User talk:Jklamo/Archive 1

This page is an archive. Please do not modify it. Use the current page, even to continue an old discussion.

Q14175565

I see you've requested a deletion of this item (which I created). Was there any reason? This item is not 'unused' as you said, it is used by other items, which you can check on the "What links here"-site which every item has (also Special:WhatLinksHere/Q14175565). Meanwhile the request was rejected, however, I make this note here so you're aware to do a check the next time, if a item is really unused or not. --Nightwish62 (talk) 19:05, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

By unused i ment not used in any wiki. I think there is notability problem with this item and notabiliby cannot be "inherited" from another item. --Jklamo (talk) 16:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Capital of a Swedish county

How are you thinking here? -- Lavallen^talk(block) 07:06, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

q2344176 is disambiguation page. --Jklamo (talk) 08:57, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Your correct, I changed to Q25789 instead now. -- Lavallen^talk(block) 09:00, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

re

see en:China National Highways:

The China National Highways (Chinese: t 

中华人民共和國國道

, s 

中华人民共和国国道

, p Zhōnghuá Rénmín Gònghéguó Guódào) are a series of trunk roads across mainland China. Although they are called "highways" (e.g., the Jingbao Highway), they are not necessarily freeways. However, like expressways, a toll is sometimes charged.

en:Expressways of China:

A system of national-level expressways, officially known as the National Trunk Highway System and abbreviated NTHS, with 7 radial expressways (from the capital Beijing), 9 north-south expressways and 18 east-west expressways, forms the backbone of the expressway network in the country. This backbone is known as the 7918 network. In addition, the provincial-level divisions of China each have their own expressway systems.

--GZWDer (talk) 04:41, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, distinction between these two is understanable, but thus we three items - Q986648, Q10873415 and Q1847533, so still not completely solved. --Jklamo (talk) 11:03, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Your vandalism reverts

Hi Jklama. When occasionally checking the recent changes here for vandalism, I often notice you doing the same. That's a good thing, thanks for your efforts very much. However, the reason why I even notice you, is that you (often) don't patrol the edits that you revert. This way others are likely to stumble upon the same vandalism that you already reverted long time ago. It would be more efficient if you could patrol those changes, so they disappear from the recent changes list, if someone filters the patrolled edits there. Moreover, the edit summary often used by you confused me several times. In edits like this, your summary text is "Undid revision ... by ...", while you reverted more than one revision at once. The usual edit summary in a case like that is either "Reverted edits by ... to last revision by ..." or "Restored revision ... by ...", depending on whether you use the "revert" or the "restore" action, while "Undid revision ... by ..." usually is used when reverting one single edit via the "undo" link. So I always see some unpatrolled vandalism, then see that you reverted one part of it, and only then notice that you actually reverted it completely. Are you using some special script or something? If so, it would be nice if you could check if it gets the labels right. If not, please ignore me bothering you about this. In any case, patrolling the edits you revert (and, if possible, those that you accept as good, too) would be great. Thank you & have a nice day. --YMS (talk) 14:17, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I am not using any special script. I am checking older edits using Revision history, than compare selected revisions and than undo (if needed) and than saving using prefilled automatic summary. Let me know how proceed to produce better results (for other patrolers). --Jklamo (talk) 22:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Your edits at Haribo (Q169552)

Hello Jklamo,

you keep adding company (Q783794) to Haribo (Q169552). Let me explain, why I think this is not a good thing.

• A company (company (Q783794)) is classifiying organizations (organization (Q43229) according to form. The statement "is-a: company" in essence says: this is a group of people in contrast to a single person (sole proprietorship (Q842609)) working towards a goal. Not more. It's saying nothing about the purpose/goal of the group. See en:company for the details.
• In contrast business (business (Q4830453)) is all about a particular purpose. It's an organization with the goal/purpose of earning money. See en:business for the details.

So while in everyday language, often the usage is/it is assumed that company==business, this is not what the real meaning of the concepts as represented in the Wikidata items is.

The property legal form (legal form (P1454)) is used to give the organizational form. It's value can be a subclass of legal from (type of business entity (Q1269299)). Company (company (Q783794)) is such a subclass. Therefor adding "is-a: company" in parallel to "legal form: company" is redundant.

I just learned from Property talk:P1454 that this redundancy is wanted. But than I will use the more precise subclass of company ("Gmbh & Co. KG", GmbH & Co. KG (Q897103)) that's already used for the property legal form.

Hope you see the argumentation and can agree with the new status.

Thanks, --S.K. (talk) 07:54, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Link in Aylan Kurdi to dewiki

Hi, why have removed the links to the German article about Aylan Kurdi [1]? Regards, --Stephan.rehfeld (talk) 06:51, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, we call that Bonnie & Clyde problem. Some articles are about case and some of them are about the person, although these are closely related. So the item must be splitted. --Jklamo (talk) 12:14, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

There is already person item (Q20900441). --Jklamo (talk) 12:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Buildings as humans

HI Jklamo. Thanks a lot for fixing my typos. I was editing using Wikidata Game via a tablet device and probably commited a couple of mistakes by error, always with good faith. Thanks again for fixing them. Best--Kippelboy (talk) 06:49, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Top 10 primary sources tool users

Hi @Jklamo,

The primary sources tool status page says that you are one of the top 10 most active user of the tool, congratulations! If you have not tried it yet, I would like to invite you to activate and play with the FBK-strephit-soccer dataset: it is a small demo dataset to support the StrepHit IEG proposal. I would really appreciate if you could endorse, join (blue buttons), or comment the idea on the proposal page.

