User talk:Gymnicus

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Logo of Wikidata

Welcome to Wikidata, Gymnicus!

Wikidata is a free knowledge base that you can edit! It can be read and edited by humans and machines alike and you can go to any item page now and add to this ever-growing database!

Need some help getting started? Here are some pages you can familiarize yourself with:

  • Introduction – An introduction to the project.
  • Wikidata tours – Interactive tutorials to show you how Wikidata works.
  • Community portal – The portal for community members.
  • User options – including the 'Babel' extension, to set your language preferences.
  • Contents – The main help page for editing and using the site.
  • Project chat – Discussions about the project.
  • Tools – A collection of user-developed tools to allow for easier completion of some tasks.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask on Project chat. If you want to try out editing, you can use the sandbox to try. Once again, welcome, and I hope you quickly feel comfortable here, and become an active editor for Wikidata.

Best regards! M2k~dewiki (talk) 17:58, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jyske Bank Boxen[edit]

Subsequent change of the heading due to the misspelling. --Gymnicus (talk) 12:08, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Herning (Q27393) is not an administrative area. It's just an urban area within the much larger Herning Municipality (Q506877). --Hjart (talk) 21:52, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hjart: Please explain that to me in more detail. If the city of Herning is not an administrative area, how can the city of Herning be the administrative seat of the Herning Komunne? --Gymnicus (talk) 21:57, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The City hall is in Herning. That's all. Please note that our smallest administrative units are much larger than those in Germany. --Hjart (talk) 22:02, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hjart: I find that the subject cannot be concluded so easily. So I've come up with a compromise that you and I can probably live with. The best thing to do is to take a look at my processing on Jyske Bank Boxen (Q1280280). --Gymnicus (talk) 12:08, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's an ok compromise. Looks ok in commons:Category:MCH Multiarena. --Hjart (talk) 12:12, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Use of P527 as inverse of P279 on Boeing 737[edit]

Noting your edits (see) to Boeing 737 (Q6387), it appears you are trying to use has part (P527) as an inverse of subclass of (P279) to list the sub-classes of 737 on the parent item. Generally, there is no need to add an inverse statement for subclass of (P279) statements, and has part (P527) is not really an appropriate place for one, as it really for actual components of the item, such as for an aircraft, values would be aircraft components. Is this what you are attempting, or do you have a different object in mind with these statements? Josh Baumgartner (talk) 23:18, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner: However, this is not about airplanes, but about airplane families. The airplane family Boeing 737 (Q6387) consist of - I'll call it - subordinate airplane families. That's why I think the use of has part (P527) is entirely correct. --Gymnicus (talk) 08:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand that, and I get where you are going with it. I've often considered doing a similar thing myself. I'm not opposed to doing something like this, but it is not how has part (P527) is generally used, so I want to understand the reasoning before taking any action. So how do you determine which items do belong and which one do not? For example, you include Boeing 737-300 (Q15623287), but not Boeing 737 Classic (Q2355950), while Boeing 737 Classic (Q2355950) is actually a sub-class of Boeing 737 (Q6387) while Boeing 737-300 (Q15623287) is not (it is a sub of Boeing 737 Classic (Q2355950)). In fact take the following chain: OK-FAN (Q106224832) > instance of (P31) > Boeing 737-300 (Q15623287) > subclass of (P279) > Boeing 737 Classic (Q2355950) > subclass of (P279) > Boeing 737 (Q6387). In that case you have chosen the middle item only to include under has part (P527), so I am wondering what the logic is there. Thanks for your input. Josh Baumgartner (talk) 16:30, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshbaumgartner: Ah, sorry. Then I have probably misunderstood you. Yes, the intermediate step beyond Boeing 737 Classic (Q2355950) can and should of course be taken. Of course, you are right. I will correct that soon. --Gymnicus (talk) 22:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I see there are a couple of relevant unresolved discussions regarding the use of has part (P527) over at its talk page, it might be good to share your thoughts there to further the use of this property going forward. Josh Baumgartner (talk) 00:09, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner: One more question: The Boeing 737-100 (Q15623261) and Boeing 737-200 (Q15623412) are subclasses of Boeing 737 (Q6387), right? That's why both of them have to be listed in Boeing 737 (Q6387), right? --Gymnicus (talk) 08:27, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They are at the moment, but I think they both should be subclasses of Boeing 737 Original (Q106340170) ultimately. Good point. Josh Baumgartner (talk) 08:35, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Peter Hannighofer[edit]

Please tell me where is called Hans-Peter Hannighofer! "English world" is not the truth!--Lou6977 (talk) 19:08, 17 April 2021 (UTC) Look at that before undoing my edits!!!--Lou6977 (talk) 19:12, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lou6977: The English Wikipedia, as you can see from the lemma of the article there. That was why I changed it. I don't know why the English Wikipedia decided on this lemma, because I didn't write the article. But the fact is that there are various variants about the spelling of his name. The IBSF and the BSD write it “Hans Peter Hannighofer”. Meanwhile he is referred to as “Hans-Peter Hannighofer” by World Athletics and his home club BRC Thuringia [1]. --Gymnicus (talk) 19:16, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then, his official instagram profile doesn't count at all. OK! English rulez!--Lou6977 (talk) 19:29, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Lou6977: Yes, you could definitely say that. Just want to add, I'm not going to undo your changes now. If he calls himself that on his Instagram profile, then we can also call him that in the database, I would say. Is his Instagram profile actually contained in the data object as an identifier? --Gymnicus (talk) 19:38, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Red link should be blued[edit]

