User talk:Sven Manguard/Archive 1

Latest comment: 10 years ago by Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) in topic Meep
This page is an archive. Please do not modify it. Use the current page, even to continue an old discussion.

RE: Keep up the good work

Thanks! Good job to you too :) -- Yiyi (A tua disposizione!) 09:12, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

 

Thanks for separating RFAs to subpages. I was just thinking about that while adding mine. Great and useful job. Thanks!
Danny B. 22:56, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Re:Please do not use images in your signature.

Dear Sven Manguard, Thank u for your message. Therefore, some wikis, like Spanish Wikipedia, allows images in signatures. Personally, I disagree with the policies of another wikis, because, for me, it is an attack on diversity. If a policy is adopted by Wikidata, I’ll accept, but… I prefer to use my regular signature on other projects. My signature is too my identification. Jag önskar er en vacker dag! Jmvkrecords   Intra Talk 21:55, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I fail to see how it's an attack on diversity. There are plenty of ways to customize a signature that don't effect load times. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Your signature

Hello,

I see you are asking people to rework their signatures. You should do that as well, because your signature uses obsolete/invalid tags.

If you'd like help with it, please let me know.

Thanks for cooperation.

Danny B. 13:44, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I was vaguely aware that we switched over to HTML5(?) a while back and that the change obsoleted some tags. I was unaware that any of those tags were in my signature. If you can hand me the code that would get me the same signature using the new tags, I'd gladly switch over. This is also Sven Manguard 14:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm really not sure why you are asking people to change their signatures. This isn't enwiki. Other projects have their own policies, and in the absence of policies here we shouldn't just be reverting to the English Wikipedia way. Ajraddatz (talk) 17:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
It is the policy on every project I've been on. The reason why it's like that is that if everyone had an image in their signature, a page like Project chat would take 20 minutes to load. This is also Sven Manguard 18:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Every project that you've been on is enwiki and commons (and maybe meta). Rather than pre-emptively banning this, let's wait and see. If it becomes an issue then we can make a signature policy. Ajraddatz (talk) 00:15, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Hey

Ok, I'm here. What do I do?--TParis (talk) 14:23, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Right now we're in phase 1, which is importing Interwiki links, building site policy, finding and dealing with bugs, and stress testing the project. My recommendation is to pick up Wikidata:Project_chat/Archive/2012/11#SlurpInterwiki_script this script to help with the interwiki links. If this doesn't interest you, phase 2 should be coming in a few weeks, and that will be much more interesting, as we're going to begin importing useful data and organizing it. This is also Sven Manguard 17:21, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Like this?--TParis (talk) 01:51, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Yep! Sven Manguard Wha? 05:08, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Re

No, I'm a human. I'm looking for new ways to add items in bulk by hand. Please be patient and will be full. :) --Raoli (talk) 21:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikidata:Requests_for_permissions#Sk.21dbot

Is your comment about pausing for bots still up to date? Merlwbot is creating new items and i am still waiting for my bot rights. Would be nice to edit this. --Sk!d (talk) 21:40, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I actually have no idea. I'm going to go write an email, and I'll get back to you. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:05, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Lydia is pretty much saying that it's okay to run bots. Denny hasn't weighed in though, so I'm getting conflicting messages from the Wikidata staff. The discussion is ongoing on wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org if you want to join in. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:48, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

wikidata chat

Hey i just saw your request on the wikidata irc chat. A throttle for my bot could be easily implemented so it should stop if there are some big milestones to be reached (like Merlbot does). Btw in Germany it is past midnight so the wikidata stuff might be asleep already. --Sk!d (talk) 00:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikidata Barnstar

 
Thank you!
Thank you! for the reorganization of Label & Description guideline pages.
I'm sorry but the official Barnstar doesn't seem to work so I made one by hand.
I wish you good luck in real life!
Raoli (talk) 02:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Thank you! Sven Manguard Wha? 03:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Q9394, "rabbit"