Looking forward to your feedback.
Cheers,

--Hjfocs (talk) 09:46, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

human village

Hi, Thanks for your Interest, I already start to fix all the mistake. I'm scanning all my edits --Mr. Ibrahem (talk) 18:29, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Q11720923

The P19 description in many languages clearly states that it should not contain country information, but more precise data only. the change you enforce is in clear contradiction with this description. Wikidata users expect that information contained there are compatible with the description and when compatible information is not available the P19 is not present.

If P19 description is wrong please take steps to fix the description before you put incompatible data there.

Following your change one could add Q2 as P19 for every person where it is not present (as there no man has been born in outer space, yet ;P) which is obviously useless.

If I am wrong, please point me out an appropriate Wikidata rule or discussion that applies in this case. Ankry (talk) 06:53, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, it's a no-brainer. The description of P19 clearly states, that "the most specific known" is wanted. If the most specific known is country, it is from my point of view correct. For users it is still better to have P19 Q36 than to not have P19 at all. But feel free to discuss that on Property talk:P19. Note that at the moment there are 517 items with P19 or P20 Q36. --Jklamo (talk) 09:43, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, just for information, why did you removed P625 from d:Q915121, d:Q915108 and d:Q915086? In itwiki we have been notified because we use Wikidata for coordinates. Thanks. --Rotpunkt (talk) 15:50, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, note that all those items had same coordinates, although they are disctinctive localities. So I am am afraid these coordinates are incorrect, someone just added same coordinates to all items in town/district. But I will consider to add deprecated rank rather than deletion next time. --Jklamo (talk) 13:18, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok thanks, we will check those coordinates. --Rotpunkt (talk) 22:57, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Wrong date of birth

I'm undoing your edit for the second time. Well, if this date really comes from English Wikipedia, there should be some wrong template parameter. But I don't see any. So where did it come from? --Lockal (talk) 17:28, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for that, I have added this to avoid any further problems. The edit was made by Harvest Templates that is really harvesting data from templates, so it is very strange how the tool obtain these data (i see it only mentioned in third paragraph). As it is really for second time, there must be some bug. So sorry again and thanks a lot for reporting this. --Jklamo (talk) 18:57, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

There seems to be something wrong with the semiautomated tools you are using, see Talk:Q6115035 and Talk:Q17278767. — Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 17:56, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi, both edits you mentioned were made before 12 March (7 and 9). Since than bug in tool was found and fixed, so there are no further errors like this. Thanks for correcting those two. --Jklamo (talk) 20:27, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

image (P18)

Hi Jklamo,

I thought, that P18 is only for images showing the object and not for any related image. I don't think, that Trial of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev (Q19789436) should show the image of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev (Q11835959) or Mariya Volkonskaya (Q21092125) the Art of paper cutting (Q12969198) of Maria Nikolaevna Volkonskaya as 8 year old.--Kopiersperre (talk) 19:36, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, images are imported from Infobox person at ruwiki articles of relevant item, so all of them showing the object by assessment of ruwiki users. For me image of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev (Q11835959) taken in courthouse is highly relevant to Trial of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev (Q19789436), as well as Art of paper cutting (Q12969198) of Mariya Volkonskaya (Q21092125) is highly relevant to Mariya Volkonskaya (Q21092125). In both cases we do not have better images. Feel free to remove them, but in my opinion both are usable.--Jklamo (talk) 20:22, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

IMHO this property can only be reused from others if it's used strictly, which means that it shows the object and not something related. And all pictures should have a certain quality. I don't doubt, that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev taken in courthouse is highly relevant to Trial of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev (Q19789436).--Kopiersperre (talk) 14:43, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Czech Republic name

"The historical English name of the country is Bohemia." according to its Wikipedia article. See: [2]

So, this begs the question, why have you reverted my addition of this name? Danrok (talk) 20:34, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Because of Q39193, so adding Bohemia as label will be misleading. Talk:Q213 is better place to discuss that. --Jklamo (talk) 21:12, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Valeriu Pantazi

Is it right to the option "article ID"? I need help... please. Asybaris01 (talk) 20:42, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Are you sure this merge should be reverted ([3], [4])?

Hello!

Today I merged murder of Kitty Genovese (Q18341392) and Kitty Genovese (Q238128).

The main reason is that, unlike e.g. Mozart -- who is notable both as personality and due to his death, Kitty Genovese (with all my respect) is notable for Wikipedia only due to the circumstances and consequences of her death. Articles in both murder of Kitty Genovese (Q18341392) and Kitty Genovese (Q238128) de facto describe her murder, despite some of them (including hu-entry in murder of Kitty Genovese (Q18341392)) are called just "Kitty Genovese".

None of languages has both "Murder of Kitty Genovese" and "Kitty Genovese" articles¹. International Wikipedia is split into two (non-intersecting¹) parts: ar+de+en+fr+hu+ja+ko+nl and ar+eo+es+fa+gl+he+it+pl+pt+ru+sv. So it's just naming style, nothing more.

¹ The only pseudo-intersection is Arabic. But it is pseudo-intersection, because Arabic entry in Kitty Genovese (Q238128) is actually titled "تأثير المجموع" (Total Effect) -- it's about bystander effect² (not Kitty Genovese and/or her murder), thus it's put into Kitty Genovese (Q238128) erroneously.

