User talk:Infovarius

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome to Wikidata, Infovarius!

Wikidata is a free knowledge base that you can edit! It can be read and edited by humans and machines alike, and you can help. Go to any item page now and add to this ever-growing database!
Need some help getting started? Here are some pages you can familarise yourself with:

If you have any questions, please ask me on my talk page. If you want to try out editing, you can use the sandbox to try. Once again, welcome, and I hope you quickly feel comfortable here, and become an active editor for Wikidata.

Regards, --Ymblanter (talk) 17:34, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Привет, Ярослав :) Infovarius (talk) 17:38, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

stag (Q29838881) / doe (Q46643175)[edit]

Why do you think modeling them as subclass of (P279) of male (Q44148) / female organism (Q43445) is a good idea. There was no contraint violation of sex or gender (P21) reported. --Succu (talk) 22:34, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

@Succu: How is it there is no CoVi?? Please read constraints for sex or gender (P21): subject of the item should be some instance of (P31) of person (Q215627) or similar. Then, I think that modelling "male deer" as subclass of "male organism" is very logical and doesn't violate any constraint. Why do you think that this is not a good idea? --Infovarius (talk) 13:30, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
We should proceed here. --Succu (talk) 22:39, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

artwork series (Q15709879)[edit]

The description artwork series (Q15709879) is fine when the form of the art is to be left unspecified, or the group is mixed or of physical art. But using it in place of musical composition (Q207628) means that we no longer know what kind of art is in the series. When all the music was assembled and published as a single composition, we can safely call it a musical composition (Q207628) instead of artwork series (Q15709879). --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:43, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: were these concerts assembled and regarded as a single composition? If you want to specify that they are pieces of music we can use qualifier of (P642) musical composition (Q207628). --Infovarius (talk) 14:06, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, they were assembled and published together as a unit. The assemblage bears a single title; the components have only nicknames or descriptions, but originally had no titles of their own. This seems to have happened a lot in the Baroque period, and not so much afterwards. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

R (Q206904)[edit]


You wanted to know why I removed these: [2]. It was because of information overload. Most were repetitions of the "programming paradigm" field. Also, "programming language" is redundant to "multi-paradigm programming language". The later gives all the information that the former gives.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 02:07, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa: I see the redundancy. But there is 2 approaches: using special class or using special property for indicating e.g. paradigm. The approaches are quite parallel and which of them to use is not yet defined (or do you know some RfC about choosing?). So I'd prefer to use both for a while. --Infovarius (talk) 13:20, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Paprika (2006 film)[edit]

Hello Infovarius!

Sorry i do not speak well in English. I am Hungarian. The paprika feature film, this really right. But does not display this unfortunately in the Hungarian at us. But it, that whole evening film. "játékfilm = Feautre Film" The feature film film like that, that played real stories, stories guessed even as characters by way of actors or animated figures even, through scenes directed by a director taken in a script introduces. "egész estés film = Whole Evening Film" 80-90 minute films are the whole evening films in the average. What is a whole evening film, it much longer, we say it 2 clockmaker you are a film yet longer. Nowadays all of the evening film generally the 80 and 210 minute ones mean films. 60 and 120 mean ones between a minute generally at the child films. But what is longer than 1 clockmaker film, you are at least 1 clockmaker film, we may regard it as whole evening one already. In the Hungarian wiki this expression, which is not important in him, appears unfortunately let the box be-ban and very much lengthens the text at us the box-ban, this would need to substitute instead of the whole evening film the feature film expression let in the huwiki appear. I hope so you understood what I wrote.

You're Welcome:. --Vakondka (talk) 09:19, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Vakondka! I am sorry, I don't understand all what you've written (may be you try to write in Hungarian, and I'll try to translate it with Google Translate?). As I understand, in Hungarian there could be 2 not equal terms, "játékfilm" and "egész estés film" (why only "evening"?). I used Q24869 as a quite long, self-consistent film (in opposition to short film (Q24862)). At least in Russian this item means so, but I agree with phrase in en-wiki: "The majority of feature films are between 70 and 210 minutes long". Which of your terms is better suited for this item? --Infovarius (talk) 13:09, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I think we solved it that long expression did not appear in Hungarian now, but in English knew to do let us not lose info. But wiki I write to you in an e-mail in Hungarian, what I thought of punctually how. --Vakondka (talk) 21:53, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I sent it to you through the surface of the wikipedia e-mail in a message on a Hungarian language. --Vakondka (talk) 09:58, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

part of (P361)[edit]

Hi! I removed part of (P361) because it requires, in the other item, has part (P527); moreover, in my opinion facet of (P1269) is sufficient in this case. Am I wrong? Thank you! --Epìdosis 18:10, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

New types[edit]

Before adding non-standard types to P31, could you bring it up on WP movies?
--- Jura 10:49, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think silent short film (Q20667187) is more non-standard type than e.g. animated film (Q202866) or short film (Q24862). --Infovarius (talk) 13:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
@Jura1: But why did you mass-revert of admin's additions without discussion? See Q4415135 --Infovarius (talk) 13:59, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • It is, at least compared to short film (Q24862). Periodically, I clean up and complete film project related items. I didn't investigate in detail who added what and when. I did advise some users of problematic conversions.
    --- Jura 17:35, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Can you stop this .. it just adds more to cleanup.
    --- Jura 02:32, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Thans for deleting P279[edit]

Thanks, you for deleting this property, it was a awful failure from me. -- Спасибоб, Вы оказали мне болшой помощь. Вчера старалься исправлать эту глупую ошибкуб но не получилось. С приветом. Texaner (talk) 13:40, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (Film)[edit]

Hello Infovarius! The feature film dot, that reports the whole evening film (film like that, that would be able to amount to a cinema program merely, and not double could be going as the part of feature only for example. That trouble, the Hungarian wikiben display it so: egész estés film. This very much info at us in the box and pulls it apart very much. It would be necessary to make changes in this info in the Hungarian in order to be a word short one with an expression there. Máté Hungarian editor tries to reflect on how he should be, but we may eliminate it somehow in the scheme theoretically. --Vakondka (talk) 08:38, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

No the aim that he should get out would be needed in the Hungarian some other way to express the info, it it would be necessary to change it to something somehow in order for an expression to be shorter, back up let him be found. --Vakondka (talk) 08:47, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Feature film[edit]

Hello! Máté solved my problem. Back up I make it for you everywhere the feature expression. :) --Vakondka (talk) 13:41, 28 January 2018 (UTC)


Добрый день. Можно ли заблокировать и отменить все правки данного участника User:Maitsavend, так как практически не один его перевод на татарский язык не является правильным, участник сам придумывает словосочетания, слова, можно в этом убедиться открыв словарь или переводчик.--Damir (talk) 07:15, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Re: merge Wiktionary appendices with real terms[edit]

Hi Infovarius, if you disagree/feel that it's improper, please feel free to revert. Have a nice day. :) Osteologia (talk) 16:57, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

@Osteologia: If I was sure I would do like this :) I am just willing to discuss. --Infovarius (talk) 14:06, 2 February 2018 (UTC)


Hi, look this: Because is a useless parameter, there isn't date for that, and there is a problem in italian wikipedia with it:Mercurio (astronomia), becasue "sconosciuto" in the template it must not appear.--Kirk39 (talk) 10:58, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

@Kirk39: I don't understand why it shouldn't? It seems to me quite relevant information. --Infovarius (talk) 14:09, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Mercury, like sun, moon and all planets up to Saturn, it's known since ancient times, it's impossible to known that parameter (date, and the author too).--Kirk39 (talk) 14:16, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Sport, or not sport, that is the question[edit]


I notice you changed

⟨ winter sport (Q204686) View with Reasonator View with SQID ⟩ subclass of (P279) View with SQID ⟨ sport (Q349) View with Reasonator View with SQID ⟩


⟨ winter sport (Q204686) View with Reasonator View with SQID ⟩ subclass of (P279) View with SQID ⟨ type of sport (Q31629) View with Reasonator View with SQID ⟩


Now all sports subclass of (P279) of winter sport (Q204686) used in value for sport (P641) triggers a constraint violation (not being a subclass of (P279) of sport (Q349)). That's annoying as there is a lot, especially now with the 2018 Winter Olympics (Q9680).

What should we do, revert your change or modify the constraint?

Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 08:26, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

PS: a third solution (maybe a better one?) would be to add on other values as subclass of (P279) on skiing (Q130949) (but not idea which one...).


Infovarius, let me explain my edit and maybe we can agree on resolution. I am working on resolving some of Commons category (P373) constraint violations, and one of the constraints is single value constraint (Q19474404) that maze (Q606777) is violating. It means that we have to pick a single category on Commons for that item, and c:Category:Labyrinths is (at the moment) the parent of c:Category:Mazes, so a better choice. --Jarekt (talk) 12:45, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

@Jarekt: I see. This constrain is sometimes hard to accomplish. In this case I don't really understand the difference between labyrinth and maze (in English). --Infovarius (talk) 10:20, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
There is no difference between labyrinth and maze in popular English, although Labyrinth says that to some maze has branching paths and Labyrinth could include structures with a single path. It is a pretty minor difference but that explains why on Commons c:Category:Labyrinths is the parent of c:Category:Mazes. --Jarekt (talk) 12:55, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Мастацкая літаратура[edit]

Доброго времени суток. Просьба не трогать мои правки. Делаю по образцу русской Википедии. --Artificial123 (talk) 03:54, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

@Artificial123: хотелось бы понять подход. Ибо "літаратура" имхо однозначно указывает, что это не должны быть фильмы. --Infovarius (talk) 10:21, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

admin boundary depr[edit]

Hi, re [3], I agree, I saw the deprecation rules. I filed a bot request to fix all of these, still pending. In the mean time, the current ones should be marked as preferred. --Yurik (talk) 02:01, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, of course. --Infovarius (talk) 10:22, 26 February 2018 (UTC)


Question, is this capitalized? If so, what is the lowercase? thanks. Artix Kreiger 2 (talk) 14:55, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

@Artix Kreiger 2: yep, the small letter is "и". --Infovarius (talk) 18:40, 27 February 2018 (UTC)


Почему ты отменил правку ? (и даже не поинтересовался). Ты умеешь читать по-грузински ? Я вижу что не умеешь... Здесь идет речь о расходе воды а в ка. вики о стоке. Некорректно был указан Интервики. Так что твою правку отменяю. - Otogi (talk) 08:28, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

@Otogi: виноват, простите. Я переводил Гуглом и увидел упоминание разных единиц измерения... А куда тогда эту статью присоединить? Может, в arroyo (Q1437299)? --Infovarius (talk) 15:34, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Нет. ჩამონადენი это конкретно, сток. Извините за поздний ответ. - Otogi (talk) 19:37, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Rank on Q1387882[edit]

Hi, sorry for deleting the old rank. I didn't realise there was a rank field available symbolised by the arrows on the left. However, why did you promote suborder from deprecated to normal? My understanding is that suborder is deprecated. Mvolz (talk) 20:13, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

@Mvolz: deprecated rank in Wikidata is used for some wrong data. While this taxonomic rank (although was deprecated by some classifications) has been regarded as correct some time ago. So we can keep old rank with specific date of deprecation (please add if you know it!). Normal rank in Wikidata is used for historical data, and preferred rank is for actual data. --Infovarius (talk) 12:29, 6 March 2018 (UTC)


это не государство, а вот это - государство. --Shmurak (talk) 15:11, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Category:Animals (Q7157802)[edit]

Re [4] - Commons category (P373) is only supposed to have one value, otherwise it ends up at Wikidata:Database_reports/Constraint_violations/P373#"Single_value"_violations. The value I removed properly belongs at Category:Animalia (Q6254409). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:35, 14 March 2018 (UTC)


Hey :) I'm not sure what you meant by adding measurement scale (P1880) = volume percent (Q2080811) to volume fraction (Q909482)? Both are the same thing, but writen in different way and the percents are not any 'scale' here, but a way to write a fraction. Wostr (talk) 02:30, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

@Wostr: because volume fraction (Q909482) is definitely a quantity. Calling volume percent (Q2080811) a unit is a bit pulling strings but I admit it. --Infovarius (talk) 12:32, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Michael de Vladimir[edit]

Regardez, voici une source pour la date exacte: 12akd (talk) 18:13, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Merci pour la source. Mais elle est "a la home-page" de Miroslav Marek - non trop solide... --Infovarius (talk) 19:54, 18 March 2018 (UTC)



I didn't realise that artificial satellite (Q26540) was about different concept depending on the languages. Shouldn't we split it into two items? ("искусственный спутник Земли" and "искусственный спутник" / "Earth artificial satellite" and "artificial satellite")

Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 07:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

@VIGNERON: can you please give me an example of non-Earth artificial satellite? --Infovarius (talk) 11:46, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Almost all probes send to other planets are non-Earth artificial satellite, look at the articles of exploration of Mars (Q716774) and you can find dozens of examples, e.g. Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (Q183160) which is still operational and currently orbiting Mars. Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 11:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
@VIGNERON: ok, so we have to have 2 items. --Infovarius (talk) 16:48, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
There is two concepts: the general "artificial satellite" and the specific "Earth artificial satellite", the item artificial satellite (Q26540) seems to be about the first but the article in the Wikipedia in Russian seems about the second. That why a suggest to split the item to reflect this distinction. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 17:17, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
@VIGNERON: seems to be about the first - it depends: almost all "what links here" are about Earth. So I am in doubt what is better: to move almost all sitelinks to a new item or to move almost all subclasses and instances to a new item? --Infovarius (talk) 12:08, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Johann Sebastian Bach (Q1339)[edit]

The "classical music" you are citing and referencing is not the value you have added. There are two different meanings of "classical music" in English. One of the meanings is that of Western classical music (Q9730), which is a style dominant in Western European music from about 1750 to 1827. The other meaning of the term is "more serious forms of music, taught through formal education and performed according to strict rules, as opposed to folk music or popular music" (see wikt:en:classical music).

The locations you have cited for calling J. S. Bach "classical" are using the second sense of the term, which is not a genre, and is not represented by the use of Western classical music (Q9730). You would need to use a different data item for that sense of the term. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:22, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Addendum: I have found art music (Q1583807) exists for this purpose. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:56, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Never mind all of the above. This situation was far more confused and tangled than I thought. I have added different from (P1889) to all three of the related data items. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:10, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Former settlements[edit]

Hi! You recently undid some of my work related to former settlements, unfortunately without explanation. As for more generic item, please see Talk:Q22674925. Secondly you merged Q50323443 (former village) into abandoned village (Q350895) while there is a clear distinction. As with Q22674925, not all former villages are former because they were abandoned. I created "former village" item specifically for villages that have been merged into other villages, and that are not known to have become unpopulated or abandoned. I believe that instead of merging, "abandoned village" should be subclass of "former village". Would you be kind enough to explain or to reconsider your actions? 19:06, 28 March 2018 (UTC)


uk [граматичні] роди́ = en grammatical genders ≠ ru ро́ды. Are you sure that you're not massively making other similar mistakes, based on homographs, on Wikidata? --Ата (talk) 16:15, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

@Ата: uk [граматичні] род = en grammatical gender = ru род. Are you sure that you understand all the meanings of ru:род? --Infovarius (talk) 18:45, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
This is correct. I only mean that in this certain edit you mixed роды́ meaning uk:роди with ро́ды meaning uk:пологи (child-birth). --Ата (talk) 19:39, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Ah! Now I understood, I am sorry. I just overviewed recent edits and thought that the aliases was accidently lost and Google Translate (I am sorry for using it) showed me ru:"склонение по родам". --Infovarius (talk) 20:42, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Q10927630 и Q10927615[edit]

Здравствуйте. Дал неточную ссылку в описании правок, поэтому указываю её здесь: ru:Википедия:Форум/Архив/Викиданные/2018/1 полугодие#Wikidata:Q10927630. Пожалуйста, не вносите в третий раз неконсенсусную версию с несуществующими в русской хоккейной терминологии понятиями. С уважением, Sealle (talk) 13:38, 7 April 2018 (UTC)


hello. you reverted my edit on

the bayan is a type of button accordion spesific to Russia, "button accordion" is the general type of accordion with buttons, Bayan would be a subtype of it, not the same, I would write this while making the edit, and indeed I have often wished for a text field of sorts to put justifications in before doing anything. but iiuc it is not possible unless with a bot, if you know of a way to add a description of what one is doing while editing a wikidata item, please tell me! --CatQuest, The Endavouring Cat (talk) 17:08, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok, CatQuest. And I often pity about the absence of edit comments too... --Infovarius (talk) 14:22, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Q48963 ~ Q1091243[edit]

I noticed you revert my edits on Q48963. I partially agree with you because Labyrinth deals with both the palace of Knossos and with traditional labyrinths form Classical times. We must decide what Q48963 deals with. The palace of Knossos (then it should be merged with Q1091243) or the ancient idea of a labyrinth?--Carnby (talk) 11:54, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Carnby! Oh, I didn't know about Q1091243... But I am not sure what is it about: palace or labyrinth? And do you think that much of Q48963 still represents (other) traditional labyrinths? --Infovarius (talk) 12:09, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
In my opinion Wikidata items should be at least three: 1) Original Labyrinth (Palace of Knossos) 2) traditional unicursal labyrinth 3) modern labyrinth (maze).--Carnby (talk) 12:24, 17 April 2018 (UTC)


Hi Infovarius,

I noticed you making these edits, which surely you know are wrong. Why? - Brya (talk) 05:09, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Brya. I would say the same for your edit. Why did you delete correct ast-link? Why do you create nonsensical Q3546082 even not knowing what the article is about? Why do you think that the name of sitelink in an item is wrong as alias? Do you understand what is alias in Wikidata? --Infovarius (talk) 21:19, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi Infovarius,
you are indeed right about the ast-link. My apologies! But I don't see what Q3546082 has to do with it, and I certainly did not create that. As to the names of sitelinks, surely you know that in many cases we add sitelinks to items when they don't belong there, just so that they don't sit isolated in the items where they do belong. That does not mean that their names match the concept of the item. - Brya (talk) 05:14, 12 May 2018 (UTC)


Hello Infovarius,
My English is not very good,In fact,I don't really understand the difference between punctuation mark and punctuation,but my first language is Chinese,in chinese,punctuation (Q82622) is 書面上用於標明句讀和語氣的符號, Chinese description is usually very compendious.Actually article 标点符号 is not only marks but also grammatics,rules and others.and Q24841628 is part of punctuation (Q82622),That is 句讀 is part of 标点符号.But 句讀 is ancient Chinese writing note marks, So 句讀 it's still not the same as punctuation mark.My editor was wrong at the beginning,Should not be redirected 句讀.I know a little Japanese.In Japanese,句読点 is part of 約物.So I think 句読点 is punctuation mark.So I think my editor should have no problem now. As for other languages, I have no idea how to distinguish them, because I do not understand them at all.--chaus (talk) 16:38, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

@Ffffnm: good, let it be so. I believe you. I recommend you in future to check that articles in your language corresponds to the statements (like subclass of (P279), part of (P361) and so on) in the items. --Infovarius (talk) 21:12, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Ok, thanks!--chaus (talk) 02:25, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Your feedback[edit]

Hi Infovarius. I think we addressed your feedback here. Would you kindly respond to it?
--- Jura 07:34, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Ksenia (Q43979833)[edit]

Hey Infovarius, something went wrong your one of your recent batches. You added Ksenia (Q43979833) as given name to many people with variants of (seemingly cyrillic) Georgi as a given name. Can you please check your recent contributions? Thanks, MisterSynergy (talk) 13:20, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

You seem to be ignoring this, but according to this list the problem is quite large. Could you please fix it? Thanks, MisterSynergy (talk) 10:00, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
@MisterSynergy: oh, that's my error, sorry. I'll correct them, yes. --Infovarius (talk) 08:32, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Georgius Agricola[edit]

Hello Infovarius. Are you sure? Your edit on Q76579 seems strange to me. Georgius Agricola is the Latin form for a German name: Georg Bauer. Regards --Chris.urs-o (talk) 07:15, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
@Chris.urs-o: no. He is called "Георгий Агрикола" in Russia, so it is logical for Russian that he has the name Георгий. But I am not sure if we should put it in the item. --Infovarius (talk) 10:11, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Accidentally undoing your edit[edit]

Hi Hi. Sorry for accidentally undoing your edit on Lexeme:L305 and Lexeme:L311, I was actually intending on undoing edits on linked Items and Properties. Adam Shorland (WMDE) (talk) 10:09, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

@Adam Shorland (WMDE): It's OK. You've undone it, so you can even avoid mentioning it :) --Infovarius (talk) 09:56, 29 May 2018 (UTC)


Hi, could I ask what is the reason of this edit? HastaLaVi2 (talk) 21:09, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Error in replyto template: Username not given. See Template:Replyto for usage. because the category contains personal pronouns and thus perfectly fits this item. May I ask you in reverse: what was the reason of deleting it? --Infovarius (talk) 21:15, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Sorry for replying this late, but I got it all wrong that day, even though I speak Turkish. Now I see, sorry. Good day! :) HastaLaVi2 (talk) 20:36, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Undo revision – natural rubber (Q131877)[edit]

Hi, you have undo my edition where I added "NR" as Also-known-as parameter to polish language. I meant the abbreviation of name of rubber which is used in industry like other. For example: polyethylene - PE, polyethylene terephthalate - PTFE and so on. And this abbreviation is approved in US standard (ASTM D1418) and ISO standard (ISO/DIN 1629) (see: In addition this abbreviation exist in english and german Also-known-as. Is my edition can be restored? — Piotr Osada (talk) 14:16, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Lexeme: masculine[edit]

Hi Infovarius, family (P53) is a property for families, including dynasty and nobility houses. For a lexeme like "Theaterintendant" (Lexeme:L2254) grammatical gender (P5185) fits better. --Kolja21 (talk) 19:55, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@Kolja21: of course, it's an obvious error. --Infovarius (talk) 15:30, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the fast reply. I wasn't sure because the translations of the properties might mix different meanings. --Kolja21 (talk) 19:52, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


Я правильно понял что проблема в многочисленности квалификаторов P143 (вполне достаточно одного)? --Ghuron (talk) 13:00, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

@Ghuron: квалификаторы "взято из ХХХ-Википедия" вообще имеют мало смысла - они обычно появляются при различных автоматических импортах из языковых разделов. Я их удаляю как мусор - они всё равно не могут являться настоящими подтверждениями. И да, иметь более одного такого значения добавляет нулей после запятой в их значимость (0,00...1). --Infovarius (talk) 12:08, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Так я и делаю автоматический импорт Face-smile.svg Идея imported from Wikimedia project (P143) не в том, что это ссылка на АИ, а в том, что если оно висит у откровенно неверного утверждения, можно пойти в соответствующий языковой раздел и снести его и там тоже. Но иметь их шлейф смысла никакого нет, я поправил исходный запрос. Спасибо что заметили! --Ghuron (talk) 12:18, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

keyboard emoji reversion[edit]

Hi, you reverted my removal of the "keyboard" (🎹) emoji on the piano saying it quite fits. I actually do see your point, but I respectfully disagree.