See, the issue I have with this is that a rabbit is not technically "several species of small mammals in the family Leporidae". A rabbit is a small fuzzy animal. The relevant article however, is actually about a bunch of species, "several species of small mammals in the family Leporidae" to be exact, and not about a rabbit. I'm not really sure what to do about that apparent conflict. The topic probably should be discussed further. --Yair rand (talk) 19:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

You're right. It is a strange case. Let me put some thought into it.
                           +MM0^
                           +MMMM1
                           0MMNMM+
                           +MMMNNN
              ^^++++^^      1MMM0N1++^
         +1o00000o00000oooo1+oMM000MM00o^
       10000o000000000oo000oo00MNNMMMM000+
     o000oo0o00o0000o0000000o0000MMMMN0000+
   +0000000000000000oo000000000000NNN0000N0
  +000000NMMMMMNN00000000000000NN00000000o^
  0000MMMMMMMMMMMMMN00000000000MMNNMo1+^^
  0000MMMMMN000000NNNo000000000NMM1+
  100000000000000000NN00ooo000001^
 1o0000o00000000000000N000000N+
NMMMM0o00000000000000000000MM0
+o0MMMoo000000000000000000NNMNo1^
      ^o000000000o000ooooo0000NM0

This is also Sven Manguard 20:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Wikidata item creation progress.png

Hey. The graph is an approximation using the Q numbers, so doesn't take into account deleted items, but i'm guessing is quite close. I update it by seeing which highest 10k has been reached each day. For example, 340,000 was reached on 3 December, and 390,000 was reached on 4 December. I'll keep updating the chart for as long as it is practical, or until someone finds a new way of doing it (probably in a way that includes complicated computer codes that is beyond me!). Cheers. Delsion23 (talk) 01:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Great work on the Help:Label, Description and Aliases pages, by the way. Setting the groundwork for the future guidelines is very important at this early stage in the project's history. Delsion23 (talk) 01:47, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Admin policy

I was wondering if you shared my opinion about the necessity to define the admin role, and get consensus on the situations under which desysopping should be considered or occur, prior to the first wave of admins being made permanent? Given the need for multilingual consensus on this particular issue, and with Christmas around the corner, I'm very slightly nervous about whether this will happen. —WFC00:54, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Link me to the discussion and at the very least I'll give it a good look over. I can't help with the multilingual aspect, I have the distinct... erm... honor... of being the first monolingual admin to be promoted. Although I will say that I feel better now that I'm not the only one, it does mean that I'm rather limited in where I can participate. As for the timing, we have all of January at the very least, even if we don't get anything done this month. The temporary adminships expire in February. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:05, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
At the moment we have the discussions you started at Wikidata talk:Administrators. Ordinarily (despite my opposition) I would say that there is consensus for your latter proposal. But there is also substantial support for your second one. Given that this is the first policy which might be contentious, and that, once agreed, there will be little future room for manoeuvre, I'm unsure whether either has had the necessary level of exposure. While in principle nothing is ever set in stone, in practise there is zero prospect of changing the goalposts w.r.t. what admins can do/when to desysop once we have permanent admins in place.

To my knowledge there has been no coordinated discussion on the nature of adminship: once we get to a stage where we are electing crats, should admins follow the en-wiki model, doubling up as janitors and judges? Or should we elect admins on an easy-come, easy-go basis to do the mop work, and elect scrats to do the contentious stuff of a non-technical nature (closing contentious RfCs, policy discussions, review controversial blocks etc). —WFC06:24, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

On the projects I've worked for, 'crats 1) close RfAs and bot requests and assign the admin and bot rights to accounts, and 2) do user account rename requests. Admins are trusted to do pretty much everything else that requires advanced tools. Experienced users, regardless of their userrights, are able to close RfCs that don't require admin actions. I think that last part is very important to bring over. I like properly functioning hierarchical power structures, but I don't like them to be exclusionary. People should be allowed, within reason, to do anything that they have the technical ability to do. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:10, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
As far as the crat/admin discussion goes, this is a pretty good summary of why I hold the view that I do. —WFC09:28, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Test run for Chobot.