Hi Gymnicus. It's not looking much "trustworthy" if a user doesn't give at least a few words about the person and presenting therefor a red link as his user name. Well, it's not that I personally actually distrust you but... Would you please give just some words of self description? It's about impression, and i'ts definitely lloking better. --Just N. (talk) 18:20, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of P1559 ('name in native language') value seems wrong[edit]

Hey! I've just found that you removed 'name in native language' property from some items. Here is one example. Maybe that's a script mistake and not intentional but anyway - I don't think it's a good idea in many cases. If a person has P103 property ('native language') then theoretically we could calculate the 'name in native language' value from P735 ('given name') and P734 ('family name') but there are more complex cases. So I believe this property has its own value and should be kept. What's your opinion on this? PeterLemenkov (talk) 20:09, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This was not a script bug, it was intended by me. Why should the property name in native language (P1559) be in a data object, but if there is no statement about native language (P103)? That is why I prefer to replace this statement with birth name (P1477) or married name (P2562) or short name (P1813). In the example mentioned, I have replaced the statement Jana Novotná (Q229121) name in native language (P1559) Jana Novotná (Czech) with the statement Jana Novotná (Q229121) birth name (P1477) Jana Novotná (Czech). So, in my opinion, no information is lost. --Gymnicus (talk) 20:24, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Call for participation in the interview study with Wikidata editors[edit]

Dear Gymnicus,

I hope you are doing good,

I am Kholoud, a researcher at the King’s College London, and I work on a project as part of my PhD research that develops a personalized recommendation system to suggest Wikidata items for the editors based on their interests and preferences. I am collaborating on this project with Elena Simperl and Miaojing Shi.

I would love to talk with you to know about your current ways to choose the items you work on in Wikidata and understand the factors that might influence such a decision. Your cooperation will give us valuable insights into building a recommender system that can help improve your editing experience.

Participation is completely voluntary. You have the option to withdraw at any time. Your data will be processed under the terms of UK data protection law (including the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR) and the Data Protection Act 2018). The information and data that you provide will remain confidential; it will only be stored on the password-protected computer of the researchers. We will use the results anonymized (?) to provide insights into the practices of the editors in item selection processes for editing and publish the results of the study to a research venue. If you decide to take part, we will ask you to sign a consent form, and you will be given a copy of this consent form to keep.

If you’re interested in participating and have 15-20 minutes to chat (I promise to keep the time!), please either contact me on or use this form with your choice of the times that work for you.

I’ll follow up with you to figure out what method is the best way for us to connect.

Please contact me using the email mentioned above if you have any questions or require more information about this project.

Thank you for considering taking part in this research.




Please be careful not to become part of vandalism for vengeance of perceived criticism for your own mistakes. Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 17:20, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@E4024: Thanks for the hint. I will answer you in more detail on the relevant discussion page. --Gymnicus (talk) 17:32, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Small change in the section title to make it easier to find the section. --Gymnicus (talk) 19:23, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edits in ethanol (Q153) since several of them are nonsense (Special:Diff/1444924935). You may redo the ones that are useful. --Leyo 22:23, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These are not nonsensical edits, I just add references for the identifiers. In contrast to my references, for example, the former reference in the example that you linked is an unsound reference. Assign an ID with the ID itself. That makes no sense. --Gymnicus (talk) 07:31, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What you are trying to do is impossible with manual edits and I think it won't change much. Impossible — because most items about chemical entities have external-ids with such self-references; it won't change much — because references to external-ids are not really useful for anything (it's just a rather unimportant information that somehow the data from the external database was compared with the data from WD and the ID was added on this basis), usually external-ids don't even need any source and only in disputed cases sources for external-ids are needed to indicate which source says so. If you want to proceed with this, I'd suggest using some sort of semi-automatic or automatic tool (QuickStatements, writing a bot, whatever). Also, changes like this are not useful in any way; this ID was added much earlier than it can be judged by the access date. Wostr (talk) 00:36, 22 June 2021 (UTC) PS So I don't care much about removing self-references, but adding false sources that the ID was taken from the de.wp project is not a proper solution. No source is better than a crap source. Wostr (talk) 00:39, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Wostr: Please note that users behavior is being discussed at Wikidata:Forum#Verschlechterung von Fundstellen. --Leyo 09:13, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Small change in the section title to make it easier to find the section. --Gymnicus (talk) 19:23, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gymnicus,

