Open main menu

User talk:Michiel1972


Welcome to Wikidata, Michiel1972!

Wikidata is a free knowledge base that you can edit! It can be read and edited by humans and machines alike, and you can help. Go to any item page now and add to this ever-growing database!
Need some help getting started? Here are some pages you can familarise yourself with:

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.

Regards, --Emijrp (talk) 22:13, 31 October 2012 (UTC)



waar kan ik iets vinden over hoofdlettergebruik van de labels/titels? M.a.w. moet de term van b.v. 'land' ( met hoofdletter of niet. Ik ging twijfelen en corrigeren omdat ik op ( las onder Verklaringen: Nederland is een Land in Europa.

De korte beschrijving onder de titel moet zonder hoofdletter, dat is me wel duidelijk. Michiel1972 (talk) 14:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Hoi Michiel1972, zover ik weet hebben we hier op Wikidata daar niet echt een regel voor en is die er ook niet geweest sinds het begin van Wikidata. Je hebt natuurlijk wel talen zoals het Duits waar men ander hoofdlettergebruik heeft. Ik doe meestal als titel bij de eigenschappen zonder hoofdletters en de gewone items met hoofdletter. Met vriendelijke groet, Wiki13 talk 16:29, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Echt waardeloos dat al die termen met hoofdletters zijn geimporteerd, kan er geen bot draaien die op basis van de Engelse titel (eerste letter label) de Nederlandse titel eventueel aanpast zonder hoofdletter? Het staat allemaal erg slordig nu bij de 'Verklaringen'. Michiel1972 (talk) 18:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Help:label : Labels begin with a lowercase letter except for when uppercase is normally required or expected. Essentially, you should pretend that the label is appearing in the middle of a normal sentence, and then follow normal language rules. Most terms would not be capitalized if they appeared in the middle of a sentence, however proper nouns such as the names of specific people, specific places, specific buildings, specific books, etc., should be capitalized. In the rare case that something intentionally breaks capitalization rules, the capitalization on Wikidata should reflect this, and not try and correct it.

Help:aliases : Aliases should use the same capitalization rules that labels do, so long as they apply. This means that most terms should not begin with a capital letter, but proper nouns should begin with a capital letter. If an alias is not a proper noun but the label is a proper noun the capitalization can differ. As with labels, in the rare case that something intentionally breaks capitalization rules, the capitalization on Wikidata should reflect this, and not try and correct it.


Hallo Michiel,

ik heb dit ongedaan gemaakt. Kan je ajb nakijken wat is misgegaan. Groeten uit Delft.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Hoi, wat is er mis mee dan ? De titel 'Don' behoeft een uitleg (description) vanwege de meerdere betekenissen. RobotMichiel1972 (talk) 07:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Don is een rivier, en Rusland is een land. Don is dus geen Rusland. In Rusland zijn meerdere Dons (deze is her verst meest belangrijk, maar toch). Er zijn ook andere riviers Don die zich niet in Rusland bevinden. Ik denk als je niet kan automatisch toevoegen "Rivier in Rusland", dan is dat best gewoon later handmatig doen.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Uiteraard zijn uitgebreide (hand- /botmatige) beschrijvingen aan te bevelen, maar ik ben vooralsnog blij als elk item met meerdere betekenissen iets van een disamb beschrijving heeft om de zoekfunctie en andere wikidata toepassingen te vergemakkelijken. Nu heeft (had) vrijwel geen enkel item (met meerdere betekenissen) een toelichting. Een uitgebreide beschrijving "een rivier in Rusland" is het doel, een eerste hint 'Rusland' een start. RobotMichiel1972 (talk) 19:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Vervangen van bestaande beschrijvingenEdit

Hoi Michiel1972, ik kwam deze, deze en deze bewerking tegen die RobotMichiel1972 heeft gemaakt. In alledrie de gevallen overschrijft je bot een bestaande omschrijvingswaarde. Dat is natuurlijk prima als het om verbeteringen gaat, maar dat lijkt me in genoemde voorbeelden toch niet het geval. Misschien is het dus verstandig je bot te leren om bestaande omschrijvingen over te slaan. Met vriendelijke groet, NormanB (talk) 22:26, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Vreemd, niet eerder gebeurt en uiteraard niet de bedoeling. Ik check er wel op namelijk. Ik ga even checken. RobotMichiel1972 (talk) 22:46, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Fout gevonden. Dit overschrijven gebeurde alleen indien alleen een link aanwezig was en geen anderstalige iw. Gecorrigeerd. RobotMichiel1972 (talk) 22:57, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Super, thanks voor de snelle aktie. Hopelijk had je bot nog niet teveel "schade" aangericht. Kun je op een of andere manier nagaan of dat het geval is en dat zo nodig herstellen? Dat zou mooi zijn. Groeten, NormanB (talk) 02:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Hier gaat ook wat fout. Zou je trouwens niet je bot account willen gebruiken voor reacties? Multichill (talk) 20:47, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Dat is geen fout, ik probeer consequent alle beschrijvingen zonder een hoofdletter aan te maken cq te corrigeren. Het was in dit geval een handmatige edit. Michiel1972 (talk) 21:17, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Bot editsEdit

Hello, I have seen several times edits from ‎RobotMichiel1972 that do not seem to be bot-edits. To keep things clear,, could you use your normal account to make human edits ? Thanks. --Zolo (talk) 08:04, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Bot change of labelsEdit

Hi, please check your bot's code because it is changing labels incorrectly such as here. Thanks, --Mark91it's my world 08:35, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Bot SpeedEdit

Could you pleas look at Wikidata talk:Bots#Bot speed and maybe change your bot so it only makes one edit per second (60 edits/minute). --Sk!d (talk) 21:17, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I will try limit the number of edits to that rate. However I only operate my bot while I am online, so 12 hrs a day. 21:28, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. There is also a new imitative to stop all bots until delay is to 0. See Wikidata_talk:Bots#bot_moratorium --Sk!d (talk) 20:24, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Oh..I just read this after stopped the bot for the night and restarted some jobs this morning.. Will stop soon again. 08:54, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

"Dutch" label when there is no Dutch articleEdit

Hi, could you perhaps have a look at this edit? The bot adds a Dutch label, but there is no dutch article at all... Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 12:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

yes I know, that is also what I want. A Dutch label is missing so I add one for pages I am sure the label name is identical to the English and German label. See also Help_talk:Label#No_page_in_English. Michiel1972 (talk) 13:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

A new bot listEdit

Hi there! Per a request I have been working on a new informative bot list (that has secretly been hidden under the current list at Wikidata:List_of_bots. I think I am finished and it would be great if every botop (including you) could add your bot to the new list. I have added Addbot already and tried to make the template simple! Goodluck and if you have any problems get in touch on my talk page! ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 20:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

instance of -> subclass ofEdit

Hi Michiel, I notice your bot has been adding lots of claims involving the 'instance of' property (P31). I figured I would point out Help:Basic membership properties, which explains the difference between 'instance of' and the related 'subclass of' (P279) property.

For example, the subject hot water storage tank refers to a class of items, rather than an instance of a particular item, so the claim "hot water storage tank subclass of home appliance" is more correct than the claim ""hot water storage tank instance of home appliance". An instance of a hot water storage tank would be the particular tank in your house that heats the water you yourself use -- the Wikipedia article covers all instances of hot water storage tanks, and thus Q1419245 is a class. The examples of the P31 talk page and P279 talk page also show the difference between those two properties.

