Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/2017/05

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page is an archive. Please do not modify it. Use the current page, even to continue an old discussion.

Q83287 Protection

Please semi-protect Selena Gomez (Q83287) - popular theme, frequent IP vandalism from various IP addresses.--Jklamo (talk) 09:50, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected for 2 weeks.-- Hakan·IST 09:53, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

q1860 soft protection request

Looking at the history of this item indicates that IP addresses should not be editing it, can we please have long term soft protection it? It is too much of a target for idiots and the uninformed. Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done one year. --Epìdosis 12:46, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism

190.190.136.196 seems to be a persistent vandal. --Laboramus (talk) 19:33, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Let us see whether (s)he continues. It seems the vandalism was limited in time. Pamputt (talk) 20:30, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Tatá Werneck

The article Tatá Werneck is a good article on Wiki-Portuguese and i can't update that here, on Wiki-English. So, who can help me? Sorry my bad english! Raul Caarvalho (talk) 04:44, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@Raul Caarvalho: I added the badge. You cannot do it by yourself since you are not an auto-confirmed user here (you did not do enough modification). Pamputt (talk) 05:30, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
@Pamputt:, thanks! Raul Caarvalho (talk) 05:52, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Q619 protection

Please semi-protect Nicolaus Copernicus (Q619) - popular theme, frequent IP vandalism from various IP addresses.--Jklamo (talk) 21:29, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done for 1 year--Ymblanter (talk) 10:30, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

User:NaN100000

Please block User:NaN100000 indef for being a trolling sock of globally locked User:Yunoselect, see also c:Category:Sockpuppets of Yunoselect. --Achim (talk) 16:43, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done by Rzuwig, thank you! --Achim (talk) 18:41, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Q454589 protection

Q454589 history. Thanks, MisterSynergy (talk) 06:03, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done Semi-protected for 1 year. Pamputt (talk) 07:35, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Locked template

I have made this change and would like to introduce it also in the Template:Discussion navigation/text/sl. Are you ok with this? --Janezdrilc (talk) 10:22, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Marked the Template for translation. The sl version should be updated through the translation interface. Mbch331 (talk) 11:01, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, now works fine. --Janezdrilc (talk) 19:15, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Spam - guidancemdms.com

Multiple accounts have been used on English Wikipedia attempting to add links to this site over a prolonged period of time. Despite their sites being blacklisted and multiple blocks, their spamming continues. A new account user:Sopaus is now actively attempting to spam their links on Wikidata. Drchriswilliams (talk) 20:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@Drchriswilliams: I have blocked this account. If possible, can you please provide a list of accounts involved so we can be better prepared to take action?--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:16, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
@Jasper Deng: Thanks. I had only seen that account and an IP 103.47.158.6 on Wikidata so far. Much of the latest list of activity on the en Wiki has been logged in a SP report. Drchriswilliams (talk) 16:27, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism

Vandalism detected from 37.6.1.110, followed 30 mins later by GreekPartizan1942, please block. --FocalPoint (talk) 20:55, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I block GreekPartizan1942 and remove all his changes. - yona b (talk) 08:35, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Page protection request

Could you please protect Q22686, Donald Trump? This is due to large amounts of IP vandalism. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:55, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done. After a year of being protected, it was open to anonymous editing for just seven days. Shame. I've also had to make a number of reverts. Protected for a further 12 months. Jared Preston (talk) 21:04, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Marco Pallis Q26226894

Is it possible to redirect Q26226894 (found on el:Αλέξανδρος Πάλλης) to Q2114825? --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 21:10, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done There was no need for admin rights. I merged the two items, which were correctly identified to correspond to the same person. Thank you to Rédacteur Tibet for pointing this out. --FocalPoint (talk) 16:49, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Many thanks FocalPoint. I did not know where to request redirection... --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 17:04, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Watchlist summary

Please add info with this link to MediaWiki:Watchlist-summary. On the Status updates, I suggested a sentence Discuss the movement strategy on Wikidata. The discussion will take place between tomorrow and June, 9. Thanks. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 13:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Update: today and June, 12. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 07:49, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello world? Should I ask for that somewhere else? SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 19:21, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
done --Pasleim (talk) 18:29, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 23:25, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Vandal 82.127.87.214

Hello,
Since the 4 May, 82.127.87.214 is vandalizing Q2964260 again and again, despite my warnings in its talk page.
Regards --NicoScribe (talk) 09:21, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected for 1 month.--Nikosguard talk 13:26, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Properties for deletion - closures needed

The following discussions appear to have reached consensus, or stalemate, and are ready for closing and (where applicable) deletions:

Please can someone act? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Met Museum project

I'm working on this project with the Metropolitan Museum of Art (Q160236) in New York City, starting May 15:

Can an admin help me to copy these two js pages over to Wikidata, so we can have translation functionality here, like was done for the Wikidata:Europeana Art History Challenge?

For the first one (Mbabel.js), just replace this line:

if (mw.config.get( 'wgPageName' ) === 'Met_Open_Access_Artworks_Challenge'

with:

if (mw.config.get( 'wgPageName' ) === 'Wikidata:Met_Open_Access_Artworks_Challenge'

for the Wikidata version.

Thanks!--Pharos (talk) 17:07, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

User:MusikAnimal/Gadget-MOAAC.js--Ymblanter (talk) 18:35, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
MediaWiki:Mbabel.js--Ymblanter (talk) 18:37, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
@Ymblanter: Can you (or any admin) change part of a line in MediaWiki:Mbabel.js:
//meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:MusikAnimal/Gadget-MOAAC.js

to

//wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=User:MusikAnimal/Gadget-MOAAC.js

Thanks!--Pharos (talk) 21:05, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done--Ymblanter (talk) 21:36, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Q28573952 protection

Q28573952 history. Thanks, Carlitoscarlos (talk) 23:22, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done, protected for 1 month. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 23:24, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Q177220 vandalism

Please protect, cf. history, several thousand items use Q177220. -- HvW (talk) 15:10, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done--Ymblanter (talk) 15:13, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Vandal user

Hi. User:Anonymusvzla has been vandalizing items about Venezuelan politicians. Please block. Thanks. Montgomery (talk) 12:17, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Last edited yesterday and has seemed to have stopped. Let's wait and see if it happens again. eurodyne (talk) 01:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Blocks

Please block 153.107.193.203–.213; most blocked on enwiki due to school vandalism. Thanks, Jc86035 (talk) 10:56, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Also user:Tinboy2341, keeps removing data for no reason. Jc86035 (talk) 15:18, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Also 82.219.30.93, also school block on enwiki. Jc86035 (talk) 15:29, 15 May 2017 (UTC)


anyone? Jc86035 (talk) 16:37, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I blocked Tinboy for 24h. The last IP was apparently a string of driveby edits, and they are not active anymore. The first one requires a rangeblock.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:45, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

please block User:173.195.59.34

for repetitive spamming. --Hsarrazin (talk) 14:04, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Done for 24 hours. But that won't make much of a difference. They will probably come back and vandalise again. Just keep reverting and let us know if more comes. Jared Preston (talk) 14:14, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Could someone please check Special:Contributions/Raizraiz

I am unable to analyse those merge, but I get suspicious as this User never contributed before today...

Maybe perfectly legitimous, please check :) --Hsarrazin (talk) 13:37, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata:Requests for deletions

Why is there such a huge backlog? --Leyo 21:19, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

see Wikidata:Forum#Leere_Items --Pasleim (talk) 21:27, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • OMG. Not sure if flooding the RfD page with tons of separated entries is a very constructive or smart enough approach; now that page even it's not loading properly. In case in those thousands of items listed at RfD are some series of items which obviously does not meet the notability criteria, there exists an admin-bot which can do mass deletions, and it also can check the item history to find entries "Page on [x wiki] deleted" if needed. Alternatively there is a user script for mass deletions. --XXN, 10:41, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
So the RfD page has many broken links or codes now, no idea who added them and why. Stryn (talk) 11:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
There are simply too many transclusions. There is nothing wrong with the syntax. --Leyo 20:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I can use a bot to delete the item but the problem is that not all the item must be deleted, it's necessary a manual check becuse in some case it's necessaery restore a sitelink deleted, or it's necessary to do a merge. Probably they have used a too simple query. The better solution in this case it's use Wikidata list that permit to have a more strong check (some example in this list. --ValterVB (talk) 15:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

In addition, I am not sure about the non-notability of some items. I asked for further information to Magnus Manske for some items he created. Pamputt (talk) 16:33, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Q368441 protection

Please semi-protect James Rodríguez (Q368441) - popular theme, frequent IP vandalism from various IP addresses.--Jklamo (talk) 11:51, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done semi-protected for infinite time since it looks like the vandalism is constant over at several months. If it is excessive, you can reduce to 1 year I think. Pamputt (talk) 12:38, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Q30007850

Is this covered by WD:N? MechQuester (talk) 18:49, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

The German description is just nonsense.  Delete. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 18:59, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
✓ Deleted translation pages don't meet WD:N. --Pasleim (talk) 08:36, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Q29904317

The site of this company in the global spam-list since 2014. But there is Property: P856 for Q29904317. It is necessary to make an exception for this.Arbnos (talk) 15:52, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Hhdsfghff

Hhdsfghff wants absolutely to say that Emmanuel Macron (Q3052772) is not catholic (see his contribs). As I said to him on his talk page, there is a good source that says he was baptized at 12 by its own choice.

Apparently this account is made just in order to delete this statement.

He has two warnings on his talk page. Can you block this account?

Thank you, Tubezlob (🙋) 12:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done - Seems like a single purpose vandalism account on Wikidata and Spanish Wikipedia. Does not respond to communication. I have blocked the account and left the talk page open. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 12:42, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
@Taketa: Thank you very much! Tubezlob (🙋) 16:21, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Block Edoderoobot

Unfortunately, the operator of Edoderoobot (talk • contribs • logs) is unwilling to either fix a very poor bot run (adding a description in one language only instead of multiple based on instance of (P31) chemical compound (Q11173): example) or to stop it until fixed. Hence, as a last resort, I ask for having this bot blocked for now. --Leyo 15:36, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

No, it's not against any policies AFAIK. Stryn (talk) 15:45, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, you would certainly agree that it bad from the resources point of view (servers, histories, watchlists). Adding all the languages from chemical compound (Q11173) wouldn't be difficult at all. --Leyo 16:02, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
From a resource point of view, it's not any different than any other user adding a label or description for a single language. There's an item on the Community Wishlist for being able to remove particular users from one's watchlist and if that would be implemented I would likely remove Edoderoobot from my watchlist, but there's no need to block a bot that enters correct data. ChristianKl (talk) 17:50, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
This hasn't been always the case, see Special:Diff/486058780. It's also about the facility of inspection of histories. --Leyo 21:46, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't know Dutch, so I can't say anything of the quality of that edit. I think it would be worthwhile if one could remove languages that one doesn't speak from the history and watchlist and there's an open phabricator task but I don't think that banning bots is the solution. ChristianKl (talk) 10:16, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
We can't block (yet) a bot just because it changes only one description at a time (as Stryn said above this is not against policies). But I agree that there is a problem with such behaviour: if for every language bots will add descriptions one by one, there might be ~200 entries in history just for descriptions and thus item histories will be excessively and unnecessarily cluttered, creating difficulties in analyzing it by human contributors. Some time ago I've raised a similar problem on Wikidata_talk:Bots#New requirement, and I suggest adding a new requirement for bots: when working with labels/descriptions on large series of item (where thosands of items will be edited), bot must add/change/remove multiple descriptions or labels at once, if possible (no conflicts raised by API). There should be created and maintained by community several 'dictionaries' of terms, like those from MediaWiki:Gadget-autoEdit.js, which could be used by bot operators. --XXN, 11:53, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
And, perhaps, my suggestion above could be extended to all users as well, as a Wikidata Etiquette. I wrote a bit about this here. --XXN, 11:32, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Gadget-AuthorityControl

MediaWiki:Gadget-AuthorityControl should be modified a bit to mention the fact that this gadget affects also the links of the values of Commons gallery (P935) and Commons category (P373). See phab:T161826#3188796. This message is shown on Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets. It should be very clear for all users that they will not have links to Commons galleries and categories in claims on item pages if they will disable this gadget. --XXN, 19:40, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

But if this gadget affects also other interwiki links, there should be made a list with all of them, the description of this gadget should point to that list. CC @Ladsgroup, Lydia Pintscher (WMDE):. --XXN, 10:27, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
That text is outdated a bit. I will change it. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 19:35, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Alice Zhang Mengping

Alice Zhang Mengping (talk • contribs • logs) Can someone please have an eye on this new user. He keeps removing the "imported from Wikipedia" references as those are no real references, and has started a kind of an edit war with me. While I believe he has good intentions, I believe he needs some more explanation and guidance in how to work here well. Ahoerstemeier (talk) 08:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Can someone else please also have a word with that user - did again revert Thailand central administrative unit code (P1067) claiming the original version is "nonsense". Ahoerstemeier (talk) 12:55, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Userpage spam

https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User:Siapni has spam on his user page and talk page. Given that my requests for permissions is still open, can someone else ban the account? ChristianKl (talk) 17:02, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

done by Jasper Deng --Pasleim (talk) 13:17, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Change content model

Could some admin visit Special:ChangeContentModel and change content model to JSON for User:Edgars2007/Sports IDs/By transclusions/Templates? --Edgars2007 (talk) 13:37, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done --Pasleim (talk) 13:53, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. --Edgars2007 (talk) 13:56, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Q16235544

Can an admin delete a revision I reverted? MechQuester (talk) 01:23, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done --ValterVB (talk) 06:26, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
@ValterVB: I guess MechQuester’s (automatic) edit summary also needs to be hidden. —MisterSynergy (talk) 06:30, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Found how to do it by myself, thus now really ✓ Done —MisterSynergy (talk) 06:38, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I forgot to do it. --ValterVB (talk) 11:48, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

User:CathleenBehrens

Im looking at this person's profile over the past few hours. Im honestly confused at the purpose of this account. One moment, she says she is from Italy, then says he (yes male as opposed to woman) is in college, then is a man named Terrence living in the United States (https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=User:CathleenBehrens&oldid=491801438 link) then [https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=User:CathleenBehrens&oldid=491860251 a female from Iceland).... Seriously confused on what to do here. MechQuester (talk) 18:03, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Looks like the "Nothing to say about me really" spambot (m:NTSAMR) going wild. --YMS (talk) 18:12, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Handled. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 18:15, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protection for "Shakira" (Q34424)

Hello,
Could you semi-protect Shakira (Q34424), due to frequent vandalism from various IP addresses?
Regards --NicoScribe (talk) 06:26, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done Thanks for reporting; 3 months autoconfirmed users only. —MisterSynergy (talk) 06:49, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing (talk • contribs • logs)

Ok, I'm in a edit war whith @Pigsonthewing: there Yelena Yerofeyeva (Q20645232). He added automatically wrong labels in numerous languages because he doesn't seems to understand the concept of transliteration. Instead of saying he made an error (chich happen to everyone) and correcting the labels, he persists in adding deliberately wrong labels, even after he was shown that some were obviously wrong. He doesn't make any efforts to add correct them (when I showed him that de was wrong, he didn't even try to check de-ch or de-at). I really don't see how adding deliberately wrong labels when he was warned could be a good faith edit. If it was a new account, I would have blocked immediately, because I don't see how adding voluntarily wrong labels could help Wikidata (again, I don't speak of the original error, which happen). As I'm implicated in this "conflict", I ask for other admins to give their advice. Are we now tolerating adding wrong information to Wikidata? --Harmonia Amanda (talk) 11:38, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