"keyboard" is not a piano, but just the keys, and many instruments have a keyboard like this; Organs, synthesizers, melodica, accordion, all have keys like this, and by such logic should all include the "keyboard" (🎹) emoji. I see keyboard emoji more as an emoji for the part of instrument "keyboard" than any one specific instrument. --CatQuest, The Endavouring Cat (talk) 19:07, 14 June 2018 (UTC) note the use of the name "Musical Keyboard" and a general look of only keys and no indication of specifically piano (other than "Also Known As" which, are "fan names" and not official) or any other instrument for that matter. :) --CatQuest, The Endavouring Cat (talk) 19:11, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

@CatCat: Yes, you're right. --Infovarius (talk) 11:35, 17 June 2018 (UTC)


Dear Infovarious,

Why did you undo my edit?Caleb The Wipper (talk) 02:03, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

@Caleb The Wipper: how can a voice be a watercourse? --Infovarius (talk) 11:32, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

[1] I did not list it as a watercourse. Caleb The Wipper (talk) 00:55, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I just realized the problem. I linked it to Q491713 when I should have linked it to Q11461. Stupid English language having multiple meanings for the word "sound"Caleb The Wipper (talk) 01:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

@Caleb The Wipper: yes, I understand. But again, P31=Q491713 is redundant (and wrong) as there is already P279=natural sound (Q6980787) (which is subclass of sound (Q491713)). --Infovarius (talk) 14:05, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  1. citeurl=}}%7Ctitle=diff

Грамматическая категория лица у форм глаголов[edit]

Привет! Я заметил, что для Russian (Q7737) ты добавил в свойство has grammatical person (P5110) значения типа third-person feminine singular (Q52431970). И я было подумал их ипользовать в описании грамматических признаков у форм глаголов, но не нашел варианта для «первое лицо женский род единственное число», «первое лицо мужской род единственное число». Насколько я понял это предложение ещё не принято, но есть отдельные first person (Q21714344), second person (Q51929049) и third person (Q51929074). В общем я тут пока путаюсь с описанием лексем. Не подскажешь, как лучше делать на примере идти и пойти? Don Rumata 16:22, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

@DonRumata: Привет, я сам не знаю, что лучше использовать. Действительно, обсуждается ещё. --Infovarius (talk) 11:11, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Graduate student vs graduate student[edit]

Would you please explain how these two items are different, and how separating the ja/zh sitelinks from the de/ru etc sitelinks is useful to our readers? --Deryck Chan (talk) 11:30, 29 June 2018 (UTC)


Здравствуйте, Infovarius. Не подскажете какое свойство лучше использовать в элементах маскотов организаций/мероприятий, чтобы указать организацию/мероприятие, к которому относится данный маскот? Я заметил, что другие участники используют свойства "facet of/тематически относится к" (P1269) или "represents/представляет" (P1268), чтобы указать организацию/мероприятие, к которому относится маскот.

Как Вы считаете, какое из этих двух свойств (P1269, P1268) наиболее подходящее для маскотов? Наверное, если какое-то из них подходит больше, то стоит убрать дублирующее свойство в таких элементах, как вот этот: (World Cup Willie). Там представлены сразу два этих свойства.

Еще хотел спросить на счет обозначений (меток) на русском языке для элементов персоналий. Я правильно понимаю, в Викиданных стандарт — это «имя отчество фамилия», как вот в этом элементе: (Александр Сергеевич Пушкин)?--Russian Rocky (talk) 13:41, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

@Russian Rocky: Я точно не берусь выбрать, по названию оба свойства мне нравятся. Конечно, первое более общее, поэтому если со вторым все согласны, то лучше использовать второе. Однако в вашем примере P1268 вызывает CoVi (constraint violation), т.к. задумано, что у этого свойства значения должны быть только люди или организации. Но если что, можно попробовать расширить его, добавив и события (или мероприятия).
Насчёт персоналий - да, обсуждали здесь на форуме, что лучше иметь прямой порядок, а все остальные добавлять в синонимы. Даже в воздухе висит необходимость пройтись ботом и исправить это. --Infovarius (talk) 12:35, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Наверное, я попозже подниму этот вопрос на странице свойства P1268. Теперь, когда с русскими названиями персоналий все предельно ясно, то я буду по возможности исправлять все встречающиеся ФИО, унося их в синонимы. Спасибо за Ваши ответы и потраченное на меня время.--Russian Rocky (talk) 23:51, 14 July 2018 (UTC)


These two (benzodiazepine (Q9168929), benzodiazepine (Q83871)) items are about different classes of compounds. The first about dibenzodiazepines (every compound having e.g. 1,4-benzodiazepine, 1,5-benzodiazepine etc. ring system), the second about compounds of the general struture File:Benzodiazepine a.svg showing psychoactive properties. Please keep it in mind when editing these two items (I had to revert one of your edit). Thanks, Wostr (talk) 17:28, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Also, you've copied MeSH ID and BabelNet ID to the other item and now these two ids are present in both items. I think both ids are describing concepts described in benzodiazepine (Q83871), not in benzodiazepine (Q9168929) (the MeSH is a medical database and in BabelNet entry there are medical categories linked to the entry). Regards, Wostr (talk) 17:31, 14 July 2018 (UTC)


One might hunt

SELECT ?billionaire ?billionaireLabel WHERE {
  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE],en". }
  ?billionaire wdt:P31 wd:Q1062083.
  MINUS { ?billionaire wdt:P31 wd:Q5. }

Try it! another time through Petscan. :)

Cheers, --Marsupium (talk) 17:33, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Aha, thanks for noticing, User:Marsupium! I am fixing them now. --Infovarius (talk) 21:07, 16 July 2018 (UTC)


Please, read the property documentation before doing such edits (or at least post some reasons for you revert in the description, not just a comma). phase of matter (P515) is a qualifier only and there is simply no reason for indicating state of matter in such way. There're melting and boiling points for indicating state of matter in given temperature. Could you restore my deletion or give me some explanation? Regards, Wostr (talk) 23:13, 16 July 2018 (UTC)


?? Which anachronistic claims are you talking about? -- Blackcat (talk) 08:01, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

@Blackcat: because modern state was initiated at 1946 and before that there were different other states like Kingdom of Italy (Q172579). Infovarius (talk) 23:32, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Infovarius, there's no State discontinuity. Italy has been an unitarian State since 1861 and its only variation is that until 1946 was a monarchy. But the State is the same. -- Blackcat (talk) 08:41, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Empty field[edit]

Thanks for your correction. The field seems to be empty - or am I missing something? Maybe you know that the person was married, but no name? Sian EJ (talk) 10:35, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

@Sian EJ: this special value means that he had no wife. --Infovarius (talk) 23:39, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Removed claim: subclass of (P279): human (Q5) from 'woman'[edit]

Hi Infovarius

Could you explain to me your reason for this edit?

(Firstly, it's not a woman, which is at woman (Q467)) I would say that this is P31=gender (Q48277) but then we should also delete Homo sapiens (Q15978631)... --Infovarius (talk) 09:47, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

organofluorine chemistry (Q1090893) and organofluorine (Q2200141)[edit]

Hi, you reverted my merge of these two and perhaps rightly so, but the problem with something like the organofluorine compounds is that there is more or less by definition not much more to them than their chemistry. If we are to keep both items, I suggest moving all the sitelinks to one of the items, I think organofluorine (Q2200141) is best. Some wikis choose a name that include «chemistry», others not, but afaics they are all very similar in scope and should be linked to each other. Are you ok with that solution? Danmichaelo (talk) 19:15, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

@Danmichaelo: I agree that there is such problem. One solution is to move (almost) all sitelinks to one item (but it has drawback that claims would be incompatible with titles), the other is to keep sitelinks at right places (but then we have no all interwiki links between them). Ontologically I prefer the second solution. And the drawback can be solved by some hacks, one of them - to create redirects at Wikipedias with proper names which would be at proper items. If we have a pair of article/redirect at each wiki, we have a full interwiki-linking between them. But this solution is quite tedious... --Infovarius (talk) 09:52, 24 July 2018 (UTC)


Hi. I'm not sure what is the concern that led to this edit. My understanding is that, despite sharing the same name and being both musical terms, C major (Q1022293) is a major scale (Q190812) (according to its Wikipedia article), while C major (Q55706505) is a major chord (Q2372455). Perhaps the way the Wikidata items are modeled don't correspond exactly to the Wikipedia articles connected to them? Please clarify. Regards, Waldir (talk) 21:16, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I see now. You've duplicated C major (Q55706505) from D major (Q50286885) and forgotten to change labels (ru) so I saw it like D major (Q50286885)... Now I've fixed them both. --Infovarius (talk) 21:05, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Subclasses of landforms[edit]

You have changes numerous items to be subclasses of landform, instead "instance of". Landforms like Mount Queets (Q29633678) and Lot's wife (Q24566570) are concrete objects at particular location. They are not types of landform (like mountain (Q8502) or valley (Q39816)) and so they shouldn't be marked as subclass of landform. 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:CD58:9119:4D87:E170 11:37, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh, that's an error... (because they have no coordinates I've regarded them as classes...) Thanks for noticing, I'll try to revert wrong ones tomorrow. --Infovarius (talk) 21:08, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
I worked some time, please check what is left. --Infovarius (talk) 12:37, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Собор Святого Александра Невского» (Q1603677)[edit]

Вы отменили мою правку. Однако, никакого "регистрационного номера культурного наследия" российским ресурсом не могло быть присвоено памятнику на Украине. Поскольку 15-значные номера и ЕГРОКН действуют с 2014 года. Это ошибка. Если Вы не согласны, то прошу представить АИ на рег. номер 8231626000, по сути являющийся сегодня плодом самодеятельного творчества группы заинтересованных граждан проекта Викигид. --Frutti-mytti (talk) 05:37, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Да, действительно, смог подтвердить только номер 911711040770005 для собора... --Infovarius (talk) 08:43, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Moscow - capital of Russia - former capital - city[edit]

По поводу этой правки: [6]. Почему избыточно? Сейчас получается, что она не является столицей (Q5119) и скрипт ( по wdt:P31/wdt:P279* wd:Q5119 не покажет Москву. То есть где-то должно быть явно указано, что она столица, или я что-то не понимаю? Dhārmikatva (talk) 18:22, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

@Dhārmikatva: Потому что она уже capital of Russia (Q4442912). Хм, Q4442912 не было подклассом столицы, а только "бывшей столицы"... Я добавил, но может быть это неверно и вы правы, что нужно особо указывать для текущих столиц... В любом случае сейчас есть:
SELECT ?item ?label ?_image WHERE {
  ?item wdt:P31/wdt:P279* wd:Q5119.
  ?item wdt:P17 wd:Q159.
  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "ru" . ?item rdfs:label ?label } 

Try it!

P.S. Блин, сколько же мелочи в столицах сидит (закомментируйте строчку про Россию)! --Infovarius (talk) 08:27, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Ну теперь тоже не совсем верно. Смоленск проходит как wd:Q5119, но не должен проходить (ибо не столица). Хотя может он и раньше проходил... Dhārmikatva (talk) 15:21, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
    Я его не менял, так и было. Но ведь он столица Смоленской области, не так ли? :) А ещё я имел в виду, что по всему миру столиц гораздо больше:
SELECT ?item ?itemLabel ?countryLabel WHERE {
  ?item wdt:P31/wdt:P279* wd:Q5119.
  ?item wdt:P17 ?country.
  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "ru,[AUTO_LANGUAGE],en". }

Try it! --Infovarius (talk) 15:40, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

removal of uses from directed acyclic graph (Q1195339)[edit]

Why were the uses removed from Q1195339? Some cryptocurrencies use blockdags (block directed acyclic graphs)

I am referring to this edit

TB5ivVaO1y55FkAogw1X (talk) 01:29, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

@TB5ivVaO1y55FkAogw1X: because acyclic graphs don't use cryptocurrencies. Or did you mean different property - used by (P1535)? --Infovarius (talk) 16:04, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
@Infovarius: Oh yes I meant used by (P1535), I didn't notice I used the wrong property, thanks! TB5ivVaO1y55FkAogw1X (talk) 01:10, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Meow.ogg removal on house cat (Q146)[edit]

Please explain. —Tom.Reding (talk) 02:38, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

@Tom.Reding: please explain why do you insist that File:Institute of Zoology NASU (9).jpg is audiofile? --Infovarius (talk) 15:43, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Советское гражданство у Бессоновой[edit]

Добрый день! Это такой же Орисс, как проставить в место рождения "СССР" человеку 1985 года рождения с русской фамилией и российским паспортом при отсутствии данных в АИ. Но обсуждать этот момент здесь смысла нет, вопрос более глобальный. Ведь можно же по такой логике просто ботом пройтись по всем персоналиям с гражданством Украина, местом рождения Киев и датой рождения между 1946 и 1991, подставив им гражданство СССР.--Сидик из ПТУ (talk) 18:03, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

@Сидик из ПТУ: можно, я не против :) Я понимаю, что могут быть какие-то единичные исключения (семья увезла младенца сразу после рождения и потом вернулись уже после распада СССР), но они же настолько редкие, разве не так? --Infovarius (talk) 15:49, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Это бессмысленные домыслы, из-за них в карточки людям 1990 года рождения полезет советский флаг. Опять же, аналогия с местом рождения "СССР": очень редкие случаи, когда младенец рождался за пределами СССР, но являлся его гражданином.Сидик из ПТУ (talk) 15:53, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
@Сидик из ПТУ: Насчёт первого предложения - 1990 год, может, и преувеличение. Как насчёт отсекать где-нибудь по 1987 году (т.е. если родился в СССР до 1987 года, то имел гражданство СССР)? Второе предложение не понял: где я утверждал, что рождённый за пределами СССР является его гражданином? Кстати, о какой Бессоновой идёт речь? --Infovarius (talk) 16:07, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Мы ничего отсекать не должны, такой подход — чистейший ОРИСС и додумывание, я сравниваю это с идеей считать всех граждан СССР, родившихся после 1945 года, по умолчанию родившимися в СССР, если в АИ нет точного места рождения. А конфликт у нас возник тут: Anna Bessonova (Q253461) Сидик из ПТУ (talk) 17:15, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Элемент Викиданных[edit]

Здравствуйте, коллега! Раз уж вы отменили мою правку, то сделайте, пожалуйста, так, чтобы Роберт Адамсон стал в инфобоксе директором школы, а не завучем. Eugene M (talk) 23:28, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Придётся мне, видимо, откатить вашу правку? Eugene M (talk) 17:08, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Коллега, я объяснил свою правку. Причина — Адамсон. Вы же ничего не ответили и ничего не предприняли. Eugene M (talk) 22:43, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

@Eugene M: ага, вижу проблему. Давайте тогда определимся, Q1056391 всё-таки про завуча (и тогда моя метка правильная) или про директора школы (и тогда русскую статью надо уносить в другой элемент)? Я почему подумал, что это про завуча (кроме русской статьи) - в английской метке-описании написано "head teacher" и к тому же ведёт занятия. А директор школы не обязан вести занятия (да и по-английски обычно называется "headmaster"). --Infovarius (talk) 16:13, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Как уж они там за бугром себя называют, не знаю. Но headmaster тут стоит как синоним head teacher. Видать, отсюда и проблемы. Eugene M (talk) 18:51, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
@Infovarius:, директор Адамсон всё ещё числится завучем. Надо что-то делать. Eugene M (talk) 23:18, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
@Infovarius:, в этих [...] Викиданных что, не существует должности директора школы? Ну сколько уже можно смотреть на дезинформацию в статье об Адамсоне? Вы откатили мою правку, сами же ничего не предпринимаете. Eugene M (talk) 16:14, 20 September 2018 (UTC)


Please, stop mass adding country of citizenship Russian Empire to the people, who have nothing to do with it. (Example) --Silesianus (talk) 12:38, 15 August 2018 (UTC)


In you wondered why I had entered dramaturge (Q487596) subclass of (P279) researcher (Q1650915). I made that claim based on its English Wikipedia article lede: "A dramaturge or dramaturg is a literary adviser or editor in a theatre, opera, or film company who researches, selects, adapts, edits, and interprets scripts, libretti, texts, and printed programmes (or helps others with these tasks), consults with authors, and does public relations work." Since "researches" was the first word in the job description, I added "researcher" to the subclasses. Runner1928 (talk) 18:39, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Help us improving the user experience of Lexicographical Data[edit]


I’m Jan, doing research on user experience in the Wikidata team. I’m currently discussing with people who are editing Lexemes, in order to understand their needs better, and improve their experience with the interface.

We noticed that you have been actively editing Lexemes recently (thank you for that!) and we would love to have a discussion with you about what you’re doing, how you work, what motivates you to create Lexemes, and how you imagine reusing the data later.

This discussion would take place as an individual interview with one of our designers. Via the communication platform of your choice, you’ll be able to share your screen, show how you’re currently editing the data and chat with us. The discussion would take between 30 and 60 min, we will set up the appointment depending on when you are available. Depending on your preferred language, the discussion can happen in English, German or French.

If you’re interested, feel free to reply to this message or send me an email:

If you don’t want to be contacted by us on this topic anymore, please let me know.

Thanks a lot for your help Jan Dittrich (WMDE) (talk) 11:39, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

IPA and "язык произведения или названия" (P407)[edit]

Hi, I wonder why you made series of removals of language of work or name (P407) from mango (L7565) (like this). I wonder because in IPA transcription (P898) there is constraint property constraint (P2302) mandatory qualifier constraint (Q21510856) property (P2306) language of work or name (P407). KaMan (talk) 06:29, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

@KaMan: constraint, I see. I made this because they are redundant in a Lexeme (it is obvious that in Polish word we show Polish transcription, why would it be otherwise?). And at the same time they are necessary for transcription in Items... So now I start thinking that it is wrong to use the same property IPA transcription (P898) for items and lexemes. Or may be to exclude this property from items completely? Because notion can't have any pronunciation, only words describing it can have (and they can be different!) --Infovarius (talk) 16:19, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
@Infovarius: I not agree. We have various dialects in Polish and the same Polish word can be pronounced differently so language of work or name (P407) is needed to point out if this is general Polish or dialectal one. See for example into Wiktionary (L3402), there are five IPAs and each has different language of work or name (P407). This property is not redundant at all. KaMan (talk) 07:18, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Q327742 revert will help ja community, thanks[edit]

FYI, I am proposing label change at village pump (ja) for d:Q327742; it's present page title in ja suggests it's for field and athletics, but there is d:Q12469953 for that deffinition. Thank you reverting my misunderstanding, and hopefully ja community would agree to rename Q327742 as for swimming. --Omotecho (talk) 11:07, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Hey, Omotecho, wait! Actually I was too bold in removing the category (taking only Russian label into account). We should investigate labels and sitelinks for all languages at the same time, if to do it properly. There is non-zero probability that this category item should be splitted to two! --Infovarius (talk) 16:22, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
OK, my motive was in a similar situation as taking Japanese into account. Do you go ahead and move this problem into some public light, say, community portal please? I'm not sure of what's the best as I'm a data geek but not used to discussion kind of elements here. --Omotecho (talk) 16:51, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Senior lecturer ()[edit]

Hi Inforvarius,

Can you explain why you reverted my edit on this item? I know you have indicated that you disagree with the statement instance of (P31)academic rank (Q486983) but I don't understand why. The first sentence of the English Wikipedia article is "Senior lecturer is an academic rank" and a translation of the Russian Wikipedia article indicates that it has the same meaning. I suspect that usage of senior lecturer varies in different countries (like professor, for example) and it might be necessary to have more than one item to reflect this. Simon Cobb (Sic19 ; talk page) 17:31, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Sic19, probably you are right. In Russia it is not a rank but a position which can be held by almost anyone (who has a diploma). It seems that it was a wrong merge by User:Glovacki, I undid it and here you are: second item senior lecturer (Q7450737). Please check. Though there is a little doubt: it is said in English wiki: "is an academic rank" and in the next sentence "is a faculty position". Isn't it contradictory? --Infovarius (talk) 18:53, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Harry Potter in music[edit]

It was a mistake and I correct other like this. Thank you. Simon Villeneuve (talk) 13:41, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Finally, I read more about this and I think it's correct. The sequence is the discography of the composer John Williams. Isn't correct ? Simon Villeneuve (talk) 13:48, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Can you just discuss here rather than only cancel my modifications ? --Simon Villeneuve (talk) 10:48, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Simon! I believe that the sequence should be clear, and in your cases it is far from being obvious. Look at 1 (Q199) - it would be very ambiguous to use follows (P155)/followed by (P156) without qualifiers there, isn't it? So it is better to use part of (P361) with qualifiers P155/P156. And honestly I doubt that we need such sequence as "discography of a composer". Some kind of such list we can generate by Sparql on the basis of publication dates:
SELECT ?item ?label ?year WHERE {
  ?item wdt:P31 wd:Q4176708.
  ?item wdt:P86 wd:Q363241.
  OPTIONAL{?item wdt:P577 ?year.}
  SERVICE wikibase:label {
    bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "ru".
    ?item rdfs:label ?label.