Would it be possible to incorporate that distinction into your bot when adding those properties? Best, Emw (talk) 23:23, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Yesterday I processed in which most items are 'instances'. But you're right, the example of 'boiler' is indeed more a class than an instance. Michiel1972 (talk) 07:52, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Swedish urban areasEdit

I see your bot adding P131 in Swedish urban areas. That is lovely (since I will have less to do), but in some cases I have added a second and a third municipality in that property, since some of them is located in more than one. Here for example. My source is the Census from 2010. I do not know how or if this will affect your use of it on nlwp, so I leave you this note here. -- Lavallen (block) 16:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Bot removing first/second level division claimsEdit

hi Michael, please stop your bots removal of these claims without consensus as to how to handle admin levels. there is ongoing discussion on the country subdivision task force about this and the task force page is requesting these claims to be added. I would eagerly enlist your bot to fix the claims to point to a good item vs. a category, but not simply remove claims undoing other people's work. thank you! Joshbaumgartner (talk) 22:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

There is a discussion about using the concept of level of administrative division, but I think there is agreement project wide that we should only add the most specific claim possible.
By the way, there is another edit by your bot that I do not agree with: I do not think using county of the United States (Q47168) as a type of administrative division is really appropriate, as US states are defined at the state, not the federal level. A county of Massachusetts does not have much in common with a county of California, so using state-specific items like county of California (Q13212489) seems more accurate. --Zolo (talk) 21:06, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't think we should remove applicable administrative levels. --  Docu  at 06:21, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Besides that, nothing in Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Bot/RobotMichiel1972 seems to authorize Special:Contributions/RobotMichiel1972 to do that. --  Docu  at 06:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

First of all, I did not remove applicable administrative levels. I did remove inappropriate claims for items of individual Aghanistan districts that stated that a district was of administrative type "category:administrative level x". In case the claim was not a category item I would not touch it, although even then the claim should be done at the 'district of Afghanistan' item instead of the individual districts. Michiel1972 (talk) 08:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

This is the problem I have with your bot use: you aren't fixing, you are just removing. If you had replaced claims of "category:administrative level x" with claims of "administrative level x", I would be commending your bot. The claims that used "category:administrative level x" were good faith attempts to add this data. As you know, those particular items were labeled only "administrative level x", so one would not readily know they were category items. You re-labeled them as categories, which is great, but instead of using your bot to switch existing claims over to appropriate non-category items, you simply wiped out that work. Also, I agree with  Docu  regarding authorization for this activity. Joshbaumgartner (talk) 09:11, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
With respect to the county's I am not sure if it is needed to specify 50 items that describe different "county of <state>" and use these as administrative type claim. Why is the generic "county of the USA" not sufficient? In Wikipedia we also do not have 50 different county infoboxes for each state. Michiel1972 (talk) 08:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Counties are different between US states. In some cases they have extensive political powers, in some others they are just statistical entities. In Alaska and Louisiana, they are not even called "counties" though they are otherwise equivalent to counties in other states. Arguably, counties of Calfornia are as similar to counties of Massachusetts as to counties of England. That means that many, perhaps most, statements that are valid for "county (California)" and not for "county (Massachusetts)". We have some info about that in Wikipedia "list of" pages like en:List of counties in California, but cannot use list pages this way in Wikidata.--Zolo (talk) 09:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
This i why we on svwp use the word "huvudort" as a word to describe the "capital" in the infobox of a county in USA. There is as little claims as possible related to that word, compared to "huvudstad", "centralort" and "residensstad" that also can be translated "capital" in English. -- Lavallen (block) 10:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Qualifier "voormalige"Edit

Hoi Michiel, er staat me bij dat jij ook geïnteresseerd bent in historische gegevens. Als dat klopt, wil ik je graag wijzen op mijn voorstel voor een qualifier "former / ehemalige / ancien(ne) / voormalige" die ik van de week hier heb aangemaakt. Op dit moment staat het voorstel helemaal onderaan op die pagina. Misschien wil jij ook een bijdrage leveren aan de discussie. Met vriendelijke groet, NormanB (talk) 20:44, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Level of subdivisionEdit

Why have you deleted a bunch of statements about hierarchy of administrative territorial entities (Q4057633)? You should write comments while reverting. Infovarius (talk) 03:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Geopos in NorwayEdit

Please do NOT use other sources than the Norwegian Bokmål or Nynorsk Wikipedias for geopositions for locations in Norway, and also check and update your previous entries. Most of those positions are from reliable sources, including Statens Kartverk and Sentralt Stedsnavnregister, and other sources are inferior. That includes Dutch Wikipedia. Thanks. Jeblad (talk) 17:38, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, please add them before I or another bot will import these coordinates from other sources. RobotMichiel1972 (talk) 17:10, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


Would you please update your bot to avoid adding empty "Commons media file" statements (example)? They are throwing lots of errors in Wikidata:Database reports/Constraint violations/P18. Thanks in advance, --Ricordisamoa 06:16, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

done (some weeks ago). 14:55, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Michel1972, ik zag je bot afgelopen weken bezig met het toevoegen van NL-iw op een groot aantal diersoorten. (Goed werk) Tegelijkertijd liet je de iw's op de NL-wiki staan (bijv. Aedes epactius). Is daar een redden voor?--Joopwiki (talk) 18:10, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Hoi, ik heb dacht ik alleen maar labels toegevoegd, interwiki's doe ik meestal niet (ook niet weghalen uit 14:55, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Removing Selca is a villageEdit

Hi. Your bot removed the statement that Selca is a village, and I was wondering why it did that. Because it is a village (and a municipality).

yes, this is a wrong edit. Only wanted to remove 'village' claims in combination with P132 15:00, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

The same for Pucisca being a municipality.

in my opinion it is redundant to use P31 because it is already claimed to be a municipality using P132. 15:00, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Can you please explain? --Denny (talk) 10:33, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd rather say to remove the Croatian municipality than the Municipality. This way we can ask questions like "Give me all municipalities in Europe". If you want to get the Croatian municipalities, it can be asked for all Municipalities that are in Country:Croatia. What'd you think? Also, that redundancy doesn't hurt in a system that doesn't do logical reasoning... --Denny (talk) 16:56, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
That question "Give me all municipalities in Europe" can still be answered since 'Croatian municipality' is a subclass of 'municipality'. I haven been processed already many countries that way, thus by specifying the most detailed item (e.g Dutch municipality, Danish .., German .., French municipality instead of a general 'municipality' claim. RobotMichiel1972 (talk) 17:53, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, OK, if this is the way it is done in many places, I'll stick to that. Thanks for explaining! --Denny (talk) 20:10, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

cat subclass of a particular categoryEdit

Hi, I saw your note on IRC. We shouldn't do what you suggested, primarily 1) because that duplicates the category structure on the local wikis for no conceivable reason, and 2) a Category:Swedish people is not a subclass of Category:People but a subclass of category. --Izno (talk) 16:47, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

yes I agree. Michiel1972 (talk) 09:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Bot weirdnessEdit

What was your bot doing here? While it (you?) also the undid the edits, the order it now all messed up... —Ruud 16:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Please have a look at [1] --  Docu  at 12:19, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

That was me manual editing (and reverting myself afterwards). Michiel1972 (talk) 09:41, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Duplicating coordinatesEdit