After 240 edits, the test was stopped by requests (See my talk page). Is this enough? Or need more test runs? -- ChongDae (talk) 02:22, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Topicons

I was trying to create a userspace topicon, but can't get it to work; unless I'm having display/skin issues, it would appear that the {{Email user}} topicon on your userpage isn't working either. Any idea why? Perhaps the namespace numbers are different here? Or was your topicon displaying before, in which case we could probably chalk this up to the "This is a hack, so it breaks sometimes" warning that {{Top icon}} comes with? — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 23:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure it's template syntax gone wrong somewhere. It wasn't working before, but I decided that I didn't care. Since it wasn't harming anything, I figured I'd leave it and hope someone else came along and fixed it, as has happened with the other templates I've imported. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Mind importing the latest change to en:Template:Top icon, to see if it changes anything? It simplifies the code at the very least, so it should be easier to find the problem. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 22:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I got it working.  — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 20:34, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Fantastic! Sven Manguard Wha? 23:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Query you requested

Enjoy: User:Legoktm/No enwiki report.

Just poke me on IRC if you'd like me to re-run it (or for any other languages). Legoktm (talk) 06:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Apparently there's two Chinas!? --Rschen7754 06:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Probably more. There's the type of plate, the geographical area, the country in said geographical area, and the country that used to rule said geographical area and is now on an island off of the geographical area. The first one on the list seems to be the article on China in the abstract, i.e. not the country, not the geographic area, but kind of both and neither. The Wikipedia article on China used to be that, before it was moved to god knows what and the PRC was moved into the nameslot for China. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Look at the Simple Wikipedia entry for a clue as to what I'm talking about. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Priest aliases

In Q42603, are you sure that priesthood is an appropriate aliases? It doesn't seem to actually mean the same thing as "priest", as far as I know... --Yair rand (talk) 20:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

English Wikipedia treats them as one in the same, oddly. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't think that really matters. It's likely that other Wikipedias have separate articles for them, as they aren't really the same thing. --Yair rand (talk) 20:59, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Admin confirmation

Hello, your adminship is up for confirmation between Jan 28th and Feb 1st. Please create a section for yourself at Wikidata:Administrators/Confirm 2013/2, and see Wikidata:Administrators/Confirm 2013 for more info. Regards, Techman224Talk 05:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I did that four hours ago though.   Sven Manguard Wha? 07:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Protect-dropdown

Hi Sven. I just wanted to emphasize that

  • Excessive spamming
  • Counter-productive edit warring

are both default reasons (they were there before I created the page to add the last reasons at the bottom). It might be a good idea to get them changed on translatewiki. --Leyo 08:40, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Meh, I didn't change the meaning, just made int read better in English. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
I didn't say anything about a change in the meaning. Just that if the new wording is better, it might be good to implement this globally for all wikis by doing the changes on translatewiki. --Leyo 08:23, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

For giving me no hint... :( Conny (talk) 20:04, 4 February 2013 (UTC).

Sorry, I just got rid of all of them. Didn't mean any insult. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Note to talk page stalkers

We have a sandbox (at least until someone gets in a huff about it and deletes it). It's at Q4115189. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

You might find this amusing :P Legoktm (talk) 01:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Don't mix

No good can come of bringing this to my talk page, so I will not engage in this conversation further. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:17, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The best of luck

...with whatever you're doing. You're a great Wikidatan, and the community's relied on you heavily – guess we'll have to find someone else to close bot RfPs for the next few months. Well, at least you've done all us currently running for adminship a big favor, since there'll be a whole lot more work to do with you gone. ;) I'm sure everyone else will agree with me that there'll always be a space left open for you in the ranks of the admins' corps, and I look forward to working with you again in the future. À la prochaine. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 07:49, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Property:P145