HA is removing more than 60 labels, saying that some of them are wrong, but refuses to say which, or even how many. In the one single (not "some", as claimed above) case where they have alleged a specific error I have removed the label, then explained on the talk page why I believe it to be valid. HA has failed to engage there. Are we now tolerating the removal of valid information from Wikidata by someone who refuses to discuss their concerns in any meaningful way? If HA would "block immediately" in such a case, perhaps we should consider whether they are fit to wield admin abilities? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:44, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi @Pigsonthewing:, you are saying that "Елена Ерофеева" transliterates exactly the same way in 60+ languages. @Alphos: says that at least the French transliteration is wrong. I'm not a specialist, but AFAIK translitteration from Russian varies wildly form language to language... So back to basics: if you want to make that change, please provide a reference telling this is the correct translitteration for each of these languages. -Ash Crow (talk) 11:53, 31 May 2017 (UTC) Edit: In the meantime, I protected the page. -Ash Crow (talk) 11:55, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
No, I'm saying that "Elena Yerofeyev" is a label for Q20645232 in those languages. As any experienced editor will tell you, Wikidata does not use references for labels. But here's plenty of examples of "Yerofeyev" in French-language text. You seem to have overlooked my questions, and my point about HA's refusal to properly engage, in the post to which you reply. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:02, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
We do not use transliteration (Q134550) for name conversions, we use phonetic transcription (Q743569) (both at Wikipedias and Wikidata). This has to be done for each pair of source and target language individually to provide a phonetically similar representation of the name in the target language. In this case it follows that any means of automation (such as nameGuzzler) should not be used for transcripted names, since each and every target name might be (slightly) different. It does not matter which individual transcript is wrong, if the majority is potentially affected. —MisterSynergy (talk) 11:57, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Italian comunity on wiki project use "ISO/R 9:1968" transliteration so in this case the italian label would be "Elena Valentinovna Erofeeva" or "Elena Erofeeva", to be honest this is translitteration in ISO / R 9: 1995 but is more or less the same. This is the general rule, then exist some specific exceptions. --ValterVB (talk) 19:06, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
plenty of examples of "Yerofeyev" in Italian-language text, too. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
This is not surprising in our modern world:
  • To transcript, you need to have the original name in the other script. If this is not available, you use whatever is available. English transcriptions dominate, thus they appear in other languages as well. They often even dominate for less famous people.
  • Many people do not know about transcriptions, transliterations, etc. at all and just copy whatever they find, even if it was possible to make a transcription. Even journalists are often too lazy for that. On the other hand, Wikimedia projects have surprisingly strict rules for transcriptions.
  • If a name in an original script is available, please use name in native language (P1559) and add this name. One can then use software to convert into other languages (for ru/uk --> de we use wikyrilliza at dewiki; conversions like that could be automated).
—MisterSynergy (talk) 21:07, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes; our modern world has more than one way of rendering names like the one in question, and the variant I used is clearly valid and in common use, not least in the languages discussed. But the issue here goes beyond that, with HA mass-removing labels which even she does not dispute are valid, and refusing to engage properly to enumerate, let alone collaboratively address, the concerns she apparently has. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:42, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: I said "Italian comunity on wiki project" and the scientific translitteration is what the comunity want. Italian comunity don't care what the newspaper using for translitteration, normally they copy from english source and in english translitteration is different. --ValterVB (talk) 11:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC) ps This is the correct link for italian. --ValterVB (talk) 11:29, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
On which wiki project? This project, Wikidata, cares what is in common usage. [Link fixed - thank you.] Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:31, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
An overwhelming majority of people with a Wikidata item is not commonly known under any name in most regions the world (including Yelena Yerofeyeva (Q20645232), who has an article in ruwiki only). “Common usage” of a name that is in fact nearly unused in a region where a certain language is spoken is not helpful. It is your very personal viewpoint that an expansion of the often inappropriate English name to all (latin script) languages properly reflects this situation, and you should definitely know about your dissenting opinion meanwhile. We had a very similar discussion last October which you find in the archive of WD:PC (link). There was a lot of strong opposition against the expansion of English labels to other languages, when a name is unknown in a certain region. —MisterSynergy (talk) 13:10, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps she doesn't, but I was referring to the common-usage transliterations of "Yerofeyev", for which I have already provided evidence for each of the languages raised here. If your reading of the October 2016 discussion is that "Yerofeyev" cannot be used in this case, you are mistaken. You also appear to have overlooked my point that "the issue here goes beyond that, with HA mass-removing labels which even she does not dispute are valid, and refusing to engage properly to enumerate, let alone collaboratively address, the concerns she apparently has.". This is, after all, the 'Administrators' noticeboard', not the 'content discussion noticeboard'. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:51, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
I corrected the English label, since according to en:WP:RUS it should be Yelena Yerofeyeva. Russian is my mothertongue.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:27, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Translietteration is language specific. @Pigsonthewing: Please don't add label in Italian if it isn't a ISO/R 9:1968 transliteration Thanks. --ValterVB (talk) 12:30, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any requirement for our labels to be ISO compliant. Please can you point to the policy, discussion where consensus for this was reached? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:44, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
I have already reported the guideline in Italian wiki, I report also here: it:Aiuto:Cirillico. It's a language criterium not a project criterium. You are forcing to use English transliteration even to Italian users, if you want you can add Anglo-Saxon transliteration in alias, it's accettable. --ValterVB (talk) 12:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
This is Wikidata, not the Italian wiki. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:45, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
This is Wikidata, a multi language project, and hence we should be respectful among language differences. English translitterations are not generally valid in other languages. Despite that just the Italian wiki is quoted above, of course not having real jurisdiction here, I have some serious doubts if your person or myself, not mentioning any knwoledge of Italian on our user pages, would be able to judge the Italian wiki explanation of translitterations into Italian as not valid. That is, we should refrain from such judgement by pushing translitterations that are different from the one explained on itwiki, and even more so if it is disputed. Lymantria (talk) 17:41, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
As I demonstrated above, the transliteration I used here is in common usage in Italian text. You, too, appear to have overlooked my point that "the issue here goes beyond that, with HA mass-removing labels which even she does not dispute are valid, and refusing to engage properly to enumerate, let alone collaboratively address, the concerns she apparently has.". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:21, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Andy, you should’ve meanwhile noticed that:

  • The Wikidata community does not endorse your idea that transcripted English names are valid for languages other than English. Myriads of editors have told you so meanwhile. This is not surprising, since your position is in conflict with one of the very core principles of Wikidata: multilinguality.
  • Thus, if at all someone has to justify their edit behavior, it was you, and that was very difficult for you. Be glad that anybody seriously asked. On the other hand, I do not see that Harmonia Amanda needs to explain her position any further.
  • Simple Google searches for very generic terms that are limited by country code TLDs (not: languages) and that yield around a thousand results—many of which even completely in English language—are not a proof for “common usage”; neither in a given language, nor in a particular region of the world. There is nobody around here who takes that argument serious.
  • We have a very liberal set of policies at Wikidata, for good reasons. If all editors used the available flexibility to their own maximum advantage, the Wikidata project would be doomed and faced a rapid downfall. So be gentle to other Wikidatians and yield if situations like this one arise.

Thanks and regards, MisterSynergy (talk) 21:49, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

The Wikidata community isn't here; this is, as I noted above, merely the Administrators' noticeboard. Your claim of "Myriads " is a fallacy so unrelated to reality that it is not worthy of further comment. A previous discussion in a wider forum about a single case is linked above, and we have already dealt with your false claim about what that said. You might like to read it, and note in particular the comment by User:Robevans123. The Wikidata community has, though drafted Help:Label and I see nothing proposed there which would preclude my approach. When I asked for a record of policy or consensus requiring the use of the ISO standard previously mentioned, the only one forthcoming was from another project, not Wikipedia. You keep referring to "English" names, but - once again, I repeat - I have shown that the name I used is in common usage in other languages; it is not "English". You attempt to refute that by asserting that "Simple Google searches for very generic terms that are limited by country code TLDs (not: languages)". This is a straw man: I have not at any point relied on mere TLD searches; have explicitly referred to text in the specific languages discussed, which simply happen to be found via those searches. It is perfectly legitimate to raise here HA's failure to work collegially and her removal of valid data; and you are utterly wrong to the point of being insulting to claim that it is "very difficult" for me to justify my editing; I have done so here repeatedly and with great ease. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:43, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
A Google search shows nothing, if you want count occurrences with Yerofeyev site:.it I have 1180 result with Erofeeva site:.it I have 2960 result. I necessary check what is listed: in Yerofeyev site:.it are all about the same news based on English source (read the RAI news: "Lo confermano fonti di Russia Today, tv in lingua inglese"), then there is a lot of English title (not italian), russian page, it isn't a valid test. The only important thing is what the Italian community and the italian community has decided to use ISO 9:1968 because is the same used in italian specialty and literary publications (for completeness: a lot of publication using scientific transliteration, but not so important because change only for the "х"). You can found an article in italian here or you can read the book "Manuale del traduttore: guida pratica con glossario", more or less "Translator's manual: Practical guide with glossary", book on on Google book pag. 170-171-172-173. (sorry for Italian). You can found also in this page a Russian company that provides legal services and talk about the transliteteration, I quote: « l’Italia adotta un sistema diverso da quello inglese, avvalendosi di caratteri appositamente studiati per conciliare la fonetica russa alle norme ortografiche italiane.  » (more or less: "Italy adopts a system other than English, using features specially designed to reconcile Russian phonetics with Italian orthographic rules.", in the table you can found also the difference from anglo-saxon to Italian transliteration.
Concluding: in Italian the transliteration used is "ISO/R 9:1968", in the last years is used also "ISO/R 9:1995", the Istituto Centrale per il Catalogo Unico (Q3803707) say that for Italian we (Italian) must use "UNI ISO 9:2005" (link to pdf go to page 575), this norm say to use ISO/R 9:1995 for Cyrillic. Sorry for long answer but in italian transliteration is an hot topic. --ValterVB (talk) 07:24, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
As I indicated above, but you seem to have missed, or ignored, a Google search indicates links to the pages to which I have referred. Your reference to "the italian [sic] community has decided to use ISO 9:1968 " is again (absent any evidence from you to the contrary) to a Wikipedia, not Wikidata. Similarly, the
Istituto Centrale per il Catalogo Unico
has no sway here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:41, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
No, you don't understand, if someone write a book on Yelena Yerofeyeva (Q20645232) will be used Elena Erofeeva because all the publisher/editor following "ISO/R 9:1968". --ValterVB (talk) 16:00, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Addendum: your google searh don't show nothing about the item. You can have a confirm if you search exactly "Yelena Yerofeyeva": "Google search: we have zero result in italian. --ValterVB (talk) 16:08, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Please read what I wrote, above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:25, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Maybe my basic knowledge of English did not permit me to understand what you said (I use a lot Goole translate to write e read) but I don't see nothing about this. --ValterVB (talk) 18:08, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
See here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:57, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
This is Wikidata, not a book. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:25, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
And can you explain why I have zero result in italian if I search "Yelena Yerofeyeva" with Google? --ValterVB (talk) 17:51, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, @Pigsonthewing:, but your "this is Wikidata, not Italian Wikipedia" defence is not appropriate, since your edit relates to many other communities other than the English-speaking (or even the Italian-speaking) one, that have different interpretations of what "correct transliteration" means. If Italian Wikipedia decided to apply ISO rules, you're in no position to decide on their behalf what Wikidata should show on that project "just because". I do ask you to restrain further from this behaviour, since it's not the first time you seem to ignore what doesn't fit in your world-view. --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 14:55, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Again: decisions on the Italian Wikipedia, or any other, are not binding here; just as vice versa. Were they so, the fun caused when two Wikipedias made contradictory decisions can only be imagined. But thank you for your apology; was it meant to be for your gratuitous ad hominem attack? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:53, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
re: Not binding... I would attest that because of the multilingual and international nature of this project, if naming decisions etc. reached by local projects were not respected here to the extent possible, it would wreak more havoc. This project was created to serve them, not them for this project. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:09, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
@Sannita: Labels on Wikidata are not shown on the Italian Wikipedia and as such Wikidata policy and not ItWiki policies are what matters. But in this case there seems to be a Wikidata consensus for going with the ISO transliteration. ChristianKl (talk) 21:52, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
If we ever get an article for her in Amharic, I assume it would be at የሌና የሮፈዬቫ... and presumably so would the Amharic label here. I would think there should be an exceptional reason for the language label not agreeing with the language link. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:19, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Can you point to where that consensus was reached? I have asked previously in this discussion, and have been referred only to external projects. Indeed, only recently did you yourself suggest holding an RfC. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:54, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm speaking about this discussion. The fact that I say that an RfC would make sense doesn't change the fact that there seems to be a clear opinion about what to do in this case. Part of what Wiki-discussions are about is seeking consensus. ChristianKl (talk) 10:31, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Then you will have seen my earlier comment that this is.. the "'Administrators' noticeboard', not the 'content discussion noticeboard'". A few admins/ interested people here cannot make policy for the whole of Wikidata. And since no-one here seems interested in dealing with HA's failure to work collegially and her removal of valid data, there doesn't seem to be much else to discuss. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:47, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
@ChristianKl: Not correct a lot of template use label from Wikidata and a lot of list in ns0 generated with Listeria using Wikidata label. It isn't possible to have a title here and a different title in Wikipedia. I think that Pëtr Il'ič Čajkovskij is an example that the traslittertion depend from the language. If I search "Piotr" I found a lot of Italian page that using this name but I don't change it. --ValterVB (talk) 16:37, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
@ChristianKl: +1 on @ValterVB:, I use extensively Listeria and it uses the Italian labels, which makes the more my argument a case in point. Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 19:12, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
@Sannita, ValterVB: Okay. I think it would be worthwhile to change https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Help:Label to make it clear that language dependent transliteration should be used. ChristianKl (talk) 22:11, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
@ChristianKl: See below --ValterVB (talk) 08:29, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Transliteration and standards

There are ISO standards for transliteration. Transliteration is problematic; you can for instance not use German or Nordic language because of the characters that are used. Consequently, use standards they are the best we have. The alternative is endless chatter. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 20:14, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Are you refering to 01.140.10 - Writing and transliteration? --Succu (talk) 21:37, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Update for Italian language

For Italian language we have reached consensus to implement, for cyrillic translitteration of Italian label, the same guideline used for cyrillic translitteration in Italian wikipedia (discussion). The guide line to follow are in this page: it:Aiuto:Cirillico. More late I will update the guideline in Help:Label/it. Exception as usual can be discussed in Italian Bar. --ValterVB (talk) 07:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
I added "Every language within Wikidata can have its own guidelines. When in doubt refer to the version of this page in the respective language" to the English version of the Help:Label. ChristianKl (talk) 08:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
I suggest the principles in en:Wikipedia:Consensus#Level of consensus are relevant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:04, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Help:label is not an accepted policy but proposed policy. That means according to your link "information pages [...] who have not formally been approved by the community through the policy and guideline proposal process have no more status than an essay". ChristianKl (talk) 12:20, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: You talk to me or to ChristianKl? --ValterVB (talk) 12:30, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
My comment was indented one step below yours; deliberately. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:25, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes but I founded strange that you pointed an enwiki policy. I followed the it:Wikipedia:Consenso and this guideline is completely respected. Naturally if you want change the rule on transliteration for Italian label you can start another discussion in Wikidata:Bar. --ValterVB (talk) 14:00, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
You again refer to "the rule on transliteration for Italian label". I have previously asked you for evidence of such a rule, on Wikidata, and you have provided none. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:31, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Strange to see that you are now starting to suggest application of another project’s principles, after you strongly advocated not to do so in the itwiki case. The only things that matter here are our own policies and principles as well as the community consensus. Ideally they do not contradict each other, and in fact they don’t do so in this case fortunately. —MisterSynergy (talk) 12:32, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
It's not strange at all. I very deliberately referred to the principles described there, and suggested that they are relevant here; I didn't in any way try to claim that another project's policies are binding here. Nor did I ever say that itwiki's principles could not be used here. Please don't try to put words into my mouth. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:25, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Isn't it interesting that, after over a week and countless bytes of discussion, Yelena Yerofeyeva (Q20645232) still does not have a label, at all, in Italian, or in German, or n French, or in most of the languages in which added one, and which HA removed? I wonder how this serves our users. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:25, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I thought it still was fully protected and did not update it for that reason. It now got a German label + description. —MisterSynergy (talk) 13:28, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
I haven't added Italian label for respect of the discussion, when the discussion will be close I will add the label. --ValterVB (talk) 14:00, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: we don't have a crystal clear transliteration schemes for most language pairs.
Elena Yerofeyev was incorrect, vowel in last "va" is clearly missing.
"va" is femine ending, "v" is a masculine ending.
for Russian->Latin (romanization of Russian (Q6453319)) we have like 10+ standarts; even if we discard "old" ones:
GOST R 52535.1-2006 (Q30150385) is what is used in/for secondary passport Russian passport (Q1285789).
International Civil Aviation Organization (Q125761) have their own rules.
simple js script couldn't do that correctly. The Unicode® Standard (Q8819) is not always reliable yet. d1g (talk) 17:31, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
"we don't have a crystal clear transliteration schemes for most language pairs" Indeed, which is why HA's removal of ~60 labels was unreasonable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:31, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Addendum for Google search Looking for a last name to have a full name on a person for me does not make any sense anyway I cheched in detail the result of Google with the search indicated by Andy and this is the result: The surname is used only for 6 different people, I seem to be few, to say "plenty of examples". These are the detail:

  • Yevgeny Yerofeyev (together Alexander Alexandrov) 43 times
  • Oleg Yerofeyev 2 times
  • Andrei Yerofeyev 2 times
  • Andrei Yerofeyev 2 times (different than previous)
  • Yevgeny Yerofeyev 1 times
  • Vladimir Yerofeyev (1 times)

In 3 cases is used Victor Yerofeyev but it's wrong, here we using Viktor Erofeev (Q472356), in three cases Yerofeyev does not appear on the page, in 49 cases the pages are not in Italian. This is all you can see on google: 11 pages of results and 103 link, the following pages are only duplicates that are not displayed. --ValterVB (talk) 01:08, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

What to do with the case?