Try it!

but strict sequence can't exist actually (why a composer couldn't work on several compositions at once?). P.S. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (Q1190705) is not by John Williams. --Infovarius (talk) 14:32, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

There's a lot to answer here.
First of all, I think that we can't compare this case with 1 (Q199). We don't process numbers as we process artwork.
Secondly, every wikipedia versions that I know are classifing the timeline of albums/singles/songs with a previous one and a next one and I think it can be the same on Wikidata.
At last, we don't break contribution here because we can find another way to get the information. Even if we consider that this is a kind of redondancy (and I'm not convinced about this), it can, among others, help a greater number of users to get what they are looking for. Simon Villeneuve (talk) 14:50, 7 September 2018 (UTC)


Hi, I have found several cases where you have added the given name "Ilya" and also the given name "Fedor", although only Fedor is correct. Examples are this, this and that. Could you please check where you made this error and remove the statements? Steak (talk) 07:22, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

@Steak: yes, sorry, my mistake. Fixing. --Infovarius (talk) 10:53, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Sacred texts[edit]

Ok for this. Then, the two categories need to be fixed between each other. Is there a property or a template to indicate that? :-) --Superchilum(talk to me!) 10:13, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

@Superchilum: said to be the same as (P460) usually means that :) --Infovarius (talk) 10:05, 21 September 2018 (UTC)


Hi Infovarius,

I'm not agree with you about thaht.

Q7465774, Thermal conduction, is a physical phenomenon. Q14946524, conduction, is not a physical phenomenon ; it's a disambiguation page for simple english. Thermal conduction and Electric conduction are not part of conduction.

Ludo29 (talk) 10:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ludo29: May be it's arguable, but. Q14946524 is not disambig (even formally) - it is about a class of "ways of moving energy" (the other are radiation and convection). So it can have more narrow subclasses too. --Infovarius (talk) 10:00, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
No. Thermal conduction, convection and thermal rays are part or subclass of Thermal transfert.
But Thermal conduction is not a subclass of conduction. Because Thermal conduction is a physical phenomenon and conduction is.... nothing in physics. It's just a disambiguation page.
Ludo29 (talk) 10:34, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Dana International[edit]

Hello Infovarius, why have you restored Dana's website ( if it has been discontinued for at least 2 years and is no longer available? -- Blackcat (talk) 12:32, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

@Blackcat: but it was true 2 years ago and Wikidata tracks history too. You can check this website at WebArchive: --Infovarius (talk) 14:12, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Your reverts[edit]

Hi Infovarius, just saw your reverts of my edits here and here. Unfortunately, you're a bit mistaken here, Germany (Q183) is indeed the correct item for the country of origin (P495) statements, even for dates before the German reunification. The Federal Republic of Germany was founded in 1949 and continues to exist to this day, as covered in Germany (Q183). "West Germany" was simply the name used to differentiate it from the "other Germany", the German Democratic Republic (Q16957) or "East Germany" while that one also existed. In 1989, the GDR ceased to exist and its states joined the FRG. But West Germany was never a separate country from the current FRG, no new country was formed. So while it's okay to use "West Germany" and "west german" in texts (e.g. Wikipedia) when talking about that time period, to indicate which of the two Germanys is meant, we don't need that in a database like Wikdata, where we can simply use the item for the country in question to indicate which country is meant - which is Germany (Q183). Hope that helps. Regards, --Kam Solusar (talk) 01:04, 22 September 2018 (UTC)


Hello, as far as I could see here that's a festival, not a honorary award or a special prize equivalent say, to the Medal of freedom or the Order of the British Empire. So what that award is about? -- Blackcat (talk) 22:59, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

There is an award (fr:Trophée) handed at each festival which called Премия "Золотой Остап". It is described in the same article and so the same item is used as award. --Infovarius (talk) 10:18, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

"subset of" vs. "instance of"[edit]

I write you because of this Edit.

Non-mathematical explanation:
A subclass gets (inherits) all properties of its superclass. (see en:Subclass (computer science))
Baseball is subclass of team sport is subclass of type of sport is instance of first-order metaclass.
Because Baseball gets (inherits) all properties of its superclass we have:
Baseball is instance of first-order metaclass.

Baseball is of course not instance of first-order metaclass. Thus, Baseball cannot be a subclass of type of sports.
Thus, either baseball is not subclass of team sport or team sport is not subclass of type of sport.

Short-mathematical explanation:
Let's say, we have the following 5 type of sports.

  1. soccer
  2. american football
  3. baseball
  4. tennis (with 2 persons)
  5. golf

We can write sport = {soccer, american football, baseball, tennis, golf}.
Subclasses of sport are classes, which have only elements from sport.
For example:

  • team sport = {soccer, american football}.
  • individual sport = {tennis, golf}.

Each element of team sport is also an element of sport. Thus, team sport is a subclass of sport.
Each element of individual sport is also an element of sport. Thus, team sport is a subclass of sport.

What is with type of sport:
type of sport = {{soccer}, {american football}, {baseball}, {tennis}, {golf}, {team sport}, {individual sport}} = {soccer, american football, baseball, tennis, golf, team sport, individual sport}.

Thus, soccer, american football, baseball, tennis, golf, team sport, individual sport are all instances of type of sport.

Long-mathematical explanation:
If desired, I can give a more detailed mathematical explanation. --Eulenspiegel1 (talk) 03:34, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

You said look at the subclasses of "type of sport": The subclass ist not "sport". The subclass is "class of sport". As I said! --Eulenspiegel1 (talk) 21:35, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Let's discuss, Eulenspiegel1 (I am not 100% sure too). Firstly, about Non-mathematical explanation. Only "set" properties are inherited from superclass. They are majority but not all. P31 is not one of them. A subclass of B subclass of C → A subclass of C, A instance (P31) of B subclass of C → A instance of C. But not "A subclass of B instance of C → A instance of C"!!
Secondly, about mathematical explanation. Here is more subtle. You mix sets and elements here, and misinterprets the symbol (union of sets). I agree that two sets can consist of this elements:
  • team sport(s) = {soccer, american football}.
  • individual sport(s) = {tennis, golf}.
Then the set sport = team sports individual sports. We can write it (though not entirely correct) as {team sports, individual sports}.
But your last formula doesn't make sense at all. If you write that type of sport = {soccer, american football, baseball, tennis, golf, team sport, individual sport} then your type of sport will be a metaclass of variable order (consisting of elements and sets) which is not desirable I suppose.
The difficulty I see here that I don't know exactly if each of type of sport (e.g. one of 5 mentioned by you) is an instance or class (element or set). And I don't understand ontological difference between type of sport (Q31629) and sport (Q349)... --Infovarius (talk) 11:04, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, you're right with with your first point. It's not: "A subclass of B instance of C → A instance of C". Yet, outside the mathematic it's very often the case that A is an instance of C.
Soccer, tennis etc. are no elements. An element is, if we two play tennis, today. This match is an element. Tennis consists of all tennis matches wich are ever played. Soccer is a set of all soccer games which are ever played.
The is the union () of all sets inside the set:
Let's say: and .
In sport, we have the following sets:
  • soccer = {}
  • football = {}
  • baseball = {}
  • tennis = {}
  • golf ={}
  • team sport = {baseball, soccer, football} = baseball soccer football = {}
  • individual sport = {tennis, golf} = tennis golf = {}
  • sport = {team sport, individual sport} = team sport individual sport = {}
That's the difference between "sport" and "type of sport": sport consist of all single matches. "type of sport" consists of subclasses of sport:
  • type of sport = {soccer, football, baseball, tennis, golf, team sport, individual sport} = {}
The ontological difference between sport and type of sport is, that sport refers to single matches. If you have a single match (e.g. the finals in FIFA World Cup 2018), it's an instance of sport. In type of sport you don't look at single gamnes. You look at structures.
In sport (Q349), there is a difference between the finals in FIFA World Cup 2018 and the finals in in FIFA World Cup 2014, because these are two different games. In type of sport (Q31629) both is the same. Both is soccer. You dont't look at single games, you look at structures.
Let's assume we play golf, today (g1). You win. Tomorrow, we play golf again (g2), but I win. These are two different games: One game is today, the other game is tomorrow. Yet, both are instances of golf. We can also look at the type of sport: The two different games belong to the same type of sport. --Eulenspiegel1 (talk) 10:38, 6 October 2018 (UTC)


Hello Infovarius, could you tell me where did you find this lexeme? I guess this is a proto-language and so it should not be tagged as West Germanic languages (Q26721). But now, I am not able to know which proto-language. That is why I think it is important to add references for proto-language. Pamputt (talk) 18:46, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, @Pamputt: I am not an expert, please look at etymology of wikt:en:wæter. --Infovarius (talk) 13:14, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi, ok it looks weird. I think we should delete this lexeme. Pamputt (talk) 19:20, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

L1041 Kraków[edit]

This is false definition KaMan (talk) 08:54, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I am stupid! Sorry. Thanks for noticing, KaMan. --Infovarius (talk) 15:18, 19 October 2018 (UTC)


Hello Infovarius, Why are you reverting my changes that really seem better:

    • All the sources provided on this items show that Diatomea is a long outdated name (1, NCBI, ITIS, EOL). The current name is Bacillariophyta
    • This is a taxonomic item, so it should point to wikicommons taxonomic category commons:Bacillariophyta not on the english named page commons:Diatoms.
    • To avoid conflict between english nativ speaker and other country, wikicommons decided to name taxon categories and pages with scientific names. English named categories and pages are only tolerated and must be under scientific named categories. English named categories contain mostly garbage (Unidentified pictures).
    • Please don't go against wikicommons own rules
    • Following this 99,9% of the taxon items point to only one wikicommons category. I have a detector that detect those 0,1%. Your revert placed the wikicommons page in my automatic error category.

Regards Liné1 (talk) 07:12, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

wrong merge[edit] it was not the same, it was wrong merge KaMan (talk) 17:12, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

@KaMan: can you explain the difference? --Infovarius (talk) 10:50, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Just compare photos. Q17163130 is about sprouts - young (a few days) plants - just root and two, three small leaves while Q57544960 is about flowers of mature plant. Both are used as food and both are product of the same plant but they are different parts of different age of broccoli. KaMan (talk) 11:11, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Ranking for statistical data - nominal GDP[edit]

Hi Infovarius, the Preferential Bot now operates the nominal GDP. Because we now have only one source for the data, the preferred rank gets only the most actual data for the property in queries. If someone decides to import Euro values and these are more actual, then the query will get the Euro value. I opened a topic about this here:

I would be glad to see your opinion there. Cheers! Datawiki30 (talk) 12:51, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Julián vs Julian[edit]

Sorry, no speak english. Julián y Julian son lo mismo.

But they have different spellings, different language of use and different items. --Infovarius (talk) 11:00, 16 November 2018 (UTC)


Please read the articles before your provide them as references. --Succu (talk) 22:12, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Chemical substance[edit]

Why you've moved all the sitelinks from chemical substance (Q79529) to chemical substance (Q21652022)? Many moved sitelinks describe chemical substance (Q79529), so I don't understand your action. Wostr (talk) 16:20, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

@Wostr: there are two concepts: chemical substance (Q21652022) (which have mostly constant proportion of molecules) and more general chemical substance (Q79529) (which is almost any non-energetic matter). For example, honey (Q10987) can't be regarded as chemical substance (Q21652022) so it is chemical substance (Q79529). Are you sure that moved sitelinks describe honey (Q10987), soil (Q36133), milk (Q8495) and other substances? --Infovarius (talk) 10:54, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Agree that there may be two different concepts. The problem is that: chemical substance (Q79529) still describes 'chemical substance' (statements, identifies), but all the sitelinks have been moved. Wrong instances of/subclasses of should be corrected in specific items, not by swapping two general items. Qids are meant to be permanent, and for long time chemical substance (Q79529) was defined (and is still defined by properties and identifies) as 'chemical substance'. We have a mess now: chemical substance (Q79529) should remain 'chemical substance' with 'matter of constant composition best characterized by the entities (molecules, formula units, atoms) it is composed of' definition (as in IUPAC definition) and sitelinks from chemical substance (Q21652022), and chemical substance (Q21652022) may be freely used for the second definition. Wostr (talk) 19:57, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
GoldBook is quite clear about the definiton, yet you deleted [7] all the 'chemical' adjectives. Why? Wostr (talk) 20:00, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@Wostr: and Infovarius: Most of the sitelinks of languages originated from latin are incorrectly related to chemical substance (Q21652022) while should be on chemical substance (Q79529). I think it is messed up. There's no differenciation as you've said in my language (pt), and I really don't see any difference. I agree that "chemical substance (Q21652022) may be freely used for the second definition", but almost all sitelinks should be on chemical substance (Q79529). Rafael Kenneth (talk) 04:25, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

administrative territorial entity of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (Q3253485)[edit]

Hi Infovarius,

the French article definitely is a list of administrative entities and all linked articles were also lists at the time I added instance of (P31).

It seems this item was merged or articles were added that were not lists... but until recently, this item was clearly a list.

Your modifications are are, in fact, repurposing the item… then, what do we do with the actual lists ? --Hsarrazin (talk) 18:10, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

провансальский диалект[edit]

Проблема в том, что если элемент Provençal (Q241243) не имеет утверждения "научная дисциплина", то он не добавляется тем персонам, которые изучали его в учебном заведении. — Дмитрий Кошелев (talk) 18:48, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Чем не добавляется? Проблема не в элементе (всем языкам будем добавлять "научная дисциплина"? а может всё-таки русистике, а не русскому языку?), а в инструменте, который "не добавляет". --Infovarius (talk) 22:43, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Русский язык изучал (в школе), русистику — не изучал. Английский язык изучал, англистику — не изучал. Так какой нужен инструмент, говорите? — Дмитрий Кошелев (talk) 06:07, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
@Дмитрий Кошелев: Вот именно поэтому Russian (Q7737) не наука, а Russian linguistics (Q4261898) - наука. English (Q1860) - язык, а English studies (Q27968) - дисциплина. Где не добавляется-то? --Infovarius (talk) 10:58, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
В Q295516, где про Парижский университет. — Дмитрий Кошелев (talk) 11:40, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Ну я вижу, что нормально добавлено. Если вы о constraint violation, то их и надо править. Я попробовал добавить языки в допустимые классы, посмотрим, как впишется. --Infovarius (talk) 14:08, 20 November 2018 (UTC)


debut participant (P2318) is intended to be used for events, not for the first time a character appears in a book. --Yair rand (talk) 23:03, 21 November 2018 (UTC)


Are you saying the Landkreis existed before 2011? That's not what it says in Q2909. --Aeroid (talk) 11:28, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

«Жаков» как русское мужское имя[edit]

20 ноября вы откатили объединение страницы Yakov (Q19802347) со страницей Yakov (Q544124) на том основании, что страница Yakov (Q19802347) якобы об имени, которое в оригинале пишется латиницей. В действительности же относящаяся к элементу Yakov (Q19802347) статья en:Yakov прямо указывает, что это «Russian or Hebrew variant of the given names Jacob and James» (непосредственно в элементе Yakov (Q19802347) указана его частота среди личных имён в Израиле). Где же вы тут увидели латиницу? Вы также восстановили очевидно неправильный заголовок «Jakov» в элементе Yakov (Q544124), хотя непосредственно в этом элементе указано, что он относится к русскому имени «Яков». Полагаю, что вам следует откатить эти ваши правки и связанные с ними.LesNick19 (talk) 21:19, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

@LesNick19: Спасибо, внёс пару исправлений на дальнейшее разделение. Правда мне не нравится "Яков" в качестве английской метки... Но так, наверное, точнее. Ещё какие-то есть несостыковки? Если вам не нравится разделение, попробуйте ответить, какое имя у Yakov Fuchs (Q8047155), Yakov Springer (Q827694) или у Yakov Rekhter (Q8047167)? --Infovarius (talk) 17:37, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Прежде всего, действительно спасибо за ‏יעקב‏‎ (Q58902451).
Что касается Yakov (Q19802347), то, очевидно, вариант в латинском написании тоже есть. Правда, надо ещё найти, у кого именно он исходный. Так, из трёх указанных вами персон: Yakov Fuchs (Q8047155) – актёр в «a Yiddish theater», Yakov Springer (Q827694) – тренер сборной Израиля и о Yakov Rekhter (Q8047167) персонально ничего не известно, так что может быть израильским гражданином. (Первым двум имя я исправил на ‏יעקב‏‎ (Q58902451).)
Также я добавил связи между элементами. (Например, в Jacob (Q25999604). Кстати, нашлись румынский и венгерский варианты имени.) -- LesNick19 (talk) 11:54, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
@LesNick19: Почти ок. Только почему вы считаете, что у польского актёра (пусть и еврейского происхождения), имя от рождения не может писаться латиницей? Или даже кириллицей (вроде он жил в Российской империи?). --Infovarius (talk) 21:37, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Могло ли писаться? Тут вопрос в том, кем оно могло так писаться: выдававшими документы чиновниками или семьёй и лицами его круга. (Кстати, как-нибудь надо будет на элемент о Якове Фухсе добавить сына Leo Fuchs (Q1590884) и жену Ruzha Fuchs (Q7383665).)
Если первое, то город Львов: (1) до 1914 года принадлежал Австро-Венгрии и в её составе управлялся австрийскими властями (2) в 1914 году был занят русскими войсками и включён в созданное генерал-губернаторство Галиции General Government of Galicia and Bukovina (Q2377789) (3) в 1915 году был отбит обратно (4) в 1918 году был провозглашён столицей ЗУНР (5) практически сразу после этого был занят Польшей.
Где в это время проживал Фухс, неизвестно. Если выехал, то потом вернулся – умер он во Львове. Числился постоянно проживающим он, очевидно, в любом случае во Львове. Какой же «язык документов» тут правильный: немецкий, русский, польский или украинский?
Если второе, то у его сына Leo Fuchs (Q1590884) родным языком тоже был идиш.
Полагаю, что правильное написание в данном случае еврейским письмом. (К слову – какое написание имени правильное для проживавших в 1919-1939 в Галиции украинцев: украинское или польское?) -- LesNick19 (talk) 12:56, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
@LesNick19: Сложный вопрос, я не могу ответить однозначно. На всякий случай, я бы добавил все возможные варианты - удалить ненужное потом проще, чем искать и добавлять недостающее. --Infovarius (talk) 22:33, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Your revert on Q21[edit]

Hi, and thanks for your revert. However there's a constraint on P85 / anthem - the property should only contain a single value. And as you did not add any refrences for 'And did those feet in ancient time' (etc) being an anthem, I reverted. Please add references, or revert your reversion. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 09:43, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

IPA lexeme[edit]

Hi Infovarius,

There was quite a lot of discussion about an edit of yours on invalid ID (L21070). You might want to comment on Wikidata_talk:Lexicographical_data#Phoneme,_grapheme_and_Wikidata:Lexicographical_data/Notability. Oddly, none bothered pinging you before me. I would be glad if you would comment there. --- Jura 06:46, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Che Guevara[edit]

Dear Infovarius. Hi. I corrected the cause of death in Che Guevara because it wasn't a "method of execution by multiple shooters firing rifles simultaneously on command". Guevara was not condemned to any penalty, and was shot by one soldier in a no formal way. Officially, he was killed in combat the day before. So I corrected to "shooting", that is more more appropriate. Sincerely.--Roblespepe (talk) 22:28, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Q54603424 additions[edit]

I'm curious about this addition by you on a number of pages. Q54603424 is a Ukrainian/Russian male name so I don't know why it would be added to people named Alisa. Was there another female name you were trying to add? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:08, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

@Ricky81682: Thanks for noticing, you're right, it's an error. I'll fix it. --Infovarius (talk) 22:31, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I noticed it via Commons when I saw this red-linked category. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:19, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Done. How strange - I couldn't find prescribed category in subcategories... --Infovarius (talk) 21:09, 8 December 2018 (UTC)


Good timening.

Скорее всего, данные, которые я удалил, не соотв. действительности.

По англовики 100 млн[8], а здесь было 28. Или проделки ботов, или що. Так что я пока вас обатно отменил, попробуйте проверить. Longbowman (talk) 19:36, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

@Longbowman: Я понял - есть 2 панджаби : восточный (у которого 28) и западный (у которого 90 млн.) - о них есть данные в Ethnologue. А об объединённом даже нету. Но простым суммированием получается 118 млн. --Infovarius (talk) 16:51, 23 December 2018 (UTC)


Hi! You reverted here, now for the second time, eventhough there was no vandalism or obvious error or a like. As said in edit summary, statements were only moved, they were not deprecated in relation to item about settlement. This is because they never applied to the settlement, as long as settlement and municipality are considered distinct entities and there are different items. In 2017 municipality ceased to exist, but coextensive settlement did not.

Generally, my experience is that users are encouraged to use discussion pages in case of possible disputes and they are supposed to assume good faith. I think your combative editing style does not follow that spirit. Edit summaries are not a proper venue for discussion, unless discussion page comments were really unnoticed or they came to a standstill. Currently you tend to reinstate erroneous or otherwise messed up data that may easily stay in place. Also, putting things back and forth does not really contribute to the stability of data. Please do leave a comment on talk page of relevat item if you simply don't understand an edit. Over the past year or so I've encountered that a few of my edits have been reverted by a few other users due to some misunderstandings. I haven't encountered anyone near as eager as you to revert edits that one simply doesn't understand.

When moving statements or removing non-matching ones I've tried to revert edits where these statements were added, so that I could write an explanation in edit summary. Nonetheless, people are not supposed to revert, the main "remove" links provide no way to enter an edit summary. So I'm pretty sure you are supposed to assume good faith even if there is no edit summary.

