Как раз об этом тут и обсуждалось, а вы без дальнейших комментариев отменили и эту правку. Как уже сказал, предлагаю писать «девятая буква основного латинского алфавита». 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 14:30, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(see also: Talk:Q22966190) About 2 days ago you started to mass-revert almost all of my edits, partly with rude comments (example: Q4048515&oldid=prev&diff=1088970262 "do you understand what you are doing?". I have taken notice of the section "My work" on your user page and Special:CentralAuth/Infovarius. There are over 1'000'000 registered edits of yours at wikidata (maybe you use even a bot?), but nobody has evaluated the quality of them. You are supposed not to be rude to other users, neither to those who (allegedly) have slightly less edits than you, nor those who allegedly are less smart than you believe to be. Please stop approaching me as if I was a fool, at least until you can provide hard evidence of this "fact".
> I support most of your edits and adjust a little percent of them.
> Please look at situation after my edits and discuss what you are disagree.
I have checked a small fraction of the mess (note that I consider edit warring against you as waste of time, and fear that discussing with you could suffer from the very same problem). There are many problems with your behaviour and your edits:
you mass-revert my edits for no reason (you revert edits that are not broken, and usually even incur a small or bigger improvement)
you place partly rude comments as if I was a fool (example: "do you understand what you are doing?")
you deliberately create conflicted or obviously incorrect claims (examle revert: Q4048515&type=revision&diff=1088973533&oldid=1087711322, "Category:Wikipedians who are bureaucrats on sister projects" is ultimately NOT the main category of "Project:Bureaucrats")
you remove descriptions that I add (and consider as very important, without description an item is about anything, everything and nothing at same time, with such an approach we could even merge or delete all items)
Note: the large amount of main categories for "Project:Bureaucrats" and some other items is a real problem that I did not solve. Unfortunately you do not have a solution either. Even worse, you, in your fanatical bias against me, either remove categories added by me, keeping those added by yourself sharing the same problem (just because it's me, or just because it's you ...), or create a seemingly valid claim with only one main category, that unfortunately is ultimately incorrect (see above).
You write (see above) that you would "adjust" my edits, but in fact you mass-revert, destroy my conflict-resolving work, and make me look like a fool.
Another faulty edit of yours is here: Q32776922&type=revision&diff=1089003716&oldid=1087649451, a dupe item. You reverted my edits for the heck, removed the description, made the problem of dupe worse by increasing the amount of links from 2 to 3, and created a conflicting claim with "wikipedian" and "meta". Is the category now for "wikipedia bureaucrats" or "meta bureaucrats"? Nobody knows, but this is typical Infovarius-quality. You mass-reverted my edits, made me a fool, and added a nice amount to your edit counter, and that's all what counts for you. Taylor 49 (talk) 22:22, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Taylor 49! I don't want to have emotions in Wikidata, not from me and not from you. But just to make it clear: I don't think that I am being rude (and I don't mean at any time, sorry if you imagine that), and I see your rude comments ("for the heck", several times, which is to my English understanding, rude). But I am ready to discuss.
Once again - I respect your edits, and I don't revert them all. And I can comment any my edit (I am not a bot).
What about Project:Bureaucrats (Q4048515)? There can't be so many "main pages" to one category, so the list was wrong. I see now that Category:Wikipedians who are bureaucrats on sister projects (Q30808887) is not ideal main page, but I consider it more correct. Apart from en-wp-sitelink (which is about more projects than any of your propositions), fr-wikiversity link seems to be correct main page. meta-page contains several projects as subcategories, so it is a candidate for main page too. But another variant is meta:Category:Bureaucrats which I added to Q32776922 and this can be wrong. Q32776922 is probably should be corrected somehow... But it is not a duplicate! pl and ru pages have some differences from pages at Q4615456 and I displayed this in partially coincident with (P1382). For example, ru:Категория:Википедия:Бюрократы is more general category, containing some help and maintenance pages about burocrats, while ru:Категория:Участники:Бюрократы contains only user-burocrats themselves. How to express this at items? So in this item your description seems to me wrong and that's why I removed it.
I don't remember other your descriptions which I could incidentally remove. It is possible, I can make errors. Feel free to revert me with some meaningfull comment. I'll accept it if I see usefulness of the revert. --Infovarius (talk) 23:25, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
> There can't be so many "main pages" to one category, so the list was wrong
Most likely there should be only one. Thus reducing from 10 to 3 does not really solve the problem. And if there are 10 equivalent "main" categories then kicking 9 of them randomly is not really helpful either. I don't have any obviously perfect solution yet. Maybe 10 main categories is the least bad one for now.
I don't agree with this. The fact that it stands a bit apart from the unresonably big bunch (Wikipedia bureaucrats, Commons bureaucrats, Wikidata bureaucrats, ...) and solves the problem <<there can't be so many "main pages" to one category>> does not mean that it is correct.
Hey,
i noticed you reverted my addition of visual artwork (Q4502142) as a subclass to album (Q482994). I'm not quite sure why. I added this mainly because i've added around 500 claims with the geocoordinates of the location of the album cover (e.g. Arrival (Q162392)), and those are all conflicted now because album should be a subclass of visual artwork. That makes sense: an album always has some kind of visual artwork attached to it, even if it just digital. So i re-added the subclass. Husky (talk) 10:33, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Здравствуйте! Благодаря вашим грубейшим ошибкам читатели введены в заблуждение о гражданстве многих людей, которые не имели никакого отношения к Российской империи. Пожалуйста, исправьте их сами. В основном они были сделаны вами в августе 2018. --Бучач-Львів (talk) 07:49, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Был бы благодарен за иной тон разговора после ваших многочисленных ошибок. По вашему, так и Галичина все время была частью почившей в Боге Российской империи... --Бучач-Львів (talk) 07:10, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Если и есть ошибки, то это небольшой процент. Напомню, что Польша была в составе Российской империи, пусть и не вся. Львов тоже одно время входил. Так что небольшой ошибкой будет добавить это гражданство (подданство). --Infovarius (talk) 14:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Кстати, смотрите, какое распределение мест рождения для людей с P27=Российская империя:
@Бучач-Львів: понимаете, достаточно сложно понять, какие именно элементы исправлять. Давайте вместе? Подскажите, по какому критерию выбрать персон, а я автоматически их исправлю. Первая идея - родившиеся и умершие в Кракове. Правда, они могли временно жить в другой части Польши... --Infovarius (talk) 15:35, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See examples Valles Marineris (Q621110), Olympus Mons (Q520), etc which are amongst many Wikidata items describing features of astronomical objects, where these features are subclass of "geographical objects". This includes mountains, canyons, oceans, volcanoes, etc. There are many astronomical object features which are subclass of "geographical object" so I do not see why a planet or asteroid would fall outside the definition of "geographical object". Planets and asteroids can be uniquely identified and described, and the position of such objects in the universe stated in a coordinate system (example: galactic coordinate system (Q385487)). Dhx1 (talk) 11:57, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the Commons category is currently under discussion at Commons. Currently "Objects" there is a match to "Physical object" on WD. "Category:Physical objects" on Commons was just created a few days ago, but is being debated. This may be changed as a result of the CfD there, but please do not change the WD link until that discussion is resolved, because it affects the main category adversely. Thanks! Josh Baumgartner (talk) 23:08, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Q167898 (Strom roku) vs. Q12056594 Strom roku (Lesy České republiky). V České republice existují dvě různé soutěže se stejným názvem (bohužel).
Q167898 Strom roku - pořádá Nadace Partnerství. Vítězný strom s příběhem v České republice se zúčastní celoevropské soutěže "Evropský strom roku" (jeden strom-unikát, strom na konkrétním místě, tyto stromy mají většínou svá jména, např. "Dub Josef").
Q12056594 Strom roku (Lesy České republiky) - pořádají Lesy České republiky, které vyhlašují dřevinu jako takovou, například "lípa" (obecně, jakákoliv, kdekoliv). Tato soutěž je stejná jako soutěže uvedené v článcích bar/Baam vom Joar, de/Baum des Jahres, eo/Arbo de la jaro.--Alena Pokorná (talk) 06:37, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Alena Pokorná:, sorry I can't speak Czech. Ok, I understand (with help of Google Translate) that it is complication. But it's something wrong after your edits. Why did you move sitelinks to Q12056594? They are not about Czech competitions/award. What is sk:Strom roka about? Why is it orphaned? --Infovarius (talk) 23:51, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry. There are two polls in European countries with the same name but different missions. Q167898 - selection one unique tree (cs, sk, en, cy, pl), Q12056594 - tree as a species (cs, de, bar, eo). I think every article should have its sitelink.--Alena Pokorná (talk) 05:43, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reasons for latin notations of Russian names different from the Standard transcription[edit]
Hello Infovarius,
"Konstantin" is the standard transcription of Konstantin (Q31362405) according to orthography. That means being confronted with a plain "Константин" in Russian, Bulgarian, Kazach or Serbian there is just one possibility how to transcribe it: "Konstantin".