Hi,

The discussion is starting to fork to topics that do not really belong to the administrator's noticeboard, so I'll try to sum up the issue:

  • @Pigsonthewing: uses NameGuzzler to add the label in many languages using latin script for a person whose name is not normally written in this alphabet. This generates many wrong labels, because transliteration/transcription norms vary wildly between languages. It has been since pointed, by various editors, that the label was incorrect in German, French, Italian, and even English (!). Presumably, it is wrong in most languages, if not all.
  • @Harmonia Amanda: sees that, and reverts, so that Pigsonthewing gets a notification and stops using NameGuzzler for transcribed names.
  • Instead of this, Pigsonthewing reverts back and puts a message in the talk page but does not ping Harmonia Amanda. He will never ping her in this page either, so that she never receives a single notification, meanwhile complaining that *she* refuses to engage in discussion (meanwhile, she did let him a message on his talk page).
  • In this message, he claims that the string "Yerofeyev" is used in websites using German languages. He used this defence several times after that, but never cites a single website using that string in connection to Yelena Valentinovna Yerofeyeva.[Pigsonthewing 1]
  • A edit war starts, at which point Harmonia prefers to ask for other administrators advice.
  • Various administrators reply, with concording opinion that the initial revert was justified and, to quote @MisterSynergy:, "any means of automation (such as nameGuzzler) should not be used for transcripted names, since each and every target name might be (slightly) different".
  • Pigsonthewing seems to persist in believing he is right and everyone is wrong, while accusing others (and in particular Harmonia Amanda) to refuse to engage in discussion, and repeating invalid arguments that have already been debunked. This is particularly problematic in my opinion: not only he still hasn't understood that NameGuzzler is not to be used in this situation, but he proves to be in a state of mind that is IMO not compatible with collaborative editing. So, can we agree that this is his last warning about using NameGuzzler and that next time he will be blocked? (Admins only, please)  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ash Crow (talk • contribs) at 19:39, 7 June 2017‎ (UTC).
What travesty of misrepresentation! "many wrong labels" is completely unfounded, and ignores the points I have made in this discussion. And you want to resolve this content disagreement with a block? And why should I ping HA on a) the talk page of a page she is actively editing (why wasn't she there anyway?) or b) an admin discussion which she initiated? You also fail to properly address HA mass-removing labels which even she does not dispute are valid, and refusing to engage properly to enumerate, let alone collaboratively address, the concerns she apparently has. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:27, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
@Ash Crow: +1 --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 09:06, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments from non-admins

I made a request at user talk page similar to what User:Harmonia Amanda said weeks earlier. It wasn't User:Pigsonthewing.
Administrator notice board or user talk pages is not the right place to discuss NameGuzzler. Project chat of RFC would do.
IMO at least one native speaker should "okay" transliteration pair before we use it in NameGuzzler or in similar tool.
or we should have access to an exact algorithm how NameGuzzler converts strings. d1g (talk) 08:14, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Notes

  1. ↑ The string could be correct in a French text for, say, an American person of Russian origin, or it can be a rushed journalist copy-pasting the name of a Russian person from an English source, which doesn't make it a correct label for Wikidata for this person (unless we start accepting typos as valid labels), and not for Yelena Yerofeyeva (Q20645232) either.

Editor edit warring with me

I am a bureaucrat (as Codex Sinaiticus) of the Amharic Wikipedia. I have been engaged in the task of assigning Amharic articles to their correct locations when they are incorrect. However I have been encountering resistance from one user here at Wikidata in particular who, despite not knowing Amharic, disputes what the Amharic articles are about or perhaps what he feels they "should" be about. At any rate his level of unhelpfulness and argumentativeness when I try to reason with him is becoming exasperating to me. The articles are about the tomato species / plant and the ginger species / plant, however he insists on segregating the Amharic links to a smaller list of articles with lesser-read languages that he deems not to be about the plant/species, but rather about the "food". Many other users wonder, since no wiki actually has articles for both, why they are not simply merged, but I am not challenging this, merely asking that the Amharic articles about the plants / species be allowed to be linked with the other articles designated about the plant/ species. Thank you for any help you can give since I am reluctant to continue this project with such inexplicable hostility. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:43, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

It's a little bit weird that you're not giving us the name of the user. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 16:59, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Brya or User:Brya. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:01, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
I invite anybody to run the text of these pages (what there is of it) through Google translate and look for a discussion of the taxonomy of the species or its botanical description. - Brya (talk) 18:10, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Google translate is hilarious but almost completely worthless when it comes to Amharic, and full of inexplicable errors. For example it says Ginger is "assigned to the vineyard", rather than an accurate translation, "plant kingdom". Also it rarely renders complete sentences and turns them into fragments. I know there is little there now, but that w not justify this edit warring over what the topic is. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:17, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
am:ዝንጅብል did not mention the scientific name Zingiber officinale. So why should this be about the taxon and not about ginger (Q15046077)? --Succu (talk) 18:30, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Why shouldn't it be about the taxon? Can't we have the article about the taxon (the species ie the plant) if we want? I do not understand. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:32, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Sure you can, but you have to write one about the species Zingiber officinale (Q35625) which requires the mention of it's scientific name Zingiber officinale. Your article is about the tuber and nothing else. --Succu (talk) 18:45, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
I added the name in the Latin language over ten minutes ago. Do you still wish to dispute that I am in the right about what the Amharic says? It is about the species of tuber and not about the spice product. You do not know Amharic, so just admit you are wrong and in over your head and stop creating needless obstructions for my work please. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:49, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Please calm down and consider your wording. Your English translation below makes no sense to me, but this is a quality issue of your home wiki. --Succu (talk) 19:00, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
That is an accurate English translation. I might have written it differently in Amharic, but have had little input on that article myself, that was actually written by a former admin, Aniten21, a native speaker, and no native speakers have complained about the clarity of what it means, or what it is about, or how short it is, which they could easily expand at any time if they so chose. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:06, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Looks like you am:አባል:Codex Sinaiticus (aka Til Eulenspiegel) are not a native speaker too. --Succu (talk) 19:20, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
But I am completely fluent. No complaints there either. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:22, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Sure: „whereas I am fluent and can assure you this article is about the species, the plant“ as you put it at User talk:Brya#Amharic link to Ginger and Tomato. Are you fit enough when it comes to biological terms? You never gave a satisfying reason other than you do not speak this language. I think User:Brya intention at this discussion was to help. --Succu (talk) 19:57, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
I think you are having some difficulty reading my English. I said I am completely fluent. I am bilingual and have worked extensively as a professional translator and interpreter. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:09, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
In the field of biology? Maybe we should talk about your justification about your part in the edit war: „segregating the Amharic links to a smaller list of articles with lesser-read languages“. I think you never cared about content or improvments. Your are only seeking a wider audience for a small wiki regardless of the underling content. --Succu (talk) 20:27, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
For me, it is very simple. The article is about the plant species and taxon, the reason is still lacking for not linking it to that topic on wikidata. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:39, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Yep. POV is simply indeed, arguments are a little bit harder, but the only way to agree on. --Succu (talk) 20:46, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
I believe I have demonstrated in good faith what the article is about: the plant species of tuber, not just a table condiment or food. There is no valid reason not to link it properly to that item. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:04, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
the plant species of tuber (= tuber (Q183319)? --Succu (talk) 21:10, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes - Zingiber officinale. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:12, 31 May 2017 (UTC) So what the Amharic says is, that ginger is a type of tuber. Forgive me if that is wrong, though I did not write it, I assumed that was correct. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:15, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Note - I did a little research and found info stating that ginger is in fact not a tuber but a rhizome, so I will correct tuber to rhizome in the Amharic having been persuaded of that. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:47, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Here is a correct translation of the Amharic text of Ginger: "Ginger is a plant assigned with the types of plants called 'Tuber' or where their food content is found on their stalks."

Here is google's typical mess: "Ginger in food content or Tuber's oldest rainforests on vegetation types is assigned to the vineyard." See what I mean? You can't even tell it's about the plant. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:43, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Note: Google translate's AI has serious flaws with Amharic, it's crazy. Like where it gets 'oldest rainforests' from I have no idea, since Aniten21 certainly did not write anything remotely corresponding to the words for oldest rainforests, or vineyards! Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:26, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Any high-school graduate should have no trouble writing, say, ten sentences about tomatoes: how they look, taste, are used, etc. A bright high-school graduate should be able to come up with, say, ten sentences about the plant species: discussing its taxonomy, giving its botanical description, comparing this to other species. A Wikipedia "page" containing nothing but a single sentence saying something like "tomatoes can be grown in Ethiopia" is quite embarrassing, especially for a topic that could easily belong to "the thousand pages every Wikipedia should have". What is wanted is more common sense, an average-sized bit of work, and a lot less complaining. - Brya (talk) 04:03, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
It is very regrettable that after all this demonstration that you are clearly the one in error here, you continue to try to make this an error on MY part (which it most certainly is NOT) and that you continue to reveal the condescension you have for our language. This dispute will be taken to my Wikimedia friends on the African project next, since I am finding no remedy here for your "We know what is best for your language even though we can't read a single word of it" attitude. In Ethiopia, this is called the western-"we-know-for-you"-attitude, I believe the term used here is systemic bias. You have a systemic bias that says you are never wrong and I am never right, even when I am right and you are wrong. You seriously need to take a look at your hypocrisy in the mirror for once and find something better to do than trying to wield your imaginary "power" and throw your supposed "weight" around with other languages you are ignorant of, to make yourself look good or deal with your own pretty obvious psychological insecurities. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 10:15, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
User: Brya has once again delinked the articles about the species, from the items about the species, without explanation, continuing to edit war. I am getting some feedback from the Wikimedia Afrophone Wiki project which seeks to develop African wikipedias. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:39, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Hoi, can we please end this farce. Brya cannot and does not pretend to known this language. What possesses him to edit war in this way? On the Afrophone wiki there is indeed a request for help and imho we Wikidata people should be responsive to this. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 19:03, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
The easiest way to end this would be to expand the stubs to make it clear they are about the taxon. --Succu (talk) 19:17, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
What part do you not understand? It is already perfectly clear to any Amharic users that it is about the taxon. No Amharic readers seem to be "embarrassed" by the content, meagre though it is, but if they are inclined to expand it they can do so at any time. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:25, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
„any Amharic users“? - I doubt that most of them know what a taxon is. I don't think you are helping your home wiki with your attitude. --Succu (talk) 19:33, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
I maintain it is your attitude of condescension that is unhelpful. Of course Ethiopians are educated and know what a "taxon" is. What do you think, User:GerardM? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:50, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
I doubt that most German, English or Dutch people „know“ what a taxon is. My roommate (it's been a while) is now professor in Addis Abeba, so there is no condescension involved. --Succu (talk) 20:03, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
He can probably tell you Ethiopia is a largely agricultural country that has invested heavily in agricultural education, and they are certainly acquainted with taxons (they are instructed entirely in English) as well as the native word for taxon, 'irkeno. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:10, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
I doubt he is much interested in agriculture, but with this we are back to the problem. Agriculture is about „cultivation of life forms for food, fiber, biofuel and other products used to sustain life“ and not about taxonomy. These articles are about agricultural products not about the taxa which are used to produce them. --Succu (talk) 20:33, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Incorrect. You are claiming some kind of priority for your understanding of the Amharic over mine, which I fail to understand how you can do that, because they are clearly about the taxa. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:43, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Could you specify „they are clearly about the taxa“ a little bit more. Why is this clear for „any Amharic users“? I try to understand this. How do you distinguish (beyond colloquial language) a agricultural product from the taxon producing it? --Succu (talk) 21:01, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
The articles are intended to be about the taxa, not "agricultural products". Why is there so much resistance to linking them to the taxa? Do you want me to explain the Amharic grammar to you? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:04, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Please stay factual and try to explain it to me. --Succu (talk) 21:15, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
The articles, aside from now giving the Latin names, use the Amharic words tekl / ataklt and 'itswat, which all mean "plants". Tekl means "plant" singular, the plural is "ataklt". 'Itswat is the plural of 'Its which in modern Amharic also means either plant or medicinal plant. No one (assuming they read Amharic) could confuse these words to mean a "fruit" or a "product", it is referring to the plant as it grows in the ground, with or without fruit. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:31, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Here's a correct translation of the text of "tomato", never mind what Google AI says:

Note this change --Succu (talk) 21:21, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Tomato (Latin፦ Solanum lycopersicum) is a plant found within Ethiopia and likewise the whole world. The source of its beginning was in Mexico; and its nomenclature was inherited from the word Tomatl in the native Mexican language Nahuatl.

The sections (still waiting to be written by an expert) translate to: Scientific Nature of the plant; ways of growing; Geography where it is found in abundance; and uses of the plant. It is in "Category: Plants" as well as "Category: Ethiopian plants". This is clearly about the species Solanum lycopersicum rather than tomato fruit. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:15, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I did not write the original text that said simply "Tomato is a plant found within Ethiopia." or the section headers, that was by Hgetnet, another admin. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:26, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

@Succu, Brya: I'm sorry to say, but I find your tone in this entire discussion pretty condescending. Sure, you probably know a lot about the proper classification of the species vs. the plant in Wikidata, but I don't believe for a second that you know Amharic better than Til Eulenspiegel, and that you are better suited than him to tell whether an article is primarily about the species or the food, and that's all this discussion is about. You also need to remember that the Amharic Wikipedia is still a very small Wikipedia (only 13,000 articles, less than what the Norwegian Wikipedia had when I started editing 12 years ago), and it is not unexpected that articles are very short at that stage. Saying that the quality of articles (articles you don't even understand) is "embarrassing" is very counter-productive, and doesn't help resolve the issue at all. Jon Harald Søby (talk) 23:01, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