² Actually, Arabic wikipedia has separate article about bystander effect: "تأثير المتفرج" (The impact of spectator). As far as I see from Google Translate, the "تأثير المجموع" (Total Effect) and "تأثير المتفرج" (The impact of spectator) should be merged. But anyway, "تأثير المجموع" (Total Effect) is not about Kitty Genovese (and thus is in Kitty Genovese (Q238128) wrongly).

Are you sure that murder of Kitty Genovese (Q18341392) and Kitty Genovese (Q238128) shouldn't be merged?

Sasha1024 (talk) 00:00, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I am totally sure. Wikidata items are about unique concepts and victim and murder are different concepts (interconnected using P642 and P805). Even content itself is similar in articles about both concepts in most of languages, that is not reason to mix two concepts into one item. I cannot speak Arabic, so if the Arabic entries are wrong, feel free to fix them (but not based on Google Translate only). --Jklamo (talk) 00:17, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

But currently we have situation that Wikipedia articles (e.g. en and ru) aren't linked. Can we just change concept of Kitty Genovese (Q238128) from "victim" to "murder"? I am looking not from POV of Wikidata per se, but rather regarding Wikidata as a tool for interlinking Wikipedia articles.

Sasha1024 (talk) 01:14, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, articles are not linked directly through interwiki, but these two items are linked. Wikidata are no longer just tool for interlinking Wikipedia, so mixing two concepts in one item (even with legitimate interlinking objective) is simply not possible. --Jklamo (talk) 21:36, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, question is closed. Sasha1024 (talk) 23:10, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Andreas Lubitz (Q19685096)

Hello Jklamo. Thanks for your edits. I found a new source for his place of born: [5]. I'm not familiar with Wikidata, maybe you can check my entry and correct if something is wrong? Thanks and regards. --KurtR (talk) 16:06, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, you have done in correctly. There is more precise way to add references described at Help:Sources, but it is unfortunately overcomplicated. And still adding just url is much better than no reference (as wikis are not considered as reference). --Jklamo (talk) 15:57, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Ok thanks. --KurtR (talk) 00:31, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Q17985422

Afong Moy was not born in 1397, and the en.wikipedia article that you added as a reference doesn't say that she was. Please be more careful when adding years of birth. Mr. Granger (talk) 22:31, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting the error. Edit was made by semi-automated tool that seems to have problem with circa template. I will report the bug in tool and I will try to found errors like this. --Jklamo (talk) 01:33, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Tool is already fixed (suprisingly the problem was that too had problems with comments (commented reference in this case). It seems that this situation was quite unique. --Jklamo (talk) 16:01, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Great! Thanks for looking into it. Mr. Granger (talk) 00:20, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Benetton

Il titolo non è più quotato in Borsa, quindi l'ISIN va levato. --100% Reporter (talk) 08:35, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I know that company is already delisted. But from my point of view the ISIN may be still valid, if corresponding class of share exists. I will at least add ISIN back with corresponding end time (P582). --Jklamo (talk) 09:09, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Unknown

Hi| I've seen that you have used Unknown (Q400506) as a value for properties, but in my opinion it would be better to use "some value" (see WD:Glossary). What's your opinion? Thank you, --Epìdosis 16:15, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

For sure, i will fix that. Thanks for letting me know. --Jklamo (talk) 19:14, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Undoing merges

When undoing bad merges (like you did a couple of days on Kjeller (Q1289596)), don't forget to also undo the edits on the item which was merged (in this case Kjeller (Q11980895), which I've fixed now). :) - Nikki (talk) 08:53, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing. Usually i do not forget to undo edits on second item, but nobody is perfect. --Jklamo (talk) 00:30, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

That looks weird. Sorry for the extra work, but I do not know how it happened. Jos1950 (talk) 21:36, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Unsourced statements about company data

Hi Jklamo,

why are you creating unsourced statements at ArcelorMittal Kryvyi Rih (Q491289)? Without source I can't accept any numbers here.--Kopiersperre (talk) 13:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC)I can't

No, there's no such policy. Company items do not fall under Wikidata:Living people. Please try to not disrupt Wikidata to illustrate a point. --Jklamo (talk) 14:11, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

@Jklamo: You are wikilawyering here. I appeal you for quality as someone who would like to use the data, which is impossible if they are unsourced.--Kopiersperre (talk) 14:18, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

No, you are wrong. It is not hard to set up module on wiki to accept only sourced statements, so if local wiki community wants to use only sourced statements, it is possible. It is useful to remove wrong data and have sources, but there is no need to remove unsourced data. Currently most of wikis using data from wikidata are using also unsourced data, so removing unsourced data has negative impact on them.--Jklamo (talk) 19:14, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Q1295379

Why did you undo it? Rzepińce is the same as Ріпинці. Rembecki (talk) 07:35, 25 October 2016 (UTC).