There may be different reasons why a "transcription" differs from orthography, mostly biographical. A person with a latin-script native language is referred to by the notation in the native language, even if the person is most active or born in a cyrillic-script region (this seems to apply to Constantin Winkler (Q1127852) and Gottlieb Kirchhoff (Q1127869)). A person with Russian origin spending a big part of his or her life in a latin-script country may be referred to by the transcription in this country internationally (this is the reason why the English transcription for Vladimir Nabokov (Q36591) ("Vladimir Nabokov") is also used in German (the German transcription would be "Wladimir Nabokow" - but this does not mean that "Nabokov" is a German transcription variant of Nabokov (Q21449214). In this case the English transcription is also used in German). I could imagine that there may be also reasons of personal preference (e.g. a person who successfully insists on being referred to by the French transcription internationally - but this would not make the French transcription a variant of the German or English transcription). - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 08:46, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Valentina.Anitnelav: if you insist on using only on standard transcription (transliteration?) then we end up with strange claims like de@"Vorname=Wladimir, Name=Nabokow" for "Vladimir Nabokov". Are you ok with them? --Infovarius (talk) 13:15, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if I understand your problem. If Vladimir Nabokov's name in mother tongue ("Владимир Набоков") would be transcribed according to the German transcription the result would be "Wladimir Nabokow". This is not strange at all and the German transcription is also present as an alias. But as he lived and worked a long time in the USA the English transcription is more common, also in German texts, so that it is the preferred notation (but "Wladimir Nabokow" is not wrong and I'm sure that it is used in some German texts). That "Nabokov" or "Constantin" should be a transcription variant for "Набоков" or "Константин" in German is simply false. (Sometimes English terms are used in German but this does not make them a German term) - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 14:07, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, JuTa. See previous section. Single label would cause problems for some persons so I don't like it. My proposal is to delete these naive Commons categories. --Infovarius (talk) 13:20, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I'm not getting an answer jet to my question which kind of problems a single label item somtetimes creates I'm planning to switch it back to the single label latest in a few days. regards. --JuTa (talk) 17:45, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@JuTa: ok, I'll repeat the reason personally to you. The problem is in choosing the single label as different person have different Latin transliterations of single Cyrillic name. So any single label would be wrong for many uses. --Infovarius (talk) 11:13, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@JuTa: If one would do this for cyrillic-script name strings and English one would need to do this consequently for every item (also for latin-script name strings) and every language involved (so not only for varying notations in English, but also German, French, Armenian, Chinese, Japanese, Islandic etc.). So one would also need to split up Paul (Q4925623) as this name string has different transcriptions into Russian and there could be the case where two Константинs are notated as Constantin in the English label, but the German label reads in the first case Constantin, in the second case Konstantin. Should we create two items for this combination of source name string --> latin notation (ru:Константин|en:Constantin|de:Konstantin and ru:Константин|en:Constantin|de:Constantin)? It would get messy very easily due to the number of possible combinations only for latin-script languages. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 12:51, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Constantin, Constantine and Kostyantyn are not transliterations of "Константин" in English. "Kostyantyn" is a transcription of the Ukrainian "Костянтин" (Kostiantyn (Q23308390). "Constantin" and "Constantine" quite certainly don't derive from "Константин" in those cases you have in mind, especially for people from nobility whose families/dynasties come from or are based in Western Europe (like Duke Constantine Petrovich of Oldenburg (Q27492), where the English transcription of his name "Константин" is "Konstantin", as also indicated in his English Wikipedia article). This cases you could model as the person adopting the European name in addition to the Russian "Константин". You could represent this by adding given name (P735):Constantine (Q19327451) in addition to given name (P735):Konstantin (Q31362405) to his item (like with many Ukrainian people having two given name (P735)-statements (both the Ukrainian and the Russian name - see Kostyantyn Gryshchenko (Q58113))).
If there are differing transcriptions of a cyrillic name string (this is often the case with different source languages (esp. Ukrainian and Russian)) I support the indication of all the transcriptions in the label - why should the Russian "Ольга" (Olga) should be preferred over the Ukrainian "Ольга" (Olha) and the other way round? But the transcription of "Константин" is really straight forward - Konstantin. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 10:07, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Some additional thoughts: 1) I don't think one should take the labels in Wikidata as authoritative to determine which is the latin notation of a person's name coming from a culture with another script. There are some people (from nobility, migrated to English/French/German/etc.-speaking countries, etc.) where there are several options for the label/Wikipedia lemma. Which one gets into the label/Wikipedia lemma and which one into the alias may be controversial with minimal preference for one variant, in some cases there may be not too much thought behind the label (e.g. simply copy-and-pasting) 2) I don't think one should put notations deriving from "translations" (not sure if this is the right word) of names into the label of name-strings just because there are persons known by this translation in some language. Otherwise: Should we start adding alternating notations to Louis (Q2897866) because there exists Louis I, Duke of Bourbon (Q536615) who is called "Luigi I di Borbone" in Italian and "Ludvík I. Bourbonský" in Czech and the label "Louis" would be wrong from an Italian and Czech point of view? In my opinion we should just stick to transcriptions for name-strings in other scripts, if applicable (which is the case for English), not other notations that may appear in person's labels. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 12:51, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it looks like a bug. But I just showed that these labels are good for both items and therefore we have to add some description either to label or over standard description. --Infovarius (talk) 14:15, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please, stop it. It has been merged with other equivalent articles in other chapters and points to an existing category on Wikimedia Commons. Your reverts keep on pointing to a no longer existent category on Commons. -- Blackcat (talk) 17:13, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this item is "master item" about all Disney PtC parks in the world. So I restored all the countries in which there are such parks. What particular statement do you consider wrong? --Infovarius (talk) 15:34, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Property:P181 is a property of a taxon, and used only for taxons. In other instances, the distribution map property (P1846) is used. Since both of them were already there for Q9299, I deleted the wrong one, as Serbian language is not a name handler for a living being(s). This is why I sincerely don't understand your revert and even less the question "why not?". Cheers, --Wlodzimierz (talk) 00:08, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Здравствуйте! 1 марта 2020 года Вы отменили некоторые мои правки для стадиона "Атлант" в Новополоцке (Q2041015). Я уже длительное время обновляю сведения для футбольных стадионов в Беларуси. Для данного спортивного объекта я сделал стандартную ревизию меток, не более. Я ввёл достоверную информацию, правил не нарушал. В связи с этим я прошу Вас разъяснить мне, чем Вы руководствовались при отмене моих правок? --Football Beetle (talk) 10:24, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Football Beetle: 1) зачем вы добавляете уточнения в метки? Это противоречит правилам. 2) В то же время, эти уточнения полезны в синонимах для лучшего поиска. Не удаляйте. 3) Зачем удалили правильное описание на иврите? 4) В метках на русском языке принято писать "Белоруссия", а не "Беларусь". --Infovarius (talk) 20:26, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Вы вводите меня в заблуждение, ни одного правила для добавления действительных меток, соответствующих названиям статей, я не нарушил. Допускается удаление описания, если в основном пространстве нет статьи. Названия стадиона могут быть не только на русском языке, соответственно и переводиться на другие языки с помощью транслита. Я никогда не видел ни одного упоминания в описании к стадионам о "Белоруссии", так как такой страны не существует (источник: список членов ООН). Прошу Вас не отменять мои правки для стадиона "Атлант" в Новополоцке, информация указываемая мной в метках не вводит в заблуждение читателей. --Football Beetle (talk) 09:35, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Football Beetle: нарушенное вами правило я уже указал, повторю здесь: Help:Label#Disambiguation information belongs in the description (а вот белорусский перевод). Надеюсь, этот вопрос ясен, в дальнейшем прошу соблюдать.> Допускается удаление описания, если в основном пространстве нет статьи Впервые слышу. Если уж речь о правилах, то дайте ссылку. По идее, наличие статьи не должно влиять (в WD есть много элементов без интервик вообще), вопрос только в удобстве для людей, пользующихся соответствующими языками.Что касается Белоруссии, то это русский язык. Среди русскоязычных википедистов существует консенсус (в кои-то веки), отражённый в ВП:БЕЛОРУССИЯ. Тут важен именно консенсус участников, которые будут это редактировать (и отредактируют-таки, не сомневайтесь), а какие-либо государственные (или межгосударственные) бумаги значения не имеют. — Mike Novikoff20:30, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, you reverted my edit on Q2975633. The English Wikipedia article, "Coming-of-age story" mentions Bildungsroman, which was also present in the Japanese article "青春小説" and the Korean article is a direct translation of the Japanese article. I wasn't the one who linked romance novels though so I understand removing them. Lullabying (talk) 17:01, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@CennoxX: I am sorry for silly mistake: not P729 but P106. By "valid type" I mean constraints (see Property:P106#P2302). I think that it ("type of item for P106 allows animals") is ok. Individual animals can have occupation=actor, independent of where they are persons. --Infovarius (talk) 09:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like you have an interest in units and metrology! Are you aware of any wikiproject or other subgroup that specializes in this? I'm looking at the way Wikidata encodes units, and I may have some possible improvements to discuss. (If there's no project -- as I suspect there isn't -- I'll bring ideas up at the general chat page, I guess.) —Scs (talk) 12:10, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the introduction. There are a few open question in how we should model certain aspects of quantities and units and I'm happy to discuss. Toni 001 (talk) 11:28, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Добрый день, коллега! Современные районы никогда не входили в состав уездов. Chornomorske Raion (Q2237994) был основан в 1930 году и никак не мог входить в состав Yevpatoria County (Q4173052), упразднённого в 1921 году. То, что иногда упоминается как какой-то район в составе уезда, это совсем мелкая административно-территориальная единица, объединявшая пару волостей, и не имеющая к современным районам никакого отношения. Верните, пожалуйста, корректную версию статьи.--Ksc~ruwiki (talk) 18:03, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Number of grammatical cases currently in use in European languages. Light grey areas are for languages which don't use grammatical cases.
