User talk:Giftzwerg 88

Welcome to Wikidata, Giftzwerg 88!

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! --Bene* (talk) 09:42, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Löschanträge

Hey könntest du vllt bei deinen Löschanträgen angeben mit welchem Item du die Begriffe zusemmengeführt hat? dann kann man das auch Transparenter im Löschlogbuch nachsehen. --Sk!d (talk) 04:18, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok werde ich künftig machen.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 13:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Infoboxes

Can you explain what this actually means? Why just those languages and what means those codes (p, n, c, ...)? --Stryn (talk) 11:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

You can find more about the infoboxes on this page Wikidata:Infoboxes task force. The codes come from the GND and are taken from the abbreviation of the German description. The GND was built up by public and national librarians in the German speaking areas over many decades. Q36578 GND and so all of its predecessing databases will be one of the main sources for Wikidata and Wikidata will be used by GND. Recently GND has linked the German wikipedia articles to the database and in turn, allmost every Person in the german Wikipedia gets it GND identication, meanwhile also in enwiki. In future there will be a system, that provides links between databases in different languages (VIAF), but for now the connection beginns with the German, English and French. All the information of GND (with about 9.5 Million data files) will be availlable in Wikidata and can serve every article about that topic in any language in infoboxes of type p, n, c... --Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 22:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Q153969

Nach https://www.destatis.de/gv/suche_gv2000.htm schreibt sich die Stadt am Bodensee (Q153969) offiziell: Lindau (Bodensee). --Fomafix (talk) 19:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Danke für den Hinweis und den Link, somit kann ich das in Zukunft selbst überprüfen. --Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 20:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

aw

Wikidata:Forum#Personendaten --Atlasowa (talk) 21:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Links zu anderen Sprachversionen bearbeiten

Danke erst mal für die Erläuterung zu Help:Linking Wikipedia pages/de#Links_zu_anderen_Sprachversionen_bearbeiten. Das beschriebene Vorgehen funktioniert bei mir nicht. Ich komme immer auf die Wikidata-Seite, gleich von welcher Sprachversion aus ich starte. Dort kann ich zwar neue Sprachlinks hinzufügen, aber falsche nicht löschen oder korrigieren. Mache ich etwas falsch? Passerose (talk) 11:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Nein die meisten Links wurden inzwischen von Bots gesetzt, so dass du von einem Wikipediaartikel automatisch zu Wikidata kommst, wenn du auf den Bleistift klickst. Alle Bearbeitungen geschehen auf Wikidata und die Eingabe der Links zu den Artikeln bewirkt, dass die Links aus Wikidata im Artikel angezeigt werden. (Falls das Objekt nur einen Link hat nicht, denn der Artikel zeigt keinen Link auf sich selbst.) Auf Wikidata hat man dann aber nicht wie bei Wikipedia oben die Reiter "Lesen" und "Bearbeiten", sondern man muss nach unten fahren und die gewünschten Einträge einzeln ändern. Dazu ist neben jedem Eintrag eine eigene Schaltfläche "Bearbeiten". Einen Link, den man nicht mehr haben will muss man also entfernen indem man zum Link geht, dort auf "Bearbeiten" geht und den Text aus dem Feld löscht und speichern drückt. Du musst allerdings auch das Kürzel für die Sprachversion herauslöschen, sonst kommen Fhelermeldungen. Fehlermeldungen kommen auch, wenn man einen Link setzen will, der bereits in einem andern Datenobjekt enthalten ist. In dem Fall muss ich zuerst den anderen Link löschen, bevor ich ihn in einem andern Datenobjekt neu setzen kann. --Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 12:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Bei mir erscheint auf der Wikidata-Seite mit IE8 (höchste Version unter Win XP) in den oberen Abschnitten rechts jeweils [[object Object]] (nicht anwählbar). Habs jetzt mit Chrome probiert und prompt kommt [[ bearbeiten ]] (anwählbar). Problem gelöst. Danke! Passerose (talk) 13:52, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Ja das ist ein bekanntes Problem vom IE Explorer, an das habe ich nicht gedacht. Firefox und Crome funktionieren und einige andere auch. Es müsste auch irgendwo noch ein paar Diskussionen zum Thema geben. Ich persönlich benutze den IE schon seit vielen Jahren nicht mehr.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 14:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Die Links sind Hier und hier. --Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 14:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Giftzwerg 88. You have new messages at ValterVB's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Baustellen

