User talk:Izno

From Wikidata
Jump to: navigation, search

Wikidata:Interwiki conflicts[edit]

Where are the not resolved interwiki conflicts? --ValterVB (talk) 18:26, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata:Interwiki conflicts/Unresolved. Your version of the header probably needs to be translated. --Izno (talk) 19:29, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes I saw it. Thanks --ValterVB (talk) 20:29, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


It seems that en-link doesn't fit to the item. Because many others (de, ru, fr, uk, ...) admit any object, either populated or not. --Infovarius (talk) 20:36, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

My report is about another topic than the one you are talking about[edit]

You reverted my report. First of all, I don't know why are you are making a point that it's on "the very top of this page" as if that's visible when you report a Interwiki conflict. Secondly and most important, my conflict was about changing the name so it's not the same thing. --IRISZOOM (talk) 04:54, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

@IRISZOOM: Apologies on the first point. To the second point, we typically tend to deal with related conflicts in the same report. --Izno (talk) 05:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
No problem. Okay, I don't think they are related but if it's going to be renamed, if that's the correct thing, it's good. --IRISZOOM (talk) 05:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Rivers and streets[edit]

Hi, Izno, could you comment [1]. This comment contains analysis only part of discussed arguments and introduce new arguments. Why you place it in form of summary, not usual vote comment? This form makes new arguments discussion hard. — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 19:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

@Ivan A. Krestinin: I am willing to amend my summary to not bring up any additional arguments (would you be asking me here about the discussion if I had not to begin with? :) and to mention all of the "discussed" arguments (though I find the opposition to be much more persuasive), but my close will not be changing. It is apparent to me that there is no consensus for adding the property. --Izno (talk) 19:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Argument about "coordinates of the end" was not discussed previously. Argument about object presenting instead of describing important object`s properties was only mention, but was not discussed. So, your "summary" does not summarize discussion. It introduce new vision to the subject. — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 20:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
@Ivan A. Krestinin: I will not entertain a discussion on whether the property will be created. Are you asking me to remove those comments or simply stating so? --Izno (talk) 20:43, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
I think such comments must be placed to discussion section, not to summary section. — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 20:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
So if I remove my "summary", you would be happy? Isn't that rather bureaucratic of you? :) --Izno (talk) 20:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
This is not bureaucratic question. Summary that does not contain existing arguments analysis is looked like personal point of view. New arguments in summary confirms this also. Another users can have another points of view. So questions "Why his point of view is marked as summary, but my is marked as one of vote comments only? Why my point of view is discussable, but his point is definitive and undiscussible?" cause conflicts. — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 21:19, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Commonscat removing[edit]

[2] what about to check, why bot again and again add "incorrect" statement? or notify, if you are not sure? JAn Dudík (talk) 08:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm just a lazy bastard. :^) --Izno (talk) 12:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Request for feedback on my GSoC'14 proposal[edit]

Hi Izno,

I am planning to work on the project titled "Tools for mass migration of legacy translated wiki content" this summer under Google Summer of Code. I have drafted a proposal for the same over the past few weeks. This project is going to help the translation adminstrators like you in a great way, as it would completely automate the tedious manual task of preparing a page for translation and then importing the translations into the Translate extension. You can check the proposal page for detailed information on how I plan to accomplish this.

As you would be an end user of this tool, it would be great if you could go through the proposal and provide feedback/suggestions. Your feedback would definitely help me improve the proposal as well help in creating an even better tool. You can do the same on the discussion page of the proposal or reply here, whichever is convenient for you. I look forward to hearing from you! Thank you!

P.S: I need to submit the proposal to Google by March 19, 2014.

BPositive (talk) 13:39, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Using P289 for ship class[edit]

Hi Izno, I noticed this recent change of yours where you assigned a ship class item to property instance of (P31). Following rules from Wikidata:WikiProject Ships/Properties#Individual ships, ship classes should be assigned with vessel class (P289) (which is used by some wp templates) and P31 should point to ship types, attack submarine (Q4818021) in the case of HNLMS Zeehond (Q13728690). Thanks for the input, though -- LaddΩ chat ;) 02:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

@Laddo: There is a PFD for vessel class (P289), so I reserve the right to use instance of (P31) until such time as that PFD closes as a keep. --Izno (talk) 02:48, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I see. Fair. -- LaddΩ chat ;) 02:55, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
@Laddo: which, on that point, I think the bot should not have been running... given that they are the same property, reversal of the changes shouldn't be too difficult. --Izno (talk) 02:59, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikinews topic categories[edit]

...are linked from the items of the corresponding Wikipedia articles. This is one of the cases where non-mainspace pages on a non-Wikipedian sister associate with Wikipedia mainspace pages. --Pi zero (talk) 01:27, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Problematic edits on property constraints[edit]

Hi Izno,

If you are not sure how things work, I'd suggest rather you ask first before reverting users with rather pointless edit summaries.