Hi,
It's quite strange to use nominative case (Q131105) as grammatical feature on a French Lexeme, like you did on algérien (L46027). French don't have grammatical cases, can I remove it or did you have a specific reason that I'm missing?
Cases don't exist at all in French (there was 2 cases - nominative and oblique - in Old French but that was 7 centuries ago), I'm not sure I can find a source saying it though. Meanwhile do you have a source for your addition Special:Diff/825924648, Special:Diff/375807435 or Special:Diff/941119624 ? If we think in cases, "algérien" could be seen as the form for all and any "cases": "my algerian"@en = "mon algérien"@fr could be seen as possesive case for instance and it's the same for all others cases "ma prononciation de l'algérien"@fr for genitive. Forms are not declined according to the case and I say "could be seen as" because no French grammar ever use the term "case". Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 10:37, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, and thanks for the removal correction on algérien (L46027).
Just on last question about this lexeme, why did you remove the item for this sense (P5137): Special:Diff/1141352757? And isn't there a mistake in the glos "алжирец"? I'm not sure, I don't speak russian at all but it seem to be the russian equivalent of French "Algérien" (people living in Algeria) not "algérien" (language spoken in Algeria), in French the uppercase/lowercase initiale is important here (like for any people/language, "Russe" and "russe" for Russian).
@·1e0nid·: сомнения у меня закрались, да. Но здесь я не могу быть на 100% уверенным - в таком возрасте даже за 2 года внешность может сильно измениться. Источник серьёзный и говорит "1960", что тут поделать? Ладно, заменил на ваш пример, где 1958 более очевиден. --Infovarius (talk) 13:14, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why you're edit-warring with me here. Generally people here are calm and collected, and don't muddle Wikidata entries with tons of media (multiple photos, logos, and videos). That is the place for Wikimedia Commons. A property like "video (P10)" is meant for public domain films, movie trailers, official things like that, not an amateur, low-res, video tour of part of a train station.
As for "who are to decide what is needed?", well, generally the person who does the work. I wrote most of the GA-class English Wikipedia article, after extensive research, making it by far the best entry on the terminal across Wikimedia projects. I facilitated its GA review. I hosted a meetup, obtained a permit, and took dozens of photos all around the terminal, uploading them, along with hundreds of other free files on Commons. I even added text relevant to the terminal on Wikisource, and wrote separate articles on Grand Central's art and history. So, yes, I know what the best media is to portray the terminal accurately and succinctly; this is not it.
@Ɱ: I agree that this video is not perfect illustration for the item. And I appreciate your activity in Wikimedia. But I can't agree with A property like "video (P10)" is meant for public domain films, movie trailers, official things like that, not an amateur, low-res, video tour of part of a train station (where did you find this interpretation?) I think some video is better than no video. It is a (moving) illustration so it is a possible value for P10. --Infovarius (talk) 13:07, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok this is the *third* time you've reverted something I did, can you please, in the future, ask me on my talk page https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User_talk:CatCat if you see something I did that looks odd or wrong?
I guess you disagreed with my adding of Q70113276 to Q188451, sure, I only did that because it was previously set as an *instance of* (which I'm sure you agree is wrong) I instead tried finding a better property to link these and came upon "main subject" Property:P921. It *didn't* occur to me to simply remove it; maybe it should have. A comment from you suggesting that would have been welcomed, explaining why you wanted to remove it outright, it's a lot more collaborative. Please ask me before blindingly reverting edits I do, even if you think they are wrong, please. CatQuest, The Endeavouring Cat (talk) 16:39, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, CatCat, of course it could be removed completely because it was recent vandalism. The best is to find the vandalism in history and revert it. And sorry, I can't comment each obvious error on talk pages and I don't expect it from others (yes, I misclick sometimes or do bad batches or do some other silly edits...). P.S. P921 isn't any better than P31 for such value. I can't imagin that any property of a notion "musical genre" can be a specific article. Ok, may be the one: if this single article has unique and thorough review of the notion - surely not the case here. --Infovarius (talk) 13:01, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. You're right that I can't demand you comment on every single thing like this, I may have been a fair bit over-reactive (and in these times all nerves are on end ;)). I guess my use off P921 to "replace" the erroneous P31 came from a (possibly incorrect, and I'm still learning) belief that any change I do is inferior, and removing claims is something I should be careful with. I saw the text "He likes idea of return to medical school for CME" as a very strange title for an instance of, but my error was assuming that the link between these were right, and that the wrongness was in the property used. Also I think this is the first time I come across actual vandalism on Wikidata, so I'm not used to seeing the signs.
Sorry if I seemed demanding and unjust, I will take better time to check history of WD items that seem to have weird statements - Something I'm used to doing on WP when I see something out-of-place. Thank you and sorry for my snippish remarks CatQuest, The Endeavouring Cat! (talk) 15:24, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! In Romanian "învățător" means only "elementary school teacher", NEVER above that level. The general term for "teacher" is "profesor". At Romanian universities there is a position called "profesor universitar" (in English "full professor"), which now is wrongly connected to Q1622272 (university teacher). It should be connected to "full professor". The Romanian term for "university teacher" (which can be anything from research assistant to full professor) is "cadru universitar"" (but Romanian Wikipedia has no article about that). So, "profesor universitar" should be removed from Q1622272 and added to Q25339110. The Romanian "profesor" (which I have already removed from Q121594) should be added to teacher (Q37226). I tried to do it, but got an error. Best regards, Mycomp (talk) 01:37, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mycomp: hello, let's consider. I understood about "învățător" but the problem is that there is no (known for me) item for "elementary school teacher" so I thought Q37226 is the closest fit. "profesor universitar" (in English "full professor"), which now is wrongly connected to Q1622272 (university teacher). It should be connected to "full professor". - I agree and this is exactly I've done (moved from Q1622272 to Q28004591). And there is difference between professor as position and professor as academic rank, which is more appropriate for ro@"profesor universitar"? As for ro@"profesor" do you think this more appropriate for Q37226 than "învățător"? I would be ok with this but then we should think about the other. --Infovarius (talk) 21:53, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! ro@"profesor" is definitely better for Q37226. Why not create a new item for "învățător"? There might be other languages that have a special word for it like Romanian, who knows? As for ro@"profesor universitar", I think professor as academic rank is the proper place. Best regards, Mycomp (talk) 12:05, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
parents, mother, father in relation to Wikidata objects[edit]
Добрый день! Новелла в русском, Новела в украинском и возможно белорусском языках это вид Рассказа. В английском это Novellette, как вид Short story. В то же время английское Novella является более длинным произведением чем Новелла или Рассказ, и несколько короче, чем Роман, который на английском Novel. Наша Повесть это английская Novella. Наша Новелла совершенно не тождественна английской Novella, несмотря на одинаковое написание. Поверьте, я глубоко изучил этот вопрос. --Perohanych (talk) 06:28, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Perohanych: Я не против такой интерпретации. Но что тогда делать с парами статей в az, bg, ca, cv, hr, hy, kk, lt, sk, sl (см. Q12799318 почти полностью)? И что вы планируете делать с Новеллами в этих языках (напр. uk:Новела, be:Навела)? Если ru@Новелла=uk@Новела так идентичны en@Novella, то уж лучше бы было переместить английскую ссылку в Q12799318 (но это поднимет вопрос про другие ссылки в исходном элементе...). Здесь требуется комплексный анализ по всем языкам... --Infovarius (talk) 22:47, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
