Logo of Wikidata

Welcome to Wikidata, Hjart!

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! --Steenth (talk) 19:22, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Administrative områdeEdit

I egenskaben located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) angiver vi kun de nuværende kommuner og regioner, når det er Danmark og ikke sogne.. --Steenth (talk) 19:22, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


@ Hjart,

in my brain, Vesthimmerland is Westlummerland. :) --Ulamm (talk) 15:18, 24 April 2018 (UTC)


Please explain what you are doing.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:36, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, I guess I got a bit confused here. Sorry about that--Hjart (talk) 20:40, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
No problem, thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:40, 8 July 2018 (UTC)


The problem with Gavnø (Q2241226) is that the element is, depend of the wp version, about the island (in French), the castle or both of them (in English). Do you want to clean it or I do it ? Simon Villeneuve (talk) 20:37, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

The danish WP version is about the castle only.--Hjart (talk) 20:41, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
  Done Simon Villeneuve (talk) 20:43, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Earth editingEdit

Hej, I am wondering why removing the item not fulfilling property constraint is not okay.

--Fantasticfears (talk) 09:48, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Sometimes property constraints are not complete and as such are not always valid reasons for removing things.--Hjart (talk) 10:37, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

P131 vs. P159Edit

Hi Hjart, located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) should not be used for organizations, but only for physical objects. The correct property here is headquarters location (P159). Cheers --MB-one (talk) 19:32, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Royal Oak Golf Club for instance is not just the club. It's also the physical golf course. --Hjart (talk) 19:42, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
I see. In this case, we should consider splitting them up. --MB-one (talk) 19:48, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
To me headquarters location (P159) really only makes sense where the organization is spread over more than 1 site. --Hjart (talk) 20:00, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Your QuestionEdit

Hello Hjart,

I saw that you asked me in a comment of undoing an edit of me how I got the definition because I have chosen the wrong State. For this batch I made a query and the results where the Items without a German descriptions. A additional information was the state where they are located. I export this as a CSV and in Calc I make VLOOKUP and add for every state the correct localization. Not in every case in German a thing is located in a country there exist other prepositions too. I think that there was a mistake. The cell I have chosen was not in the row of the state you can find in that row. I make a query and look how many of my descriptions are incorrect and correct them. -- Hogü-456 (talk) 17:55, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I edit quite a lot of items, so could you please remind me which item I undid here? --Hjart (talk) 18:09, 7 October 2019 (UTC)


Thank you for the hint. I am fine with your revert, but why don't you remove the less accurate coordinates? Greetings, --Giorgio Michele (talk) 14:32, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Sometimes I remove them, sometimes I don't. Depends on my mood ;-). The older ones are referenced, while those I created from aerial imagery are not. Of course removing them would lessen the risk of less experienced editors removing my set of coordinates, but well, then those editors wouldn't learn about the "preferred" bit ... --Hjart (talk) 14:44, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Rubjerg Knude lighthouseEdit

Thank you for adding the new correct coordinates: the old ones were not read by the template in the Italian page about the lighthouse (and I was trying to figure out why), now it works correctly :) --Postcrosser (talk) 13:14, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

The new coordinates are a guess. We're told the tower was moved ~70 meters, but not the exact direction. Forgot to add them right away after the event though. Thanks for reminding me ;-) --Hjart (talk) 13:21, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Rollback flagEdit

Hello, Hjart! I am just letting you know that I have added the rollback flag to your account, as you are a trusted user on Wikidata. If you have any questions or concerns, please don't hesitate to contact me or leave a message at the Project chat. Thanks, Esteban16 (talk) 21:35, 18 December 2019 (UTC) --Esteban16 (talk) 21:35, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Sitelink pointing to gallery, rather than categoryEdit

Hello, Hjart. You correctly pointed out that changing the sitelink broke the infobox on the Commons category. However, that's easily fixed by adding a qid parameter (which I've done on the 4 data entries).