Please see [2], [3]. More such errors can be found on Wikidata:Database reports/Constraint violations/P625#"Single value" violations. — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 05:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I do not add duplicates. This was because of coincidence of 2 differnt bots inserting at the same time instant.. :
(huidig | vorige) 4 aug 2013 04:06‎ RobotMichiel1972 (Overleg | bijdragen)‎ . . (6.292 bytes) (+139)‎ . . (‎Referentie instellen) (ongedaan maken)
(huidig | vorige) 4 aug 2013 04:06‎ RobotMichiel1972 (Overleg | bijdragen)‎ . . (6.153 bytes) (+348)‎ . . (‎Claim aangemaakt:  Property:P625) (ongedaan maken) (opnieuw instellen)
(huidig | vorige) 4 aug 2013 04:06‎ Addbot (Overleg | bijdragen)‎ . . (5.805 bytes) (+139)‎ . . (‎Referentie instellen) (ongedaan maken) (opnieuw instellen)
(huidig | vorige) 4 aug 2013 04:06‎ Addbot (Overleg | bijdragen)‎ . . (5.666 bytes) (+382)‎ . . (‎Claim aangemaakt:  Property:P625) (ongedaan maken) (opnieuw instellen)
Michiel1972 (talk) 09:43, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
RobotMichiel1972`s edit was made after Addbot. So RobotMichiel1972 does not detect edit conflict. — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 21:18, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia/Wikimedia categoryEdit

I know, but I use "Automatic addition" which has still Wikipedia category in it. I think I can be bold and change this for the future (Wikipedia --> Wikimedia), but we also need to change (possibly by bot) the old descriptions. --Sannita - not just another sysop 10:42, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


I reverted your bot in Hammarö Municipality (Q499359). Hammarö gemeente is located on a group of islands, it is not an island. This in the same way as the Republic of Iceland is not an island, it's a republic, a nation. -- Lavallen (talk) 05:51, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

The Dutch wiki article contains the category 'island', (no separate article island/municipality) so that's why. Michiel1972 (talk) 11:32, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
The Swedish article is in "Kategori:Kommuner som saknar fastland", so the sv-article tells the same thing, but it does not make it to an "instance of island(s)". -- Lavallen (talk) 12:29, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


please when you merge two item use the merge tool and check merge to lowes item and request for deletion, thanks --Rippitippi (talk) 21:28, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

NTA and VLACC authority control proposalsEdit

Hi! I could see that you are a user from nl.Wikipedia. Can you please support the following proposals:

  1. Wikidata:Property proposal/Authority control#NTA
  2. Wikidata:Property proposal/Authority control#VLACC
  3. others (if interested)

Can you please post in the nl.Wikipedia community portal / chat about these proposals?

Thanks in advance! Regards לערי ריינהארט (talk) 14:41, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


Beste Michiel,

Op 24 september heb je de naam van het item Q14204246 gewijzigd van "Wikimedia-projectpagina" in "Wikimedia projectpagina". Ik vraag me af waarom je een juiste spelling hebt vervangen door een onjuiste. In het Nederlands worden samenstellingen aan elkaar geschreven, al dan niet met koppelstreepje. Dit geldt ook als een van de elementen van de samenstelling een naam is. Bovendien vraag ik me af waarom je de voorbeelden hebt geschrapt, de beschrijvingen in het Engels, Frans en Russisch hebben die voorbeelden immers ook. Groeten, Bever (talk) 00:49, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

geen problemen met een tussenstreepje, maar op soortgelijke pagina's werd de wijziging niet doorgevoerd. Michiel1972 (talk) 08:47, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


Your bot adds a link to the disambiguation page. Correct, please. --Art-top (talk) 08:19, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

  • I corrected it. Thank you. --Art-top (talk) 16:57, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
    • It was a disamb page due to the entry in the French wikipedia the bot was processing. Sorry. Michiel1972 (talk) 08:46, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Aansluitingen en coordinatenEdit

Hallo Michiel, sinds kort hebben wij op de Nederlandstalige Wikipedia deze categorie. Zoals je ziet zijn het gelijk veel aansluitingen aan het begin van de lijst. Is het mogelijk om deze te importeren? Alvast bedankt, Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 20:22, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Veel van die artikelen in deze categorie hebben geen wikidata-pagina, zie bv
Hm, jammer. Hopelijk gaat iemand die ook importeren... Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 20:38, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Als het goed is hebben ze nu allemaal een item. Zou je ze kunnen importeren? Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 19:16, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

P1134 (P1134)Edit

The property that you asked is done. --Fralambert (talk) 03:22, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Michiel1972 (talk) 10:06, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


Regarding your opinion on P81:

If that is the case, what would connecting line (P81) be used as a qualifier for? (edit: Ah, I see, it will be used for adjacent station (P197);also see below)
I had not known of the usage of part of part of (P361) in my short duration here, so forgive me if that is the norm. However, while part of part of (P361) can be used for many purposes beyond the field of railways, connecting line connecting line (P81) seems to be more specific, and seems to be created expressly for usage within the railway community. I had also actually intended for the usage of part of part of (P361) with regard to a sub-section of a main line (such as Tōkaidō Line (JR East) being a part of Tōkaidō Main Line, as specified in the Japanese Wikipedia); precedent to that, "instance of" was used. --Wanderer28 (talk) 12:40, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
I've thought this over, and concluded that there is indeed not much problem with using part of part of (P361) either. connecting line connecting line (P81), I assume, would be used as a qualifier for adjacent station adjacent station (P197), though I find it weird if we were to use connecting line connecting line (P81) only for qualifier when it's placed in the Railways section of the List of Properties (but that's my personal opinion). --Wanderer28 (talk) 09:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't mind changing, but a with a little searching I found that connecting line (P81) is used in statements (rather than/along with) qualifiers in other countries such as Germany, Singapore, and Japan. Maybe we should bring this up to the Railway task force and see if they can set a standard. --Wanderer28 (talk) 09:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Yea, I see that for some countries P81 is not used as qualifier but as statement itself...(which is against the discussion on the talk page in my opinion) However, I used P361 for the stations in Netherlands, France, Spain and other countries. I don't mind if you keep using P81 the way you do, but at least do not remove P361 since the statement is correct. More general rules /guidelines for the use of these properties with railway stations is desirable otherwise we will introduce duplicate statements at the end.. Michiel1972 (talk) 09:50, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
I've undid all the deletions to your statements, as far as I can remember/find in my log; if there are any more please go ahead (and apologies for not noticing those). We'll leave both on until the Railway task force has an answer on this. --Wanderer28 (talk) 12:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
A discussion has been started regarding this at the Railways task force. --Wanderer28 (talk) 23:55, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


Hallo Michiel1972, Omdat je maar weinig op nl-wiki actief bent schrijf ik maar hier. Enkele weken geleden kaartte een gebruiker op nl-wiki aan dat in een aantal coördinaten de Engelstalige labels N/E/S/W of de de afkortingen van de windrichtingen (N/O/Z/W) werden gebruikt wat niet zou kloppen. De afkortingen voor de noorderbreedte, zuiderbreedte, oosterlengte en westerlengte zijn volgens het Kadaster en enkele woordenboeken respectievelijk NB, ZB, OL en WL. Ik ben zelf door de jaren heen erg laks geweest met deze afkortingen, heb vanalles gebruikt zonder me goed te realiseren wat ik daar deed en kopieerde vooral de coördinatentool. Nu dit op nl-wiki is aangekaart, betrouwbare en zorgvuldige bronnen NB/ZB/OL/WL zie gebruiken, lijkt mij dat de meest correcte keuze. Sommige gebruikers willen echter een optie om hierop af te wijken. Tegelijkertijd met deze discussie zijn we steeds meer tot de ontdekking gekomen welke problemen Sjabloon:Coördinaten heeft en het plan is nu om dat sjabloon op de overgebleven plekken om te bouwen naar nl:Sjabloon:Coor title dms. Het verschil daartussen is vooral dat de underscores op de meeste plekken een pipe worden en de te tonen tekst rechtsboven automatisch door het sjabloon worden ingevuld met toepassing van NB/ZB/OL/WL. Waarom schrijf ik hier nu? Je hebt ooit met een bot een grote serie van plaatsen in de Verenigde Staten aangemaakt, waarop je het verouderde sjabloon Coördinaten had ingevoegd met gebruikmaking van de labels N en W. Mijn vraag is nu, heb je doelbewust gekozen voor N en W? Of heb je maar gewoon die letters genomen zonder er echt bij stil te staan welke coördinatenlabels er gebruikt zouden moeten worden in het Nederlands taalgebied?