diff The image shows writing in Syriac alphabet, which is mainly used to write Syriac, an Aramaic language. The wikidata item is about the alphabet specifically known as "Aramaic", used to write the Imperial Aramaic language. --Z22:58, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Здравствуйте. Насчёт даты смерти уже приведены авторитетные источники (независимые друг от друга), во-вторых, в статье источник отражается простой адресной строкой, то есть оформлено неправильно. Если Вам так надо эта ссылка на kino-teatr.ru, то оформите её как следует.--Jordan Joestar (talk) 03:24, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am ok with this. The only problem for me is excessive capitalization of titles. Funny that we are arguing about 2 redirects. --Infovarius (talk) 22:18, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Theklan: It is also subclass of animals and pets. And pets, as far as I know, can have these properties. P.S. What about taxon? Taxon is a name, and all your arguments are applicable to taxa too... --Infovarius (talk) 10:25, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, taxa are not words, taxa are biological concepts. And biological entities can have a heart beating, but a word definitively can't. -Theklan (talk) 11:08, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose User:Succu would argue with this. As I understand taxon can have different meanings in different times, and one class of organisms can have different taxons at different times. So this is close to a "name". --Infovarius (talk) 22:22, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. "Gaseosa" is a brand name (trademark) in Cuba, while "gazoz" in Turkish and "gaseosa" in Spanish are the respective nouns for certain type of soda in these two languages. A lot of attention is needed in dealing with these names. --E4024 (talk) 23:06, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Приветствую! Спасибо за слияние Q1168644. Случаем, не подскажите, как можно сливку делать? Иногда встречаются в разноязычных Вики одни и те же статьи, а всё, что я здесь могу сделать - это просто удалить или вставить ссылки, другого функционала у меня нет. Нужно делать запрос на флаг редактора, как на Вики флаг патрульного или писать кому-то здесь запросы? Потому что у меня только кнопки "читать" и "история" вверху справа, кнопка "править" или что-то подобное отсутствует где-либо на странице в этом разделе под моей учёткой за исключением отдельных блоков. В связи с чем я так и делаю иногда, как в Q1040600 и Q1168644. Зайва Игорь Леонидович (talk) 03:03, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, I do not see what is happening, I have not changed pages. Please do not reverse my edits. I see you did something in Vietnamese. But wanings are coming up on my screen where I am editing Wikidata for the "Article" Problemsmith
Sorry, I better understand what I did yesterday the article and your disambiguation page were overlapped so I removed everything to consolidate the article content Wikidata for "goodwill ambassador" for the article. Problemsmith
@Спасимир: "Property:P47 presents the state borders of the countries now, not in the past"? No it doesn't. Any property can represent past information with according qualifiers ("start/end") and ranks (preferred for current value, normal for past values). Thanks for noticing about Bulgaria/USSR border - I mark it as "sea border". --Infovarius (talk) 00:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Undoing works of others with a two letter comment?[edit]
It's hard for novices to make the right choice, I understand. But it's also hard for me to overview all edits in my watchlist in reasonable time... --Infovarius (talk) 00:14, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Anton, will you ever stop your "FYBITS" attitude to the people? You are not even a sysop here, and even if you were, it wouldn't be an excuse for such a behaviour. It's not your goddamned ruwiki here, so please calm down. You are not obliged to check everything at once (just like everyone), and if you don't have much time to do things correctly, please don't do them at all. There is no deadline, where are you rushing to?Знаешь, как я уже говорил тебе, "не уверен — не обгоняй". И ещё, как я часто говорю сам себе, "не торопись, а то успеешь". — Mike Novikoff23:28, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You reversed my entry for Vira listing it as a hypocorism for Elvira. You ask which language and my reply is all Western European languages see Vira Silenti (Q4013872) as an example. This is why I had before removed the entry suggesting Q56423268 is only a transliteration of of a Ukrainian name but this was also reversed. As is common with many short personal names it can have many roots and it is tiresome for users to suppose that "their" version is the only one that is correct. Please reverse your reversal and consider checking similar matters with the editor concerned before making a reversal. Best Wishes S a g a C i t y (talk) 07:01, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Saga City! Sorry but Q56423268 is about cyrillic name so it can't be hypocorism for latin name. And it can not be used in Western Europe. Let me remind you that in Wikidata different scripts should be in different items. I'll create a new one for Latin name. --Infovarius (talk) 19:32, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The item was created as Ukrainian Bipa (in what way is it Latin?) and only then Latin labels were added (they are not necessary right). --Infovarius (talk) 01:07, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Может, если по смыслу подходит. Проблема была в другом - в том, что в некоторых языках есть специальная статья для цивилизации, поэтому я доразделил до конца. --Infovarius (talk) 19:32, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Re your reverts of my edits: In general, there should only be one value for P910, and one return value for P301, if not then there's normally something wrong with the data. In these cases, it causes issues with the links between enwp and commons, which I'm trying to resolve.
Ah, google translate works for fawp. I've fixed the first one - the interwikis were the wrong way around, so I've swapped them, and I've added an English label for the latter. The second case is more confusing though - on fawp, they seem to be about 'Category:Spicy peppers' and 'Category:Pepper (Cold)' respectively - neither of which actually matches 'Category:Capsicum'. Thoughts? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:02, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Добрый вечер коллега. Вопрос: если это список игр как Вы заявили, то тогда почему там висит шаблон {{неоднозначность}}? До тех пор, пока там стоит шаблон {{неоднозначность}}, статья рассматривается как страница неоднозначностей, но никак не статья о серии игр, и вместо того, чтобы отменять просто так правки, проставте пожалуйста локально хотя бы в данную статью шаблон {{серия игр}}, дополните её и удалите шаблон {{неоднозначность}}, а не просто отменяйте как Вам угодно правки. С уважением Kirilloparma (talk) 15:25, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kirilloparma: Добрый. Может быть, у меня небольшая поддержка в этом вопросе, но я считаю, что часто страницы неоднозначностей имеют вполне определённую тему и поэтому вполне могут быть связаны с определённого вида статьями. В данном случае, я не собираюсь бороться с рувики и убеждать, что это можно назвать списком. Мне достаточно того, что читатели (в т.ч. я) смогут перейти из одного языкового раздела про список на другой про тот же список игр. --Infovarius (talk) 12:48, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Infovarius:: I'm sorry, but I think that to be "professor" or "privatdozent" is not a "position held (P39)"; it is only a "job", an "occupation" (P106). It's for this reason I have delete these "positions".--Ferran Mir (talk) 09:23, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry @Infovarius:: I cannot understand Russian, but the definition of position held (P39) in English is subject currently or formerly holds the object position or public office. So, the property is usualy used in politicians biograpphies, combined with qualifiers replaces (P1365) (predecessor) and replaced by (P1366) (successor). It is also possibly to use it in some other relevant positions, as rector of an university, or academician of a national Academy, etc. But, it's up to you, as you can see, I do not have changed your editions.--Ferran Mir (talk) 13:54, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. You've been adding qualifiers to P8111 statements like in this edit. I have reverted those edits, referred you to the property proposal, summarized it on the property's talk page, and gave additional justification why those qualifiers do more harm than good. I hereby request that you stop re-adding such statements. Toni 001 (talk) 06:17, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I come here about this diff. Is the grammatical gender not supposed to be apply only on the forms? Because, in this case, there are two forms that are not masculine, but feminine.
I think now it's even more confusing. Treaty of Tartu doesn't really say that Tartu was in (interwar) Estonia until 1940. Q627353 may do better as P131 value, under P17 it's less clear as qualifer value compared to Q58473. I also see little justification for keeping "Estonia <start time: 1991>" as the main value as far as state continuity is generally accepted. Also Q2174038 shouldn't be used as P17 value as far item about the country is different, as we previously discussed in item talk. I'd just restore it the way it was a couple of days ago accepting that there is no perfect sequence. 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:E942:890A:C142:89C107:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still thinking about the great table of Dead Souls (Q647379) that Tchitchikov compiles and whether the characters on that table need to be accounted for in the item on serfdom (since not only are they fictional serfs, but fictional dead serfs too...) It's surprising there isn't an item for Tchitchikov (just a lot of illustrations by Chagall) on Wikidata. :) SashiRolls (talk) 20:23, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Infovarius! This rollback is IMHO an error: hot chocolate is clearly not a soft drink: it isn't cold, it isn't carbonated, and it isn't usually included in soft drinks. Here Encyclopædia Britannica explicitly says that "Coffee, tea, milk, cocoa, and undiluted fruit and vegetable juices are not considered soft drinks". --BohemianRhapsody (talk) 13:01, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Probably there is misunderstanding about Q147538. Russian article explicitly include tea, coffee and juices ("Наиболее часто употребляемые безалкогольные напитки — это чай, кофе, соки и нектары, газированная вода, лимонад."). The main property as I understand is not include alcohol, so cocoa fits well. --Infovarius (talk) 03:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Reverts like this are, in my opinion, not the best place to ask questions or have a discussion. May I suggest that you use talk pages (on the item or a user talk page) to request clarification? That way we reduce the number of avoidable reverts in the edit history of an item. Thanks. Toni 001 (talk) 06:37, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Infovarius: Still working on it, though the picture is clearer to me now. I appreciate your patience, as I want to use the opportunity to learn how editors interact and "mis-interact" while everyone probably believe they are doing the right thing (like myself the other day). As you can tell from my history of contributions, I got started with Wikidata just a few weeks ago, and I have yet to figure out how to do this with a script, but before I resort to scripting I want to understand what the script is doing, otherwise I just risk contributing to the mess myself.