By changing the URL-definition on the property WTA player ID (P597), you made the WTA links on more than 3000 players invalid. How do you propose to solve that? Pommée (talk) 22:11, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your WTA player edits so far. But... don't stop here. Please finish the job for all other WTA players as soon as possible. Pommée (talk) 12:57, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Pommée:, what is the reason for this change, lot's of links on the german site doesn't work anymore. Mac1405 (talk) 14:51, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mac1405: you ask Gymnicus. He started all this without consulting the wikidata/wikipedia tennis community. I tried to revert the essential addressing change, which he immediately reverted himself. Now I am only trying to clean up after the damage, on wikidata as well as on my own (Dutch) wikipedia. One suggestion for you to do first: edit de:Vorlage:WTA to include /name after the wikidata-property. Pommée (talk) 15:11, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mac1405: Gymnicus does not react. I asked my Dutch colleague Edoderoo (who is clever with bots and scripts and the like) to finish the job to remove (the slash and) the player's name from the property value, reducing it to the bare number only. He promised to do that in the near future. Pommée (talk) 20:12, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thank you. Mac1405 (talk) 07:41, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Pommée (talk) 17:24, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pommée, Mac1405: I would like to apologize to both of you for the inconvenience and thank you for eliminating the quick statement error with. Actually, I wanted to improve all the statements WTA player ID (P597) myself using quick statements and later improve the sources WTA player ID (P597) by "hand". But there was a problem with my batch at Quickstatement, so that processing was aborted earlier and some tennis players were not given an improved WTA player ID (P597). --Gymnicus (talk) 19:23, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop haphazardly nominating items for deletion!!![edit]

Hello, please stop nominating items for deletion which clearly serve an important purpose. In moreIdentifiers (Q106876944), you failed to ping the creator, @Frlgin:. In Martin Myšička (Q107599037), it seems you really did not consider all aspects of the person's notability.Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 12:09, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vojtěch Dostál: Could you please turn your tone down! You created the data object and therefore it is your job to clarify why the data object is relevant. At the time of the deletion nomination, there was no sign of relevance in the data object. That's why I didn't make a mistake and it was also good that I suggested the data object for deletion, since identifiers were added, which made the data object relevant. --Gymnicus (talk) 14:10, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong, NKCR AUT ID (P691) was added one minute after the item was created.Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 14:25, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please stop. Only because you cannot recognize relevance, doesn't mean someone else can't. Please read about Chesterton's fence and take it to heart.
@Vojtěch Dostál: I was pinged via the edit summary by MediaWiki:Gadget-RequestDeletion.js.  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Frlgin (talk • contribs).

@Frlgin: Thanks for the nice link. But I don't know exactly what I'm trying to tell me. I suggested the data object moreIdentifiers (Q106876944) for deletion because it did not meet Wikidata's relevance criteria. You are welcome to present in the discussion why, you see it differently than me. Isn't there a deletion discussion, or do I have a wrong idea? --Gymnicus (talk) 14:10, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

billet de blog critique (Q24067746)[edit]

Pas de problème pour la suppression. Merci. Ambre Troizat (talk) 11:01, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Debuts (Q106781840)[edit]

Hi Gymnicus,

Could you provide an explanation to why Debuts (Q106781840) is subclass of both work of art (Q838948) and creative work (Q17537576), with work of art (Q838948) at "Deprecated rank".

Thank you,

CaLéValab (talk) 11:00, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CaLéValab: A written work (Q47461344) is not a subclass of a work of art (Q838948), but a subclass of a creative work (Q17537576) and a written work (Q47461344) can also be a Debuts (Q106781840). --Gymnicus (talk) 11:19, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gymnicus: Ok, Thank you for the explanation. Are every Debuts (Q106781840) a work of art (Q838948), even if some are also written work (Q47461344), or are there some Debuts (Q106781840) that are written work (Q47461344) without being a work of art (Q838948) ? The German Wikipedia article about Debuts (Q106781840) (the only language available at the time) seems to describe it as an work of art (Q838948), whatever the format (written, audiovisual, etc). So, for me, adding creative work (Q17537576) does not add information to the entity Debuts (Q106781840). I guess then that creative work (Q17537576) should be removed from the entity, and work of art (Q838948) put at the normal rank. What do you think ? CaLéValab (talk) 11:39, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why delete conferences?[edit]

You nominated these for deletion.

These are Wikidata related conferences. Of all items, these are surrounded by highly prolific Wikidata editors who have interlinked them to many other items.

In general, I am in favor of every conference having Wikidata items, especially when the papers are the source of authoritative publications which Wikipedia and other sources will cite.

What are you expecting of conference items? Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:05, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluerasberry: I replied on the delete page. --Gymnicus (talk) 20:47, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Hi. How do we set the relation between Daily Sabah (Q18639164) and Sabah (Q574575)? Thx. --E4024 (talk) 23:26, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@E4024: That's a good question. The easiest way to solve it is through property different from (P1889), right? --Gymnicus (talk) 08:48, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata:Property proposal/KNHB ID[edit]

Hello there. Would you be OK to create this? It needs a few clicks and I'll then fill the new property page with the relevant statements myself if you want. Thierry Caro (talk) 21:35, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Gymnicus (talk) 21:51, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. We can now have this on the French Wikipedia thanks to your move. Thierry Caro (talk) 00:14, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

deletion request for Med Mouha page[edit]

Hey, why do you want to delete the page. There are many reference . The Code ISNI, ORCID, musicbrainz etc  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Medmouhanb (talk • contribs).