Sorry, now I can see. Rembecki (talk) 07:37, 25 October 2016 (UTC).

probleme

please look result: on gallery to Q1187807, category link with category, article link with gallery and P373 for category

WUS

Ahoj, trošku jsem si hrál s Magnusovým WUS - MAgnus se zatím o mém přídavku nevyjádřil - tak jen tě notifikuju - umím z šablony (resp. odkazu na geo tools) vytáhnout souřadnice a pak je kliknutím vložit do wikidata. Můžeš si to zkusit a mrknout na to - https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User:Frettie/WUS.js. Případně to lze zkusit snad na čemkoliv, co má coord template.--Frettie (talk) 09:51, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Franz Kafka

Franz Kafka never married, so please do not add Spouse. Kind regards,  Rodejong  💬 ✉️  19:04, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

And exactly that is a good reason to have the claim "spouse: novalue", so Rodejong please stop removing valid and relevant information. Thank you, Dipsacus fullonum (talk) 20:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Škoda

My understanding is that Q391795 (ru:Škoda Works, en:Škoda Works) later become Q933787 (en:Škoda Transportation, uk:Škoda Transportation) is now part of Q28485560 (ru:Škoda Holding, uk:Škoda Holding). Could you please explain why do you merge back first and third item? --Ghuron (talk) 07:21, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

No, Škoda Works (Q391795) (en:Škoda Works, cs:Škoda (podnik)) latter become Škoda a.s. In 1995 Škoda Transportation (Q933787) (en:Škoda Transportation, cs:Škoda Transportation) was established as subsidiary of Škoda a.s., in 1999/2000 Škoda Holding acquired most of assets from Škoda a.s. (including Škoda Transportation). During 2000s Holding sold most of its subsidiaries and finally in 2011 Škoda Transportation (to be honest it is even more complicated, as successively three entities carried the name Škoda Holding, and last of them was renamed to Škoda Investment a.s.). As of 2016 both Škoda a.s. and Škoda Investment a.s. still exist, but they do not have any significant assets.

So in my opinion there is no need to maintain three items, as Škoda Works = Škoda Holding = Škoda Investment are approximately the same, thus all wikis (expect ru, but including cs) has only one article about this concept with same content + separate article/item about Škoda Transportation. It is important to sort articles according its content, not only according its name. Therefore ru:Škoda Works have content nearest to Škoda Transportation (Q933787) (despite the article name), while ru:Škoda Holding have content nearest to Škoda Works (Q391795). --Jklamo (talk) 08:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Q213/Q3342946

Hallo Jklamo,

As I stated on Talk:Q213 it isn't relevant, but do you have a (strong) opinion about the Chech gouvernement's decision to change the country's name in other languages? I don't have any feelings on this issue, but I just wondered whether you do. - cycŋ - (talk • contribs • logs) 10:47, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Q28602520

I see you have requested deletion for this item with this comment: "Unlined, just advertistement ("company" fonded in Jaunary 2017) Jklamo (talk) 12:15, 11 February 2017 (UTC)" and it has been deleted.

It is a little hard for me to understand the reason, which I believe you meant the item is unlinked and it is just an advertisement. The item is about a company that has been found a few weeks ago, and the item was describing the public information as statements according to wikidata ontology. How can this be an advertisement ? Is there a policy for every item to be linked from the start ? The item has been created a few days ago, I guess it is reasonable to think it is going to take some time to add additional information to wikidata or elsewhere that links back to it -and actually how do you know there is no link since wikidata is I believe not only supporting the wiki sites according to its definition-. As I am new to contributing, I will appreciate if you can clarify these. I am finding it hard to understand if such items are deleted how wikidata expects people to contribute and increase the amount of open data.  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Metebalci (talk • contribs).

Yes, I requested the deletion, but it was deleted by administrator, not me.

Take a look at Wikidata:Notability at point 2. There were no references in your items. Wikidata is not an advertisement platform.--Jklamo (talk) 21:23, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

OK, so quoting Wikidata:Notability "It refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity. The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references.", which is clearly the case for this item -clearly identifiable material entity- as can be publicly proven by a commercial registry link -which I tried to add as a statement but I didnt find a proper property-. Is this enough ? I think what I am trying to say/ask actually is do you expect only the items/things that are referenced by others (other wiki sites, other sites) to be in wikidata, or any item with a public reference can be in wikidata ? I can also tell there are other items (companies in this case) in wikidata which has no direct public references in their description -I mean you can only check their validity/correctness by visiting their website and cross checking the information there or the references mentioned in their website (e.g. company registration, stock exchange reference) -.

Spouse: divorced/?

Hello! I noticed you've added a number spouse (P26)divorce (Q93190) and spouse (P26)question mark (Q11169) statements. Here's a query:

SELECT DISTINCT ?x ?xLabel ?v ?vLabel WHERE {
  VALUES ?v { wd:Q93190 wd:Q11169 }
  ?x  wdt:P26 ?v.
  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "en" . }
}

Try it!

Are these errors?

--Hardwigg (talk) 03:52, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Also found some spouse (P26)widow (Q179115), spouse (P26)wife (Q188830), spouse (P26)Lady (Q1378024) --Hardwigg (talk) 04:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

It was some imperfect import 4 months ago. But thanks for message, I will try to fix these. These claims are not incorrect in fact, but just spouse (P26) does not work like that, so I am going to delete them. --Jklamo (talk) 05:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Pilot Campaign

Hi Jklamo!

