S.K.

Welcome to Wikidata, S.K.!

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

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

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

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

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

Best regards! Littledogboy (talk) 17:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, S.K., and thanks for your contribution to Wikidata. Please beware that one of the most important rules of working here is never to remove sitelinks without adding them to another item, (or creating an item for them, if necessary), like you did here. Best, Littledogboy (talk) 17:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Littledogboy, thanks for the welcome. And thanks for the advice, I wasn't aware of this policy. Will try to correct this. Thanks, --S.K. (talk) 17:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Should be corrected now. Created Q14551320, Q14552290 and Q14552473. --S.K. (talk) 21:52, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

A petrochemical product is not a petrochemical company

Be careful, you merged petrochemical company (Q14942280) into petrochemical product (Q1364904). What a mess... A company is not the same thing as its products. Now bots followed your change and we have tens of companies that are now "instances of products". :( I fixed BP Petrochemicals (Q14942307) and Category:Petrochemical companies (Q8759832) but there must be many more. -- LaddΩ chat ;) 01:24, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

@Laddo:: Hmm, of course a company ist not the same as its products. But if you look at the only article linked at petrochemical company (Q14942280) (it's the Norwegian no:Petrokjemiske_produkter), it is about petrochemical products, not about petrochemical companies. If you look at petrochemical product (Q1364904), the linked englisch article en:Petrochemicals is also about the product (Petrochemicals are chemical products derived from petroleum.). That's why I merged petrochemical company (Q14942280) into petrochemical product (Q1364904). So what was wrong with that? --S.K. (talk) 20:16, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

PS: If you look at the contributions of the bot (user:KrBot) doing the change, one can see that at least this bot only modified the two articles you mention. So unless there was a (very unlikely) coincidence of two bots doing the same change at the same time, there shouldn't be any harm done. --S.K. (talk) 20:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Another cross-check: Special:WhatLinksHere/Q1364904 shows, there are not other companies linked to the merge target. --S.K. (talk) 21:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Overall: it seems that the descriptions in some languages don't coincide with the current meaning of the items. I'll clean that up, as good as I can. --S.K. (talk) 21:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, clean up done with the meanings you wanted per item. I also resolved issues with petrochemical industry (Q16070574) while at it. --S.K. (talk) 21:51, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Wow, neat clean-up, thanks a lot -- LaddΩ chat ;) 02:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Main cat

Hello, the main article of Category:Types of business entity (Q5907510) is type of business entity (Q1269299), so Category:Types of business entity (Q5907510) is the main category of type of business entity (Q1269299) and not of company (Q783794). Especially if company (Q783794) is an instance of type of business entity (Q1269299), there is an obvious logic error in saying that the first is the main article of the second's main category!

Now about companies. Assuming for real the internal consistency of the other projects, you can't say that en:Category:Companies is not the main category of en:Company, while actually on Wikipedia it is.

Now about Commons. You can't do what do you want only based on assumptions. At least you have to ask on Commons for what they mean with "company", and then eventually move the category, to finally solve this ambiguity. Surely things can not remain as they are, cause the situation is ambiguous in almost all languages. --Horcrux92 (talk) 09:10, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Horcrux92:, the problem is that the word "company" is used in every day language in a sense that is similar to business (Q4830453) (see e.g. http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh85018285.html), while the article en:Company defines company in the meaning of company (Q783794). The way en:Category:Companies and commons:Category:Companies are used is in the sense of business (Q4830453), there is for example no category en:Category:Sole proprietors in the meaning of sole proprietorship (Q842609), which is a business entity (business (Q4830453)) but not a company (Q783794). On the other hand commons:Category:Legal entities has subcategories commons:Category:Corporations and commons:Category:Companies while in the meaning company (Q783794) coporations are included.

Overall, I'd like to have the clean meanings here on Wikidata and then add articles and categories, if they describe this meaning. The other way around doesn't work well in my opinion.