@Jon Harald Søby: I am sorry to hear you feel that you "find [my] tone in this entire discussion [is] pretty condescending". The word "embarrassing" is a civil word, perfectly suitable to be used in civil discussion. Of course, 1) it is a subjective word, expressing a valuation and 2) it is open to debate exactly how constructive it is.
        As to the first point, I find an encyclopedia page whose total content is "Tomato is a plant found within Ethiopia." [translation Til Eulenspiegel] quite unsatisfactory. In my view, "embarrassing" is a suitable euphemism. Til Eulenspiegel has now added to this (trebling or quadrupling the content), but the new content still falls short of a proper dictionary entry (and thus short of minimal standards in many Wikipedias). Actually, if I look at the page in simple English, personally I find that embarrassing also. In this case not because of its length, but because of errors and misleading statements. However, in many ways this is fairly typical of what is to be expected in a Wikipedia, and many readers won't take exception to it. My guess would be that this last would be different for the Amharic entry.
        As to whether the use of the word "embarrassing" is constructive, please not that I did not start with it, but only used this euphemism whem I was pressed. It is hard to find anything that would be constructive in this situation. A small Wikipedia's priority should be to add sufficient content (of a sufficient quality) so that speakers of the language in question will take interest and will help improve it. In my view, Til Eulenspiegel's chosen strategy of going out and picking fights elsewhere in the Wikimedia franchise is not going to help Amharic Wikipedia; it is just going to give Amharic Wikipedia a bad name.
        Your judgement that I am not competent to determine that the sentence "Tomato is a plant found within Ethiopia." does not contain a discussion of the taxonomy of the species or its botanical description says a lot about you and nothing abot me. - Brya (talk) 11:07, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
The thing is, you seem to have this "attitude" of being the "minder" of content in languages you don't know that reminds me of the old days of colonialism! Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:24, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
It's up to the Amharic Wikipedia community to decide on the standards for their articles. It's not Wikidata's or the decision of other Wikimedia community to decide the minimum standards for articles in the Amharic Wikipedia.
I also don't think it's up to non-Amharic speakers to judge what the article is about. I understand the desire of Byra to have articles about the food linked to item of the food but we can't really tell what the article is about. If we generally want to have articles about the food linked to items about the food it makes sense to support the RFC about allowing links to redirects. It's the best way to give every Wikicommunity the interwiki links they desire. ChristianKl (talk) 13:16, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
@Succu, Brya: I strongly concur with Jhs' comment above. It is possible to be condescending without using (strictly) uncivil words. Labelling Til Eulenspiegel's edits as "embarrassing" is at the very least an example of that. I am at a loss for what purpose such words serve, especially since you have provided no concrete evidence to support the particular term "embarrassing".--Jasper Deng (talk) 15:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Where did I used this word, Jasper Deng? --Succu (talk) 15:20, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
@Succu: I'm talking about the general behavior of everyone here and using Brya's "embarrassing" as an example.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:30, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
What did I wrong, Jasper Deng? I tried to de escalate and to find a solution. Is this wrong? --Succu (talk) 17:35, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
@Succu: Again, it's an issue of your intent versus your impact. Although your intents may have been good, comments like "So take a step" (below) are not helpful. To your credit, your comments have been a little less attacking than Brya's and Til's, but I don't see your involvement's impact as being that helpful here, unfortunately.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
@Jasper Deng. I did no such thing. To repeat myself, I said that a page of which the sole content is "Tomato is a plant found within Ethiopia." is embarrassing as an encyclopedia page. It seems a civil expression of what is painfully obvious. I look forward to seeing you phrase this in a more diplomatic fashion, that still gets the message across. - Brya (talk) 17:07, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
@Brya: The intent of that statement is not the same as its impact - whatever you intended, it's clearly having a negative impact on the discussion and you should refrain from such statements, even if well-intentioned. And in this case, this is not "embarrassing": many Wikipedia pages are this short and there is absolutely no problem with that.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:20, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
I have seen very many Wikipedia pages and I don't recall seeing any that are near this in length (leaving open the possiblity that I mercifully forgot any that I might have seen). There are several Wikipedias (all the major ones?) that would propose a page of this length (or double or three times this length) for deletion within hours. I cannot imagine a page of this kind helping the reader in any respect, so I don't understand your "there is absolutely no problem with that". What is wrong with the suggestion that it should be easy enough to add some sentences about the tomato, certainly one of the most accessible topics imaginable? - Brya (talk) 11:30, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
It's not the role of people who are external to the Amharic Wikipedia community to tell them to add some sentences to their articles. The fact that you can't imagine how the article could produce any value, is a good argument for why you shouldn't involve yourself with the article but otherwise it's pointless. The existence of the article allows a person who knows the Amharic word for tomato but not the word in other languages to find the article in the other languages via interwiki-links. ChristianKl (talk) 11:57, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
@Brya: How about Wikipedia:Stub (Q4663261)? --Jasper Deng (talk) 17:39, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
@Til Eulenspiegel: well, it would help if you stopped acting as if the language involved is relevant here. It would be the same if it were Swedish or Swahili, and with so short a Wikipedia entry on a topic of this kind, the language makes no perceptible difference.
@ChristianKl: sure, a Wikipedia community has great latitude in determining standards, but no matter what these are, a page solely consisting of "Tomato is a plant found within Ethiopia." is embarrassing as an entry in a encyclopedia. And there is a very simple and direct way for a Wikipedia community to determine what a page is about, namely by what content it puts in that page. But if a community votes that its page on the Enterprise (NX-01) should be linked with pages on the USS Enterprise (CV-6) on other Wikipedias, Wikidata must ignore that. - Brya (talk) 16:55, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
It didn't just consist of "Tomato is a plant found within Ethiopia". It also contained since 2011, the section headers that say: Scientific Nature of the plant; ways of growing; Geography where it is found in abundance; and uses of the plant. So an Amharic literate person could know from that "plant" means the plant itself, whether with or without fruit. Unfortunately you can't even tell what it says relying on a failed endeavor like "Google Translate AI". Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:05, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't think that the text "Tomato is a plant found within Ethiopia." specifically implies that the article isn't about the tomato taxon. The use-case of an article like this is likely that it allows a Amharic speaker who knows the Amharic word for tomato to enter it and then use the interwiki links to read more expansive articles in other languages.
I think it's our role to be helpful. We aren't really violating our ontology by allowing this item to be linked this way. Especially given that Til Eulenspiegel makes a good case that this is the correct item. A good test question might be: If the Amharic Wikipedia community would put a template on the item that imports data from Wikidata, would it import data from the right item? In this case, I don't see why it would be the wrong item. ChristianKl (talk) 17:54, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
@Til Eulenspiegel: indeed I did not mention the section headers. I was being polite. Such section headers are typically the result of some user copying an example page, so as to save on typing. So rather than being content, they are evidence that some user made a start of a page, spent something like two minutes copying section headers and making a draft for an opening sentence and then forgot about it, not spending the ten to fifteen minutes to write a minimal stub and deleting those section headers of sections for which he did not write content.
@ChristianKl: Taken in isolation, the sentence "Tomato is a plant found within Ethiopia." may not specifically imply that the page isn't about the tomato taxon. If it would be followed by content dealing with Solanum lycopersicum (such as material on the taxonomy of the species, the botanical description, how it differs from other Solanum species, etc) then it would be a page on Solanum lycopersicum. However, if it were to be followed by content on the use of the fruit, nutritional value, where the plant is grown, production figures, etc, it would undoubtably be on the fruit. Since the page is almost devoid of fact, the helpful question to ask oneself would be "if this plant did not produce edible fruit, would it have a page at all?". If the answer is no, then the page is about the fruit. If the page is just on a Solanum-species, then there should be pages on other Solanum-species as well.
        We should be helpful, but our role is to try and realize the clearest and most distinct structure at Wikidata, which will help the reader find information. It is not our role to go write pages in assorted Wikipedias. If somebody at Amharic Wikipedia wants to put a template on a page that is going to import data from Wikidata, it all depends what the page is about. If the page is about the tomato, it would be best off importing nutritional values, and production values from the Wikidata on the tomato (when somebody gets round to including them here). If Amharic Wikipedia wants to have a page about any Solanum-species, it is easy to make a page on that species (five to fifteen minutes work? Ten pages a minute with a bot). - Brya (talk) 07:50, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
  • So let me see if I can understand you correctly, User:Brya. You are still, incredibly, insisting that the onus of the burden is on the language projects themselves to make articles that are complete and understandable to your satisfaction through "Google Translate", otherwise you reserve the right to arbitrarily assign them to a junior "stub" list that does not link to the more complete articles? Because NO Wikipedia actually has two articles for both the taxon and the "food" in the case of Ginger, tomato, apple, etc. EVERY Wikipedia, even English, has a single article for both topics on one plant. This distinction is an artificial distinction employed by wikidatans and not by any language Wikipedia, and the distinction is causing problems. The obvious REAL basis for the distinction is "articles Brya finds embarrassing" vs. "articles Bra finds not embarrassing" and not so much the pretext of being about the "food" or the "plant". All of these items should be merged between "food" and "plant" as they are universally in every language edition, so as not to obstruct the "embarrassing" articles language speakers from linking to the complete info in the English Wikipedia. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 10:37, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
A fruit (or edible rhizome, etc) is a different concept from a taxon, and this widely recognized. You appear not to have looked closely at Wikipedia pages. In most cases there are one or more Wikipedias that do have two (sometimes more) separate pages. How many tends to vary; in some cases there are many Wikipedias, in some cases only a few. - Brya (talk) 11:29, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
I won't argue that it is a different concept, just nearly all languages combine them. I looked more closely at the two tomato items and found the only Wikipedia with entries on both is "Interlingua" which I didn't notice before. So because of the Interlingua situation I suppose we do need separate items, but in practice most languages do not distinguish the topics into separate articles. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:37, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Give it time. - Brya (talk) 12:03, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Take a break

All of you, BACK OFF NOW. Both of you, Brya and TIL, NEED to calm down and stop calling each other names. Take a breaths and sit down relax. Do me, and the wikidata community, a favor by collecting information and present a case. MechQuester (talk) 18:23, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Im sorry @Brya: but this is not helpful at all. MechQuester (talk) 18:36, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Why MechQuester, and why do you mention this unrelated edit here? --Succu (talk) 19:41, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
im reviewing everything so I can help both sides. Im willing to help both sides to resolve the conflict. MechQuester (talk) 19:46, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
So take a step. --Succu (talk) 19:52, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Hopefully it is over now, I have not been reverted again today, and everyone knows now the articles in question now contain the taxon species names to resolve any question. We have probably discussed the principle of the thing enough. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:39, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
This is becoming a familiar pattern, if my name is mentioned here User:MechQuester turns up to fish in troubled waters.
        Adding "fern" as an alias to some random items about a species of fern, as User:MechQuester has done, is decidedly unhelpful. It makes searching for "fern" more difficult. Compare this to adding "human" to some half million items about a random person, which would make it much more difficult to find the hundred thousand or so items with "human" in the label. - Brya (talk) 06:45, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Agree that classes shouldn't be entered as aliases everywhere (in most cases), taxon common name (P1843) was specified. d1g (talk) 15:54, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, the common name was added by some enthousiast who felt that ARKive was a good source for common names (ARKive often uses a class as the common name). - Brya (talk) 16:38, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

comment by GerardM

You persist in knowing Amharic and trusting on Google. Shame on you. It is not your role to be the arbiter of all shared knowledge, please be a little more humble. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 10:11, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
@GerardM: it is advisable to read before commenting. - Brya (talk) 10:26, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
I had. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 20:15, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Brya still at it

@MechQuester:

Despite everything that has been said here about his ignorance of Amharic, User:Brya has today once again unilaterally moved the Amharic articles for Ginger and Tomato to the wrong links, as evidently he still finds them too "embarrassing" to be listed with the informative articles about the taxon. I am requesting now intervention to resolve this dispute. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:48, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

On the contrary, Til Eulenspiegel is still at it, namely repeating over and over again that this has something to do with Amharic, even though he himself provided a translation of one of the pages in question. It is amazing to what lengths users will go to avoid ten minutes of work. - Brya (talk) 10:58, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@MechQuester:

I am formally objecting to User:Brya's expressed condescending attitudes of systemic bias and bigotry toward the Amharic language project, his repeated characterizations of our language as "embarrassing" to him personally, and I am questioning why a bigot like this is allowed to be here and make malice for the correct assignment of links for our project. It makes me not want to work here any more. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:11, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Brya acts like he is my taskmaster or slave driver and if I don't comply obediently when he summarily "directs" me to spend "ten minutes" expanding an Amharic topic not in my expertise, to his satisfaction, he will obstruct and make trouble for me. The burden is on him to stop messing with our links to the correct data item, not on me to expand articles according to his instructions. I don't have time for his imperatives. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

You „worked extensively as a professional translator and interpreter“, so it should be easy to you to translate some lines from enwiki. And please stop your insults. Your comparisons with colonialism are inappropriate. --Succu (talk) 14:08, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
It may or may not be easy, but I am not a slave. I do not take orders or commands from your ilk. I am under no obligation here to write Amharic content until you or Brya are satisfied or decide you are no longer embarrassed by it, when obviously you still do not understand that what is already there, as I have already expanded it for you, is strictly about the species and could not ever possibly be interpreted as about a fruit. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
A slave?! I ask you to stop this inappropriate wording. Do you know what a compromise is? All would win. No more waste of time. --Succu (talk) 14:21, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
I have already added the Latin species taxon names to both of these Amharic articles. I'm not going to do more than that, if you want to keep up this stubborn pretense that you cannot tell it is about the species taxa. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
@Succu, Brya, Til Eulenspiegel: So it appears you three are unable to have a collegial discussion with each other and aren't assuming good faith on each other's part or assuming the assumption of good faith on each other's parts. Do I need to block one or more of you for this? Keep in mind that what might seem innocuous in one culture or language can easily be an insult in another. As MechQuester said, knock it off or I'll have to seriously consider blocks.
In any case, it seems like Til Eulenspiegel is correct in at least the case of tomato (Q20638126), Brya. I would like it if you wouldn't make Wikidata so difficult for him, considering that we have very few speakers of his language.--Jasper Deng (talk) 15:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
To start with "it seems like Til Eulenspiegel is correct in at least the case of tomato (Q20638126)": the Amharic page does not contain the elements to be expected in a page on a species (such as the taxonomy and a botanical description), but has typical elements of tomato as food, such as the place where it is grown and a very little about the history of the development of the fruit. In addition it is placed in a category that is filled with foods of vegetable origin.
        I also find it strange that Til Eulenspiegel is making outrageous remarks like "User:Brya's expressed condescending attitudes of systemic bias and bigotry toward the Amharic language project, his repeated characterizations of our language as "embarrassing" to him personally," and "You embarrass only yourself User:Brya as your anti-Amharic bigotry is now a matter of permanent record)" (I have not made any comment whatsoever on the Amharic language) and have these violations of the Terms of Use ignored.
        As I understand it, Jasper Deng is now asking for a preferential treatment of Amwiki for political reasons? - Brya (talk) 16:53, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
You must clearly be mentally unbalanced or something. The content of Amharic Wikipedia articles is not your concern, and I do not and will not answer to you. As long as Amharic readers can tell it is obviously not about fruit, and I tell you on good faith it is not about fruit, just leave it alone. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:18, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
@Brya: Just because I ask you to give Til's Amharic proficiency at least some basic respect means I'm invoking politics all of a sudden? No, not at all.
I'm going to caution all three of you: the next ad hominem remark from any involved party here will lead to a block of that party for personal attacks. You three need to work together without leveling allegations of the sort "person x has a y agenda", etc. at each other, as multiple other admins have asked you to.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:24, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Continued problem with User:Brya now at "Watermelon"

The problem with User:Brya reverting my edits is continuing, now over "Watermelon". The situation here is absolutely preposterous and a perfect illustration of Brya's efforts. Formerly, all of the articles for "Watermelon" were located at one data item. However, inexplicably, it seems last April User:Brya created a second item for Watermelon which he wants reserved only for Scots and Amharic. There is no rational way of differentiating the topic of the Scottish or Amharic articles from the English one. The Scots article is based on directly on the English version, which gives the same taxon name, and the Amharic article is certainly not for a different "subspecies" than any of the other articles.