Please look which data type you choosed. --Goldzahn (talk) 18:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Now at Property:P149. Thanks. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:29, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

1. FC Femina

Hi! Femina is a Hungarian football club! Bye - Csurla (talk) 22:07, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

A cookie for you

Don't take the RFB too seriously. We really need you at this project!   -- Bene* talk 06:30, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

"It should go without saying that I don't take any of this personally, and that I won't be leaving Wikidata in a huff."   Sven Manguard Wha? 14:52, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
In all honesty, it was probably for the best. I thought about it last night after closing the discussion down, and I think that Legoktm's point was important, I do have strong opinions that I don't want to have to shelve. When it comes to ultra-advanced permissions, 'crat is a bad fit for my personality, and while I have experience as a sockpuppet investigator at enWiki, I lack the technical knowledge to be a Checkuser. If we ever need an oversighter for the project, that I can do (I've had to get them involved over at Commons and know that job), but at this point I fail to see a need for either CUs or OSes on this project. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:27, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Video games task force

Hey! I've gone ahead and created the Video games task force. You are very welcomed to join :) Cheers. — ΛΧΣ21 16:59, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata:Properties_for_deletion#Property:P402

Hi. Property P402 has just come to the attention of the folk at en:Wikipedia:WikiProject Geographical coordinates. Following the discussion there, where I started off as an enthusiastic advocate for using P402, I have been persuaded that adding this property, in its current form, in its current form, is a really bad idea.

However, I, and the rest of the editors there, even while discussing this, were unaware of the deletion proposal for P402 here. If I had been aware of the deletion proposal for this property two days ago, I, and at least one, probably two, other editors there, would have !voted for its deletion. It's a disastrously flawed idea: the stability of OSMIDs relative to Wikipedia features is not guaranteed by OSM, and they were never intended as stable UIDs. If we do this, we will either be encoding what may at any moment become garbage data, or we will be holding another open knowledge project to ransom by forcing them to treat OSM IDs as stable identifiers, something which was never intended.

I'm not against linking Wikidata to OSM: in fact, I'm very much for it, and would like to help work on doing the cross-linking between the two data models by using automated dataset cleaning and cross-referencing techniques similar to those I've used to add geographical coordinates to hundreds of thousands of en: Wikipedia articles. But it's important to do this right, and doing it using P402 is not only not the right way, but will get in the way of doing it the right way. W need to plan a better mechanism to do this, in collaboration with the OSM community, before proceeding to add more data to Wikidata.

We are in the sufficiently early stages of this process that deleting P402 is still practical, right now. Deleting it later, when there are hundreds of thousands of such items could be almost impossible, such would be the amount of time and emotional commitment invested in P402 by its users.

Could you re-open this discussion for another week, please, so we can get this sorted out? -- The Anome (talk) 09:43, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. I've been away for the last day and a half, so I'm only getting to this now. I do not feel comfortable opening up a closed deletion discussion, even one that I closed myself. The underpinning assertion that "OpenStreetMap ID's aren't stable" appears to be contested, and one or two votes either way isn't going to change that the discussion is pretty deadlocked. If you can point to a discussion where there's a clear consensus on the OSM ID stability issue, that's pretty good grounds to open up a second deletion discussion. That's the route I suggest you take. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:14, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. There is a discussion of this on the OSM mailing list: see here. In particular, see which is talking about exactly what I described above.
Quoted from this this email:
"I am less concerned about the Wikidata side - if they make a bad judgement then it is their mess to clean up. I am however concerned that if more people simply assume that the status quo is there to stay ("IDs are stable enough"), this will put pressure on *us* and limit our flexibility in the future.

I fear that some day soon we'll have a good idea about re-organising our admin bounds that involves large-scale changes, and then people come to us and say "ah, that's unfortunate because we at [insert some other project or product or company] had assumed that relation IDs are relatively stable...".

