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)


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)
Как раз об этом тут и обсуждалось, а вы без дальнейших комментариев отменили и эту правку. Как уже сказал, предлагаю писать «девятая буква основного латинского алфавита». 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 14:30, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

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 pastajuuhu (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), Yulian Tselevych (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" (Kostiantyn (Q23308390). "Constantin" and "Constantine" quite certainly don't derive from "Константин" in those cases you have in mind, especially for people from nobility whose families/dynasties come from or are based in Western Europe (like Duke Constantine Petrovich of Oldenburg (Q27492), where the English transcription of his name "Константин" is "Konstantin", as also indicated in his English Wikipedia article). This cases you could model as the person adopting the European name in addition to the Russian "Константин". You could represent this by adding given name (P735):Constantine (Q19327451) in addition to given name (P735):Konstantin (Q31362405) to his item (like with many Ukrainian people having two given name (P735)-statements (both the Ukrainian and the Russian name - see Kostyantyn Gryshchenko (Q58113))).
If there are differing transcriptions of a cyrillic name string (this is often the case with different source languages (esp. Ukrainian and Russian)) I support the indication of all the transcriptions in the label - why should the Russian "Ольга" (Olga) should be preferred over the Ukrainian "Ольга" (Olha) and the other way round? But the transcription of "Константин" is really straight forward - Konstantin. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 10:07, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
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 [1] for Q918401, Дом, Oceans), comedy docs ([2], 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 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 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)

Probably there is misunderstanding about Q147538. Russian article explicitly include tea, coffee and juices ("Наиболее часто употребляемые безалкогольные напитки — это чай, кофе, соки и нектары, газированная вода, лимонад."). The main property as I understand is not include alcohol, so cocoa fits well. --Infovarius (talk) 03:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussions in reverts.[edit]

Hello. Reverts like this are, in my opinion, not the best place to ask questions or have a discussion. May I suggest that you use talk pages (on the item or a user talk page) to request clarification? That way we reduce the number of avoidable reverts in the edit history of an item. Thanks. Toni 001 (talk) 06:37, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Nematode infections[edit]

Thanks for your attention to this matter! It was a bit more complicated than I first anticipated. Please see User:SM5POR#Nematode_infections for my first analysis of the problem; I'd appreciate your suggestions! --SM5POR (talk) 07:33, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@SM5POR: Good analysis! I hope it will help to resolve subclass tree :) May be I help with some languages... --Infovarius (talk) 03:33, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
@Infovarius: Still working on it, though the picture is clearer to me now. I appreciate your patience, as I want to use the opportunity to learn how editors interact and "mis-interact" while everyone probably believe they are doing the right thing (like myself the other day). As you can tell from my history of contributions, I got started with Wikidata just a few weeks ago, and I have yet to figure out how to do this with a script, but before I resort to scripting I want to understand what the script is doing, otherwise I just risk contributing to the mess myself.
As to translations, maybe you can look at the Kirghiz articles and try to figure out if they match the English or Russian ones with respect to topic. I can read the cyrillic alphabet reasonably well, but I don't understand much of either the slavic or turkic languages, and Google Translate wasn't of much help to me with the Kirghiz articles (as Google Translate probably still uses English as an intermediary language, I always have it translate to or from English, never directly between two other languages such as Swedish <-> Russian). --SM5POR (talk) 07:48, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

"special effects"[edit]

About this: special effect isn't a subclass of visual effect but it's visual effect that is a subclass of special effect. --ValterVB (talk) 10:37, 4 June 2020 (UTC)


Damn, do you even sit on your Wikipedia in your own language? On Russian Wikipedia, it is directly stated that Lenin left Orthodoxy in 1886, even there is a source. But what is there, even on the card it says that Lenin professed Orthodoxy until the age of 16, after which he withdrew from religion. If you tell me that two religions cannot be practiced, tell this to Einstein, who was also an atheist, but professed Judaism until 1891. — 09:43, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, you are right. --Infovarius (talk) 21:37, 9 June 2020 (UTC)


I'm not making changes for the fun of it, I'm doing it because the modelling of the links between topic and category items is wrong, normally based on the English labels. Rather than reverting the edits, please help try to fix them better, if the other language links represent different topics. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:15, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

@Mike Peel: I understand. But simple removal doesn't help here. You should have understood this after numerous reverts. "normally based on the English labels" - are you kidding? Let me advice you to take into account at least 3-4 languages every time. --Infovarius (talk) 21:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)


Likewise, a disambiguation page can't be 'said to be the same as' any of the topics it disambiguates. Arlo Barnes (talk) 23:29, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@Arlo Barnes: I don't do what you say. I've just linkes one disambig to another. --Infovarius (talk) 21:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Mongolian script[edit]

@Infovarius: I should probably know better than get involved with several Wikidata projects at once, but when I saw the work already being done with respect to various alphabets, I couldn't resist adding a letter task list also for the Mongolian (Q1055705), hoping to learn enough about it to be able te contribute statements on my own.

Then I noticed that you have created or edited a few otems related to this script, and I would like to ask whther we could cooperate on this topic? What is uour level of involvement with the language, and do you see an opportunity for me to assist? But then again, knowing myself, I should visual perception (Q162668) a butterfly (Q11946202) know better... --SM5POR (talk) 17:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@SM5POR: hello! Of course we can cooperate. I've just created class letter of the Mongolian script (Q41806415) and categorized letters into it. But I should confess that I don't understand the script nor the language. I can only give some advices about types of editing. At first you should check if you see all possible letters at this list. And to add all possible labels and descriptions (Descriptioner will help) to it. --Infovarius (talk) 21:56, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
@Infovarius: I had trouble working with that interface to the SPARQL service, so I began creating my own queries, but immediately ran into issues with the whole writing system (Q8192) ontological superstructure. Could you please take a look at my query where I currently compare the Cyrillic, Latin and Mongolian scripts, and explain why some alphabets are listed as instances and others as (sub)classes of scripts? I guess we may find additional alphabets indicated as "parts" of either.
I don't know the language myself, but I became somewhat interested in Mongolian history and language when I read a Swedish biography on Frans August Larson (Q2076084) (and I see that the Mongolian edition is still wrong about the location of his birthplace, but I'd like to make contact with someone who knows the language to correct it rather than try correcting it myself). What little I know about the writing system I have learned from the w:en:Mongolian script article, and I'm trying to make iconv(1) do transliteration between the Mongolian Cyrillic and traditional scripts (like the conversion service from Inner Mongolia University), but I'm unfamiliar with gconv internals. --SM5POR (talk) 08:10, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

"♬ Those are a few of my favourite strings ♫"[edit]

I found that you made text (Q234460) a subclass of (P279) string (Q184754), because there was already a statement making string (Q184754) a subclass of (P279) text (Q234460), thereby forming a subclass loop, now appearing like an ontological vortex (Q732722) in the Wikidata universe (Q1).

Before attempting to resolve it, I need to determine the exact nature of each item, and since string (Q184754) is an instance of (P31) data type (Q190087) I conclude that it's a strictly digital (discrete) data structure. If so, then I'd say both subclass statements are wrong. I put together a query to list direct subclasses of both items, with number of instances of each. Counterexamples:

  • A coin inscription (Q90565923) and a typewritten text (Q1751792) are both physical manifestations of text, which thus aren't digital, and especially the first may include arbitrary elements from a non-encoded set of symbols. Wear and tear may have made the inscription difficult to read, or perhaps ambiguous, and the ink ribbon used with the typewriter may typically be some shade of black or red. They are thus texts, but not strings.
  • A bit array (Q1992074) may technically be any sequence of random characters, where "character" also should be considered in its digitsl form only (I find the current definition of character (Q3241972) a little problematic, but that's a different concern of ours). For instance, it may contain any number of non-printable control characters such as NUL, BEL, ESC, or zero-width joiner (Q614232). How about a floating acute accent (Q216042) diacritic attached to a carriage return (Q283976)? It's technically a string, but I wouldn't call it a text.

Instead, I could imagine identifying the intersection of the text and string classes as a shared subclass, say digital text, which would also be part (but not a subclass) of a Digital textbook (Q5276199) which should be a subclass of e-book (Q128093), and itself have Short Message Service message (Q64492727) and Webtext (Q1666022) as subclasses. In general, I would prefer seeing many of the current string or text subclasses arranged into deeper subclass hierarchies.

At the same time you also made line of writing (Q88376242) a subclass of text, which I would question too, but for a different reason: It's a unit of measurement (Q47574) of text volume, conceptually distinct from a text line with specific contents, much like a typographical point (Q156389) is distinct from a visible (Q87523334) in a printed (or hand-written) text. Now, I don't think there is a separate item "text line" that would rightfully be considered part of a text, but anyway: A line of writing (Q88376242) could be the empty string (Q670834) and still count, but I would not consider "" either a subclass of text, or part of a text. It may however be part of a computer program when expressed with its surrounding delimiters.

Individual work titles such as Aviat︠s︡ii︠a︡ Rossii : biograficheskai︠a︡ ėnt︠s︡iklopedii︠a︡ : 1909-2009 : A--I︠A︡ (Q95733991) shouldn't be listed as subclasses of text, but either as instances of text, or as having parts of class text (it may depend on whether it's illustrated, if illustrations disqualify it from being a monolithic text). --SM5POR (talk) 03:21, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Revert on Fatigue[edit]

Hi. Can you explain this revert? I am extremely new here, but medically fatigue syndrome and fatigue are different, fatigue may or may not be part of a syndrome and they are coded differently. So that's why I removed it. I am also a bit unsure why the English name was spelled with the "e" on the end. Amousey (talk) 00:01, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Amousey! For me these are so homonymous concepts that are easily to mess up (in English as well as in Russian). So I would like to have them linked with said to be the same as (P460) or different from (P1889). I am happy with your P1889. --Infovarius (talk) 09:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)


Thanks for this : [3]. I had to delete the page for a few seconds for history merge after a vandal renamed the page several times, but I forgot to restore the wikidata link... --—d—n—f (talk) 06:25, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Attendance of Venus[edit]

For Venus (Q313) I removed the attendance (P1110) statement because it doesn't make sense for a planet item. I assume it intends to say population 0? --SilentSpike (talk) 10:14, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

@SilentSpike: property for population is population (P1082). For me
⟨ subject ⟩ attendance (P1110) View with SQID ⟨ 0 ⟩
means that no human ever was there. Do you think it's not understandable? --Infovarius (talk) 09:27, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
@Infovarius: Hmm, I see the interpretation, but for me it doesn't make sense because the property is contextual to temporal events (reflected its intended domain). The original description even says "For permanent locations like museum (Q33506), rather use visitors per year (P1174)". --SilentSpike (talk) 10:47, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Adding subclass of[edit]

You have recently reverted my edits on English alphabet. I would like to know how it can be resolved. This is the second occurrence I am making the same mistake. Adithyak1997 (talk) 05:23, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