Apparently, you have participated on the pilot campaign on Wikidata:Item_quality_campaign, thank you very much for that! :)
At the moment, there are 8 unlabeled items left on the pilot campaign. It seems that you have requested a workset, and you left the 8 items unlabeled. Thus, I would like to ask if you can finish labeling those 8 items, so that we can finish the pilot campaign and share the result. You might want to register yourself on Wikidata:Item_quality_campaign, to get the update about the project. If you have any questions, please let me know :)
Many thanks! --Glorian WD (talk) 18:39, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Companies - info in "the basics" section & ISIN (P946)

Jklamo, Thanks for participating at the company project. Its great to have a dialogue on several of the topics. I've been "ramming ahead" a bit because so much seems up in the air and poorly researched. The more eyes the better!

I'm fearful of requiring ISIN (P946) in the basics because it causes legal problems for everyone in the U.S. (and every where else CUSIP intellectual property lawyers can reach). See more at [[6]]. Also, legal form (P1454) is easily available inside the LEI. In fact as part of the LEI annual registration fee, they actually verify legal existence and document that on an ongoing basis, so its an excellent source of very reliable information, worldwide, with an information architecture that is very current.

As to what goes into the "basics" section I'm very flexible, consider all my edits as just "drafts". LEI, if available, is an excellent start - can absolutely "go to school on them", then add or subtract elements based on what's needed by WikiPedia infobox users, other Wikidata consumers, etc. Rjlabs (talk) 18:10, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I agree that maybe having ISIN (P946) in basics, but putting in to others is a bit degrading, as it is in my opinion as important as ticker symbol (P249).

I insist on keeping legal form (P1454) in basic, as it is really basic piece of information. I do not fell availability in LEI database as stron argument to not having it in basics.

Yes, basic are very rough draft at the moment. I prefer to continue discissions at WikiProject Companies talk pages, so we can get more input from more users. --Jklamo (talk) 13:23, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Pilot Campaign Analysis Result

Hi Jklamo! Thanks a bunch for your contribution in the recent pilot campaign. I have finished analyzing the pilot campaign result. You can find the analysis result here. I have also proposed some changes on the existing item quality criteria. You might want to take a look at those :). Cheers! --Glorian WD (talk) 13:10, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Zátěž serverů?

Ahoj, tohle by tě mohlo zajímat. Aktron (talk) 14:22, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Kulturní památky

Čau, když přidáváš kulturní památky, jako tady, tak je kriticky důležité přidat i identifikátor kulturní památky :-). Zamezí to vzniku duplicit budoucnu. Díky, --Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 12:46, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Jasně, chápu. Identifikátor přidávám, ale může se stát, že zapomenu (maximálně jednou za deset let samozřejmě).--Jklamo (talk) 13:35, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Kiwi.com

I've removed a bunch of references you added. While the company's annual report may be a good source, the wiki article annual report isn't much use. Cabayi (talk) 14:22, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

re

only for the record, this is because of the w:Template:Infobox NRHP in the page.--GZWDer (talk) 12:33, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Removed 19 values.--GZWDer (talk) 12:43, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!--Jklamo (talk) 13:00, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Humans fixed. For disambiguation page: the enwiki or frwiki pages linked are not disambiguation page. What is needed to do is to split the item or remove P31=Q4167410 in [7] and [8].--GZWDer (talk) 00:07, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Re: Humans

The mistake was not mine. Q11914855 had defined occupation (P106) as philosopher (Q4964182), Mannerheim statue (Q11880776) had defined occupation (P106) as politician (Q82955), and Comanda d'Aiguaviva (Q11914854) had defined occupation (P106) as politician (Q82955). Reviewing my own contributions I found and corrected many elements about nonhuman entities that include exclusively human professions. Were aboit 2300 edits, so far, about 15 were non-human entities. --Metrónomo (talk) 02:19, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

It's the same with Q12404568. According to its properties, is a occupation (P106) journalist (Q1930187) from country of citizenship (P27) Israel (Q801). According to the parameters of my search, that element had to be a human. Now I know I do not have to trust, there are many errors on Wikidata. I noticed that it was often bots and flooders who added those properties by adding tags like #petscan or #autolist2. It is clear that we all need to revise our editions. --Metrónomo (talk) 02:31, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I only used the mass editions in three groups: sportsmen without property sport (P641), sportsmen without description in Spanish (I added an description based on several properties) and elements without instance of (P31) and with a list of possible occupations (occupation (P106)) that only a human can have. Reviewing my contributions, I found that the property that is most often misplaced is occupation (P106). sometimes they are massive additions, possibly by inaccurate searches. Reviewing the tasks of a bot with many errors, I noticed that it is based on Wikipedia categories, that explains many cases, but others are manual additions. In those cases, it was almost always were buildings labeled with P106. I think it is possible that confusion exists between P106 and has use (P366) or used by (P1535). --Metrónomo (talk) 03:12, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Consider drop vote-keeping number of platform tracks (P1103)?

This property has key concept leak, many concepts of platforms (not only time-or-history-related!) are mixed up by this property, so keeping it will only make hurts to WikiProject Trains (Q53051).

As a simple example: Changhua TRA station (Q5071979) has only one track between platform 1 and platform 2 (as again, Spanish solution (Q1342434)), so the de-facto value "5" is logical wrong. Then how can you define the real "number of platform-somethings"? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 22:47, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Logo?