Hope you understand my reasons for the change better. --S.K. (talk) 16:04, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

PS: Agreed about Category:Types of business entity (Q5907510).

business vs organisation

On what basis are you changing this? Thanks, GerardM (talk) 19:29, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

@GerardM: See the definitions of company (Q783794) vs. business (Q4830453). The problem was, that the English word company has two meanings, a colloquial one and a legal one. company (Q783794) is now the legal one (an association), as represented by en:company, while business (Q4830453) is the "colloquial" one, represented by en:business. See e.g also Talk:Q4830453. --S.K. (talk) 19:39, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Based on what jurisdiction? Thanks, GerardM (talk) 19:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

@GerardM: See the wiki links at company (Q783794), the concept is quite common, if you look at the list of subclasses at Talk:Q783794, you see examples from multiple jurisdictions. business (Q4830453) on the other hand is not a legal concept. --S.K. (talk) 19:45, 20 December 2015 (UTC) PS: Strictly speaking it´s not a legal form per se, company (Q783794) is a legal abstraction.

I would strongly recommend that work such as this is done via a project, at the moment the closest project is Wikidata:WikiProject Economics. As it is some broad sweeping changes are being made to organisations with no apparent discussion or consensus, at least not in one place. Danrok (talk) 01:57, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

@Danrok:: It is only a disambiguation, there is one word that has two meanings. The changes at company (Q783794) and business (Q4830453) are made more than half a year ago. If someone from the Wikidata:WikiProject Economics had any complaints, they should have surfaced by now, shouldn't they? And there are alreay more than 40.000 items changed, so I'd expect some reaction from this as well, but except for the above, there was none. If you still think, we should bring it up there, I can do, but at the moment, I'm not convinced. --S.K. (talk) 13:22, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Legal personality

Hi,
Can you explain these reverts : [1], [2], [3]. Especially the first two ones. I corrected a link that was to a nearly empty entry : Q19817303. Riba (talk) 19:10, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello @Riba:

the point is - as written in the change comments I made - that

• legal person (Q19817303) is for a legal person, that is it is the abstraction of natural person (Q154954) and juridical person (Q155076). One can say e.g. Barack Obama (Q76)instance of (P31)legal person (Q19817303) or Google (Q95)instance of (P31)legal person (Q19817303).
• legal person (Q3778211) on the other hand is about the characteristic a legal person has, so one can say Barack Obama (Q76) has a legal person (Q3778211) or Google (Q95) has a legal person (Q3778211), but one can not say Barack Obama (Q76)instance of (P31)legal person (Q3778211) or Google (Q95)instance of (P31)legal person (Q3778211), which your changes would have meant.

Is this now clearer and acceptable for you? --S.K. (talk) 19:33, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok. Theoretically you are right. My only hesitation was that the concept of legal person and legal personality are generally treated on the same Wikipedia article, which is : legal person (Q3778211). legal person (Q19817303) is a quasi empty page. I am not able to read the 3 articles on legal person (Q19817303), but I am pretty sure they refer to the same subject as legal person (Q3778211) (what would mean we should merge the two pages). Riba (talk) 19:45, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm a great fan of getting the Wikidata items conceptually clear and than adding the links to the Wikipedia articles that describe that concept. So I wouldn't merge the two Wikidata items, since they describe different concepts. Sadly Wikidata has not yet a solution to describe that two Wikidata items/two concepts are described in one Wikipedia article, even though this a very common situation. For example I worked on legal forms lately and while in their home Wikipedia there often exist detailed articles, in other language Wikipedias there is just a summary article describing multiple legal forms at once. The same applies for the two items in discussion here in my opinion. --S.K. (talk) 20:21, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't quite get it either based on what you have separated a few Wikipedia articles from others. Could you please refer to a source showing what jurisdiction makes this distinction, or a source showing that there is otherwise a meaningul distinction between an entity being a legal person and an entity having a legal person? 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:E499:465D:1534:344D 06:59, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata:WikiProject Companies

Hallo S.K.,

machst du mit?--Kopiersperre (talk) 15:47, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Hallo @Kopiersperre: ich habe momentan leider sehr wenig/eigentlich keine Zeit für Wikidata... Wenn sich das ändert, schaue ich gerne einmal, ob/was ich beitragen kann. Aber es sieht für die nächste Zeit eher weniger gut aus. :-( Sorry und Gruss, --S.K. (talk) 07:24, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Könntest du dich wenigstens pro forma eintragen? Sonst werde ich in dem Projekt von meinem zweiten Mann erdrückt.--Kopiersperre (talk) 20:58, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

