User talk:Andreasmperu/2019

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.

your [reverts] hinder work on Q19827042 and Q46311

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(s) (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)

Q4650799

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)

Edits

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 movement

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?

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)

?

Hello. What exactly is going on here?

• #1
• #2

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 208035596

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)

Yellow

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 UK

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 - occupation

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 Literature

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?

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)

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. position

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 elective 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/paronym

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 Finns

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)

Hola, considero incorrecto el cambio, pongo ejemplos:

• Vladímir Bogachev, doctor de Ciencias Físicas y Matemáticas y profesor de la Universidad Estatal de Moscú ...
• ... se incorporó a la Facultad de Física de la Universidad Estatal de Moscú y en 1942 concluyó sus estudios universitarios con un grado de Doctor en Ciencias Físicas y Matemáticas ...
• Es graduado de la Facultad de Ciencias Físicas y Matemáticas de la MGU (la Universidad Estatal de Moscú) que lleva el nombre de M.V. Lomonosov. La especialidad de “Matemáticas”.
• o un currículum de un peruano

Hay muchos ejemplos. En la Universidad Estatal de Moscú, el doctorado es "ciencias Físicas y Matemáticas"

Saludos, Tiberius1701 (talk) 02:16, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

re: reverted edits

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 Catholicism

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)

Q28640

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=859337737

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" - Q1111648

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)

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 Pauli

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 this

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)

Question

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 Books

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 de

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 Gardel

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)

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 Q62043047

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. Kipping

¡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?

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 interdialect

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)

excess (Q21262209) and excess (Q29907014)

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)

Law

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 is the study of (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 Q1140140

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)

Q959790 et film criminel

Bonjour (comme vous comprenez le français il m'est plus aisé de m'expliquer dans cette langue)

La propriété Q959790, correspond à l'article de W:Crime film qui correspond en français au genre w:fr:film criminel et non pas w:fr:Film policier. Il est donc naturel de corriger une incohérence entre des versions de Wikipédia qui ne traitent pas du même sujet. En effet le film policier (police film en anglais Q2101714) n'est pas similaire à crime film qui est un genre plus large. Tout comme w:Horor film correspond à w:fr:film d'horreur, il est logique de corriger cette incohérence. Comment faire cette correction de film policier vers Q2101714 et non vers Q959790 ? Merci de votre réponse (si possible en français, mais je tenterai de comprendre en anglais). Cordialement Kirtap (talk) 22:54, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done crime film (Q959790), police film (Q2101714), detective film (Q25533274). Andreasm ^{háblame / just talk to me} 00:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Merci Andreasmperu. Kirtap (talk) 10:35, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

directeur d'études

Hi, you revert because I added fonction/profession to "directeur d'études". The problem is: first of all, the thing corresponds to something in France, although it has been now added to something else, also in Germany, which in fact is not the same ("directeur des études" is not "directeur d'études"). I do not care what it is here. But when I put directeur d'études as an occupation for somebody, at the moment, I obtain an incompatibility because it is not considered as a profession of some kind. So what is the occupation/profession of which directeur d'études is an instance, please ? Because for instance "professeur des universités de France" has exactly the same feature, but is indeed possible as an occupation. Thank you in advance, --Cgolds (talk) 06:49, 21 July 2019 (UTC) Just as a PS, as you have already reverted things of the same kind above (professeur etc) : directeur d'étude is not "enseignant" or "professeur d'université". As I said, it is not the same function/occupation/job as the German Studiendirektor which has been glued to it. In France, it is what we put as "job" when we have it and you are asked by an administration to tell what is your job. Exploring this morning the situation on the Wp, I discovered how the problem arouse (see my message on the French Bistro). The solution is probably to create a new element, but I am waiting for a confirmation before I do it, because I do not know how many other elements will be impacted. Thank you for your feedback on this --Cgolds (talk) 06:54, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Please remember to include references as to your assertion that is an profession when creating a new item. As it is right now, it is not clear how it could be a profession instead of a title/position within an organisation. Andreasm ^{háblame / just talk to me} 22:59, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

meter stamp (Q612095)

