User talk:Vladimir Alexiev

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Logo of Wikidata

Welcome to Wikidata, Vladimir Alexiev!

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

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

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

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

If you have any questions, 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.

Best regards! Emw (talk) 20:27, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Babel and userboxes[edit]

You can find help with Babel template here: Wikidata:Userboxes --Tobias1984 (talk) 08:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Project visual arts[edit]

Hi, the list of participans to the visual arts project is stored in a separate page so that they can all be notified typing {{Ping project|Visual arts}}. I added you to the list. Welcome if you wanna stay (else you can always remove your name) and thanks for the links.--Zolo (talk) 17:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Merging items[edit]

Thanks for taking the time to merge items. Please always merge the higher number into the lower number, and not the other way around. If you use the merge tool this should happen automatically. I reversed your merge to Q18516778 from Pieter Hermansz Verelst (Q324280) for this reason. Happy merging! Jane023 (talk) 12:02, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done And will do in the future --Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 11:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Artsy gene[edit]

Artsy gene (P2411) is ready. Mbch331 (talk) 10:41, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Help decide the future of Wikimania[edit]

Wikimania logo with text.svg

The Wikimedia Foundation is currently running a consultation on the value and planning process of Wikimania, and is open until 18 January 2016. The goals are to (1) build a shared understanding of the value of Wikimania to help guide conference planning and evaluation, and (2) gather broad community input on what new form(s) Wikimania could take (starting in 2018).

After reviewing the consultation, we'd like to hear your feedback on on this survey.

In addition, feel free to share any personal experiences you have had at at a Wikimedia movement conference, including Wikimania. We plan to compile and share back outcomes from this consultation in February.

With thanks,

I JethroBT (WMF) (talk), from Community Resources 21:32, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Towards a New Wikimania results[edit]

Wikimania logo with text.svg

Last December, I invited you to share your views on the value of Wikimedia conferences and the planning process of Wikimania. We have completed analysis of these results and have prepared this report summarizing your feedback and important changes for Wikimania starting in 2018 as an experiment. Feedback and comments are welcome at the discussion page. Thank you so much for your participation. I JethroBT (WMF), Community Resources, 22:47, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikiproject KOS[edit]

Hi Vladimir, thanks for joining WikiProject Knowledge Organization Systems! I just thought about how to better organze the KOS typology. As Suggested here we could use qualifier of (P642) to specify details of catalog subtypes. What do you think about introducing it for all of them? Or should we use another qualifier property, such as has parts of the class (P2670) or has part (P527)? -- JakobVoss (talk) 13:00, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey[edit]


Unused properties[edit]

This is a kind reminder that the following properties were created more than six months ago: Artsy gene (P2411), J. Paul Getty Museum object ID (P2582), dataset distribution (P2702). As of today, these properties are used on less than five items. As the proposer of these properties you probably want to change the unfortunate situation by adding a few statements to items. --Pasleim (talk) 19:35, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey[edit]

(Sorry to write in Engilsh)

Company Identifiers & Class Hierarchy around "Companies"[edit]

Vladimir, you seem interested in getting the "company" and related class structure better organized.

  • Fix the class hierarchy. Independent (or was it Incorporated) Cities, to the common Joe like me, are not Companies
  • Trying to find all External Identifier props used for Companies. This finds all external identifier props.

I included your SPARQL in my list of examples, hope that's O.K? see: User:Rjlabs/WikiData_Company_Data_Project I was looking at where "company" fits in the Wikidata hierarchy (a mess!).

I'm very interested in company identifiers (and am fascinated currently with all the nuances of the Legal Entity Identifier LEI, both now and with the quickly forthcoming ownership hierarchy). I'm also interested in how "Company" data can be made so it will help aggregate up to GDP. I come from a financial analyst prospective. In our world every entity that produces any "economic" output, has a payroll, borrows money is important to identify. This includes companies (stocks/bonds/options/futures), any entity that issues bonds (countries, states, cities, municipalities, public power companies, water facilities...), all government sector entities that have a payroll, charge fees, borrow money, or produce output -- such as schools, courts, jails, highway maintenance, social services...). Also need to "identify" entities that produce "investment services" output, that for the most part, own "investments" in other companies (mutual funds, hedge funds, trusts, investment pools, etc.) This is important for who owns what, and who, as owners impart significant control, directly or indirectly, including "offshore" ownership containers.