Categories in wikidata seem to have their own (separate) items. If there is a gallery and a category over in commons, then the gallery should be associated with the main topic, and the category should be associated with the wikidata item (if it exists). Doesn't that make sense? Hike395 (talk) 21:52, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Personally I much prefer keeping things simple and most commons galleries are very rarely maintained anyway, so I really prefer commons sitelinks to just point to the categories.--Hjart (talk) 21:56, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Two points
  1. Generally, wikidata items refer to pages in the same namespace across multiple wikis. Wikidata items that correspond to articles will refer to articles, while items that correspond to categories will refer to categories. When we have a choice between a Commons gallery and a Commons category, mixing up namespaces is less simple (more complex).
  2. I spend a fair amount of time maintaining commons galleries. They do get maintained by other editors, also. So I don't think it's correct to dismiss them.
Hike395 (talk) 22:07, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
I've put a fair amount of effort into i.e. commons:Kastellet myself. I'm not really seeing anyone else in Denmark do that though. --Hjart (talk) 22:12, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
I can see why you would think Commons:Abe Fortas is not a well-maintained gallery: it only has three images with no captions. However, take a look at Commons:Al Hajar Mountains (which I just made this morning). It has descriptive captions, and a selection of images from across the mountain range. Compare that to Commons:Category:Al Hajar Mountains, which has thousands of images of the range, but only 14 at the top level of the category (and those aren't very good). I don't think you can say a brand-new gallery isn't maintained :-).
How about this --- if Danish town galleries aren't well-maintained, how about if we revert the site link for Aabyhøj ? (Although, I'm happy to try to improve Commons:Aabyhøj). Hike395 (talk) 22:42, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
I can see galleries as a means to help make sense of and navigate popular, large and complex category trees. Galleries with 3 images from a category with 5 images is rather pointless though. If you make galleries please make sure they are actually helpfull, rather than a waste of time and effort. --Hjart (talk) 23:00, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
I agree that 3 images out of 5 is pointless. Of course, I would claim that a 5-image category is also pointless and shouldn't have been made --- which gallery/category are you referring to? Hike395 (talk) 23:03, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Categories are our only practical means of grouping files together. That's why 5- or even 2-image categories often actually do make good sense. When I go to Commons though, I often do it to see which new images may be found in a particular category. I find it rather annoying to have to click through galleries, that wasn't updated for 12 years. Please don't create galleries just for the sake of it. --Hjart (talk) 16:52, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Udenlandsk navn som aliasEdit

Hej Hjart, jeg forstår ikke begrundelsen for, at du har fjernet det polske navn som alias her. Det er helt almindelig praksis at have et navn på landets eget sprog stående som alias i de tilfælde, hvor der bruges en dansk oversættelse som navn; se f.eks. den polske borgerplatform eller det svenske socialdemokrati. Mvh. SorenRK (talk) 20:05, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Det er muligt det er "almindeligt", men jeg er efterhånden kommet dertil at jeg i mange tilfælde finder det misvisende. Desuden er det ved søgninger tilstrækkeligt at navnet optræder på originalsproget. --Hjart (talk) 20:10, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Huldremose WomanEdit

Hello! This item: Huldremose Woman (Q467748) your edition results: An entity should not have a statement for coordinate location if it also has a statement for instance of with value human. See: Wikidata:Database_reports/Constraint_violations/P735#"Conflicts_with_földrajzi_koordináta_(P625)"_violations.

Please correct it:

Thank you Palotabarát (talk)

Your changes caused the coordinates to disappear from the danish Wp, so I will recommend leaving it as is. Please note that this is not a live human being. Hjart (talk) 10:26, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

The coodinate data does not appear here either: Ötzi (Q171291) da:Ötzi. Option: infobox. The data in wikidata is incorrect and needs to be corrected. Palotabarát (talk) 12:07, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Q803409 HaderslevbanenEdit


Would it be okay if I add 'instance of: railway line' back, but with a temporal modifier 'until January 1, 2001' and similarly add modifier 'from July 13, 2011 ' to the statement 'instance of: heritage railway'?

--Lnkvt (talk) 19:51, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I would be okay with that. --Hjart (talk) 19:56, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Is it to ease queries?