Lastly, end time (P582), that you changed here, is generally used for municipalities/settlements in Estonia. Changing this for particular item breaks country related quaries that rely on this statement. To my understanding use of P582 as a non-qualifer is not discouraged. I'd rather avoid using dissolved, abolished or demolished (P576) as it has vague meaning and since it's very hard to translate it's label between languages then its use is a source of endless confusions. 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:8990:1492:5FD:A052 09:43, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

@2001:7D0:81F7:B580:8990:1492:5FD:A052: It is a strange conception for me that settlement and municipality are different as in Russia it is not the case I suppose. So it is strange for me to see all the removals like in Tartu (Q13972). Please explain me aren't all these statements correct at least for Soviet period? --Infovarius (talk) 14:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure what was the relation between settlements and administrative entities in Estonia in Soviet period. I don't know if any city lost their administrative entity status while retaining settlement status back then. If not, then the distinction might not have been considered important. Anyway, settlements per se aren't administrative entities and if there was an administrative entity then this is either the same same as current (Tartu City (Q42307965)), or it may be considered as a separate historical administrative entity which currently doesn't have its own item. 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:3849:1F84:7835:7DF4 18:24, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Re: your wrong reversals[edit]

In Mexico there is no separate “head of government” because it does not have a parliamentary government. That role would lie upon the president. Also, Peña does not hold any public office anymore. —Born2bgratis (talk) 16:41, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

@Born2bgratis: Ok, I understand about government. But as for "does not hold...anymore" - Wikidata can (and I believe that it should) keep historical data too. The only difference that current, present values should be marked as "preferred rank", and previous values would be as "normal rank". --Infovarius (talk) 19:29, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Mineral Classification[edit]

Hello Infovarius
I might be wrong, but did you merge Mineral Classification? (de.wikipedia) is complaining. I think that I'll build the item up again. Four meanings:
  • Strunz Classification of Minerals (8 ed): 8th edition, updated
  • Nickel-Strunz Classification of Minerals (9 ed): 9th edition, updated 2009
  • Nickel-Strunz Classification of Minerals ("10 ed"): updated 9 ed by, incomplete
  • Mineral Classification, up to date: following Glossary of Minerals; International Mineralogy Association (IMA); and
Thank you. Regards --Chris.urs-o (talk) 09:07, 27 December 2018 (UTC)


Why did you revert my edit here: Q319123? Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 21:54, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Can you explain me instead why did you remove relevant genre? --Infovarius (talk) 17:15, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Because, there is no movie genre that treasure hunts. Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 09:28, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

What about genre about treasure hunting? --Infovarius (talk) 00:06, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Флаг Абхазской автономной республики[edit]

У Абхазской автономной республики официально нету никакого флага ни герба. Потому и удалил. С уважением!--Surprizi (talk) 05:09, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Вот источник, но тут говорится что это проекты гералдики. Я разузнаю приняли ли их официально или они пока еще находятся в проекте.--Surprizi (talk) 05:26, 31 December 2018 (UTC)


There is no exact Malayalam article for magazine in Malayalam wikipedia.--Vengolis (talk) 22:24, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

@Vengolis: are you sure? Can you please describe difference in the Malaylam article? --Infovarius (talk) 14:19, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
ml:മാസിക means monthly(a magazine that is published once a month).There are also articles like ml:വാരിക(a magazine that is published once a week) and ml:ദ്വൈവാരിക (every two weeks).Thank you--Vengolis (talk) 02:53, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
@Vengolis: ok, I found monthly magazine (Q11780435), fortnightly magazine (Q13112752) and weekly magazine (Q12340140). --Infovarius (talk) 20:56, 3 January 2019 (UTC)


Ha, the problem is that there are not scientific evidence. Not to mention the fact that in order to warrant a surviving offspring you need at least 85 couples, less is riskful and one couple only is doomed to extintion Face-smile.svg -- Blackcat (talk) 09:00, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I understand the scientific side. But I use the property as a cultural phenomenon. --Infovarius (talk) 02:15, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

профессор (Q121594)[edit]

Добрый вечер, коллега! По поводу этого - я понизил ранг, чтобы эта краткая форма не грузилась в карточки, например в "Учёный" в поле "учёное звание", потому как выглядит это крайне некомильфо и непонятно. Моя правка что-то где-то поломала? эта краткая форма ещё куда-то подгружается, где необходима именно такая краткая форма? Borodun (talk) 17:39, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Спасибо за объяснение, Borodun. Но не понимаю, при чём тут элемент в Викиданных. По-моему, проблема в карточке - зачем она отображает краткое название вместо полного? --Infovarius (talk) 15:38, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Дело в том, что свойство d:Property:P1813 было специально сделано для "use as label for a link to the item, in infoboxes, navboxes and others" и ни для чего другого. --Shmurak (talk) 15:49, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
@Ghuron: --Shmurak (talk) 15:50, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Скажу честно, я вообще не понимаю, зачем это всё автогрузить в карточки :) (если что, я противник безоглядной подгрузки всего и вся из ВД вместо локального заполнения). Ну и как коллега выше уже дал ссылку на обсуждение на форуме в руВики - там пеняют на ВД, тут пеняют на ВП... круг замкнулся :) Borodun (talk) 16:35, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Насколько я понимаю, P1813 было придумано для случаев, когда в карточке в большинстве случаев нужно показывать не название статьи, а общепринятое сокращение. Например практически везде вместо "Союз Советских Социалистических Республик" следует показывать СССР, вместо "Килограмм" - кг и т.п. Эта логика и реализована в модуле показа карточек. В этом смысле зачем вместо "профессор" где либо показывать "проф." мне не понятно. @AlexKozur: возможно Вам тоже будет интересно --Ghuron (talk) 11:28, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


Насколько я понимаю, для включенных в категорию Q7710943 персоналий сколь-нибудь точная оценка года рождения отсутствует, но почти наверняка она попадает в XIII век. Русскоязычный лейбл был неудачный, факт --Ghuron (talk) 04:55, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

А, я кажется не заметил приписку "XIII век" (может, её не было в описании правки?). Кстати, в чём отличие этой категории от Q7710943? --Infovarius (talk) 15:56, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Signs and symptoms[edit]

Hi! Regarding this undo, perhaps you'd like to join in this discussion. Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 17:41, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Regarding dates for England[edit]

Hey, I noticed you reverted my edits regarding the item for England (and I figured someone would). It may be my inexperience with Wikidata, but could you explain why the date of 12 April 1927 is significant for England? See, I added it as the country of citizenship for David Ashworth, but I was met with an exclamation mark which told me that it couldn't have been, since England only became an entity in 1927, after Ashworth's death. At least, that is how I interpreted it. Thank you. Jay D. Easy (talk) 20:41, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

@Jay D. Easy: how England can be constituent part of the United Kingdom (Q3336843) (part of UK) when United Kingdom (Q145) itself began in 1927?? The problem with David is probably that country (Q6256) is now not a type of administrative division, or something like that. --Infovarius (talk) 14:24, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
@Infovarius: thanks for clearing that up. It's still weird that if England is selected as country qualifier for a person not born before 1927, an exclamation mark appears. In any case, feel free to undo my changes again if you want to. Jay D. Easy (talk) 20:44, 28 January 2019 (UTC)


Доброго вечера! Возможно Элиша и отлично от Елисей, но венг. Elizeus и пол. Elizeusz (imię) уж точно не тождественно нем. и англ. Elisha --Migel Sances Huares (talk) 18:25, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

По существующим порядкам и для них нужно создавать отдельные элементы... --Infovarius (talk) 15:42, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting my merges of physico-geographical object (Q20719696) and natural geographic entity (Q27096220)[edit]

I'm glad that I successfully prompted someone to clarify the intended distinctions between those three entities. Let's get them stated definitively -- I've opened a discussion on [[Talk:Q27096220#Distinction_between_this_and_physico-geographical object (Q20719696)_and_natural geographic object (Q35145263)|the talk page]] where we can do so. JesseW (talk) 22:41, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Ref for statement on Q604984[edit]


By any chance, do you have a references for the statement said to be the same as (P460) on singulare tantum (Q604984) (Special:Diff/769791792) ?

Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 05:49, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

North America[edit]

Basically we have one problem, rather two: the first is that in Italian "America settentrionale" means the whole subcontinent from the Arctic Sea down to the Southern border of Mexico. There's no a "Northern America" including only English speaking countries. The second is that we are using an obsolete thus deprecated property. If it's deprecated it means that it is not fit for qualificator, so the question is not "how to express this otherwise?" but "must it be expressed if there are not feasible tools?". -- Blackcat (talk) 00:18, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

sports club (Q847017)[edit]

Hi, in regards to your edit, I did not believe an item could be both a instance of (P31) and a subclass of (P279) of a sports club (Q847017)? I believed the former was used for clubs like Dynamo Sports Club (Q1269063), whilst the latter for instance was used for type of club; like basketball team (Q13393265), association football club (Q476028), ice hockey team (Q4498974), etc. Please convince me otherwise? =) Yours sincerely, Theilert (talk) 19:39, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

@Theilert: This item is about union of several clubs, or in other words, class of clubs. Yes, it is not a P31. --Infovarius (talk) 15:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Sallie Gardner au galop[edit]

Hi, This is not really a film, and Eadweard Muybridge is not a film director. As you can see, there is an error in Sallie Gardner at a Gallop (Q3924909). Regards, Yann (talk) 01:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@Yann: The notion "film" is not strict I believe. You cannot say what number of frames serves as boundary between "film" and "series of images"... Thus I suppose it wouldn't hurt to call this "a film". --Infovarius (talk) 20:12, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
This was not made as a film. It is more comparable to an animated GIF. And adding "film" produces errors (rightly so). Regards, Yann (talk) 09:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
As I already told you above, this was not made as a film. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:17, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Harry Potter (Q3244512 ) as a Horcrux and whether or not he died[edit]

It is not clear whether or not Harry Potter himself was a Horcrux or if it was simply a piece of Voldemort's soul inside of Harry that was the final Horcrux. The book also does not make it clear whether or not Harry Potter actually died when he was hit with the Killing Curse and found himself at a dream-like King's Cross Station. In an interview with TIME, J.K. Rowling writes, "The Avada Kedavra curse, however, is so powerful that it does hurt Harry, and also succeeds in killing the part of him that is not truly him, in other words, the fragment of Voldemort's own soul that is still clinging to his. The curse also disables Harry severely enough that he could have succumbed to death if he had chosen that path." If authorial intent doesn't mean much, there is also something to be said about the lack of fan consensus in interpreting this situation. Quora and Stack Exchange offer a sampling of the disagreement.

Personally, I think in the absence of conclusive evidence for his death in the books, it would be better to presume he did not die. Do you know if there's any kind of precedent or policy on Wikidata for handling scenarios like this? I tried looking, but I didn't even quite know what to search for.

--njohnson7 (talk)

Harry Potter is a fictional human[edit]

Join Harry Potter talk about wikidata item at wikidata Harry Potter talk page. You did not contact me when you reverted that Harry Potter is a fictional human and you deleted my reference too about J.K. Rowling saying Harry Potter is a human. On the talk page I explain my sources too Btqfshfst (talk) 17:10, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm asking over at Wikidata:Project_chat about how I go to revert your edit cause I don't know an effective way to do that. Considering you didn't add anything to my talk page when reverting my edit I suppose asking you wouldn't help. Do you know how I go on about to do that, or can you revert it yourself? As far as I know the author says Harry is as human as possible, then I think fictional human is perfectly valid, please tell me if you disagree Btqfshfst (talk) 17:17, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
@Btqfshfst: is correct but it is just redundant as there is already (subclass of fictional human (Q15632617)) which implies this. --Infovarius (talk) 20:25, 27 February 2019 (UTC)


Hi, why Q6189125 and Q59420974 are different? They seem to be the same. --Superchilum(talk to me!) 16:39, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Superchilum, difference is quite theoretical and they have big overlap, yes. But I can imagine wikt category Категория:Артикль@ru which contains lexemes like "article"@en, "definite article"@en and similar. Compare with Категория:Артикли@ru which contains lexemes like "the"@en, "a"@en. Compare also Category:Noun (Q9557799) vs Category:Nouns (Q61945932). --Infovarius (talk) 10:51, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Ok, I see :-) thank you. --Superchilum(talk to me!) 13:11, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


Hello, Do you really think that tide (Q23384) was discovered by Julius Caesar? People have been living on seashore for thousands of years without noticing that sea level could go up and down? The citation means that Cesar's soldiers didn't know that big tides occur during full moon. Even Cesar, who was quite boastful, wouldn't have claimed that he discovered such an obvious phenomenon. --El Caro (talk) 07:00, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

May be he first described (explained) this? But ok, it's quite strange. --Infovarius (talk) 08:56, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Actually it was added by a banned user [9]. time of earliest written record (P1249) would need a stronger reference. WP:en writes " Pytheas travelled to the British Isles about 325 BC and seems to be the first to have related spring tides to the phase of the moon" without any source. Bu it is about the relation between the moon and tides, not tides alone. --El Caro (talk) 09:29, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


So I had a look at your last contribs. Many of the automatic replacement "Russia->USSR" are wrong, you should check them (Michel Strogoff, War and Peace, Boris Godounoff...), did you mean "Russia-> Russian Empire", another replacement you did before and which seems correct? --El Caro (talk) 07:11, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your look. I suspected that USSR value would be more inaccurate. I'll overview and correct them. --Infovarius (talk) 11:09, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


Really? --Succu (talk) 21:25, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

@Succu: It's not a modern taxon anyway. All species were moved to Rhododendron. Sources are being found. --Infovarius (talk) 20:10, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
It's a nomen rejiciendum (Q17276482) not a polyphyly (Q217743). --Succu (talk) 20:30, 8 March 2019 (UTC)


Simple queries show that there are towns/cities that are not administrative entities of given countries: 151 in the Netherlands, 1584 in South Africa, 146 in Spain etc. There are some false positives and stuff that needs cleanup, but generally it gives an idea of what the actual situation is. Apart from cases where city/town is not and has not been an administrative entity, there are also cases where settlement and respective administrative entity have separate items for the sake of clarity, e.g. Amsterdam (Q9899) and Amsterdam (Q727), Tallinn (Q1770) and Tallinn City (Q4450503). For these, item that is an instance of settlement (and its subclass "city/town") shouldn't be an instance of administrative entity at the same time. So obviously there are many towns/cities that are not administrative entities, these are not even exceptions.

Due to this change its harder to classify entities accurately (I commented on this item here) yesterday. Comment here on settings appropriate cities/towns accurately as instance of specific administrative entity designations applys here as well since Q515 is a subclass of "city/town". 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:6D9E:AD28:835E:C2C0 10:57, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Ok, yes, I agree. --Infovarius (talk) 20:34, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Ваша отмена[edit]

Добрый день, коллега! Я не понял Вашей отмены в элементе Q4401271: населённый пункт называется Ручей, а не Русей. Это два разных слова, поэтому первоначальное удаление подобного "синонима" было оправданным. Если по-болгарски он может быть написан, так как Вы указали, то он и должен фигурировать в качестве синонима на болгарском, а не русском языке. --Ksc~ruwiki (talk) 18:57, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@Ksc~ruwiki:, сорри, не заметил этого отличия. Думал, что это просто уточнение "(Россия)". --Infovarius (talk) 18:46, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
ОК! Вопрос закрыт. --Ksc~ruwiki (talk) 19:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Федеральные округа[edit]

При всей дискуссионности вопроса (обусловленной скорее теоретическими, нежели практическими причинами), самый авторитетный в России научный журнал на тему публичного права — а именно "Государство и право" — отдаёт предпочтение публикациям, которые говорят, что фед. округа являются "новыми административно-территориальными образованиями", "административно-территориальными единицами управленческого типа" и т. д. См. Черкасов К. В. Федеральные округа: сущность и место в территориальном устройстве России // ГиП, 2008, № 12, с. 68. Или Федорец М. Н. Федеральные округа: значимость и роль в государственно-территориальном устройстве Российской Федерации // ГиП, 2018, № 10, с. 139. Если же переходить к практической стороне вопроса, то на уровне федеральных округов осуществляется управление целым рядом структур: прокуратурой, Банком России, таможней, Росгвардией. Итого, фед. округа это более чем реальные административно-территориальные единицы, даже если сравнивать с дореволюционными губерниями. — Дмитрий Кошелев (talk) 06:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Brötchen Q23004[edit]

Hi Infovarius, you rfeverted my correction, but Q23004 is not a Q1401891 - Because these must have more 10 % Fat, otherwise its a Q1746803 - I don't know, how its in russia, but in English it's the same like in german like in Austrian german - reagrds from Vienna K@rl (talk) 09:55, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

But I cann see, than Хлебобулочное изделие is not the same like Q1401891
Sorry, but can telle you it only in german - Brötchen = Kleingebäck, please ask also other for a third meaning. It could be that the your description is not the corresponding to the german - this I can't answer you. regards K@rl (talk) 20:43, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Lonesome George[edit]

Hey there, regarding Lonesome George. How is he not a subclass of animal? Was the last dinosaur not a subclass of animal? Cheers (: --Rasinj (talk) 20:19, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

@Rasinj: Lonesome George (Q16570) was the last of subspecies of Chelonoidis nigra abingdonii (Q4045992), why it can be a subclass? And hm why did you mention dinosaurs? --Infovarius (talk) 13:32, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

science fiction novel[edit]

Note that novel (Q8261) shouldn't be used as a genre (Q483394), see discussions in Wikidata talk:WikiProject Books --JavierCantero (talk) 08:39, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Q1004: "penciller"[edit]

Hey there-- I had removed "penciller" from "practiced by" on the comics item because it's already a subclass of "comics artist", which is also there. It just seemed redundant to me. I'm not going to get into an edit war over it, though, just thought I'd explain my reasoning in case you agree ;) LadiesMakingComics (talk) 16:06, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

100500-я отмена правок[edit]

Я присутствую в различных проектах фонда Викимедиа с 2007 года. И у меня во во всех проектах, вместе взятых, за целый год не набирается столько отмен правок, сколько Вы мне тут нагородили всего за пару месяцев. Если цель в том, чтобы вынудить меня уйти из Викиданных, то скажите прямо, и я уйду, невелика беда. — Дмитрий Кошелев (talk) 03:19, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

@Дмитрий Кошелев: спокойнее. В каких правках вы видите проблему? С федеральными округами я спорить не буду - Вам как специалисту виднее. Я сначала просто возвращал к стандартному состоянию, ибо раньше наоборот меня откатывали, когда я добавлял округа как АТЕ. Сейчас поищу, кто. Я не помню, что ещё я у Вас отменял. P.S. У меня в Викиданных 27 тысяч правок отменено, но я не жалуюсь. Только иногда :), на "таксономическую мафию", которая до сих пор не даёт подступиться ни к чему биологическому. --Infovarius (talk) 14:27, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Может быть, это был User:MaksOttoVonStirlitz, кто боролся с федеральными округами как АТЕ? Или User:Сидик из ПТУ? --Infovarius (talk) 14:42, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
С фед. округами уже давно разобрались. Оказалось достаточно немного дописать статью в Википедии. Сейчас речь о Q10037858 и Q7015682. Я согласен с Вашим замечанием, что православную олимпиаду сложно отнести к числу научных состязаний. Как и вообще любые предметные олимпиады, ибо это образовательные события, а не научные. Научное состязание - это, например, конкурсы DARPA. Поэтому желательно расселить понятия по разным квартирам. Например, на Викискладе выделить категорию Education competitions и перенести в неё события, относящиеся к предметным олимпиадам. И я даже лично готов это сделать. Но когда диалог ведётся через отмену правок, у меня пропадает желание что-либо делать. — Дмитрий Кошелев (talk) 03:38, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Category:Ukrainian poets[edit]

Hi Infovarius, you reverted my correction Q14899407 (Category:Ukrainian poets) and Q7066552 (Category:Ukranian-language poets). Q14899407 is about country and Q7066552 is about language. I checked all my edits and they are really about country, aren't they? --LiMr (talk) 14:01, 12 April 2019 (UTC)


Уважаемый Infovarius, не могли бы вы помочь в вопросе с Игорем. ВП:Форум/Викиданные#Игорь ? Мешает ли pазное "название на языке оригинала" объединению Igor (Q28038713) с Igor (Q26214577)? - Kareyac (talk) 03:09, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Oboyan (Q72656) administrative status[edit]

For some reason the most up to date statement according to the qualifiers in Q72656#P131 is deprecated. Is it a mistake and should be preferred instead ? author  TomT0m / talk page 11:18, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Probably, the mess is because Oboyansky District (Q2629924) was (and is) an administrative unit (districts in Russia (Q1572329) and became also municipal district (municipal formation in Russia (Q1849719)). Also this strange difference between "город" and "городское поселение" (Q20659049) which are the same in this case... I'll make both preferred for a while. What do you think, User:М епифанов?


Hi Infovarius , I don't know the german language but did you check the definitions in the other language before you reverted my modification ? Except in Russian, that is a mess, all other languages refer to a block in metal used in printing. --Pixeltoo (talk) 10:16, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Brendan Rodgers[edit]

Yes, he WAS indeed. But so far that property is believed to host the current coach, not the whole chronology, as it's used by wikimedia templates for sports teams... -- Blackcat (talk) 13:38, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

You are wrong. Wikidata properties not only for current situation but the whole chronology. Current value is marked by higher rank than others and is obtained by queries and templates by default. --Infovarius (talk) 11:28, 15 May 2019 (UTC)



Вместо того, чтобы снести вот это безобразие, очевидно выпирающее в истории правок, Вы удаляете две моих темы (и бог знает сколько других) без архивирования. И, собственно, с какой стати Вам пришло в голову, что Блантер не управится со своим user_talk самостоятельно? Он просил Вас о какой-то подобной помощи?

Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:44, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

On your edit at Q29043256[edit]

Hello. I would like to know why you reverted my edit[10]. We write the Portuguese name José "ジョゼ," not "ホセ" in Japanese("ホセ" is a Japanese writing of Spanish name Jose) and your edit seems to be a restoring the wrong information. --Ohtani tanya (talk) 07:08, 3 May 2019 (UTC)


Frankly I don't understand. Football is the generic name. A specific sport is played either with spheric ball or a spheroid, but that has nothing to do with this item which is only a metaclass for the several types of 'football'... -- Blackcat (talk) 17:06, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

@Blackcat: because these items are also generic. E.g. football (Q262090) is not always spheric. --Infovarius (talk) 16:52, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
And wouldn't be better keeping football the blanket item? -- Blackcat (talk) 17:10, 15 May 2019 (UTC)



Как же мне не нравятся отмены до обсуждения...

Вот это не сайт, а типичный лендинг, не содержащий информации и созданный лишь для перевода пользователей на конечную страницу.

Кроме того, в этом свойстве должно быть одно значение (он показывает ошибку рядом со свойством).