Yes, absolutely, there should be an easy way to filter down, such as: "for profit companies", "listed on any stock exchange", "private for-profit companies with 20 or more employees", "sole proprietor or single owner LLC or single owner Inc. etc. with more than 1 million dollars in sales"...

I'm not well versed in SPARQL (just learning), and am U.S./U.K. centric in terms of my current understanding of company data, economic data, accounting principles & national economic accounting. Looking to open up a dialogue around getting the Wikidata class structure fixed up. Rjlabs (talk) 17:31, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Rjlabs: I've read your page and find it very interesting. It merits being migrated (together with your writeup above) into the WikiProject pages. I'm not very knowledgeable with economic entity types so not sure I can help with the class hierarchy structuring. But I'm strong with SPARQL and structuring data (eg using & extending W3C Org and RegOrg ontologies, making Wikidata properties...), so I'll try to help. Not sure how much effort I can spend but I can spend some as part of the euBusinesGraph project. Sure, use my query anyway you see fit. Cheers! --Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 15:22, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Authority control[edit]

Thanks for the hint! I've added it to my common.js and purged the cache. Now how do I use it? It doesn't show up on Wikidata items. Jonathan Groß (talk) 15:33, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Never mind, I found it. Not that easy to spot :) Thanks again! Jonathan Groß (talk) 15:45, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

CERL[edit]

Hello Vladimir! You said you need to work with CERL in the future. What do you plan to do? I have only "worked" with CERL in that I add CERL author IDs to Wikidata items. Often there are more than one ID per person. Currently, there are nearly 1400 cases recorded here.

I think this has to do with the way the CERL imports their data. They add huge bulks of biographical data from large files they get from various GLAM databases, and apparently they don't cross-check all their existing datasets for doppelgängers (at least not sufficiently). Jonathan Groß (talk) 13:05, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

  • @Jonathan Groß: We're in a proposal, which if it wins, we'll get to integrate CERL with a bunch of other resources. Duplication sucks. 6 records for Galileo! 11 for Seneca?! Scandalous --Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 14:56, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

AAT white tie/tail coat[edit]

The formal coats should be full evening dress (Q29235661). I can make the changes if you like. I've been working on a lot of clothing items. - PKM (talk) 13:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

That sounds good. I'll work on that later today. Thanks for your help! - PKM (talk) 14:07, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
All done! tailcoat (Q112053) and full evening dress (Q29235661). - PKM (talk) 20:11, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
@PKM: Thanks! I added "full evening dress - has part - tailcoat", or is that wrong? If it's correct, what else are parts of it? --Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 14:50, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey @PKM:! Seems we'll be doing a H2020 proposal with Europeana Fashion, and I saw your comment on "broader" or not in their thesaurus, so I thought of you.

Can we move forward this topic: What else are parts of "full evening dress"? --Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 15:27, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure the other "parts" exist as separate items in Wikidata: "For men, it consists of a black tailcoat worn over a white starched shirt, marcella waistcoat and the eponymous white bow tie worn around a detachable collar. High-waisted black trousers and patent leather shoes complete the outfit, although decorations can be worn and a top hat and white scarf are acceptable as accessories" (EN wiki) We can add <has parts of the class> detachable collar (Q358689). We might want to add a new item like "formal shirt" which is white, has a detachable wing collar, holes for studs (not buttons), etc. That might be a good task for an editathon, so create these fine-granularity items, with references. Tell me more about your H2020 project! - PKM (talk) 20:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Re: Roman Catholicism[edit]

Hi! Catholicism and Roman Catholicism are the same thing in many languages, but in English they can have some differences because of the history of religion in UK and the United States (traditionally Protestant countries tend to use "Roman Catholicism" to show its link to the papacy while Catholic countries tend to use just "Catholicism", with "Roman Catholicism" as a synonym). You can see some everlasting discussions in Talk:Q9592 and Talk:Q1841.

Actually, ATT says: "In juridical terms, it refers to the branch of Christianity distinguished as a unified, monolithic sacramental system under the governance of papal authority. Throughout much of its history, the seat of the Pope has been in Rome, thus "Roman Catholicism" is often used to distinguish this concept from the Orthodox Catholic church."

