About this board

Logo of Wikidata

Welcome to Wikidata, Swpb!

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.
  • Contents – The main help page for editing and using the site.
  • Project chat – Discussions about the project.
  • Tools – A collection of user-developed JavaScript tools to allow for easier completion of some tasks.

If you have any questions, please ask me on my talk page. If you want to try out editing, you can use the sandbox to try. Once again, welcome, and I hope you quickly feel comfortable here, and become an active editor for Wikidata.

Best regards! Please, never create any items for any userpages or subtemplates. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 13:12, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Previous discussion was archived at User talk:Swpb/Archive 1 on 2016-01-05.

Decommissioned vs. Service retirement

4
Huntster (talkcontribs)

Please stop replacing decommissioned (Q11639308) with service retirement (Q29933838) for space-related material. They are different terms for different actions. Decommissioned means the site or spacecraft has been fully shut down, whereas service retirement simply means they are no longer in active service. There are many cases where an entity that has been retired from service has been brought back into service, whereas decommissioning, especially in regard to spacecraft, means it has been shut down entirely (including pacification). Thank you.

Swpb (talkcontribs)
Huntster (talkcontribs)

It was just the two I had watchlisted. Thank you. I'm at work so I'll have to look at the launch complexes later. I may have come across more forcefully than I intended, just wanted to bring attention to the issue. Sorry if I sounded harsh.

Swpb (talkcontribs)

No worries.

Reply to "Decommissioned vs. Service retirement"
MediaWiki message delivery (talkcontribs)
Reply to "Wikidata weekly summary #645"
MediaWiki message delivery (talkcontribs)
Reply to "Wikidata weekly summary #644"
MediaWiki message delivery (talkcontribs)
Reply to "Wikidata weekly summary #643"
Huntster (talkcontribs)

Hey there! I noticed that you're able to edit both statements and values in qualifiers without affecting their placement. What tool are you using to do this?

Swpb (talkcontribs)

Ha! In some cases I've replaced all the qualifiers manually to maintain their order, but in general I'm using a nasty homebrew of sparql, Excel with VBA, and QuickStatements that captures all the qualifiers and references, changes a particular qualifier, and replaces the whole statement, quals and refs included. Maintaining the order of the qualifiers wasn't the goal, just maintaining them (and the references) at all, which QS really isn't really made for. I wish there were a proper tool for this; I think glimpsing my spreadsheet might drive people insane, as it has probably done to me.

Huntster (talkcontribs)

Haha, even thinking about sparql and VBA makes my head hurt, it just isn't build for such languages. Thanks for the explanation though! You're right, though, WD really could do with a better-developed editing system. The fact that you cannot edit statements in qualifiers without entirely removing them first in the interface is maddening at times.

Reply to "Editing question"
MediaWiki message delivery (talkcontribs)
Reply to "Wikidata weekly summary #641"
MediaWiki message delivery (talkcontribs)
Reply to "Wikidata weekly summary #641"
MediaWiki message delivery (talkcontribs)
Reply to "Wikidata weekly summary #640"
MediaWiki message delivery (talkcontribs)
Reply to "Wikidata weekly summary #639"
Huntster (talkcontribs)

Hello! I'm trying to understand why you made these edits to contract (Q93288). Can you help me? If there is a better item to use, linking the two would be helpful, because as it is a number of linking items have errors due to those property items being deprecated (or possibly because of this, I'm uncertain). Thanks!

Swpb (talkcontribs)

So, I generally make these kinds of edits to clean up false inference chains, i.e., where a series of P279 statements link items in a chain to imply that A is an instance or subclass of B, but A isn't actually an instance or subclass of B, because one or more of the statements in that chain isn't quite right. In this case, "contract" sometimes refers to the act of making an agreement, and sometimes to the resulting state of affairs. However, at the moment, I can't remember what item prompted me to make that distinction, and I can't find a good example of an incorrect inference that would arise if the statements were not deprecated, so for now, I'm reverting myself on contract (Q93288).

Huntster (talkcontribs)

Appreciate that. Do you think it would be useful to have two items, one for the act of issuing the contract and one for the concept itself?

Swpb (talkcontribs)

Not sure at this point. May revisit.

Reply to "Edits to {{Q|Q93288}}"