Ну или если так хочется пойти поперёк, то хотя бы одно из них назначить главным. Или вот что происходит n:ru:Категория:Ансамбль песни и пляски Российской армии имени А. В. Александрова (справа под картинкой значок ссылки, можно посмотреть как меняется при соотв. изменениях в Викиданных по количеству и главной, только пустую правку там нужно делать, чтобы кеш обновлялся). Можно, конечно, и там подстроить под все чудачества, и выбирать хоть что-то, но если есть какие-то соглашения (по одному значению, по главному в случае множественности и т.д.), то почему бы им не следовать. --sasha (krassotkin) 18:13, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

@Krassotkin: я делаю тысячи правок (часто в день), если бы я обсуждал каждую... Как человек со стороны может определить, что это не официальный сайт? Хотя взглянул повнимательнее и, наверное, в этом случае вы правы - информации здесь меньше и в основном перенаправления. "в этом свойстве должно быть одно значение" - неочевидно. По-моему, шаблоны должны уметь обрабатывать такие случаи. --Infovarius (talk) 11:17, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Спасибо за пинг, а то я уже перестал следить. Насколько понял по комментарию, эта отмена всё же вызвала вопросы, поэтому лучше было спросить я же тоже не ради вандализма сюда захожу, какое-то обоснование есть в этих действиях. "Неочевидно", - там прямо ошибка выдаётся в явном виде. "Шаблон должен", - в принципе согласен, хотя до конца не уверен. Если бы не отвлекали, то может и шаблон можно было довести, а так приходится выбирать. А неуверен, потому что обычно такие ошибки - это в большинстве случаев на самом деле что-то не то и нужно с ним разбираться, возможно даже хуже, если они будут замыливаться. При существующем же положении они явно визуально видны. --sasha (krassotkin) 12:35, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

writing system (P282) = unwritten language (Q4085712)[edit]

Hello! Yesterday I made this edit, since unwritten language (Q4085712) is not an alphabet. I tried in some way to assert that no value Help is "caused by" unwritten language (Q4085712), but I didn't find a way to do it. I also noticed that there are a lot of other items like this. I was wondering if the best way is to assert:

What do you think? --Horcrux (talk) 12:31, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

@Horcrux: yeah, probably this modelling is better. --Infovarius (talk) 11:06, 15 May 2019 (UTC)



В wikidata я перенес три интервики статьи Антон (ru, uk, bg) из Q35663473 в Q5401576. Вы откатили мои изменения с комментарием «something strange». А что ж тут странного, это ведь одно и то же имя, разве нет? --Montegorn (talk) 11:07, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

@Montegorn: Этот комментарий был не в этих статьях. Посмотрите в историю Q5401576 - я там пояснил отмену. На засыпку вопрос: почему вы перенесли интервики не в Q27873442? --Infovarius (talk) 11:25, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
В каком смысле - "different spelling, can have different transliterations"? В обоих случаях речь идет о мужском личном имени Антон, только в одних языках оно пишется кириллицей, а в других латиницей. Но имя-то одно. Или вы утверждаете, что это два разных имени и две отдельных сущности?
Сейчас разнесено по двум разным элементам - из-за этого большинство интервики не работает. О существовании Q27873442 я просто не знал, а так-то да, надо его тоже добавить. --Montegorn (talk) 11:48, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
@Infovarius:? --Montegorn (talk) 13:58, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Отвечу вместо коллеги: увы, да, с точки зрения Викиданных Антон (русский и украинский) и Anton (то же самое, но транскрибированное на инглиш) - две разные сущности, см. Wikidata:WikiProject_Names#Basic_principles. Это ужасно мешает с точки зрения Википедии, но тут такой консенсус. Wikisaurus (talk) 08:02, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Да, спасибо, Викизавр за ссылку. @Montegorn: я пытаюсь как-то объяснить смысл этой системы. Представьте, что в какой-то Википедии есть несколько статей, соответствующих русской "Антон" (может, не с этим именем, но такая ситуация часто встречается в англовики). С какой бы из них не соединять русскую - будет несимметрично и "нечестно". Единственный симметричный вариант - ни с кем (явно, через интервики) и со всеми (через свойство said to be the same as (P460)). --Infovarius (talk) 13:24, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
@Infovarius: @Wikisaurus: Нет слов, коллеги.
А почему же тогда, к примеру, имя "Глеб" соединено с немецкой, итальянской и польской статьями - это же аналогичный случай, или просто руки пока не дошли разделить? --Montegorn (talk) 15:44, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Недоработка :) Кстати, с Глебом ещё хуже - белорусы решили отделиться: Hleb (Q20971659). User:Montegorn, если хотите обсудить структуру элементов об именах - прошу пожаловать в обсуждение вышеупомянутого проекта. Мне тоже не нравится нынешняя система, и я активно боролся с ней поначалу. Но в итоге, т.к. не смог предложить ничего более удобного и хорошего, смирился и пытаюсь отстаивать наши "кириллические" права в этой системе. --Infovarius (talk) 22:09, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

New year[edit]

Re [11], I'm puzzled, doesn't ruwp separate New Year (Q34812) from New Year celebrations (Q1980736)? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:34, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

@Mike Peel: I am puzzled too: what's the difference between them? I suppose the beginning of new year is always a fest in some sense. And if you mean New Year (Q34812) to be just a day why not to merge it with January 1 (Q2150)? --Infovarius (talk) 12:58, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
I think it's that one is the event, and the other is the celebrations of the event. New year is commonly January 1st, but it depends on the calendar system, so they're separate. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 13:10, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Les Joueurs de cartes[edit]

Hi, It is useless to add images here, it just produces errors when using the item in a list. And no, we can't add all the images. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:18, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

@Yann: Where an image in a class (group) produces error? --Infovarius (talk) 16:33, 4 June 2019 (UTC)


In this change you claim that the given name Joan is best given as "Джоан/Жоан" in Russian. This seems unlikely to me. Can you cite any documents in which someone is referred to as "Джоан/Жоан"? Thanks, Bovlb (talk) 16:05, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

@Bovlb: This is a question of modelling. Joan has no single correspondence in Russian so I want to show it by enumerating all variants for it. It is like for a name Q12902079 which has no single transliteration into latinic languages and it is shown in de-label (English is wrong with single label, just look at ). --Infovarius (talk) 16:53, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
We normally handle this by picking the best form to be the label, and having other forms as aliases. It is not (IMHO) correct to give a form that is never correct because it embodies a list of forms. Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 18:08, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
@Bovlb: The best form for Q1484457 is Joan but it's not Cyrillic. And there are no the best Cyrillic form. Any form would be wrong for some persons. And the label "a list of all possible forms" at least partly correct always and understandable. --Infovarius (talk) 20:40, 10 June 2019 (UTC)


[12] Yes, you are completely right about Testudinata being a wider group than Testudines and it's also why I made the edit. Those three articles are not about Testudinata, they are about Testudines but they regard Testudinata and Testudines as synonyms. In my opinion they should be linked with Testudines regardless of their erroneous names. For example now it looks like the Portuguese Wikipedia doesn't have an article about turtles, which is untrue. --Paranaja (talk) 15:05, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

@Paranaja: it is a usual situation when many wikis don't have an article about common name of animals/plants' common name. If these article are really about modern turtles why not to rename them in common name? --Infovarius (talk) 16:37, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
I now tried to do like you suggested, but I was only able to move suwiki. --Paranaja (talk) 17:11, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Alcoholic cocktails[edit]

Hi :-) what's the difference between Q18562959 and Q7214075? --Superchilum(talk to me!) 14:26, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Superchilum! Honestly I don't know (I marked them as "nearly duplicates" myself). Probably in different languages there is difference in terminology according to different alcohol concentration? By the way, please revert your moves because in English and French "cocktail" means always with alcohol (and Category:Cocktails (Q6511353) is about non-alcoholic too). --Infovarius (talk) 13:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Ups, I didn't know about english, my bad. I will revert it. However, in French it doesn't seem to be so, on they have fr:Catégorie:Cocktail with the subcategory fr:Catégorie:Cocktail alcoolisé. Regarding my previous question, I think we can merge them, don't you? :-) --Superchilum(talk to me!) 13:47, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Ley's try. If there would be some counter-argument one can unmerge at that time. --Infovarius (talk) 20:57, 15 June 2019 (UTC)


Hello. Property date of death should contain date of end of life, it is logical. For example, we do not write dates of clinical death for living persons there. Otherwise, we would have to specify date of resurrection too, but we aren't able. --SkоrP24 17:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

@Skorp24: Hm, interesting argument. And I tend to agree but for characters there can be a "real resurrection"! Else how to reflect those events for the character? --Infovarius (talk) 13:08, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Should the events be reflected? Death in the middle of life. I don't think so. We specify dates of birth and death as they are specified for biographies of real persons, but there is no resurrection in real life. For example, we don't refrect date of university entrance in Wikidata though it may be important event too. --SkоrP24 17:50, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm returning my edit. --SkоrP24 13:42, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Distinguishing individuals from collections[edit]

Hi! In this edit, you asserted:

but we already have:

You edit makes "God the Father" an instance of an instance of God, which seems ontologically incoherent to me. How do you plan to fix this?

Also, your edit summary for this edit does not appear to describe the reasons for the edit. Instead it seems to address another editor. You should use talk pages for this purpose.

Finally, you appear to have reverted the same edit by multiple users, which is edit warring. I discourage you from continuing to do this.

Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 16:55, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

@Bovlb: I understand incoherency, let's discuss. And yes, I revert this deletion in second time and I explained my revert in the first reversion while both deletions were unexplained. Who are edit-warring then?
The problem with christianity is the Trinity. It consists of Jesus (which is God in some traditions) and others. And it is considered to be the God itself. So seems to be that both P31 are correct. But we can add also P279 to the second to avoid violations. --Infovarius (talk) 19:58, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi. Sorry to be so slow to reply.
I understand the nature of the Trinity (well, perhaps that is an overstatement), but that does not licence us to make God a second-order collection (which is implied by an incoming path of two P31s). Perhaps the best approach here is for "God the Father" to be part of the Trinity, and an instance of God. "God in Christianity" either needs to be an individual (and have no instances) or a collection (and not be an instance of any first-order collection).
It is unfortunate that the Wikidata UI does not make it easier to provide edit summaries for most edits, or to see the history of a specific claim. My change was made independently (pursuant to a constraint violation report), and I did not observe that the claim was reinstated recently, nor did I see your edit summary. If I had, then I might have handled it differently, but I would still have wanted to remove the claim.
I don't want to belabour this point, but the policy I linked to says that "Edit warring is the repeated reverting of the same edits by multiple users." From a review of the history, you have inserted this claim (at least) three times, and it has been removed by two different users. The lack of edit summaries is unfortunate, but does not seem relevant to this point. Again, I just wanted to encourage you to discuss (as you are now doing), rather than simply reverting all comers.
@Nurni: Since you made the same change I did, you may wish to weigh in.
Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 16:40, 19 June 2019 (UTC)


Thank you for pointing about the discussion of the property. --Ranjithsiji (talk) 05:47, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

5 reverts on 4 items about letter case[edit]

  • Q4444253‬ removed redirect to Q8185162 -- your definition "letter which is smaller than the capital" is unusably bad and after your "fixes" and the item is inconsistent with the opposite
  • Q8185162‬ your definition "script consisting of smaller letters" is unusably bad (smaller than who or what ??) and the item now has 3 opposites and 2 warnings
  • Q98912‬ reverted me twice
  • Q3960579‬

Your comment "isn't it?" is incomprehensible. What was wrong with my revisions? Please explain the point with your "fixes". My revisions were consistent did not have warnings. You created a mess. Taylor 49 (talk) 14:29, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Taylor 49! Let me explain with the use of the word "Taylor". lowercase (Q4444253) is for "t", upper case letter (Q98912) is for "T"; lower case letter (Q8185162) is for "taylor" and uppercase text (all caps) (Q3960579) is for "TAYLOR". So these 4 items are now consistent while your merge has created a mess. If there are some problems with labels in some languages, let's fix them (together or with the help of native speakers, because English is not my native tongue). --Infovarius (talk) 11:21, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
What a strange answer. It was you who brewed a mess. You removed my definitions (why? didn't you see them?). You created a large amount of warnings and inconsistencies (didn't you see them?). My version was consistent. If your Russian stuff is broken then feel free to fix the Russian stuff but don't create a mess and don't remove the definitions. Without definitions nobody knows what an item is about.
  • lowercase (Q4444253) is garbage, do you have any hard argument against merging it into Q8185162?
  • Q8185162‬ is supposed to be "lower case letter" -- for example "a" -- this one is NOT about lowercase text
  • Q98912‬ is supposed to be "upper case letter" -- for example "T"
  • Q3960579‬ is supposed to be "uppercase text (all caps)" -- for example "TAYLOR"
  • Q65048529 is supposed to be "lowercase text" -- for example "taylor"
Best regards Taylor 49 (talk) 21:20, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Revert at association football[edit]

I have a question about this revert: the statements "minimum number of players" and "maximum number of players" have an icon beside them stating that the item should be an instance of game or sport. This was the reason for my edit that you reverted. Is there another way to resolve the error that you are aware of? Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 20:12, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

@Lord Bolingbroke: I see, thanks for writing. I've changed some constraints in minimum number of players (P1872) and maximum number of players (P1873) so there should be no violation now.

Hill chain[edit]

Hi! Can you explain me this revert? IMHO, an "hill chain" is indeed a "group" of "hills". Why not? Thank you. --BohemianRhapsody (talk) 14:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

@BohemianRhapsody: it is only in English (and German). In other languages this item is about higher form of relief, e.g. Smolensk Upland (Q1929164) consists of what hills? --Infovarius (talk) 21:46, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
@BohemianRhapsody: I found another item - upland (Q55075651) which is more suitable for most of the sitelinks so I'll keep hill chain (Q9381142) as "hill chain" as you thought of it. --Infovarius (talk) 15:43, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Edge-blown aerophones and flutes[edit]

Hi! Can you explain me this revert? "Edge-blown aerophones" is the official name in Hornbostel-Sachs classification of the family commonly known as "flutes" and recorded with the code "421". You can see that for example here: en:Hornbostel–Sachs#Edge-blown_aerophones_or_flutes_(421).

In fact, the page on linked to list of musical instruments by Hornbostel–Sachs number: 421 (Q5337632) is a list of instruments in the 421 family.

Pan flute and occarina are both "flutes": pan flute has code 421.112.2 (i.e. "Sets of stopped end-blown flutes"), while ocarina has code 421.221.42 (i.e. "Vessel flutes with duct with fingerholes"). --BohemianRhapsody (talk) 08:55, 11 July 2019 (UTC)


What is the reason to revert my edit on Category:Disambiguation pages (Q1982926)? I made a script that uses this property extensively on categories, and this property is meant to tell what a category is holiding. So I don't understand your revert, neither do I understand the explanation what else?. Edoderoo (talk) 17:26, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

@Edoderoo: because category combines topics (P971) has a constraint of having minimum two values. Category:Disambiguation pages (Q1982926) is joining "disambig" with what else? --Infovarius (talk) 21:42, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
I do not see the sense of "it *must* be two", and this is a clear example of why it doesn't make sense. Now my script uses extra code, to avoid silly rules. Edoderoo (talk) 04:01, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

mythical characters[edit]

I don't understand this change. Is there some policy decision I'm not aware of? What is the reason for creating a separate data item for Hippolytus as a character in myth from Hippolytus as a character in the play? --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:22, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: sorry I can't find discussion. May be User:Valentina.Anitnelav can give a link? At least I see a problem in having mythical and fictional character together: they can have different properties (different history, different relations, different fate). So as "the same" character from different creative work. --Infovarius (talk) 16:00, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
This becomes very complicated very quickly. Will we have to have a different copy of Hercule Poirot (Q170534) for every book, story, film, and TV program in which the character has appeared? --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:07, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
There is no policy decision, but it started to become a kind of "status quo" by mass imports of operatic characters and theatrical characters (see a related discussion at User_talk:Beat_Estermann#Characters).
Even though I'm generally in favour of creating own items for different character versions I also see that this can get complicated, but the other way (having all statements about all versions at one item) can also get quite messy (just imagine the item Cinderella (Q13685096) cluttered with statements applying to any version of this character). I started to collect modelling options and pros/cons at Wikidata:WikiProject_Narration#Characters_appearing_in_multiple_works_(adaptations,_spin-offs)_with_different_characteristics.
Of course one should not create an item for each appearance of a character (as to Hercule Poirot (Q170534): there should be only one character for the 33 novels, the play and the 50 short stories by Agatha Christie as I would suppose that they should play in the same narrative world). There already exist own Wikipedia articles for prominent versions of characters, mostly from pop culture (like Snow White (Q14153484)/Snow White (Q2739228)/Mary Margaret Blanchard (Q21233426) or Poseidon (Q41127)/Poseidon (Q12046450)). I'm not sure how to deal best with the spectrum inbetween those. Probably an adaptation of a character with no difference to the original would not merit an own item. Those rules of thumb are still up for discussion considering different requirements from different projects (voice types for operatic characters, significant roles of stage actors/dancers/singers, development of characters throughout different adaptations, modelling of narratives, comparison of original works and adaptations, ease of querying works featuring "the same" character, etc.)
As to versions of mythical and religious characters in fiction I think an own item is generally appropriate due to the distinct character of myth/religion. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 17:23, 30 July 2019 (UTC)


У Вас есть АИ, что Afrotheria (Q27399) по-русски называются "африканские звери"? --VladXe (talk) 21:01, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@VladXe: нет, только перевод названия. Настаивать не буду, но легче это словосочетание запомнить, чем спецтермин, синонимы никому не мешают. --Infovarius (talk) 21:38, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Не знаю, АИ ли, но вот тут: --Infovarius (talk) 21:51, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Я не большой знаток КОИ, но, ИМХО, не АИ, ибо сайт использует альтернативный механизм вики, следовательно, автора у конкретной страницы нет. --VladXe (talk) 07:15, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Насчёт административно-территориальных единиц СССР и РСФСР[edit]

Здравствуйте. Вижу, что Вы отменили мои правки, поэтому хотел бы это обсудить. На географическом форуме как-то обсуждался вопрос об указании "уровня административных единиц" у АТЕ СССР. Обсуждалось это потому что РСФСР изначально был независимым государством, а потом вошёл в союз и стал административной единицей под названием "союзная республика". Например, если губернию можно было бы считать АТЕ первого уровня, то в СССР она бы стала вторым. Но всё это сочли ОРИССом и договорились удалить из карточек в будущем. Сейчас я провожу работу по категоризации АТЕ СССР, начиная с РСФСР, где всё очень не однозначно и сложно в первые годы. Насчёт государства, то я думаю вернее было бы указать РСФСР. Helgo13 (talk) 22:37, 23 July 2019 (UTC)


Привет. Этот подкласс от традиционного блюда, не метода. Теперь русское описание ссылается на метод. Не могло бы ты это исправить? Спасибо. -Yupik (talk) 01:16, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Element(s) about States with limited recognition[edit]

Hello, I have seen your rollback. The elements Q15634554 (States with limited recognition) and Q199683 (List of states with limited recognition) are exactly the same. The only difference is that in some wikipedias the title of the voice is "List of states with limited recognition" (like in en or and in other wikipedias the title is "States with limited recognition" (like in es or; but the argument, the content and the structure of the voices are the same in all wikipedias. So, why not merge the two elements? --Franz van Lanzee (talk) 15:56, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

@Franz van Lanzee: I understand your pain. But the Wikidata is about strict and exact modelling. Lists are not classes. If you're worry about interwiki-linking there're another methods to link them. --Infovarius (talk) 15:46, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Ok, I unterstand that classes and lists must not be merge. But in this case the voices connected with both elements are all list, and the only difference is the title. I hope that the difference between a list and a class is deeper than the presence of the words "List of" in the title; or no? --Franz van Lanzee (talk) 16:18, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Aegean Islands[edit]

For maps there are several specific properties. Note that for most places a satelite picture is the main picture הנדב הנכון (talk) 06:35, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Reverts on P1889[edit]


As you've seen, I duplicated symmetrical information already stored on Wikidata where the data was asymmetrical.

I see that you reverted two of these edits :

The first one was obviously a mistake, thank for spotting it. The second one seems also to be a mistake but is more tricky ; at first, I didn't understand why you reverted me, it's because the value is already in said to be the same as (P460), right? In this case, shouldn't we add a constraint saying that different from (P1889) and said to be the same as (P460) are incompatible (and vice-versa)?

Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 10:24, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

@VIGNERON: so far I reverting only obvious cases which I also fix simultaneously. The name was erroneously marked as "don't mix with" another name - current practice to link them with "the same as". What do you mean that they are incompatible? They can be at one item. But of course if "A P460 B", there should be no "B P1889 A". --Infovarius (talk) 11:52, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
It may seem obvious to you but it was not to youme.
And yes, « if "A P460 B", there should be no "B P1889 A" » is exactly what I'm thinking about, is it always true? If so, I'll add the constraint.
Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 12:02, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Sorry for not using edit comment in these cases. "is it always true?" Hm, there are some frontier cases in which it isn't clear which property to use, thus they are used both - there constraint would not work. By the way, why don't you copy criteria like family name has to use a different item than disambiguation pages (Q27924673)? --Infovarius (talk) 13:28, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

gay bar (Q1043639)[edit]

Коллега, вы отменили мою правку, вернув в описание громоздкую граматическую конструкцию. Посмотрите формулировки на других языках — это в основном одна-две строки. Термин ЛГБТ давно языковая норма и не требует дополнительной расшифровки (в конце концов для особо непонятливых имеется ссылка на саму статью).
Давайте приходить к консенсусу, для краткости я бы даже отказался от слова "клубное", поскольку в следующей колонке оно присутствует как вариант. - Gerarus (talk) 21:13, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Ладно, как хотите. Мне казалось, что ЛГБТ всё-таки не всем понятен, по крайней мере, тем, кто не в теме. --Infovarius (talk) 16:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Somebody Else's Problem[edit]

Hello. What makes you think "Somebody Else's Problem" is a psychological effect, and that it was invented by sci-fi writer Douglas Adams? Per discussion at it seems more the case that this was a joke based around a pre-existing common phrase (the book in question talks about making a pink mountain literally invisible with a "Somebody Else's Problem field"). The Wikipedia article on the subject frames it as a phrase used in various contexts, only one aspect arguably approaching anywhere near to a "psychological effect". --Lord Belbury (talk) 17:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Answer to « why it should be subclass of it? »[edit]

for reference I know it’s not obvious to anyone, even controversial maybe, but it’s a very reasonable thing to argue.

What is a prize, like a Noble Prize ? It’s something won or given to someone. In that concern, then, the « peace Nobel Prize 2010 » (I don’t know who was the winner(s) of that prize) is definitely an example of (hence an instance of) a peace Noble Prize. It’s also a Nobel Prize and a Prize.