Good morning Andreasmperu. Could ypu please explain your revert in detail, why you think that meter stamp (Q612095) and free indicia (Q1244945) are not the same item? From my German speaking perspektive they are exactly identical. Maybe the English term "free indicia" is wrong here. free indicia (Q1244945) has only one sitelink to de:Freistempel but none to the English Wikipedia. Raymond (talk) 05:03, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Solicitud

Hola Andrea, espero que estés muy bien. Tengo este caso de un usuario bloqueado en es.wikipedia pero que sigue haciendo desastres acá. ¿Podrías encargarte? Muchas gracias. --Taichi (talk) 02:37, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

84.121.118.68

Hola Andrea, espero que estés bien. Esta IP a la cual has bloqueado por medio año ha vuelto a lo mismo. Está asociado con un usuario expulsado en la Wikipedia llamado Nicewels. De hecho, la IP está bloqueada en Wikipedia. Para que tomes nuevas medidas. Saludos. --Taichi (talk) 02:23, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Revert

Hello Andrea. Cf https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q3281331&oldid=prev&diff=1006636831 . French article is also a liste, even the title doesn't mention it. WikipSQ (talk) 21:12, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I checked the French as it’s not a list not in the title nor in its categorization, so it shouldn’t be merged. Andreasm ^{háblame / just talk to me} 21:14, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Andreasmperu/2019,

The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with Wikidata and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 17:37, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Please clarify what your issue is with my edits

Some of the edits you reverted and claimed as vandalism:

- Making a human nervous system an instance of nervous system and making it part of the human body. I thought it was?
- Marking osteoporosis as afflicting human body, skeleton, human and homo sapiens. It does ...
- Marking AIDS as afflicting homo sapiens, humans, immune system and human body.

Please can you point out the basis for the reverts? I don't really get it, maybe some of it is up for discussion and by all means I am open to it but I don't get how you see it as vandalism.

Iwan.Aucamp (talk) 23:07, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Kommandant (Q2054507)

Hi Andreas, Kommandant or the corresponingg name is not a rank on military, but a function and so it's not cerrect now. --K@rl (talk) 07:22, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Andreasmperu/2019,

A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 19:53, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Coronary circulation (Q497232)

Hello!. You are reverted my edition. Why?. Look at Category:Coronary circulation, it is a redirection page to Category:Coronary vessels. Reconsider your action. Jordi March (talk) 17:42, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Redirects are allowed in Wikidata. I have added Category:Coronary vessels to coronary vessel (Q67315798) as statement of Commons category (P373). Andreasm ^{háblame / just talk to me} 17:50, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Locomotora elèctrica (Q625151)

Buenas.

En relación al cambio que usted ha revertido, quiero explicarle porqué no es correcto. Este elemento de Wikidata ([[4]]) hace referencia, en todos los idiomas, a "locomotora eléctrica". El concepto "tren eléctrico", que parece que usted considera correcto, puede hacer referencia a "locomotora eléctrica" "unidad de tren eléctrica" (para el cual existe el elemento Q483373), una locomotora eléctrica que remolca coches de viajeros, una locomotora eléctrica que remolca vagones de mercancías... Por tanto, "tren eléctrico" es un concepto demasiado amplio para definir el elemento Q625151 que, como digo, en todos los idiomas define un objeto muy concreto, que es el de "locomotora eléctrica". Por ese motivo, he vuelto ha cambiarlo y le rogaría que no lo revertiera, dado que da lugar a confusión. Entiendo que los elementos de Wikidata han de ser lo más concretos posibles, para el buen funcionamiento y entendimiento de los millones de datos que se manejan. Un cordial saludo.Usuario discusión:The STB Usuari Discussió:The STB (talk) 09:10, 30 septiembre 2019 (UTC)

Isochrony

See w:Talk:Isochrony#Isochrony = prosodic typology ?. Prosodic typology and rhythmic typology are definitely not equivalent. Isochrony and rhythmic typology are. The French Wikipedia article only talks about the latter, so even if we were to keep Q33218678 then the article must be associated with Q968561. Nardog (talk) 21:02, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

If you're going to revert then please reply. Again, prosodic typology and rhythmic typology are definitely not the same thing and the frwiki article only discusses the latter, which is the same as isochrony. If not, then what is the difference? Nardog (talk) 02:55, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