As to translations, maybe you can look at the Kirghiz articles and try to figure out if they match the English or Russian ones with respect to topic. I can read the cyrillic alphabet reasonably well, but I don't understand much of either the slavic or turkic languages, and Google Translate wasn't of much help to me with the Kirghiz articles (as Google Translate probably still uses English as an intermediary language, I always have it translate to or from English, never directly between two other languages such as Swedish <-> Russian). --SM5POR (talk) 07:48, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Damn, do you even sit on your Wikipedia in your own language? On Russian Wikipedia, it is directly stated that Lenin left Orthodoxy in 1886, even there is a source. But what is there, even on the card it says that Lenin professed Orthodoxy until the age of 16, after which he withdrew from religion. If you tell me that two religions cannot be practiced, tell this to Einstein, who was also an atheist, but professed Judaism until 1891. — 46.191.137.10109:43, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not making changes for the fun of it, I'm doing it because the modelling of the links between topic and category items is wrong, normally based on the English labels. Rather than reverting the edits, please help try to fix them better, if the other language links represent different topics. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:15, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Peel: I understand. But simple removal doesn't help here. You should have understood this after numerous reverts. "normally based on the English labels" - are you kidding? Let me advice you to take into account at least 3-4 languages every time. --Infovarius (talk) 21:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then I noticed that you have created or edited a few otems related to this script, and I would like to ask whther we could cooperate on this topic? What is uour level of involvement with the language, and do you see an opportunity for me to assist? But then again, knowing myself, I should visual perception (Q162668) a butterfly (Q11946202) know better... --SM5POR (talk) 17:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SM5POR: hello! Of course we can cooperate. I've just created class letter of the Mongolian script (Q41806415) and categorized letters into it. But I should confess that I don't understand the script nor the language. I can only give some advices about types of editing. At first you should check if you see all possible letters at this list. And to add all possible labels and descriptions (Descriptioner will help) to it. --Infovarius (talk) 21:56, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Infovarius: I had trouble working with that interface to the SPARQL service, so I began creating my own queries, but immediately ran into issues with the whole writing system (Q8192) ontological superstructure. Could you please take a look at my query where I currently compare the Cyrillic, Latin and Mongolian scripts, and explain why some alphabets are listed as instances and others as (sub)classes of scripts? I guess we may find additional alphabets indicated as "parts" of either.
I don't know the language myself, but I became somewhat interested in Mongolian history and language when I read a Swedish biography on Frans August Larson (Q2076084) (and I see that the Mongolian edition is still wrong about the location of his birthplace, but I'd like to make contact with someone who knows the language to correct it rather than try correcting it myself). What little I know about the writing system I have learned from the w:en:Mongolian script article, and I'm trying to make iconv(1) do transliteration between the Mongolian Cyrillic and traditional scripts (like the conversion service from Inner Mongolia University), but I'm unfamiliar with gconv internals. --SM5POR (talk) 08:10, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"♬ Those are a few of my favourite strings ♫"[edit]
Before attempting to resolve it, I need to determine the exact nature of each item, and since string (Q184754) is an instance of (P31)data type (Q190087) I conclude that it's a strictly digital (discrete) data structure. If so, then I'd say both subclass statements are wrong. I put together a query to list direct subclasses of both items, with number of instances of each. Counterexamples:
A coin inscription (Q90565923) and a typewritten text (Q1751792) are both physical manifestations of text, which thus aren't digital, and especially the first may include arbitrary elements from a non-encoded set of symbols. Wear and tear may have made the inscription difficult to read, or perhaps ambiguous, and the ink ribbon used with the typewriter may typically be some shade of black or red. They are thus texts, but not strings.
A bit array (Q1992074) may technically be any sequence of random characters, where "character" also should be considered in its digitsl form only (I find the current definition of character (Q3241972) a little problematic, but that's a different concern of ours). For instance, it may contain any number of non-printable control characters such as NUL, BEL, ESC, or zero-width joiner (Q614232). How about a floating acute accent (Q216042) diacritic attached to a carriage return (Q283976)? It's technically a string, but I wouldn't call it a text.
Instead, I could imagine identifying the intersection of the text and string classes as a shared subclass, say digital text, which would also be part (but not a subclass) of a digital textbook (Q5276199) which should be a subclass of ebook (Q128093), and itself have Short Message Service message (Q64492727) and Webtext (Q1666022) as subclasses. In general, I would prefer seeing many of the current string or text subclasses arranged into deeper subclass hierarchies.
At the same time you also made line of writing (Q88376242) a subclass of text, which I would question too, but for a different reason: It's a unit of measurement (Q47574) of text volume, conceptually distinct from a text line with specific contents, much like a typographical point (Q156389) is distinct from a visible ‧ (Q87523334) in a printed (or hand-written) text. Now, I don't think there is a separate item "text line" that would rightfully be considered part of a text, but anyway: A line of writing (Q88376242) could be the empty string (Q670834) and still count, but I would not consider "" either a subclass of text, or part of a text. It may however be part of a computer program when expressed with its surrounding delimiters.
Hi. Can you explain this revert? I am extremely new here, but medically fatigue syndrome and fatigue are different, fatigue may or may not be part of a syndrome and they are coded differently. So that's why I removed it.
I am also a bit unsure why the English name was spelled with the "e" on the end. Amousey (talk) 00:01, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this : [3]. I had to delete the page for a few seconds for history merge after a vandal renamed the page several times, but I forgot to restore the wikidata link... --—d—n—f (talk) 06:25, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Infovarius: Hmm, I see the interpretation, but for me it doesn't make sense because the property is contextual to temporal events (reflected its intended domain). The original description even says "For permanent locations like museum (Q33506), rather use visitors per year (P1174)". --SilentSpike (talk) 10:47, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Adithyak1997: @Infovarius: May I join your discussion? The problem with the 26 has part(s) of the class (P2670) statements is that none of the individual letters constitutes a class of anything, and I don't think they should have to be classes either, at least not for the purpose of being listed as distinct members ("parts") of the English (or any other) alphabet. Instead, it's the has part(s) of the class (P2670) property that is poorly chosen; it should rather be has part(s) (P527). Using has part(s) of the class (P2670) seems to me like saying "The English alphabet consists of a number of A's, a few B's, a couple of C's, and a whole gazillion of D's..." The has part(s) of the class (P2670)Latin-script letter (Q19776628) statement is however correct, although I would consider it somewhat redundant after all the constituent letters have been enumerated anyway, like stating that numbers are written using 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, or any Arabic digit.
Indeed, the 26 letters were previously listed using the has part(s) (P527) property, but that changed on 26 December 2017 when PLbot turned each has part(s) (P527) into a has part(s) of the class (P2670), reason unknown to me. It's a bot, doing thousands of automated edits more or less daily; I tried browsing User_talk:PLbot for clues but quickly gave up paging my way back to 2017. I still recommend contacting PLbot's maintainer about it before reverting the change, as the bot might return and repeat the change, and the maintainer may not be aware of all its actions-
Now, could there be a valid reason to retain the has part(s) of the class (P2670) property, and turn the letters into proper classes instead? Well, if we consider different typefaces, weights, cases, calligraphic styles, or mere identical instances of the letter 'A' on a typewritten sheet of paper, then certainly 'A' would constitute a class of something, though I would prefer not to make it a subclass of Latin-script letter (Q19776628) (of which it is already an instance), but rather of some other class hierarchy such as typeface family (Q58481926)--glyph (Q36975)--grapheme (Q2545446) or calligraphy (Q12681)--handwriting (Q15123051). In neither case (!) would these instances of individual letters be considered parts of an alphabet, but each letter would still be (whether identified as a class of something else or not). The English alphabet consists of 26 letters, not 52 upper and lower case letters, nor 78 uppercase, lowercase, or small caps letters. Also, I suggest we resolve this issue before anyone brings the Cherokee syllabary (Q26549) into the equation...--SM5POR (talk) 11:30, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I see you on Wikidata:WikiProject Linguistics. I’m french wiktionarian who want to work on languages on Wikidata. After testing some properties, I decided to propose a new propety « parent language » to link langagues as natural thing (not like construct thing with based on (P144)). I would like to have your opinion on the issue. Thanks ! Lyokoï (talk) 21:26, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Any chance you can have a look at this editor's contributions, please, and see if the Russian sitelink changes make sense, at least, please? They seem to be removing *all* Wikipedia sitelinks in an attempt to change just the Russian one. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:21, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I suppose they tried to move list sitelink to list item, but "something went wrong". So many wrong edits and so many lost links... I wrote to him. --Infovarius (talk) 23:45, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! You changed the Latin capital D to a Cyrillic lower case в in Bosnian label. I fixed it, but please be more careful next time to select the right keyboard layout. Thanks in advance, —Tacsipacsi (talk) 10:25, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding this revert: first names or given names (P735) and family names did not exist at that time. People only had one name. The modern spelling of the name in the local language should be the label of the item. Why also show the non-original and non-local spelling Itzhak, without any explanation? It resembles the muslim spelling, but there is a separate object Ishaq (Q1642480) about that. I ask because I have further developed the template:databox and placed it in many Swedish articles, and people critize the P735 usage in sv:Isak (Bibeln) as an anachronism and the non-Swedish and non-Hebrew spelling of the name. Tomastvivlaren (talk) 22:50, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Tomastvivlaren: hi! This is the first time I hear that persons didn't have P735 sometimes :) I believe that "only one" name was given name so use of P735 is correct. Concerning Q35746561, perhaps your problem is in English label (why it should be "Itzhak"?). Actually the item is about Hebrew name and it perfectly fits for Isaac (Q671872) - look at statements and mostly to Russian label how we model this. For templates you probably should use native label (P1705) of the name item, not label (which are quite random for most items now). --Infovarius (talk) 23:08, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Добрый день. По поводу отката моих правок и Ваших дополнений:
de:Steinkohlenbergbau (добыча каменного угля) и de:Braunkohlebergbau (добыча бурого угля) у немцев описаны по-отдельности. Общей статьи (Kohlebergbau) - нет. А в соответствующей категории (de:Kategorie:Kohlebergbau - Q8985535) просто приведено разъяснение: "Diese Kategorie enthält Artikel und Unterkategorien zum Thema Stein- und Braunkohlebergbau.". В большинстве же остальных языковых разделов есть статья о добыче угля вообще (как раз Q12880211), и нет статей отдельно о добыче каменного | бурого угля.
