User talk:Thayts

Bináris (talk) 00:13, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He Thayts, I believe (not sure, the interface is not very clear) you changed for England the property stateːUnited Kingdom to countryːUnited Kingdom. I know these terms are used interchangably for "sovereign entity" and "subdivision", but in wikidata (if I understand correctly), the property "state" is defined as the sovereign entity that the item is part of. So England and Scotland should have a statement "stateː UK"... Would you agree? L.tak (talk) 11:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC) ːMy bad, I believe it is me mixing them upǃ L.tak (talk) 13:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply at L.tak's talk page. Thayts (talk) 13:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The border between Zeeland and North Brabant, and also between East Flanders and Antwerp runs over the Schelde. Thus, Antwerp does not share border with Zeeland, and North Brabant does not share border with East Flanders, therefore I am not sure why you are adding the info that it does.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you zoom in closely (on OpenStreetMap for example) you can see that Zeeland and Antwerp even share a border on a thin strip of land. I did not add East Flanders to North Brabant. Thayts (talk) 17:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of crazy action was that? I reverted your edits. Multichill (talk) 20:23, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would have appreciated if you'd informed me first. Then I could have explained to you that it is not so "crazy" since it is nothing different from having both Amsterdam (Q9899) and Amsterdam (Q727), the one being the municipality and the other the city therein. I needed to make that distinction to be able to state that Haarlem (Q9920) has part(s) (P527) Spaarndam-West (Q2439172) and since that village isn't part of (P361) the city, I made a separate item for that. I thought Wikidata is a collection of data on all kind of things, rather than a one-to-one mapping of Wikipedia articles to items. Surely you do acknowledge the difference between a municipality and a city? Thayts (talk) 21:35, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't spread discussions over talk pages. I have a watch list and I use it. In case of Haarlem there is no difference, you might want to read up on en:City rights in the Low Countries. Multichill (talk) 21:48, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no difference, then can you please explain to me what makes the difference in case of Amsterdam? The page you're linking to (where Haarlem and Amsterdam are in the same list) explains the archaic city rights, something that doesn't define a present-day city, and something that certainly doesn't compare to how a city (Q515) has been defined on Wikidata. A city is settlement, a village is a settlement, and the village of Spaarndam-West is a different and separate settlement than the city of Haarlem (which nowadays is called a city because of its relative size, which is in accordance with the definition on Wikidata). How else should I define that Spaarndam-West is part of the municipality of Haarlem but not of the city, and that there is actually a difference? Thayts (talk) 22:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've got some other examples for you:

• Groningen (Q749) vs Groningen (Q892526)
• Leeuwarden (Q25390) vs Leeuwarden (Q2311189)
• 's-Hertogenbosch (Q2766547) vs 's-Hertogenbosch (Q9807)
• Middelburg (Q52101) vs Middelburg (Q10076)

Is the existence of separate items for their municipalities justified only because they have separate Wikipedia articles about them? I suppose you would say it's because there are more settlements in those municipalities than only the cities, but Haarlem is NO different. Or is one other village too few? Where do you draw the line then? I think all municipalities with multiple settlements (i.e. more than 1) should have a separate item at least. Only then a logical and correct hierarchy of administrative divisions and their settlements can be built. I'd really like to hear how you would solve this problem otherwise. Thayts (talk) 10:32, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a new discussion, this discussion has been going on for a long time. The problem is that you can't make a clear cut for Haarlem. For some other places that's easier because for example there was a recent merger of the municipality. Take for example nl:Lijst van burgemeesters van Haarlem, where are you going to put that? And things like twin city? COA? By trying to split it up you create a incorrect artificial situation. Multichill (talk) 14:02, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that mayors isn't that difficult to place since a mayor is the head of government of a municipality (which is the political division), just like "head of government (P6): Eberhard van der Laan (Q1279554)" has been put on Amsterdam (Q9899) and not on Amsterdam (Q727). Twin city applies to a city (what's in a name), COA is debatable (although in case of Amsterdam it has been put on both). There is nothing artificial about it, municipalities and cities are different concepts as can be seen with the other cities I listed and the same questions can be asked about them. There is definitely a cut between Haarlem and Spaarndam, even though it is a very small part in the Haarlem municipality (which might be the reason the municipality doesn't have its own Wikipedia articles). You haven't answered my question yet what to do with that village (you cannot possibly say it is part of the city). Thayts (talk) 14:20, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You should model nl:Wijken en buurten in Haarlem under Haarlem. Spaarndam (Q833664) is a village and each part is a neighborhood. Multichill (talk) 16:40, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Thayts (talk) 18:15, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thayts, these edits popped up on my watchlist. You used the "Preferred rank", but that's not the case for the "Deprecated rank". That rank should only be used for data that turned out to be incorrect, not for data that was true at some point in history. You should update it like this. Can you correct your edits? Multichill (talk) 20:02, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Multichill: I indeed had a different interpretation. Thanks for letting me know. I've reverted my edits. Thayts (talk) 21:42, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, adding the timespan is a bit more of a puzzle I guess. Multichill (talk) 09:42, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm YMS. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions because it didn't appear constructive. Feel free to use the sandbox for test edits. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! --YMS (talk) 07:48, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@YMS: Oh yes, I forgot to remove those. I was testing new functionality in my module connected to that item. No intention to vandalise whatsoever... Thayts (talk) 09:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]