Ahoj. Tohle je asi nějaký omyl, ne? --Okino (talk) 09:14, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Import z iboxu ukrajinské wikipedie, tedy chyby se mohou vyskytnout. Což je i tento případ, evidentně obrázek továrny a nikoliv loga. Správně zrevertovano.--Jklamo (talk) 09:32, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Horní Počernice

Na rovinu, takhle to nepůjde. A to i vzhledem k odkazům z jiných položek a dokonce i projektů. Navíc, když už je to duplikát, měl bys taky říct čeho. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 08:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Data jsou sloučena z duplikované položky do Horní Počernice (Q23820229), tedy k žádné ztrátě informací nedošlo. Nejlepší by byl samozřejmě redirect, ale to vzhledem k duplikovaným položkám na "robowiki" bohužel nepůjde. Linky napravím.--Jklamo (talk) 08:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Czechia...

Hello, you are very right, "Czechia" is a bad choice because it is simply not used in English anywhere but in some official documents from the Czech Republic. I want to point out that _I_ didn't introduce this, but I simply changed "the Czechia" (outright silly and wrong) to "Czechia", so at least the grammar was corrected. --Anvilaquarius (talk) 21:05, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for unfair edit summary, I just found out that you did not introduce the change a bit later.--Jklamo (talk) 23:34, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Czech politicians

Meanwhile I think the Czech Republic on EveryPolitician is probably 3*, as, right now, "we are tracking what information already exists for the primary house of the national legislature" ... and I think you have gender, DoB, area, party for all of the 200 legislators (maybe with one exception?) of the Chamber of Deputies. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:16, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Gender and DoB are complete for both houses. Districts and groups are complete for lower house as well as political parties (not sure how record non-partisans). For higher house it is complicated...--Jklamo (talk) 18:30, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Jonny K

Hi! May I ask Jonny K's dewiki article was delinked from the wikidata template? Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 20:09, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, although content of enwiki and dewiki article is very similar, enwiki article is labled as Jonny K (victim), while dewiki article is labeled as Todesfall Jonny K. (criminal act). It is not possible to mix these two different concepts in one item (we call it 'Bonnie and Clyde problem', see also Wikidata:Requests for comment/Allow the creation of links to redirects in Wikidata). But you can still link these two article using oldstyle interwiki.--Jklamo (talk) 12:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Jonny K is only known for being murdered, so despite the differing title it's all about the criminal act on enwiki too. I'll just rename the article and relink. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:08, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

strange yob/yod

Hi, how did you get the year of birth/year of this guy: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q7636711 ? There is no reference in wikipedia to the dates you came up with. Would be great if you could investigate if this was a systematic problem. Thx! 130.237.148.223 09:12, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for reporting. My edit was made in August 2016 and in that time enwiki page looks very different and included those yob/yod (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mudzaffar_Shah_III_of_Kedah&oldid=725228311). Feel free to correct data at item.--Jklamo (talk) 09:23, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

P625

Hi, I am looking at this revert. I was just adding few hundred P625 based on Commons Institution templates and I wonder if I should perform similar revert on other items as well. The query below shows similar cases

SELECT ?item ?coord1 ?coord2
{
    ?item wdt:P625 ?coord1.      
    ?item wdt:P1612  ?Inst .           
    ?item p:P159  ?statement .   
    ?statement pq:P625 ?coord2.
}

Try it!

Some of them might be due to my edits and some due to other people's edits. What is your opinion? --Jarekt (talk) 20:57, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi, it may be useful to perform revert for that query.

Also there is a bot job to move P625 to P159, if P159 exists (at User:DeltaBot/fixClaims/jobs).

For those without P159:

Some of them (4004) may have P131. In these cases, moving this to P159 is preferred. I will consider to request bot job for this as well.

For those without P159 nor P131 (452), this can be filled manually, I can help with this.

But I think that distinguish institution vs. building is very important, Commons are much better compared to wiki.--Jklamo (talk) 11:31, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

(‎Removed claim: instance of (P31): permanent member of the United Nations Security Council (Q6688521))

On March 11 you removed every claim: instance of (P31): permanent member of the United Nations Security Council (Q6688521). I am looked for discussion on this change but could not find any. Can you direct me?  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:ThomasLeoScherer (talk • contribs).

See Wikidata:Project chat/Archive/2018/02#Usage of "member state of ..." items. All info is already stored using member of (P463) United Nations Security Council (Q37470) subject has role (P2868) permanent member (Q13341593), so instance of (P31) Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (Q6688521) is unnecessary duplication.--Jklamo (talk) 08:20, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey

Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this survey on the project page and see how your feedback helps the Wikimedia Foundation support editors like you. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement (in English). Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through the EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys to remove you from the list.

Thank you!

WMF Surveys, 18:57, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata:Requests for comment/Privacy and Living People

You are receiving this message because you commented at the above RFC. There are additional proposals that have been made there that you are welcome to comment on. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:50, 9 April 2018 (UTC) (for Rschen7754)

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia survey

Every response for this survey can help the Wikimedia Foundation improve your experience on the Wikimedia projects. So far, we have heard from just 29% of Wikimedia contributors. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes to be completed. Take the survey now.

If you have already taken the survey, we are sorry you've received this reminder. We have design the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. If you wish to opt-out of the next reminder or any other survey, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement. Thanks!

WMF Surveys, 01:40, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey

Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 23 April, 2018 (07:00 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

If you already took the survey - thank you! We will not bother you again. We have designed the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. To opt-out of future surveys, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement.

WMF Surveys, 00:50, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Not notable companies

Just wondering why you trying to add non-notable companies to Wikidata?Nigelwitz (talk) 00:12, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi, in my opinion, these items meet Wikidata:Notability, as they are "clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity" and "can be described using serious and publicly available references". Note that all claims are sourced and most of the items have at least two links to independent external databases.

