Open main menu

User talk:Andreasmperu

On this page, old discussions are archived. An overview of all archives can be found at this page's archive index. The current archive is located at 2018.

Contents

your [reverts] hinder work on Q19827042 and Q46311Edit

Articles for "Bow", "Bow (weapon)", "Bow and arrow" and "arrow thrower" in different languages are used inconsistently. It seems 82 languages have one article, 6 has two. 18 of the 88 are together with the English "en:Bow and arrow" at Q19827042, while 76 are together with German de:Bogen (Waffe), French fr:Arc (arme) and Chinese zh:弓 at Q46311. "Bow (Disambiguation)" comes separately in addition. Of the 18 it seems these 6 languages are the ones with an article in each of Q19827042 and Q46311:

ja:弓矢 and ja:弓 (武器)
ko:궁시 and ko:활
pt:Arco e flecha and pt:Arco (arma)
so:Leeb iyo qaanso and so:Qaanso
su:Gondéwa and su:Panah
ta:வில் - அம்பு and ta:வில்

I tried to simplify by [merging the remaining 12 without conflict from Q19827042 to Q46311] but was [reverted] immediately:

bn:তীর-ধনুক
cy:Bwa saeth
en:Bow and arrow
es:Arco y flecha
gd:Bogha is saighead
he:חץ וקשת
jam:Bou ah haro
mn:Нум (Зэвсэг)
nn:Pil og boge
sd:تير ۽ ڪمان
sr:Лук и стрела
su:Panah

I think these 12 should be merged from Q19827042 into Q46311 so navigation for "Bow", "Bow (weapon)", "Bow and arrow" between languages is not hindered unnecessarily. The remaining 6 should be decided by wikipedians in the respective languages.

Your actions to revert these edits are not helping. Could you please help not hinder?Cobanyastigi (talk) 18:54, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Please read WD:M. The first step in the merging process should be to check if both items deal about the same concept, which is not the case here. You have already noted different sitelinks for the two items, but also both items are linked through the properties P527 and P361 (bow and arrow (Q19827042) has part (P527) bow (Q46311) and arrow (Q45922). So you need to stop. A merge is not possible in this case because the two items deal about two different things. Andreasm háblame / just talk to me 19:12, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
If you consider those 2 properties more important than the content, then every language has to have at least 3 pages (bow, arrow, bow&arrow). Many pages are obviously (guessing from number of words / parantheses in page name) misplaced sv:Pilbåge, mr:धनुष्य व बाण, ka:მშვილდ-ისარი, nds_nl:Pieleboge in bow (Q46311), and nn:Pil og boge in bow and arrow (Q19827042). Cobanyastigi (talk) 16:31, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Q4650799Edit

Hello, regarding the sitelinks at Q4650799. These articles are not about the topic described in the data object. nn:Audioteknologi is mereley a redirect, so that really should disappear, I think. no:Audioteknologi is related to this topic more than Q4650799, but there is already an article in place there. I guess that wrong interwiki can stay. --Ranveig (talk) 15:16, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

If a sitelink does not belong in one item, it should be moved to another item or a new item needs to be created to include it. In any case, do not delete any sitelinks. Andreasm háblame / just talk to me 00:36, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

EditsEdit

Hi My edits are constructive. The articles of FDSN and PDSR have been merged into PSD in Romanian WP. And PD merged into PDL. So there are no reason do have a redirection in interwiki. It is not usual to keep the redirections in WD. --Panam2014 (talk) 19:09, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Could you please respond to me? Regards. --Panam2014 (talk) 00:11, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
If a sitelink does not belong in one item, it can be moved to another item or a new item needs to be created to include it. In any case, do not delete any sitelinks. There is no need to delete redirects either. Andreasm háblame / just talk to me 00:33, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Redirects are often removed after a merge. Such an issue deserves debate. For me since it does not refer to the article that the reader asks, this is problematic.--Panam2014 (talk) 20:58, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Women's right activist, feminist, women's rights movement/feminist movementEdit

Hello Andreasmperu, I noticed your recents changes on these items. I cannot unerstand why some were to be merged (movements) when some activists are supposed to be differents : féministe (Q34074720)- only one link in Japanese, and women's rights activist (Q28692502). We began a talk there : Talk:Q34074720. Please feel free to comment other there. Cheers. --Pa2chant. (talk) 06:42, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Profession for professors?Edit

Hi, I'm getting in touch about your revert here. There are 10386 entities using professor (Q121594) as a profession (as an object for occupation (P106)), all of which triggers a constraint violation. (The point of my edit was to solve these.) If professor (Q121594) is not a profession, do you have a suggestion for which entity should be used instead in these cases? Many thanks! --A3nm (talk) 00:03, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Mostly university teacher (Q1622272), but in case of doubt teacher (Q37226) is more general. Andreasm háblame / just talk to me 00:35, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

?Edit

Hello. What exactly is going on here?