• Valterbot Q1000000 +
• Wikidata-Terminator
• [1]

Ich habe deinen Diskussionsbeitrag bearbeitet

http://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata_talk%3ALabels_and_descriptions_task_force&diff=67005566&oldid=66150562 Ich bin sicher, du meintest en roughly up to Q30000 (nicht de roughly up to Q30000) Hoffe, das war so in Ordnung. Grüße --Diwas (talk) 21:36, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Demokrit im Überlegung zum Sitz der Seele

Hi. Wo kommt denn das deutsche Label zu Item Q10954 her? Das hattest du vor einiger Zeit eingefügt, aber es ist sprachlich falsch (oder zumindest eine Konstruktion die ich nicht verstehe), was mich freilich direkt neugierig gemacht hat. "Demokrit im Überlegung zum Sitz der Seele" ist offenbar kein verbreiteter Name für die Statue (0 Googletreffer), zu der es leider auch keinen deutschen Wikipedia-Artikel gibt (nichtmal einen zum Künstler). Das Musée des Beaux-Arts nennt sie hier auf Deutsch am Rande schlicht "Demokrit". Allerdings ist es da auch in der englischen Version einfach "Democritus" (statt "Democritus meditating on the seat of the soul", dem Lemma des englischen Wikipedia-Artikels), und im Französischen "Démocrite" statt "Démocrite méditant sur le siège de l'âme". Eine andere deutschsprachige Erwähnung der Statue konnte ich im Web nicht finden. --YMS (talk) 13:33, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Ich habs mir nochmals angeschaut und es ist einfach eine Übersetzung des englischen Lemmas. Allerdings mit einem Fehler: Demokrit in Überlegung zum Sitz der Seele müsste es heißen. Ich habe mir aber nicht die Mühe gemacht, einen Titel im Netz zu suchen. Wenn es irgendwann einen deutschen Artikel dazu geben sollte, wäre natürlich dieses Lemma statt dessen angebracht, wenn es noch keinen "offiziellen" Namen dazu gibt.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 22:01, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Ich weiss nicht, ob es eine gute Idee ist, Titel eigenmächtig zu übersetzen, muss aber zugeben, dass ich keine Ahnung habe, wie das in der Kunst allgemein gehandhabt wird. Meine persönliche Intuition würde dazu tendieren, bei fehlendem offiziellen oder allgemein etablierten deutschen Titel denjenigen fremdsprachigen zu übernehmen, den der Künstler selbst verwendet hat. Aber wie gesagt, nicht mein Gebiet. Danke dennoch für die Aufmerksamkeit ;), schönen Tag noch. --YMS (talk) 08:53, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Es ist ein Wiki. Fehler können wir nicht verhindern und ich habe inzwischen entdeckt, dass einige meiner Begriffe und Wortschöpfungen bei Übersetzungen als Standard akzeptiert werden. Es könnte daher sein, dass irgend eine Kunstjournalist, Kunsthändler oder Wissenschaftler meinen Begriff benutzt und irgendwann alle daherkommen und meine Übersetzung als Bezeichnung für dieses Werk benutzen. Das wäre zwar nicht meine Absicht gewesen, aber ich habe nichts dagegen. Die Gedanken sind frei . Meine Absicht war es eine deutsche Bezeichnung für das Objekt zu geben, was ich schon bei ein paar tausend Objekten gemacht habe. Wikidata ermöglicht ja noch Alternativnamen und so können originale bzw. fremdsprachliche Bezeichnungen als Alternativnamen angegeben werden.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 12:27, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Editing translatable pages

Hi

When you edit translatable pages, please do not add the T:XX tags, like here. They are added automatically by the software when a translation admin or a sysop marks the page for translation. --Michgrig (talk) 21:08, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