Reverting of dataEdit

Hi ~~Hjart~~, I can see that you have reverted the birth date of Erika F. Christensen, as there is no evidence available in terms of her birth date and I only know of her birth year, I would appreciate it if you removed the day and month of birth, as I would not like to have incorrect information on a page I have created. If you find proof, however, I would like to have a link to that source. Kind Regards, ~~Randeris4~~

Ok, jeg havde tidligere redigeret wikidata efter de data du havde angivet på Wikipedia og troede det var en fejltagelse at du helt slettede både dato og år. --Hjart (talk) 13:40, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Hjerting KirkeEdit

Jeg kiggede på Hjerting Church (Q12316917) - du har ændret den fra en flertydig til kirken i Esbjerg. Den kirke var oprindelig på Hjerting Church (Q12316919). Hvad sker der. Jeg så helst at man ikke flytter rundt på den slags. --Steenth (talk) 20:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Genre ontologyEdit

Ok, I'll buy most of your changes to my poster (Q429785) edits as desirable, except that I disagree with making poster a subclass of (P279) rather than an instance of (P31) art genre. To me that's a different level of abstraction, as you can't subdivide the property of "genre" into even smaller properties any more than you can subdivide the identity of the artist into even smaller identities!

But as I'm not really into the topic of art, I decided to do some analysis, and I found that you are actually quite in line with the majority - which I believe is just as wrong!

Now, I'm not going to lose any sleep over this; there is plenty of confusion elsewhere in Wikidata to tinker with, and the only reason I edited the poster properties was that I didn't want to see it as a direct subclass of object (Q488383), alongside the Universe, Nth-order metaclasses, the notion of God, and the very roots of existentiality and conceptuality themselves. Some company of a mundane poster, I'd say... :-)

As you may have noticed when browsing my edit history (I bet that's why you found the dog beach item and added a Danish label to it), I have only been here for a few weeks, but I'm kind of hooked, not only on a hookworm! Haven't got into lexemes yet, but that's probably a good way to become polyglot (didn't indicate either Danish or Norwegian in my Babelbox even as I do understand either reasonably well in writing; det er jo netopp samme sprog som svensk)! --SM5POR (talk) 20:58, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

You're right as to the art genre and I've changed it back. I've edited Wikidata for years now (mostly fairly basic stuff though) and I still get confused now and then. In this case I didn't pay enough attention to what I doing. Thanks for pointing it out.

Yes, I regularly check out the edit histories of other people, to get an idea of their level of experience and sometimes I find stuff that I can correct or expand a bit on :-) --Hjart (talk) 17:04, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Odd property valuesEdit

I have recently been working on some topographic features, such as highest point (P610), which turned out to be a little complicated for Sweden (Q34), where the identification of this point has shifted between two peaks as ice and snow has accumulated or ablated on either of them throughout the 20th century (and I'm not sure I can trust the accuracy of some measurements made in the 1920s as stated in an old encyclopedia on my bookshelf).

Then I had a look at my home town of Uppsala (Q25286) and saw that somebody had (incorrectly) stated our local skiing hill to be 60 metres (Q246681) (the real height is 42 metres). But hey, there was something odd about that value, as it was actually an item, not a numeric quantity! The unit was correct (metres), but the direction (horizontal instead of vertical) was not... Funny, but I corrected the statement and launched a query searching for similar statements elsewhere.

And I found the Danish island of Funen (Q26503) with a highest point (P610) of 138 (Q30652).

That's not a height either. That's a year...

Reviewing the item history, I think I understand what you tried to do, as you had simultaneously deleted a statement giving the elevation above sea level (P2044) as 38 metres. I don't know what that value came from, and I think it had been added by a robot a few years ago, but one guess I had was that it could be an average elevation for the entire island. Do you have some other explanation? It might actually be interesting to have both maximum and average elevation values for a number of territories in order to obtain some statistics on human settlements, but I need a detailed elevation data set to calculate those values automatically.

Anyway, to make a correct claim I looked up the Danish counterpart to Lantmäteriet (Q845497), and ... well, you can call me impressed! The sdfekort.dk map browser outperforms anything I have seen of that kind so far. So, besides fixing the Funen (Q26503) statement, I also looked up and pinned down Møllehøj (Q689106) in the same manner. And Lammefjord (Q1801605). But wait, I had just disregarded Yding Skovhøj (Q529888) for being man-made (artificial), and what is Lammefjord (Q1801605) if not man-made..? --SM5POR (talk) 20:32, 6 July 2020 (UTC)