This is not the place for that discussion. If you believe the title of the French article is wrong, raise the subject on the French Wikipedia. Andreasm ^{háblame / just talk to me} 02:59, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I do not believe the title of the French article is wrong. Notice the title is "Typologie rythmique des langues", while Q33218678, to which the article is associated, is labeled "prosodic typology". Prosodic typology and rhythmic typology are not the same thing, one is a subset of the other. How many times do I have to tell you this? Nardog (talk) 03:04, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Lord of the Flies Q271764

Hello! You made the following revert: https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q271764&oldid=prev&diff=1029012222 Lord of the flies was published in 1954. So it can't be created in 2019. Perhaps the russian translation was created in 2019, but that should be a separate qid. --Reclus (talk) 11:16, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I reverted your statement because it deleted an statement, but on a closer look I noticed that the statement had a previous vandalism, which I also reverted. Andreasm ^{háblame / just talk to me} 11:37, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I also deleted statements like ISBNs that belong to editions, not works. --Reclus (talk) 11:46, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Nuevamente...

Hola Andrea, tenemos nuevamente a este personaje que es el mismo de Nicewels, si revisas las contribuciones globales te darás cuenta. Mi sugerencia es que se tome de esta categoría y se haga un barrido de los títeres, ya que está usando Wikidata para alterar los datos y que se visualicen en las Wikipedias. Cualquier duda, a tus órdenes. --Taichi (talk) 07:44, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

@Taichi: Muchas gracias por el aviso. He semiprotegido tu página de discusión, aunque dudo que sea un remedio total dada la persistencia del usuario. He empezado a revisar las ediciones de los diferentes títeres (supongo que han sido hallados por un Checkuser?), pero parece ser un trabajo de largo aliento. Saludos, Andreasm ^{háblame / just talk to me} 02:17, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Gracias a tí, técnicamente el caso ha pasado por Checkuser local y por lo que veo busca molestarme porque tanto Rosymonterrey como mi persona y otros más hemos estado tras su pista. Por eso anda así. Cualquier cosa me consultas. Saludos. --Taichi (talk) 05:16, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Añado a TURRANK y Gigsclasp, sus contribuciones globales entran en el rango de Nicewels y las está evadiendo con esa cuenta. --Taichi (talk) 07:30, 16 October 2019 (UTC) usted me esta calumniando acusandome de ser un evasor de bloqueo,se va a ganar una buena denuncia,voy a ir a presentar una demanda--TURRANK (talk) 18:25, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Revert on creature (Q1274979)

Why did you revert this edit? "created entity" is far too vague, and "especially a thing (said to be) created by God" doesn't help much either. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1) would imply that Earth (Q2) is a creature, which it isn't.

Because it’s a general item, which is supossed to be vague. Please do not change the meaning of items without considering how it is being used in Wikidata, the meaning given in different languages, and the statements included to define it. Andreasm ^{háblame / just talk to me} 18:30, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Internal conflict

Hello! English article "Internal conflict" is about literature term. Other language articles are about psychology term. They are not the same subjects. Please, cancel your edit. Thank you. Лемуриец (talk) 18:53, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Please do not just delete sitelinks because you’ll likely be reverted. If you think one sitelink doesn’t belong in one item, create a new item to add that sitelink, and differentiate both items clearly. For start, you could add descriptions and statements to internal conflict (Q10860599) in order to better define the scope of the item. Andreasm ^{háblame / just talk to me} 19:01, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

I got it. Thank you! Лемуриец (talk) 19:13, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Piura's regional flag or "Bandera ocho estrellas"

El 27 de Noviembre del 2003, se emite la ordenanza regional N° 19-2003/GRP-CR, que confirma la creación de la bandera y, su existencia como símbolo regional. Con el fin de promover y difundir las manifestaciones culturales, para potenciar las instituciones artísticas y culturales de la región. La bandera fue creada gracias a la política de descentralización (art 190º de la Ley Nº 27680) que fue impulsada el gobierno de Alejandro Toledo y por la Ley de los gobiernos regionales (Ley Nº 27902). Extraído de: https://eltiempo.pe/piura-la-historia-de-la-bandera-regional-ar/

La ordenanza entró en vigencia el 13 de diciembre 2003, luego de su publicación en el Diario Oficial El Peruano. Extraído de: https://www.regionpiura.gob.pe/noticias/18053