P1577

Gregory-Aland-Number (P1577) ist bereit. -Tobias1984 (talk) 09:43, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Danke, hat ja echt lange gedauert. --Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 09:47, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Ja ist mir auch aufgefallen. Fast niemand beobachtet die Property-Proposal-Seiten und deswegen hilft es immer wenn man ein paar Leute pingt damit die Abstimmung schneller geht. Könntest du nicht Wikidata:WikiProject Cultural heritage oder Wikidata:WikiProject Books pingen für solche Eigenschaften? Du könntest natürlich auch ein eigenes WikiProjekt starten. Man findet recht schnell Leute, die sich für das gleiche Interessieren. -Tobias1984 (talk) 10:22, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Danke fürs abstimmen: P1597 (P1597) -Tobias1984 (talk) 17:49, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

consecrator (P1598)

consecrator (P1598) ist bereit. Tobias1984 (talk) 17:53, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Handschriften

Ihre letzte Serie von instance of (P31) > manuscript (Q87167) Aussagen weist ziemlich viele Fehler aus. Einige habe ich bereits rückgängig gemacht, aber nicht alle - ich bin auch kein Handschriftenexpert und siehe nur das was evident ist oder mit meinem Bereich zusammenhängt. Ich bitte Sie um mehr Vorsicht bei solchen Editationen und um nachträgliche Kontrolle Ihrer letzten Serie. Grüße, --Shlomo (talk) 07:02, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Ja, einige sind mir auch selbst aufgefallen. Im nachhinein muss ich sagen, dass ich noch mit den möglichen Nebenwirkungen nicht ganz vertraut bin und gelobe mehr Vorsicht für das nächste mal. Aber ich werde die Sache nochmal unter die Lupe nehmen.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 11:30, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

@Shlomo Ich habe jetzt alle Edits nochmals unter die Lupe genommen und die Fehler entfernt. Eine Reihe von Artikeln sind zugleich Artikel über ein Werk und über eine Handschrift, wobei die Handschrift der einzige Textzeuge ist, diese Fälle lassen sich mit Bots und Suchfunktionen nicht lösen, dazu muss man die Artikel berücksichtigen.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 15:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

		The Cleanup Barnstar
		Thank you User:Giftzwerg 88 for cleaning up my artsy messes here on Wikidata. I apologize for my snappy response to your talk page message - that is what I get for responding before I have had my tea in the morning :) Thank you again for all you do! Missvain (talk) 21:50, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

painting

Hi, why did you remove artificial physical object? It dropped out of the artificial physical object (Q15222213) tree now, so we lost information. Multichill (talk) 12:54, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Somehow most of the things we can take in our hands are artificial physical objects. That is however not a basic definition of a painting. The link to Q15222213 causes a lot of constraint violations.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 13:05, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

So somehow these things should be subclassed to Q15222213, directly or indirectly. You're welcome to move it up in the tree if you can figure out where because both work of art (Q838948) and visual artwork (Q4502142) don't have to be physical. work of art (Q838948) can be just an idea (concept art?) and visual artwork (Q4502142) could also be digital. Not an easy thing to solve. If it gives constraint violations you might have set your constraints wrong.

If you want to discus this more I suggest you copy this over to Talk:Q3305213. Please don't just remove it again. Multichill (talk) 13:16, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit summary

Hi, I noticed that you don't set an edit summary. Could you set them in the future? Makes it easier to see what you've done. Multichill (talk) 19:41, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

native label (P1705)

native label (P1705) is ready. --Tobias1984 (talk) 15:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Template documentation

Hello, I see that you add a lot of "please translate" in the "description" parameter of template documentation. But, as others noted on Template talk:Property documentation#Description parameter, most of these descriptions are totally redundant with the other description that is automatically retrieved from the property itself + Wikidata item of this property (P1629). Translating them might not be the best use of Wikidatian's time. I think it would make a lot more sense to remove these descriptions altogether. --Zolo (talk) 15:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I understand your point. First of all, there is some redundancy, I admit that. So if we need to reduce redundancy, we should remove the description section of the template completely. On the other hand we need the description section to give further and more detailed explanation how this property is used the right way. I feel like most of the properties need much more than half a sentence to tell what the property is about as I´ve done for some of the properties. I think it is not a good thing to have all relevant information only in one language. We create barriers to users in other languages. How can a user understand the propper use of a certain property, if there is no detailed description in other languages availlable? And yes it is also the domain and the allowed values that need to be translated. The users in other languages need to be able to participate e. g. in Indian languages, Koean, Japanese, Chinese...