This is *exactly* the same concept. Please be more careful while reverting.

Also, I have seen you undoing my edits (on another IP) and then redoing them one by one. What's the point of that? 2A01:11BF:610:8B00:78EA:4EF7:46EA:2932 00:22, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Undo revision 208035596Edit

Hi,

I don't understand why you have removed the french category? It's the only one which match with the english one. Any Templar member article will be in this category on fr.wikipedia.com. Kind regards Edouard-rainaut (talk) 03:40, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

YellowEdit

I moved chemical identifiers that were inappropriately attached to Q943, which is an item describing a color, not a chemical compound. The chemical identifiers are specific to the chemical compound Q60601214, where I have moved them. Why are you reverting this correction? Edgar181 (talk) 15:05, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Can you please reply? Thank you. Edgar181 (talk) 15:27, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Suffragette - Please read the articles. This is a general item to cover all activist whereas the other is specific to the UKEdit

Hi! I read the article but not you. The English w:en:Sufragette is the lemma, but the description starts with "The suffragettes ..." Suffragettes is a group of women to WSPU, but a suffragette is a part of suffragettes, one woman of suffragettes. Doc Taxon (talk) 22:20, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I am not understanding you. I have read the article in several languages not just in English, and “suffragette” refers to women who were members of the WSPU, so “suffragette” is an occupation whereas WSPU is the group/organisation. As for sufragist, it’s the general occupation encompassing “sufragette” but not limited to the UK. Andreasm háblame / just talk to me 22:26, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
no, I know the subject very good because I have very much to do with it. "Suffragette" is one woman of "suffragettes", a group of this women. And there exist no other suffragettes than organized in the WSPU. Suffragette (one woman) -> suffragettes (group of women) -> members of WSPU. And every suffragette is a suffragist, but not every suffragist a suffragette. Doc Taxon (talk) 22:31, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Let me clean up the wikidata items and read the results. Doc Taxon (talk) 22:33, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Suffragette - occupationEdit

Yes, sorry about that. I had a complete blank when trying to come up with a better P31. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:53, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Chinese LiteratureEdit

I understood that you don't want the link to the disambigue, I understood that you don't want to turn the disambigue into an article, but the fact is you can't link the item "Chinese literature" to the Italian article "Classical Chinese literature", it doesn't make any sense. --Emanuele676 (talk) 01:55, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you already said it, first you edit it.wiki and then wikidata, it doesn't make much sense to discuss the union on wikidata right now, that's why I'm asking you another question, I ask you, why Chinese literature is related to the Italian voice Classical Chinese literature? And why not to the article on Modern Chinese Literature? --Emanuele676 (talk) 02:05, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm waiting for an update since in the end you have not answered and it is better that I do not put my hand on wikidata --Emanuele676 (talk) 17:49, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Merging Q1751685 & Q12041947 - could you please help me?Edit

Andreas, could you please merge these two for me, the international article with the Czech-only equivalent. I do not know how to. Czech Petr Košvanec wikipedist. Thank you. --Szozdakosvi (talk) 19:42, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I checked both items, and they do not seem to deal about exactly the same subject, which is a requirement to merge items. solution set (Q1751685) has the desccription "set of values that satisfy a given set of equations or inequalities", whereas Q12041947 (I get the translation "field of truth") seems to be about a set of values for which an statement is true. So at present, the items seem to differ, so I have linked both of them with the property said to be the same as (P460) until the issue is clarified. Andreasm háblame / just talk to me 01:08, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

historien (Q201788)Edit

Hello,

I just saw your revert but WP is not a reference for WP. You should reverter yourself.