Здравствуйте. Вы в комментарии к отмене правки спрашиваете «почему объект? зачем так сложно?». Сложно потому, что информация — это вообще непростое понятие и однозначного определения для него нет, взять хотя бы расхождения в атрибутивной и функциональной концепциях. Слово «объект» действительно вряд ли подходит, источник — не обязательно объект. Но ваша формулировка «откуда взята некоторая информация» не содержит в себе подлежащего — прошу прощения, но определения таким образом даются в разговорном стиле, а не в энциклопедическом. Предлагаю сокращённый вариант перевода с английского: «всё, что может проинформировать о чём-либо или дать знания об этом». — JustApex (talk) 10:07, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
JustApex Не против предложенного варианта. Но не вижу ничего плохого в простой формулировке. К русской Википедии уже предъявляются претензии в излишней научности формулировок (мягко говоря), может, не будем и сюда дурную привычку тащить? --Infovarius (talk) 22:42, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Отлично, тогда я отредактирую. А энциклопедическая формулировка, я полагаю, должна быть золотой серединой где-то между излишней наукообразностью и публицистическим стилем. — JustApex (talk) 09:17, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have a hunch you may have some insights and opinions on the nation at occurrence (Q61130878) umbrella class that was created a year and a half ago? As I argue in Talk:Q61130878 I don't find it appropriate to mix Eurovision and the Olympic Games with WWII in that manner, merely because they all are "events" in English. Speaking of which, I noticed that German and Russian are the only languages to have Wikipedia articles for both "Occurrence" and "Event". Funny thing, Swedish has different words too, but they had been mixed up wrt Wikidata in 2013, which I fixed two months ago... And now I have fixed it again in the lexeme database, adding a few explanatory senses in the process. I wonder hoe many mix-ups the robots have duplicated? --SM5POR (talk) 17:18, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@1234qwer1234qwer4: формула Лейбница представляет собой одну общую формулу, а не набор всех её частных случаев? Хм, спорно. Я считал наоборот. Разве случай например для второй производной считается не по формуле Лейбница? --Infovarius (talk) 20:08, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
His given name is "Γιάννης". But he never liked double ν. So he is writing his name with one ν since primary school. He told that in an interview. Data Gamerplay20:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
По вашей отмене моей правки в элементе "сок растений (Q76626)"
Живица это не синоним сока растений. Сок растений - это 1. разговорно - просто содержимое любых живых клеток (синоним - клеточный сок) или 2. более точно - содержимое конкретно ксилемы (проще говоря сосудов) - та жидкость, которая состоит из воды и питательных веществ и переносит эти питательные вещества по ксилеме к различным органам. А живица - это СМОЛА, которая продуцируется специальными клетками при поранении, и выделяется из ран, причем только хвойных растений, для заживления этих ран. И спасибо вам за эту отмену)) Я посмотрел категории и увидел, что ру-Вики нет статьи про сок растений вообще.--Vulpo (talk) 19:56, 30 July 2020 (UTC) Живица это вот что - (Q18603218) - терпентин по английски. --Vulpo (talk) 20:03, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there, I'll admit that I don't always understand how Wikidata items are supposed to be linked to vaguely overlapping topics in various languages. But I must insist that no:by and nn:by share the same item. There is no difference in definition in the two languages. --Ranveig (talk) 06:30, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I actually do think there is a strong equivalence between "by" and "city" - it's a special title given to a place with inhabitants living closely together. Some cities can be small, too, like St Davids in Wales. It might help if Q7930989 had a clearer definition. But I don't know how to fix this, Wikidata doesn't always work for interwiki, I guess. --Ranveig (talk) 07:07, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Special" - yes, very special. Are you sure English and Norvegian definitions are equivalent? And what is the equivalent to English "town" then? I am sure that there are no equivalents to en@city in French and Russian. --Infovarius (talk) 21:49, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, thanks for the added labels! See User:SM5POR/Informatics#Geometric intersections for a tabular overview of the items I have been working on. I eventually moved the Bosnian and Croatian articles from intersection (geometry) (Q1364910) to line–line intersection (Q17097267) (the English article was moved that way already in 2014, but the item wasn't properly renovated after the move, which I think I have done now) since they didn't seem to have quite as broad a scope as the item in its present form (and the Croatian "article" is really only a minimal stub).
But while it seems to be the most generic "geometric intersection" item, the articles linked to intersection (geometry) (Q1364910) still primarily talk about points of intersection, not intersection curve (Q15846660) or solid intersections, for which they refer to other articles which I have made subclasses of intersection (geometry) (Q1364910). I have made it an instance of intersection (Q17141489) which is conceptually on a different level (did the same to set intersection, which doesn't seem to come in as many varieties as its geometric counterpart).
And I just found a number of conic sections and somewhat similar items hidden as subclasses of cross section (Q845080); I need to do an inventory of those as well to sort out the geometric ones, because I don't think you can reasonably mix items from entirely different domains in the same subclass tree, as they could be expected to inherit a number of properties that may apply to a subject of mathematics but not to geological, biological or engineering cross-sections, or road intersections. Using instance of (P31) isolates them better from each other and from their shared abstraction. Do you have an opinion on this? --SM5POR (talk) 15:17, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I don't understand the reason of your this reverting, whether you know or not, the correct codes (be-tarask, lzh, nan, yue) are already existing and preferred, so I wonder what's your reason that those wrong codes must remain existing on that item. Is your reverting mean that I should no longer do such removing of wrong codes? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 11:49, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you mean by "specific name". The example you pointed out was in fact incorrect; I corrected the capitalisation. Both "mobile phone" and "handset" are common nouns; there is no need to capitalise them. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 11:07, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello.
(Sorry for my english, this is a google translate text). I deleted these elements because they are not documented by any academic source. This personality is only mentioned in a brief passage from the NT (Acts 1.23), that is to say that it dates from the 1st century and therefore cannot in any way be a "priest", much less "bishop" and cannot not belong to the "Catholic Church" which only exists centuries later. His kinship with Jesus is completely hypothetical given the inconsistency of the character, and his assimilation with "Justus" is completely hypothetical, quite doubtful and debated. In any case, the elements that must be reported in a wikidata biography are the objective elements and not the local taditions or religious traditions. We could mention traditions (but I don't know how) if they are marked as such and not as realitiesAnyway, this information must be supported by academic literature, which it is not and misleads readers by suggesting false or biased information on the subject. Thank you for your understanding. Sincerely Yours, Mogador✉ 11:09, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
loop "function -> multivalued function -> function"[edit]
Hi,
I noticed a loop in the graph, which is why I deleted the statement that "function" was a subclass of "mulitvalued function". You reverted my edit, so we are back in the loop.
@Jasy jatere: I understand the problem. Let's consider. What do you think function (Q11348) is about? Single-valued application or a general map? English description contains "with exactly one element of the right set" which means single value...
A multivalued function can be viewed as a left-total binary relation between two sets A and B on the one hand, or as a function (left-total and right-unique) between A and the bower set of B on the other hand. That's what creates the cycle, I guess. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:29, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What to do, if artist is using furniture a material of the artwork?[edit]
Salut @Infovarius:. You reverted Q14745&oldid=1258227936 of Q14745. I have made this statement, as in Q98124913 the artist declare furniture as one of the material used and the exclamation mark showed me a potential issue. Question to you (as I couldn't find any solution): What should I do, in order to respond to artists AND wikidata needs? thx for your support, cheeers AnBuKu (talk) 14:53, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, AnBuKu. It's an interesting issue... may be "material" in some other sense? We don't call models which are pictured in portraits "material", do we? --Infovarius (talk) 19:44, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Salut @Infovarius:. Thx for input. Have done like that: material used -> art material -> applies to part, aspect, or form -> furniture Looks a bit curious, at least in Wikimedia. As well I have reverted part of -> Public art -> of -> Bern back to Category:Public art in Bern, as its not only about one item, but about 356 so far. And I would like to have the same "layout / setup" for Category:Public art in Bern as for Category:Fountains in Bern. Therefore I'll need very likely a Wikipedia article about public art in Bern as some kind of an anchor, if there are no smarter solutions. cheeers, AnBuKu (talk) 20:36, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for you work, Bouzinac. But I am afraid I can't help. Which errors do you refer particularly? You know, Wikipedia is a free project :) Probably there were no enthusiasts enough to fix it... --Infovarius (talk) 14:10, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Adding Soviet Union as country to railway stations[edit]
Please note that Soviet Union ceased to exist in 1991. Please do not add it as into country property for railway stations in Ukraine.