@Medmouhanb: All the identifiers you mentioned and used in the data object are all well and good, but they do not create relevance in the sense of the second point of the Wikidata relevance criteria. --Gymnicus (talk) 08:46, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Preferred rank[edit]

Please do not set a name in personal articles to "preferred rank", this has an impact on other Wikimedia projects such as info boxes and categories. Thanks. Best Regards HarryNº2 (talk) 16:50, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HarryNº2: The setting of ranks is necessary for Wikicommons, for example, and I have not yet heard that setting ranks in relation to first or last name is frowned upon. --Gymnicus (talk) 16:55, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Right, that's an example, in Commons the name is not displayed and the categories remain empty. Take a look at Category:Georg-Ludwig von Breitenbuch, for example, where only the preferred name is displayed in the categories. The categories Bernhard (given name) and Alfred-Friedrich (given name) then have no entry. The "preferred rank" function should only be used in conjunction with reason for preferred rank (P7452)) e.g. for the maiden name of a married woman or a birth name. HarryNº2 (talk) 17:23, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete news article item. There is no reason to do so[edit]

@Gymnicus There is no reason to mark for deletion the Bloomberg News article "A Meissen Porcelain Trove Is Set to Shatter Auction Records". Q108324148

(Following the odd note by @Mohamed Belgazem saying it was "not notable". It is an article about Nazi looted art which is being auctioned after restitution and part of the history of the The Holocaust.)

The suggestion "You can also just use the property described at URL (P973). No separate data object is required for this." does not seem to make sense. (P973 is "described at URL".)

Please remove the request for deletion. Thank you.

LAP959 (talk) 08:33, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@LAP959: I am not withdrawing this request for deletion because, unlike you, I do not see this data object as relevant. --Gymnicus (talk) 19:56, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Undo comments[edit]

Please do not forget to provide custom edit summaries when undoing edits. In Special:Diff/1491770768 it is otherwise pretty much impossible to understand what you are after. —MisterSynergy (talk) 12:07, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Auch bei Bearbeitung wie dieser wäre hilfreich zu wissen, inwiefern last update (P5017) gelöscht und language of work or name (P407) eingefügt werden soll. --Emu (talk) 21:09, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Emu: Das Ersetzen der Einzelnachweise war natürlich unnötig. Da haben wir einfach nur verschiedene Herangehensweisen. Bei der Veränderung des Geburtsdatums ist wahrscheinlich die Quelle das Problem. Ich schätze mal du verwendest einen anderen formatter URL (P1630) als die Eigenschaft GND ID (P227). Nämlich wenn man nur diesen Link folgt, dann kann man das genaue Geburtsdatum nicht finden und deswegen auch nicht nachweisen. --Gymnicus (talk) 22:05, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lobid und die MARC21-XML-Repräsentation (mit letztem Update) und die RDF (Turtle)-Repräsentation bei der DNB bieten die vollen Lebensdaten (so vorhanden) --Emu (talk) 22:08, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Emu: Muss man aber auch erstmal finden, deswegen arbeite ich da eher mit anderen Quellen, wo das Geburtsdatum dann direkt da steht, und nutze bei der GND ID (P227) dann das Geburtsjahr. Warum ich das in diesen Fall nicht gemacht habe, weiß ich nicht genau. --Gymnicus (talk) 22:22, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Please stop deleting valid references out of items. Your actions are causing major issues down the line. If you would like to add another qualifier such as "named as" to a value that also has a valid reference, you can simply add the new qualifier without deleting the reference. -Yupik (talk) 11:14, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request for unblock[edit]

Approve icon.svg
Unblock request granted

This blocked user asked to be unblocked, and one or more administrators has reviewed and granted this request.

block logipblocklistcrossblockluxo'sunblockremove gblock • contribs: +/-

Request reason:
Deutsch: Bei diesem Block handelt es sich um eine vollkommene überzogene Entscheidung von Mahir, welche sich seit dem Aussprechen der Sperre nicht mehr zu diesem Thema geäußert hat. Weder er noch Yupik haben bisher in der Diskussion auf der Administratorenseite Argumente angebraucht, warum die von mir gelöschten Referenzen „gute“ Referenzen sein sollen. Dagegen habe ich in der Diskussion bereits mehrfach zum Ausdruck gebracht, warum es sich um schlechte und unsinnige Referenzen handelt. Deswegen bitte ich die Administratoren diese überzogene Sperre rückgängig zu machen. --Gymnicus (talk) 07:56, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
English: This block is a completely exaggerated decision by Mahir, who has not commented on this topic since the ban was pronounced. So far, neither he nor Yupik have used arguments in the discussion on the administrator side as to why the references I deleted should be "good" references. On the other hand, I have already stated several times in the discussion why these are bad and nonsensical references. Therefore I ask the administrators to undo this excessive block. ---Gymnicus (talk) 07:56, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unblock reason:
Unblocked per discussion belowMisterSynergy (talk) 11:31, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This template should be archived normally.

беларуская (тарашкевіца) | bosanski | čeština | English | español | français | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | português | svenska | русский |



Read through Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard#Removal of valid references. I am generally willing to help you out of this situation, but your position regarding "bad and unnecessary references" is indeed concerning. References on identifier claims, as well as (apparent) self-referencing are not an issue per-se. Wikidata references often indicate simple data provenance, and in this sense every sort of reference may be useful—including even Wikipedia import references. If you do not understand the implications of your changes—which unfortunately appears to be the case at this point—then please do not touch these references even if you personally disagree with their existence at this point. You may have noticed that there have been several users in the WD:AN discussion taking similar positions.