Ik heb voor een aantal andere gebruikers op hun artikelen het sjabloon al omgezet naar Coor title dms en het is de bedoeling dat dit voor alle andere invoegingen van het sjabloon Coördinaten ook gaat gebeuren. Mijn vraag is nu, vind je het oke als ik met mijn bot dit oude coördinatensjabloon al omzet waarbij de N en W voortaan dan getoond zullen gaan worden als NB en WL? Graag verneem ik je reactie. Romaine (talk) 15:20, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Hoi, ik heb geen specifieke voorkeur voor het tonen van (N/O/Z/W) of (NB/ZB/OL/WL). In de onderwatercode van de sjablonen overigens wel een voorkeur voor N/E/S/W. Michiel1972 (talk) 10:10, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Ja, in de onderwatercode blijft het hetzelfde. Waar het om gaat is wat er rechtsboven getoond wordt. Vind je het goed als ik het sjabloon vast op de door jou (en jouw bot) aangemaakte artikelen ombouw en daar de standaardwaarde laat tonen rechtsbovenaan de pagina? Romaine (talk) 16:26, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Geen probleem, ga je gang. (Wanneer is de tijd rijp om de coördinaten op te halen vanuit wikidata)? Michiel1972 (talk) 11:49, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


Hi, you should not make a claim where the Q item is a template Template:Toei Oedo Line (Q14336524), use Toei Ōedo Line (Q384862). Michiel1972 (talk) 11:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I thought Template:Toei Oedo Line (Q14336524) was Toei Ōedo Line (Q384862) at first. Will revise for the other stations too (So far I think only Shinjuku and another one on the Chuo Line is affected). --Wanderer28 (talk) 12:10, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


In my opinion operator=Toei Subway (Q247782) is an incorrect claim since the item describes a metro system and not an organization. Michiel1972 (talk) 12:01, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Do you think I should use Tokyo Metropolitan Bureau of Transportation (Q1377135) instead? I had doubts when I inputted Toei Subway (Q247782) too. Also, any suggestions on, for consistency, a more appropriate item in place of Tokyo Metro (Q682894)? --Wanderer28 (talk) 12:10, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Scratch that, I think we can leave Tokyo Metro (Q682894) as it is. Just might need to change the description for Tokyo Metro (Q682894) a bit to show it's the company's name. --Wanderer28 (talk) 12:15, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Self-portraits by Vincent van Gogh (Q1972676)Edit

a list is no self-portrait (Q192110), see also list of works by Leonardo da Vinci (Q1469799)--Oursana (talk) 13:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, you say it is a list, but when I look at the Dutch wiki it is not a list but an article. That's why I remove the 'list'-claim. A list claim is only valid when all interwiki's do show a clear list, please not only look at Michiel1972 (talk) 13:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Secondly, the item can be used as subclass of self-portrait (Q192110). Some painting articles can then have the claim instance of (P31) Self-portraits by Vincent van Gogh (Q1972676) - although you may have edit the label slightly (remove 'list of') Michiel1972 (talk) 13:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
I would separated the German Wikimedia-list. Regards--Oursana (talk) 14:40, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Q515 for French communesEdit


When and why do your robot add P31 = Q515 on french communes ? « Q515 » doesn't really exist in France and there is no clear definition. Do you plan to add city (Q515) on all the commune of France (Q484170) ? Or just some of them ? (and which ones ?)

Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 10:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, yes there is no clear definition of city (Q515) other than "permanent settlement larger than a town, generally with a population of at least tens of thousands" so for big places with more than (say 100.000) inhabitants everyone could use this statement to describe that an item is not only a municipality but also a city. Similar we could use village (Q532) or town (Q3957) or city with tens of thousands of inhabitants (Q896881) or hamlet (Q5084) to describe the item. But for now I do not have further bot plans to do so. Michiel1972 (talk) 10:58, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Ok so you put a limit at 100.000 inhabitants, why not.
I've launched a discussion about city (Q515) since the french label seems wrong to me (and that's why I'm so confused). Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 11:06, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Precision of coordinatesEdit

Hi, could you explain algorithm used for precision calculation? For example: [4]. Wikipedia has coordinates "latitude = 49.7472, longitude = 3.0736". Precession 0.001 was set up by your bot. Why not 0.0001? — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 20:00, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

For this example, a French commune, I would say that even 0.001 is too much precision. In almost al cases (places, municipalities, buildings) 0.001 is sufficient. Although to be certain I used 0.0001 precision for buildings/monuments. Michiel1972 (talk) 20:12, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Ok, so you use fixed precision for every object class. My bot uses another approach based on number of digits. Negative side of different algorithms is problems for merge tool. The tool can not merge values imported by different bots: Wikidata:Database reports/Constraint violations/P625#"Single value" violations. So it is better use some common algorithm. Also please see idea of one user: Обсуждение участника:Ivan A. Krestinin/Архив#Incorrect coordinates in Spanish municipalities. — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 20:49, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Coordinates of peoplesEdit

Hi, please do not add coordinates to human items directly (edit1, edit2). Please use coordinate location (P625) as qualifier for another appropriate property, for example place of burial (P119). Also see {{Constraint:Conflicts with}} on Property talk:P625 for another cases. Please remove already added invalid properties. — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 17:26, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Coordinates of companiesEdit

Hi, please do not add coordinates to company items directly. Please use coordinate location (P625) as qualifier for another appropriate property, mostly headquarters location (P159). If there is already coordinate location (P625) as qualifier headquarters location (P159), it is not needed to add anything. Also see {{Constraint:Conflicts with}} on Property talk:P625 for another cases. Please remove already added invalid properties. --Jklamo (talk) 19:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


Just so you know, an item you created has been depopulated of language links. It appears the editor has, in doing so, reverted some edits you made to Q581641 in February separating out article links into two items. Hope this notification helps. Cheers. Delsion23 (talk) 00:06, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

en labelEdit

Hi! makes no sense for other languages see es:La Habana Vieja#Ciudades_hermanadas. gangLeri לערי ריינהארט (talk) 12:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I did not wanted to create a seperate item "Old Havana and its Fortification System" because most of the heritage site is covered in the article "Old Havana". Michiel1972 (talk) 16:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Adding interwiki to Wikidata via pywikipediaEdit

How to add interwiki from sh wikipedia to Wikidata via pywikipedia? --Kolega2357 (talk) 01:17, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

First namesEdit

Hello Michiel,

At Propery proposal, I suggested a way to link items for first names with those for family names. It might make it easier to get this in order. I thought this might interest you. Feel free to comment there.