Regards,
--Maxim75 (talk) 09:17, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Maxim75: please note that if any object was founded in USSR, this country should be a value of P17. With normal rank, and the present country with preferred rank. Regards, --Infovarius (talk) 14:12, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Succu, it's me who a bit tired of your automatic(?) reverts. I edit this item because it has label and sitelink "Черви" in Russian (you know, I have some "knowledge" about Russian). And this word refers to some common name which is used now for some unrelated taxa ("polyphyly"). Also this word can be used for some well-defined taxa too (like earthworm (Q124378) or Nematoda (Q5185)) - ask any Russian! That's why I add different from (P1889) and why on Earth you touch these statements "without the slightest idea about what you are" doing? So I'd propose you to work with taxa and their purely taxonomic properties (you are good in this, thanks for all the work!) but not touch other Wikidata properties which are for humans and not for taxonomists. As for Vermes (Q7921546), I point this item to you myself, ain't I? Yes, this item is more appropriate for Linné's classification. But there are sources specifically about worm (Q47253) in this role. What to do? This is arguable indeed. --Infovarius (talk) 16:11, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there are different dates of death, but the two items seem plainly intended to be describing the same person. Would it not be better to have a single item, noting the two claimed dates of death? (Of which the one in the Peerage may be the less reliable, or indeed a typo, unless a backing source for it can be found). Jheald (talk) 16:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jheald: yes I thought about merge. The main counter-argument for me was 2 different Peerage IDs. I don't know much about seriousity of this. I would agree with merge. --Infovarius (talk) 22:09, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Revert of "located in present-day administrative territorial entity" (P3842) for "Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic" (Q2184)[edit]
Hi! I've noticed that you reverted a corrective change I've made for Q2184. Your argument was that the automatic query https://w.wiki/aWC returned the originally defined countries, plus more.
I'm not particularly familiar with the Wikidata Query Service, however I believe you might have mistaken "located in present-day administrative territorial entity" (P3842) with "located in the administrative territorial entity" (P131). Your query is returning States that do not exist anymore, like the Far Eastern Republic or Tsardom of Russia. They're obviously not present-day administrative territorial entities.
The borders of the RSFSR match the ones of today's Russia, and that's the reason I had reverted the change.
I'm looking forward to your thoughts on the matter.
Best regards,
Здравствуйте! Скажите пожалуйста, статьи, которые я создаю в Белорусском Викисловаре, нельзя будет добавлять в Викиданные? Если да, то куда их нужно вставлять.
Hello! Thank you so much for the heads up. I was not aware of that spam, it was a error on the TABernacle tool and I am already trying to solve it.
Thank you again for taking the time to warn me.
Best regards,
-- AVartuli (WMB) (talk) 22:47, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Белорецкий: Сейчас не могу конкретного примера найти, но вкратце идеальная модель выглядит так. В случае свойства described by source (P1343) - добавляете том, страницу и название статьи, которая описывает данный объект. В случае использования stated in (P248) в качестве источника какого-то факта (добавляется как reference к конкретному свойству-утверждению) - указываете эти же сведения в том же источнике. Если хотите, укажите конкретный пример, покажу как оформить. --Infovarius (talk) 14:07, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
А, это посложнее. Для этого нужно 1) создать свойство "Чувашская энциклопедия"; 2) добавить его отображение в гаджет внешних ссылок WEF. Первый этап достаточно длительный (нужно подать заявку, дождаться разрешения и создания, потом заполнить его значения). --Infovarius (talk) 21:17, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[6] The source says no such thing, the World Checklist correctly lists Calobryales as the order that contains Haplomitriaceae. Calobryales has priority as an ordinal name. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:54, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with the sources in that case, but just didn’t consider billionaire an occupation. It also seemed redundant. But it’s a close call either way, and won’t object to including it. --Matthias Winkelmann (talk) 22:33, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, I'm not too invested in this. So if you want to just leave it as "occupation" for Trump, feel free to do so. Maybe we should just wait a year, and watch the problem solve itself? The most likely solution would, unfortunately, just bring us back to the similar issue with criminal (Q2159907) --Matthias Winkelmann (talk) 09:09, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Succu: I wish you were negotiable, but your reverts without useful comments... Please answer 1) why do you revert useful relations; 2) by what criterium do you prefer some sources and deny others? and yes, scientific articles are original research (I know, I publish them too) and they are not automatically useful/correct/reliable or smth. That's why Wikipedia initially was directed to more secondary sources, such as reviews or even sci-pop books. So they are at least as useful as primary publications. 3) what about worms (above post at this talk page)? --Infovarius (talk) 13:35, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ти игледа да немаш намере да ме удостојиш одговора. Преименоваћу чланак и дописаћу садржај о џепном сату. Надам се да ће то бити довољно да престанеш са даљим враћањем. --Dcirovic (talk) 21:40, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Dcirovic: (Sorry for English, I can't write in Serbian but can in Russian if it is better) It doesn't matter that Serbian doesn't have such a name, you can make descriptive label (or rare, as you mention "лични сат") or even leave it empty but add description. In Russian I had to use also rare (but understandable) wording "переносные часы". In English there are different terms: pocket watch and wrist watch can be named "watch" together - so watch in fact more general than "ручни сат". So please keep articles at appropriate items. And yes, it will be good to have separate article in Serbian for "џепни сат" and even for "ручни и џепни сат" together (if Serbian wp allows such article). --Infovarius (talk) 13:50, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Really sorry for the inconvenience. This is a gentle note to request that you check your email. We sent you a message titled "The Community Insights survey is coming!". If you have questions, email surveys@wikimedia.org.
I see that you reverted my removal of the assertion that the International System of Units is an instance of the metric system. If you go to the talk page of the topic, you will see my explanation. Please join in the discussion and we will be able to clarify whether or not SI is an instance of the metric system (implying that there are many metric systems), whether it is synonymous with the metric system (as per a 2007 Act of the US Congress) or whether it is contained within (is a subset of) the metric system (implying that the metric system is a superset of SI, cgs, cgs-emu. cgs-esu, mts etc). Martinvl (talk) 20:32, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
dumb ass vandal andreasmperu reverted your stalin sources u requested[edit]
many individuals contributed what was written on stalin as true that he was poisoned, this jerkoff reverted it, restore their evidence you requested!!!
Hello. your revert in the Abbasid Caliphate page is wrong. It is well known that Persian culture grew again in an Islamic form during this era, to a degree that the Umayyad culture is known to historians as the "Arabic Islam" while the Abbasid is known as the "Persian Islam". Another thing: Damascus was never a capital to the Abbasids, after they burned the Umayyad monuments they relocated their rule to Kufa in Iraq while Baghdad was built--باسم (talk) 22:36, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes true. It was a seat for a couple of months, but traditionally, among Muslim (and probably western) historians, it's not considered one of the capitals of the Abbasid Caliphate, perhaps because the Abbasids never intended for it to be, and viewed it as a place to rest and rearrange their forces, as they preferd to live among their supporters, in the heart of Iraq, so they moved to Kufa until Baghdad was built. You might find some historians saying Al-Anbar was indeed among the Abbasid capitals, but I don't believe it's a common idea. Best--باسم (talk) 19:22, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What makes you think that it is the same as grave (Q173387) (Special:Diff/1287245662) in the first place? Four Wikipedias having separate articles is a quite strong indicationg that they are not the same. Earlier I added descripton to "sepulcher" item based on en:tomb. If it is a kind of burial chamber then it is a location that may include several graves (or kind of stone graves) and as such is different. Though, I now realise that Wikipedia articles linked in "sepulcher" may be about neither. 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:544C:E5AD:A8A4:138813:56, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am wondering why you removed the statement instance of: scholar from this item. A scholar might not be a professional, and Indonesian studies scholar is one type of scholar. UWashPrincipalCataloger (talk) 22:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Коллега Infovarius, вы отменили мою правку с недоумением: почему? — готов пояснить. В тексте Нидерландской статьи о « Мосфильме» численность сотрудников не указывается, нет её и в каких-либо источниках, статья созданна машинным переводом с итальянской заметки. Как редактор русской Википедии, я готов закрыть глаза на развесистую клюкву в итало-нидерланских ветках, но вбитая кем то численность 1500 чел. через Викиданные попадает и в русскую версию. Патрулируя 12 октября русскую страницу «Мосфильма», мне пришлось удалить этот бездоказательный элемент, о чём теперь прошу вас. - Gerarus (talk) 23:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerarus: Действительно, сложно было найти подтверждение этому числу... Нашёл источник для 1020 в 2002 году, так что вероятно всё-таки 1500 сейчас вполне адекватно. --Infovarius (talk) 20:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Коллега, рад что вы убедились во взятой «с потолка» цифири. Экстраполировать же на основе 2002 года не входит в нашу компетенцию, будут новые данные — обновим, ведь так? - Gerarus (talk) 22:00, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
По данному инциденту имею к вам вопрос-предложение по оформлению стилевого порядка:
вы поместили найденную вами ссылку непосредственно на Викидату, то есть на всех 45 связанных языковых страницах о Мосфильме она будет отражаться в первозданном «голом виде», для большинства читателей других языковых разделов — по сути бесполезно. Получается зря существуют всевозможные шаблоны типа cite web и т. п., поясняющие в своих языковых разделах просхождение, издателя, время публикации и обращения, наконец язык самого первоисточника. Ну не должно так быть! Мне представляется, что подобные вашему источники целесообразнее оформлять на конкретной языковой Вики-странице, с отсылкой на которую затем вносить на Викидату (как было с Нидерландской википедией в нашем случае). Боюсь, не слишком вразумительно удалось сформулировать суть вопроса, потому готов предложить свой вариант оформления скажем к ближайшему понедельнику. - Gerarus (talk) 22:00, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerarus: я понимаю, наверное... Но есть ещё мнение, что подтверждения важны и нужны независимо от языка, поэтому ничего страшного в том, что они будут отображаться в других языковых разделах. --Infovarius (talk) 22:26, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Оформил найденный вами источник на русской странице, как хотел, посмотрите — мне кажется подтверждение численности работающих на всех 45 страницах о Мосфильме не стало хуже.) - Gerarus (talk) 20:13, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Infovarius: считаю вашу отмену вероломством: во-первых, потому что в Викидате оговаривается свойство p143, когда источник импортируется с одного из проектов Викимедии, во-вторых, с 8 ноября 2019 Нидерландская Википедия таковым источником по-вашему всё-таки была. Вы не находите здесь противоречия? Ещё довод: источник https://www.list-org.com/company/6229 не является глобальным для Викимедиа-сообщества, как скажем IMDB, — что, к примеру, поймёт японец, пройдя по нему?, в то время как отсылка на Русскую Википедию гарантирует ему эту цифру в тексте статьи плюс стандартно оформленную внешнюю ссылку. Согласитесь, что приоритет разноязыковых страниц Википедий для большинства пользователей очевиднее, чем служебная Викидата. - Gerarus (talk) 19:40, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, @Vanbasten 23:. I would appreciate more exact relation. Actually, I cared about all participants and not only champions. And I believe that Ironman is quite important event in a life of anyone. Which property do you think is more appropriate for this? --Infovarius (talk) 22:26, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"I believe that Ironman is quite important event in a life of anyone" Why? Is it more important than a olympic triathlon? Same sport, different distance, but the same. For example this edition say "significant event", but don´t say nothing about he is the champion like you said in the title of the batch. We use the significant event (P793) in Michel Platini (Q4261) to put Panama Papers (Q23702848), this is a strange thing in his life, but Ironman 70.3 is not. Greetings --Vanbasten 23 (talk) 07:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get where this hunch (suppose it's also true) comes from. Nothing in this GeoNames entry refers to previous municipality. There may have been a match before, but it can't be checked anymore as GeoNames likely repurposed this entry for current municipality with the same name. Note that GeoNames preserves some other previous municipalites like that one as historical entity, but this is not the case for this entity. I generally don't edit without checking things carefully and I don't appreciate your occasional reckless reverts. If you have questions then please take a more constructive approach and use talk pages. 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:F5AC:5026:3765:53FF07:00, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for being "reckless". But how did you understand that GeoNamesID is about modern and not previous adm.unit? They say only "Türi vald" which seems perfectly well with both items. --Infovarius (talk) 22:30, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's area is that of the current municipality (click "show map" to see the geometry) and it displays EHAK (0834) code that of the current municipality. Contrarily I don't see anything referring specifically to former municipality in this GeoNames entry. 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:2CAC:61A6:2403:DAA709:41, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think because belongs to different classes in Special:Diff/1297375557 isn't a true assessment in case status, classification or alike didn't change and the entity just ceased to exist. "former municipality" item may simplify some queries and as such may be useful, but it seems to be a Wikidata-specific pseudo-class rather than a natural classification unit. All the data about this former entity is still about it as a member of rural municipality (Q28122896) class. So these qualifiers seem to be an unnecessary duplication of data that is already there in form of separate statements. Similarly you could copy all other separate statements into this P31 statement as qualifiers, but what would be the point really. 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:1934:4BEC:E580:660F09:10, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that "former X" are "Wikidata pseudo-classes" (but nevertheless I find them useful). And I try to avoid duplication too. But I can't find any claims at rural municipality (Q28122896) that this class is historical. So date qualifiers are necessary to express this. Without them, normal rank of such claim would mean that the entity does still exist now (as it is non-historical Q28122896 still). --Infovarius (talk) 19:18, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, preferred rank of a (current) value in a claim is quite necessary if there are other values which are historical truth. Also it is a good tradition to add date qualifiers to each value because the historical changes can be more complicated than simply "created/dissolved". --Infovarius (talk) 23:17, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Infovarius, the Abbassid califat begin in 750 and end in 1258 (somtimes we can also see 1517). See the russian article :
Аббасидский халифат (араб. الدولة العباسية), Багдадский халифат — феодальное теократическое государство, существовавшее с 750 по 945 и с 1194 по 1258 год, с правящей династией — Аббасидов. and french , and arabian.
If you think that's it's an actual state (with abbassid of course -who were dead) give us proofs please, with sources.
Regards. Cjldx (talk) 07:33, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Cjldx: Please note that historical country (Q3024240) is a class of non-existant (at present) states. So on contrary, my version means that this califat ceased to exist in 1258 (and not it's only a history), and your version means that the califat was historical already before 1258 (how is it possible?) and now it's only caliphate (Q131401) (because this value is without qualifiers and of appropriate rank). Please correct this nonsense. --Infovarius (talk) 19:04, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Infovarius: hi, thank you for your explanation. I understand now what your mean and you are right. It's just a matter of understanding the terms and I amalgamated the term Historical State and its date of existence (considering that it was indeed an "Historic State" and that its dates of existence were 750-1268). but you are right : it's actually an historic state (after 1268), it was a state (750-1268), a califat (same date). I'll correct the element. Sorry for the inconvenience. Best regards. Cjldx (talk) 19:38, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
done. By the way, i have a problem : the page show me that "Caliph must have a titular declaration". As you have more experience than me, can you explain to me where the problem is coming from please. Thank you. Cjldx (talk) 19:57, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Cjldx: officeholder (P1308) is intended to be used in each position item. But here you use a general item "caliph" (which is ok for me). I suppose we can ignore the warning now unless we want to create a specific item "caliph of Caliphat Abbassid". --Infovarius (talk) 23:24, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ist Q529605 Kurfürstentum Hessenkassel nicht von Q100594799 Kurfürstentum Hessenkassel zu trennen? Immerhin gab es dazwischen ja das Königreich Westphalen in diesem Territorium. --Granpar (talk) 14:42, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Infovarius:The Electorate of Hesse existed two times:
From 1803 to 1806 as a state of the Holy Roman Empire and then for a short time until 1807 as a sovereign state without membership in the Confederation of the Rhine (Q100594799). An attempt to remain neutral failed. The Electorate of Hesse was assigned to the Kingdom of Westphalen. A second time after the end of the Kingdom of Westphalen in 1813 until the annexation by Prussia in 1866 (Q529605). --Granpar (talk) 12:24, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Classes or not, it's not feasible to have that kind of statements in every item[edit]
Regarding the revert of this edit, it would be useful to know what I did wrong. Instead of just undoing the addition, maybe fix the problem you found? Or, alternatively, communicate what the issue is? LucGommans (talk) 00:16, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
なのになぜ分離状態を継続させようとしているのか、理解できません。それらの項目の中身を見比べれば、同一の指示内容である事は明白ではないでしょうか。
項目を分けることに合理的な理由があるというのであれば、説明していただけないでしょうか。よろしくお願いします。
--シダー近藤 (talk) 09:54, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@シダー近藤: Sorry for English, I can't write in Japan (unless you prefer Google translation of Russian into Japanese). There are two issues here: 1) art patronage (Q214092) is a type of activity while patron of the arts (Q15472169) is an occupation, so they are clearly distinct and there should be 2 items; 2) about Wikipedia articles (a.k.a. sitelinks): I agree that they have quite similar content, but their titles refers to the first or the second item uniquely, that's why I separate them. In order to have good interwiki linking we can move all sitelinks to one item (ignoring its sense, which is not logical), or to create redirects in each language with the opposite word - it is allowed but it is possible only by a hack. --Infovarius (talk) 21:45, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Neechalkaran: well, sorry, I don't know Tamil. I even admit that my revert was wrong. In English description would be "grammatical case which is sometimes used to express motion away from something". Please translate this. --Infovarius (talk) 19:21, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Female voice type between Soprano and Contralto = Tenor is nonsense[edit]
Давайте уточним: сколько изображений (необходимо или целесообразно) иметь в одном элементе. Явно не стоит туда добавлять все, что разные участники считают важным - так мы продублируем Викисклад. 4 - это явно перебор и никому не нужно. --Ksc~ruwiki (talk) 22:05, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that when 'Southampton' was added back in, that there is an "!" point there, now. How do you propose to fix that? That is why occurrence was added. Would like your opinion on a better way to fix it. Funandtrvl (talk) 21:13, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We had three items for arm arm (Q43471) (upper arm + forearm on the basis that Uberon sees that as a valuable category), upper arm (Q379859) (upper arm, FMA category) and free upper limb (Q24517852) (hand + upper arm + forearm) . In the discussion page I explained the split. You added a bunch of values that apply to upper arm (Q379859) to arm (Q43471) as well creating a bunch of constraint violations for doublicate values and also adding IDs that only apply to upper arm to a concept that is broader.
Can you clean up after yourself so that we again have three items that cover the three meaningful concepts with each having the proper IDs? If this isn't vandalism, what motivates bringing the items into that state? ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 01:11, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
--Paracel63 (talk) 12:24, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Like OK, I guess it's correct now (you had to do quite a bit of remapping and linking to get it right). I've only done 1 per cent the number of WD edits that you have. So for sure, I'm a novice with my mere 3,144 edits… 
--Paracel63 (talk) 12:58, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
correct
incorrect