Complete set consists of app. 9000 companies and organizations, 400+ of them are already existing items. At the moment there are 450 000+ companies in the Czech Republic, so this set is just a small fraction of most important ones.--Jklamo (talk) 08:14, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

German South-West Africa (Q153665) is subclass of (P279) of German colonial empire (Q329618)

Hello.

I wonder why the claim mentioned above is not accepted. Also because all other former German colonies are registered as subclass of (P279) of German colonial empire (Q329618). This claim is essential for a greater project outside Wikidata. If there is a reason of why the claim will not be accepted, so please help me out with a hint of how to describe this relation. Thanks UJung (talk) 18:30, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi, take a look at Help:Basic membership properties. I agree that instance of (P31) vs. subclass of (P279) relation is sometime very complicated. Why part of (P361) German colonial empire (Q329618) (like in New France (Q170604)) is not acceptable for you?--Jklamo (talk) 19:40, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Dopravní podnik města Brna

Ahoj, věnuješ se firmám a hodně jsi doplňoval Prague Public Transit Company (Q381100), tak se potřebuji poradit ohledně Dopravní podnik města Brna (Q3700534), konkrétně sídla DPMB. V obchodním rejstříku i na webu (http://www.dpmb.cz/cs/adresa) je jako sídlo společnosti uvedena adresa Hlinky 64/151 ([9], areál vozovny se správní budovou, kde dříve vedení podniku skutečně sídlilo). Už asi 20 let ale vedení sídlí v budově Novobranská 693/18 ([10], viz taky http://www.dpmb.cz/cs/adresa), která je obecně brána jako hlavní budova DPMB, kromě vedení je tam centrální prodejna jízdenek, informační kancelář, centrální dispečink, aj. Jak to tedy uvést v headquarters location (P159), nebo použít ještě nějakou jinou vlastnost? --Harold (talk) 09:43, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

city with millions of inhabitants

Why is this getting removed? - Bossanoven (talk) 19:16, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

As we already have population (P1082). See Wikidata:Project_chat#Item for cities. --Jklamo (talk) 19:20, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Please be careful when removing this assertion. It was removed from Kolkata (Q1348) which had no other instance statement. - Njohnson7 (talk) 17:28, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

multi-billion dollar company (Q55221379)

Thank you for removing the "instance-of billionaire" claims from the ~26 instances of large organizations. I would have done so directly myself, rather than creating the questionable Q55221379 item, were it not for the fact that the editor who originally asserted the erroneous "billionaire" claim back on June 16th has a reputation for being rather prickly, and the Q55221379 replacement claim was my way of forestalling a time-consuming edit war. Billdesmedt (talk) 17:18, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

World heritage site Prague

Hi Jklamo,

you reverted my removal of the "world heritage site id property" from the Prague article. I know that it might have looked like vandalism. However, there's a unique constraint on that property P757, so each WHS id can only be used with one entity. That entity should be Historic Centre of Prague (Q11335521). UNESCO has declared only part of Prague as a world heritage site, therefore the entity for the entire city Q1085 is not the right one for that property.

--109.91.21.82 11:42, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for clarification. But still there are more WHS related statements at Prague (Q1085) that needs to be moved to Old Town (Q11335521). I am also considering how to connect Prague (Q1085) with Old Town (Q11335521).--Jklamo (talk) 12:56, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

You're right, I should have removed those as well. I'm trying to get the list of all "main" world heritage sites (so no WHS locations with a dash "-" in the ID) down to the correct number of 1092. Right now it's at 1118 because of duplicates. Unfortunately, there are quite a few cases left where I find it hard to decide on how to merge them.--109.91.21.82 17:20, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate your effort. For a "duplicates" I think in most cases it is not a good idea to merge them, but rather keep ID only at the appropriate item, remove it from second and connect them (as it was done for Prague (Q1085) and Old Town (Q11335521)). Wikidata have larger granularity than other WMF projects (like Wikipedia), so there is the place to record everything properly and not confuse two similar concepts in one item.--Jklamo (talk) 17:55, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

ČEPS a.s. split

Hi, what's the difference between ČEPS (Q11089927) and CEPS (Q54957184) in reality? Could the items be linked to each other, or merged? --Te750iv (talk) 10:07, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi, these are two different unrelated companies. But industry (P452) claim at CEPS (Q54957184) is wrong, you can delete it. Also, you can "connect" both items using different from (P1889). Unfortunately, I am unable to edit items right now.--Jklamo (talk) 14:09, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

done. At CEPS (Q54957184), I also replaced some references to www.ceps.cz, the ČEPS website. When you have time again, you could check [11] and see if further improvements are possible. Thanks. --Te750iv (talk) 01:10, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Lindt Department Store

Ahoj, koukal jsem, že jsi změnil štítek v angličtině u položky Lindt Department Store (Q31831153). Ve všech anglickojazyčných průvodcích po architekttuře Prahy je ale uveden název Lindt Department Store (například: Ivan Margolius, Londýn, 1996; Šlapeta, Kohout, Templ, Praha, 1996)--Gampe (talk) 05:56, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

ICAO from mswiki

Hi,

The ICAO codes of the articles about Canadian airports on mswiki that you have imported with harvest template (example) are in fact TC LID. I'm actually cleaning it. Simon Villeneuve (talk) 14:53, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for noticing and fixing. If there is some additional fixing needed, please let me know.--Jklamo (talk) 10:03, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

zeptometre (Q3270676)

Nazdar, you are adding length in zeptometres, I'm not sure correct unit chosen. - Kareyac (talk) 12:15, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Oops. Thanks for noticing, will try to fix it.--Jklamo (talk) 13:11, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Fixed link

Hello,

About this revert: the fixed link is described as a w:Bridge tunnel, which necessarily includes a tunnel (and a bridge). The King Fahd Causeway has no underground part, therefore it's not a bridge-tunnel. Maybe the problem is with the "fixed link" item, which should be defined more clearly and linked to w:Intercontinental and transoceanic fixed links.