If you consider editing constraints, maybe you should attempt to deal with constraint reports first. Once you gain some experience, suggest changes to existing constraints and let people review your suggestions. --- Jura 18:39, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

@Jura1: I probably have as many edits as you. And I'm a former administrator. And have been around longer than you. So be careful regarding how much you presume I do or do not know.

As for the gist of your comment, my point is that adding a regex OR to capture no values is not sensible. The more correct approach is to add that item as a known exception to the more general rule unless there are so many no values as to make that unreasonable. One offensive item is not sensible in this case. --Izno (talk) 18:43, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the edit count actually matters. Several fairly recent contributors have a sound understanding how things work, probably because they regularly contribute to the site and help build the database in a substantial way.
I do see that your point of view is that a given approach is not sensible and that there is an approach that you may see as more sensible.
Edit summaries like "knock it off" are in inappropriate when it comes to mere difference of point of view on technical questions, it can be seen as a lack of understanding in the underlying issues and an indication that one merely comments out of personal animosity. --- Jura 06:20, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
That might be the most cogent response I've seen from you on the entire wiki in the time I've edited/lurked. Consider being so cogent in the future, rather than your usual two- or three-word comments which look like you don't care what the other person is saying.

True, edit count doesn't matter (though I suspect on review you have more than I--Widar is useful, eh?).

Noted. I think a community discussion should be held on the point; in addition, we seem to have neither help page nor policy/guideline page on constraints (that the briefest of searches could identify).

Maybe. When a user is disagreed with in one place regarding the value of a certain (technical) change, and goes on to other pages to make the same change, that user can be or should be viewed as making disruptive changes. It looks like the user hasn't learned that there are multiple points of view and is editing without concern for it. The more proper response in my case is probably less "knock it off" and more "WD:PC" or elsewhere, but it obviously got you to turn your head. --Izno (talk) 15:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Database obsession[edit]

Glad to oblige. (smile) In a project like this, if you wait for things to be perfect, nothing will ever get done. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:42, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

@StevenJ81: I wanted to say what you did just couldn't find the words. Since he seems unwilling to budge (unreasonably--it's a requirement to source things--he's demonstrated a disregard for that requirement in multiple discussions), and I know I have the community consensus on my side... shrug.

On an aside, I'm StevenJ89, nice to meet you! --Izno (talk) 16:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


Not very surprised by the suppression, but by the motivation: notability. Begining my first contribution, I was in English mode, search for Rezvani and found nothing. So, I decide to edit an element about Rezvani. But before, Is set French as my first language. I put some data about Rezvani (witch is well known and has his page on Wikipedia Then, I discover that, in French, there is an element in Wikidata, but was not able to destroy my input at that time. So, I expect it will be destroyed, but not for notability!

My surprise is: an element can exist in French and be invisible in English.  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jcmoissinac (talk • contribs).

@Jcmoissinac: Why are you asking me? I did not delete the item. --Izno (talk) 14:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry,, just following some links. I will try to join Sjoerddebruin  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jcmoissinac (talk • contribs).

No worries. --Izno (talk) 15:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

API for DateTime[edit]

I read the following post by you:

@T.seppelt: BTW apparently the API doesn't work either. Your Persondata tool should probably make sure they are penned up and excluded indefinitely.... --Izno (talk) 16:24, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I would like to try putting a few DateTimes, probably for birth and death dates, into the sandbox with the API, to see what works and what doesn't. I would especially be interested in trying to set the time zone, since lack of a time zone makes most of the birth and death statements false, for anyone who pays any attention to the data model documentation. Can you explain how to do this, preferably without having to set up a lot of infrastructure? Jc3s5h (talk) 15:17, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea. Any of the people developing a tool would probably be a better person to contact. --Izno (talk) 15:19, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

subarctic climate (Q5967371)/dry-winter, cold-summer continental climate (Q1651358)[edit]

In reference to this, why did you mark the conflict as solved? Judging from the map, the German article is about the same range of Köppen climates (D*c, D*d) as the English one. The claim in the text that the German article is only about Dwc is patent nonsense because Dwc, unlike Dfc, is very limited regionally (to the centre of Asia) and not even found in Europe or the Americas (and only at the southern margin of North Asia), in glaring contradiction to the introduction, which says "found predominantly in North Asia and North America"! (Also, note that Irkutsk, named as an example, does not really have Dwc anymore, but is now closer to Dwb.) I have now corrected the patently false claim in the German article that it is only about the rare Dwc. It is clear that the German article is about the same bloody thing as the English one and that the merge should be carried through. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:45, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Unanswered question about the relevancy of your comment[edit]

