I see you reverted my exception to constraint. How would you model an artwork where the material is dis-assembled silk flowers? - ~~~~
Return to the user page of "Swpb".
Reply to "Exception to constraint on material?"
Reply to "Your revert at applies to part (P518)"
Reply to "contributed to published work (P3919)"
Reply to "Please undo your change to Japanese alias of Prince Rupert's Drop"
Reply to "Please take part in the Flow satisfaction survey"
Reply to "Corporate officer"
About this board
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.
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.
Previous discussion was archived aton 2016-01-05.
Exception to constraint on material?
The material is silk. Silk flowers are a part, not a material. Also, that's not how exceptions work. You made it such that the constraint wouldn't apply to a statement on the item flower. Swpb (talk) 02:23, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Your revert at applies to part (P518)
Hey, you've reverted the one-of constraint I set, it wasn't meant as a constraint, but to fill the suggestion list for the property, that's why I've set the rank to deprecated, that way it's not processed as a constraint but still used for the suggestions – at least that's what was the last state on that I had. You think that use is ok and we can restore the constraint? Thanks in advance for your help! Best,
No worry! My bad, actually I should have used constraint clarification (P6607)! I've done that now and by looking for another example found it at grammatical gender (P5185) where you have edited such a text yourself it seems. :-) Thanks for pointing out the issue, the constraint was indeed mistakable! Cheers!
contributed to published work (P3919)
This contributed to published work (P3919) property is for people items to list "published works" rather than for an organisation. You may consider the 'participant' type properties for what you are looking to link.
Please undo your change to Japanese alias of Prince Rupert's Drop
Hi. The reason why I removed the Japanese alias was that the entry was renamed and the former alias is now the entry name. As of now, The Japanese "Label" and the "Also knows as" are identical, which is not right, I suppose. So can you please undo your undo?
@Himazu: Removing the label is not the right answer. A correct label should never be removed. If the alias is the same as the label, it is the alias that should be removed. I've done so. Swpb (talk) 13:29, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Please take part in the Flow satisfaction survey
(That message in other languages: العربية • bosanski • català • Deutsch • Esperanto • français • עברית • polski • português • português do Brasil • русский • اردو • 中文 – translate that message)
Like some other community members, you are using Flow.
An increasing number of communities now use Flow or are considering it. Although Flow itself is not scheduled for major development during 2016 fiscal year, the Collaboration Team remains interested in the project and in providing an improved system for structured discussions.
You can help us make decisions about the way forward in this area by sharing your thoughts about Flow — what works, doesn't work or should be improved?
Thanks for your ideas and opinions about Flow!
Hi Swpb, I saw your proposal at Wikidata:Property_proposal/Organization. Would it be an idea to stretch it to organizations, to make it even more generic? What would be a good title in that case?
I think it can apply to most formal organizations without a name change--the "corporate" in the term doesn't imply any particular legal structure. "Corporate officer" is a widely-used term with an agreed-upon meaning; I'm not sure there exists a more generic-sounding term that carries the same precision. I also want to make sure the property is limited to persons with specific, named, well-defined roles in an organization; we don't want to create a generic "employee" inverse of employer (P108) that will invite attempts to add all known members of an organization. Swpb (talk) 17:39, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
I understand. It will be my backgroun in another language that corporate sounds as "business". Thank you!. I will create the property in a few minutes.
There are no older topics