@Kopiersperre: Gemacht. Wenn es was hilft. --S.K. (talk) 10:28, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Geographical position

I don't not what is your probelm with geographic location (Q2221906), but it is possible to have only one type for item who are related by a geographical position, like CGNDB unique ID (P821), BC Geographical Names ID (P2099) or Banque de noms de lieux du Québec ID (P2100)? Like you are responsible of this or this. --Fralambert (talk) 02:32, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Fralambert:, I do not have a problem with geographic location (Q2221906), but I do have a problem with an incorrect use of subclass of (P279). If you say fixed construction (Q811430)subclass of (P279)geographic location (Q2221906), this means that e.g. since Eiffel Tower (Q243)instance of (P31)lattice tower (Q1440476) and (indirectly) lattice tower (Q1440476)subclass of (P279)fixed construction (Q811430), the statement Eiffel Tower (Q243)instance of (P31)geographic location (Q2221906) could be deduced, which obviously is nonsense. So one has to analyze why the constraints are violated and correct this. But adding the statement fixed construction (Q811430)subclass of (P279)geographic location (Q2221906) is not the correct way to solve the problem. Hope this is clearer now? Thanks, --S.K. (talk) 05:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I just understand thant when someone break the link between geographical feature (Q618123) and geographic location (Q2221906), who is a object plus a geographic location, it create a ton of violation in the type constraint. Can you please repear the class relation?--Fralambert (talk) 13:33, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

@Fralambert: Currently I don't have much time for Wikidata. And from a quick look the correction would need some work/time. So I can't promise you a quick fix. If you find someone with a good understanding of the geography hierarchy ask him/her for help. Otherwise I'll take a try when/if I find time. Sorry for having no better answer. --S.K. (talk) 17:43, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Instances of "type of business entity"

Here and here you say all subclasses are, so it’s valid to set it on the parent. I don't get what you mean by that really. Subsumption is put into practise by using "subclass of" relations, not "instance of" relations. "Instance of: type of business entity" should probably be used on these particular subclasses that are certain business types (legal forms) within particular legal systems. Otherwise what's the point of this statement if its uses mix types that are generic descriptions and types that are actual legal forms within particular legal systems. This distinction is useful for constraint used on property legal form (P1454). 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:3472:78D4:FAF:320D 10:31, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:3472:78D4:FAF:320D, in general object-oriented modeling one defines aspects on the most generic class. E.g. human (Q5) has the statement human (Q5)has characteristic (P1552)given name (Q202444). This then applies to the subclass child (Q7569) as well, one can implicitly derive the statement child (Q7569)has characteristic (P1552)given name (Q202444). This should apply to the instance of (P31) as well, meaning from the statement human (Q5)instance of (P31)organisms known by a particular common name (Q55983715) one can implicitly derive the statement child (Q7569)instance of (P31)organisms known by a particular common name (Q55983715).

For the situation we are talking about:

• From limited partnership (Q909695)instance of (P31)type of business entity (Q1269299) one can derive limited liability limited partnership (Q6549542)instance of (P31)type of business entity (Q1269299).
• From cooperative (Q4539)instance of (P31)type of business entity (Q1269299) one can derive Eingetragene Genossenschaft (Q5349747)instance of (P31)type of business entity (Q1269299).

But you’re right in one aspect, this modeling makes it harder to distinguish between concrete type of business entity (Q1269299) and abstract ones. And in particular cooperative (Q4539) is used in a very generic sense, the statement there is wrong/misleading. I’ll correct that.

--S.K. (talk) 09:29, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, statements applied to a class generally also apply to subclasses (and also instances) of this class. However, I don't think instance of (P31) uses on a class can be interpreted this way. Use of this property indicates what given entity is. P31 used on a class usually indicates that this class is an instance of a metaclass (i.e. a class of classes, as is the case also for instances of type of business entity (Q1269299)). Instances and all subclasses of a class however are not classes of the same type. For example, class gadolinite supergroup (Q3777698) is an instance of a mineral supergroup, but non of its subclasses, like hingganite series (Q68770279), are instances of a mineral supergroup. 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:7C47:DA57:C6C1:E505 14:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