Q16200931

Your deletion of Q16200931 - for which it is hard to see consensus - has broken the infobox on c:Category:Tony Ricca. Please restore it, Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:37, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Please do me the courtesy of responding. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:05, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I have limited free time during term time. I deleted the item because I reckon it doesn’t fulfill the notability criteria. As you seem keen on keeping those kind of items, you can always ask for another opinion. Andreasm ^{háblame / just talk to me} 17:09, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Q64995881

I am requesting you restore Q64995881, as it has identifiers (which may not have been posted). Viaf, Bnf, and ISNI to name a few. Also, structurally, she is also mentioned (by name) on her father's en.wikipedia article, which would lead to her being linked to her father's and brother's wikidata items... which, I guess could also mean that Q64995846 would need restored as being a 3rd child/sibling mentioned on the article? Quakewoody (talk) 01:27, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Property:P735 given name

You reverted my edit with the appeal to find a consensus on talk page.[5] I explained the reason for my edit on 12. October 2019 to Jura1.[6] This was one week ago, but he didn't answer. So can I do my edit again or how to proceed? --Eulenspiegel1 (talk) 15:02, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I just checked that talk page, and there are two users (not just @Jura1:) disagreeing with you. Nobody but yourself has so far supported the proposed change. That’s basically the opposite of a consensus. So, no, I would advise against starting another edit war when there’are clearly other users (in plural) against your changes. --Andreasm ^{háblame / just talk to me} 16:48, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I didn't say, that there is a consensus. Yet, how to proceed if the other side doesn't answer?

@DDupard: thanked me for this edit: [7]. Thus, 2 users are for the change and 2 users are against it. --Eulenspiegel1 (talk) 18:21, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Borrado de Q73068033

Hola, me puedes explicar por que has borrado [8] este item? Hay una diferència lingüistica clara entre característica y calidad. Ya tuve una discusión con un editor no hispanoparlante y su argumentación fue que "no havia WPs enlazadas como para que le demostrara que no eran la misma cosa". Bien, he añadido las definiciones claras de Wiccionario en ca y en, y a continuación he vinculado totes les WPs donde la palabra se refiere a característica (podriamos decir, tècnica) dejando en quality (Q1207505) las que eran dudosas, respondien al concepto filosòfico o, simplemente no era capaz de traducir-las con seguridad. Por tanto, no entiendo porque no se pueden mantener 2 items cuando responden a conceptos que, al menos en mi lengua tienen, aplicaciones claramente diferentes. En fin, no sé que mas quieres que te explique que si en catalan (y por mis conocimientos, también en castellano) existen las dos palabras amb significados diferentes, no se pueden tener dos items que respondan a cada una de ellas. Amadalvarez (talk) 18:56, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

WD:N: Un elemento es aceptable “si contiene al menos un enlace de sitio válido a una página de Wikipedia, Wikiviajes, Wikisource, Wikiquote, Wikinoticias, Wikilibros, Wikidata, Wikispecies, Wikiversidad o Wikimedia Commons”. Esto es, NO se incluye a Wikcionario. Por otra parte, el elemento mencionado tampoco cumplía con el segundo criterio de relevancia: “La entidad debe ser relevante en el sentido de que se puede describir utilizando referencias serias y disponibles públicamente”. Si presta atención, incluí un enlace con toda esta información en el motivo de borrado del elemento. Finalmente, tenga cuidado cuando cree nuevos elementos a partir de otro previamente existente (en especial, si hay un cambio de significado), dado que muchos elementos pueden estar usándolo en sus declaraciones.Andreasm ^{háblame / just talk to me} 20:22, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Gràcias por la explicación però tenemos cientos de miles de items sin ningun enlace a los projectos mencionados. No entiendo la obsesión por fusionar dos conceptos lingüisticamente diferentes. ¿Debo escribir un articulo en WP de cada uno de los substantivos explicando las diferèncias lingüisticas para que lo podais entender ?. En Wiccionario estan perfectamente descritos, y sabes que les exigències de WP para aceptar un articulo que se limita a describir el sentido de una palabra són altas, porque para eso està el diccionario. Si es necesario lo haré, però me parece más una obstinación (que creo que has heredado) d'un pseudo-troll, que hizo una discutible fusion sin debate prèvio y, cuando le pedí explicaciones, me exigió a mi que le convenciera que yo tenia razón. Necesito ese concepto y lo seguiré creando ad nauseam, aunque sea sin vincularle WPs que describen "característica" en su contenido para que no me acuseis de hacer cambios que pueden herir sensibilidades, no te preocupes. Pero no me vais a convencer lo qué es sinónimo y lo qué no es en mi lengua. Espero tu respuesta y reitero que el agradecimiento a las explicaciones. Amadalvarez (talk) 00:17, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Le recuerdo que los ataques personales son motivo de bloqueo. Veo que continúa sin leer los criterios de relevancia de Wikidata (la inclusión de enlaces es solo uno de ellos) y, más bien, está planificando boicotear las políticas de este proyecto. Espero que no tome ninguno de esos dos caminos y opte por colaborar de forma positiva en este proyecto. Andreasm ^{háblame / just talk to me} 00:25, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Question

