenfalls die Koordinaten korrigiert hast? Gruß --Funke (talk) 16:38, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

@Funke: 1) gut so. 2) ich habe systematisch im Dreiländereck Tirol / Salzburg / Kärnten aufgeräumt. Wenn ich Objekte angegriffen habe, dann habe ich in aller Regel die Koordinaten überprüft und wenn sie weit genug daneben waren, auch korrigiert. Alles was ganzzahlige Minuten hat, ist nach wie vor verdächtig. lg --Herzi Pinki (talk) 17:07, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Ok danke, alles klar. --Funke (talk) 17:13, 27 April 2021 (UTC)