One thing is for sure: the "Catholic Church" is the church itself and "Catholicism" (or "Roman Catholicism") is the set of its beliefs. Because of the "note" and the "terms" used by the ATT (they mention both "catolicismo romano" and "catolicismo" which are the Spanish for "Roman Catholicism" and "Catholicism"), I think they mean not just the Church but its beliefs. --Grabado (talk) 15:45, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

@Grabado: Right! So in view of the way AAT uses it, I think both links should be left? --Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 12:18, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata:Property_proposal/broader_concept[edit]

Pinging you (and others) since you've done a lot of MnM matching on the AAT thesaurus and others, as to whether or not you think it would be useful to be able to record the "broader" field in thesauruses like this, allowing one to reference the thesaurus structure in WDQS queries. Property proposal at Wikidata:Property_proposal/broader_concept. Jheald (talk) 19:00, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

@Jheald: thanks for the ping, I voted Yes: keep up the fight! --Vladimir Alexiev (talk)

Thanks! BTW, I am starting to think that the property might be better as a qualifier than as a main statement. That way one could use ?item (p:P1014/pq:P361)+ ?top to pull out all the items asserted to be in the AAT ID (P1014) hierarchy below ?top.
The other way round, if one was using wdt:Pnnnn for the property, there seems to be no way in SPARQL to write a path statement while restricting it to links that had a particular qualifier value. (This thread I thought might be a way to do it, but it turns out that it's not possible).
Other consequences of it being a qualifier include that it would appear in the 'external IDs' section, so below the fold, perhaps more acceptable to those worrying it might end up as a rival concept to P31, P279 etc; as well as not producing a big lump of noticeable clutter in the main section of statements.
Downsides include that it would make it harder to see the range of external hierarchical relationships all together. Also, perhaps most significantly, it wouldn't be possible to add supplementary information in qualifiers -- eg the URL for the corresponding 'broader' entry; or whether the relationship was only indirect, with some intermediate hierarchical items missing. But maybe those could be worked around.
Any thoughts of any other issues, for or against, re it being a qualifier or a main statement? Jheald (talk) 16:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
@Jheald: I like the idea of qualifier --Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 16:52, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

EHRI project[edit]

Wonderful work. I read the blog post and tried to post a comment but I don't think it went through.

I was wondering if there is any potential for there to be an Authority control template that captures the newly mined Wikidata identifiers so they can display in the footers of the various language Wikipedias.

It would be great to also have an external link template, if the Authority control idea isn't something that is possible. So it would be something similar to the Template:Enciclopédia Itaú Cultural but using the Yad Vashem Encyclopedia of the Ghettos ID.

So impressed to see this. I am sorry I have still not heard back from JewishGen re: their localities database. I will try to ping them again.

-- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 19:06, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

@BrillLyle: Yes, this finally came to fruition from work started last summer.

Unfortunately I've never worked with Templates, but wasn't there a Wikipedia project on Holocaust where you can look for a volunteer? I saw your email to JewishGen, thanks! --Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 15:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Vladimir, a template to the Yad Vashem resource would be great / would be helpful but I am not sure if it is something that can be automated without manually editing the Wikipedia page(s) and adding it. So it would be a lot of work. Templates are easy compared to the work you have already done! :-)
I am not sure if there's a WikiProject like that. Either way, if I don't have the dataset it doesn't help me much. Oh well.

Hit and run wasting our time[edit]

Please stop doing these hit and run actions wasting our time. Either become part of this community and invest in it or go somewhere else. Multichill (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I apologize for this remark and I would like to rephrase it: Please become more part of our community to make this project as a whole better. Multichill (talk) 20:55, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
@Multichill: I do a bit as my free time allows. Your contribution is much greater than mine, since I can't invest programming time (to start with, I know Perl but not Python). But I know a bit about CH/GLAM ontologies content standards, and I do what I can. If you don't like one of my proposals, comment on the proposal itself --Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 14:01, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey[edit]

WMF Surveys, 18:57, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia survey[edit]

WMF Surveys, 01:39, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey[edit]

WMF Surveys, 00:49, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Q1209251 and Q11694134 are probably the same[edit]

Xx236 (talk) 11:32, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Merged on 30 August 2018‎ by Epìdosis --Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 11:07, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Scientific award[edit]

Why have this and more importantly why remove award. There is no benefit for this distinction and it breaks things. Please undo. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 10:38, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