And from this:
"A physical object will not always correspond to the same OSM ID. It is this last property that matters for external links. As an example, a particular Lowe's home improvement store near me used to be OSM node 1498097430 and now is OSM way 136961700. When I get new imagery for the area and re-trace the building depending on what is easiest I may end up creating a new way.

Relying on the OSM representation of some real-world object to maintain the same ID is wrong. There is no property of OSM IDs that allows you to say that Joe's coffee shop will continue to be node 123."

These are from active participants in the OSM project, who I would hope would be in a better position to understand OSM's workings than others. People have also been proposing alternative implementations for linking OSM to Wikipedia/Wikidata: see [1], and [2].
Please note that this entire discussion started two days after the deletion discussion closed here. This issue is important, and it's only really come to the attention of other venues such as the en: geodata Wikiproject and OSM itself in the last few days, at which point the deletion discussion here was already, unfortunately, a fait accompli. I hope this provides a sufficient rationale to re-open the deletion discussion. -- The Anome (talk) 09:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm not going to re-open it, I've already said as much. If you think that this is enough, you can start a new deletion discussion. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:31, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambig tool fail

203.14.52.43 and its cross-wiki record

This IP is under a school block on the English Wikipedia; furthermore, this is not the first time this school has had offenses on Wikidata - I've also blocked 203.14.52.45 for a year for similar reasons, for starters. I'm thinking that the block should be 6 months to 1 year, or just a 1-year rangeblock of this school.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:34, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

If you want to do that, it's your call. I personally don't like blocking IP addresses, even "static" ones, and especially ranges of IP addresses, for any long period of time. Also, if it's an American based school, it probably doesn't make much sense to extend the block past the end of June anyways. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:14, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
The school is Australian. The range has had a horrible record cross-wiki - 203.14.52.45 is blocked indef on Wikibooks, for instance.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:06, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
When does the Australian school year end? Sven Manguard Wha? 17:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't know. But my experience with schools is that blocking through multiple school years is often a necessity.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:10, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
...and is something I refuse to do. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Your closure of the 'crat RfC definitely has the potential to stir up some controversy, so I just though I'd stop by and thank you for being willing to take on that task. AutomaticStrikeout 14:24, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The thought is appreciated. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Political offices

Hi, I have seen that you changed France head of State from President of France to François Hollande. Though the second format is probably easier to use in the short run, I think that it makes a makes the logical structure rather confuse. Was there any discussion about that ? The only one I am aware of is Wikidata:Project chat/Archive/2013/05#Political offices. --Zolo (talk) 19:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

There was not; I did that because every other entry using that property did it the way I changed it to. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:53, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

A few new dups

Hi again. There's a new list at User:Soulkeeper/dups. It's pretty short this time, but there's more to come in the future, so you might want to add the page to your watchlist. - Soulkeeper (talk) 08:22, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

There's a longer list right now. - Soulkeeper (talk) 22:48, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Merging is a repetitive taks, and I'm starting to feel the tendinitis creeping up on me, so I've got to slow down now. But there's a short list at User:Soulkeeper/dups at the moment, if you want to have a go. - Soulkeeper (talk) 20:31, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
If you view that as a "short list", I can see why you have tendinitis. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata:Properties_for_deletion#Property:P614

Can you explain why this was already closed and deleted? There was no proper discussion of the deletion and the user who requested the property wasn't notified.