Cheers. --- Alaspada (Talk) 14:32, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

profession vs. positionEdit

Salve M. Peru,

Professor not profession(al) ? Elaborate per favore, #tia (i.e. thanks in advance) In general you admins love your extra revert button and tend to abuse this and other buttons too many times. You are luckily not like that, but many do not even motivate their decision to undo the work of "normal" (IMNSHO they do not exist) editors. Klaas `Z4␟` V:  09:15, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Are you taking the piss? That won’t take you far on a collaborative project. If you checked the items, profession (Q28640) is an occupation (Q12737077) that requires specialised training (i.e. a plumber (Q252924) or an astrophysicist (Q752129)), whereas a position (Q4164871) is an office with a set of powers and responsibilities. For instance, the President of the United States (Q11696) is a position that is an elected office (Q17279032), so appointed through an election, and as such it’s not a profession. Andreasm háblame / just talk to me 14:02, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Antonymy/antonym, synonymy/synonym, paronymy/paronymEdit

Hello Andreasmperu,

I just saw that you reverted my merges on antonymy/antonym, synonymy/synonym, paronymy/paronym. I well understand the semantic difference, the first items being properties and the second items being instances of words (or rather word pairs) that display this property. However, for the purpose of linking Wikipedias articles together, this split is harmful because it keeps separate articles that deal with the same subject but happen to have been entitled differently by the various language editions. In all those cases, the English articles are named after the instances and the French ones after the property, but the pairs obviously deal in every case with the same linguistic feature. My merge was cause by my surprise from the small number of inetwrikis on the French articles... until I saw that in every case most Wikipedias had named their articles after the instance rather than the property.

This is very like separating friendship/friend, childhood/child, catholicism/catholic, blindness/blind, hybridity/hybrid, etc. On a strict semantic basis, the difference is obvious ; but for the purpose of writing and linking encyclopedia articles, having two articles makes little sense beyond disruptive oversplitting. How should such situations be handled, then ? Since this is a general issue, it is likely to have been discussed elsewhere before. Could you please point me where?

Thanks, Aucassin (talk) 07:18, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

It might make little sense to you, but you should have asked for more opinions, specially when many editors took the time to edit those items adding labels, descriptions, and statements, and you just delete them to force your point of view. Merges should only happen when two items deal about the same concept, which is clearly not the case here, so please do not perform any merge like that in the future. If you only care about the sitelinks, there are at least two options here. Andreasm háblame / just talk to me 12:59, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
@Aucassin: this is indeed the interwiki problem. But your type of solution (merge) has been rejected long time ago. Other solutions were proposed (but none is chosen as the most correct): use of redirects, use of special templates for creating fictitious interwikis, move of all sitelinks to one item (this is the most incorrect in my opinion)... --Infovarius (talk) 19:35, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Baltic FinnsEdit

Hi. The article for Baltic Finns at Wikipedia is titled Finnic peoples. Shouldn't the title on Wikidata correspond to that of Wikipedia? Krakkos (talk) 22:23, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Have you seen this item: Finnic peoples (Q2367703)? Please do not move sitelinks unless you have checked each article in the corresponding Wikipedia. Andreasm háblame / just talk to me 22:35, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
When i changed the sitelinks at Baltic Finns (Q3745748),[1] Finnic peoples (Q2367703) had not been labeled yet.[2] There are still plenty of articles currently contained at Baltic Finns (Q3745748) which actually belong at Finnic peoples (Q2367703). I'd like to fix that. Krakkos (talk) 23:26, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Doctor of Sciences in Physics and Mathematics (Q17281097)Edit

re: reverted editsEdit

Hi, thanks for reaching out to me. In the edits you reverted, I was primarily attempting to correct changes that had been added by a now-banned user, User:D1ggg. The Q173799/entertainment item ref was to http://faculty.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/faculty/bjmccowan/Pubs/McCowanetal.JCP.2000.pdf, a broken link that seems to have little relevance to the topic of entertainment. The P279 values were resulting in items regarding behavior performed only by humans showing up as a first or second-level subclass of 'animal behavior,' and not as a subclass of 'human behavior.' With 'animal behavior' being a subclass of 'biological process' and not 'behavior' (which is not a subclass of 'biological process'), it becomes problematic for accurately reflecting things only humans do.

In addition, my understanding was that P31 refers to unique entities, and that with items where P279 is the same as or a subclass of P31, this constraint isn't satisfied. Since "animal behavior" is a subclass of "biological process," it seems like any subclass of animal behavior cannot be a single instance of biological process. Should preserving references take priority over this?