2001:7D0:81F7:B580:7C47:DA57:C6C1:E505 And how is this distinction reflected in the modeling of instance of (P31) vs. any of the other properties? --S.K. (talk) 07:22, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I think examples provided above already show this. Your example of "has quality: given name" generally applys to human class and it also generally applys to all subclasses of human. This is not the case for P31 and mineral classes above. (I made the example of minerals as there are ranks of metaclasses which make the distinction more clear.) 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:80B:4D11:B036:D4C5 09:53, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

2001:7D0:81F7:B580:80B:4D11:B036:D4C5: The examples show that it is used like that, but I was wondering, where in the metadata definition of the two properties instance of (P31) and has characteristic (P1552) I could see, that Wikidata makes this distinction in the semantics of these properties. --S.K. (talk) 06:17, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't know if there is such metadata. Actually I don't know if it's recommended to rely on P1552 being derived from from parent class the way you suggest either, though seemingly it should work. I was just pointing out that P31 values are not expected to be derived like that in practise. Class items also use several other properties for statements that are valid in context of this particular class, and not for its subclasses. 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:15F8:6C24:139E:421C 09:58, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Wirtschaft / Industrie

Hallo! Why are you linking to article en:Industry (economics)? Look at the German categories and the accompanying text for them: de:Kategorie:Wirtschaft nach Wirtschaftszweig (included in cat. Category:Economy (Q9715089)), de:Kategorie:Wirtschaftszweig, de:Kategorie:Industrie nach Industriezweig (included in cat. Category:Industry (Q6528585)).--Leon II (talk) 14:45, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Leon II, our edits on our talk pages overlapped. See my answer at your talk page. The main point is that the English word industry has (at least) two different German meanings. And in the Wikidata object Q6528585 the meaning en:industry (economics) is meant, which in German translates as "Wirtschaftszweig", not "Industrie". --S.K. (talk) 14:58, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

What about de:Kategorie:Wirtschaft? And what does de:Kategorie:Industrie nach Industriezweig and de:Kategorie:Industriezweig mean in english, as you think?--Leon II (talk) 15:05, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Wirtschaft - economy [noun] the system by which a country’s production, trade, and money supply are organized. Industrie - industry [noun] (any part of) the business of producing or making goods.--Leon II (talk) 15:14, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

de:Kategorie:Wirtschaft maps perfectly to en:Category:Economy, as is modeled in Category:Economy (Q9715089). There’s currently no English equivalent of de:Kategorie:Industriezweig, because articles in it fulfill an is-a relationship. --S.K. (talk) 16:30, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

And what about Category:Industry (Q6528585)?--Leon II (talk) 19:50, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Fits well, en:Category:Industry and de:Kategorie:Industrie match the concept of de:Industrie / industrial sector (Q8148). --S.K. (talk) 20:00, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

And we're back to the original problem. en:Category:Industries included in cat. Category:Industry (Q6528585). de:Kategorie:Industrie nach Industriezweig included in cat. Category:Industry (Q6528585) (and simultaneously in cat. de:Kategorie:Wirtschaft nach Wirtschaftszweig).--Leon II (talk) 13:09, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

@Leon II: The problem is with en:Category:Industry. It's description says "The main article for this category is en:Industry", linking to the DAB page. This makes it unclear, if the category is about en:Industry (economics) or about en:Industry (manufacturing)/en:Industrial sector. The category en:Category:Industries on the other hand is clearly about en:Industry (economics). So depending on how the scope/meaning of en:Category:Industry is defined, the following changes must take place:

1. Meaning is en:Industry (manufacturing)/en:Industrial sector/de:Industrie/industrial sector (Q8148) ==> parent category of en:Category:Industries should not be en:Category:Industry but rather the other way around.
2. Meaning is en:Industry (economics)/industry (Q268592) ==> en:Category:Industry should be moved to Category:Industries (economics) (Q46995841).

I’ll open a discussion on en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories. --S.K. (talk) 02:07, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

You are right. The problem is mixing overlapping but not identical concepts. Hopefully, the collective intelligence will sort this out :)--Leon II (talk) 09:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Wiener Übereinkommen

Hallo SK,

kennst du die offiziellen deutsche Bezeichnungen für deposit of instruments of ratification (Q115109964) und exchange of instruments of ratification (Q115109923)?-- Naughty Dog Agreement (talk) 19:50, 1 January 2023 (UTC)