@Adithyak1997: actually I can't understand what you were trying to say. There is relation
⟨ A (Q9659)  View with Reasonator View with SQID ⟩ part of (P361) View with SQID ⟨ English alphabet (Q754673)  View with Reasonator View with SQID ⟩
, what else? --Infovarius (talk) 09:31, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
My doubt is: in the item English alphabet, how can the exclamatory mark from letter A be removed. Note:I am talking about the item A present as a value for 'has parts of the class'. Adithyak1997 (talk) 09:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
@Adithyak1997: @Infovarius: May I join your discussion? The problem with the 26 has parts of the class (P2670) statements is that none of the individual letters constitutes a class of anything, and I don't think they should have to be classes either, at least not for the purpose of being listed as distinct members ("parts") of the English (or any other) alphabet. Instead, it's the has parts of the class (P2670) property that is poorly chosen; it should rather be has part (P527). Using has parts of the class (P2670) seems to me like saying "The English alphabet consists of a number of A's, a few B's, a couple of C's, and a whole gazillion of D's..." The has parts of the class (P2670) Latin-script letter (Q19776628) statement is however correct, although I would consider it somewhat redundant after all the constituent letters have been enumerated anyway, like stating that numbers are written using 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, or any Arabic digit.
Indeed, the 26 letters were previously listed using the has part (P527) property, but that changed on 26 December 2017 when PLbot turned each has part (P527) into a has parts of the class (P2670), reason unknown to me. It's a bot, doing thousands of automated edits more or less daily; I tried browsing User_talk:PLbot for clues but quickly gave up paging my way back to 2017. I still recommend contacting PLbot's maintainer about it before reverting the change, as the bot might return and repeat the change, and the maintainer may not be aware of all its actions-
Now, could there be a valid reason to retain the has parts of the class (P2670) property, and turn the letters into proper classes instead? Well, if we consider different typefaces, weights, cases, calligraphic styles, or mere identical instances of the letter 'A' on a typewritten sheet of paper, then certainly 'A' would constitute a class of something, though I would prefer not to make it a subclass of Latin-script letter (Q19776628) (of which it is already an instance), but rather of some other class hierarchy such as typeface family (Q58481926)--glyph (Q36975)--grapheme (Q2545446) or calligraphy (Q12681)--handwriting (Q15123051). In neither case (!) would these instances of individual letters be considered parts of an alphabet, but each letter would still be (whether identified as a class of something else or not). The English alphabet consists of 26 letters, not 52 upper and lower case letters, nor 78 uppercase, lowercase, or small caps letters. Also, I suggest we resolve this issue before anyone brings the Cherokee (Q26549) into the equation...--SM5POR (talk) 11:30, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposition of « parent language » property[edit]

Hello, I see you on Wikidata:WikiProject Linguistics. I’m french wiktionarian who want to work on languages on Wikidata. After testing some properties, I decided to propose a new propety « parent language » to link langagues as natural thing (not like construct thing with based on (P144)). I would like to have your opinion on the issue. Thanks ! Lyokoï (talk) 21:26, 19 June 2020 (UTC)


Any chance you can have a look at this editor's contributions, please, and see if the Russian sitelink changes make sense, at least, please? They seem to be removing *all* Wikipedia sitelinks in an attempt to change just the Russian one. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:21, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I suppose they tried to move list sitelink to list item, but "something went wrong". So many wrong edits and so many lost links... I wrote to him. --Infovarius (talk) 23:45, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Cyrillic letter in Latin-alphabet label[edit]

Hi! You changed the Latin capital D to a Cyrillic lower case в in Bosnian label. I fixed it, but please be more careful next time to select the right keyboard layout. Thanks in advance, —Tacsipacsi (talk) 10:25, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

@Tacsipacsi: sorry for this mistake. It is a mischief of Punto Switcher (Q4047648) and it's sometimes hard to control (for example, it change the layout automatically on pressing "enter"). --Infovarius (talk) 22:57, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

First names did not exist at that time[edit]

Regarding this revert: first names or given names (P735) and family names did not exist at that time. People only had one name. The modern spelling of the name in the local language should be the label of the item. Why also show the non-original and non-local spelling Itzhak, without any explanation? It resembles the muslim spelling, but there is a separate object Ishaq (Q1642480) about that. I ask because I have further developed the template:databox and placed it in many Swedish articles, and people critize the P735 usage in sv:Isak (Bibeln) as an anachronism and the non-Swedish and non-Hebrew spelling of the name. Tomastvivlaren (talk) 22:50, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@Tomastvivlaren: hi! This is the first time I hear that persons didn't have P735 sometimes :) I believe that "only one" name was given name so use of P735 is correct. Concerning Q35746561, perhaps your problem is in English label (why it should be "Itzhak"?). Actually the item is about Hebrew name and it perfectly fits for Isaac (Q671872) - look at statements and mostly to Russian label how we model this. For templates you probably should use native label (P1705) of the name item, not label (which are quite random for most items now). --Infovarius (talk) 23:08, 8 July 2020 (UTC)


Добрый день. По поводу отката моих правок и Ваших дополнений:

de:Steinkohlenbergbau (добыча каменного угля) и de:Braunkohlebergbau (добыча бурого угля) у немцев описаны по-отдельности. Общей статьи (Kohlebergbau) - нет. А в соответствующей категории (de:Kategorie:Kohlebergbau - Q8985535) просто приведено разъяснение: "Diese Kategorie enthält Artikel und Unterkategorien zum Thema Stein- und Braunkohlebergbau.". В большинстве же остальных языковых разделов есть статья о добыче угля вообще (как раз Q12880211), и нет статей отдельно о добыче каменного | бурого угля.

Угольная промышленность - отдельно, поэтому добавлять её в синонимы не стоит, не так ли?--Leon II (talk) 10:47, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

P.S. Французский?--Leon II (talk) 10:25, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Я и забыл про бурый уголь. Ок, согласен. С французским промахнулся полем. --Infovarius (talk) 10:34, 10 July 2020 (UTC)


Hi, you have reverted my edit to thorax (Q592177) removing the UBERON ID 0001443, stating that it "seems correct". However the UBERON ID for thorax (Q592177) is 0000915 ("thoracic segment of trunk"); 0001443 ("chest") is the UBERON ID for thorax (Q9645). I have reverted your reversion. Cbasile06 (talk) 17:25, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

@Cbasile06: ok, I rely upon you. Though I don't clearly distinguish these things. Another issue is that thorax (Q592177) in some languages is about only arthropodes. --Infovarius (talk) 10:31, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

„Loki (Q133147)”[edit]


What is the point in showing duplicated names in section "children"? "Váli" is a duplicated name now. Misibacsi (talk) 02:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Hm, interesting remark, Misibacsi! But why there are 2 items: Váli (Q2746529) and Váli (Q846981)? --Infovarius (talk) 22:39, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

It is name of different persons. This one:

"Váli (Q2746529) - figure in Norse mythology, son of Loki"

is valid as Loki's son.

The other: "Váli (Q846981) - Norse deity, son of Odin"

So, Loki had one child under the name "Váli". Please correct it. Misibacsi (talk) 18:40, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

source of information (Q3523102)[edit]

Здравствуйте. Вы в комментарии к отмене правки спрашиваете «почему объект? зачем так сложно?». Сложно потому, что информация — это вообще непростое понятие и однозначного определения для него нет, взять хотя бы расхождения в атрибутивной и функциональной концепциях. Слово «объект» действительно вряд ли подходит, источник — не обязательно объект. Но ваша формулировка «откуда взята некоторая информация» не содержит в себе подлежащего — прошу прощения, но определения таким образом даются в разговорном стиле, а не в энциклопедическом. Предлагаю сокращённый вариант перевода с английского: «всё, что может проинформировать о чём-либо или дать знания об этом». — JustApex (talk) 10:07, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

JustApex Не против предложенного варианта. Но не вижу ничего плохого в простой формулировке. К русской Википедии уже предъявляются претензии в излишней научности формулировок (мягко говоря), может, не будем и сюда дурную привычку тащить? --Infovarius (talk) 22:42, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Отлично, тогда я отредактирую. А энциклопедическая формулировка, я полагаю, должна быть золотой серединой где-то между излишней наукообразностью и публицистическим стилем. — JustApex (talk) 09:17, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Nations at occurrence[edit]

I have a hunch you may have some insights and opinions on the nations at occurrence (Q61130878) umbrella class that was created a year and a half ago? As I argue in Talk:Q61130878 I don't find it appropriate to mix Eurovision and the Olympic Games with WWII in that manner, merely because they all are "events" in English. Speaking of which, I noticed that German and Russian are the only languages to have Wikipedia articles for both "Occurrence" and "Event". Funny thing, Swedish has different words too, but they had been mixed up wrt Wikidata in 2013, which I fixed two months ago... And now I have fixed it again in the lexeme database, adding a few explanatory senses in the process. I wonder hoe many mix-ups the robots have duplicated? --SM5POR (talk) 17:18, 24 July 2020 (UTC)


Вообще не совсем понимаю, почему у Q2586745 свойство subclass of (P279) identity (Q609647), а не instance of (P31) identity (Q609647), ведь формула Лейбница представляет собой одну общую формулу, а не набор всех её частных случаев. Таким образом, правило произведения не является элементом класса «формула Лейбница», так как последнего как класс не существует. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 10:19, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@1234qwer1234qwer4: формула Лейбница представляет собой одну общую формулу, а не набор всех её частных случаев? Хм, спорно. Я считал наоборот. Разве случай например для второй производной считается не по формуле Лейбница? --Infovarius (talk) 20:08, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
«По формуле» — да, но является ли этот случай «одной из формул Лейбница»? 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:14, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Given name[edit]

Hello. I want your opinion. Yanis Varoufakis (Q40688). His given name is Yannis (Q38708266) "Γιάννης". But he prefer to write it with one ν "Γιάνης". The same issue we have with Yannis K. Kordatos (Q12875223). Should I create an item "Γιάνης" or use Yannis (Q38708266) for their given name? (Sources have their names with one v. Also Greek Wikipedia have their names with one v). Data Gamer play 18:45, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@Data Gamer: It can be a hard case. What do you mean by His given name is Yannis (Q38708266) "Γιάννης" then? If you have sources for it, you can add both variants with relevant sources and (probably) qualifiers. --Infovarius (talk) 19:59, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
His given name is "Γιάννης". But he never liked double ν. So he is writing his name with one ν since primary school. He told that in an interview. Data Gamer play 20:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Живица это не сок[edit]

По вашей отмене моей правки в элементе "сок растений (Q76626)" Живица это не синоним сока растений. Сок растений - это 1. разговорно - просто содержимое любых живых клеток (синоним - клеточный сок) или 2. более точно - содержимое конкретно ксилемы (проще говоря сосудов) - та жидкость, которая состоит из воды и питательных веществ и переносит эти питательные вещества по ксилеме к различным органам. А живица - это СМОЛА, которая продуцируется специальными клетками при поранении, и выделяется из ран, причем только хвойных растений, для заживления этих ран. И спасибо вам за эту отмену)) Я посмотрел категории и увидел, что ру-Вики нет статьи про сок растений вообще.--Vulpo (talk) 19:56, 30 July 2020 (UTC) Живица это вот что - (Q18603218) - терпентин по английски. --Vulpo (talk) 20:03, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Q515 vs Q7930989[edit]