Why did you did reverse my February edits (https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q17024773&diff=1043459756&oldid=852094686 and https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q1154500&diff=1043459719&oldid=1043459359) saying they are the wrong item. Do you know French? "Météorologie à la télévision" is about presentation of weather on TV which is very close to "Wettermoderator" and the other links in Q1154500. They should be linked instead of having a French article with no interwiki link.

Pierre cb (talk) 23:55, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Because the French article deals about a similar, although related subject. Each item should deal about one concept. Please check labels, descriptions and statements: weather presenter (Q1154500) deals about the profession whereas television weathercast (Q17024773) is the activity practiced by a weather presenter. Andreasm ^{háblame / just talk to me} 00:17, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry but I disagree with your assessment. I can oppose the German article (de:Wettermoderator) which not only describe the presentator but the television set where he/she works and the tools used. This is partially the same as "Météorologie à la télévision" information. Pierre cb (talk) 02:22, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Duplicate references with a false date of consultation

I had been reverting User:Reinheitsgebot for almost a year, always for the two same reasons: (1) duplicate reference, (2) with a false date of consultation. I mentioned it on his talk page, but never got any comment or answer from the arrogant bastard. Then you came by, apparently without any idea of what was going on, and blindly insisted in keeping this nonsense. As a result of your own incompetence you ended up by blocking me for a week because I didn’t agree. Minutes after you blocked me you noticed there were indeed duplicate references, and suppressed one of them: but you suppressed the wrong one, and kept the one with the false date of consultation… And in the mean time User:Reinheitsgebot is still polluting wikidata with always the same absurd intervention, still never answering to remarks made by other contributors.Sapphorain (talk) 09:06, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

pharmacologist (Q2114605)

I know that redirects are allowed in Wikidata, but... there is very few information about that what is farmacologist. There are more information in another languages about farmalogists then Dutch. Please add redirects in all languages, where is article about pharmacology (Q128406). Why Ducth is more special language about another languages? --Treisijs (talk) 21:41, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

bonjour aussi

bonjour aussi

le marché de l'art n'est pas un concept industriel - pas de fabrication - mais commercial - des transactions

l'article en italien est mercato dell'arte => marché de l'art et non art marketing - notion non utilisée en français et en italien - merci de le lier à nouveau à marché de l'art

Mandariine (talk) 21:50, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

merci d'avoir supprimé le lien vers l'industrie et rétabli le lien vers le commerce et vers l'article en italien ! c'est pas drôle d'avoir des messages d'annulation dans ses notif et de devoir monologuer pour voir son travail rétabli :( dommage aussi d'avoir recréé le doublon du marché de l'art en tchèque - voir la page de discussion - l'isolant des autres interwiki ! Mandariine (talk) 03:54, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Reversal film vs. Diapositive

Hi, I'm trying to merge the two entries reversal film (Q166816) and diapositive (Q12821369). Would you generally agree to that?

If yes what's the best way to proceed? An automatic merge does not work because 3 languages have conflicting articles. Those would be:

Esperanto

• https://eo.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diapozitiva_filmo
• https://eo.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diapozitivo

Very short articles. Should be easily mergeable, or even bearable to delete one.

Kazakh

• https://kk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%94%D0%B8%D0%B0%D1%84%D0%B8%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BC
• https://kk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%94%D0%B8%D0%B0%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B2

Very short articles. Should be easily mergeable, or even bearable to delete one.