I could understand that you closed the discussion as the property was created just before, but in that case it would need to be kept. --  Docu  at 20:19, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The property was deleted for precisely the reason that I gave at the discussion you linked to; it was improperly created and a consensus rapidly developed for deleting it. I also mentioned that the statement you made there, and are repeating here, that newly created items can't be deleted, is a factually incorrect statement. Simply put, the age of a property is entirely irrelevant to the deletion process.
On a related note, I want to make sure that you understand the gravity of the situation you personally are in right now. A sizable number of other have expressed discomfort at your editing habits, especially when it comes to properties. Your responses to their concerns, both the dismissive comments you make in the threads and that you delete the threads without archiving, are further aggravating the situation. The next step, if you continue to create properties without consensus for them, is going to be a rights removal request (i.e., you're more than likely going to lose the property creator userright). I personally was in favor of starting one already, and I know that other administrators have also reached that point, however I am going to defer to the 'last chance' that Moe Epsilon gave you. Please don't blow that chance.
Yours, Sven Manguard Wha? 20:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Is there a problem with having the property discussed as such that would require speedy deletion? --  Docu  at 20:40, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I'm not entirely clear what you're asking. If your issue is with the short time between when the property was nominated for deletion and when I actually deleted it, normally I try to wait about a day before acting, and I waited about a day (21 hours). That being said, there's actually not a guideline on timing for any of the deletion processes. Was it faster than I normally do? Yes. Was there clear consensus? Also yes. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:52, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
If you delete, other users can't participate in the discussion. This is a property, not an redundant item. Maybe we should clarify the deletion process for these. --  Docu  at 21:03, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata:Properties_for_deletion#Property:P596

Please comment there. Multichill (talk) 19:49, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Re: Incomplete close of P100 deletion

 
Hello, Sven Manguard. You have new messages at Ricordisamoa's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Ricordisamoa 02:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi, would you please reconsider your stated result #3 for Wikidata:Requests for comment/Disambiguation pages guidelines. There was no talk at all about disambiguation class words like "John (disambiguation)" vs. "John (surname)". The third question of the RFC is about merging disambiguation pages with different forms of words (like both "sistema" and "systema") at the same page). Thank you, Byrial (talk) 13:48, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Ah, oops. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Bot flag request for DrTrigonBot

Hello Sven!

First; thanks for your support so far! Second; looking at my bot flag request makes me crying - it definitely looks like we/I have reached an impasse... Honestly I do not really know what to do now - even my trials to revive the thread did not work... Do you have an idea? Could you help there? I assume it is also in you interest to close this open one - finally... ;)

Thanks a lot and Greetings --DrTrigon (talk) 18:35, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok - problem solved - forget about this...! Thanks a lot and Greetings --DrTrigon (talk) 18:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

"Jakob, if anyone on Wikidata ever asks you to use something like "(Non-administrator observation)" to mark your comments, come find me, and I will chew their pretentious asses out."

Best. Comment. Ever.

I freaking love this comment. I do, I really do. It's like the whole philosophy of our projects has been summed up in this wonderful sentence.

I think I'll use it in some presentations from now on, stating the source of course.

Greetings,

--Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 13:47, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Template:Discussion_top

Hi, I just want let you know, that I changed the background color of Template:Discussion_top. Hope you agree with that. --Nightwish62 (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Please see further discussion on my user talk page. --Nightwish62 (talk) 08:14, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