Hello there, I'll admit that I don't always understand how Wikidata items are supposed to be linked to vaguely overlapping topics in various languages. But I must insist that no:by and nn:by share the same item. There is no difference in definition in the two languages. --Ranveig (talk) 06:30, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I suppose the first one is for a town as the place people live in while the second one is the abstract concept of "town" as a form of settlement. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 16:46, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
@Ranveig: if you like, moved both. They doesn't correspond to English "city", in no way. --Infovarius (talk) 23:29, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
I actually do think there is a strong equivalence between "by" and "city" - it's a special title given to a place with inhabitants living closely together. Some cities can be small, too, like St Davids in Wales. It might help if Q7930989 had a clearer definition. But I don't know how to fix this, Wikidata doesn't always work for interwiki, I guess. --Ranveig (talk) 07:07, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
"Special" - yes, very special. Are you sure English and Norvegian definitions are equivalent? And what is the equivalent to English "town" then? I am sure that there are no equivalents to en@city in French and Russian. --Infovarius (talk) 21:49, 4 August 2020 (UTC)


Hello, thanks for the added labels! See User:SM5POR/Informatics#Geometric intersections for a tabular overview of the items I have been working on. I eventually moved the Bosnian and Croatian articles from intersection (Euclidean geometry) (Q1364910) to line–line intersection (Q17097267) (the English article was moved that way already in 2014, but the item wasn't properly renovated after the move, which I think I have done now) since they didn't seem to have quite as broad a scope as the item in its present form (and the Croatian "article" is really only a minimal stub).

But while it seems to be the most generic "geometric intersection" item, the articles linked to intersection (Euclidean geometry) (Q1364910) still primarily talk about points of intersection, not intersection curve (Q15846660) or solid intersections, for which they refer to other articles which I have made subclasses of intersection (Euclidean geometry) (Q1364910). I have made it an instance of intersection (Q17141489) which is conceptually on a different level (did the same to set intersection, which doesn't seem to come in as many varieties as its geometric counterpart).

And I just found a number of conic sections and somewhat similar items hidden as subclasses of cross section (Q845080); I need to do an inventory of those as well to sort out the geometric ones, because I don't think you can reasonably mix items from entirely different domains in the same subclass tree, as they could be expected to inherit a number of properties that may apply to a subject of mathematics but not to geological, biological or engineering cross-sections, or road intersections. Using instance of (P31) isolates them better from each other and from their shared abstraction. Do you have an opinion on this? --SM5POR (talk) 15:17, 4 August 2020 (UTC)


Hi, I don't understand the reason of your this reverting, whether you know or not, the correct codes (be-tarask, lzh, nan, yue) are already existing and preferred, so I wonder what's your reason that those wrong codes must remain existing on that item. Is your reverting mean that I should no longer do such removing of wrong codes? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 11:49, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

@Liuxinyu970226: sorry, you are probably right. I just haven't heard about changing of these codes. Where can I read about it? --Infovarius (talk) 23:03, 11 August 2020 (UTC)


Why is this redundant? This was done in particular to differentiate embroidery (Q18281) (the technique) from embroidery (Q28966302) (the actual work of art/physical object). Right now there is no automated way of telling that these are not the same (and they have the same name). Best regards --Hannes Röst (talk) 03:26, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

@Hannes Röst: Because already embroidery (Q28966302) P279 needlework (Q28966125) P279 textile (Q28823) P279 artificial physical object (Q8205328) P279 physical object (Q223557). And they don't have the same label (at least in Russian). --Infovarius (talk) 23:01, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

mobile phone (Q17517)[edit]


Why mobile phone (Q17517) should be on lower case?

Cheers. Shkuru Afshar (talk) 10:43, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

@Shkuru Afshar: Why should it not? 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 10:49, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
many Wikidata articles even with no specific name like handset (Q1378949) start with capital letter. In general name of things should be written in upper case if they are separate.Shkuru Afshar (talk) 11:02, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
I don't understand what you mean by "specific name". The example you pointed out was in fact incorrect; I corrected the capitalisation. Both "mobile phone" and "handset" are common nouns; there is no need to capitalise them. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 11:07, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
@Shkuru Afshar: Help:Label#Capitalization. The purpose is that it can be used inside a sentence as a common noun. --Infovarius (talk) 22:47, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Joseph Barsabas[edit]

Hello. (Sorry for my english, this is a google translate text). I deleted these elements because they are not documented by any academic source. This personality is only mentioned in a brief passage from the NT (Acts 1.23), that is to say that it dates from the 1st century and therefore cannot in any way be a "priest", much less "bishop" and cannot not belong to the "Catholic Church" which only exists centuries later. His kinship with Jesus is completely hypothetical given the inconsistency of the character, and his assimilation with "Justus" is completely hypothetical, quite doubtful and debated. In any case, the elements that must be reported in a wikidata biography are the objective elements and not the local taditions or religious traditions. We could mention traditions (but I don't know how) if they are marked as such and not as realitiesAnyway, this information must be supported by academic literature, which it is not and misleads readers by suggesting false or biased information on the subject. Thank you for your understanding. Sincerely Yours, Mogador 11:09, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Encyclopedias are academic sources. --Infovarius (talk) 19:21, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

loop "function -> multivalued function -> function"[edit]

Hi, I noticed a loop in the graph, which is why I deleted the statement that "function" was a subclass of "mulitvalued function". You reverted my edit, so we are back in the loop.

The graph should be acyclic. Your revert made it cyclic again. I will re-delete the statement tomorrow unless you object Jasy jatere (talk) 13:00, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@Jasy jatere: I understand the problem. Let's consider. What do you think function (Q11348) is about? Single-valued application or a general map? English description contains "with exactly one element of the right set" which means single value...

--Infovarius (talk) 19:44, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

A multivalued function can be viewed as a left-total binary relation between two sets A and B on the one hand, or as a function (left-total and right-unique) between A and the bower set of B on the other hand. That's what creates the cycle, I guess. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:29, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

What to do, if artist is using furniture a material of the artwork?[edit]

Salut @Infovarius:. You reverted Q14745&oldid=1258227936 of Q14745. I have made this statement, as in Q98124913 the artist declare furniture as one of the material used and the exclamation mark showed me a potential issue. Question to you (as I couldn't find any solution): What should I do, in order to respond to artists AND wikidata needs? thx for your support, cheeers AnBuKu (talk) 14:53, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello, AnBuKu. It's an interesting issue... may be "material" in some other sense? We don't call models which are pictured in portraits "material", do we? --Infovarius (talk) 19:44, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Salut @Infovarius:. Thx for input. Have done like that: material used -> art material -> applies to part, aspect, or form -> furniture Looks a bit curious, at least in Wikimedia. As well I have reverted part of -> Public art -> of -> Bern back to Category:Public art in Bern, as its not only about one item, but about 356 so far. And I would like to have the same "layout / setup" for Category:Public art in Bern as for Category:Fountains in Bern. Therefore I'll need very likely a Wikipedia article about public art in Bern as some kind of an anchor, if there are no smarter solutions. cheeers, AnBuKu (talk) 20:36, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

service on internet[edit]

Hi, I made an edit you reverted here because that instance was already included in Q35127 and also under Q81989119, so I thought it was redundant. --Martinligabue (talk) 13:29, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Nuclear tests[edit]

Hi there, as you speak russian, perhaps you could help me explain why some errors on this russian wikipage have not yet been corrected ? I was looking after a dataset of CCCP nuclear tests, is there a more "official" list somewhere ? I am currently working on the cleaning of this list if ever the topic interests you.Bouzinac (talk) 20:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for you work, Bouzinac. But I am afraid I can't help. Which errors do you refer particularly? You know, Wikipedia is a free project :) Probably there were no enthusiasts enough to fix it... --Infovarius (talk) 14:10, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
I mean that Шаблоны on the top of the article. I wonder if Russians IP are prevented from editing russian wikipages ?
Russie sans modificaitno.png
Bouzinac (talk) 18:52, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Looks so.... Wikidata:Property proposal/blocked on the territory of Feeling sorry for the russians Bouzinac (talk) 20:24, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Adding Soviet Union as country to railway stations[edit]

Please note that Soviet Union ceased to exist in 1991. Please do not add it as into country property for railway stations in Ukraine. Regards, --Maxim75 (talk) 09:17, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

@Maxim75: please note that if any object was founded in USSR, this country should be a value of P17. With normal rank, and the present country with preferred rank. Regards, --Infovarius (talk) 14:12, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

worm (Q47253)[edit]

Dear Infovarius, I'm a little bit tired of your unsubstantial reverts. Please do things you have knowledge about. This edit shows again, that you have not the slightest idea about what you are adding. Regards --Succu (talk) 17:33, 27 August 2020 (UTC) PS: Mabye you are looking for Vermes (Q7921546). The term was used by Linné in Systema Naturae. 1st edition (Q56695854) and later editions. --Succu (talk) 17:48, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Dear Succu, it's me who a bit tired of your automatic(?) reverts. I edit this item because it has label and sitelink "Черви" in Russian (you know, I have some "knowledge" about Russian). And this word refers to some common name which is used now for some unrelated taxa ("polyphyly"). Also this word can be used for some well-defined taxa too (like earthworm (Q124378) or Nematoda (Q5185)) - ask any Russian! That's why I add different from (P1889) and why on Earth you touch these statements "without the slightest idea about what you are" doing? So I'd propose you to work with taxa and their purely taxonomic properties (you are good in this, thanks for all the work!) but not touch other Wikidata properties which are for humans and not for taxonomists. As for Vermes (Q7921546), I point this item to you myself, ain't I? Yes, this item is more appropriate for Linné's classification. But there are sources specifically about worm (Q47253) in this role. What to do? This is arguable indeed. --Infovarius (talk) 16:11, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
So „Земляные черви“ and „Плоские черви“ are often confused with „Черви“. I doubt that -Succu (talk) 21:16, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Because no one (except biologists) say "Земляные/плоские черви“, everybody just says „Черви“. --Infovarius (talk) 22:16, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

grafinya Aleksandra Aleksandrovna Sheremetev (Q75970405) / grafinya Aleksandra Aleksandrovna Sheremetev (Q75330002)[edit]

Any reason not to just merge these two?