BTW, I added descriptions for male/female given names to a version of autoedit. A bit cumbersome to do this 1-by-1. Maybe later, once the general state of the items is better, we can find a way to do all 13000 items at once ;) --- Jura 09:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Please don't add instance of itselfEdit

Hello. It seems that your bot is adding statements that an item is an instance of itself, or subclass of itself. For example Canadian Open Badminton Championships (Q1032264) was set to be an instance of itself. [5]. Can you fix your bot to check and make sure that it is not adding an instance of or subclass of where the value is the same item? Jefft0 (talk) 09:35, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


Yes, the location was a script error, I mismanadged my columns before transferring to QuickStatements, I'm correcting that right now. The event location should still be in the edition item, because the race changed location some years (so it should be in the principal item with qualifiers for beginning/end and in the edition items (but never have for value "Tustumena 200", I agree)).

For part of/instance of, that could work, but then how do you manage items like Q18645144? it's not an instance of Finnmarksløpet 2010 (Q11968958) which isn't a class. You would use Q18645144 part of (P361) Finnmarksløpet 2010 (Q11968958) instance of (P31) Finnmarksløpet (Q649930)?--Harmonia Amanda (talk) 16:54, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

@Harmonia Amanda:. First some questions, why is Finnmarksløpet 2011 (Q17772307) labelled Finnmarksløpet 2012 while the interwiki goes to Finnmarksløpet 2011? Same issue for Q18645144, why is it part of Finnmarksløpet 2011? Shouldn't be 2012? Anyway, the approach using 'part of' in Q18645144 looks correct. Michiel1972 (talk) 10:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Hmm Finnmarksløpet 2011 (Q17772307) was labelled correctly in French so I probably didn't see the error in english. Actually, there is no problem with Q18645144 but there is one with Finnmarksløpet 2010 (Q11968958) (incorrect label in english). I'll verify all english labels. I corrected yesterday the Iditarod and Yukon Quest <part of> into <instance of>. I'll verify that all went well today. Thanks! --Harmonia Amanda (talk) 10:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


Hoi Michiel1972, ik zie dat je beschrijvingen bij schilderijen aan het toevoegen bent. Zou je die bot eens over paintings without a collection kunnen laten draaien? Zitten een hoop false-positives in die lijst en een bot update zorgt ervoor dat die opnieuw ingelezen worden. Slaan we mooi twee vliegen in één klap. Multichill (talk) 08:55, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Removed claim: instance of (P31): Rijksmonument (Q916333)Edit

Hello, it seems that you are removing the claim: instance of (P31): Rijksmonument (Q916333) ... in many items. Why? The items in question that I have seen have the property P359, and Property_talk:P359 clearly states that its domain are indeed instances of Rijksmonument (Q916333). For example, Q17293505 and Q17293261 have no other instance-of, and for example Q17294941 is an instance-of a 'neck gable building', but that is a general class of building, and so it should have instance of Rijksmonument (Q916333) as well, if I understand correctly. Fred Johansen (talk) 15:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, items that describe monuments should have a heritage designation (P1435). The P31 should be used to indicate what type of monument (house, statue, lock, etc) it in fact is. As far is I can see this approach is followed in Canadian and France monuments also. Michiel1972 (talk) 09:11, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
That's fine, but then there's still an inconsistency between the approach you describe, and the Domain that's given in the property (Domain: Instances of Rijksmonument (Q916333)). If you agree, I suggest that you change the Property talk:P359 and then in your edit give the grounds that you have for that change. Fred Johansen (talk) 13:00, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Rijksmonument complexEdit

Hoi Michiel1972, ik zie dat je lekker bezig bent met de Rijksmonumenten. Gebruik je een beetje recente dataset? Ik had nog een punt openstaan wat jij wellicht ook leuk vindt om te doen: Rijksmonument complexen aanmaken en deze linken met de Rijksmonumenten. Neem bijvoorbeeld Elswout (Q2278595), dat is een complex met nummertje 339207. De bijbehorende Rijksmonumenten zouden gekoppeld moeten worden via part of (P361) en weer terug op het complex via has part (P527). Veel complexen zijn nog niet aangemaakt hier op Wikidata. Zin om dit op te pakken? Multichill (talk) 19:46, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Bloemendaal aan zeeEdit

Q16831671 ligt niet in Bloemendaal aan zee, maar in Bloemendaal. Zou je dit willen aanpassen? Is waarschijnlijk met een heel setje foutgegaan. Multichill (talk) 20:14, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

is ontstaan doordat BAG code 2654 in Bloemendaal aan Zee (Q2695652) staat terwijl dat dus Bloemendaal moet zijn. Omdat Bloemendaal (Q9908) plaats en gemeente omschrijft is P131 als claim voldoende en zal ik P276 verwijderen. Michiel1972 (talk) 12:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Dank je! Wil het een beetje vlotten met de Rijksmonumenten? Ben een tijdje weg geweest dus ben wel benieuwd hoe het ermee staat. Multichill (talk) 19:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)


Jij hebt bij Julianne Nicholson met je bot de omschrijving Amerikaans acteur toegevoegd. Ze is alleen geen acteur, maar een actrice. Kan je bij het toevoegen van beschrijvingen ook op het geslacht letten, dus bij vrouwen actrice of zangeres in plaats van acteur of zanger? Mbch331 (talk) 15:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Keuze voor acteur als omschrijving is bewust gedaan. Item acteur heeft ook als label 'acteur', en de Nederlandse wikipedia categorie ook. Michiel1972 (talk) 12:12, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Voor categorisatie is een onderscheid tussen man en vrouw niet nodig, maar voor een vrije omschrijving wel. De baan van een vrouwelijk persoon is tenslotte niet acteur, maar actrice. (Prijzen worden ook apart uitgedeeld voor mannen en vrouwen.) Mbch331 (talk) 12:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Niet mee eens, zie ook het eerste voorbeeld op ( Vraag: Mag een vrouw zichzelf coördinator noemen, of is alleen coördinatrice juist? Antwoord: Beide vormen zijn mogelijk. Op dit gebied gelden geen vaste voorschriften; iedereen kan dus in principe zijn eigen voorkeur volgen). Consequent de mannelijke benaming volgen zoals de wikipedia-categorieen leek mij het meest voor de hand liggen, en is niet onjuist om het beroep van iemand mee aan te duiden. Michiel1972 (talk) 12:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Bot/RobotMichiel1972 2Edit

was approved.--GZWDer (talk) 04:28, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


Do not use location (P276) for street or similar is only for current position of a movable object revert your edit please --Rippitippi (talk) 13:47, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Hoi Michiel, zie Wikidata:Administrators'_noticeboard#Incorrect_propriety. Multichill (talk) 07:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

De WachtEdit

Hallo Michiel, je hebt een item aangemaakt voor de straat De Wacht. Er is ook al een item voor de gelijknamige buurtschap. Deze buurtschap bestaat precies uit die ene straat. Dienen deze items dan naast elkaar te blijven bestaan? Dinsdagskind (talk) 22:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


In your bot request you said that would have added instance of (P31), located in the administrative territorial entity (P131), postal code (P281), coordinate location (P625), but there are a lot of items without these properties. Can you check? Some example: Q18968450, Q18968451, Q18968455. --ValterVB (talk) 11:56, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Invullingen gewenstEdit