By definition of « subclass of », if « peace Nobel Prize 2010 » is indeed an instance of all of them, the only logical relationship between them is subclass of (P279).
We have
⟨ peace Nobel Prize 2010 ⟩ instance of (P31) View with SQID ⟨ Peace Nobel prize ⟩
. Then because we have also
⟨ peace Nobel Prize 2010 ⟩ instance of (P31) View with SQID ⟨ Nobel prize ⟩
(we commonly would say to someone whe won such a prize « impressive, you are a Nobel Prize !), and it’s true for any concrete Nobel prize awarding, any (concrete) peace nobel prize is an instance of Nobel Prize. By definition …
⟨ peace Nobel Prize ⟩ subclass of (P279) View with SQID ⟨ Nobel prize ⟩
The same for
⟨ Nobel Prize ⟩ subclass of (P279) View with SQID ⟨ prize ⟩
The alternative is to say « Nobel prizes are types of awards » (
⟨ Nobel Prize ⟩ instance of (P31) View with SQID ⟨ Type of award ⟩
). But imho it’s unecessary and more complicated.

Where you are right is that we should be consistent with the physics Nobel prize and the other one. But if you follow the definitions of subclass of (P279) and basic principles (see User:TomT0m/Classification), it’s something we could agree on. author  TomT0m / talk page 18:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Restaurant revert[edit]

I just want to understand more the resoning behind this revert. You write "wrong, some are free" and I do not fully understand why restaurant class is not subclass of a shop. --Gorn (talk) 18:31, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

@Gorn: Shop is a place where something is bought/sold, but not all Q11707 are working with money. --Infovarius (talk) 13:43, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
@Infovarius: I respectfully disagree with that argument. There might be some minority of restsurants where the food is not sold, but there also might be minority of shops where money is not required. As well as you may say that such a shop can not be called shop, we may also say that such restaurant should not be called restaurant. I still beleive that restaurant is a type of shop. I do not want to start a revert war, so unless you change position we must seek some way to reconcile this opposing POVs. I am not sure what process to follow. Regards 22:21, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
@Gorn: statements should be valid for all subclasses but there are soup kitchen (Q2142654) and canteen (Q54957790) and food-courts at "all-inclusive" resorts are not selling (at least directly) food. So your subclassing is wrong. --Infovarius (talk) 09:51, 13 August 2019 (UTC)


Please see wikt:ko:사용자토론:뭉게구름#d:special:diff/768162246. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 06:21, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I am sorry, Googel Translate doesn't help to understand the meaning... --Infovarius (talk) 19:50, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
User 뭉게구름 had added category 올림말, but he/she said, it is mistake. So I removed it. But I am not still certain that my action is correct or not. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 16:36, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Integrable system (Q1957758)[edit]

Hi! I saw your edit in Integrable system (Q1957758). I don't think an integrable system is a subclass of task, understood as an "activity that needs to be accomplished within a defined period of time". The integrability of the system is an intrinsic property that does not depend on whether you want to actually solve it or not. Korteweg–de Vries equation (Q601796) solution is actually known as an equation but that doesn't change the fact that it is an integrable system (and neither would if it weren't solved). What do you think? Regards. Mr.Ajedrez (talk) 13:56, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

@Mr.Ajedrez: There may be some inconsistency across languages. In Russian this item is called "точно решаемая задача" ("problem with exact solution") and it contains as an example Ising model (Q1076349) which is not a Hamiltonian system (Q2072471) so I removed this. --Infovarius (talk) 20:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
That's true. I'm reading the article in several languages and it's not at all the same concept. In and the subject of the article is integrability both in the sense of Frobenius (considering the existence of foliations in the corresponding manifold) and in the sense of Liouville (which is the case for Hamiltonian systems), but in and the subject is integrability only in the sense of Liouville (integrable Hamiltonian system) while in and it's simply about systems with exact solution (though the term "exactly solvable model" is often used for the Hamiltonian case). Maybe it would be necessary to split the item. Mr.Ajedrez (talk) 17:07, 26 August 2019 (UTC)


Please, help me. Diplura should be linked correctly. The present one doesn't work. It should be Diplura (Q221563), not Diplura (Q36308478). Then, it would link to many other languages. I obviously don't know the right way to do this change. I hope you do. Thanks, --Polinizador (talk) 12:22, 26 August 2019 (UTC)


Hello Infovarius, I saw you removed the link to the french wiktionary. The page exists and is accurate, Could you explain why? Best,--Philippe49730 (talk) 12:30, 26 August 2019 (UTC)


I do not understand your objection to "identically? no. This is for external databases" to my statement to the items Q53764732 and Q1198450. What "this" is "for external databases"? And which databases? The Wikipedia articles linked to the both items describe the same subject. Can you explain your objection on the relevant talk page? --Mmh (talk) 19:46, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

@Mmh: because exact match (P2888) ("identical to url") is for external databases, look at examples, description and creation proposal. --Infovarius (talk) 18:52, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
The description says: used to link two concepts, indicating a high degree of confidence that the concepts can be used interchangeably. Nothing about databases. I have overviewed all the linked Wikipedia articles and I can say with a very high degree of confidence that the concepts can be used interchangeably.
If this property is not the right one to indicate such identity, then tell me which one is. --Mmh (talk) 20:20, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Note "URLs only" (link to another item would be "item-type", not "URL-type"). This property was intended for "skos:exactMatch (" whatever it means. And if you want to connect identical items there is said to be the same as (P460). But I don't think that "CJK symbols" and "CJK languages" can be "used interchangeably". There is another relation between them (which is already present). --Infovarius (talk) 14:40, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

en.wn link for Madeleine McCann[edit]

Apologies; we seem to have been at cross-purposes. We've been associating en.wn's Category:Madeleine McCann with en.wp's Disappearance of Madeleine McCann because that's the article en.wp redirects "Madeleine McCann" to. However, you'd moved the link to Madeleine McCann (Q18542441), which is also a plausible choice because it's associated with the person rather than with her disappearance — but there's nothing in any English project attached to it, so for purposes of wikilinking that association has no value.

Thoughts? --Pi zero (talk) 05:22, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Джордж Сорос[edit]

Здравствуйте. Вы отменили мою правку относительно того, что Джордж Сорос не является гражданином Великобритании [13]. Насчёт Венгрии (где он родился) и США (есть данные о натурализации в 1961 году, я не нашёл данных о британском гражданстве (именно так называется данный пункт в Викиданных, а не место жительства. В русскоязычной Википедии данных нет (он там жил, но для этого именно гражданство не нужно). Если у Вас есть ЯАИ, то вопросов не имею, если же нет, то просьба убрать Ваш откат.--Jordan Joestar (talk) 19:09, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

@Jordan Joestar: Т.е. в Великобритании он учился и работал с 1947 по 1956 год, но не получил гражданства? Ну если такое возможно, то ладно. --Infovarius (talk) 18:50, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Вид на жительство, как вариант. Но это не гражданство. Вопрос закрыт до появления АИ --Jordan Joestar (talk) 19:07, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Stille Nacht Heilige Nacht (Q172152)[edit]

Hello, could you please elaborate on your revert of the item Stille Nacht Heilige Nacht (Q172152)? The statement that you removed seems valid to me since Kevin MacLeod (Q16731782) is indeed a performer of Stille Nacht Heilige Nacht (Q172152) (i.e. he acts as a performer in some recording of the carol, namely Silent Night (Q66922472)). I thought this was the correct way to model the composition-recording relationship. Additionally, similar statements are quite frequently used in other items as well (e.g. Last Christmas (Q1318118)). --Sintakso (talk) 20:26, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

@Sintakso: may be I am wrong but I thought this property is for voice performers of a song. Does it "count" if some instrument would perform just 1 voice of multiple lines in polythonic piece? --Infovarius (talk) 18:56, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
I think performer (P175) is primarily used for listing various performers (including those playing musical instruments) on a recording of a song or on a release, as can be seen from Wikidata:WikiProject_Music#Release properties and the note at the end of this section. However, I believe this property is also suitable for associating people or ensambles who recorded certain song or musical composition with the item for that song or composition (which is what I was intending to do in Stille Nacht Heilige Nacht (Q172152)). In this case, qualifiers such as has quality (P1552) cover version (Q155171) or statement is subject of (P805) Silent Night (Q66922472) can be used to provide additional information about the recording. This appears to me as the most sensible way to describe this relationship, but maybe there is some better way to do that. --Sintakso (talk) 09:07, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

naming of Sintel (Q925587)[edit]

When the film was in development, the codename was Durian, named after the fruit (Q134185) [all Blender Foundation films are codenamed after fruit], and then when it was ready to be released it was named after the Dutch word for a cinder, Sintel.

I am curious why you deleted the named after (P138) statements as to such. Arlo Barnes (talk) 16:03, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Upon further thought, it is more correct to say the movie is named after the main character, so I have updated the entry. Arlo Barnes (talk) 03:35, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
@Arlo Barnes: I just didn't find how a fiction novel bullshi- (Q5120404) is related to this animation. ember (Q177257) is more understandable. --Infovarius (talk) 17:35, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights Survey[edit]

RMaung (WMF) 17:38, 10 September 2019 (UTC)


I see that you added "said to be the same as" to both limb items. Are there reasons against merging them? ChristianKl❫ 18:09, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

@ChristianKL: I don't object. I was thinking about the same but I was just not sure. --Infovarius (talk) 12:54, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Looks like it's September 2019[edit]

Hello, I'm Mike Novikoff. I wanted to let you know that I'm neither an inexperienced user with less than seven years of Wikimedia tenure, nor a one with a "not-a-big-deal" attitude, so my every edit (most of which are reversions here at WD) is based on some research. Sometimes it takes half an hour or even more, as it was the case with Garfield (Q767120), and I'm always ready to prove it. Please take care not to undo my edits too soon, and if you do, please provide some more explanation than none at all or a question mark alone (I'm sure you know who these are aimed against). If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! — Mike Novikoff 19:00, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

@Mike Novikoff: I have no objection to this your edit, you've just not cared to revert previous vandalism. But I don't understand why you've deleted Russian alias. --Infovarius (talk) 12:59, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
It's not at all that I didn't care, I've already told you that I've spent half an hour studying the case, and I've explained my deletion here. It turns out that the fuss about Garfield's gender goes on (at enwiki) for more than two years now, basically being a trolling, and even The Washington Post writes about this edit war. So I've decided that the lesser of evils would be to omit this subject altogether, rather than to memorize the vandals with the new sources. Anyway, thanks to Valentina for resurrecting the old source that, unlike the others, doesn't go into much detail on the WP edit war.
As for an alias, please note that they are supposed to be natural, not the parenthetical disambiguations from WP page titles (and even for WP page titles the natural ones are preferred). Just because the parenthetical names occasionally get imported doesn't mean they should remain here like that. So that e.g. 'кот Гарфилд' would be fine, but definitely not 'Гарфилд (кот)'. And then again, not every item needs an alias at all, note that the Russian page currently has no disambiguation in its title. — Mike Novikoff 16:10, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
@Mike Novikoff: Ok, I suppose the problem with gender is solved. But I disagree with your understanding of aliases. Primary goal of aliases for me is the help in finding and using the item. Disambiguation "Гарфилд (кот)" helps to filter this item from others (animation film, series and others) while "кот Гарфилд" helps much less because starting to type "кот..." doesn't help to find at all. And yes, parenthetical disambiguations are very helpful. Just try to choose correct one "Ивановка" in a Russian search field without parenthesis (English conventions are a bit different, they use "," instead of "()", but it's the same purpose - disambiguation). --Infovarius (talk) 12:50, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Well, geographical disambiguation is another story and it may be more complicated, but I currently don't see any problem searching for Garfield, it works just fine, doesn't it? — Mike Novikoff 13:50, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Doktor (stopień naukowy)[edit]

Hi. The article pl:Doktor (stopień naukowy) describes the scientific degree of PhD, and should be linked to Q752297 not Q4618975. I am surprised that you think you know better the Polish system of scientific degrees than the community of Polish Wikipedia. Regards, Michał Sobkowski (talk) 08:39, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

@Michał Sobkowski: All I see in this article (correct me if I am wrong) is general description of several titles in several countries. One of these titles is obviously PhD, but others (Russian) are obviously not. So it perfectly fits to general item Q4618975 (which includes PhD but also other equivalent titles). And please tell me if "Doktor" in Poland is fully identical to (anglo-saxon) PhD and not "nostrification" equivalent of it? --Infovarius (talk) 13:03, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
No, it is not 'general description of several titles in several countries', It is a description of PhD and equivalents:
  • Kraje anglosaskie – one sentence on PhD only
  • Polska – description of Polish equivalent to PhD. This is obviously the main section of the article and describes the scientific degree of doctor (= PhD) in Poland.
  • Rosja, Białoruś – a note on Russian and Belorussian кандидат наук, an equivalent to Polish scientific degree of doktor and English PhD + a note that дoктoр наук ('doctor of sciences' which may be misleading) is not PhD but a 'habilitated doctor'.
  • Węgry – this section was not about PhD, indeed. Removed.
Polish term doktor may have various meanings. One of them is the scientific degree of PhD, another may be a doctor of arts, yet another – physician (like in English). The term doktor filozofii (= Doctor of Philosophy) was abandoned in Poland at least 50 years ago but the current doktor scientific degree is still identical to PhD. Regards, Michał Sobkowski (talk) 14:47, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
So at least "Rosja, Białoruś" part is not directly linked with "PhD". But do as you wish. --Infovarius (talk) 10:07, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Animal - definition[edit]

Hi Infovarius - I think you may be confusing 'animal' with 'mammal', perhaps? 'Animal' includes birds, reptiles, fish, insects, etc., etc., as well as mammals. So pigeons and ducks are animals ;-) The important point is that domesticated animals are not separate taxa from the wild animals they are derived from; they do not have a taxon designation, nor a separate scientific name. MPF (talk) 20:43, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

@MPF: Actually this your edit is not correct not because the class is incorrect, but because P31 is incorrect relation between these classes (should be P279). --Infovarius (talk) 19:20, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey[edit]

RMaung (WMF) 19:54, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

leadership (Q484275)[edit]

Hi Infovarius! You removed [14] from the item. Is there a particular reason to do so? Regards
no bias — קיין אומוויסנדיקע פּרעפֿערענצן — keyn umvisndike preferentsn talk contribs 23:42, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Mach number[edit]

Hi. About Mach number (Q160669) and speed (Q3711325) (following up on your revert here): The former is a ratio of speeds, therefore a dimensionless quantity; the latter is a quantity of dimension "length / time". Toni 001 (talk) 10:30, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@Toni 001: But this dimensionless quantity measures speed! E.g. "This plane is flying with the speed of 1.5 Machs" (pardon for bad English). --Infovarius (talk) 15:52, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
@Infovarius: Not exactly, but I understand why common language misses that detail: Assuming a given speed of sound, the speed can be computed from the Mach number. That assumption is implicit when someone says "the airplane is flying at Mach 1.5". However, this is like saying that "millimetre" measures temperature, assuming you use a thermometer with corresponding markings. Toni 001 (talk) 17:54, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Temperature unit vs scale[edit]

Hi. You just undid two of my edits related to temperature units and scales (1, 2). Note that a unit (say, the degree Celsius) and a scale (say, the Celsius scale) are not the same thing, so there should be separate items for each concept. Toni 001 (talk) 17:49, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Tea as a "soft drink"[edit]

Re: ""A soft drink (see § Terminology for other names) is a drink that usually contains carbonated water (although some lemonades are not carbonated), a sweetener, and a natural or artificial flavoring." this is not true of tea or rarely true of it. —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:06, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@Koavf: In ru-link (translated as "non-alcoholic drink"): "напиток, не содержащий алкоголя. Безалкогольные напитки зачастую газируются и обычно потребляются холодными. Наиболее часто употребляемые безалкогольные напитки — это tea (Q6097), coffee (Q8486), juice (Q8492) и nectar (Q2719623), carbonated water (Q264554), lemonade (Q893)" which contains direct mention. --Infovarius (talk) 21:00, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Again, may be do you mix with carbonated beverage (Q13417200)? --Infovarius (talk) 21:01, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Your edit on cytochrome c oxidase (Q306116)[edit]

@Infovarius: The item is a protein family, so it can't be an instance of another family, rather a part or a subclass. Please fix. --SCIdude (talk) 21:12, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

How can a disambiguation page be a class of stream?[edit]

Hi, you reverted my edits on Alamito Creek (Q16437): Wikimedia disambiguation page. How can a Wikimedia disambiguation page (Q4167410): Wikimedia-page that lists different meanings for the same string be a subclass of stream (Q47521): body of water with current within bed and stream banks? SixTwoEight (talk) 11:23, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Because it is a list (in other words: "class") of creeks in all languages. Look at their content. --Infovarius (talk) 22:13, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Not a good idea to mix ontology (concepts) and lexicography (words). Disambigution page really isn't a kind of stream (e.g. the way brook (Q63565252) is). If you are interested in words in various languages and senses, then tere is Wikidata:Lexicographical data. 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:D460:F776:FDEC:1ED4 20:33, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Animirani film[edit]

Why did you do this? "Animated film" in serbian language is "animirani film", and therefore the page sr:Animirani film should be linked in Q202866. --Dcirovic (talk) 20:18, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

@Dcirovic: According to sr:Цртани филм it is a synonim to "animirani film". So sr:Animirani film is just a new, empty, duplicate of a better article. --Infovarius (talk) 22:24, 13 October 2019 (UTC)


Hi, may I ask you why did you revert my changes on Q666112 and Q39314414? Thanks Poko (talk) 16:08, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

@Poko: Because they have different spellings (even different scripts). Why do you merge not to q20682286? Anyway, please read Wikidata:WikiProject Names#Basic principles. --Infovarius (talk) 22:11, 13 October 2019 (UTC)


glucose (Q37525) cannot be an instance of an item being concept (Q151885); Zuckerart (Q227790) with instance of (P31) family of isomeric compounds (Q15711994) is completely wrong. It does not seem okay, it should be deleted or you should find different statement for Zuckerart (Q227790) to be valid in glucose (Q37525). Wostr (talk) 21:08, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

@Wostr: Sorry I don't understand what's wrong in saying that glucose is a type of sugar. Zuckerart (Q227790) instance of (P31) concept (Q151885) doesn't spoil anything because it is not subclass relation. Nevertheless I don't inssist on family of isomeric compounds (Q15711994). --Infovarius (talk) 22:21, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

You added model to a serie[edit]

Hi, I noticed that you add "video game console model" to at least 2 series of consoles: Q685088 and Q3880969. I already reverted your 2 changes but maybe that you have done the same error on other items. Can you check all your others similar modifications? Look at the history of the two items for details. --Arosio Stefano (talk) 20:33, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@Arosio Stefano: the problem is that they were "subclass of console" which is incorrect too. I'll try to correct. It is hard to distinguish series from model sometimes... --Infovarius (talk) 22:22, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Ivanov (Q40711158)[edit]

Добрый день. Поясните, пожалуйста. Я, разумеется, обращал внимание, что существует свойство «письменность», но сейчас впервые сталкиваюсь с тем, что оно, оказывается, какой-то смысл несёт. --INS Pirat (t | c) 21:16, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

@INS Pirat: см. Wikidata:Wikiproject Names. Здесь принято, что "Иванов" - в одном элементе, "Ivanov" - в другом, "Ivanoff" - в третьем, "Ivanow" - в четвёртом и т. д. --Infovarius (talk) 22:16, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
""Иванов" - в одном элементе, "Ivanov" - в другом ..." — Вот конкретно в этом вы уверены? Не встречал разделения по письменностям языков разделов (в кириллических, арабских и т.д. точно не будет списков однофамильцев "Ivanov", а в латинских — "Иванов"). Честно говоря, принцип звучит не особенно осмысленно в общем случае.
Да и на практике вы просто отменили правку, не разделив присутствующие в формально элементе "Иванов" викиссылки "Ivanov" и "Ivanow" (и вариант на фарси), а лишь оторвав от них ссылку на категорию Викисклада, где, разумеется, подавляющее большинство "Ивановых" с родной кириллицей (как и в обратных ссылках на элемент, тоже не разбиравшихся вами).
В общем-то, и сама концепция "родной письменности фамилии" — это большая условность. Это же имена собственные, а не дизамбиги (опять-таки, по собственным же, не сказать что неоспоримым правилам Викиданных): не слова как таковые по элементам группируются. Грамматически одинаковая фамилия не является "разной" из-за языковых орфографических отличий. При определении необходимости в собственных элементах нужно исходить от существования в проектах множественных страниц для различных написаний, а не дробить искусственно. --INS Pirat (t | c) 23:26, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
@INS Pirat: Уверен. Да, система не идеальна. Но она симметрична по отношению к языкам, что уже неплохо. Без "родной письменности" нельзя будет создать единый элемент для всех возможных вариантов имени (или фамилии), подходящих всем персонам. Давайте посмотрим на Ivanov. Почему мы должны утверждать, что иностранцы Debora Ivanov (Q48872586), Alexandra Ivanov (Q20156123), Sacha Ivanov (Q47520735), Alessandro Ivanov (Q59529665), возможно никогда не видавшие в глаза кириллицы (к тому же большинство женщины), должны называться кириллической фамилией "Иванов"?
Я разобрал все обратные ссылки - они почти все сейчас должны отражать истинную ситуацию, проверьте.
В любом случае, как я уже сказал, латиническая версия Иванова может выглядеть как Ivanov, а может как Iwanow и у них могут быть разные статьи в одном и том же разделе Википедии (пусть не конкретно в этом случае, но примеров полно), а следовательно разные элементы, и всё равно пришлось бы между ними выбирать. Так пусть этот выбор будет естественным - как пишется на родном языке, такой элемент и используем. --Infovarius (talk) 21:05, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Если уверены, то на каком правиле основываетесь? По вашей ссылке проект участников, а не правило. Что "примеров полно", вы говорите о ситуации, когда одна и та же группа персоналий в каком-то разделе скомпонованы на одной странице (как однофамильцы), а в каком-то разбиты по нескольким. Но я и настаивал обращать внимание именно на это, — в противовес сказанному вами тут о разделении по письменностям. Попробуйте хотя бы несколько примеров такого привести: я уверен, что это невозможно, исходя уже попросту из концепции языковых разделов и интервики-связей.
"Почему ... должны называться кириллической фамилией "Иванов"" — Где "называться"? На каком языке о них пишут (или читают в Викиданных, — если говорить о лейблах элементов), соответствующим образом фамилия выглядеть и будет.
И повторю самое главное: я объединил элементы в первую очередь потому, что в одном — ссылка на Викисклад, а в другом — викиссылки. Вы это так и не прокомментировали, в том числе одновременное присутствие в элементе викиссылок "Иванов", "Iwanow", "Ivanov", "Іванов" и "ایوانف" вопреки вашим утверждениям. --INS Pirat (t | c) 22:02, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Может и не правило, но проект, согласно правилам которого работают миллионы элементов. Если хотите обсуждать целесообразность этого подхода, лучше сразу в обсуждение проекта писать, ибо меня переубедить - наименьшее дело.
Пример? Пожалуйста. Есть ru:Сантос и ru:Сантуш, в то время как на латинице только Santos. Объединить в одном элементе невозможно.
Если объединить всех Ивановых, то какая метка по-вашему будет на латинических языках? Однозначно не определить, т.к. у разных Ивановых разная транслитерация.
Место ссылки на Викисклад надо определить. Мне просто не хочется, чтобы она была в Ivanov, но видимо это самое логичное. Ссылки на разные написания, действительно, согласно этому подходу должны быть разнесены на разные элементы. И, честно говоря, мне этого не хочется. --Infovarius (talk) 21:04, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Instances of (musical) interval[edit]

Hi. I noticed that there are some "quickstatements" that undid my recent edits related to (physical) quantities. See for instance fifth (Q224169) where in the history it reads "#quickstatements; #temporary_batch_1571932565053". I don't know what that is, but it is reverting statements that I carefully corrected. For a discussion of "instance of" vs. "subclass of" physical quantity, see the project chat. Toni 001 (talk) 00:26, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Toni 001 I've made these edits by automatic tool. As there are no words about intervals at Project chat (and you treat them differently), I'll answer here.
⟨ fifth (Q224169) View with Reasonator View with SQID ⟩ instance of (P31) View with SQID ⟨ interval (Q189962) View with Reasonator View with SQID ⟩
is nonsense because it implies by transitivity which is obviously nonsense. Another point, which you may be don't understand, is that fifth (Q224169) is not a specific interval (i.e. ratio of frequencies) but a class of similarly named intervals (such as minor fifth (Q17025195), perfect fifth (Q12372854) and others). Note that fifth (Q224169) is defined by (non-strict) "staff positions" while perfect fifth (Q12372854) is defined by semitones and easily can be converted to a ratio of Herz. This all means that fifth (Q224169) should be subclass of some quantity in order to have perfect fifth (Q12372854) some level lower (instance or subclass, doesn't matter). --Infovarius (talk) 23:09, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi. I see the point about subclasses. From a quantity and unit point of view, here is my explanation:
  • Just like 5 kg is an instance of a mass (which is a subclass of physical quantity), 7 semitones is an instance of an interval, and "perfect fifth" is just a name for 7 semitones.
  • More tricky is the question about fifth, which is defined, as you mention, as five staff positions. Staff positions, while not having a fixed value, could still be considered as unit: There are other "units" like "spoons of sugar" used in recipes, whose value might also not be fixed. But I don't have any reference for a unit-like treatment of staff positions, and I like your explanation with "fifth" being a class containing (instance of) perfect fifth.