Yes there are different dates of death, but the two items seem plainly intended to be describing the same person. Would it not be better to have a single item, noting the two claimed dates of death? (Of which the one in the Peerage may be the less reliable, or indeed a typo, unless a backing source for it can be found). Jheald (talk) 16:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

@Jheald: yes I thought about merge. The main counter-argument for me was 2 different Peerage IDs. I don't know much about seriousity of this. I would agree with merge. --Infovarius (talk) 22:09, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Revert of "located in present-day administrative territorial entity" (P3842) for "Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic" (Q2184)[edit]

Hi! I've noticed that you reverted a corrective change I've made for Q2184. Your argument was that the automatic query returned the originally defined countries, plus more. I'm not particularly familiar with the Wikidata Query Service, however I believe you might have mistaken "located in present-day administrative territorial entity" (P3842) with "located in the administrative territorial entity" (P131). Your query is returning States that do not exist anymore, like the Far Eastern Republic or Tsardom of Russia. They're obviously not present-day administrative territorial entities. The borders of the RSFSR match the ones of today's Russia, and that's the reason I had reverted the change. I'm looking forward to your thoughts on the matter. Best regards,

Versions pages on Wikisource[edit]

For your information: Versions pages on Wikisource are not instance of (P31) Wikimedia disambiguation page (Q4167410). They do not perform the function that Wikimedia disambiguation pages perform.

For example:

I removed the incorrect claim from this item. Please let me know if you have any questions. Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:32, 30 August 2020 (UTC)


Здравствуйте! Скажите пожалуйста, статьи, которые я создаю в Белорусском Викисловаре, нельзя будет добавлять в Викиданные? Если да, то куда их нужно вставлять.

P. S. Несколько статей Викисловаря, которые я вставил в Викиданные, я сам удалю. Антон 740 (talk) 16:53, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

@Антон 740: Слова можно добавлять в виде специального типа страниц - Лексем. Например, я создал для вас помнік (L311485). К сожалению, привязать нормально со статьёй в Викисловаре невозможно пока, над этим ещё идёт работа. --Infovarius (talk) 22:14, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Canal vs channel[edit]

hi, a canal is man made, a channel is natural. --Yanik B 13:47, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the "Spamming history" message[edit]

Hello! Thank you so much for the heads up. I was not aware of that spam, it was a error on the TABernacle tool and I am already trying to solve it. Thank you again for taking the time to warn me. Best regards, -- AVartuli (WMB) (talk) 22:47, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Чувашская энциклопедия[edit]

Добрый день. Скажите пожалуйста, статьи Чувашской энциклопедии Q19909792, можно использовать как например Q1768199 Большую российскую энциклопедию или Q16271761 Башкирскую энциклопедию? Белорецкий (talk) 05:29, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

@Белорецкий:, конечно! Почему нет. И в described by source (P1343) и в качестве stated in (P248) в источниках. Infovarius (talk) 17:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Как??? Где пример использования свойства? Белорецкий (talk) 16:25, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
@Белорецкий: Сейчас не могу конкретного примера найти, но вкратце идеальная модель выглядит так. В случае свойства described by source (P1343) - добавляете том, страницу и название статьи, которая описывает данный объект. В случае использования stated in (P248) в качестве источника какого-то факта (добавляется как reference к конкретному свойству-утверждению) - указываете эти же сведения в том же источнике. Если хотите, укажите конкретный пример, покажу как оформить. --Infovarius (talk) 14:07, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Конкретный пример, Q185488, Чувашская энциклопедия [5] Белорецкий (talk) 16:40, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Например, так. --Infovarius (talk) 20:07, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Нет, не то вот смотрите ru:Волжская Булгария, внизу видите шаблон Словари и энциклопедии. Башкирская · Большая российская Белорецкий (talk) 07:06, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Чувашская энциклопедия, так и не появилась в этом шаблоне. Белорецкий (talk) 04:24, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
А, это посложнее. Для этого нужно 1) создать свойство "Чувашская энциклопедия"; 2) добавить его отображение в гаджет внешних ссылок WEF. Первый этап достаточно длительный (нужно подать заявку, дождаться разрешения и создания, потом заполнить его значения). --Infovarius (talk) 21:17, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Чувашская энциклопедия Q19909792, или не то, помогите сделать все правильно. Чтобы Чувашская энциклопедия отображалась, в шаблоне Словари и энциклопедии. Белорецкий (talk) 15:24, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Не то. Нужно создать свойство (property). Это как есть Bashkir Encyclopedia (Q16271761) и Bashkir encyclopedia (Bashkir version) ID (P4210). --Infovarius (talk) 23:32, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Вы можете создать? Белорецкий (talk) 18:06, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Вы не можете или не знаете? Как создать код в Чувашской энциклопедии? Белорецкий (talk) 05:01, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
@Белорецкий: Wikidata:Property proposal/ru. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 11:32, 11 October 2020 (UTC)


[6] The source says no such thing, the World Checklist correctly lists Calobryales as the order that contains Haplomitriaceae. Calobryales has priority as an ordinal name. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:54, 14 September 2020 (UTC)


I gave the following explanation when correcting the subclass: this would mean that instances of mineral varieties are mineral species (Special:Diff/1242354185). You then reverted by saying isnt't it true?. Does this mean you disagree with my explanation? For example, emerald (Q43513) is a mineral variety of mineral species beryl (Q103480). If emerald (Q43513) is an instance of "mineral variety" then it's also an instance of all parent classes of "mineral variety" (see subsumption). emerald (Q43513) however isn't a mineral species. 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:55A8:BB3D:19BC:31AD 17:30, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Trump / billionaire[edit]

I have no problem with the sources in that case, but just didn’t consider billionaire an occupation. It also seemed redundant. But it’s a close call either way, and won’t object to including it. --Matthias Winkelmann (talk) 22:33, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@Matthias Winkelmann: I've already been reverted (by Милан Јелисавчић when using this value with P31. I want to fill this class, but what property is better to use? --Infovarius (talk) 08:37, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
It's a bit like criminal (Q2159907), isn't it? I ran a query without expecting much, but it actually came uo with two alternatives that seem to fit quite well: going abstract with has quality (P1552) or going specific with social classification (P3716). The latter, especially, would seem to work (and @&beer&love: deserves accolades for coming up with it.
There are also a few millionaire (Q1075912), and two of them used lifestyle (P1576). But I'm sticking with social classification (P3716).
In any case, I'm not too invested in this. So if you want to just leave it as "occupation" for Trump, feel free to do so. Maybe we should just wait a year, and watch the problem solve itself? The most likely solution would, unfortunately, just bring us back to the similar issue with criminal (Q2159907) --Matthias Winkelmann (talk) 09:09, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

fern (Q80005)[edit]

If you wish to discuss something use any talk page, but not the edit comment. --Succu (talk) 19:24, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Related: "who decide which article is good? anyway, they are original research and better to use secondary or tertiary sources". OR? --Succu (talk) 20:33, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
@Succu: I wish you were negotiable, but your reverts without useful comments... Please answer 1) why do you revert useful relations; 2) by what criterium do you prefer some sources and deny others? and yes, scientific articles are original research (I know, I publish them too) and they are not automatically useful/correct/reliable or smth. That's why Wikipedia initially was directed to more secondary sources, such as reviews or even sci-pop books. So they are at least as useful as primary publications. 3) what about worms (above post at this talk page)? --Infovarius (talk) 13:35, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
OK. The let' do it one by one:
#1: Ferns are pteridophytes and not different from them. Objections? --Succu (talk) 17:47, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Not exactly. Pteridophytes can also include Lycopodiophyta and some more. --Infovarius (talk) 10:56, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
...which makes your statement as useful as house mouse (Q83310) different from (P1889) animal (Q729). 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 17:58, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
@Succu: ping back to discussion 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 17:59, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
house mouse (Q83310) P171* animal (Q729) and what relation between fern (Q80005) and Pteridophyta (Q178249)? --Infovarius (talk) 19:51, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Ручни сат[edit]

Зашто си уклонио овај линк: . У српском језику не постоји устаљени термин који симултано обухвата ручни и џепни сат. Можда би могло бе да се каже "лични сат", али се то ретко среће. Ситуација је слична са енглеским језиком. Чланак "ручни сат" се углавном састоји од превода његовог енглеског еквивалента. --Dcirovic (talk) 21:09, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Ти игледа да немаш намере да ме удостојиш одговора. Преименоваћу чланак и дописаћу садржај о џепном сату. Надам се да ће то бити довољно да престанеш са даљим враћањем. --Dcirovic (talk) 21:40, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
@Dcirovic: (Sorry for English, I can't write in Serbian but can in Russian if it is better) It doesn't matter that Serbian doesn't have such a name, you can make descriptive label (or rare, as you mention "лични сат") or even leave it empty but add description. In Russian I had to use also rare (but understandable) wording "переносные часы". In English there are different terms: pocket watch and wrist watch can be named "watch" together - so watch in fact more general than "ручни сат". So please keep articles at appropriate items. And yes, it will be good to have separate article in Serbian for "џепни сат" and even for "ручни и џепни сат" together (if Serbian wp allows such article). --Infovarius (talk) 13:50, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

We sent you an e-mail[edit]

Hello Infovarius,

Really sorry for the inconvenience. This is a gentle note to request that you check your email. We sent you a message titled "The Community Insights survey is coming!". If you have questions, email

You can see my explanation here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:46, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

International System of Units[edit]

Hi Infovarius

I see that you reverted my removal of the assertion that the International System of Units is an instance of the metric system. If you go to the talk page of the topic, you will see my explanation. Please join in the discussion and we will be able to clarify whether or not SI is an instance of the metric system (implying that there are many metric systems), whether it is synonymous with the metric system (as per a 2007 Act of the US Congress) or whether it is contained within (is a subset of) the metric system (implying that the metric system is a superset of SI, cgs, cgs-emu. cgs-esu, mts etc). Martinvl (talk) 20:32, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

“Organisms by adaptation”[edit]

Re: [7], I believe omnivore (Q164509) should be an instance of organisms by adaptation (Q45983014)? As it is now, every human (Q5) is also a group (Q16887380). --Matthias Winkelmann (talk) 11:47, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

dumb ass vandal andreasmperu reverted your stalin sources u requested[edit]

many individuals contributed what was written on stalin as true that he was poisoned, this jerkoff reverted it, restore their evidence you requested!!!