I merged Q22294901 because it appeared to be a bot-generated item with no clearly meaningful distinction from Q2916569 and no sitelinks. I can certainly report similar instances as possible Interwiki conflicts instead, if that would be better. --ASchedulingError (talk) 01:35, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Please always check the references too, and do not delete them unless they are clearly wrong, which it’s unlikely the case when a bot has added them. A merge should only take place if the item deals about the same concept or entity, so if there is a discrepancy on labels, descriptions or statements, it’s best not to merge. In case of doubt, both items can be linked through said to be the same as (P460), so other users could get the chance to clarify the issue. Andreasm háblame / just talk to me 01:46, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Some of your edits regarding CatholicismEdit

Hi, the statement for Umberto Eco seems to support that he left Catholicism. It states that he "stopped believing in God". Perhaps you skimmed with a search merely of the search query "Catholic"? As for Wolfgang Pauli, it seems to be clearly stated far down the page of the reference. - 108.71.133.201 21:55, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Q28640Edit

Hello. The definition given by the article en:Profession is very different from the definitions given by most of the other articles linked to this item. For example in French fr:Profession means any job. It can be better translated in English by occupation (see [3]). The article fr:Profession libérale has actually the same subject as en:Profession (the English article reads: "The term is a truncation of the term "liberal profession", which is, in turn, an Anglicization of the French term "profession libérale"). So these 2 articles should be linked with the same item. It is quite difficult to sort the articles in all the other languages, but it seems that the subject of most of the articles linked to Q28640 is "occupation" in a general meaning, not the restricted meaning given in en:Profession ("an occupation founded upon specialized educational training, the purpose of which is to supply disinterested objective counsel and service to others, for a direct and definite compensation, wholly apart from expectation of other business gain"). So I think my edit was correct. BrightRaven (talk) 16:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q2250795&oldid=prev&diff=859337737Edit

Hi, I was wondering why the edit was reverted? At least in german, there are multiple kinds of school graduation certificate like Abitur, Fachhochschulreife, ... so isn't school graduation certificate really a class -> subclass of should make more sense? https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q2250795 is an instance of this item, which currently leads to a constraint violation.

colorist" - Q1111648Edit

Hi there! Regarding your revert (https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q1111648&curid=1058893&diff=859316147&oldid=859280434): It was not my intention to "force" a merge, just rather to try and clean it up a little bit. The German description now covers Comics, Film and, Textile and "Other media", while the English and Portuguese articles deal with "black-and white line art", much like the French comics colorist. The Italian article only covers comics. The Latvian Wiki-article mostly cover colorist painters. I'll stay out of it, but I still think this could benefit from some cleaning up. Moebeus (talk) 11:01, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Shenasnameh (Iran)Edit

Hi there, sorry if I disturbed you tonight with my modifications. Please have a look at what I wrote in discussion parts or these pages to understand what I was trying to do : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion:Shenasnameh and https://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%A8%D8%AD%D8%AB:%D8%B4%D9%86%D8%A7%D8%B3%D9%86%D8%A7%D9%85%D9%87 --Thatoo (talk) 01:05, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Wolfgang PauliEdit

Hi; the English Wikipedia article states that Wolfgang Pauli was considered a deist and a mystic, with two supporting book references. - 2600:1702:31B0:9CE0:D952:D82:3DF6:CC91 20:15, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

redoing thisEdit

Hi. What's the point of undoing edits and then redoing them? This is the second time I recall this happening with my contributions here. 2A01:11BF:610:8B00:E471:C33E:1096:CDBD 00:00, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

QuestionEdit

Hello, Those edits were made as the link with the Slovenian category was not accurate. There are two categories Fashion designer and each linked to different pages. Or perhaps I have made an error. I apologize. --Malojojo (talk) 18:10, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikidata:WikiProject BooksEdit

Please see Wikidata:WikiProject Books/Works.

Note also "novel" is a subclass of fiction literature (Q38072107), which is a subclass of literary work (Q7725634). --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:16, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I am familiar with all the discussion in WikiProject Books. Just in that page: Types of works may also be <instance of> genre (Q483394) or one of its subclasses, but should not be <subclass of> a genre.We have genre (P136) :Not clear enough? Please stop trying to impose your point of view. Andreasm háblame / just talk to me 23:21, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
It's not my point of view. I did not create Wikidata:WikiProject Books/Works, nor did I create the FABiO tree, nor did I set up the subclasses. I am following the standards established by consensus here and by consensus in the FRBR-aligned Bibliographic Ontology. Sorry that you are so out of date. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:59, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Compuesta deEdit

Hola:

Has revertido una edición que hice en la propiedad compuesto de. Lo que hice fue sustituir ese nombre por compuesto por y quitar algunos alias porque son incorrectos en castellano. Me he basado para ello en artículos del Diccionario Panhispánico de Dudas como este o este otro. El artículo sobre componer puede parecer equívoco, pero fíjate en que dice que las construcciones correctas son se compone de (pronominal) o está compuesto por (no pronominal); en este caso, la construcción no es pronominal, así que debemos usar compuesto por, como aclara mejor este artículo de la Fundéu.