Revisiting the procedure with "tomato": As I noted before, the only wikipeia with a separate article for the tomato plant and the tomato fruit is "Interlingua". But if you look at those articles, it appears the only reason Interlingua has a separate article for the fruit is because it follows some automatic program based from wikidata. In other words it is circular back to what is a contrived situation since it is in fact not necessary to have distinct items supposedly about the tomato plant and the fruit, and the methods for segregating these various articles seems wholly arbitrary. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:08, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

How are these not about the same thing? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:37, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

watermelon (Q38645) natural product of taxon (P1582) from different taxa. One is Citrullus lanatus (Q17507129). --Succu (talk) 18:03, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree with you on these 3 links about Watermelon; but please @Til Eulenspiegel: don't stress that so seriously.
I could understand if Brya had sleepy eye simply after reviewing multiple pages in a row.
ideally we need items for taxons and plants tomato (Q23501) separate from fruits tomato (Q20638126), if Brya said that, then I agree with him. d1g (talk) 18:37, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
But there is no logical basis whatsoever for saying the Scots or Amharic articles are about anything different from English or the rest... they all describe exactly the same thing... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:32, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
A fruit and a taxon (plants producing a fruit that is in english commonly called „Watermelon“) are not the same thing. I moved the two links to Citrullus lanatus (Q17507129) allready. --Succu (talk) 18:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
This doesn't make sense. Look at the links I gave for English, Scottish and Amharic. Which ones are you saying are about fruit now? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:47, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Please take a moment and have a look at the statements in watermelon (Q38645) and Citrullus lanatus (Q17507129). This should you give an answer and some hints what Wikidata is about and why we have two concepts (items). Note that some interwiki conflicts are hard to resolve. Especially if the content in certain languages is essentially a stub. --Succu (talk) 18:56, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Please take a moment and address my question honestly. Of the three article links for English, Scots and Amharic, none of these are about fruit; all refer to the same identical taxon. Which of these are you claiming is about fruit? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:59, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Please take a moment and look at the above mentioned items, Til Eulenspiegel. --Succu (talk) 19:09, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
One solution, in the case a wikipédia has an article about both fruits, is to create an item that is a superclass of both. author  TomT0m / talk page 18:59, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
I doubt something like watermelon producing taxa are a valuable class, TomT0m. --Succu (talk) 19:05, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
It’s a technical solution to cultural mismatch and common talking and scientific taxonomy. I guess you know there is A LOT of instances of this. That way we can precise the mismatch a bit. That’s the value. author  TomT0m / talk page 19:10, 7 June 2017 (UTC) AND, oh, the coorect name zould not be watermelon producing taxa but watermelon producing plant or something. A superclass of taxa has to be a class of organisms, same as taxa. author  TomT0m / talk page 19:14, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
A union of cultural mismatch, common talking and scientific taxonomy seems to be to me as a very strange concept for a class. In my understanding watermelon producing plant would refer to a particular plant. --Succu (talk) 19:46, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Don't you see the same taxon name on all three articles? So how can you sit there and pretend two random languages are talking about some different taxon? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Did you understand TomT0m's proposal? --Succu (talk) 19:56, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Did you see yet that the English, Scots and Amharic articles all describe the same identical taxon and there is no sound reason to split Scots and Amharic from the others? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:59, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
It is false that the Scots or Amharic articles represent any different taxon from the others. I would like to complain about his insistence that Amharic link only to Scots and vice versa with no way to link with the others. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:11, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
You aren't paying attention. There is only one topic and no wiki has two articles, just he wants Amharic and Scots segregated in an artificial second topic for no understandable reason making these two different from any of the others. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:01, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
@Til Eulenspiegel: I have not looked very deep into this, but I guess you mix up such a things as "articles having interwiki between each other" and "articles sharing item at Wikidata". Nobody here forbids you to have whatever interwiki you like in your articles on Wikipedia. (That is up to Wikipedia to decide.) But you then sometimes have to find other solutions than using Wikidata. The old style interwiki ([[xys:Whatever]]) still works fine. I use versions of that myself sometimes. In my case I use a template known as Template:Interwiki extra (Q21286810). That would probably solve the problem with interwiki even in this case. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 19:14, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
It's not looking deep into this that is the problem. All you need to do is simply click on the three article links I gave above and see that this is an artificial division, since all are clearly about the same species taxon and none are about the fruit. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:16, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
@Til Eulenspiegel: I do not read Amharic, but I think you should look into how the interwiki looks like in the Swedish article sv:Ålsalamandrar. Since it describes a monotypic taxon (Q310890) the list of articles in the corresponding item does not fully cover the number of articles you used to have interwiki with when you added interwiki by plain iw-links. This template solves this well in this case and also links to the articles connected to Amphiuma (Q300923). -- Innocent bystander (talk) 19:24, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
It is false that the Scots or Amharic articles represent any different taxon from the others. I would like to complain about his insistence that Amharic link only to Scots and vice versa with no way to link with the others. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:09, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Wake up. As I told you above both links are united at Citrullus lanatus (Q17507129). --Succu (talk) 19:16, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
You wake up. Answer my question honestly. What makes Scottish or Amharic about a different topic or taxon from any of the others? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:18, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
It's easy to find out that am:ሃብሃብ and sco:Wattermelon link to the taxon item Citrullus lanatus (Q17507129). --Succu (talk) 19:25, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
  • @Jasper Deng: - I am not getting through with the respondents so far. It is a simple matter of looking at the articles. What makes Scottish or Amharic about a different topic or taxon from any of the others? I am tired of this nonsense. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:27, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
  • What is so hard to understand. We want for the Amharic Wikipedia, an article about the same topic or taxon the English article is about, and we want it to link to the English article. We don't want it made inaccessible for some reason you cannot clearly communicate. I also believe the Scots article is intended to be about the same topic as the English, being as it is directly based on it. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:31, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Could you give us some arguments why the clearly different concepts of watermelon (Q38645) (fruit) and Citrullus lanatus (Q17507129) (one of the taxa producing that fruit) should be merged? --Succu (talk) 20:19, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
The English article is about the fruit? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:21, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
I think there are a lot more sitelinks involved. Feel free to sort them out. --Succu (talk) 20:26, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Ah... so you would not object if I move English over with the taxon? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:27, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, if you can sort out the sitelinkes all the other languages too? Otherwise No. --Succu (talk) 20:37, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough, works for me... I guess that this will be resolved that way then... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:39, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Especially when it comes to languages you do not speak. Have fun. --Succu (talk) 20:45, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

seriously quit NOW. all need a vacation. @Jasper Deng:, another thread popped up. MechQuester (talk) 21:28, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, yes, yes MechQuester, but why? --Succu (talk) 21:36, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
As you can see above, there is a huge dispute. MechQuester (talk) 23:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


UPDATE: I got what Succu was saying and did my best to sort all the unsorted sitelinks into three items the best I could. If I got any wrong by not reading the language I wouldn't argue with someone from that wiki of course... The only really important thing for me is that the Amharic article link to en:Watermelon as it was intended to. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:10, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
This does not seem very complicated to me.
  • am and sco are very explicit: they are about Citrullus lanatus var. lanatus. A taxobox is provided and scowiki gives a minimum description "a vine-lik (scrambler an trailer) flouerin plant oreeginally frae soothren Africae." This Citrullus lanatus var. lanatus has nothing to do with watermelons (watermelons do not stem from South Africa). The pictures are wrong, but that is nothing compared to some of the mismatches found on svwiki.
  • en is pretty muddleheaded as enwiki pages often are. It has a long list of references showing many different points of view. Instead of presenting these different points of view in an orderly manner (as required by the NPoV-policy), elements from various sources have been squeezed in any which way trying to present a "unified front". I am not saying anything new here, as a year and a half ago User:Plantdrew stated "There's quite a mess here that could use somebody knowledgeable to sort it out." However, the page itself is clearly about watermelons; it is not only titled "watermelon" but it deals at length with watermelons describing cultivars, production and nutrition. What there is of taxonomy has been forced into the page by those who believe everything of vegetable origin must be forced into the Tree-of-Life mould. It would work so much better if a page on watermelons would be allowed to be on watermelons.
User:Til Eulenspiegel says it clearly "The only really important thing for me is that the Amharic article link to en:Watermelon as it was intended to." in other words: he cares nothing for content and cares nothing for Wikidata, all he cares about is spamming amwiki. This would work better, if I understand ChristianKl right, if all the amwiki pages were left blank. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brya (talk • contribs).
+1 Brya. I'm using languages other English because how horrific POV/naming collisions are in English sometimes.
We shouldn't move sitelinks without respect to page contents.
It wasn't stated in Help:Sitelinks, but we could always fix that.
en:Watermelon provides history of cultivation, "Food and beverage", nutrition facts - so its corresponds to a fruit more closely than to a plant. d1g (talk) 09:06, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
@D1gggg: "he cares nothing for content and cares nothing for Wikidata, all he cares about is spamming amwiki" - my warning above about ad hominem remarks applies to you too, please refrain from making such statements. Much of the conflict here has been due to such inferences. Please comment strictly on the content and not the contributor.--Jasper Deng (talk) 16:40, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
@Jasper Deng: you quote unsigned above mine. d1g (talk) 17:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
@D1gggg: My biggest apologies. Unfortunately, it seems that @Brya: has disregarded my warning then, so I am issuing them a block of 36 hours. It's unfortunate that I have to take that step, but the toxicity of this discussion has made other admins weary of intervening in it.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:04, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Continued problem here

I had thought this problem was resolved now to everyone's satisfaction finally. However, it seem there is still a continued problem above in the comment:

User:Til Eulenspiegel says it clearly "The only really important thing for me is that the Amharic article link to en:Watermelon as it was intended to." in other words: he cares nothing for content and cares nothing for Wikidata, all he cares about is spamming amwiki.
  1. We wrote an article in Amharic because we wanted an article corresponding with en:Watermelon
  2. If you continue to frustrate our efforts to link the article written specifically to link to en:Watermelon, from linking to en:Watermelon using a variety of arcane pretexts, there's gonna be a big problem.
  3. If you continue to make spurious trumped-up accusations like "he cares nothing for content and cares nothing for Wikidata, all he cares about is spamming amwiki.", there's going to be a VERY big problem.

Is that clear? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:07, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

You wrote As long as the Amharic article links to en:Watermelon as it does now, I am happy and my purpose is not defeated. It's evident that's the only thing you care about. Please do not threaten other users. --Succu (talk) 13:57, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Please do not try to defeat my purpose with arcane pseudo-reasoning and insults. As I stated numerous times, as long as the Amharic article links to en:Watermelon, as it was specifically written to do and for that purpose, then I am happy. There should be no confusion about my position and no need to "reinterpret" it by putting words in my mouth. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:04, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
@Succu: Ensuring that Wikidata items correctly link to pages on his home wiki is a problem? I fail to see how this is incompatible with the aims of Wikidata.--Jasper Deng (talk) 16:45, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
He did a liitle bit more. --Succu (talk) 17:56, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
You said above it would be ok to move the English article to the taxon, provided I sorted out the rest. Presumably you wanted that page populated with some articles so I added the correct ones to the best of my ability, despite my allegedly only caring about spamming and not about wikidata. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:08, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Concerning "We wrote an article in Amharic because we wanted an article corresponding with en:Watermelon", please keep in mind that any user making any edit (writing a page, or otherwise) is himself responsible for the contents of that edit (according to the Terms of Use underwritten by any user at any Wikipedia: "Please be aware that you are legally responsible for all of your contributions, edits, [...] under the laws of the United States of America and other applicable laws"). Anybody writing a page should not just copy something from enwiki, but should verify that content for himself. As anybody knows, there are plenty of errors on enwiki. The page on amwiki claims to be on Citrullus lanatus var. lanatus, a variety that is not closely related to the plant that supplies watermelons. And this is no one's fault except the user who wrote the amwiki page.
        If the purpose is to have "article[s] in Amharic because we wanted [...] article[s] corresponding with [enwiki] articles", then you are going about it in a most inefficient and confrontational, not to say disruptive, manner. Why not work with the system, rather than going against it? - Brya (talk) 17:00, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Block of User:Brya

This was a difficult decision for me, as Brya seems very knowledgeable about this subject, but I really do not want any more of this fighting on the Wikidata project, and I want to be clear that I meant exactly what I said when I said I would block the next editor who made an ad hominem remark here (Brya's remark above is unsigned). If, however, other admins disagree with my action, they should feel free to discuss it here, and if consensus is against my block, I will be happy to lift it. But I do want it to be made clear that failing to assume good faith is productive for neither the content dispute nor for reviewing administrators (accusing a user of "spamming", for example, is not going to make me block them for spamming when it is clearly an attempt at "winning" a content dispute).--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:15, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Just a note, that a little bit after you blocked him, he actually altered the Amharic article evidently in a bid to make it fit a different topic!
https://am.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%E1%88%83%E1%89%A5%E1%88%83%E1%89%A5&curid=22577&diff=338519&oldid=338512
I reverted this and think I can handle him there. It would not work to link it with Citrullus Lanatus any more anyway, since I found we already had another article for that too and linked it there. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:45, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
So „all he cares about is spamming amwiki“ by User:Brya was sanctioned and „You must clearly be mentally unbalanced or something“ by Til Eulenspiegel (aka User:Codex Sinaiticus) not? --Succu (talk) 20:21, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
NB: @Jasper Deng: en:User:Til Eulenspiegel and en:User:Codex Sinaiticus are blocked indef at enwiki. ---Succu (talk) 21:18, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Does it matter here? MechQuester (talk) 04:03, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
@Succu: If you look above, you will see that that remark was instigated by Brya. It's not to say I endorse or tolerate what Til said, however; if Til himself makes such a remark again, I will block him. Brya's block was partly for that instigation as well, to be clear. Again, as I suggested above, I strongly suggest you disengage from this dispute because your involvement has been unhelpful in impact, even if you intend well.--Jasper Deng (talk) 16:34, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
So your recommendation is to shut up? --Succu (talk) 18:00, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
@Succu:, He is asking for you to disengage and go back to editing. MechQuester (talk) 18:08, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't think I need advice from someone how call others „incompetent editor“. --Succu (talk) 18:54, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Clearly there is no need, the advice in a simplified manner indicates you should heed it regardless of whom translates. MechQuester (talk) 22:26, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
I do understand the decision to ban but I don't think a permanent ban is the best way to go. Maybe 3 months? ChristianKl (talk) 06:29, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
If you understand the decision to ban, perhaps you can explain it to me. It had nada to do with wikidata and everything to do with hostile editors there who in 2014 got their friends to ban me out of their spite, envy and emotion, and to achieve a false "consensus" by pretending everyone agrees with their bigoted povs, picking and choosing which religions they label as "mythology" etc. etc. etc., but really they only just suppressed dissent, by holding me to much higher standards that they knew they themselves could never meet. Old, familiar story, eh? English Wikipedia's behavior toward sincere editors is already internationally known among all other languages, and is a serious black mark on that project, not this one. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 09:52, 9 June 2017 (UTC) Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 09:45, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
@Til Eulenspiegel: That topic is not relevant here, if you wish to contest the English Wikipedia's actions, you will have to follow their processes (by the way, I do subscribe to en:User:Rschen7754/You represent the English Wikipedia!).--Jasper Deng (talk) 16:32, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Why did you mentions your pledge here Jasper Deng? Is this relevant to to this problem? --Succu (talk) 22:10, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
@Succu: Because Til mentioned "Old, familiar story, eh? English Wikipedia's behavior toward sincere editors is already internationally known among all other languages, and is a serious black mark on that project". Again, please disengage yourself from this thread, your remarks are coming off as snarky and unhelpful. --Jasper Deng (talk) 04:25, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
@ChristianKl: If you're talking about my block of Brya, it was for 36 hours ending about 12 hours from now.--Jasper Deng (talk) 16:31, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
@Jasper Deng: Okay, that timeframe is also completely fine with me. I think it would be good to specify the timeframe the next time in the post that announces the ban. ChristianKl (talk) 21:36, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
ChristianKl: a ban is different from a block. --Succu (talk) 22:13, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
A block is essentially a ban from editing for a time frame. MechQuester (talk) 22:26, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
@ChristianKl, MechQuester: Let us please avoid using the term "ban", which is very distinct from a block on many projects, and which we have not even defined on Wikidata yet.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:27, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
@ChristianKl: I had thought it would be evident enough from my block log entry, but I'll make sure to mention the duration next time.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:27, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Continued problems with User:Brya

@Jasper Deng:

User:Brya is now continuing his campaign of frustrating the attempts of the Amharic Wikipedia to link to the other informative articles with articles in a language I can read and he cannot, edit warring with me on not just "Tomato" and "Watermelon" but now also "Almond". He cannot read the language but claims to disctate what the articles are "about" and what they will link to. In the name of international civilization, I am requesting further mediation. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:31, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Give it a rest; with a whole Wikipedia to take care of single-handedly surely you have better things to do than to go picking fights. You may be be expert in Amharic, but that does not automatically make you an expert in every topic occurring in amwiki. - Brya (talk) 19:09, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
@Brya: At the moment it seems like you are the person picking the fight. Why do you think it's important to fight it? ChristianKl (talk) 19:42, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I am not picking fights, everything is fine and goes smoothely until you come back and edit war over the same Amharic links. The Amharic articles were created specifically to link to specific topics in the English wiki, you keep delinking them from the English articles and linking them to other items with few links, and the only rationale you have thus far given is your own embarrassment over our articles. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:16, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