Hallo Michiel1972, Ik zie dat je bot een hoop items over straten aanmaakt. Misschien was je het al van plan en is mijn bericht voorbarig, maar zou je voor alle items ook minstens voor het Engels een label kunnen invullen (is zelfde als Nederlands) en en een beschrijving kunnen invullen voor het Engels. Ik probeerde namelijk de lijst van ontbrekende labels en omschrijvingen af te werken, zowel Nederlands als Engels, maar die is overspoeld door straten zonder labels en beschrijvingen. Dank alvast! Romaine (talk) 16:03, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Empty itemsEdit

Hey. Your bot is creating many empty items, see Q19322538, Q19322710, Q19322757, Q19322714. Many more you find on User:Pasleim/Items for deletion/Almost empty. --Pasleim (talk) 18:51, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


Hoi Michiel, vooralsnog alleen een vraag, ik denk dat jij het antwoord wel weet: op WikiNews staan heel veel artikelen met een bijna leeg (automatisch aangemaakt) wikidata-entry. Ik vul die nu met de hand minimalistisch aan, zodat ze 3+ properties krijgen, maar volgens mij zouden de eerste drie automatisch aangemaakt kunnen worden? Dat zou mij veel stompzinnig monnikenwerk schelen. Zie voor een voorbeeld: Q17884659, waar instance of (P31), publication date (P577) en language of work or name (P407) redelijk eenduidig op het wikinews-artikel staan. Is zoiets eenvoudig te doen, of kan ik het beter elders vragen? Edoderoo (talk) 12:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Dutch streetsEdit

I'm concerned that Wikidata:Requests_for_permissions/Bot/RobotMichiel1972_2 had little discussion or community consensus, for a 240,000-item import and a precedent for several magnitudes more than that. I suggest you pause the job - which I appreciate is a good-faith effort - while that discussion takes place in a more prominent venue. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

@Talk to Andy and others: please show your opinion on Wikidata_talk:Requests_for_permissions/Bot/RobotMichiel1972_2. Michiel1972 (talk) 10:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Street itemsEdit

Hi, I like your bot creating all these street items, but I am not convinced it is a good idea to add located at street address (DEPRECATED) (P969). Afaik, the idea behing p969 was mostly to have some fallback solution to provide an address when no item about the street was available. On the other hand I think you could use official name (P1448) or (native label (P1705)) for the street name, and also set the English (and French, and German..) label to the same value as the Dutch label. -Zolo (talk) 21:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, P1488 would be helpful. --- Jura 11:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't know if you have read this message, but I really think the bot should not be adding located at street address (DEPRECATED) (P969) to items about street. That does not really make sense. --Zolo (talk) 09:14, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


You have already created several items for streets starting with Z. You should not do that twice.--GZWDer (talk) 10:27, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Radio Kootwijk (Q17342544)Edit

Die heb ik ooit met veel tijd en moeite uit elkaar getrokken en netjes in verschillende items ingedeeld. Weet je zeker dat je dat allemaal in één iem wilt stoppen? Multichill (talk) 18:03, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Item stond in de lijst van 'onjuiste/ontbrekende RM' (wel monumentstatus rijksmonument en geen id), samenvoegen met 17342544 (gehele complex) leek me logisch, ook vanwege inhoud nl artikel (beschrijft complex, niet alleen gebouw A). Michiel1972 (talk) 07:34, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
enne..ik kan nog heel wat hulp gebruiken om User:RobotMichiel1972/Items_zonder_rijksmonumentnummer op te schonen. In mijn eentje gaat het nog een jaar duren om alle rijksmonument-duplicaten zonder nummer te mergen met de rijksmonument items die ooit geautomatiseerd zijn aangemaakt door jouw. Michiel1972 (talk) 18:41, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Erroneous infobox data havestingEdit

Hi, it seems that this comes from wrong infobox data harvesting (El Mañana is mentionned in the ref inside the infobox parameter, but it is clearly not the architect of the building) I have seen this error before, so I suppose that it comes from some bot software or something, if you could warn its maintainers ;)... --Zolo (talk) 09:01, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


I think this is wrong. Please check your semiautomatic edits thoroughly.  — Felix Reimann (talk) 12:14, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Dutch label was wrong. Michiel1972 (talk) 18:35, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Niet handigEdit

Hallo Michiel1972, Ik zie dat je vanochtend een hele serie artikelen van nl-wiki op Wikidata hebt gezet. Sorry, maar dat is niet handig en helpt alleen maar van de regen in de drup. Al weken zijn we hard bezig om alle nl-wiki-artikelen aan Wikidata toe te voegen met alle minimale verklaringen die er voor een onderwerp minstens nodig zijn. Dit doen we op basis van de lijst van ongekoppelde items. Als gebruikers massaal dan artikelen op Wikidata gaan plempen, raken wij het overzicht kwijt en staat er te weinig verklaringen om effectief iets met deze items te kunnen doen. Niet voor niets hebben we maanden geleden gevraagd aan alle bots om geen artikelen meer vanaf nl-wiki te importeren, omdat dit niet helpt om deze artikelen kwalitatief op Wikidata te krijgen. Nu kunnen we de bende die hier veroorzaakt is weer opruimen... Romaine (talk) 18:00, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Niet voor niets hebben we maanden geleden gevraagd aan alle bots om geen artikelen meer vanaf nl-wiki te importeren daar weet ik niets van. Verder weet ik niet of de itemcreator van als bot kan worden aangemerkt. Deze gebruik ik regelmatig, voor verschillende talen. En uiteraard is het geen kwade opzet om 'jullie' (ons?) project te dwarsbomen door het aanmaken van missende wikidata-items. mvg Michiel1972 (talk) 19:50, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

wrong claim architect (P84)Edit

Can you check the following edits [6] [7] where the claim architect (P84) was added to an instance of (P31) human (Q5).

references for streetsEdit

I noticed a lot of items related to streets added to wikidata with general reference to Postcode data (Q18916547) but no specific reference. Does each of these streets have a url? If so could you add a described at URL (P973) statement to each street so they have proper references that can be used to check the data? Joe Filceolaire (talk) 07:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

No, no specific url is available per street. Data with all streets can be downloaded using the url in Postcode data (Q18916547). Michiel1972 (talk) 22:40, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

WTA = women's tennis -- ATP = men's tennisEdit

Hello Michiel1972,

on 30 nov 2014 16:35 your bot contributed to:

the property: instance of (P31) Qatar Open (Q299402).

What was your intention by doing that?

I have taken the liberty to take those away, as they are obviously wrong.

Kind regards, Vinkje83 (talk) 15:44, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Oops. Happened due to manually processing the tree ATP in french wiki, but category included both ATP and WTP which I probably didn't noticed. Michiel1972 (talk) 13:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Most frequent .. 2010Edit

Hi Michiel1972,

I added a quote to the statement as these items tend to get merged and it's not always clear what it refers to. --- Jura 17:54, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I am preparing an import of the frequency for the first given name in the Netherlands. I'll try to add that claim also. But see many popular names are missing (Noortje, Inge, Janny, Mirthe,..) so try to fix that first. Michiel1972 (talk) 18:17, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
I thought I created them all ;) -- Naming did change since the 1930s.
I was thinking about linking diminutives to their unabridged version (in P31 with qualifier "of"; there is an incomplete list at Wiktionary), but then I figured it might be easier to do by a native Dutch speaker. --- Jura 09:39, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Another thing: would you have an easy way to move (or re-add) the 8 on [8] to items that are for given names only, e.g. Q3194383 instead of Q1158550. I did a few manually and it's not as quick as moving sitelinks ;) --- Jura 11:07, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Using ship type as P31Edit

Hi, I noticed that the number of constraint violations on "vessel class" increased sharply today; it originates from your bot adding ship types as vessel class (P289). Vessel classes have a stricter definition and cannot bear a ship type as their values: ship types like tank landing ship (Q11229656) rather have to be used as the value for instance of (P31), see Wikidata:WikiProject_Ships/Properties#Ship_types. You may also have a look at Property_talk:P289 and at Wikidata:WikiProject Ships/Classification.