I see the problem with the template getting overfilled with information after a time, if there are too many translations. Can we solve the thing by using a multilingual template and translate extension instead? Putting up barriers is a serious problem and we need some concepts to fix that. I'd agree even to move all translatable information in the boxes to a separate page in the help: namespace, which then is translated via the translation extension and then included by a simple {{ll|help:property0000...}} and also a link provided on the front page.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 16:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree that we sometimes need a more detailed description, but if you add "please translate" to a messaage that just repeats the property description, then they will just translate the short description a second time. I guess a description parameter should only be added when it is more detailed than the description from the property.

Having many parameters needing translation seems to be a potential source of mess. "Allowed values" shold essentially be a list of items, and "domain" one or two items. I think we should say that these parameters should be simply automatically retrieved from statements on the property, so that they can be automatically translated. At the same time, we could say that more detailed, natural language explanations should go to the "description" parameter. It may make the parameter a bit long, but there would only be one field that translators need to focus on. And, yes, possibly, we could put them in a separate place, use that uses the <translate> extension and just transclude them in the property talk page. --Zolo (talk) 16:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok there´s some work to be done.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 18:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Self link

Hallo,

Ich verstehe nicht. Why do we need to put a self-link on countries like France (Q142) on France (Q142) ?

Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 11:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your question, which is by the way a very reasonable question. I had the same in mind. You are right, it sounds not logic to put a self-link on countries. I also removed a link on Canada (Q16), but I undid this on here, as well as on Q142. I experienced the thousands of constraint violations that can be removed by this edits as shown here. And there is a discussion exactly on this issue on https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property_talk:P17#Should_countries_have_statements_with_country:_themselves.3F. So the answer to your question is yes, even if it is not logical to all extend.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 13:44, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

And thank you for your answer. It still doesn't look logic to me… I'll pursue further the discussion on the link you mentioned.

Could you give me a precise example of « constraint violations that can be removed by this edits » (the link is just adding a self link Q16 on Q16, I don't see any relations to contraint violations).

Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 18:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh sorry, this was my fault, I gave you the same link twice instead of this one. The result is reduction of constraint violations in the section Target required claim country (P17) violations from 135455 to 1550 cases, but the same time two additional self links.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 20:12, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm still puzzled. I think I will give up and leave it as it is.

One last question : could you explain me the usefulness of the « Target required claim country (P17) » constraint? Isn't it kind of redundant this the « One of » constraint?

Despite my confusion, thank you for your explanations.

Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 20:19, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Q15123870

Hello Giftzwerg 88. I don't understand why do you removed subclass of (P279) print (Q11060274) from lithograph (Q15123870). As written in the French Larousse http://www.larousse.fr/dictionnaires/francais/lithographie/47459?q=lithographie#47389 and established in scientific publications (just one example in the website of the Bibliothèque nationale de France (Q193563):http://expositions.bnf.fr/bosse/reperes/index2.htm ), a lithograph (Q15123870) is a type of print (Q11060274). And then you added subclass of (P279) / work of art (Q838948) ; but why again? print (Q11060274) is already a subclass of work of art (Q838948). So I change subclass of (P279) / work of art (Q838948) in subclass of (P279) / print (Q11060274) as established before and left subclass of (P279)/printed matter (Q2110504). So lithograph (Q15123870) is by inference still a subclass of work of art (Q838948) but with a better precision. Best regards Shonagon (talk) 21:33, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I just tried to get some litographs linked as work of art (Q838948), on the other hand print (Q11060274) is not necessarily work of art (Q838948), some prints are, but there are also many printed items that are not, may be even not all lithographs are. But I think you have more knowledge about the subclasses, so I agree to your changes.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 21:45, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

work of art (Q838948) subclass of item of collection or exhibition (Q18593264)