Clearing things[edit]

Hello. your revert in the Abbasid Caliphate page is wrong. It is well known that Persian culture grew again in an Islamic form during this era, to a degree that the Umayyad culture is known to historians as the "Arabic Islam" while the Abbasid is known as the "Persian Islam". Another thing: Damascus was never a capital to the Abbasids, after they burned the Umayyad monuments they relocated their rule to Kufa in Iraq while Baghdad was built--باسم (talk) 22:36, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@باسم: Ok about Damascus but 1) "briefly became the capital of the Abbasid Caliphate before the founding of Baghdad in 762"; 2) Later in the Abbasid period, Caliph Al-Mansur used the city as his seat for a few months" - isn't it a capital? --Infovarius (talk) 18:51, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes true. It was a seat for a couple of months, but traditionally, among Muslim (and probably western) historians, it's not considered one of the capitals of the Abbasid Caliphate, perhaps because the Abbasids never intended for it to be, and viewed it as a place to rest and rearrange their forces, as they preferd to live among their supporters, in the heart of Iraq, so they moved to Kufa until Baghdad was built. You might find some historians saying Al-Anbar was indeed among the Abbasid capitals, but I don't believe it's a common idea. Best--باسم (talk) 19:22, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Shida Kartli[edit]

Hello. Tskhinvali and Java are not Shida Kartli. see municipalties of that region. გიო ოქრო (talk) 22:43, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@გიო ოქრო: So what administrative division of Georgia do they formally belong to? --Infovarius (talk) 21:12, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
en:Provisional Administration of South Ossetia. გიო ოქრო (talk) 09:35, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
@გიო ოქრო: thanks for the point. So according to your claim in this item, I've added reverse historical claim. Please adjust Java Municipality (Q893278) too. --Infovarius (talk) 20:55, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Region of Shida Kartli (not historical) never included Java, Tskhinvali and Znauri (Qornisi). გიო ოქრო (talk) 20:57, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
@გიო ოქრო: Sorry, I am confused. What did you mean by this edit then? --Infovarius (talk) 22:18, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
You're right. I have removed it. გიო ოქრო (talk) 04:57, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
@გიო ოქრო: Something strange now. So where was Q79863 in 1995-2007? --Infovarius (talk) 20:24, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
It was conflict region and wasn't part of any rayons or districts. გიო ოქრო (talk) 20:26, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

sepulcher (Q2916962)[edit]

What makes you think that it is the same as grave (Q173387) (Special:Diff/1287245662) in the first place? Four Wikipedias having separate articles is a quite strong indicationg that they are not the same. Earlier I added descripton to "sepulcher" item based on en:tomb. If it is a kind of burial chamber then it is a location that may include several graves (or kind of stone graves) and as such is different. Though, I now realise that Wikipedia articles linked in "sepulcher" may be about neither. 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:544C:E5AD:A8A4:1388 13:56, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Indonesian studies scholar (Q98115480)[edit]

I am wondering why you removed the statement instance of: scholar from this item. A scholar might not be a professional, and Indonesian studies scholar is one type of scholar. UWashPrincipalCataloger (talk) 22:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

@UWashPrincipalCataloger: I don't care about the class scholar (Q2248623), but the class cannot be an instance of such class. Instances are at most individual persons, not a class. See Help:Basic membership properties. --Infovarius (talk) 20:36, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Mosfilm (Q141336)[edit]

Коллега Infovarius, вы отменили мою правку с недоумением: почему? — готов пояснить. В тексте Нидерландской статьи о « Мосфильме» численность сотрудников не указывается, нет её и в каких-либо источниках, статья созданна машинным переводом с итальянской заметки. Как редактор русской Википедии, я готов закрыть глаза на развесистую клюкву в итало-нидерланских ветках, но вбитая кем то численность 1500 чел. через Викиданные попадает и в русскую версию. Патрулируя 12 октября русскую страницу «Мосфильма», мне пришлось удалить этот бездоказательный элемент, о чём теперь прошу вас. - Gerarus (talk) 23:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

@Gerarus: Действительно, сложно было найти подтверждение этому числу... Нашёл источник для 1020 в 2002 году, так что вероятно всё-таки 1500 сейчас вполне адекватно. --Infovarius (talk) 20:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Коллега, рад что вы убедились во взятой «с потолка» цифири. Экстраполировать же на основе 2002 года не входит в нашу компетенцию, будут новые данные — обновим, ведь так? - Gerarus (talk) 22:00, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

  • По данному инциденту имею к вам вопрос-предложение по оформлению стилевого порядка:
вы поместили найденную вами ссылку непосредственно на Викидату, то есть на всех 45 связанных языковых страницах о Мосфильме она будет отражаться в первозданном «голом виде», для большинства читателей других языковых разделов — по сути бесполезно. Получается зря существуют всевозможные шаблоны типа cite web и т. п., поясняющие в своих языковых разделах просхождение, издателя, время публикации и обращения, наконец язык самого первоисточника. Ну не должно так быть! Мне представляется, что подобные вашему источники целесообразнее оформлять на конкретной языковой Вики-странице, с отсылкой на которую затем вносить на Викидату (как было с Нидерландской википедией в нашем случае).
Боюсь, не слишком вразумительно удалось сформулировать суть вопроса, потому готов предложить свой вариант оформления скажем к ближайшему понедельнику. - Gerarus (talk) 22:00, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
@Gerarus: я понимаю, наверное... Но есть ещё мнение, что подтверждения важны и нужны независимо от языка, поэтому ничего страшного в том, что они будут отображаться в других языковых разделах. --Infovarius (talk) 22:26, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Оформил найденный вами источник на русской странице, как хотел, посмотрите — мне кажется подтверждение численности работающих на всех 45 страницах о Мосфильме не стало хуже.) - Gerarus (talk) 20:13, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

  • @Infovarius: считаю вашу отмену вероломством: во-первых, потому что в Викидате оговаривается свойство p143, когда источник импортируется с одного из проектов Викимедии, во-вторых, с 8 ноября 2019 Нидерландская Википедия таковым источником по-вашему всё-таки была. Вы не находите здесь противоречия?
    Ещё довод: источник не является глобальным для Викимедиа-сообщества, как скажем IMDB, — что, к примеру, поймёт японец, пройдя по нему?, в то время как отсылка на Русскую Википедию гарантирует ему эту цифру в тексте статьи плюс стандартно оформленную внешнюю ссылку. Согласитесь, что приоритет разноязыковых страниц Википедий для большинства пользователей очевиднее, чем служебная Викидата. - Gerarus (talk) 19:40, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Ironman 70.3 champions[edit]

Hi Infovarius. About that, you use significant event (P793), but for me this property don't say nothing like he is the winner. Maybe participant in (P1344) and put the first position? Greetings. --Vanbasten 23 (talk) 18:24, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi, @Vanbasten 23:. I would appreciate more exact relation. Actually, I cared about all participants and not only champions. And I believe that Ironman is quite important event in a life of anyone. Which property do you think is more appropriate for this? --Infovarius (talk) 22:26, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
"I believe that Ironman is quite important event in a life of anyone" Why? Is it more important than a olympic triathlon? Same sport, different distance, but the same. For example this edition say "significant event", but don´t say nothing about he is the champion like you said in the title of the batch. We use the significant event (P793) in Michel Platini (Q4261) to put Panama Papers (Q23702848), this is a strange thing in his life, but Ironman 70.3 is not. Greetings --Vanbasten 23 (talk) 07:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

2 RSFSR[edit]

2 RSFSR republics Q2305208 and Q2184 - made short descriptions. --Ivtorov (talk) 09:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@Ivtorov: Небольшая путаница между этими элементами (по крайней мере, для меня), но сейчас вроде описания чётко их разделяют... --Infovarius (talk) 22:30, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Спасибо! --Ivtorov (talk) 08:55, 24 October 2020 (UTC)


I don't get where this hunch (suppose it's also true) comes from. Nothing in this GeoNames entry refers to previous municipality. There may have been a match before, but it can't be checked anymore as GeoNames likely repurposed this entry for current municipality with the same name. Note that GeoNames preserves some other previous municipalites like that one as historical entity, but this is not the case for this entity. I generally don't edit without checking things carefully and I don't appreciate your occasional reckless reverts. If you have questions then please take a more constructive approach and use talk pages. 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:F5AC:5026:3765:53FF 07:00, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for being "reckless". But how did you understand that GeoNamesID is about modern and not previous adm.unit? They say only "Türi vald" which seems perfectly well with both items. --Infovarius (talk) 22:30, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
It's area is that of the current municipality (click "show map" to see the geometry) and it displays EHAK (0834) code that of the current municipality. Contrarily I don't see anything referring specifically to former municipality in this GeoNames entry. 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:2CAC:61A6:2403:DAA7 09:41, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Former entity[edit]

I think because belongs to different classes in Special:Diff/1297375557 isn't a true assessment in case status, classification or alike didn't change and the entity just ceased to exist. "former municipality" item may simplify some queries and as such may be useful, but it seems to be a Wikidata-specific pseudo-class rather than a natural classification unit. All the data about this former entity is still about it as a member of rural municipality (Q28122896) class. So these qualifiers seem to be an unnecessary duplication of data that is already there in form of separate statements. Similarly you could copy all other separate statements into this P31 statement as qualifiers, but what would be the point really. 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:1934:4BEC:E580:660F 09:10, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree that "former X" are "Wikidata pseudo-classes" (but nevertheless I find them useful). And I try to avoid duplication too. But I can't find any claims at rural municipality (Q28122896) that this class is historical. So date qualifiers are necessary to express this. Without them, normal rank of such claim would mean that the entity does still exist now (as it is non-historical Q28122896 still). --Infovarius (talk) 19:18, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
I don't think that rural municipality (Q28122896) implies only non-historical. Former entity classes Q7265977, Q26742250 etc. are set as subclasses of more broad "non-historical" items anyway. My understanding is that former status is primarily indicated by stand-alone statement using end time (P582), dissolved, abolished or demolished date (P576), date of death (P570) etc. 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:D9E4:68D6:B7F8:6663 14:37, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Well, preferred rank of a (current) value in a claim is quite necessary if there are other values which are historical truth. Also it is a good tradition to add date qualifiers to each value because the historical changes can be more complicated than simply "created/dissolved". --Infovarius (talk) 23:17, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
In case it would be more complicated, and the only other P31 value wouldn't be a pseudo-class that could be removed without losing information, then of course these qualifiers would be useful. 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:9CE0:A3E9:7E66:382A 10:24, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Califat Abbassid[edit]

Hello Infovarius, the Abbassid califat begin in 750 and end in 1258 (somtimes we can also see 1517). See the russian article : Аббасидский халифат (араб. الدولة العباسية‎), Багдадский халифат — феодальное теократическое государство, существовавшее с 750 по 945 и с 1194 по 1258 год, с правящей династией — Аббасидов. and french , and arabian. If you think that's it's an actual state (with abbassid of course -who were dead) give us proofs please, with sources. Regards. Cjldx (talk) 07:33, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

@Cjldx: Please note that historical country (Q3024240) is a class of non-existant (at present) states. So on contrary, my version means that this califat ceased to exist in 1258 (and not it's only a history), and your version means that the califat was historical already before 1258 (how is it possible?) and now it's only caliphate (Q131401) (because this value is without qualifiers and of appropriate rank). Please correct this nonsense. --Infovarius (talk) 19:04, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
@Infovarius: hi, thank you for your explanation. I understand now what your mean and you are right. It's just a matter of understanding the terms and I amalgamated the term Historical State and its date of existence (considering that it was indeed an "Historic State" and that its dates of existence were 750-1268). but you are right : it's actually an historic state (after 1268), it was a state (750-1268), a califat (same date). I'll correct the element. Sorry for the inconvenience. Best regards. Cjldx (talk) 19:38, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
done. By the way, i have a problem : the page show me that "Caliph must have a titular declaration". As you have more experience than me, can you explain to me where the problem is coming from please. Thank you. Cjldx (talk) 19:57, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
@Cjldx: officeholder (P1308) is intended to be used in each position item. But here you use a general item "caliph" (which is ok for me). I suppose we can ignore the warning now unless we want to create a specific item "caliph of Caliphat Abbassid". --Infovarius (talk) 23:24, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Dein Revert von Q529605 am 20. Oktober[edit]