So, if you can confirm that this is okay for you and you are *much* more careful with editing existing references, I’d unblock you—given @Mahir256 does not raise any other concerns here that have not been discussed in the WD:AN section until now. —MisterSynergy (talk) 09:28, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MisterSynergy: It is absolutely correct that I do not understand why references should be useful for identifiers (with exceptions) and, above all, self-references for identifiers. But that's not the point anyway. The real point is, no one has yet explained why they should be useful, as Yupik and Mahir256 claim. If nobody can explain it to me, then it is actually clear why I cannot understand the benefit.
„So, if you can confirm that this is okay for you and you are *much* more careful with editing existing references“ – Whether I can confirm this depends on what you, and above all Mahir256, understand by „acting more carefully“. Before Mahir256 blocked me, I took care of data objects from the Wiki media category and - from my point of view - removed imported from Wikimedia project (P143) references that were not needed, such as here, here and here. Are such distances also affected by „acting more cautiously“? In addition, when working with - I'll call it - normal data objects such as Marie-Thérèse Kaiser (Q108489640) or Q108845187, I also replace imported from Wikimedia project (P143) references with „correct“ sources, because, for example, the German-language Wikipedia does not want to be a source or is how you can read here. Would such substitutions, for example here, here or here, also be included? --Gymnicus (talk) 11:28, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several users have described usage scenarios for these references. You could simply acknowledge that there is a use case for them and leave them alone if they are not completely incorrect.
  • Mind that often information is imported by script, and the script does not necessarily read the same document that human readers with browsers do. Many external websites have machine-readable versions of their database entries available, and surprisingly often these contain *more* information than their own web UI. GND and VIAF are two notable examples here.
  • Some modifications to imported from Wikimedia project (P143) references may be okay for many editors, but I am not aware of any specific policies. If there is another reference to a serious external source on the very same claim (or you add one), many editors would be fine with a imported from Wikimedia project (P143) reference removal.
  • Data users can decide by themselves which references they use and which not. It is pretty standard to ignore references including a imported from Wikimedia project (P143) reference qualifier alltogether in many usage scenarios such as Wikipedias for instance. However, you do not need to make this decision for the data users, as some *may* find even import-references useful.
MisterSynergy (talk) 12:50, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@MisterSynergy: Because the second procedure described by me in my previous comment seems to be okay, I could explain to the administrators here at least until the topic has been clarified that I can only use such references in this way (by replacing) delete and refrain from the other deletions for the time being. --Gymnicus (talk) 09:53, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, based on this condition and the fact that blocking admin Mahir256 did not raise any other concerns, I have unblocked you. —MisterSynergy (talk) 11:31, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since you've continued removing references without replacing them (e.g. Special:Diff/1514436780, Special:Diff/1514433599, Special:Diff/1515616935), I've restored the block. (@MisterSynergy: pinging you as the person who removed the block) - Nikki (talk) 17:54, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No objections, based on the evidence provided. —MisterSynergy (talk) 18:27, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikki: Okay, then with regard to the data object Muṣṭafā Māhir (Q108535741), the one deleted reference is more important than the many added identifiers and the occupied statements, see here. This is no different with the data object Einar Brun (Q95812027) and there I also worked out the VIAF mixture with the data object Einar Brun (Q108860758). By the N.R.F.B (Q18288555) I have not yet added or could not because I was kept from work and wanted to expand this later. But okay, if for you or for you administrators a few – from my point of view – unnecessary occurrences for identifiers are more important than "new" identifiers and statements with occurrences, then I cannot change anything. But I don't understand. --Gymnicus (talk) 20:56, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Unblock. Removing stuff without good reason is tantamount to vandalism, and I see no contrition here for doing that. Unfortunately, and it's not just on this project, Gymnicus seems to want to have everything his own way without regard to the view of others. S/he correctly says "I don't understand". Quite. S/he should start to understand, and respect the opinions, and work, of others, and begin to work collaboratively. Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:25, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Sorry, I missed the word german in my edit summary here [2]. So: the linked article is an episode list that mentions that listed entries are episodes of a german television series. Therefore it should remain as a reference.--CENNOXX (talk) 12:10, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Even if I don't quite see it that way myself, I can understand this way of interpreting and will not remove the source for the time being. But maybe it is possible to add the language to IMDB and then use it to substantiate the statement. --Gymnicus (talk) 14:33, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Exterior of Anfield (stadium) (Q104587349)[edit]

Why have you broken something that had been fixed on Commons? Rodhullandemu (talk) 14:15, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion on this topic can be found via the following link: Category:Exterior of Anfield (stadium) --Gymnicus (talk) 14:35, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"No relevance recognizeable"[edit]

Hello. As you are exhibiting the exact same behavior to User:HarryNº2 in deletion nominations, I am going to largely reuse my earlier comment. Have you read Wikidata:Notability? The items you are nominating for deletion satisfy Criteria #2 and #3. Their existence and biographies can be found in newspapers, books, magazines, as well as genealogical databases. Their Wikidata items are important genealogical links between more notable individuals (e.g. those who have Wikipedia articles, and/or entries in other databases and catalogues). There are millions of humans and other entities on Wikidata who will never have a Wikipedia article in any language but still meet Wikidata notability criteria. "Relevance" is not mentioned at all WD:N, and your weak rationale of "No relevance recognizable" is not a grounds for deletion, it means you lack the ability to use Google, look at connecting Wikidata items (you overlooked Q108912493 is the daughter of a past Governor of Rhode Island), and/or apply critical reasoning. Having genealogies of prominent families for one thing is useful for tracking provenance of works of art, which is relevant to art historians and collectors. Modeling and describing verifiable kinship of politicians, celebrities, and historical figures is clearly within the scope of Wikidata in serving as a general knowledge base for the world at large. If you wish to initiate a broader discussion about notability and inclusion criteria, please start one at Wikidata talk:Notability or Wikidata:Requests for comment or Wikidata:Project chat. Please don't waste your time, or the time of others, by snipping at arbitrary items. When items need improvement, be a wrench, not an axe. -Animalparty (talk) 01:47, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request for unblock (2)[edit]