„... we want an article here for this in Amharic“ - Who is this we? --Succu (talk) 19:30, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
BTW: Do you know Extension:ArticlePlaceholder (Q21676433)? --Succu (talk) 19:33, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
What difference does it make to you? We is the set of Amharic literate users of the project. It's also on the list of "articles every Wikipedia must have" which is why we make an article for it, only come to find out it keeps cropping back up on the automated list of "articles every Wikipedia should have but missing in Amharic" despite all attempts to write one, because of these delinking shenanigans. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:37, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
So you are a spokesperson for them? --Succu (talk) 19:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Well you sure as heck aren't Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:41, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
So please speak for yourself and not the whole Amharic community. Thanks. --Succu (talk) 19:45, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Again: It's also on the list of "articles every Wikipedia must have" which is why we make an article for it, only come to find out it keeps cropping back up on the automated list of "articles every Wikipedia should have but missing in Amharic" despite all attempts to write one, because of these delinking shenanigans. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:46, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
You are referíng to Wikipedia:List of articles all languages should have (Q5460604)? --Succu (talk) 19:56, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
More like Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Biology and health sciences (Q12154283) Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:04, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Very doubtfull, but both pages are missing an Amharic page. --Succu (talk) 20:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Could you please ping some of the „Amharic literate users“ to confirm your role, Til Eulenspiegel. Thanks. --Succu (talk) 20:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
No. The only topic here is a user frustrating my attempts to have Amharic articles "every Wikipedia should have" linked to the items in question. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:20, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Huh? What is missing an Amharic page? There is no doubt, all of these articles are on the "expanded list of articles every Wikipedia should have", so why can we not have one please??? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:13, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Could you please give a link to Amharic wikipedia which confirms your point of view. Thanks. --Succu (talk) 20:23, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
I think you are just playing games here as if everyone were stupid. This is plain and simple, an effort to stop the obstruction of having certain "articles every Wikipedia should have" as determined by Meta. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:25, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, answering simple legitimate questions is hard for you. I'm not astonished anymore. --Succu (talk) 20:29, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Sorry but your questions are off the topic and not helpful at all. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:31, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't think rendering a We to I is off topic... --Succu (talk) 20:38, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
It is, if you go back and change "We" to "I" it won't change anything, because these articles are "still on the list of articles every Wikipedia must have". This is off topic. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:41, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
So en:Wikipedia:Vital articles lists „tomato“ (tomato (Q20638126) or tomato (Q23501))? --Succu (talk) 20:56, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The one at Meta lists the one we have an article for. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC) Link here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_articles_every_Wikipedia_should_have/Expanded/Biology_and_health_sciences Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:02, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Der nächste Versuch eines Maulkorbes? --Succu (talk) 21:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
@Succu: If you want to comment here, you must be helpful, not taunting. If you can't do that, which I see evidence of, then yes, you may not comment here. You don't have freedom of speech on this site.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:11, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Welche meiner Kommentare sind „spöttisch“? --Succu (talk) 21:15, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
@Succu: The comment "Yes, answering simple legitimate questions is hard for you. I'm not astonished anymore" is unnecessary and there's no reason to use that tone. I support Jasper Deng here. ChristianKl (talk) 21:27, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
@Nikki: has applied a 24 hour block. MechQuester (talk) 21:42, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
I am just working on expanding structures at Wikidata and making them more consistent. On the other hand, Til Eulenspiegel is engaged in producing a lot of text on this page and in his edit summaries, text which is not only not-constructive in tone but which has a poor relationship with fact. For instance, he describes the amwiki entry on the tomato as "despite all attempts to write one", while in fact the entry consists of two sentences. The first was written at the page creation "Tomato is a plant found within Ethiopia" and is one of several hundred pages, verbatim the same (except the topic), with that sentence as the sole content, created within one hour. And there is indeed a second sentence, but this is a far cry from "all attempts". Also, "The Amharic articles were created specifically to link to specific topics in the English wiki," seems far out as these entries bear no resemblance to the enwiki pages. Indeed, as pointed out above, there are several hundred such pages which were created (within an hour) for no other apparent purpose other than to list edible and otherwise useful plants. As Succu points out Extension:ArticlePlaceholder (Q21676433) would create pages of greater depth, with no individual attention or knowledge required. I could go on, and on. - Brya (talk) 05:44, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Your work is causing a problem for the wikipedias. Particularly your insistence that you are appointed to play some kind of "judge" over other language content, and your reserving the right to assign them to an artificial "junior" "B" list for the same topic, if you find you are "embarrassed" by them. Other than your embarrassment or emotion, you have not explained any clear biological basis why en:Watermelon cannot link to am:ሃብሃብ, why en:Tomato cannot link to am:ቲማቲም, or why en:Almond cannot link to am:አልመንድ.
A typical example of your weird placement is en:Apple. Your insistence that this article "should" be about "fruit", and consequently placing it "in" an item reserved for the fruit, doesn't change the fact in reality that en:Apple "actually is" about the tree. But you won't let it link there. If I am not mistaken, this is similar to the reason you were blocked from the English project some 10 years ago. As I noted before, no project actually had separate items for the tree and the fruit. But now Amharic does, because I was obliged to make a separate, nearly duplicate article for the fruit just so we could have an article linking to the English article according to Brya's idiosyncratic schema. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree that it might be useful for Amheric wiki to install the article placeholder extension, but that's their business. Byra, I do value your work on taxonomy. I also understand the desire to map articles to specific concepts. I myself have worked with human anatomy items where interwiki links can be a mess. On the other hand, we want to be nice to the individual Wiki's and if an individual Wiki wants their items to be linked to a particular item that's their choice. There's currently a RfC to allow linking to redirects. If successful it would allow people like Til to get their interwiki links, even if the core link from the item links to another item. ChristianKl (talk) 12:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't want to link any redirects to a different item. For me this couldn't possibly be more simple and straightforward. The Amharic articles ሃብሃብ, ቲማቲም and አልመንድ were specifically designed and intended to correspond with and only with the English articles Watermelon, Tomato, and Almond, and for weeks I am running into every possible kind of increasingly lame pretext not to allow this. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:01, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Another feature of Til Eulenspiegel is that he ignores all arguments and will just repeat his position as if it has not been disproved: for example after having it pointed out that the few hundred amwiki plant entries were produced within an hour from some list or other he just repeats "The Amharic articles ሃብሃብ, ቲማቲም and አልመንድ were specifically designed and intended to correspond with and only with the English articles Watermelon, Tomato, and Almond", as if repeating this often enough will alter the facts.
        @ChristianKl: "we want to be nice to the individual Wiki's" sure, within limits, but note that when I altered the amwiki ሃብሃብ so that it would fit with en:watermelon, Til Eulenspiegel altered it to be about Citrullus lanatus var. lanatus (or Citrullus lanatus lanatus whatever that may be) which does not fit with fit with . Some people just won't allow help.
        As I said before Wikipedia's do control where their pages will fit, by controlling their content. Til Eulenspiegel disregards content of Wikipedia pages: for example am:ሙዝ which is very similar to the tomato page is placed by him in the item about the fruit, banana (Q503), not in the item about the species. It is also curious that he refers to this list, which marks the tomato ("Botanical fruits used as culinary vegetables (12 articles)") as vital, while at the same time fighting a page on the tomato as fruit (the list also wants "almond" as part of important "Nuts"). He seems to be always inconsistent: he moved am:ዝሆን on Elephantidae from its proper place in Elephantidae (Q2372824) (where it was with the matching english page en:Elephantidae) to elephant (Q7378) where it is wildly out of place, apparently just to tick off a box on his list.
        Lists like these don't exist for the purpose of ticking off boxes to win some competition, but they express the point of view that it would be good that a Wikipedia would offer detailed information in an engaging page on the topic. There is nothing to stop Til Eulenspiegel from writing some good pages at amwiki (he has the whole Wikipedia just about to himself) to improve the quality and to attract other collaborators, rather than spending lots of time here crying foul whenever one of his inconsistencies is touched. - Brya (talk) 18:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I have been trying as hard as I can to get many of the articles for the Amharic Wikipedia "that every article must have", and as you see running into this bullshit and the wrongdoer trying to put ME on trial instead. It's users like Brya that make me want to give up and just let the project wither on the vine while we start a new one somewhere else. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
    • No, you have been moving sitelinks to make it appear as if amwiki has pages "that every Wikipedia should have". In the process, you have been upsetting Wikidata (and Wikipedias everywhere). - Brya (talk) 05:58, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Request for formal mediation

User:Brya clearly has "issues" with the way I have been trying to ensure Amharic has various articles from the roster of "required articles". He keeps delinking them, and in his mind he thinks I am the one at fault here and he does no wrong. The administration here have allowed his behavior to continue unabated with no resolution for almost a month, so I am requesting higher arbitration for this matter. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 10:15, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Fot that, it would help to phrase a formal position, other than that amwiki deserves preferential treatment on the grounds that it has very little content and no community. - Brya (talk) 11:19, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
@Jasper Deng: Brya, I wasn't asking your permission. A major part of the problem and the impasse here is your attitude that you are the judge, jury and executioner of all things here. My formal position is I want you to stop fighting me on linking required articles in Amharic. This is a list that Meta puts out that they tell the wikipedias to fulfill, and you are making it all impossible. Rather than back off, you are accusing me of some wrongdoing in trying to fulfill the required list and appealing to your own "authority" as usual. Clearly arbitration is required to resolve this bottleneck. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:29, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't think anybody argues that amwiki deserves special treatment. The position is rather that it's up to a Wikipedia community to have the interwiki links to their articles that it wants to have. It's not up to English speaking Wikidata people to overrule them based on a Google Translate translation. ChristianKl (talk) 12:46, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

@Brya, Til Eulenspiegel:, both if you. I know its easy to slap each other now. But let us come to the table and present some arguments for the way it should be. ok? Remember, people will help if you present evidence, not punches. MechQuester (talk) 12:21, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

My argument has been made repeatedly and it is simple. "This is a list that Meta puts out that they tell the wikipedias to fulfill"... What is the need for further debate? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:25, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

@Til Eulenspiegel, Brya, Succu and all others: I have casually followed this topic until now, and feel somewhat uncomfortable with how things are going.

  • First of all, it is maybe about time to add a supportive opinion for Brya’s and Succu’s position (but not their behavior). Taxonomy is a scientific field with clear definitions, and there is a lot of effort being put into this field here at Wikidata. Succu with his bot alone is responsible for more than 7.5% of all edits ever done at Wikidata (yes, really!), and by far most of them are related to taxonomy. While this does not give him extra weight in discussions, I can fully understand that taxonomy folks in general and Brya and Succu in particular have a very strong interest in high quality items (including sitelinks) in their field of work. However, the distinction made between fruit and taxon items/articles is something which taxonomy laypersons are typically not familiar with, and I notice the permanent pressure the taxonomists feel by editors who want to mix things up which actually do not belong together from the scientific point of view. There are plenty of different reasons and motivations for this pressure, and Til Eulenspiegel’s personal favor of doing things is just one example of them.
  • It was sad to see that Brya and Succu had to be blocked here for a day each. This was of course not done because they have the wrong position/opinion in the case—it was their edit behavior, which appears to be at least counterproductive from my observers point of view, and in some portions of the discussion in fact problematic (so I do not question the blocks). Til Eulenspiegel’s edit behavior does not appear to be particularly friendly as well, but I don’t see any sanctionable edits at Wikidata by him at the moment (I haven’t looked closely again, tbh). I ask both sides to be constructive at all times.
  • I do not understand the content of the amwiki articles in question and I am not a taxonomy expert at all, so it is not up to me to decide which items the sitelinks in question belong to. But I really do not like the idea to add sitelinks on a base of personal flavors or simple practical aspects (such as: some worklist suggests to put it there; or: it does have more interwikilinks that way). Sitelinks are not supposed to be assigned to items like that. At the same time I’d raise the question whether the articles in question might fit equally well to both possible items due to their very short length. It would definitely be worth to have independent opinions by editors who are familiar with both, the language and the topic in question, but I don’t think that this is possible.
  • There is no formal procedure of “higher arbitration” available at Wikidata. Conflicts of this extent are unusual here. We have to figure it out here and hope that all involved editors don’t lose their heads in order to avoid further blocks. It would be extremely helpful, Til Eulenspiegel, if you expand the articles in question to an extent that leaves no doubt about the assignment to the item you want to have them in. This clearly does not mean that they have to have enwiki standard, but a little more than two sentences would definitely be useful. I know that this was already requested by other editors in this topic, but it appears to be the easiest way out of this dilemma. As I indicated above, it would feel strange to me to ask the taxonomists to lower their quality standards.

—MisterSynergy (talk) 12:46, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Not acceptable, because it suggests that the various language wikipedias have to defer to the authority of the "wikidata taxonomy experts" when they decree absurd things like, for example, en:Apple is about a "fruit" and not a tree because they say so, when they were blocked from en 10 years ago for the very same argument of trying to make it about a fruit, and any first grade reading level student can tell en:Apple is in fact about a tree, but yet is split off into a separate "fruit" item by these "taxonomy expert" bullies who rely on everyone else to say "they must be right since I am not a taxonomist". Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:17, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Til Eulenspiegel: I was never blocked at enwiki! --Succu (talk) 13:20, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Wikidata is much more than a simple interwiki link provider for Wikipedias. We are hosting all sitelinks that the connected projects deliver, but there is no right to put them to arbitrary items where they don’t fit in. From the sitelink perspective it is in fact a main goal of Wikidata to resolve the former messy “everything-links-to-everything” situation and establish a clean 1:1 mapping of interwiki links. In this case, the assignment desired by you is obviously highly controversial, so we have to find a solution. I gave advice how you could influence things for your benefit and it is up to you to follow or ignore this advice. —MisterSynergy (talk) 13:35, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
"but there is no right to put them to arbitrary items where they don’t fit in." You mean like, linking en:Apple to the "fruit" instead of the "tree"? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:48, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
As with the amwiki articles, I do not decide whether this particular assignment fits or not (I am still not a taxonomist). This topic is mainly about controversial amwiki sitelink assignments, and it would be useful if you concentrate on them rather than on enwiki issues, or Brya’s enwiki block ten years ago. Particularly the latter is exactly the opposite of constructive behavior which I asked you to show.
Once again: the assignments you’d like to make are controversial, and it would be useful if you work constructively to solve the situation. If you just reject participation in this solution by stating “not acceptable”, I can’t help you with your request. —MisterSynergy (talk) 14:00, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
@MisterSynergy: Do you think that the desire of Wikipedia's to have interwiki links doesn't matter at all, given that you both oppose allowing redirects to give them their interwiki links and oppose them to assigning the interwiki links in a way that gives them their links? Given the opposition of taxonomy experts like Byra to having a property that links from the taxon to the fruit of the taxon, it's also impossible to create the interwiki links automatically in any reasonable way.
What do you think is the purpose of having sitelinks when it isn't about providing interwiki links? ChristianKl (talk) 14:35, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I would be very happy if the amwiki articles in question (or, in general, all similar small wiki articles) fitted to the items which provide best sitelinks for them. However, I do expect at the same time that all sitelinks connected to an item describe the same entity, which is a core aspect of the Wikidata data model.
  • Regarding redirects: I am not sure whether they would help here at all. If the article was assigned to the item the taxonomists believe it belongs to, it would see the interwikis from that item as well. On the other hand, a redirect from the item Til Eulenspiegel targets would display an interwiki link to the amwiki article in all other language editions, but this is not the path Til Eulenspiegel has in mind as far as I understand. —MisterSynergy (talk) 14:56, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps there is a possible need to improve the articles in question. The links in Wiki are better if 1:1, that is the articles be consistent in content when linked together. Perhaps focusing on content improvement instead. MechQuester (talk) 14:07, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay, help me out here. There must be something I'm not understanding. Meta puts out this list of articles they ask all languages to have. So users including me have made those articles in Amharic. But then Brya says "Nope. They aren't good enough. You see, I get to play judge over the articles in your language. And until they are good enough and not embarrassing to me and I give them a passing grade, I will not let them link to those items." No matter what I can't get the articles Meta is asking us to get. WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE??? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:05, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