Ist Q529605 Kurfürstentum Hessenkassel nicht von Q100594799 Kurfürstentum Hessenkassel zu trennen? Immerhin gab es dazwischen ja das Königreich Westphalen in diesem Territorium. --Granpar (talk) 14:42, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

@Granpar: Entschuldiegung, ich weiss nichts über die Geschichte des Hessens dieses Zeit... Vielleicht, sie mussen sein zu trennen. --Infovarius (talk) 19:11, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
@Infovarius:The Electorate of Hesse existed two times:

From 1803 to 1806 as a state of the Holy Roman Empire and then for a short time until 1807 as a sovereign state without membership in the Confederation of the Rhine (Q100594799). An attempt to remain neutral failed. The Electorate of Hesse was assigned to the Kingdom of Westphalen. A second time after the end of the Kingdom of Westphalen in 1813 until the annexation by Prussia in 1866 (Q529605). --Granpar (talk) 12:24, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Classes or not, it's not feasible to have that kind of statements in every item[edit]


ketopentose (Q23015676) subclass of (P279) pentose (Q205654)
pentose (Q205654) subclass of (P279) monosaccharide (Q133516)
monosaccharide (Q133516) subclass of (P279) carbohydrate (Q11358)
carbohydrate (Q11358) subclass of (P279) organic compound (Q174211)
organic compound (Q174211) subclass of (P279) compound of carbon (Q2901852)
compound of carbon (Q2901852) has part (P527) carbon (Q623)
carbohydrate (Q11358) subclass of (P279) alcohols (Q156)
alcohols (Q156) subclass of (P279) hydroxy compound (Q71421787)
hydroxy compound (Q71421787) subclass of (P279) oxygen compound (Q5156940)
oxygen compound (Q5156940) has part (P527) oxygen (Q629)
hydroxy compound (Q71421787) subclass of (P279) hydrogen compound (Q1327815)
hydrogen compound (Q1327815) has part (P527) hydrogen (Q556)

Do I really have to explain it every time? has part (P527) statements on every possible item are redundant. Wostr (talk) 21:35, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

About Q5818677 and Q7461754[edit]

I think Special:diff/1299532494 and Special:diff/1299523773 are imprpoer because Q5818677 means "people who have certain civic nationality (legal affiliation with a state)", and inaccurate Q5 and Q5818677 would make the right sidebar of Commmons too long to read like Commons:Category:Temples_of_the_Queen_Mother_of_the_West_in_Hualien. In contrast, Q7461754 means some people who might relative to a particular country without civic nationality like foreigner students of certain country. --迴廊彼端 (talk) 03:24, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

@Infovarius:I will revert these changes if you agree or don't answer. --迴廊彼端 (talk) 03:07, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean "what is it"?[edit]

Regarding the revert of this edit, it would be useful to know what I did wrong. Instead of just undoing the addition, maybe fix the problem you found? Or, alternatively, communicate what the issue is? LucGommans (talk) 00:16, 1 November 2020 (UTC)



なのになぜ分離状態を継続させようとしているのか、理解できません。それらの項目の中身を見比べれば、同一の指示内容である事は明白ではないでしょうか。 項目を分けることに合理的な理由があるというのであれば、説明していただけないでしょうか。よろしくお願いします。 --シダー近藤 (talk) 09:54, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

@シダー近藤: Sorry for English, I can't write in Japan (unless you prefer Google translation of Russian into Japanese). There are two issues here: 1) patronage (Q214092) is a type of activity while patron of the arts (Q15472169) is an occupation, so they are clearly distinct and there should be 2 items; 2) about Wikipedia articles (a.k.a. sitelinks): I agree that they have quite similar content, but their titles refers to the first or the second item uniquely, that's why I separate them. In order to have good interwiki linking we can move all sitelinks to one item (ignoring its sense, which is not logical), or to create redirects in each language with the opposite word - it is allowed but it is possible only by a hack. --Infovarius (talk) 21:45, 7 November 2020 (UTC)


Is a term applied to plants only. --Succu (talk) 16:16, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

@Succu: wrong. It depends from dictionary to dictionary. Англо-русский толковый словарь генетических терминов 1995, Большая советская энциклопедия. — М.: Советская энциклопедия. 1969—1978. explicitly mention animals (Bison bonasus (Q81091), dog (Q144)). Генетика. Энциклопедический словарь. - Минск 2011 gives two definitions, one of which is about animals. If you won't give counter-arguments with sources (proving that this scope doesn't exist), I'll bring my version back. --Infovarius (talk) 17:32, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Note also that you've created orphan sitelink nl:Cultigen. --Infovarius (talk) 19:54, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
The definion in ru:Культиген lacks any references about the definition of the term, as your dictionary entries do. en:Cultigen gives a good overview. And note Q101421948. --Succu (talk) 21:04, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

ablative case[edit]

Hi, I have noticed that you have reverted our edits in can you please provide right Tamil Translation for this case, since you feel our translation is strange? As a Native Tamil speaker, I can validate your translation and we can use it in this item. -Neechalkaran (talk) 06:40, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

@Neechalkaran: well, sorry, I don't know Tamil. I even admit that my revert was wrong. In English description would be "grammatical case which is sometimes used to express motion away from something". Please translate this. --Infovarius (talk) 19:21, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Female voice type between Soprano and Contralto = Tenor is nonsense[edit]

Your revision is nonsense. This is a mezzo-soprano, as all of the other languages make plain. Why have you reverted this correction to an obviously incorrect entry????? Scarabocchio (talk) 07:42, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Scarabocchio (talk) 13:49, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

K10plus PPN ID only for editions?[edit]

I'm running User:K10PlusBot to align book editions in Wikidata and K10plus union catalog using K10plus PPN ID (P6721). In this process I removed the use of this property on items about humans (only around 100 instances). You seem to disagree. I understand the motivation but K10plus records about non-editions are basically copies of GND records, so using K10plus PPN ID (P6721) for authority records would duplicate all GND ID (P227) statements. You can get to the K10plus records linked with a GND via a link such as (replace last ID with GND). Would this be ok? -- JakobVoss (talk) 11:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Thread on AN[edit]


This thread on the Administrators' Noticeboard might benefit from your input. Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 17:38, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Количество изображений[edit]

Давайте уточним: сколько изображений (необходимо или целесообразно) иметь в одном элементе. Явно не стоит туда добавлять все, что разные участники считают важным - так мы продублируем Викисклад. 4 - это явно перебор и никому не нужно. --Ksc~ruwiki (talk) 22:05, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

RMS Titanic (Q25173)[edit]

Please note that when 'Southampton' was added back in, that there is an "!" point there, now. How do you propose to fix that? That is why occurrence was added. Would like your opinion on a better way to fix it. Funandtrvl (talk) 21:13, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Revert on vital articles[edit]

Hi, Given that, please check fr:Wikipédia:Articles vitaux which must be connected to en:vital articles. --LD (talk) 20:56, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Stop messing up items[edit]

We had three items for arm arm (Q43471) (upper arm + forearm on the basis that Uberon sees that as a valuable category), upper arm (Q379859) (upper arm, FMA category) and free upper limb (Q24517852) (hand + upper arm + forearm) . In the discussion page I explained the split. You added a bunch of values that apply to upper arm (Q379859) to arm (Q43471) as well creating a bunch of constraint violations for doublicate values and also adding IDs that only apply to upper arm to a concept that is broader.

Can you clean up after yourself so that we again have three items that cover the three meaningful concepts with each having the proper IDs? If this isn't vandalism, what motivates bringing the items into that state? ChristianKl❫ 01:11, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Nizhny Novgorod (Q891)[edit]

Hi Infovarius, could you please move the historical country (Q3024240) claim of Q891#P31 to another item? Mixing too different concepts into one item isn't good... thanks Bouzinac💬✒️💛 08:54, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Bouzinac:, I am not sure but this seemed to be a polis ("city-state") at 1220s. --Infovarius (talk) 22:25, 15 December 2020 (UTC)


Hi and Happy Year, I am writing to you to talk about French categories and try to understand each other. I recommend that you look in other similar categories to see that all Wikidata follows this pattern (look at any country or big city in WD). It cannot be that France is an exception.

Greetings, --KajenCAT (talk) 10:48, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@KajenCAT: (We are talking about Q515?) I know for sure that Russian word is different from English and mostly includes "city"+"town". I suppose that French word is also not equivalent to English. --Infovarius (talk) 21:20, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Ah, about categories. I didn't mean French categories. I see Russian labels and Russian sitelinks (and statements too) and your changes are wrong according to them. For example, Q7030219 is about ethnicity while Q9076545 is about place-connected personalities. Do you disagree? --Infovarius (talk) 21:33, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi, if i'm not wrong, you reverted my edits in French and Russian categories regarding "category of associated people in WD of both countries. I urge you to check any WD of other country or major city on how they are done in. I urge you to check any other country or major city on how they are done. Maybe the category is in the wrong WD, but in any case the english format of Category:X people (countries) and Category:People from X (cities, regions, ...) should go in this category. Please note that your edits are harming the work of the bots of several Wikipedias. --KajenCAT (talk) 20:36, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
@KajenCAT: The problem in ambiguaty of English words. "Russian people" can mean "people from Russia" as well as "people of Russian ethnicity". If you believe that English sitelink use first meaning you are free to move it to Q9076545. The same for all other countries (may be I should overview all of them too). --Infovarius (talk) 22:21, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Natural History (= Ciencias Naturales) versus modern Anglo-Saxon term Natural Sciences[edit]

Hello @Infovarius:, I don't quite understand what were your criteria for reversing the translation of the classic expression "Natural History" to Spanish "Ciencias Naturales", the latter is the term used in all Spanish speaking countries to refer to the Natural History Museums and the academic study of Nature.

You can see the classic definition of the expression in Wikidictionary:

In the Spanish-speaking world, the expression «Historia_natural» was introduced as a literal translation of Natural History in the 18th century with the proliferation of Cabinet of Curiosities (firts Museums), but later (S. XIX-XX) was changed to «Ciencias Naturales» and, with that name, many Museums (see above) and academic Faculties were founded for its study.

Wikidata should not homogenize the cultural heritage of the different countries based on the "bad" Google translations, to avoid this it would be convenient to check the meaning of «Ciencias Naturales» in different wikis; particularly explains it very well (Естественные науки). In Natural history, in Naturwissenschaft.

In (Ciências naturais), with a long tradition of British culture, they assume both expressions as synonyms: «Além do uso tradicional, a expressão ciências naturais é por vezes usada no dia-a-dia como sinônimo história natural».