X mark.svg
Unblock request declined

This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason.

block logipblocklistcrossblockluxo'sunblockremove gblock • contribs: +/-

Request reason:
Deutsch: Bevor die Sperre von MisterSynergy aufgehoben wurde, habe ich in der obigen Diskussion am 14 Oktober 2021 versprochen, dass ich bis zur Klärung des Sachverhaltens solche Löschungen nicht mehr vornehme. Der wichtige Punkt dabei ist für mich „bis zur Klärung des Sachverhaltens“. Daran habe ich mich meiner Meinung nach auch gehalten, denn die Diskussion endete im Sand und wurde am gestrigen Tag auch vom Bot ins Archiv verschoben. In der Diskussion gab es keinen Konsens für das generelle Behalten von Identifikatoren-Fundstellen und es wurden auch keine Gründe genannt, warum generell Identifikatoren-Fundstellen gültig sind. Es wurden nur Grunde genannt, wann Identifikatoren-Fundstellen ausnahmsweise gültig sein können, und gegen diese vorgebrachten Gründe habe ich meiner Meinung nach auch nicht verstoßen. Auch bei der jetzigen erneuten Diskussion bin ich bereit erneut mein Versprechen wieder zu geben, dass ich bis zur Klärung keine Identifikatoren-Fundstellen löschen werde. --Gymnicus (talk) 10:25, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
English: Before MisterSynergy has lifted the block, I promised in the above discussion on October 14, 2021 that I would no longer carry out such deletions until the facts were clarified. The important point for me is “until facts were clarified”. In my opinion, I kept to that, because the discussion ended in the sand and was moved from the bot to the archive yesterday. In the discussion there was no consensus for the general retention of identifier references and no reasons were given as to why identifier references are generally valid. Only reasons were given as to when identifier references can be valid in exceptional cases, and in my opinion I have not violated these reasons. Even with the current renewed discussion, I am ready to make my promise again that I will not delete any identifier found locations until clarification. --Gymnicus (talk) 10:25, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
Procedural decline. User has been made an offer, but has not (yet) accepted it, and no-one else seems willing to unblock. User can make a new unblock request if things change. Bovlb (talk) 20:44, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]


беларуская (тарашкевіца) | čeština | Deutsch | English | español | français | Nederlands | português | svenska | русский | +/−

further comments[edit]

Following my words in the “Request reason” section, I would like to add that I can specify my promise based on the request for comment Do identifiers need references?, which I have already drafted. At least until the end of this opinion-forming process, I can promise that I will not delete any identifier found. Based on the request for comment, you then probably have to reassess the situation.

It should also be noted that I not only deleted references here in Wikidata, but also added data, created objects and also modeled sporting events. These include, for example, the 2020 European Women's Handball Championship (Q16577780) and #True Athletes Classics 2021 (Q107356632). The A-League Women 2021/22 will join this list from December 3rd of this year. This of course not only means that each individual game has its own data object, but also that all players in the league (All players signed for A-League 2021/22 season) are revised and updated once again