Un saludo.--Gorpik (talk) 11:09, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Carlos GardelEdit

Hola, qué tal? Hablemos en español, no es amenazando como se trata a los wikipedistas, estás cambiando cosas que ya estaban establecidas hace tiempo. Por favor, no hagas eso, fijate por favor en la discusión del artículo todas las veces que se ha discutido este tema . No se hace lo de last warning, agregaré Uruguay como nacionalidad ya que sigue siendo algo que se discute. Desde Uruguay, siempre presumiendo buena fé, saludos--Miacara76 (talk) 21:58, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

abstract art (Q128115)Edit

Hello Andreasmperu,

Many descriptions in identifiers of the page say it is art movement (Q968159), only Art & Architecture Thesaurus (Q611299) labels it as genre. Many wikiprojects describe the same way. Why should we keep it as genre. - Kareyac (talk) 11:03, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

You already have the answer: because there’s at least one valid reference that mentions it like that. Andreasm háblame / just talk to me 01:08, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
OK, thus I can add art movement (Q968159). Thank you for the answer. - Kareyac (talk) 19:20, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Karina delfino mussa Q62043047Edit

Estimada porque elimino la información que agregue.

Estoy participando de un curso de web semántica en un magister y como trabajo nos solicitaron poblar wikidata con políticos chilenos, el cual yo elegí a una que conozco, cuál es la razón de eliminar esto?


Deberé hacer el trabajo nuevamente, agradeceré que no elimine la información sin alguna razon clara.

Saludos.

Dr. KippingEdit

¡Hola!

Hay 2 artículos dedicados al astrónomo David Kipping:

https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q56120124

https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q56486516

Soleil222 (talk) 16:45, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Gracias por unificar los artículos. Soleil222 (talk) 17:15, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Not a subclass?Edit

How is Q4536543 not a subclass here? Please clarify. "Standard English" as defined here is not a specific variety of English, but rather the name different standard variants go by (the Wikipedia article speaks of "a standard English" and "standard Englishes"), and English is a pluricentic language. 89.249.242.96 23:02, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

regiolect vs interdialectEdit

Hello. You seem completely confused about what you're doing. The merge was correct -- "interdialekt", "nadnářečí" and "regiolekt" refer to the same linguistic phenomena, i.e. "intermediate form between a regional dialect and the standard language, combining features of many local dialects and having a greater geographic spread". What makes you think they should be split? The sources I have explicitly use these terms as synonyms; you can verify this on Polish Wikipedia. Nama.Asal (talk) 00:52, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

And no, "regional dialect" is not equivalent to this particular sense of "regiolect". "regiolect" here refers to a specific kind of regionally-determined varieties, while "regional dialect" simply means "dialect that is determined regionally (and not socially)". While I believe you're acting in good faith, you're causing a lot of disruption. You seem to be completely unfamiliar with linguistic terminology. Please stop. Nama.Asal (talk) 00:57, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
"regionalect" is also not equivalent to that sense of "regiolect" -- it simply means "regional language variety" and it's mostly used in reference to the different forms of Chinese. Nama.Asal (talk) 00:59, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
In order to merge items in Wikidata, both of them should deal about exactly the same subject. I checked both the Czech and the Slovak Wikipedia articles, and they deal about a different concept than the German and Dutch articles, so they should remain separate. Concepts are the important thing in Wikidata, naming such concepts might coincide or vary from language to language. It would help to know what language you are familiar with. Andreasm háblame / just talk to me 01:04, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
No, they don't. You obviously don't speak or understand these languages. The Czech article defines "interdialects" as varieties that "arise by wiping out the dialectal differences between several close vernaculars, while strengthening their (in a larger region) common features, and by penetrating the standard language into traditional dialects", while the German article says that regiolects are varieties that "distinguish themselves by using substrate from different dialects spoken in a particular region", which usually also preserve certain features of the standard language. Nama.Asal (talk) 01:13, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Ok, you seem unfamiliar with how things work in Wikidata, and worse than that it seems like you are unwilling to learn, turning to personal attacks instead. Just please stop renaming items (like in geolect (Q3123468) where there was only two Wikipedia articles to check), same goes for merging items: if two items are close, but not quite the same, they should not be merged. Andreasm háblame / just talk to me 01:20, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
The items seem quite the same to me, it is just you who's claiming otherwise. Sorry, I didn't mean to sound harsh, but you do not seem to understand what the Czech article covers. Nama.Asal (talk)
--As for Q3123468 (geolect), you're stuck with the wrong idea that, say, "dialek regional" and "dialek geografis" refer to different things. No, they don't; these are normally treated as synonymous. "regional dialects" and "regiolects/interdialects" are two different concepts. But I'm not gonna insist on keeping these synonyms. Nama.Asal (talk)-- 01:29, 2 May 2019 (UTC) -- after rethinking the matter, I can conclude there's a sense in which "geographic dialect" is hypernymous to "regional dialect". So never mind for this part. You got a point there.
In fr:Géolecte, there is a distinction made between regiolect (Q455374) and topolect (Q3532103), which are considered to be subclasses of geolect (Q3123468). So unless there are references that contradict such distinction, it should stay like that. That is the reason of my insistence on checking the Wikipedia articles included. Andreasm háblame / just talk to me 01:46, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
The distinction you've brought up is definitely not made consistently in linguistic literature ("topolect" has a different sense in certain contexts, see here, also: Regiolekt), it depends on the terminological conventions you decide to follow -- but I do admit you have a point here. My only problem at this point is the separation of interdialects and regiolects. Perhaps if I have some free time, I'll try to expand the Czech and Slovak articles and make their wordings more in line with Polish so that you don't have any more doubts. Nama.Asal (talk) 01:52, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