Do you have the means to fix these recent changes? There seem to be over a thousand tank landing ship (Q11229656) in that situation. Let me know, please. Cheers ---- LaddΩ chat ;) 14:05, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I don't understand the problem. Just tried to put a valid general P31 and its more detailed ship class P289. (Same approach is used for books, computergames, etc using genre). You can not expect me to read all wikiprojects in detail.. You may correct my edits, I just populated because of missing P31. Michiel1972 (talk) 17:28, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Maybe explain it me using USS LST-1072 (Q10386256). P31 is 'ship' , that is a correct claim right? Then P289 indicates what type (or class) ship, thus a LST. Michiel1972 (talk) 17:41, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Here, I added the right stuff in USS LST-1072 (Q10386256), based on The confusion originates from the Portuguese Wikipedia itself: on pt:USS LST-1072, they used template attribute "classe" to indicate LST, when they should have used "tipo". I will try to fix it myself, then. ---- LaddΩ chat ;) 18:10, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Removing P31:Q649434Edit

national cultural monument of the Czech Republic (Q649434) is really not good combination with instance of (P31) (heritage designation (P1435) is much better), so i can agree with removing it in a case, where there is another instance of (P31). But I am not sure if it is good to remove it in a case, when it is only one instance of (P31) (like here). --Jklamo (talk) 19:35, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


Is there really the ned to put in Dutch Western Australia, Australia against a whole lot of articles that have Western Australia as an adequate qualifier?

It seems redundant from an outsiders point of view. You may have a good explanation. JarrahTree (talk) 15:24, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Short descriptions are useful for searching items. Without description, a user can not see that the item is in Western Australia, unless the user opens the complete page and can read all claims. Michiel1972 (talk) 15:36, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Descriptions from Wikidata are nowadays used by the mobile app. They better don't be blank, and as descriptive as we can get them! Edoderoo (talk) 10:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Schools in Kent United KingdomEdit

Your bot is crawling around secondary schools in Kent- putting inaccurate information into NL. I have a lot of sympathy, because the titles of the schools in Kent are designed to confuse parents. Kent evaded the instruction to change its antiquated selective model to the comprehensive model in 1968, by deciding to run a comparative test before doing the full change. It created two full comprehensive schools in remote aras and a segregated all-ability school. All its Secondary Modern Schools it renamed High Schools (the name used by comprehensive schools in the rest of England.) One grammar school is called a Maths School, the rest are called Grammar Schools. I hope you are following! The Catholic Church would have none of this rubbish- it announced that all its secondary school would become full comprehensive schools. However Kent Grammar schools encouraged all bright students in the 3 comprehensive schools and the Catholic sector to transfer to the Grammar schools- thus creaming off their top students. The Comprehensive school became creamed-comprehensives. Kent High schools were failing, so were forced to become Academies and another name change. If I were having children now- I would be teaching them Nederlands- so they can bail out and go to a secondary school and university in the Netherlands. Good luck in explaining that to your bot. Other counties to avoid are Buckinghamshire Lincolnshire and Cheshire who have similar Neanderthal systems- but use a different terminology- High school in Cheshire is a Grammar school mainly.--ClemRutter (talk) 00:42, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi! My bot intends to provide a very short summary for many items, and focusses on Dutch readers. It uses esisting claims ('is a' -> 'high school') to add this description. So in case the claims are not correct, the added summary will be incorrect.. Best thing to do is to change the -according to your knowledge- wrong claims for schools. I have not enough knowledge about the school system in the UK to do this. Michiel1972 (talk) 13:51, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

bot: descriptions and locations (wrong)Edit

Hello, i found that your bot added some wrong nl descriptions like here [9]. Problem: it only adds the first P131 statement as location info into the description, but this can be very misleading. Same at [10]. maybe you can look into it and find a better solution for such bot-made descriptions? Holger1959 (talk) 12:36, 15 January 2016 (UTC) PS: this problem obviously exists now for many nature reserve items (and maybe others too), another example [11]. Holger1959 (talk) 12:44, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, not really wrong but incomplete, yes. But as I do not find it useful to mention all administrative regions in the summarizing description, I changed the bot so in case more than one claims for P131 are found, the first region/municpality will not be added in the description but only the country. Michiel1972 (talk) 21:39, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for partly changing your bot. can you change its behaviour for other properties (especially P17 and p31) with more than one statement too? see examples "forgotten" country/Netherlands or "Natura 2000-gebied" for a national park (not completely wrong, but obviously not the best description).
For the german nature reserve items i have checked about 1000 bot edits, and corrected about 300 misleading descriptions, see my contributions (took me some hours, not yet finished, I only went back to 2016-01-15 09:55). This ratio (ca 1/3) is normal for protected areas in Germany, where many areas are located in more than one municipality or district. On Wikipedia there are about 10.000 German protected area articles in total (the majority has Wikidata items already). But this is important not only for German items: misleading descriptions now exist for other country items too, see eg. Moerputten/NL with 's-Hertogenbosch not included (i only noticed some of these cases when clicking on an other country item by accident, therefore i cant tell how many may be affected).
Suggestion: please , in general, do not let your bot add descriptions from any property with more than one statement, when only one random or the first statement will be used. such items are better left for human handling i think.
An other problem to think about (not specific for your bot, but for all fully or half-automated descriptions) is that we still have many false (i mean: 100 % wrong!) location statements in geographic items. For german items i can tell that especially P131 statements using one of the 16 german states are often wrong (eg. P131=Hesse, when P131=Thuringia would be correct). i know nothing about the reasons, but i observed that it is often the result of wrong edits by a number of tools or other bots from 2014 and early 2015, which have not been corrected yet. If now again bots use these wrong statements to add descriptions, errors will duplicate even more. And unfortunately, the potential for corrections is low: most humans editing german items are, naturally, germans. They usually use german interface (the only other language they often see is default English), therefore such wrong descriptions (here: Dutch for German items) probably tend to stay very long.
Question: can you maybe make a list of potentially affected items edited by your bot? (items since you started with these descriptions; subset: items with 2 or more statementes for properties)
PS: i think automated descriptions can generally be good and helpful, especially when they are really "safe" to add and when they are not too "stupid" (like those very short ones like "human" we have seen recently). We should only be aware of and try to avoid error sources. Holger1959 (talk) 13:03, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguations and first namesEdit

Hi Michiel1972,

As you edit quite a lot of disambiguation items, I would be glad to have your input on Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_Names#Revise_.22How_to_clean_up_a_given_name_item.22 ?
--- Jura 19:06, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect nl descriptionsEdit

The bot is adding a lot of Dutch descriptions for plant families. This is no problem in cases like the Sapotaceae ("geslacht uit de familie Sapotaceae"), but it does give a problem for cases like the heifamilie: "geslacht uit de familie heifamilie". I don't know anything about bot programming, but perhaps you can put in a rule that the bot omits "familie" if the family name ends in "familie"? --Randykitty (talk) 18:39, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

yes, this happened sometimes. I changed the text format now in the bot as proposed. Michiel1972 (talk) 18:49, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 12:36, 25 March 2016 (UTC)


Can you pls propose equivalent property for "Reservation" (Seat reserved for specific caste)? I thought "classified" can be more fit to use. thanks. --Mdmahir (talk) 11:18, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Listed buildings in DenmarkEdit

Where did you get the information for this edit? I cannot find it. — Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 12:25, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Merge or not ?Edit


I see you created graveyard cross (Q18762207) but is this item really needed or could it be merge with cemetery cross (Q15072800) ? (I must say I can't tell the difference between this two items).

Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 10:46, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Louis Jacques ThénardEdit

Hoi Michiel, kan je even kijken of je bot goed werkt? Ik zag deze editː Deze man was chemicus, niet politicus namelijk. Met vriendelijke groet, ̴̴̴̴̴

hoi, een oude edit uit 2015. En ook toen stond onder P106 dat de man politicus was. Uiteraard is chemicus beter, maar dat weet een bot niet. Michiel1972 (talk) 22:40, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

ːOké, je bot werkt goed dan. Groeten, ̴̴ELLYWA (tildes werken niet??)

Erroneous statementEdit

Hi, see this diff. I reverted it. Danmichaelo (talk) 15:54, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to Wikidata user studyEdit

Dear Michiel1972,
I am a researcher of the Web and Internet Science group of the University of Southampton.
Together with a group of other researchers from the same University, we are currently conducting a research aiming to discover how newcomers become full participants into the Wikidata community. We are interested in understanding how the usage of tools, the relationships with the community, and the knowledge and application of policy norms change from users' first approach to Wikidata to their full integration as fully active participants.
This study will take place as an interview, either by videotelephony, e.g. Skype, phone, or e-mail, according to the preference of the interviewees. The time required to answer all the questions will likely be about an hour. Further information can be found on the Research Project Page Becoming Wikidatians: evolution of participation in a collaborative structured knowledge base.
Any data collected will be treated in the strictest confidentiality, no personal information will be processed for the purpose of the research. The study, which has submission number 20117, has received ethical approval following the University of Southampton guidelines.
We aim at gathering about 20 participants, chosen among experienced Wikidata users who authored a large number of contributions.
Should you be interested in taking part or wish to receive further information, you can contact us by writing to the e-mail address
Thank you very much, your help will be much appreciated!
--Alessandro Piscopo (talk) 11:26, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Herstel van haakjestoevoegingEdit

Hallo Michiel,

door bewerkingen zoals deze is helaas de situatie ontstaan dat op 2009 Australian Open (Q330022) bij de verklaring has part (P527) een lange lijst met identieke labels (Australian Open 2009) wordt getoond. Een bezoeker die wil doorklikken naar een specifiek onderdeel (zeg: gemengd dubbelspel) heeft geen idee op welke hij moet klikken.

Zou jouw bot dit op alle jaargangen van alle grandslamtoernooien ongedaan kunnen maken? Ik ben even begonnen om dit met de hand te herstellen, maar dat is een mer à boire.

Bij voorbaat dank, Vinkje83 (talk) 17:52, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

@Vinkje83: dit soort bewerkingen zijn niet de bedoeling. Onderscheid tussen concepten wordt gedaan in de beschrijving, niet in het label. Zie Help:Label en Help:Description voor meer informatie. Zou je Michiel z'n bewerkingen niet meer terug willen draaien? De interface van Wikidata is meer ontworpen voor de bewerker dan voor de lezer. Externe tools zoals deze en het gebruik van Wikidata op Wikipedia zouden een beter beeld moeten geven. Multichill (talk) 19:32, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Multichill, je zou gelijk hebben als er 1 wikidata-item was voor een grandslam-toernooi, maar er is er 1 voor iedere pagina die wordt aangemaakt, en een voor het hele toernooi (waar ook een pagina voor wordt aangemaakt). Nu zijn er minstens zes items per grandslamtoernooi, en kun je aan de titel niet meer zien wat-wat-is. Edoderoo (talk) 20:11, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Even op IRC zitten sparren: volgens mij is het een misverstand vanwege de haakjes in de titel. Daardoor lijkt het een soort doorverwijsconstructie geworden, en die kent WikiData niet, omdat labels niet uniek hoeven te zijn. Een betere titel wordt dan zonder haakjes, iets als Damesdubbel Roland Garros 2009. Edoderoo (talk) 20:38, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Ik zie dat de Fransen dat inderdaad ook zo doen (voorbeeld: fr:Simple dames de l'Open d'Australie 2009. Persoonlijk vind ik dat een detaillering niet voorop zou moeten staan, maar volgen op de hoofdbenaming, zoals bij de Duitsers (de:Australian Open 2009/Dameneinzel), Engelsen (en:2009 Australian Open – Women's Singles) en Italianen (it:Australian Open 2009 - Singolare femminile). Ook de Spanjaarden zetten het erachter, maar dan weer met een haakjesuitdrukking die in het wikidata-label helaas vaak is verdwenen. Vinkje83 (talk) 07:52, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Wrong coordinatesEdit


Your bot added two wrong coordinates on Laervoetpad (Q19317443) and Nicolaas Beetsstraat (Q19354152), I removed the coordinates in France (obvioulsy wrong for streets in the Netherlands), could you check it please ?

Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 12:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


Hi Michiel1972, i saw your bot making this edit. I am interesting in how the 60" contained in the longitude got into WD. What format is required by WD-API? Did your bot used 52°23'60"N? Does WD accept such values? I am asking because on some Wikipedias the local templates complain about seconds/minutes>=60. Thank you for any hint, --Aschroet (talk) 12:55, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

5 (JJ Cale album)Edit

Hi Michiel.

On the article in English about the album 5 by JJ Cale, the link to the page in Swedish does not correspond and goes to 5 (musikalbum), which redirects to the number 5 which is 5 (tal). There is an existing article in Swedish about the album titled 5 (album av J.J. Cale). Can you fix it, please ? Let me know. Hypuxylun (talk) 15:45, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

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

  1. This survey is primarily meant to get feedback on the Wikimedia Foundation's current work, not long-term strategy.
  2. Legal stuff: No purchase necessary. Must be the age of majority to participate. Sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation located at 149 New Montgomery, San Francisco, CA, USA, 94105. Ends January 31, 2017. Void where prohibited. Click here for contest rules.

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

(Sorry to write in Engilsh)

Geographic feature on sports clubEdit

Hi, I dont really understand making sports club (Q847017) a subclass of geographical object (Q618123) - please could you explain? Wouldnt a sports venue be referenced via a different property than subclass? Pauljmackay (talk) 08:49, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Twee stratenEdit

Beste Michel, zou je twee straten willen aanmaken. Het gaat om de Rumphiusstraat en de Tweede Coehoornstraat in Amsterdam. Ze liggen op de Oostelijke Eilanden. Beide straten zouden weleens geen postcode kunnen hebben. De Rumphiusstraat kent geen enkele bebouwing, de 2e Coehoornstraat wel, maar dat gebouw staat genoteerd als Blankenstraat 2. Rumphiusstraat is er al op de nl, de 2e Coehoorn binnenkort. Alvast bedankt,Ceescamel (talk) 11:27, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

disambig problemEdit

I reverted as it linked to disambig. Maybe you are able to fix this problem? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 07:10, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Bot: incorrect countryEdit

Hi! Your bot added Vietnam as a country to a Chinese item. Not sure where it got that idea from, but it's best to check why it did that. Cheers! NMaia (talk) 02:58, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Michiel1972".