These edits are of course only possible by me if the block is lifted. Some of you can now see this as a kind of blackmail, I am aware of that. But now the question arises, what is more important for you: New content for Wikidata and also support for Wikidata:WikiProject Women or rather the references for identifiers? With the second one, however, you has to say that this has been weakened by my promise. --Gymnicus (talk) 13:55, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Based on the way Gymnicus has broken their own promise within only a short period of time, I oppose any unblock that does not go with a guarantee that Gymnicus will not remove references to identifiers at all. Not a single one. Their describing of the point of their promise until the facts were clarified is already something else than until the topic has been clarified that was actually promised. That again is not fulfilled when a discussion ended in the sand and there was no consensus. Lymantria (talk) 14:46, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lymantria: „Based on the way Gymnicus has broken their own promise within only a short period of time, I oppose any unblock that does not go with a guarantee that Gymnicus will not remove references to identifiers at all.“ – Guilty, but I don't understand that sentence. Wasn't that exactly what I promised above in the reason for the unblocking? --Gymnicus (talk) 18:54, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, it isn't. Again there is a "until clarification", and we have seen how you stretch such condition. Furthermore, you state you are ready to promise, but haven't actually done so. Lymantria (talk) 06:24, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Lymantria: Then please just say what kind of “condition” would be okay for you. Because simply to say that I will never do such edits again would, in my opinion, be arbitrary on the part of you administrators, because you do not know what will come out of the discussion and which rain will be set up for references for identifiers. --Gymnicus (talk) 10:10, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed my proposal is that you remove references to identifiers not at all. Lymantria (talk) 17:13, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose an unblock per the argument by Lymantria. --Leyo 11:11, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Leyo: Because you were already carried out several months ago and also undone edits that were discussed by with, the question now comes to you: Why should such self-referencing be valid? What is shown in the references can also be cited as qualifiers and then does not need a self-referencing reference. Personally, I would see this approach as more sensible and that would certainly be a good compromise. But first of all I would like to know why self-referencing references should be valid? --Gymnicus (talk) 14:16, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We are not going to discuss this again. Just briefly, such references may contain information on the date of verification, the name or other identifiers in the database. Such information may be useful at some point, e.g. should there be changes to the database later. References of identifiers are even queried in certain Wikipedia modules. Leyo 21:04, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat:  Oppose Unblock. Removing stuff without good reason is tantamount to vandalism, and I see no contrition here for doing that. Unfortunately, and it's not just on this project, Gymnicus seems to want to have everything his own way without regard to the view of others. S/he correctly says "I don't understand". Quite. S/he should start to understand, and respect the opinions, and work, of others, and begin to work collaboratively. This is a repeated objection to a renewed unblock request and could, without criticism, have been left here. Rodhullandemu (talk) 11:34, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per Lymantria, I would be prepared to unblock here if Gymnicus were to offer a clear promise not to remove any references from identifiers. If future circumstances change (e.g. via the RFC mentioned above), then any admin may lift or modify the restriction as appropriate. Gymnicus remains free to advocate for the removal of references. Bovlb (talk) 16:06, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bovlb: Didn't I write this exactly in my new promise? --Gymnicus (talk) 17:46, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, it differs in the sense that an admin may lift the restriction, based on change of circumstances. In your promise it was yourself to judge, and I have seen that you stretch such judgements in your own opinion's benefit. Lymantria (talk) 18:37, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Lymantria: No! Or am I wrong that an administrator ends an request for comment and not the person who created the request for comment or a “normal” person? --Gymnicus (talk) 18:53, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote in your new promise "At least until the end of this opinion-forming process, I can promise that I will not delete any identifier found. Based on the request for comment, you then probably have to reassess the situation." The second sentence is not sufficiently clear for me, I read it so that you can draw your own conclusions. Lymantria (talk) 18:59, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Lymantria: “Based on the request for comment, you then probably have to reassess the situation.” – But in the sentence there is the important word “you”. I would be new if I meant myself by “you” in English. The “you” refers to you. Perhaps I could have written “you administrators” to specify more precisely. If it is important to you, then you are welcome to make this exchange. --Gymnicus (talk) 11:37, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As Lymantria says, given recent history, I don't think anyone is going to accept a promise that includes the proviso that you are the judge of when the restriction ends. I think that "Any admin may" is the weakest plausible end condition here. Bovlb (talk) 19:08, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Blocks aren't applied lightly. I think an unblock is only plausible if the reasons for it are accepted or successfully argued against. I see neither applying here. Rodhullandemu (talk) 00:18, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bovlb: Because the English translation of my German text can apparently be interpreted differently, I will give you the German original text and you can have it translated by a German-speaking administrator such as Emu, MisterSynergy or ChristianKl and then decide on the basis.
  • original version: “Mindestens bis zum Ende des Meinungsbildprozesses kann ich versprechen, dass ich keine Fundstellen von Identifikatoren lösche. Aufgrund des Meinungsbildes müsst ihr dann wahrscheinlich die Situation neu bewerten.”
  • revised variant: “Mindestens bis zum Ende des Meinungsbildprozesses verspreche ich, dass ich keine Fundstellen von Identifikatoren lösche. Aufgrund des Meinungsbildes müsst ihr Administratoren dann wahrscheinlich die Situation neu bewerten.”
--Gymnicus (talk) 12:08, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Go with User:Bovlb's offer above. In case you manage to change the circumstances with an RfC, we are not going to keep up restrictions that are based on superseded policies or rules. This does not need to be codified here. —MisterSynergy (talk) 23:43, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request for unblock (3)[edit]

X mark.svg
Unblock request declined

This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason.

block logipblocklistcrossblockluxo'sunblockremove gblock • contribs: +/-

Request reason:
I hereby again ask for unblocking and I promise again that I will not delete any references from identifiers at least until the subject of "references for identifiers" has been fully clarified, by which I mean the termination of the request for comment I had planned by an administrator. --Gymnicus (talk) 15:46, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
No progress in discussion.


беларуская (тарашкевіца) | čeština | Deutsch | English | español | français | Nederlands | português | svenska | русский | +/−


I have been holding back from commenting here, because I don’t have anything new to say, and I wanted to leave space for others to respond. As no-one else has replied, I thought it might be helpful for me to clarify my position on the matter. First a timeline:

  • On 2021-10-11, you were blocked (three namespace, one week) for the continued removal of references from identifiers despite objections, following a thread at WD:AN.
  • On 2021-10-14, you were unblocked on condition that “until the topic has been clarified that I can only use such references in this way (by replacing) delete and refrain from the other deletions for the time being”.
  • On 2021-10-20, you resumed the deletion of references on identifiers, apparently because you somehow concluded that the issue had been resolved in your favour.
  • Apparently no-one else saw it that way, and you were reblocked on 2021-10-22 (three namespaces, indefinite).
  • On 2021-10-23, you made an unblock request, promising “I will not delete any identifier found locations until clarification”. It was made clear to you by several users that, given the recent history, the community did not trust you to determine when (if ever) it would be acceptable for you to resume the deletion of references on identifiers.
  • On 2021-11-12, I made an unblock offer, conditional on your not removing any references from identifiers until an administrator told you explicitly that this editing restriction was lifted or modified. You responded with various variations on your original request and, in particular, did not accept my offer.
  • On 2021-12-01, I declined the unblock request, as no-one was prepared to unblock you, and no progress was being made in discussion.
  • On 2021-12-26, you made the current unblock request with the condition “I will not delete any references from identifiers at least until the subject of "references for identifiers" has been fully clarified, by which I mean the termination of the request for comment I had planned by an administrator.”