So, to summarize: perfect fifth instance of fifth; fifth subclass of interval; interval subclass of physical quantity, right? Toni 001 (talk) 04:45, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I restored your edits. After thinking some more, that makes perfect sense. Toni 001 (talk) 12:34, 28 October 2019 (UTC)


Even Lorraine's tourist site provides these details, please look explanation: I'm working on this article for hours I would ask you See the source before taking back my change. I'm not interested in Russian and French wiki, but if the wrong information is published there, please correct FikriyeRıza (talk) 00:13, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

@FikriyeRıza: so your site also says: "la glace de Plombières-les-Bains" like I said. And not from Russia (like you are insisting)! So please revert your revert and add this reference. --Infovarius (talk) 21:25, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
The site says: "En 1798, un glacier-confiseur, TORTONI, maison fondée par VELLONI, près de l'Opéra à Paris, propose déjà de la glace "PLOMBIERES" à ses clients. Ceci se présente sous la forme d'un entremet glacé aux œufs et fruits confits, sanglé dans un moule en plomb, d'où son nom." Many sources have acknowledged that this dessert was first made at Tortoni in Paris including by Larousse Gastronomique and books of Academic Publisher it is accepted. [15] Mold comes from Balzac's writings about Tortoni. I can not make the change you ask, please refer to the resources. FikriyeRıza (talk) 21:29, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I add both but one is an option that resources don't accept. Also change the country to France, but the Russian ice cream originate in Russia İ don't want to fight over this. FikriyeRıza (talk) 21:43, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

@FikriyeRıza: If you don't understand, you were fighting with yourself. Finally, you have changed to the version which I wanted, hallelujah! --Infovarius (talk) 19:49, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Author qualifier for 'quote or excerpt' statements[edit]

[16] I noticed you edited the Don't Panic: The Official Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy Companion (Q5291841) page to remove the demonstrates sense (P6072) qualifiers that I put there. And that's totally fine as I was planning on eventually removing them myself anyway, since I was just testing out a new concept. However, I noticed you also removed the author (P50) qualifier, from the quotation or excerpt (P7081) statements, and I was wondering, why? In that case the author of the quote was different to the author of the work that used the quote. Liamjamesperritt (talk) 00:59, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

@Liamjamesperritt: Hi! How it can be that "the author of the quote was different to the author of the work that used the quote"? --Infovarius (talk) 19:52, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
The definition of a quotation (Q206287) is "the repetition of one expression as part of another". The expression was originally authored by Douglas Adams, and then Neil Gaiman (the author of the work) quoted Douglas Adams by repeating the expression in his book. Liamjamesperritt (talk) 06:53, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

your revert of sulfur[edit]

Hello, there are several forms of sulfur which need a superclass (xyz instance-of what?). If Q682 is it not, you can tell me please? --SCIdude (talk) 14:11, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

@SCIdude: They are not chemical elements itself, they are substances and as
⟨ sulfur (Q682) View with Reasonator View with SQID ⟩ subclass of (P279) View with SQID ⟨ nonmetal (Q19600) View with Reasonator View with SQID ⟩
it is inherited correctly. --Infovarius (talk) 20:03, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Et tu Brute[edit]

The words "Et tu, Brute" are entirely fictional. They are not hypothised by anyone to be Caesar's actual last words. It's only a misconception based on popular culture brought on by Shakespeare's play, (and they're not even his last words in the play). If there is a "common misconception" thing on Wikidata that can be used.*Treker (talk) 17:54, 14 November 2019 (UTC)


Коллега, не рекомендую использовать этот жаргонный термин. В русском языке скорее используется «диакритический знак», хотя в английском diacritics довольно прижившаяся лексема. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 17:26, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Please read the articles[edit]

Q56315368 and Q49377 are the same exact subject! Why do you insist on separating them? Have you even read the articles Église des trois conciles and Églises antéchalcédoniennes? "Église des trois conciles" is what is called in English the "Oriental Orthodox Churches", whereas "Églises antéchalcédoniennes" is an overview article about all ancient, historic non-Chalcedonian churches, i.e. both the Oriental Orthodox Churches and the Assyrian Church of the East/Ancient Church of the East. Veverve (talk) 16:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

@Veverve: I don't know why do you insist on linking fr:Église des trois conciles with Q49377. Because it is directly said in ru:Древние восточные церкви: "признающих постановления и исповедующих вероучительные догматы только двух или трёх Вселенских соборов" (2 or 3). --Infovarius (talk) 21:35, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your clarification (and your partial translation since I do not speak Russian)! en:Oriental Orthodox Churches clearly states: "Oriental Orthodox Churches shared communion with the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church before the Council of Chalcedon in AD 451, as well as with the Church of the East until the Council of Ephesus in AD 431, all separating primarily over differences in Christology." and "The Assyrian Church of the East is sometimes incorrectly described as an Oriental Orthodox church, though its origins lie in disputes that predated the Council of Chalcedon and it follows a different Christology from Oriental Orthodoxy." (also on en:History of Oriental Orthodoxy: "Oriental Orthodoxy is the communion of Eastern Christian Churches that recognize only three ecumenical councils — the First Council of Nicaea, the First Council of Constantinople and the Council of Ephesus"). Same thing in hu:Antikhalkédóni egyházak, etc. Therefore, I believe ru:Древние восточные церкви and fr:Églises antéchalcédoniennes should be joined in a new item for the ancient, historic non-chalcedonian Churches. Veverve (talk) 21:44, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
So, do you agree? Veverve (talk) 11:50, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
I decided to do it: Q76526564. Veverve (talk) 17:25, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

The Arecibo Observatory is located in Puerto Rico[edit]

...and Puerto Rico is not in the United States.

It is instead a US territory which is legally a separate domain under the control of the US congress. According to the United States Supreme Court: Puerto Rico belongs to but is not part of the United States.

See this ref: [1] See [[17]] Puerto Rico is not "in" the US. See [[18]]

Therefore any address in Puerto Rico should not include United States. The change that you made incorrectly gives "Arecibo, US" and should show "Arecibo, Puerto Rico". Arecibo is "in" Puerto Rico not "in" the United States.

Any person born in Puerto Rico was born in Puerto Rico, not in the U.S. See

See when the US politicians discuss The Arecibo Observatory, for example: Hillary Clinton. They know it's not in the U.S.

See [[19]]. This is an article listing Puerto Ricans who are in the United States.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 12:08, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

@The Eloquent Peasant: I made this according to the statement - at first you should challenge this. --Infovarius (talk) 20:26, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
  1. [1]


The problem with "Balantiopsaceae" is that it is not a taxon; it is a misspelling. Both ITIS and Tropicos point this fact out. It is neither a validly published name nor a taxon, but an error. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:42, 21 November 2019 (UTC)


  • Добрый день, коллега! Зачем делать как здесь Q4289242? Я же не вчера начал править и если удаляю заявление о том, что кто-то был режиссёром и сценаристом, то это значит, что точно проверил, что Q4125601 - человек, умерший в 1976 году, не мог быть режиссёром фильма, снятого в 2012 году. Пожалуйста, будьте внимательны. Честно говоря, когда вечер тратишь на сверку утверждений и простановку идентификаторов для нескольких фильмов и актёров, а потом это так отменяют, даже не проверив, то сильно отбивает охоту что-то делать. Вы же сами с этим сталкиваетесь и Ваши правки так же необоснованно отменяют. Зачем умножать подобное? --Ksc~ruwiki (talk) 19:26, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
    День добрый, Ksc~ruwiki. Да, я заметил отличие отчеств и проверил, что это военный, т.е. не подходит. Но я же заменил на Maksim Voronkov (Q21092329), или он тоже не подходит? --Infovarius (talk) 19:57, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
    Подходит. Он там даже был, только в другом свойстве. Я вобщем-то о другом написал, хотя может и не стоило. --Ksc~ruwiki (talk) 21:00, 23 November 2019 (UTC)


Добрый день. У вас при правках летом случился какой-то глюк и множество героев древнегреческой мифологии (человекоподобные) теперь числятся 100-рукими гекатонхейрами, а не просто "героями" (например, отец Одиссея или мать Елены Прекрасной). Исправьте их всех пожалуйста[20] Гекатонхейров звали Бриарей, Котт и Гиес, других не было. --Shakko (talk) 21:55, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

@Shakko: прошу прощения, София, да, был глюк - вместо монархов записал гекатонхейрами. Ну описания почти ни на что не влияют же? Попробую когда-нибудь исправить. --Infovarius (talk) 15:58, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
в том-то и проблема, что влияют. Когда в рувики подводишь курсор к синей статье, всплывает именно что описание из данных. И когда в визуальном редакторе выбираешь из тезок - всплывают описания из данных. И гугл в результатах выдачи "карточку" свою сбоку справа собирает из них. --Shakko (talk) 16:27, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Liouville Theorem and Equation Liouville's theorem (Q766722) and Liouville equation (Q20180666)[edit]

Hey @Infovarius:, is there a reason, that you have reverted my changes to Liouville's theorem (Q766722) and Liouville equation (Q20180666) I missed? The first is the theorem or Satz, the second one is the equation or Gleichung which is derived from the theorem. While most wikipediae don't have distinct articles for both, the German does and I don't see, why the German names and wikipedia references should be switched compared to everything else. But maybe I missed something. CamelCaseNick (talk) 17:49, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

My change to Q8805 (bit)[edit]

I removed the simplewiki link because the page there is a disambiguation ("dab") page, and this Wikidata item is not for dab pages. I have moved the simplewiki page to Q878715, which is for dab pages. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:11, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

@Auntof6: I don't see a "disambig" template in there. Would you be so kind to add it? --Infovarius (talk) 21:22, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Done. That page actually could use some work, but for now it's a dab. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:33, 11 December 2019 (UTC)


Hey, why did you revert Agnessa? It is only transliteration of the Russian name, not a separate Estonian name. --Metsavend (talk) 21:24, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

@Metsavend: Transliteration of Агнесса or Агнеса? And why not to merge with Agnesa? Actually consensus is to keep all of them separate: Wikidata:WikiProject Names This solution is not ideal but the other are worse. --Infovarius (talk) 15:49, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Providing solutions or just deleting?[edit]

If you think cities are not administrative territorial entities, then you're more than welcome to take care of the restriction notices on your own. --Ehitaja (talk) 16:14, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ehitaja: It's not about classes (I like the idea that cities are administrative entities, though the others don't). You've added the statement that city is a (single) adminstrative entity which is wrong (it has no specific coordinates or a country), it is a class not an instance. --Infovarius (talk) 21:07, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Okay, so if I define it as a subclass, then somebody else is going to revert it because hey look a squirrel? Wonderful. I have no idea why I still bother doing anything on WD. --Ehitaja (talk) 11:33, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Actually, scratch that. They already are a subclass, in a convoluted way, and that doesn't help with the restriction notices. Well, who cares? --Ehitaja (talk) 11:36, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
@Ehitaja: I don't understand metaphore about squirrel and I am sorry, I mixed Q21583365 with general "city", so everything should be fine with Q21583365. What "restrictions" (constraint violations?) do you talk? --Infovarius (talk) 15:52, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia (Q17460)[edit]

Please do not add claims that Uncyclopedia is in any way affiliated with Wikia, as you did here. The last of the Uncyclopedia CC-BY-NC-SA content was voluntarily removed by Wikia on 14 May 2019 and will not be returning to that site. 23:39, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Is Category:Products (Q7189878) } a Wikimedia set category (Q59542487)?[edit]

Hi Infovarius,

Just wanted to ask about your removal from Wikimedia set category (Q59542487) from Category:Products (Q7189878). I originally marked it as such due to the presence of category contains (P4224) and that the large majority of children primarily are instances of product (Q2424752) (or metacategory in Wikimedia projects (Q30432511) containing such). That said I now notice there also seems to be a few related topic articles as well (e.g. sustainable products (Q7649686), Category:Products and the environment (Q13288838), and widget (Q2467478) ).


ElanHR (talk) 04:17, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

@ElanHR: sorry, I don't understand. What's your criterium for Wikimedia set category (Q59542487)? --Infovarius (talk) 21:56, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Russian text appearing in template[edit]

HI, This revert of my edit at Q25250 (Volt) caused the russian text "электрический потенциал мозга" to reappear at Swedish Wikipedia, in the infobox of sv:Volt. The problem is that ru:электрический потенциал мозга does not have a translation to any other language, and the article is suggested for deletion. I do not know the exact meaning of the russian term. There are several other similar electrical potential measures that are not mentioned in statements at Q25250, such as en:Action potential, en:Local field potential and en:Electrotonic potential. Is it ok that I once again deleted the statement? Tomastvivlaren (talk) 15:46, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

@Tomastvivlaren: 1) It is not a (big) problem that the article has not translation. Wikidata is international (and interlanguage) project. You are free (and welcome) to translate into any language.
2) Appropriate measures can be added too, of course. Let's see. action potential (Q194277) seems to be about process, not quantity. Quantity about this process is called "voltage" in the article, it can be added but it has no item yet.
3) I don't know what specifically is local field potential (Q533483). If you are sure it is some quantity, please add it.
4) It said "Electrotonic potentials have an amplitude that is usually 5-20 mV" in en:Electrotonic potential so I suspect it can be regarded as some measurable quantity. I'll try to incorporate it, please check me. So, no, there is no reason to remove them. --Infovarius (talk) 17:17, 23 December 2019 (UTC)


Stating that "Bryophyta" is a food source (without source) is equivalent to saying that "Vertebrata" is a food source. This is aside from the fact that the actual source for this claim is not identified. The linked data item points to a website that is a large collection of medieval texts in multiple languages. Which text actually makes that claim? I was unable to make this determination and asked the editor to clarify. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:36, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: I've just linked taxon to the item Q79101981. If you suspect that it is not a food source, then the problem is in Q79101981, not in Q25347. And while Q79101981 exists it can be connected to other items. P.S. I suppose it is a food for e.g. deers. --Infovarius (talk) 17:34, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
"Suspecting" something is not evidence that can be used as a reference. The other edits by this same editor indicate she is looking at human food sources. "Bryophyta" is not used as food by humans. The best that can be said is that Sphagnum is occasionally used as an ingredient in bread by Laplanders, and Sphagnum is used to flavor whiskey. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:46, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
We still have no source to back this up as a reference. We have only a pointer to an entire database, without identifying the actual source, which is a problem in itself. We need to know what the source says. And if a medieval source document says "moss" or "Moose" then the best we can say is that some unidentified cryptogam (Q333458) of uncertain affinity is meant. In medieval texts, "Moss" / "Moose" does not mean "Bryophyta sensu strico"; it means "cryptogam". --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:50, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

P376 = Q2[edit]


I'm not sure to understand your reverts (including Special:Diff/1080572574) and the comment « seems ok ». Did you see the constraint Property:P376#P376$cd9bade1-4b08-8500-cfea-f71b7fd429d7 (and the discussion Property_talk:P376#Not_the_Earth who lead to the creation of this constraint) that forbid located on astronomical location (P376) = Earth (Q2)?

Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 07:46, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

@VIGNERON: Why do you think that atmosphere of Earth (Q3230) is not on Earth? And which coordinates it has if this is a problem? --Infovarius (talk) 17:28, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm absolutely sure the atmosphere of Earth (Q3230) is not on Earth. This is not the prolem here. The problem is the constraint violation. So again : Did you see the constraint? Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 17:32, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
I see the constraint now. If it is a problem, I can remove it. But sorry, common sense says that air is on the Earth. --Infovarius (talk) 17:35, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Head of administration[edit]

What was the purpose of the whole reverting and re-adding process that you just did for the Head of Administration (which is btw the correct capitalization of the title in English) item? -Yupik (talk) 12:18, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Quite small, just to get rid of redirects in other items. Reversely what was the purpose of merging old and used item into newer and not-used? Sorry for capitalization, I thought that such rule is only applicable to newspaper titles. --Infovarius (talk) 17:26, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up, and if any hint for Q31448?[edit]

So appreciating for you to clean up of this plus others I made; perhaps could you advise me on a parrot where I was trying to solve an issue on; for "instance of" "family", there is a (!) mark which I thought better to solve. Do I better leave it as is? I admit flora and fauna is not the best part of my reach, and wish you would be giving me any hint. Anyway, thank you again to recover things in order. Cheers, --Omotecho (talk) 14:59, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

@Omotecho: taxonomic ranks are linked with taxon rank (P105). --Infovarius (talk) 21:55, 30 December 2019 (UTC)


Предлагаю «основного/базового/стандартного латинского алфавита», «латинского алфавита ISO (646)». 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 14:26, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Может быть, не знаю, какой вариант лучше. А есть элемент для такого алфавита? Latin script in Unicode (Q1046233) что ли? --Infovarius (talk) 06:17, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Не-а, у него порядок после основного алфавита даже не алфавитный вообще. ISO basic Latin alphabet (Q5974462). 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 11:15, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
@1234qwer1234qwer4: вроде неплохой выбор, давайте использовать его. --Infovarius (talk) 23:28, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
В смысле использовать? Я же говорил про описания. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 16:37, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

rolling chassis (Q731988)[edit]

Please have a look at the sitelinked articles - they are about the general concept of chassis, not specifically about automobile chassis. Perhaps some of them need to be moved from rolling chassis (Q731988) to chassis (Q1068107), but the edits I made seemed the simplest ones to do. (Also, belief (Q34394) != faith (Q5410500)). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 06:46, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Bad edits and bad behaviour[edit]

(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)

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)
Hello and sorry for the late answer. Someone has in the meantime edited Category:Bureaucrats (Q32776922) redirecting it into Category:Bureaucrats (Q32498609), an item previously unknown to me.
> 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.
> see now that Category:Wikipedians who are bureaucrats on sister projects (Q30808887) is not ideal main page, but I consider it more correct
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.
Taylor 49 (talk) 09:32, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
I think that I have fixed Category:Bureaucrats (Q32498609) (former Category:Bureaucrats (Q32776922)) now. This Category:Bureaucrats (Q32498609) is the "more general category, containing some help and maintenance pages" (any project) and having a description, whereas Category:Wikipedia bureaucrats (Q4615456) contains wikipedia bureaucrats and nothing else. Taylor 49 (talk) 10:31, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
I am ok with these two. I just feel uncomfortable with partially coincident with (P1382) between page and category - I think other users may consider it wrong cross-namespace linking. Infovarius (talk) 20:34, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


Здравствуйте, коллега. Мною и участником Sigwald были удалены логотип, сайт и ссылки на социальные сети из Викиданных согласно этому обсуждению: Логотип в карточке. MalemuteD (talk) 07:28, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Revision of 'visual artwork' on album[edit]

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)

Wrong transcribing[edit]

Hi Infovarius! The English spelling is not the same as in German, please pay attention, e.g. here Q82546093. Best regards, HarryNº2 (talk) 07:48, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

@HarryNº2: I agree but this was at JuTa's version, I just didn't correct it. --Infovarius (talk) 20:26, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Исправьте свои грубейшие ошибки[edit]

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)

@Бучач-Львів: Грубейшим? Был бы благодарен за примерчик. --Infovarius (talk) 20:29, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
Кстати, смотрите, какое распределение мест рождения для людей с P27=Российская империя:
SELECT ?place ?placeLabel ?coor (COUNT(?item) AS ?cnt) WHERE {
  ?item p:P27 [ps:P27 wd:Q34266].
  ?item wdt:P19 ?place.
  ?place wdt:P625 ?coor.
  SERVICE wikibase:label {
    bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "ru" . 
GROUP BY ?place ?placeLabel ?coor

Try it!