Hi Izno,

Can you respond to the question about your comment on Wikidata:Property proposal/tracking category with pages including information suitable for property ?
--- Jura 21:58, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Property proposal for anonymous editor[edit]

Hi -- would you mind telling me if I created this correctly? I don't see any way to assign it to one of the topics, so I'm not sure whether it's actually showing up for other editors to look at. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 17:05, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: Wheeeeeee, throwing me out of loop here. :D What you need to do is like how you would handle an AFD (in the old days): You need to go to one (or more) of the topic areas listed at Wikidata:Property proposal and then transclude the page you created onto those pages of interest. --Izno (talk) 17:20, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Just realized I never said thanks; so thank you -- that worked. I am still going round in circles a bit with all this (having just asked a question at project chat that I later realized I had already asked and had answered). I guess it will all eventually emerge from the fog. Mike Christie (talk) 22:32, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Setting suggested qualifying properties ...[edit]

Would you mind telling me the process for setting suggested qualifiers for properties. My digging through help ages has been unsuccessful. Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

@billinghurst: Are you talking in the auto-complete or on the talk page of properties? In the former case, that's better aimed at WD:Contact the development team. In the latter case, that's a Project:Bold, revert, discuss cycle (Q13599611) thing. --Izno (talk) 14:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
When you have added a property and you click the qualifier and it puts forward suggestions. For instance if I am on a DNB00 biography, eg. Stevenson, Thomas (Q19111007), and click the qualifiers for the published in (P1433) it will suggest volume and page for the work, what is useful. There are other places that such a response is really useful.  — billinghurst sDrewth 15:06, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: Then yes, that's a question for WD:Contact the development team, since the auto-suggester is completely on the software side. --Izno (talk) 15:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Star Trek planet classification (Q923148)[edit]

Hi Izno! You removed several labels and Star Trek planet classification (Q923148)instance of (P31)  fictional knowledge organization system (Q26700453). I guess you did so because you assume that the item is about a fictional class of planets, right? English and Spanish Wikipedia, however, have an article that describes the full Star Trek planet classification system with class M planet as most popular part of it. Should we split the item into two (one for the classification system and the other for class M only) or make the item both? From a formal point of view the first choice makes more sense but Wikipedia language editions often overlap in similar ways and I doubt that any Wikipedia will have two articles for class M and the classification system. We could also try to influence Wikipedia communities to rename the articles to better match their content. What solution do you prefer? -- JakobVoss (talk) 19:24, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

They should probably all just have an article for the system, since even the en.WP article is fairly undeveloped in regard to its planet M description. --Izno (talk) 19:45, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
I modified the English and Spanish article, for French, Catalan and Hungarian I lack the language skills. -- JakobVoss (talk) 18:22, 28 August 2016 (UTC)


First, sorry for my poor English. the Q187425 and Q321007 items have been reverted and I don't know why. The reason for my editions was to set the value of "vessel type" to import it from WD to the "infobox ship", the parameter "type" (P31) was too generic. What is the matter?--Kette~cawiki (talk) 20:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

@Kette~cawiki: I reverted one of them and I should not have--which I fixed. However, one of the P31s you changed to was from "four steamer liner" to "cruise liner", which was a backward change for specificity. --Izno (talk) 20:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Sure, but "four steamer liner" it so much specific, there are only two pages (enwiki and frwiki). I'm looking for a balance between the two extremes.--Kette~cawiki (talk) 20:32, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
It was only a test, I'm updating the infobox to import data from WD, No problem, I will establish the value manually.--Kette~cawiki (talk) 20:37, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
@Kette~cawiki: Yes, I understand that it might be more specific than what your wiki has. The problem would be solved if there were some way to solve the Bonnie and Clyde problem, as we could then redirect to pages that our wiki has. --Izno (talk) 21:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
When the data is imported,these are links to page, but this page only exists in two wikis, the others are obliged to create the page, usually only a redirection. I thought wd was a place to centralize data, but it is a site to serve enwiki, wrong way ... I think--Kette~cawiki (talk) 21:44, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
@Kette~cawiki: Oh noooooo, en.WP has this problem worse because en.WP often has many concepts on one page that Wikidata would consider to be individual concepts, because en.WP has a very strict notability guideline... --Izno (talk) 21:52, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Those comments aside, @Kette~cawiki: thank you very much for refining more instance of (P31) claims from "ship" to, well, any subclass. That was a project of mine until I got bored of it. :) --Izno (talk) 22:02, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I apologize for the mistake, I'm not updating the infobox, I'm updating template:infobox ship with new params and the capability to retrieve data from WD. I was testing WD queries.--Kette~cawiki (talk) 09:50, 1 September 2016 (UTC)