Although your latest unblock request is more specific, I still see it as having essentially the same flaw described above. As you do not appear to understand or accept what is being asked from you as a condition of unblocking, I regret that I cannot unblock you at this time. I'm not (yet) formally declining the request because I hope that we can make more progress in discussion this time around. I'd really like to see you unblocked and able to contribute fully to the project, and I don't understand why you are unwilling or unable to accept my offer.

An aside: You noted in a thread at Project Chat that your situation (being blocked only from three namespaces) is somewhat special. A partial block is a fairly new feature in the software, and we are still evolving policy and practice around it. Broadly speaking, it is used for generally constructive and valued contributors to provide temporary guardrails while they are having trouble controlling their own conduct in a specific area, with the expectation that the situation will soon be resolved. It is a crude tool that is only useful in narrow circumstances and is intended purely as a short-term measure. If an editor shows a long-term inability to conduct themselves appropriately, I believe the community has little patience for maintaining such guardrails for them. This explains why you don't see a lot of partial blocks. Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 19:49, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

“As you do not appear to understand or accept what is being asked from you as a condition of unblocking, I regret that I cannot unblock you at this time. [...] I don't understand why you are unwilling or unable to accept my offer.” – As I already said in the discussion about the previous unlock request, I am already fulfilling your request with my promises. That's why I don't have to accept your offer, because my promise has already fulfilled this offer. I don't understand why you don't see it that way.
“It is a crude tool that is only useful in narrow circumstances and is intended purely as a short-term measure.” – Not every administrator sees it the way you do, at least not Nikki. Because she pronounced this infinite block, and only for the three named namespaces. I didn't even notice that the first block of Mahir256 was only a block for the three namespaces. The block was lifted after just three days.
“In the event that Gymnicus's current partial block is upgraded to a full block, we can deactivate the template.” – This quote is from another discussion, but it fits better here than on the project chat, because you have already indirectly addressed this approach here in this discussion. What kind of argument do you want to justify a total block with? In relation to myself, I see no reason that would justify an expansion of the block. --Gymnicus (talk) 17:36, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gymnicus: You state "I am already fulfilling your request with my promises." If that is the case, which I am not convinced of by the wording you choose, why don't you just literally state the promise as indicated? The fact that you didn't until now makes me very suspicious. In fact, that you even after a couple of months are not able to get the real promise from your keyboard, I think is very worrisome. Lymantria (talk) 18:24, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like I (and others) have explained several times what we see as the key difference between your promises and my offer, but I will try again. Your various promises share the property that you are the one who decides when the restriction ends, perhaps gated by the fate of an RFC that doesn’t seem to be happening. This is not acceptable to me (or, I believe, to the community) precisely because of what happened with your first unblock and subsequent reblock. There your promise included the qualifier “until the topic has been clarified”, and you subsequently exercised poor judgement by resuming your prior behaviour when there was no indication that the community supported your position. My unblock offer includes the condition that an administrator be the one to explicitly lift or modify the restriction. This is motivated by a desire to protect both you and the community from a repeat of the previous problems.
This is not an infinite block, but an indefinite one. This means that it should end, not at some specific point in time, but when it appears that it is no longer necessary to protect the project from disruption. The door is open.
There’s not a lot of precedent or policy for partial blocks, especially on this project, but my observation is that they tend to be either lifted or converted to full blocks. I really don’t want to go down the latter path – I value your contributions, and I’m trying hard here to get you unblocked – but if this unblock discussion proves unfruitful, I think you’re heading in that direction. Bovlb (talk) 19:17, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am declining this unblock request because nothing has changed since the last unblock request, and there is no indication that anything is going to change. If you choose to make another unblock request, I strongly recommend that you come to the table with something new. You can’t keep offfering the same promises that everyone has already rejected in the hope of getting a different result. Bovlb (talk) 00:50, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Property creator right removed[edit]

I have removed your property creator right, as I do not believe the community currently has confidence in your judgement and ability to assess consensus. You are welcome to reapply. CC @Ymblanter Bovlb (talk) 22:27, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not request deletion for Q110561516[edit]

Brianna Laugher (Q110561516) is the artist who created the artwork Mount Lushan Fog (Q110561880), a featured picture on Wikimedia Commons which is considered one of the finest images in Commons. As such, this item clearly meets the notibility requirements.  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Baskaufs (talk • contribs).

@Baskaufs: It was only later that I noticed this structural benefit. That's why I removed the deletion suggestion for the data object Brianna Laugher (Q110561516) shortly afterwards. --Gymnicus (talk) 19:29, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]