superfluous (Q21262209) and Q29907014Edit

What do you see as the difference between these two items? (Other than one being an adjective and the other a noun; as far as I know, we don't generally maintain separate items for the same concept based just on part of speech.) Swpb (talk) 13:33, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Even ignoring the fact that one refers to an adjective and the other one to a noun (which already mean they are not the same thing), two items need to refer to exactly the same concept in order to be merged. However, the meaning of superfluousness does not equal the meaning of redundancy. Both refer to abundance or excess in general, but the latter could also imply repetition of the same thing (like words). So both items refer to different categories, and they don’t share the exact meaning either, so they shouldn’t be merged. Andreasm háblame / just talk to me 16:25, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure your stance on adjective vs. noun form goes against the norm, and I've opened an RfC to clarify. I'm not convinced by the other half of your argument either. Something "superfluous" can represent more of the same just as easily as something "redundant"; I believe they are as nearly perfect synonyms as you can get. If I asked a large group of people to explain the difference, I very much doubt I'd get a strong consensus for the one you suggest. (To test that, I will ask you not to mention what you see as the difference in the RfC, to see if other people identify the same one independently.) IMO, if there is any difference at all, it is far too subtle and variable between speakers even of the same language to be of value here, to say nothing of trying to map a distinction across different languages. Swpb (talk) 19:39, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Did you read this part in WD:RFC? “You are more than welcome to open a new RFC process to get opinions over a topic, but that should be done after a long discussion via the other channels.” Also, it is not advisable to change the meaning of items, but if you absolutely must do so, please take the time to change all labels and descriptions (not just the ones in English), as well as checking the current use of the item and all the sitelinks. Otherwise, you would be creating a mess, like in deficiency (Q2184645) where the Dutch description hasn’t been updated after you removed the nl sitelink or this adding the wrong item as a statement because it wasn’t correctly labelled/described. Andreasm háblame / just talk to me 19:57, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
There are exactly two of us. We could talk at each other forever and get nowhere. Clearly, it's time for more editors. Swpb (talk) 21:27, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

LawEdit

You reverted my change to make law (Q7748) exclusive about the concept of law. We already have two items about the science of law jurisprudence (Q4932206) and legal science (Q382995). Why a third one? We nee also an item for the concept of law, All the external identifiers refer to the concept of law, and not to the science of law. I need an item with the concept of law, to relate copyright to for adding copyright structure in wikidata. Also we need to have an item for jurisprudence (Q4932206) to connect via studies (P2578) --Hannolans (talk) 20:57, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

We also have rights (Q780687). I am lost. It seems a bit messy to me. Suggestions how can clean this? --Hannolans (talk) 21:24, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
All structural changes to heavily used items should be discussed first. Why don’t you first try asking for opinions/advice on the Project Chat? Andreasm háblame / just talk to me 21:50, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

reverts on Q1140140Edit

Hello, why were the 2 recent edits on Q1140140 reverted? They are clearly the same thing in those other languages (Spanish and Portuguese). May I revert them back?179.159.56.84 05:02, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Andreasmperu".