  • @GerardM: Because Science Award is a more specific subclass of Award. There is a strong benefit to have the most specific class for every entity because you can do more specific queries.
In our case, we're matching & adding the 300 most notable Science Awards and their winner lists, and we need this most specific class to do the data integration work.
What "things" break by using a more specific subclass, and can't you fix those things by modifying the query they use to target any subclass? P31/P279* instead of just P31
Have a great holiday season! --Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 10:50, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
So you have a need and breakage elsewhere are not your concern. Wonderful. In the past I have asked for explanations for such subclasses and all I got was because. I am one of the most frequent contributors to awards, it is my work you damage. There are alternatives for subclasses. Your notion of the 300 most notable science awards ... notability based on what! Thanks, GerardM (talk) 10:57, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
  • @GerardM: Please explain what is the breakage. "Use the most specific class that applies" is a sound ontological/taxonomical principle. We need such principles of representation, else everyone may use their own variation (eg I've seen inception placed as a qualifier on P31 and fixed several such). If you have an app/query that requires a more generic class, perhaps it can be fixed?
If you convince me it cannot be fixed, I can easily add type "award" to all that have type "science award" (whereas the opposite cannot be done!)
Notability is based on 5 established lists, eg see 3 of them at https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q185667#P444.
Please don't revert (eg as in here) before we finish the discussion. Thanks! --Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 11:04, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
  • it follows that you stop doing what you do.
Your logic is wrong. When you talk about the "300 most notable Science Awards" there is nothing in naming an award that makes them one of the 300. When only the 300 most notable awards are made into a science award, it is an ontological travesty. So what you do does not serve your purpose. It serves no purpose. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 12:46, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
  • @GerardM: there us no class "notable science award", there is only "science award". Notability is represented as "review score", go check eg https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q185667#P444. Now please explain what is the breakage you referred to and why do you need the less specific class "award" to be applied. Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 23:35, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

There is existing logic where for an award, in Scholia, it shows what the co-occurence is with other awards, any awards. With all other proper/relevant break downs. So there is no NEED for what you do, if anything it is a duplication of effort. For British scientists an OBE is an important and relevant co-occurence. So your objective is already met in a consistent manner for any and all awards and in a way that is not provincial to science. Please undo your damage.

Also we can express what "bodies of authority" think of an award anyway. This can be expressed for any award not just for a "science award". If these bodies are indeed relevant enough, ask Finn to include these numbers in Scholia.. In this day and age where much of the publisher induced thinking of ranks is controversial personally I think these numbers are something we should pass. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 05:34, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

@Vladimir Alexiev: Can you undo this redundancy, there is no obvious reason why you have to split award in something that is not structurally sound. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 07:19, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

@GerardM: How would you propose we single out the 300 "most important" awards (in our case science awards), so we can do detailed work on them? I've recorded "review score" by the most reputed award agencies: these statements "so and so have given such and such score" are objective, though the selection of agencies is of course subjective. But if you have a better proposal, I'd like to hear it. Let me repeat that there's no class "notable awards".

  • If there's a way to distinguish Knight (OBE) given for science from OBE given for rap, or football or whatever, I'd be very interested to learn it. In particular, do you know of some way to use award coreferences to find other important awards?
  • Please note that https://tools.wmflabs.org/sqid/#/view?id=Q618779 "award" has 2754 subclasses, of which 121 direct subclasses (and MANY more indirect subclasses) have instances. Following your logic, we don't need any subclasses?
  • When a subtype is stated, stating also the supertype "award" is redundant. Indeed there are many awards for which the supertype "award" is missing. I've only removed it from "science award" but there are MANY more. Eg this query returns a bunch of Pulitzer prizes:
select ?x ?xLabel ?typeLabel {
  ?x wdt:P31 ?type.
  ?type wdt:P279+ wd:Q618779.
  filter not exists {?x wdt:P31 wd:Q618779}
  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE],en". }
} limit 200

Try it!

  • This query returns the count of subtypes for which the supertype "award" is missing. As you see, my action (1538 science awards) is only 4th in the list: eg there are 2472 literary awards without supertype. There are also 469 "title of honor" without supertype, and I bet that some analogous to OBE are in that number.
select (count(*) as ?c) ?typeLabel {
  ?x wdt:P31 ?type.
  ?type wdt:P279+ wd:Q618779.
  filter not exists {?x wdt:P31 wd:Q618779}
  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE],en". }
} group by ?typeLabel order by desc(?c)

Try it!