I came here from a SPARQL request which gave the longest tunnels in the world, and was surprised because it returned the King Fahd Causeway. Seudo (talk) 13:50, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi, per its definition bridge–tunnel (Q5456378) is "connection across water that uses some combination of bridges, tunnels, and causeways" (but it is linked to Bridge–tunnel article on enwiki). I have added it to King Fahd Causeway (Q827735), as it is not a single bridge, but a complex of bridges and causeways (and it was ruining my bridge report).

For your SPARQL query I suggest excluding instance of (P31) bridge–tunnel (Q5456378) from the query, as even if there is a tunnel in the fixed-link, the length is for the whole fixed link. We need separate tunnel items for that, like Hong Kong–Zhuhai–Macau Bridge Undersea Tunnel (Q56424476) that I separated from Hong Kong–Zhuhai–Macau Bridge (Q1191515).--Jklamo (talk) 15:20, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Pilsner Urquell Brewery

Regarding your diff: I know the coordinates are already embedded within another attribute, but the template en:Template:Infobox brewery uses the coordinates (as free-standing attribute) to populate the infobox mapframe on en:Pilsner Urquell Brewery. It may make sense to update the brewery infobox template to draw from either headquarters or coords, but I don't know how to do that.-Ich (talk) 13:52, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, an imperfection of enwiki template is not a valid reason to make compromises here at WD. We are trying to be as precise as possible here at WD and WD has also more granularity than WD. That is why we have a separate item for company Plzeňský Prazdroj (Q948831), for brewery (building) Brewery Plzeňský Prazdroj (Q26958672) (that has directly P625) and product Pilsner Urquell (Q331630).

It is possible to draw coordinates from P159 qualifier, at cswiki we use {{#invoke:Wikidata|getQualifier|qualifier=P625|property=P159|type=landmark|display=infobox}} for that, but it depends on the current state of wikidata module enwiki. Feel free to contact enwiki WD enthusiasts (like User:Mike Peel or User:RexxS), I am sure that they will help with proper WD implementation to en:Template:Infobox brewery. I will be happy to see more than P625 in that infobox, for example at cswiki we use from WD image (P18), headquarters location (P159), inception (P571), dissolved, abolished or demolished date (P576) and official website (P856).--Jklamo (talk) 21:00, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

That is a really weird way to store the coordinates ... But anyway, @Ich: on enwp, try using {{#invoke:WikidataIB |getValue | rank=best |P159 |qid=Q948831 |fwd=ALL |osd=no |noicon=y |qual=P625 |qualsonly=yes | maxvals=1}}. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:59, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata:WikiProject Roads translation error

I saw that you removed a translation tag from Wikidata:WikiProject Roads, citing an error caused by the tag. Can you please explain what the error was, and if this could possibly affect other pages with {{Roadtable}}? -happy5214 07:54, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, there was some Lua error, but unfortunately, I do not remember the exact wording. I tried to revert my removal and I see, that there is no error now. So it seems that error was not translation tag related and maybe just something temporary.--Jklamo (talk) 09:35, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Kiev vs. Kyiv

Specifically, I'm asking about your diffs like [12] in Embassy of the People's Republic of China, Kyiv (Q1397307).

TBH, is this really necessary? I don't think that PR China governments also have to act a role in such English naming conflicts, and I don't know why there's benefits for them, per the last month comment from Paul Eggert (ICANN staff), these kind of changes are "hassle for both maintainers and users", so when possible, I suggest to name this under naming-neutral umbrella, e.g. we use Asia/Shanghai instead of Asia/Beijing, not because Shanghai is more common than Beijing, but because Beijing has naming confusions (mainly about morden usages of its old-decade name "Peking"). --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:48, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi, it is a year old edit, so I have just a very vague idea about my then thoughts. I have no strong idea, so feel free to rename the item.--Jklamo (talk) 14:20, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Q3874091 - Q15616685

Could you please explain, what you have done here? Marcus Cyron (talk) 15:41, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Seems to premature conslusion and error. Sorry for that, I will revert the change.--Jklamo (talk) 15:52, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! I really had problems to understand the change, but there could have been a good cause behind the change. Marcus Cyron (talk) 19:29, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

last consensual version

Can you restore what seems to be last consensual version of John McCain? Thanks. --- Jura 13:11, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Aleš Křetínský (Q10774005)

Hi! Why did tou delete familial information about Aleš Křetínský (Q10774005)? Alain Schneider (talk) 08:02, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, these statements were unsourced and I was not able to find sources for these statements by fast googling. Feel free to add back these statements with references.--Jklamo (talk) 09:10, 12 February 2019 (UTC)