I think the confusion between the classical terms of Natural History (= Ciencias Naturales in Spanish) with the modern Anglo-Saxon term «Natural Sciences» is creating great chaos on Wikipedia. Regards and happy new year. --MartinGala (talk) 01:10, 2 January 2021 (UTC)


By all means, please explain how secondary school is not a subclass of school. It's quite literally in the name. A secondary school is a more specific type of school. Currently, the page Casa Grande Union High School is diplaying the warning Entities using the NCES School ID property should be instances of school (or of a subclass of it), but Casa Grande Union High School currently isn't.. There are countless other schools with the same warning. Your edit serves no purpose. kennethaw88talk 22:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)



Why do you reverse my contributions ????

--ComputerHotline (talk) 07:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

@ComputerHotline: please next time be more specific. I guess you mean my de-capitalization? Please read Help:Label#Capitalization and Help:Description#Capitalization. --Infovarius (talk) 22:12, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

What sense does it make?
Did we write about medals as sculptures, do you remember?--Oursana (talk) 23:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

@Oursana: About this edit: this is relevant information that he had no spouse, how could we derive this without such claim? "Did we write about medals as sculptures" - what do you mean? --Infovarius (talk) 22:17, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
ok, sorry for the revert. /Obviously sb else reverted medal= sculpture some time ago--Oursana (talk) 19:02, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Empty pages[edit]


What happens to empty pages like Q26015901 or Q26017239? Will get deleted manually or automatically or they remain intact indefinitely?

Regards Shkuru Afshar (talk) 15:04, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@Shkuru Afshar: They should be merged after merging in Wikipedia. I've done it. --Infovarius (talk) 21:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Shkuru Afshar (talk) 00:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

What is an article? Revert[edit]

Inquiry about [9]

They are different because Help:Main article (Q23933122)'s Wikipedia page describes the relationship between the main article for a topic and its category.

Project:What is an article? (Q3891539)'s articles describe the fundamental concept of what is a article.

Lectrician1 (talk) 05:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Lectrician1! I was really not careful about this item, judjing it only by it's label. --Infovarius (talk) 05:22, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Reverted edit on Q1[edit]

The value was valid, but it looks like a duplicate... (picture on right)

There are 2 "cosmology"

So that's why I removed the claim. (Your revert is still standing - I didn't revert your revert.) AltoStev (talk) 15:43, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikidata screenshot of Q1
Hello, AltoStev. It's just a problem of homonymy. If you look inside these items you'll understand the difference. By the way, they are not duplicated in Russian:) --Infovarius (talk) 05:13, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Again different orders in botany and zoology[edit]

Hi Infovarius, could you pls. help me here. I think Succu's revert of my renaming is wrong. Thank you --Faring (talk) 23:52, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't need your help any more, I've given up. --Faring (talk) 01:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Your konw where to discuss problems like this. --Succu (talk) 21:25, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Universal Code of Conduct consultation[edit]

Hello, I am writing to you to personally invite you to the ongoing consultation about the new Wikimedia movement's Universal Code of Conduct. Your feedback as an admin and experienced user is of great value for us, and we are extremely interested in hearing your say.

You might express your opinion at any given time and in any way you may consider useful (for example, publicly at the consultation page or on my talk page, or privately via email). If you wish or feel more comfortable, we can also set up an online meeting in order to discuss your opinions and ideas.

Please remember that there is no such thing as a “stupid opinion” or “worthless idea”, so be bold and feel free to express yourself. :) Also, if you wish you can help us involving other users you know and that you think might be interested in having their say in this!

Hope to hear from you soon! --Sannita (WMF) (talk) 17:29, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

TRNC - RoC[edit]

Hi. The TRNC does not claim any territory from the Administration calling itself Republic of Cyprus, maybe the opposite is true though. The "federal republic" on Cyprus came to an end with the Bloody Christmas of 1963, which was indeed aimed at making the Turks of the Island disappear -by killing or forcing them to escape- and converting the federal entity into a Greek State or part of Greece. Did you not know that? (Now you do. :) Have a good week-end. --E4024 (talk) 13:56, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Revert at "physicist"[edit]

Hi, I just would like to ask/clarify why you deleted the "academic title" tag. You wrote "no, it's strange". I assume that you are not German, because in German this is 100% correct. The definition in "academic title" is (engl. version): "title to indicate the completion of a course of study or the extent of academic achievement". Now, "Physiker" (German for physicist) is a word which can only be used for people having successfully completed studies in physics at a university (no less). Correctly, in the past, the complete title was "Diplom-Physiker", but everybody said the short form Physiker. Today after some reforms in the 2000s it is "Bachelor/Master in Physik", but I am sure people still say "Physiker". So this is a short form of an academic title in German. I hope I could explain the topic. Apart from that, this whole thing is not of particular significance to me... Pittigrilli (talk) 21:42, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@Pittigrilli: I undestand you. In Russia we officially would use this term for professionals too, but don't you have unofficial naming for any who "doing some physics"? Anyway, if you advocate for "Physiker als Titel", it would probably worth to create different item for such definition. --Infovarius (talk) 21:17, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes, it is an idea to create "Physiker" als Titel. To your question if Germans don't have the word "Physiker" as an <unofficial naming for any who "doing some physics"> - no, absolutely not. It is really strictly only used for somebody with university degree. People would look very strangely at someone who says he is a P. and then it comes out he is some amateur or has a lesser educational degree. I believe this even goes into the direction of "unlawful activity" like pretending you have a PhD/Dr. (academic title) when you don't. Have a good evening (or night in Russia, I guess...) Pittigrilli (talk) 21:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)


Greetings, I see you reverted my edit. When I search for storage, the page warehouse shows up. And it means "depo" in Turkish but another article in Turkish is linked to that page. Nevertheless, I won't revert your edit. Best regards.--Visnelma (talk) 06:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

You do not know Turkish![edit]

1-) First of all, you do not speak Turkish and you come and change what I wrote in Turkish. Don't do that! 2-) You do not know the Turkish spelling rules, so do not change the changes I wrote and do not provoke users towards me! 4-) By the way in Turkish, although the sentence does not end with a period, ellipsis, question mark, exclamation mark, and so on, the first letter of the sentence begins with a capital letter! 3-) Make changes in your native language, not in Turkish!  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Doğru Tercüman (talk • contribs) at 17:10, 2 февраля 2021‎ (UTC).

@Doğru Tercüman: and you seems don't know Wikidata. Common rule here is not to capitalize words in labels and descriptions which are usually not capitalized inside sentence. If Turkish capitalizes all nouns (as German) which I doubt, you are free to add this to Q256#P6106. --Infovarius (talk) 20:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
And your descriptions are (sometimes) far from useful and brief. Compare: [10], [11], [12]. --Infovarius (talk) 21:44, 3 February 2021 (UTC)


Hola, has revertido mi trabajo para separar es:Anexo:Datos de objetos gravitacionalmente redondeados del sistema solar de es:Anexo:Planetas del sistema solar. En algunas wikis solo hay artículos con datos de los planetas y en otras tienen también de los demás objetos redondeados, por lo que yo separé a unos de los otros, pero vos fusionaste y se me hace complicado revertirlo. Te solicito que reviertas lo que hiciste, de forma tal que no tenga que hacerlo de nuevo yo. Saludos.--Nerêo (talk) 22:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I'll try to find time to look into it. --Infovarius (talk) 19:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

landscape as genre[edit]

Hi, the genre landscape art is genre of painting (Q16743958) while the item is a photo: --Hannolans (talk) 22:56, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

@Hannolans: If we don't have specific genre of photo, what is better: 1) to create a new item or 2) to widen scope of landscape art (Q191163)? --Infovarius (talk) 21:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
we have landscape photography (Q1353984) as photography genre (Q3100808) will that fit? otherwise we could check Art & Architecture Thesaurus (Q611299) to add new terms --Hannolans (talk) 22:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
@Hannolans: yes, it's perfect. --Infovarius (talk) 23:00, 26 February 2021 (UTC)


if you want to add all the former States, please also add the preferred rank to the current State. Otherwise you're creating confusion in any system reading the data --Bultro (talk) 01:15, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

And, specifically, w4e are having issues at the Russian Wikivoyage. Please stop and correct the rank.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Sorry for temporary inconvenience, it is the next step intended. --Infovarius (talk) 22:59, 26 February 2021 (UTC)


Там проблема не в том, что другие языки вылезают, а в том, что краткое название замещает собой поле с официальными названиями, привязанными ко времени (см., например, ru:Адриан (Тяжёлов) или ru:Александров, Фёдор Михеевич), поэтому я и понижал ранг. windewrix (talk) 20:44, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@WindEwriX: Ну так, наверное, проблема в том, что краткие названия (а их может быть много и на разных языках) не должны подменять официальные. Если хочется сокращать официальное, могу предложить добавить квалификатор "краткое название" к нему. --Infovarius (talk) 22:48, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Putnik поправил, теперь снова стало хорошо windewrix (talk) 08:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

An explanation for a subject[edit]

Hello, Infovarius. Here you reverted an edit that I made. But I removed the information added by Doğru Tercüman. If you write gerilim on this website, you will see the same information. I was removing this information for copyright reasons. Regards. Uncitoyen (talk) 07:23, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

@Uncitoyen: Yes, it makes sense (though so seldom in my practice), reverted, thank you. --Infovarius (talk) 13:09, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

"Et tu Brute"[edit]

These words were not the "legendary last words of Julius Caesar". His last words were Καὶ σὺ τέκνον. The phrase "Et tu Brute" was invented in the Middle Ages and popularized by William Shakespeare's play (in which the words are not Caesar's last either).*Treker (talk) 06:51, 3 March 2021 (UTC) ː1 I'd also like to add that "teknon" would be translated more as "boy" than "son". There is also no "my" in the sentence. The most likely translation would likely be "You too boy".*Treker (talk) 13:07, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@*Treker: this phrase is commonly referred to Julius Caesar, why it can't be called "a legend"? The word "мой" is part of quite frequent citation in Russian. --Infovarius (talk) 19:06, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Things that are provably false are not "legendary", they're just false. And I was talking about "Kai su teknon", not "Et tu Brute" when I mentioned there being no "my" in it.*Treker (talk) 19:09, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
fyi: -- Jheald (talk) 21:59, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Splitting Wikipedia links between two related Wikidata items[edit]

Hi Infovarius,

I've noticed that you split Wikipedia links between Q82642) and arterial blood pressure (Q9062560), though they were linked before Wikidata was created.