  • As I said before, it'd be easy to modify the queries in Scholia to use P31/P279* instead of merely P31. Given the previous bullet, maybe we should post an issue on Scholia's bug tracker? https://github.com/fnielsen/scholia/issues/600
  • I will now add the redundant supertype "award" to all subclasses of "science award": https://tools.wmflabs.org/quickstatements/#/batch/6741. But this does not fix all problems of Scholia, see the query above
  • I'd appreciate if you stop calling my modeling "not structurally sound" and my edits "destructive", just as I don't use adjectives regarding your reasoning
  • More importantly, let's collaborate on award data.
    • Please answer the bullets above (how to find important awards; how to distinguish the field of a generic award like OBE)
    • What are your current plans?
    • I've posted on WikiProject Research, but do we need a separate project Awards? --Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 07:47, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, when only the "most important science awards" are enriched with info about their relative merit. It suffices to seek those out. When this is your hobby, add this info. You do not need to have them as a "science award" to query for that. There is only OBE and the OBE is also awarded to scientists, authors negating the logic of subclasses for awards. Having these subclasses serves no purpose. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 10:20, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

@Tacsipacsi: has reverted a bunch of my changes, eg (‎Undo revision 826170485 by Vladimir Alexiev (talk): overcategorization, archaeological award (Q636581) is a subclass of award (Q618779)). I agree with you friend: I've been trying to reason with @GerardM: that using the more generic class is superfluous, but was not successful. GerardM's arguments boiled down to "your changes are destructive" and "you've broken Scholia" (let's see what they say). I'm starting to think that GerardM doesn't know what he's talking about --Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 13:48, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

"add redundant type "award""[edit]

https://tools.wmflabs.org/quickstatements/#/batch/6741 indicates that you know it's redundant, but you did a tool to mass add this anyway. Please revert this batch or I will do it for you. Multichill (talk) 22:20, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

  • @Multichill, Tacsipacsi: Thanks for setting me straight
  • @GerardM: claimed that the removal of redundant types "award" broke Scholia (see prev section). But https://github.com/fnielsen/scholia/issues/600 shows this is false
  • So I've reverted the batch, but there are still a few hundred other awards with the same problem. Should I remove the redundant type for them?
select (count(*) as ?c) ?typeLabel {
  ?x wdt:P31 ?type, wd:Q618779.
  ?type wdt:P279+ wd:Q618779.
  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE],en". }
} group by ?typeLabel order by desc(?c)

Try it!  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vladimir Alexiev (talk • contribs) at 09:13, 4 January 2019 (UTC).

  • "Redundant" statements aren't robust anyway since anyone can legitimately delete them at any time. May I suggest that "science award" isn't a very useful concept anyway, since a lot of awards are issued in a specific field, like "experimental psychology" or whatever, and some are even more general like "science and technology" or "science and engineering". I think a better solution would be to use "award" as the class and allow field of work (P101) to be used on award items to indicate the field. Actually, I see somebody has already added "science award" to the constraints on field of work (P101), but "award" would work just as well. Ghouston (talk) 20:47, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Continued discussion with GerardM[edit]

Vladimir.. your misgivings are based on what? That I disagree with you? Point is that I have probably entered more data on lot of awards and awardees. I am involved in adding scolarly papers and their authors to Wikidata. Point is that I have blogged on Wikidata and its use for a long time. Never mind... Who are you and why do you think splitters are right. The best you have done is not convince. Why awards are to be split up, what the benefits are. Even worse, your pet project is highly dangerous because it ossifies science without any clear benefit. For me, you add an adjective and it allows for another split. Luducrous. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 11:56, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I noticed your removal of award statements. I have started a conversation on the chat. I intend to remove all scientific awards and replace them by awards. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 14:31, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @GerardM: I didn't invent the class "science award". It was already existing on most scientific awards. We added it to a few more. I have not created any "splitters"
    • We need it in Tracking of Research Results (Q56259739) to work on science awards. There is a sea of other awards (eg musical, sports etc) and we need to distinguish. @Ghouston: Sometime in the future this could be done through "field" but 1. A lot of these awards don't have "field" entered or are multi-field, or it's hard to determine the exact field 2. I am not aware of any useful/complete/accepted taxonomy of fields (see Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_Research_projects#Fields_of_science if you like to participate in a discussion about that). Please comment.
    • Gerard, your claims that the superclass "award" is required by Scholia were debunked at the Scholia issue tracker. You have still not explained what "breaks" when we use a more specific subclass.
    • I offered you collaboration, but you have not responded to that. I asked you several constructive questions how to work better, you have not responded to that. May I respectfully offer that qualifications like "Who are you" and "Your pet project is highly dangerous" make you look like an idiot. BTW that "pet project" is a 4M EUR project funded by DG RTD.
    • "conversation on the chat": do you mean this one? As you see from Multichill and Tacsipacsi's reaction (who reverted the addition of the redundant superclass), they think like I do. What is the appropriate place to put this discussion so we can hear more people? --Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 13:57, 9 January 2019 (UTC)