Hello Giftzwerg 88. This statement was reverted https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q838948&diff=prev&oldid=200604179 because to be subclass of (P279) implies to have *all* the caracteristics of the parent in heritage and it is not the case. As said , in this discussionn (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_sum_of_all_paintings#Focus_on_all_paintings_without_collection ), "Also, remember that while most works have a collection, there might be a few that don't, and that's ok :)". Some examples of artworks which have no collection (P195) : Fallen Astronaut (Q1161218), Fresco of Saint Christopher of Saint-Sorlin-en-Bugey (Q19318054), The Sun (Q18891206), Flammarion engraving (Q1426992), JAS minnet (Q10538835). Furthermore, as described in the item page, if an item is an instance of item of collection or exhibition (Q18593264) or subclass, it implies that the work has ou should have the property inventory number (P217) and it will not be possible for all work of art (Q838948). Therefore work of art (Q838948) can not be subclass of item of collection or exhibition (Q18593264). Best regards --Shonagon (talk) 09:41, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. Lets turn it this way: I´ve created item of collection or exhibition (Q18593264) to get an overview on the use of properties collection (P195) and inventory number (P217) and to find errors or vandalism. To some extend you are right: there is art without collection or inventory number, but allmost all of the 30.000+ items on paintings and other subclasses of work of art (Q838948) are. I needed this to handle different kinds of objects that are contained in libraries, museums, galleries, archives.... and not all of this things are work of art (Q838948) or even works, like skulls of extinct animals or remains of plants found in excavations. So it is just a thing to help sort out wrong uses and we can handle the mentioned cases as exceptions, if necessary. You mention printed artworks like Flammarion engraving (Q1426992): there are often copies that are definitely part of collections. For frescos I see the problem too, but may be we can rule out some subclases at a later point. As for sure you can identify allmost all work of art (Q838948) by collection and inventory.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 11:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

This diff

Hi Giftzwerg88, I'd like to ask about this diff, which to me doesn't make sense. Why is Standard Chinese preferable over simplified Chinese? Thanks. —Wylve (talk) 13:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Simplified Chinese is not a language, it is a writing system. The signs of this writing system can be read in several different chinese languages, the signs just must be pronounced differently according to the languages. Simplified Chinese has the function of an alphabet. --Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 13:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Standard Chinese is an oral language that dictates how one should pronounce Chinese characters. You can't write Standard Chinese; you can only write in either simplified Chinese script or traditional Chinese script. I don't think it makes sense to mark a written document with an oral language. —Wylve (talk) 14:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your edit to Wikidata:Glossary. I think this makes it much better. Filceolaire (talk) 22:42, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

life expectancy (P2250)

 Done life expectancy (P2250) --Almondega (talk) 00:51, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Q2649381

You undid my revision: https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q2649381&oldid=prev&diff=284582566. Could you tell me why? Biblical apocrypha (Q170207) has subclass of (P279) = literary work (Q7725634), so Q2649381 doesn't need work (Q386724).

OK, I understand--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 13:16, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Mehrstämmige Bäume

Moin Giftzwerg 88,

apropos [2], [3], [4]: Danke, aber bist du sicher, dass es sich nicht um "Eine zweistämmige Stieleiche" etc. handelt? Bei Naturdenkmälern als Einzelgebilde stellen die Behörden oft eine "1" als Anzahl in der Bezeichnung voran, auch wenn das logisch unnötig ist. Außerdem kommen mir Eichen und Fichten mit mehr als 10 Stämmen doch etwas seltsam vor. Falls du diese Bäume nicht konkret kennst, würde ich davon ausgehen, dass es zwei/drei/vierstämmige Bäume sind. Gruß --06:02, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

OK, ich ging davon aus, dass das ein falsches Leerzeichen ist. Vielstämmige Bäume mit mehr als zehn Stämme kenne ich aus dem Schönbuch. Enstanden sind diese durch Beweidung am Anfang der Entwicklung.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk)

Habe sämtlich in Freudenstadt ausgewiesenen NDs mit den amtlichen Bezeichnungen[5] aufgelistet - die setzen bei jedem Baum bzw Baumgruppe die Anzahl vor - wäre inkonsequent, wenn sie das bei den mehrstämmigen nicht auch getan hätten. Ich setze dann mal auf "1 zweistämmige Stieleiche" etc. um solche Missverständnisse zu vermeiden. Gruß --Dealerofsalvation (talk) 17:13, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi

Excuse me, what is this wikimedia project used for? I’m interested in contributing to it. Hahaha878 (talk) 09:22, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Call for participation in a task-based online experiment

Dear Giftzwerg 88,

I hope you are doing good,

I am Kholoud, a researcher at King's College London, and I work on a project as part of my PhD research, in which I have developed a personalised recommender system that suggests Wikidata items for the editors based on their past edits. I am collaborating on this project with Elena Simperl and Miaojing Shi.