Wikidata is more precise than Wikipedia about subjects, so there will always be more Wikidata items than Wikipedia articles. The initial only purpose of Wikidata was to centralise interlanguage links. Splitting them between related Wikidata articles goes against that purpose. One way to know if Wikipedia articles are related is to check the redirects. For example, en:Arterial pressure redirects to en:Blood pressure. Same thing for fr:Pression sanguine and fr:Pression artérielle.
Some Wikipedias will sometimes have articles for both subjects, that's not a problem. Just keep the most Wikipedia articles linked together on the broader subject item. The RedBurn (ϕ) 16:53, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

@The RedBurn: Infovarius did the right thing. If you want to see interwiki links, add redirects as a sitelinks, instead of linking narrow topics to broader ones directly. See Wikidata:Sitelinks to redirects (because linking to redirects requires additional steps, unfortunately). --Lockal (talk) 18:07, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Rationale for this change[edit]

Hello Infovarius, I have deleted this subclass because of this help page: "if an item A is an instance of class B, and class B is a subclass of class C, item A is implicitly also an instance of class C. There is no general need to add a statement for the relation A→C to Wikidata"--Joseph (talk) 18:30, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

@Joseph: of course, I don't really mind this. (One little thing is that it had a source while new value hasn't). My comment was about "dialect" values. --Infovarius (talk) 12:10, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Nonce word vs. Wyrażenie okazjonalne (Q1499602)[edit]

Добрый день. Вы отменили моё изменение на странице переводов, соответствующей статье "Окказионализм (филология)". На соответствующей странице дискуссии я объяснил, почему я удалил оттуда одну ссылку:

Ссылка просто ошибочна. Польская статья "Wyrażenie okazjonalne" описывает совершенно другое понятие, чем та разновидность неологизма, которая по-русски называется окказионализмом. Так что предлагаю обдумать этот вопрос и восстановить те изменения, которые я пытался внести. --D.M. from Ukraine (talk) 19:35, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Reversion in One Man Band (Q785706)[edit]

I see that you reverted one of my edits because you said that One Man Band (Q785706) should be an instance of animated film (Q202866) instead of having it as genre (P136), but animated film (Q202866) is an instance of film genre (Q201658) so shouldn't it be used in genre (P136) instead? -- Agabi10 (talk) 16:11, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Unsourced edit[edit]

Hi, my edit is from Glottolog. Do you have a reference for your edit?--Joseph (talk) 16:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Coloeus monedula[edit]

Hi Infovarius - Corvus monedula is a synonym of Coloeus monedula dating from before genetic data showed that it was less closely related to other species of Corvus than was thought before. So all the wiki pages AND its Commons Category, should be at Coloeus monedula, and not at Corvus monedula as you keep putting it. - MPF (talk) 12:17, 23 March 2021 (UTC)


In shortː The Bible offers two different genealogies (as outlined here), which look suspiciously similar. Therefore some academics tend to believe that the two geneaolgies (written at different times by different people) mean actually the same person, but inserted the name in different positions. P460 (this item is said to be the same as that item, but it's uncertain or disputed) perfectly describes that discussion. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 14:44, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Страны и реки[edit]

Проблема в том, что эти страны не всегда правильны. Например, Калининградская Область не была частью "Российской Империи". И можем ли мы сказать что какая-то река, которая могла поменять русло или название 10 раз за эти годы, была частью "Российской Империи"? И если да, то зачем останавливаться на "Российской Империи", не идти назад до "Киевской Руси" и дальше?

Я не видел аналогических ситуаций у рек других стран. Темза - только "Великобритания", а не "Королевство Великобритания", и не "Королевство Англия". Американские реки - только США, Тибр - только Италия, и т.д...

Постараюсь не убирать, но для меня это противоречит другим странам. OBender12 (talk) 12:59, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

1) @OBender12: Если что-то неправильно, надо исправить. Калининградскую исправил. Пожалуйста, если заметите ещё - говорите, я исправлю.
2) Не могу представить себе реку, которая поменяла русло очень сильно, тем более 10 раз. Можете пример привести? А название никакого отношения не имеет - главное физическая сущность.
3) Я не против идти "дальше" - в Киевскую Русь и т.д. Просто у меня были трудности с алгоритмом определения таких старых стран для каждой конкретной точки. Я сделал то, в чём более-менее уверен.
4) Другие страны просто не занялись ещё этим. Я был бы рад, если бы там тоже кто-нибудь поработал над историей. В реках абсолютный голяк, города и другие населённые пункты постепенно обрастают историческими местонахождениями (см. какой-нибудь Rome (Q220)). --Infovarius (talk) 13:35, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Архивация этой страницы[edit]

Добрый день! Не хотите ли перенести старые темы в архив? Здесь тоже есть бот-архиватор. Michgrig (talk) 17:08, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Не хотелось бы доверять боту эту задачу... Думал оставлять темы, над которыми ещё можно подумать и поотвечать, но похоже не справляюсь с потоком... Ладно, пока сам заархивировал часть. --Infovarius (talk) 13:36, 30 March 2021 (UTC)


Hi Could you automate rankings (if Russia+URSS then Russia=preferred rank) ? Eg that Q1200389#P17--Bouzinac💬✒️💛 21:41, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I want, really-really want. But I don't know how (yet), I can't... I am trying to find a tool for this. --Infovarius (talk) 21:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Trying a bot request : --Bouzinac💬✒️💛 19:19, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the word Cult[edit]

Just for the record, the word "secta" in Spanish and other romance languages does not correspond with the meaning of the word "sect" in English as for the editions you did on Q11038979. I brought the issue here Wikidata_talk:Interwiki_conflicts#Cult_and_sect where is better explained. --Ochentero (talk) 14:56, 3 April 2021 (UTC)


Проставление разрушенной в 1301 году крепости принадлежности к СССР и России - это попытка вандализма? - 11:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Нет. Во-первых, я расставлял P17 на основе имеющихся утверждений, если не было (и до сих пор нет) "даты прекращения существования", значит продолжает существовать и в России (и, по непрерывности, в СССР). Во-вторых, не "принадлежность", а "государство" (читай: местонахождение). В-третьих, а развалины ("археологическое место"), случайно, не в России сейчас? --Infovarius (talk) 21:30, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Venus (Q313)[edit]

IMO, it is completely unclear which event attendance (P1110) applies to. Ankry (talk) 11:03, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ankry: obviously not event but Venus itself. If the problem is in CoVis it's possible to adjust constraints. --Infovarius (talk) 09:16, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Passport issuance[edit]

Hello there, (i don't speak russian sorry), could you please help me find number of passport issued for one year in Russia (and possibly in other russophones countries) ? See : . If you can't find, don't worry. --Bouzinac💬✒️💛 18:14, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@Bouzinac: I can't find the data from state organization but in [13] they say that in 2020 656300 foreigners got Russian passports. And I can't find about re-issuance for own citizens... --Infovarius (talk) 20:43, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
No pb, thanks anyway. In case you are interested by this topic, here in frwiki'%C3%A9mission_des_passeports --Bouzinac💬✒️💛 20:55, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Could you add the full query instead?[edit]

URL shorteners are not always long lived... [14]--So9q (talk) 08:39, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

This shortener is a part of Wikimedia world so I hope it would live almost as long as WDQS itself. --Infovarius (talk) 09:10, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Votre modification relative à Q183173 est incorrecte[edit]


Je remarque que vous avez annulé la modification que j'avais faite sur l'élément Q183173. Pour votre information, cette modification a été faite sur base de la définition très claire du Grand Larousse encyclopédique (10 volumes), publié en 1962 :

Hygromètre n.m. Météorol. Appareil qui sert à mesurer l’humidité de l’air. (V. part. encycl.) - Encycl. Météorol. Les hygromètres mesurent, suivant leur type, l’humidité absolue, l’humidité relative, ou des valeurs qui permettent de calculer les deux précédentes.

Si vous lisez les définitions en anglais et allemand relatives à l'élément Q183173, vous verrez qu'elles disent exactement la même chose. Le fait que l'image illustrant l'élément Q183173 montre un hygromètre mesurant l'humidité relative n'est qu'illustrative d'un type d'hygromètre particulier et ne justifie pas de restreindre la définition à ce seul type. Je vais donc annuler votre changement. Je suis heureux d'avoir pu vous apprendre quelque chose, et vous souhaite une excellente journée. --Duvivier.Michel (talk) 10:00, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

@Duvivier.Michel: D'accord. Seulement il faut a commencez par une petite lettre - je la change. --Infovarius (talk) 14:11, 29 April 2021 (UTC)


La descrizione italiana di astrologia nell'elemento Q34362 è sbagliata, correggilo cortesemente così: "Scienza sacra basata sull'analogia fra Terra e Cielo stellato, microcosmo e macrocosmo".-- 16:34, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Why do you think that your's right? Astrology is the pseudoscience ("false science" how we call it in Russian). --Infovarius (talk) 14:02, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Heritage designation P1435[edit]

Пожалуйста, поясните, какие задачи вы решаете своими заданиями #53564 (обс) и #53632. Avsolov (talk) 21:10, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Мне бы не очень хотелось использовать административные полномочия, но если в этой теме и теме ниже не последует ответа, а правки будут продолжаться, у меня может не остаться других вариантов.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:19, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Infovarius, на всякий случай, обращу ваше внимание, что сущности для местных/региональных/федеральных ОКН уже существовали. Я объединил вновь созданные вами сущности Q106636485, Q106636489, Q106636501 с уже существовавшими Q23668083, Q105835744, Q105835766. Также есть ещё Q105835774 (выявленные) и Q105835782 (с признаками). Avsolov (talk) 19:28, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
@Avsolov, Mitte27: Добрый день. Честно говоря, не понимаю, в чём проблема. Увидел обсуждение на Talk:Q8346700 и решил наконец заняться. Я просто добавляю статус там, где его не было (согласно категории) и уточняю там, где можно (где включено в конкретные подкатегории, типа этой). Кажется, в некоторых местах произошло дублирование более общим классом? Я уберу его, давайте только придём к согласию по остальным пунктам. В частности, User:Mitte27, почему вы оставляете дублирующие классы наследия (более общее при наличии частного)? --Infovarius (talk) 14:00, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Удаление ОКН[edit]

Добрый день! Зачем вы массово удаляете ОКН-статус у памятников? [15][16]. --Mitte27 (talk) 07:41, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Давайте это в совокупности обсудим. --Infovarius (talk) 07:34, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Merge of Q10972285 and Q11027905[edit]

Hi Infovarius,

Thanks for your reminder. In fact, it was my first attempt trying to merge 2 items on Wikidata. You imply that during the process many site links have lost, but I did it with the "Merge with" feature, which I thought should merge all data including the site links. Considering that these two items are identical concepts and content, I believe they should be merged. How should I do it? Please let me know, thank you.  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 06:10, 3 мая 2021‎ (talk • contribs) at Aquacryst (UTC).

Let's discuss at Talk:Q10972285. --Infovarius (talk) 20:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)


You added that Ivan Švear is a Russian, and in the edit after this Special:Diff/578483937, that he speaks Russian. Edits after this used this information, and put descriptions like "Russian historian". Ivan Švear was born in what is now Croatia, then Habsburg Monarchy, and died in Croatia, or Kingdom of Hungary then. He wrote the first Croatian history book in Croatian language. I can't find any source of him having any ties with Russia. I'll fix the item, but you should check other items you edited with the same source or method. I hope you didn't just tag every Ivan as a Russian :) --Janjko (talk) 14:44, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, Janjko, my fault. There can be some more errors probably but not many - I've done this semi-manually. --Infovarius (talk) 20:53, 4 May 2021 (UTC)