URL as source

We need to discuss a little :). About the access date: the interesting data is not when the contributor accesses the document (we don't care of that parameter when somebody uses a book or a newspaper so why do we need this parameter in the case of a website ?). Most of the time the access date is the date where the reference was added, so no big interest. The important data is the publication date of the document in order to be able later to have a reference date if modifications are peformed in the document. We need to ask that information first and contributors have to look for this information because they can access outdated data and in that case the access date is useless.
Then about the use of property retrieved (P813) instead of point in time (P585). I am not in favour of this new property because we have now to deal with 3 different properties (if we include publication date (P577)) instead of two but this was decided and I accept it. But if you change an existing guideline which is defined since several month and already used in other citations 1) modify the whole page and not only one section (if you take some time you will see that in case of databases we use point in time (P585)) so to be coherent we have to use point in time (P585) or retrieved (P813) but not both, 2) if you take the time to see the use of these two properties you will see that nobody uses retrieved (P813) and there are already a lot of citations using point in time (P585). So at least ask a bot to modify the existing references.
I tried to keep these guidelines uniform in order to keep the data extraction easy so please respect this, not for me but for the guy which will do the lua code for data extraction. There are already some codes using references (see Module:Taxobox). So if we don't want to have problem we have to change these guidelines cautiously. I wait for your answer before any new change. Snipre (talk) 08:21, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I think you're looking at the situation as if Wikidata were in a vacuum. Yes, to Wikidata the date that something is retrieved isn't particularly important. However date retrieved is a near-mandatory field in the cite web template, the primary method of citing websites on Wikipedias and many sister projects. Wikidata is a data repository, but it is a data repository which has the support of the sister projects as one of its primary aims. If we can make decisions that would benefit sister projects without damaging the data itself, why would we not make those decisions? If date retrieved is important to the sister projects that would be using Wikidata items in the articles, we need to include it. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
"date retrieved is a near-mandatory field in the cite web template": Sorry I don't have the same understanding of the explanations provided in the talk page of Template:citation.
URL
  • url: URL of an online location where the text of the publication can be found. Cannot be used if title is wikilinked. If applicable, the link may point to the specific page(s) referenced. Do not link to any commercial booksellers such as Amazon.com; see WP:PAGELINKS.
  • accessdate: Full date when original URL was accessed; use the same format as other access and archive dates in the citations;[1] do not wikilink. Not required for web pages or linked documents that do not change; mainly of use for web pages that change frequently or have no publication date. Can be hidden or styled by registered editors.
Definitively the important information is the publication date, access date can be avoided if this information is available. So please don't create myths about sister projects requirements. I will reverse the order of data requirement in our help:sources page. Snipre (talk) 16:52, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
When I was learning to write articles, I was told explicitly to include the access date. It may not be (and apparently isn't) policy, but it is common practice. As for your comment about 'creating myths', if there was any purpose at all in including that line other than trying to piss me off, you should know that it failed miserably. If, however, you were trying to antagonize me, congratulations on your great success! Now since I'm not a petty person, and since I have far more important things to try and remember than petty slights, I'll probably forget about this entirely by week's end, but that's not going to stop me from telling you now that if that's the way you communicate with others on this project, you're going to make more enemies than friends. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:29, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Be aware of commas

diff. --Ricordisamoa 02:16, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

GAH! That's what was getting me? Thanks for fixing that. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:22, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

video game ratings

Just a question, why do we need different properties for all video game rating boards? Why not simply one property with different Rating board values, just like the plattform property? -- Qafgbxvghnx (talk) 18:25, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

There are two competing philosophies for properties on Wikidata. One philosophy seeks to have as few properties as possible, re-using certain properties like "instance of" and "subclass of" whenever possible. The other philosophy seeks to have one property for every infobox field, avoiding using properties for multiple purposes in most cases. The first philosophy is grounded in a desire to prevent redundancy, while the second is grounded in a desire to make reuse of the data by sister projects and outside parties as easy and painless as possible. Both philosophies are, when taken to the extreme, detrimental to Wikidata's usefulness, but out of the two I lean more heavily towards the second philosophy.
The different properties at issue are, while all video game content rating systems, discrete concepts that have their own fields in infoboxes (on some projects), and therefore — at least until I see how phase 3's queries work in practice — I am uncomfortable with stuffing them all into the same property and hoping that everything will turn out right in the end. Yes, ultimately this means that there are going to be twelve to fifteen similar properties, and yes, they probably would work as one property. I don't think they'd work as well as well though, and since I've yet to see a convincing argument that my method is hurting anything, I would prefer to do them as separate properties. I will be willing to reconsider once I see phase 3 in action though, and will speak to the people helping me with this effort about the virtues of the other method. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:13, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

programmer (P943)

Hello! This property has been created. --Danrok (talk) 18:41, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. Every time I turn around nowadays, I see you somewhere being helpful. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:07, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

P540 (P540)

Please delete it. It's no longer used. see [3].--GZWDer (talk) 08:28, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

It's bloody about time that got cleaned out. Many thanks! Sven Manguard Wha? 16:01, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Meep

Thanks for letting me know! I hope it'll be short :P Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 08:25, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Sven Manguard/Archive 1".