Такой разброс, что не никакая Галичина не выделяется. --Infovarius (talk) 14:23, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Я не очень подробно знаю историю, пытаюсь разобраться. 14 октября 1809 года в Шенбруннском дворце в Вене был подписан мирный договор, по которому Наполеон присоединил почти всю Западную Галицию с Краковом и Замостьским округом в Восточной Галиции (50 тыс.км² и полтора млн населения) — к Великому герцогству Варшавскому, а Тернопольский округ (9 тыс.км² и 400 тыс.населения) — отошёл к России. Венский конгресс 1815 года передал Западную Галицию Царству Польскому, которое вошло в состав Российской империи, а Тернопольский округ был возвращён Австрии; Краков с округом был признан самостоятельной республикой. - если это правда, то какая части Галиции не была, хотя бы формально, частью Российской империи? --Infovarius (talk) 19:21, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
@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)


Hello Infovarius,

You reverted my edit her. The ticket Itzhak (Q35746561) is about the Hebrew "יצחק" which have more then one option in English and Russian. It may be Itzhak or Itshak and more and also in Russian. Geagea (talk) 23:04, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Ok, Geagea, I add several variants. --Infovarius (talk) 13:43, 27 January 2020 (UTC)


Hi! About this, gnocchi (Q20063) are Italian dumplings, while kluski (Q1280741) are Polish dumplings, so I don't think the former should be a subclass of the latter. The generic term form both is dumpling (Q1854639). --BohemianRhapsody (talk) 08:00, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@BohemianRhapsody: There's big problem in naming food. We name Q1280741 with Polish and German (Knodl) name and regard as generic term. Meanwhile "dumpling" is English type of food, so it shouldn't be superclass either. I would rather use stuffed pasta (Q3897491) or pasta (Q178)/flour products (Q16266745) (if it is applicable) as a higher class. --Infovarius (talk) 13:51, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
I think we should use dumpling (Q1854639) for the generic term "dumpling" (and this is what the page is already saying), and then we can have various subclasses, like gnocchi (Q20063) for Italian dumplings, kluski (Q1280741) for Polish dumplings, knödel (Q158382) for German and Central european dumplings, et cetera. They all are "dumplings", but they are different. --BohemianRhapsody (talk) 15:02, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

bad country of citizenship[edit]

Infovarius, You seem to be adding a lot of country of citizenship (P27) = Russian Empire (Q34266) to people who do not seem to have been living in Russian Empire at all. You added it to Ivan Beley (Q12081730), Julian Celewicz (Q11729011), Julian Feliks Niedzielski (Q16680128) and Julian Niecz (Q12172954) who as far as I can tell lived in Austria-Hungary (Q28513) and Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria (Q2396442). I am not sure where are you getting your data but when adding country of citizenship (P27) could you provide references explaining where the information come from. --Jarekt (talk) 14:52, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry, these are pure guessing data, feel free to revert. I'll try to find other errors too. --Infovarius (talk) 19:27, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Astronomical object <subclass of> geographical object[edit]

Following up this reverted edit:

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)

@Dhx1: may be there's some other term but "geographical" means "Earth measuring". --Infovarius (talk) 23:54, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Website link removed from Paravur (Q1939468) and added to Paravur Municipality (Q16137553)[edit]

The website is more suited for Paravur Municipality (Q16137553). So removing it from Paravur (Q1939468).❙❚❚❙❙ JinOy ❚❙❚❙❙ 02:45, 3 February 2020 (UTC)


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)

@Joshbaumgartner: but now Category:Objects (Q6576895) is an orphan without commons link (but Category:Objects fits good). --Infovarius (talk) 23:46, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
@Infovarius: I understand that, but only one Q can be linked to a commons category, and the correct analog for Commons Category:Objects is Category:Physical objects (Q6821165). Commons does not really have a category that matches with Category:Objects (Q6576895), though Category:Objects might be the closest. Not all Q's need Commons category sitelinks, only those which are the best analog for existing Commons categories, so for now Category:Objects (Q6576895) does not need a Commons category sitelink. Josh Baumgartner (talk) 04:11, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Q167898 vs. Q12056594[edit]

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)

@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)
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)

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)

@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)
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)


Hi, you edits on Konstantin (Q31362405) are creating some problems on commons. Through Commons:Template:Wikidata Infobox People cats on commons gets automaticly sorted into their corresponding given and family names based on the english description of these items. Your change is now now filling up the non existent Commons:Category:Konstantin/Constantin/Constantine/Kostyantyn (given name). I was trying to get around this by creating extra items for the other translations or -literations like Q84693718 for i.e. Constanine and link the people named in english Connstantine (and not Konstantin) to this. This you now merged with Q31362405. How we can get around this dilemma? My proposal would be to use only one main label for Q31362405 and note the other iterations as aliases. This would mean that all cats moving back into Commons:Category:Konstantin (given name). Ideally you would "allow" multiple items for different literations of a cyrillic name, so that people called Constantine (in english) would be sorted to Commons:Category:Constantine (given name) and not to Commons:Category:Konstantin (given name) or even Commons:Category:Konstantin/Constantin/Constantine/Kostyantyn (given name). Thx for your thought and reply. --JuTa (talk) 17:56, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

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)
What kind of problems? And the Commons category isnt existing yet (but filled up by your changes) --JuTa (talk) 13:27, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
It's something that is planned to be fixed at Commons. See c:Template_talk:Wikidata_Infobox#Auto-categorization_for_names. --- Jura 13:37, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
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)
@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)
That could be solved by using different items for different transliteration as I proposed and already tried. --JuTa (talk) 12:22, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
@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)
I agree that this is theoretically possible modelling but it is very-very complicated. --Infovarius (talk) 08:41, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Constantin, Constantine and Kostyantyn are not transliterations of "Константин" in English. "Kostyantyn" is a transcription of the Ukrainian "Костянтин" (Kostyantyn (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)
So you are agree to have "Olga/Olha" in en-label but not "Konstantin/Constantin/Constantine"? I can agree with this point of view. --Infovarius (talk) 08:41, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 11:59, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
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)


Is an aggregate of buildings, and not an adminstrative unit. The related adm unit is malmö kommun.Yger (talk) 13:52, 13 February 2020 (UTC)



I removed Catégorie:Vitez and Category:Vitez from Q9168758 to be able to add them to Q9991444 (via my bot Escarbot).

It is not possible to have two wikidata elements with the same label and description in the same language.

Strangely, you were able to revert my modifications. This might be considered as a bug.

Best regards,

Vargenau (User talk:Vargenau) 08:18, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

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)


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)

@Blackcat: Please explain. I don't understand your edits. hu-article doesn't fit Q9430737, and what's the problem with SPARQLs? --Infovarius (talk) 15:30, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
the bot kept linking the associated wikidata item to a redirect category on Commons. -- Blackcat (talk) 16:24, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
I faild to find any my edit regarding Commons in this item. But I see your wrong edit. Please explain or stop edit-warring. --Infovarius (talk) 15:07, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Q1713564 (Pirates of the Caribbean)[edit]

Hi, I'm wondering why you reverted Pirates of the Caribbean (Q1713564), the master Pirates of the Caribbean item. I have been cleaning up the various Disney theme park items, and many items like this one have been hopelessly tangled together, because they are implemented in various different ways in different theme parks. Tagishsimon recommended having one master item that other 'instance' items connect up to, at this link: Do you feel otherwise? Happy to hear your opinion. Thanks, --OnePt618 (talk) 02:38, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

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)

P181 on Q9299 (Serbian)[edit]

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)

@Wlodzimierz: thanks for the reply! I didn't know about P1846. And I couldn't see this property during diff-view, sorry. --Infovarius (talk) 17:50, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
@Infovarius: No prob at all. I tend to explain my edits that got reverted, it feels better than the war by reverts with no arguments. Best, --Wlodzimierz (talk) 22:06, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

"educated at (P69)"[edit]

Hi! I have no idea why it was added as Cyrillic, as you can see, it clearly says "(‎Added Serbian (Latin script) alias: alma mater)". Thanks for correcting that mistake, cheers! Nadzik (talk) 08:15, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Nevermind, I got it (tatar). Still thanks! Nadzik (talk) 08:30, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Стадион "Атлант"[edit]

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)

@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)

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)

@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 Novikoff 20:30, 6 March 2020 (UTC)


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)

@Lullabying: I am not sure but Google translate says that romance novel (Q11661562) is "novel for youth" so it's about auditorium, not subject (as Q2975633). No? --Infovarius (talk) 22:25, 7 March 2020 (UTC)


Hey, you reverted my edits with the explanation "homo-discrimination?" 1 I explained my edit before at the discussion page: occupation (P106) is a Wikidata property for items about people (Q18608871), so it shouldn't be used for animals. Also the item is a animal actor (Q52688389), which is already a subclass of actor. So could we delete the occupation (P106) part on the animal again?--CENNOXX (talk) 13:21, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

@CennoxX: meanwhile service entry (P729)occupation (P106) is a valid type for items with such property. And common sense is that it is ok for some individual animals (that are persons). So should we delete Wikidata property for items about people (Q18608871) instead? P.S. At what discussion page did you explain? --Infovarius (talk) 18:10, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't understand your answer fully: ...items with such property... For items with what property is service entry (P729) a valid type? ... that it is ok ... What is your "it" here referring to? I don't think it is clear, that individual animals are persons. I explained at the discussion page of the item you changed. I don't think deleting Wikidata property for items about people (Q18608871) is the right thing to do. Wikidata property for items about people (Q18608871) is also connected to other human properties and items. For example the subject item of this property (P1629) occupation (Q12737077) is a human activity (Q61788060).--CENNOXX (talk) 10:10, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
@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)


Добрый день. Касательно этого: вопрос в сопоставлении понятий academic discipline (Q11862829) и branch of science (Q2465832). Не берусь настаивать, различие academic disciplines/scientific disciplines не для всех языков актуальное.--Leon II (talk) 14:40, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

@Leon II: Вот именно! Я тоже плохо их различаю, поэтому предложил использовать такие взаимные упоминания в синонимах. Infovarius (talk) 18:12, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

metrology wikiproject[edit]

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)

@Scs: No such project, closest is Wikidata:WikiProject Physics. But I know very active user in this area - User:Toni 001. --Infovarius (talk) 21:08, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! When I'm ready to discuss something, I'll do it on Project Chat, and let you and Toni know. —Scs (talk) 13:43, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
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)

Районы и уезды[edit]

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)

  • Правку видел, спасибо, хоть и не ответили. --Ksc~ruwiki (talk) 21:42, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
    • Когда-то у меня был дисклеймер наверху, типа "или отвечу или откачусь" :) куда-то делся... --Infovarius (talk) 13:28, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Nominative on a French noun[edit]

Number of grammatical cases currently in use in European languages. Light grey areas are for languages which don't use grammatical cases.


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?

Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 19:03, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Not even Nominative?? Please fix Q150#P2989 with sources. What about genitive/possesive? Isn't it a case? --Infovarius (talk) 12:17, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
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)
Sorry, you are right. --Infovarius (talk) 13:25, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
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).
Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 19:52, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the info! I was messed with uppercase/lowercase here. --Infovarius (talk) 22:34, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Perfect, now all seems good. Thanks. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 10:00, 28 March 2020 (UTC)


Based on the labels, should Category:Diseases (and disorders) in alphabetic order (Q9525431) be merged with Category:Diseases (Q9789161) (Eng = Category:Diseases) or Category:Diseases and disorders (Q7215431) (Eng = Category:Diseases and disorders) or something else? It would help to have labels in English, French, or Spanish for identification. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:28, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: Usually categories "by alphabet" contain purely articles of specific type without any subcategories and related articles. So {Q|7215431}} in ruwiki contains different aspects of diseases while Category:Diseases (and disorders) in alphabetic order (Q9525431) contains only a list of diseases. --Infovarius (talk) 13:38, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

French cantons[edit]

Please stop undoing my edits. It was decided on WikiProject France to create distinct items for before and after 2015 cantons as they don't cover the same reality. You can discuss it on this page if you don't agree. Ayack (talk) 08:01, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Image of Olivia Arben[edit]

Thanks for your valuable contribution to Wikidata in relation to image of Olivia Arben Unreasonable request for deletion of the image has been raised now by a non registered user. Please provide your kind independent standpoint to (hopefully) keeping the image on Wikimedia Commons. Thanks. Best regards--David Sedlecký (talk) 08:51, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

@David Sedlecký: Sorry I don't have any relation with this file. --Infovarius (talk) 13:15, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

ВВП (Q7747)[edit]

ваш откат — смешон: гляньте на это и станет понятно, что 1960 быть не может! только 1966!! C надеждой на понимание, ·1e0nid· (talk) 11:42, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

@·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)

Wikidata edits[edit]

Hi Infovarius,

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.

Best, (talk) 21:18, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

@: 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)

please stop reverting[edit]

Ok this is the *third* time you've reverted something I did, can you please, in the future, ask me on my talk page 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)

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)
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)
@CatCat: never mind! Be bold :) --Infovarius (talk) 14:08, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Re: reverting my edit Q37226[edit]

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)

@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)
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)

parents, mother, father in relation to Wikidata objects[edit]

Hi. You have an opinion of me adding the parents of Temple Grandin as 2 separate Wikidata objects? Datariumrex (talk) 13:30, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

@Datariumrex: I think they are not notable. --Infovarius (talk) 21:55, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Повесть и новелла[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)

@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)


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. --Z 22:58, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

@ZxxZxxZ: I don't understand. So isn't it Aramaic script? Then why is it in commons:Category:Aramaic alphabet? --Infovarius (talk) 21:34, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
I hadn't check that category. That was a categorization mistake. I've cleaned up that category now. --Z 15:10, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

drama (Q130232) and romance film (Q1054574)[edit]

Hello Infovarius, drama (Q130232) and romance film (Q1054574) are already subclasses of fiction (Q8253) (which I approve) via drama (Q21010853) and romantic fiction (Q19765983). I can't think of or even imagine instances of drama (Q130232)/romance film (Q1054574) that are not fiction films. There may exist individual hybrid films and whole hybrid genres between documentary and fiction (e.g. essay film (Q11356864)) that have also elements of a drama/love story, but these films are both fictional and documentary. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 07:41, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

@Valentina.Anitnelav: I see several documentaries which are romantic. And almost all of them are dramatic. --Infovarius (talk) 22:27, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Please give an example of a film that is non-fictional and considered (by critics) a drama (Q130232) or romance film (Q1054574). If this is the case, drama (Q21010853) and romantic fiction (Q19765983) should also be removed as superclasses of drama (Q130232) and romance film (Q1054574). - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 06:32, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
It's hard for me to find critical sources just to collect: drama docs (Nanook of the North (Q918401), many "drama" words in [21] for Q918401, Дом, Oceans), comedy docs ([22], top-10) --Infovarius (talk) 15:35, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

thank to restor[edit]

please send me a message when you have finish to restor, thanks --Viruscorona2020 (talk) 06:09, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

@Viruscorona2020: Do you mean 2020 COVID-19 pandemic in France (Q83873593)? May be I moved to wrong property? --Infovarius (talk) 23:32, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
yes, and all is correct, thank you so much for recovery 2020 COVID-19 pandemic in France (Q83873593), --Viruscorona2020 (talk) 03:08, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Эльдар Александрович Рязанов (Q381944)[edit]

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, то оформите её как следует.--Jordan Joestar (talk) 03:24, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

speculative fiction novel (Q10992055)[edit]


the item is for roman de fantasy not Roman fantastique. It's different and both should exist, as a fantasy (Q132311) and fantastic (Q5240628) subclass I think.

eru [Talk] [french wiki] 06:17, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

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)
Ok, I will correct the capitalization. I add the redirect page because it appears on in the automatic infoboxes. — eru [Talk] [french wiki] 05:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Commons words can't have biological properties[edit]

Hello! house cat (Q146) is a common word. And words, as far as I know, can't bite, have heart rate or be pregnant. -Theklan (talk) 08:09, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

@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)
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)
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)


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)

Пасека (Q1040600)[edit]

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)

@Зайва Игорь Леонидович: Прав не надо. Гаджет надо себе подключить, или через Special:MergeItems. Подробности на Help:Merge. Не за что, все учимся. --Infovarius (talk) 15:38, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Русское государство[edit]

Здравствуйте. Да, возможно, я и что то не понимаю, как вы написали. Но я действительно, не понимаю. Зачем Русское государство и русское централизованное государство согласно историографии, в чем разница? Валко (talk) 15:06, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Я не настаиваю, возможно Q4304392 и не нужно. Но превращать его в Армянскую ССР - это абсурд. --Infovarius (talk) 23:31, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Согласен, просто я увидел, что ССР Армении, нет викиданных, вот и решил переименовать ненужный, спасибо за это. Валко (talk) 11:12, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Overlapped Work on Goodwill Ambassador[edit]

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

Молдавская автономная область[edit]

Здравствуйте. Подскажите как это удалить, такого не было. Валко (talk) 13:40, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

@Валко: А это не то же самое, что Moldavian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic (Q1143148)? В любом случае, элемент имеет право на существование, т.к. есть куча статей Википедии. Если хотите бороться почему-то - сначала добейтесь их удаления в соответствующих языковых разделах. --Infovarius (talk) 23:29, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Нет, это не тоже самое. ru:Википедия:К_удалению/3_июля_2018#Молдавская_автономная_область, это выдумка и её удалили. Помогите удалить или подскажите как и куда обратиться. Советская историческая энциклопедия, Идя навстречу пожеланиям трудящихся М., 3-я сессия Всеукр. ЦИК 12 окт. 1924 приняла решение об образовании Молд. АССР в составе УССР (столица - г. Балта, с 1929 - г. Тирасполь). Валко (talk) 11:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Border of Bulgaria[edit]

Hello Infovarius, Property:P47 presents the state borders of the countries now, not in the past. In fact, Bulgaria has never had a common border with the USSR. Please return your edit. Spasimir (talk) 23:03, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

@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)

Undoing works of others with a two letter comment?[edit]

Hi! Please be more constructive in your undoing of the edits of others. You're free to comment in more words than one on this discussion page. All the best. :-)--Paracel63 (talk) 12:24, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

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)
👍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… Face-wink.svg--Paracel63 (talk) 12:58, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
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 Novikoff 23:28, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Vira (Q56423268) / Elvira / Bipa[edit]

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)

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)
In what way is Vira in Cyrillic?? S a g a C i t y (talk) 08:22, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
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)


Доброго времени суток. В ен-вики Китай — это перенаправление. Соответствующей статьи у них нет, о чём сказано и вот здесь. Разве редирект должен стоять в общем ряду интервик вместе со статьями? --VAP+VYK (talk) 18:46, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

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)
en:China, а это тогда что? Валко (talk) 20:40, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Большей частью КНР, как и соединено сейчас. --Infovarius (talk) 01:11, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

fluid dynamics (Q16965020) and fluid dynamics (Q216320)[edit]

Не посмотрите, первое и второе - одно и то же? Wikisaurus (talk) 09:30, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@Wikisaurus: да, пожалуй. Подкорректировал немного и объединил. --Infovarius (talk) 12:41, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Infovarius, спасибо! Сделал то же самое с fluid mechanics (Q172145) и hydromechanics (Q31191973) и соответствующими четырьмя категориями. Wikisaurus (talk) 15:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Multiple topic's main category (P910) and category's main topic (P301)[edit]

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.

For Category:Enterobacteriaceae (Q8418535) and Category:Intestinal bacteria (Q15917688), there are two fawp links, both can't be for the same category. I assumed that the one with the other interwiki links was correct, and the other wrong, was that incorrect? For Category:Capsicum (Q7580291) and Q8343388 the same applies for fawp and urwp. Can you resolve them better than I did? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 12:19, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

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)
I like your edits in first 2, it makes sense now. And sorry, I can't help with latter 2 - it's too complicated. --Infovarius (talk) 13:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Отмены правок[edit]

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)

@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)



Same as above. I need to remove in order to be able to add to the correct item.


Vargenau (talk) 07:28, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Do you mean Category:Modern pentathletes (Q5878904)? I would rather use slightly different (from the title of ru-wiki category) ru-label for it for better clarity. But anyway, identical labels perfectly coexist now. --Infovarius (talk) 12:52, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Q374024 Nikolai Luzin[edit]

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)

@Ferran Mir: In Russian empire privatdozent was a position. professor (Q121594) is position too (in contrary to university teacher (Q1622272) which I changed). Thanks for your attention. --Infovarius (talk) 22:33, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi @Infovarius:: I do not agree. "Position" may be professor (Q121594) of metaphysics in the Glasgow University or head of government of France (Q15135541), not simply professor (Q121594). There are a lot of professor (Q121594) in the worldwide universities. And same or worst for privatdozent.--Ferran Mir (talk) 10:12, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, Ferran Mir, I can't agree with you. In Russia we have no additional words to this name of position (see official document). I suspect that privatdozent in Russian empire also has no further exactifications. --Infovarius (talk) 13:19, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
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)

P8111: No qualifiers[edit]

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)

Grammatical gender of Lexeme:L241[edit]


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.

That's why I deleted this info.

Lepticed7 (talk) 10:06, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I thought that French nouns have definite genders... Let's discuss: Wikidata talk:Lexicographical data#Gender in French. --Infovarius (talk) 00:19, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

glycoside (Q192639)[edit]

glycoside (Q192639). Sorry, was a try, but instead of preview, clicked in publish. --BoldLuis (talk) 00:48, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

You can preview in Wikidata? :) --Infovarius (talk) 23:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)


Special:Diff/1182770793 seems to ignore comment on item talk page. What do you mean by "generates wrong sequence"? If there are overlapping periods (subject to different approaches) then there probably can't be perfect sequence between all values. 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:F02E:4DF6:8501:F58B 06:37, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

You are right, there's some difficulties. I've added the value and some qualifiers. --Infovarius (talk) 23:47, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
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:C142:89C1 07:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)


Great source for a scientific Name. --Succu (talk)

Question about unsourced wikidata page[edit]

Don't you think Q10274273 should be deleted? There are no references in Wikidata, and none on pt.wp either. (I ask because you've edited that entry.) I assume this refers to Slave-making ant (Q4430293) or possibly just to parasitism (Q186517) in general?

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)

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)