I am inviting you to a task-based study that will ask you to provide your judgments about the relevance of the items suggested by our system based on your previous edits. Participation is completely voluntary, and your cooperation will enable us to evaluate the accuracy of the recommender system in suggesting relevant items to you. We will analyse the results anonymised, and they will be published to a research venue.

The study will start in late January 2022 or early February 2022, and it should take no more than 30 minutes.

If you agree to participate in this study, please either contact me at kholoud.alghamdi@kcl.ac.uk or use this form https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSees9WzFXR0Vl3mHLkZCaByeFHRrBy51kBca53euq9nt3XWog/viewform?usp=sf_link I will contact you with the link to start the study.

For more information about the study, please read this post: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User:Kholoudsaa In case you have further questions or require more information, don't hesitate to contact me through my mentioned email.

Thank you for considering taking part in this research.

Regards

Kholoudsaa (talk) 20:14, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Keim

Hab grad das gesehen: Du willst mich jetzt aber nicht zu jeder Keim-Filiale in der Gegend schicken, oder? ;-) Windharp (talk) 13:28, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Nein, das ist keine Filiale, das ist Lachenhauweg 8, zufällig der Firmensitz und Standort der Produktion mit Großbäckerei. Irgendwann gibts dazu auch mal Bilder, weil ich gelegentlich in dieser Gegend zu tun habe.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk)

Okay, dann schauen wir mal wer zuerst vorbeikommt :-) --Windharp (talk) 08:14, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect use of instance of (P31)

Hello –

This statement on "Motorworld Village Metzingen" was incorrect. Errors with basic membership properties create false inferences. Before using instance of (P31), check the item descriptions, and make sure your statement makes sense. (In this case, property management is an activity, not a type of place or organization.) Often, another property is suited to expressing the relationship you had in mind; you can search for one here. Thanks! Swpb (talk) 19:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for drawing my attention. This one is very complicated and has multiple functions. This is a redevelopment of a former factory, a real estate project, it consists of car dealers, repair shops, tuning, gear and garment sales, venues, catering, restaurants, service providers, etc. and in addition to that it is the name of the business that acts as the property manager, (this means "it is" a property management), which provides services, rents out the shops..., and is itself part of a larger holding that works in real estate development. I just took that as a statement of the kind of business this is. I added some more, that hopefully describe it better.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 04:21, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

No, it is not "a property management". It may be used for property management, the property for that is has use (P366). A site or business is never an instance of an activity. Swpb (talk) 01:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

The German label is the same for a business that does property management and for the act of property management, that is probably why this mixup happened. Somehow the item got merged and altered, which maybe was also a part the problem.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 05:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

HMM, I am speechless: real estate management (Q58081477) and property management (Q1618728), I can not figure out the difference. I wanted to pick the one that labels an organisation that does property management. This seems totally messed up, the German part describes the business, the English part describes the activity. Can you help me? --Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 05:32, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't know what the intended difference was between real estate management (Q58081477) and property management (Q1618728), but it's irrelevant because both refer to activities, and neither refers to a type of organization, in English, German, or any other language as far as I can tell. There is an entity for businesses involved in real estate, real estate company (Q1660104). Swpb (talk) 16:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Friedhof Wurmlingen

Du hast den Friedhof wenn ich mich nicht irre zweimal angelegt, einmal als Q128321104 und einmal als Q128321140. Versehen oder sollen das zwei Orte sein? Dann wäre eine Unterscheidung im Namen irgendwie cool ;-) Windharp (talk) 09:33, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Da hast du recht. Es sind mehrere Gräberfelder, aber ein Friedhof, soweit ich mich erinnere.Ich lege das mal zusammen.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 09:46, 6 October 2024 (UTC)