perhaps help expand the articles instead of fighting here. MechQuester (talk) 14:08, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
No mechquester, my whole point is that Amharic content should not be at the mercy of User:Brya to link to the items they were intended for. They will remain stubs until an Amharic literate expert takes time to expand them. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:10, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
@MechQuester: Effectively telling Africans that they should just shut up and do what the Western people tell them, when the Western people feel like the articles in the language that they can't read aren't up to the Western standards is problematic. Your assertion that the principle of autonomy isn't worth fighting about for Africans, might not be optimal, when your goal is to reach consensus. ChristianKl (talk) 14:20, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Aside from that, it appears the real basis for assigning these article to the "tree" or the "fruit" etc. is mainly to segregate all the languages with "embarrassing stubs" and stopping them from linking to iformative articles about the species so they won't "embarrass" anyone. If our article on Tomato is deficient, he hasn't said specifically what it lacks or any other botanical reason for him to suffer it to link to en:Tomato without edit warring, and our watermelon article still can't link to en:watermelon. He just says it is too short, expand it, make it longer, when is it enough? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:25, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Brya has been warned for a couple of claims regarding amwiki article quality, and this warning was correct. It is not up to the Wikidata community to judge about standards of connected Wikipedias at all, and it is clear to us that differences in culture, language, and manpower naturally lead to (statistically) shorter articles in small language editions of Wikipedia. Anything else is Brya’s personal opinion, not the position of the Wikidata project.
The problem here is that it is not undoubtedly clear that you actually wrote the articles that appear on this must-have-list, or whether they are about a related, but different entity. It should be possible to sharpen their definition in a way that this becomes much clearer than it is right now. Once again, we do not expect anything close to the extent that the big Wikipedias deliver. If I was in your position, I would use the introductions of large Wikipedia sitelinks of the targeted item as a guideline what and how much to include in a small wiki article. However, this is not a formal request, more a personal advice. —MisterSynergy (talk) 14:32, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
The concept of using Latinate taxons as an international language was supposed to resolve that. Two guiding principles should be: 1) If someone from that language wiki disagrees with your reassignment, don't fight it, and 2) If it contains the same Latin taxon name somewhere in the body of the article in the language you can't read, don't fight it. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:37, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
At the beginning non of the articles had a scientific name. You fighted! BTW: there are a lot of articles witha taxobox that are not about a taxon. --Succu (talk) 14:44, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't see why I should be blamed for adding the Latin names, you are telling me to expand the articles and then blaming me for what I do? (and saying they're still not "good enough") What a Catch 22! Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:46, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
I didn't. --Succu (talk) 14:49, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, I would appreciate it if you didn't just defer to "appeal to authority" without even giving an actual botanical reason. Is it perhaps because there is no actual botanical reason here? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:54, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Synergy: You say it is not undoubtedly clear and point to soeone else's authority, but if you have looked at the Amharic pages ሃብሃብ, ቲማቲም and አልመንድ it should be clear enough, how absurd this is, these are the Amharic words meaning "watermelon", "tomato" and "almond", and correspond exactly with en:watermelon, en:tomato, and en:almond, which are all about the species, and they all include the very same taxon names and are not about "fruit" or "food products". In the first case, they still do not link at this time. No botanical reason has been provided by anyone other than appeal to authority of one user here. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:08, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I am looking into this. Can you please provide a full list of controversial amwiki articles, which Wikidata items they are supposed to be linked to, and which items they should not be linked to (all to your opinion)? Of course, we typically do not need to discuss this case by case, but after this conflict escalated that much including a lot of non-constructive contributions, it would be worth to get a fresh overview of all the facts. —MisterSynergy (talk) 15:41, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Certainly. Glad you asked. They are: am:ሃብሃብ (should be same as en:watermelon, am:ቲማቲም (currently in correct place with en:Tomato) and am:አልመንድ (currently in correct place with en:Almond. There haven't been any other issues lately. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:47, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks.
  • There were some other amwiki articles discussed in this section (most can be spotted by Ctrl+F "am:" on this page). Do you and does anybody else feel that they are in correct place right now?
  • A larger amount of unspecified articles was also mentioned (e.g. “several hundred pages”, by Brya yesterday early). Do we have a dispute regarding them as well, or are they connected properly to everybodies opinion?
—MisterSynergy (talk) 16:08, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
There has been no active dispute anywhere else so far, they mentioned some other articles in the course of argument, but I have no issues with those and if they do I don't understand what the issues are. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:10, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
OK, the other two specifically mentioned were am:ሙዝ (Banana) and am:ዝሆን (elephant). He said the banana article is similar to the tomato article, but it is not similar at all. The translation is: "A banana is a type of fruit that comes from banana plant species." The situation with elephant is more confusing because English indeed has two separate topics about the same thing except the other one Elephantidae includes extinct mammoths. We will also eventually make an article for Elephantidae («የዝሆን አስተኔ») as well, but haven't yet. For now the translation ዝሆን corresponds with "Elephant" (not including mammoths). Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:38, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay thanks. @Brya, Succu: you can of course contribute here as well and add explain your position on the items in question. I am particularly interested in cases where you disagree with Til Eulenspiegel’s assignment plans; this involves at least am:ሃብሃብ and whether it fits to watermelon (Q38645). If there are items/articles which have not been listed here by Til Eulenspiegel or where you disagree with his opinion on specific cases or the current state, please comment them as well. However, please stick to the contents-side of the problem and discuss on a case-by-case level. Thanks. —MisterSynergy (talk) 16:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: I just created small articles for the family "Elephantidae" and genus "Musa" in Amharic so they cannot be confused with "Banana" or "Elephant". Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:04, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
I should reiterate that there is no such thing as a "list of articles every Wikipedia must have". And that the WMF does not require any page to be present on any Wikipedia. What does exist is List of articles every Wikipedia should have, which is carefully phrased and is aimed at encouraging offering useful information to the reader: "This list is intended as a guideline for those projects so that [these Wikipedias] will contain a minimum amount of basic, useful information." The WMF does not care if there is a page on these topics, but does care that "The articles should contain at least basic information on the topics they describe". Til Eulenspiegel's moving sitelinks to make it appear as if there is a page at amwiki, merely to fill a box, is totally at odds with what the WMF recommends. Such pages should be engaging (should look good): "This way, people will be encouraged to use these projects and help in their growth." BTW, the only page on this list that has been mentioned here is Elephant. The rest belong just on Til Eulenspiegel's personal list. - Brya (talk) 17:58, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
So your solution is still to edit war against these stubs linking to the clearly intended wikidata items because you deemed them inadequate in some way? We seem to be getting nowhere. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:18, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Til Eulenspiegel, you asked for mediation in this section; please refrain from writing such answers. —MisterSynergy (talk) 18:26, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Not only is he saying the stubs are inadequate, but they are still inadequate in some vague, unspecified way, what specifically does he feel they are lacking to link with the intended items without dispute? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
I do understand Brya’s comment and realize that there was no objection yet against your proposal. Brya does not need to be happy about your edit behavior and you do not need to be happy about Brya’s opinion about your work. But this is not the problem here. We discuss where to put your sitelinks to, and this can be solved much better if we avoid any kind of personal attacks, even if we really don’t like each other. —MisterSynergy (talk) 18:36, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Pointing out that there is no such thing as a "list of articles every Wikipedia must have" is relevant. It shows one of the point where Til Eulenspiegel's arguments do not match the facts. When he says "My argument has been made repeatedly and it is simple. "This is a list that Meta puts out that they tell the wikipedias to fulfill"... What is the need for further debate? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:25, 23 June 2017 (UTC)" he is making an appeal to authority, and it is false. The WMF wants to promote "useful information", while Til Eulenspiegel is pursuing a private agenda. - Brya (talk) 04:31, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
There were a lot o things confused during this entire dispute, and by far not all of them are problems we can solve at Wikidata. Til Eulenspiegel’s motivation to write articles is not a topic to be discussed at Wikidata, so please don’t make it one.
I am pretty sure that Til Eulenspiegel has learnt a lesson as well. If he desperately wants to assign a sitelink to/write an article for a specific item, he has to make sure that it is an exact match, not merely something which is somehow related. —MisterSynergy (talk) 05:38, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
What I have learned over my life (long before Wikipedia existed) is that certain people come after Amharic with a firebrand and a torch. We even have some of those here, believe it or not. I'm trying to get them to drop the firebrand and the torch and find something else to do, for their own sake. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 10:24, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
@MisterSynergy: I am addressing Til Eulenspiegel's edits at Wikidata only. - Brya (talk) 10:42, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
I have read both of your comments. There is no further discussion or input necessary here. —MisterSynergy (talk) 10:52, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. Til Eulenspiegel and amwiki can do whatever they want to do with those lists, and we do not judge this strategy or the quality of the outcome. Wikidata is obliged to host all sitelinks, we just need to figure out which item they belong to. Do you still see a problem with the assignment of the article in question, in its current state, as proposed by Til Eulenspiegel? —MisterSynergy (talk) 18:26, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
(ec) In my opinion am:ሃብሃብ is a duplicate of am:በጢሕ. --Succu (talk) 18:00, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
@Til Eulenspiegel: could you please comment? —MisterSynergy (talk) 18:26, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
ANy child should be able to see that በጢሕ is about Citrus lanatus which includes Citron melon cultivar as well as watermelon one. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Well Amharic has a lot of words meaning various types of categories of this like Inuit has words for snow. I guess I will have to make an article for the actual watermelon fruit itself at መሐሌ so we can have all three items. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:38, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
We are discussing the term "watermelon" and not about childs. Citing from a current research paper Watermelon origin solved with molecular phylogenetics including Linnaean material: another example of museomics (Q30530421): „the watermelon, called C. lanatus since the 1930s“. But of course you can have as many duplicate pages as you want. You are not alone with this. --Succu (talk) 18:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
(ec) To resolve taxonomic issues we should wait for: S. S. Renner, A. Sousa and G. Chomicki. Chromosome numbers, Egyptian colocynths, and classification of the watermelon genus Citrullus, with 60 names allocated to seven biological species. (to be published in Taxon (Q2003024)). --Succu (talk) 19:02, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Well that may solve it now, but I do not want to have to make separate articles for tomato fruit and almond nuts just so the other articles cant be wrongly linked there. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:00, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
BTW: The quality of "Google translate AI" has only gotten worse in the last month, it is good for a laugh but totally false on most pages. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:04, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
The term "watermelon" is an English term. It's meaning is irrelevant to the question of whether those two Amheric pages are duplicates. Amheric might have a word for taxon Citrullus lanatus, for the taxon Citrullus lanatus var. lanatus and a word for the fruit. The Amheric words might even not directly map to the words in the literature. ChristianKl (talk) 19:15, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Any referenced additions with taxon common name (P1843) are welcome. "watermelon" itself is an abigous term. --Succu (talk) 19:22, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
That would be very difficult to impossible in many cases. For example try finding any Amharic term for "citron melon" let alone a reference. It may not occur in Ethiopia, but we would have to have some article title, so we would probably just translate it directly as Yetringo duba, citron's melon. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:32, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
There is a Flora of Ethiopia and Eritrea which might be useful. --Succu (talk) 19:41, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Do you have access to that? I don't. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Try a library of your choice or in Addis Abeba. --Succu (talk) 19:53, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Looks hard to find and no guarantee it includes any Amharic terms I have not been able to find elsewhere. We also have a frequent contributor Dr. Molla who has written about Amharic taxonyms, and edits every day, on board to help us. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:58, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Maybe it could help to add these for other languages spoken in Ethiopia. --Succu (talk) 20:08, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Maybe, maybe not... I can't travel to the UK, France or Addis Ababa at the moment to check it out. And I don't speak any of those other languages so I am limited to what I can do for them anyway (Oroomifaa and Tigrinya are the only ones with 'pedias now) Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:10, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
I wasn't suggesting you should do. I was only pointing to a possible source of information in a broader sense. --Succu (talk) 20:13, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Succu could you please reflect a little on your own point of view. Your approach to taxonomy is limited and flawed when you use the arguments in this discussion on your taxonomic position. A taxonomic name is not at all singular in meaning, this is only the case when you assume a fixed position and insist on dismissing all history. You are aggressively pushing people that do not subscribe to your vision and you are aggressive at that. Please consider what you are achieving because it may become the opposite of what is arguably an appropriate approach for Wikipedia but this is Wikidata. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 20:51, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

How is this related to this mediation, GerardM? BTW; your are (again) wrong: I do not „assume a fixed position and insist on dismissing all history“. --Succu (talk) 20:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
I am happy with the status quo as of now, although I shouldn't have to make placeholders for 'tomato fruit' and 'almond nuts' just to stop him from moving our species article to those items any more. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:04, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Nice to see that it clears off meanwhile. If I see it correctly, this is a solution all others should be able to accept as well, right? Making “placeholders” should not be necessary, if your original article exactly fits to the item you are desperately targeting. —MisterSynergy (talk) 05:46, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Not happy

I am not happy. I am reading this situation as that admins are taking the position that amwiki is to be given preferential status; Til Eulenspiegel is given ample space to make the most outrageous accusations (it is only suggested that he tone it down a little, which he then ignores), even though he contradicts himself constantly. I don't see that there is room here to address the facts. - Brya (talk) 18:23, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
There is a concrete problem here, which I have described in a new section at the bottom of Talk:Q29401270. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:27, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't think amwiki is given any special status. If somebody of another Wiki would come to Wikidata and request that the articles of his Wiki get linked to specific items, I would also support that person in getting the links that they want. I personally have rearranged sitelinks concerning human anatomy multiple times and I don't fight people from individual Wiki's when they afterwards want to have their articles linked with different items. The position that decisions about what sitelinks are appropriate are best made by the people who speak the language isn't giving any individual language or Wiki a special status. ChristianKl (talk) 18:43, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Watermelons

Even if the word "watermelon" may not be the full 100.00% unequivocal, watermelon is a clear concept, it has its own Unicode character 🍉. By and large, it is clear that the taxon it derives from has been named Citrullus lanatus in the past and that this taxon will be named Citrullus lanatus in future. Both Citrullus lanatus and watermelon have their own item and both items have an enwiki sitelink. It is really not very complicated.

The one complicating factor is that the enwiki page for watermelon has a taxobox claiming it derives from Citrullus lanatus var. lanatus. This is in error, but it is nothing special to find errors in enwiki.

Til Eulenspiegel has made edits at amwiki (two separate pages) concerning Citrullus lanatus var. lanatus, and for these edits he is legally responsible (per the Terms of Use he agreed to). It would be normal to expect that he verified what he has made himself legally responsible for, in particular since what he ended up writing was already contested before he made those edits. - Brya (talk) 04:58, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

  • This is technically a different question than the original problem how to assign sitelinks to items. Succu has already raised concerns that there now might be two articles about the same entity at amwiki. As I understand, this is a matter of current research and maybe even of the interpretation of taxonomic principles. However, whether or not the articles will be merged is not relevant for Wikidata. There is a lot of (purposely or accidentally) duplicated content at Wikipedias and we are obliged to host all sitelinks, and we can deal with it in different ways.
  • We are not going to discuss Wikimedia’s Terms of Use here or anything related to them. If you want to have a discussion about this topic, please contact WMF, or open a topic at metawiki.
—MisterSynergy (talk) 06:04, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
I am beginning to think user:Brya has some psychological issues in connection with the Amharic language of Ethiopia. I thought perhaps we had now come to an arrangement that everyone could live with into the future. But now Brya is talking about "holding me legally responsible" for Amharic content on watermelon he cannot read, and for my stating that Meta indeed has a page entitled "List of articles every Wikipedia should have." Perhaps he would like to prosecute me for erroneously writing this here on one occasion as "must have" when the actual title Meta gave it is "should have"? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 10:17, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Right now I don’t see any wrongdoings by you at Wikidata, and as long as other users do not bring up new things, so you don’t worry about consequences. It is about time to finish this dispute.
  • Administrative warning: You are very close to big trouble if you start to speculate about “psychological issues” of other users. It is clearly sanctionable behavior, so do not do this at any time.
—MisterSynergy (talk) 10:29, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
It looks to me that, technically, this is the whole issue. Wikidata has an item on watermelons and this item should contain site-links to pages on watermelons. - Brya (talk) 10:38, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
If wikidata exists to serve and help Wikipedia, then I support wikidata. Perhaps in your mind it should exist to wield tyrannical authority over every other wiki and over every language spoken by man, and I say to hell with that idea. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 10:46, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Please have a look at amwiki sitelinks of watermelon (Q38645), Citrullus lanatus (Q17507129) and Citrullus lanatus var. lanatus (Q29401270). Aside from the potential identity of the latter ones, the amwiki sitelinks appear to be okay to me right now. Please note that Til Eulenspiegel has come up with a different solution and that he no longer insists to link am:ሃብሃብ to watermelon (Q38645). —MisterSynergy (talk) 10:47, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Note also that the titles of the last two articles would easily be modified "on complaint by any native speaker" which does not appear the case yet. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 10:54, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
The amwiki page now linked to watermelon is not substantially different from the page now linked to Citrullus lanatus var. lanatus. The fruit of Citrullus lanatus var. lanatus is not a watermelon. - Brya (talk) 10:59, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Oh, dear. Still issues with our Amharic content. If "the fruit of Citrullus lanatus var. lanatus is not a watermelon", pray tell, what is it then? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:02, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
I disagree. There is enough distinction made to see what these articles are about (via Google Translate). Whether it is fully correct is not a matter to be discussed here. —MisterSynergy (talk) 11:09, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Maybe if I added a disclaimer in English, for English readers, to the top of controversial articles, eg. "For English readers: This article is intended to be about the Watermelon fruit" ? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:12, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
This is not at all expected the Wikidata community, of course, so please don’t do this. Right now even Google Translate is able to show me the differences (in spite of all problems that come with automatic translations), which I guess is sufficient. —MisterSynergy (talk) 12:12, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
The A.I. seems to have gone haywire, I found one page where it translated the identical name about 15 different ways, and quite differently (and wrongly) each time it occurred. IMO reading some other wikipedias on Google Translate can be more entertaining that Uncyclopedia or the like, it has had me literally rotfl... but the AI is also incredibly deceptive and can easily lead to very wrong impressions about what it actually says. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:35, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
@MisterSynergy: I am sorry to hear you disagree with the facts. Out of curiosity: which page do judge to be about the watermelon and which about the unrelated topic of Citrullus lanatus var. lanatus? I absolutely cannot guess: there is even a hyperlink firmly connecting these supposedly 'unrelated' topics. I see no way to read this other than as one page about Citrullus lanatus var. lanatus and one page about the fruit of Citrullus lanatus var. lanatus. - Brya (talk) 13:31, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
OK, Hold on, I will provide a gratis authentic English translation of these 3 stubs for you since Google AI is incapable of doing so at the moment. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:33, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  1. am:ሃብሃብ: Habhab or Kerbush (Latin: Citrullus lanatus var. lanatus) is a plant found within Ethiopia and many other countries. It is a kind of [Bettih]. The fruit that comes from Habhab is moreover called [Mahale].
  2. am:በጢሕ: Bettih or Birchiqq (Latin: Citrullus Lanatus) is a species of plant found within Ethiopia and other countries. This species has two kinds that grow two types of fruit; and they are [Habhab] (Citrullus Lanatus var. Lanatus) or [Mahale] (the fruit), and [YeTringo duba] (Citrullus Lanatus var. Citroides). (But this YeTringo Duba is not a type of [Tringo], it is a type of [Duba] first found in Southern Africa).
  3. am:መሐሌ: Mahale is a kind of fruit that comes from the [Habhab] plant (Citrullus lanatus var. lanatus). This fruit moreover is called Habhab, or Kerbush.

Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:42, 24 June 2017 (UTC) Note also that the first two (Habhab and Bettih) were both created as stubs in 2011 by one of our admins Hgetnet, showing that they were intended as separate topics since 2011. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:15, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

  • What is there called Citrullus lanatus var. citroides is what enwiki treats as Citrullus caffer, although it should properly be called Citrullus amarus.
  • The watermelon is to be called Citrullus lanatus. By present day insights there should not be a Citrullus lanatus var. lanatus, but the present nomenclatural type of Citrullus lanatus var. lanatus belongs to the taxon that should be called Citrullus amarus. - Brya (talk) 15:19, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't know if any of the wikipedias reflect these present-day insights atm, but I can try to fix it if you tell me what specific Latin name to change what to, it is very confusing with nomenclatural disputes. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:29, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
@Brya: If you think that the official name should be Citrullus amarus, the issue has nothing primarily to do with Amheric. It could either mean that we need a Wikidata item for Citrullus amarus or that Citrullus lanatus var. lanatus should be renamed into Citrullus amarus. It would make more sense that you focus on creating the Wikidata items that should be there instead of fighting about amharic articles that you can't read. ChristianKl (talk) 15:58, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Citrullus amarus (Q30557566) --Succu (talk) 16:09, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Why did you just create that empty page a few moments ago? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:22, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Is it normal to make a bunch of empty pages for "botanical synonyms" ? Just asking Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:57, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
The items are not empty but missing sitelinks. I'm preparing the modeling of the forthcoming new taxon concept of Citrullus (Q132239). --Succu (talk) 17:27, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Let me know if it turns out watermelon and citron melon are not the same species, because currently all the wikipedias agree on this point. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:32, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Citrullus amarus seems best, although I guess I will go along with Citrullus caffer for the moment, pending the publication of the upcoming review. - Brya (talk) 17:14, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, this is totally okay. It should be clear that the item is about a clearly identifiable entity, which is the case if a (robust) external identifier is provided. As I already mentioned before, Wikidata is more than a Wikipedia sitelink provider, and here you see a part of Wikidata which is likely not (yet) visible in any Wikipedia. —MisterSynergy (talk) 17:16, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
In case of botanical synonyms, presumably you would want all the articles interlinked on one item, and the other item to remain empty of links...Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:26, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
If botanical synonyms are homotypic, the sitelinks should be together in the item of the correct name. However, sitelinks for heterotypic synonyms should be each in their proper item, with claims in "taxon synonym" and in "instance of: synonym of ...". Note that Wikipedia pages should be encouraged to include the well-known synonyms. - Brya (talk) 18:20, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Pity to see that there has been no progress at all here after all this effort. - Brya (talk) 16:34, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
The amwiki page has now been altered, showing, once again, that providing information in this kind of situations only makes things worse and leads to even more muddled pages. - Brya (talk) 16:45, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
It's in the nature of Wiki pages that they get altered. If you think that engaging with Wikipages in amwiki doesn't make anything better, it might be worthwhile to focus your efforts elsewhere instead of fighting over Wikipages in an unknown languages that's not decently translate by Google translate. ChristianKl (talk) 18:49, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Further continued problems with User:Brya

@Jasper Deng:

For all of you who were hoping this problem with User:Brya was finally resolved, I have bad news: It is not. This morning I awoke to find out User:Brya has just now opened up a new front, by messing with our article for Punica granatum (Q13188), (which clearly states in Latin alphabet it is about the topic "Punica granatum"); delinking it from there and relinking it to a duplicate "Junior B list item" with no access whatsoever to the English article. In short, the very same aggressive behavior that has provoked this plea for help; evidently User:Brya feels as a "trusted taxonomist" by other users here, he has carte blanche to do as he pleases with Amharic articles and no one can reasonably dissuade him from doing this, perhaps out of obstinacy, or infantile pleasure at creating problems. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 10:06, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@Brya: MisterSynergy asked you to comment if you disagree with how other items are linked to articles. It doesn't seem productive that you don't follow that suggestion but instead start editing them and add another edit war. ChristianKl (talk) 10:21, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
I did not see such a request, I may have missed it in this labyrintine mass of complaints. Was this a request to accord all amwiki pages a special status, and not to edit any of them no matter how wrong they are placed? Or just a request for me to quit Wikidata alltogether?
        Til Eulenspiegel appears to spend all his time and energy filling this page with outrageous complaints and very little progress seems to be made. - Brya (talk) 10:38, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
@Byra:I'm refering to " If there are items/articles which have not been listed here by Til Eulenspiegel or where you disagree with his opinion on specific cases or the current state, please comment them as well. However, please stick to the contents-side of the problem and discuss on a case-by-case level. Thanks" ChristianKl (talk) 12:44, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
What specifically makes you feel our article on Punica granatum is "misplaced" at Punica granatum (Q13188)? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 10:43, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Whats the difference between the removed and the one you added? MechQuester (talk) 12:12, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
It belongs at and only at Punica granatum (Q13188) and there is no justification to move it from there. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:24, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

You don't have freedom of speech on this site

stated by user:Jasper Deng to justify a block. Would other admins confirm this POV? I'm not aware WD has a restriction like this. --Succu (talk) 21:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I think our Wikidata-position on freedom of speech is similar to that on Wikipedia that's described in the essay that user:Jasper Deng linked. While we don't have formally formulated a policy for Wikidata, I don't see a good reason why Wikidata should have a different policy in this regard. ChristianKl (talk) 22:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
So you think we should have something like en:Wikipedia:Free speech as a policy here? --Succu (talk) 20:25, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

It's all for Wikipedia (Q52), Wikidata (Q2013), something else?

If for Wikipedia (Q52), then resource (Q1554231) (personal time, personal energy, etc.) are spent on the obsolete, antiquated, previous version (atavism (Q727055), vestigial structure (Q627214)) of knowledge base (Q593744). It is better leave the Wikipedia (Q52) alone and to make efforts to the next stage of the evolution of knowledge base (Q593744) - Wikidata (Q2013) --Fractaler (talk) 07:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Moving forward

Everyone needs to move on and not edit war anymore. MechQuester (talk) 01:46, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

 Support Hear, hear! Mahir256 (talk) 04:39, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
@MechQuester, Mahir256: Telling everyody to move on doesn't help ending the conflict because the conflict actually needs a resolution and an agreement about what to do with the interwiki links. ChristianKl (talk) 11:41, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
@ChristianKl:, I wanted everyone to stop fighting for the moment. Perhaps need a cooling down period before resolving issue. MechQuester (talk) 12:19, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Everyone should not edit war anymore, true. That should include Til Eulenspiegel, who seems to get zero blame in this shameful episode at Wikidata, while his way of communicating has evidently contributed to the hostilities. To start with the frame of the problem being "User:Brya" while in fact there is a discussion wether several wikipedia articles should be linked to fruit items or taxon items. Til Eulenspiegel moved discussion from content to user. Til Eulenspiegel has hence commenced the ad hominems here. Where two edit war, both are to blame. Where two (or three) fight each other with ad hominems, both are to blame. But most importantly, all should be taken back to the content: should those articles with hardly any taxonomy be added to taxon items? And IMHO WD:AN should not be the place to have that discussion. Lymantria (talk) 13:11, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
It defeats the purpose of having a Latin Taxon name used as an international standard, if the appearance of that Latin taxon name is not sufficient to vouch that it is indeed about that taxon, in the unusual case of non-speakers of a language who insist it is about something else. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:28, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree that all three (Byra/Succu/Til Eulenspiegel) engaged in unproductive ad hominems.
While you can argue that they contain little information about the taxon, those items also contain hardly any content about the fruit. They are stubs that contain little content.
I can sympathize with the feeling that this discussion shouldn't be on WD:AN but I currently don't see a good way to have that discussion in a conclusive way as long as we don't have an ArbCom equivalent. ChristianKl (talk) 13:53, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

... to WikiProject_Taxonomy#Flora_of_Ethiopia_and_Eritrea. --Succu (talk) 14:28, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps we should discuss the true basis for the distinction between these paired items, is "embarrassing stubs" vs. non-stubs and does not correspond to the biological taxon names appearing in the articles as much as to a perception. And I am sorry so many of these are stubs, I am certain that either Hgetnet or Ethiopic (Dr. Aberra Molla) or plenty of people could write more on these, but it is up to them, I am trying now myself to expand some of the over 100+ Ethiopian species articles Hgetnet created in 2011 from a now archived webpage of Dr. Aberra. At least I am learning much more than I ever imagined about the flora and fauna of Ethiopia. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:14, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
It's unrelated, but Aberra Molla probably wrotes the longes article about himself as am:ኣበራ ሞላ. And I learnt that your community (We vs. I) is very small. --Succu (talk) 20:35, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Dr. Aberra was just editing that page with his IP a few minutes ago. Can I ping his IP from this wiki, to the Ethiopian flora discussion where this belongs? I would love to see him take a major part in something besides that page! And his website was a source for many of the obscure species common names, some of which were still not identified with taxonyms. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:54, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Was ist ein Taxonym? --Succu (talk) 21:05, 25 June 2017 (UTC) PS: After a fast scrolling through the article the autor is refering to the more commonly used term taxon concept. --Succu (talk) 21:16, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Well, you know what I mean. There are still a few pages left originally created from his list such as am:ህየል that I was not able to get any specific taxon for. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:13, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
This is the wrong page for such question, but depends on the difference between am:ጡት አጥቢ and am:ህየል (as every child...) --Succu (talk) 21:25, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
The first means mammal, and the second is some type of goat or antelope but I'm not sure what to do with it not knowing the taxonymy... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:28, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Once again please discuss this elsewhere: goat is am:ፍየል and antilope is antelope (Q25894). If you are not sure delete the article. --Succu (talk) 21:52, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
The vast majority of literature that contains a taxon name is not about that taxon. A taxon name is a label to refer to a taxon, and it may be used in all kinds of manners. Compare: does all the literature that uses the word "gold" is about gold?
        I don't see that we have yet touched upon the flora and fauna of Ethiopia; we have been dealing with fruits that are known globally, by hundreds of millions of people. - Brya (talk) 16:32, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

This problem has not gone anywhere since last May

All admins here should note that the root problem has not resolved itself here one iota, namely, that User:Brya apparently feel his "prestige" and "authority" at WikiData is so great that he somehow "acquires" the "right" to make havoc for the Amharic project. This has been his main occupation here since May. Our article for Watermelon am:ሃብሃብ has now been reassigned by User:Brya to sit in isolation, which is precisely the opposite of what I have been trying to achieve. He did similar with sco:Wattermelon as he does not seem to think it "merits" linking with other articles on Watermelon. I am even afraid to revert him now because he seems to enjoy the authority of a 300 pound gorilla around here over languages he does not speak. He has even gone so far as to suggest that he "cannot be happy" here unless he gets to throw his weight around, yet he is still tolerated here. And of course his defense so far is to respond with counter accusations as if I am the wrong doer for trying to have Amharic articles linked. Do people higher up in Wikimedia need to know about the very backward situation being tolerated here by coddling User:Brya, because as you know I have already informed the African Wikimedia project and User:Bryya still insists on some kind of priority for his actions of obstruction. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 06:55, 2 July 2017 (UTC)..

Ad hominems as these will not help. I have blocked Til Eulenspiegel for 24 hours. Lymantria (talk) 07:22, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
User has requested to unblocked on his user talk page, accompanied by some less diplomatic wordings. Perhaps another admin can look into it. Lymantria (talk) 07:59, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
I considered a 24h block of User:Til Eulenspiegel for the comment in this section as well, but you were quicker while I still investigated the situation. Needless to say that I support this block. Now after the unacceptable comments on their talk page after the 24h block was issued, I do not see any possibility not to block them indefinitely. —MisterSynergy (talk) 08:07, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
@MisterSynergy, Lymantria: I have declined the unblock request, disabled their talk page access, and extended the block to 3 days. An indefinite block is not warranted here yet in my opinion.
Note to @Brya, Succu: this does not in any way constitute an endorsement by the admins of either side of this dispute. The block is purely to prevent the disruption arising from his personal attacks (the same applied to your own respective blocks). Please, debate only the content, not any editor's motives. --Jasper Deng (talk) 08:19, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
The matter of the amwiki page on Citrullus lanatus var. vulgaris seems straightforward: Til Eulenspiegel has chosen to use this scientific name in that page. As it is at least possible to use this as the correct name for the taxon that produces watermelon (I am not sure how often it is used, but it certainly has been used by some authorities), this is an improvement over the earlier chosen Citrullus lanatus var. lanatus, which produces a different fruit. So I put the amwiki page on Citrullus lanatus var. vulgaris in an item on Citrullus lanatus var. vulgaris. A one-to-one relationship.
        The matter of the scowiki page on Citrullus lanatus var. lanatus is similar. There is (or can be) a South African taxon named Citrullus lanatus var. lanatus, and pretty much by definition it produces a different fruit (the "citron melon" or "Tsamma melon"). So I put the scowiki page on Citrullus lanatus var. lanatus in an item on Citrullus lanatus var. lanatus. A one-to-one relationship.
        As pointed out above, "Wikidata is much more than a simple interwiki link provider for Wikipedias. We are hosting all sitelinks that the connected projects deliver, but there is no right to put them to arbitrary items where they don’t fit in. From the sitelink perspective it is in fact a main goal of Wikidata to resolve the former messy “everything-links-to-everything” situation and establish a clean 1:1 mapping of interwiki links."
        As regards fruits (and other vegetable products), some fruits are much more notable than the plants they derive from. There are many times more people (hundreds of times more?) who are familiar with, say apples, bananas, watermelons, tomatoes than there are people who know the species involved. So, speaking in general, it is more likely that a Wikipedia page will be written about such a fruit than there is to be a page on the species. Obviously this is not true of all fruits, any fruit not mass-marketed will be known mostly by the people who also know the species. There is a clear distinction between the two categories, but there is no black-and-white demarcation.
        The trouble is that the way enwiki deals with this is not quite sensible. The rational way to deal with this would be to have two (or three) separate enwiki pages. In some cases, enwiki indeed does this (for example rice, banana, orange have separate pages for fruit and species), but for others this has yet to happen. In the meantime, there are very long enwiki pages, that are difficult to place as to main topic (perhaps it is best to just place them all in the item of the fruit). Anyway, my point of view is that we should adopt a policy that allows for future growth and future sensibility. - Brya (talk) 09:40, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
FYI: note this. - Brya (talk) 10:03, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive/2017/05&oldid=1102548475"