Russian

• https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9E%D0%B1%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%89%D0%B0%D0%B5%D0%BC%D1%8B%D0%B5_%D1%84%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8B
• https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%94%D0%B8%D0%B0%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B2

The first one seems to be the better article (longer, more structure, more images) but the second also seems proper. This would require a bit of effort to merge.

As I don't speak those languages, I'm not really able to edit or merge those. What would the procedure be in such cases? I personally value the merge of Q166816 and Q12821369 more than some one-liner article in Esperanto, since it adds value for translators or polylingual persons looking for more context.

Thank you. Double A (talk) 15:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Reverts to short descriptions

Please stop reverting improvements to short descriptions. Crocodilesareforwimps (talk) 15:45, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Hasidism revert

The articles "Chassidismus" on de.wiki and als.wiki (latter copied from former) refer to all three historical sects, and indeed to anyone in Judaism describing themselves as Hasidim, or "pious". Q171201, however, refers only to the contemporary movement established in 18th Century Eastern Europe. The Germans failed to distinguish a separate article to the latter. Therefore, linking "Chassidismus" on both wikis to Q27162357 is accurate. Please reverse your edits, and if any means to ensure that none would try to re-link in the future are extant, please use them. Thank you. AddMore-III (talk) 08:05, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Historiadormundo

Hey Andreasmperu, I was just trying to review the block of Historiadormundo that you issued on November 5. There is an unblock request in their user talk page.

Honestly, I have difficulties to understand the length of the block (indefinite) and the block reason (vandalism-only account). Given that there has been some edit warring history, some sort of a block seems indeed warranted, but this user is neither a "vandalism-only account" as there have been many edits in the past which are constructive or at least okay-ish, nor are the edits in question that severe that an indef block is appropriate. What am I overlooking here?

If there is nothing else, I am about to unblock the user with a warning that they should not engage in edit wars. Thanks, MisterSynergy (talk) 09:44, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi, there. When I first got involved in the issue, I believed it was just a matter of edit-warring. Given Historiadormundo‘s persistence and fixation with another user, I searched for more information. Then, I discovered that the problem had only landed in Wikidata after the user was blocked in both eswiki and Commons. So by the time of his final block, my understanding was that the user has been using his Wikidata account to abuse the project by repeatedly ignoring warnings (his first edits returning from being blocked disregarded the warnings given for such blocks), and to “sort out” cross-wiki issues. If despite all this, you are not convinced, do change the block, but please keep an eye on the user. Given his history of cross-wiki abuse and continuing the pattern here in Wikidata, I’m afraid it won’t be the end of the story. Andreasm ^{háblame / just talk to me} 23:59, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Okay thanks for your input. I had not recognized cross-wiki issues until now, thus I am going to re-evaluate my position in this case; no idea right now where I will settle… —MisterSynergy (talk) 07:35, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Merge Q15634554 with Q199683

Could you merge these two data pages into one, because they both have articles of the same topic anyways, which is about states with limited recognition, except that one is about a list while the other is a duplicate page that's also a list.--Jack Carlin (talk) 02:18, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Q7230264

Hola. Antes de nada, presentarme (es mi primera vez aquí) y mandar un saludo a todos los usuarios y compañeros de Wikidata. El motivo de este comentario es preguntar a Andreasmperu por la reversión de una edición hecha por mi en el artículo Q7230264, donde se añadia la descripción en español del término poroqueratosis (no he entendido muy bien por qué ha sido suprimida). Era traducción exacta de la misma descripción que también he añadido en inglés y que si ha sido aceptada. Gracias... --Sjg (talk) 01:40, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Leidos WD:L y WD:D y comprendido. Muchas gracias y saludos--Sjg (talk) 03:11, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Kárate

Hola:

El Diccionario de la Lengua Española de la Real Academia acepta como primera entrada "kárate" (ya que es esdrújula) y, también, como segunda entrada "karate" (sin tilde, como neologismo que proviene del japonés) (https://dle.rae.es/kárate). El término más habitual es el de "Kárate" (con tilde) por ejemplo: es así como se denomina la "Real Federación Española de Kárate y Disciplinas Asociadas" (http://www.rfek.es/). Un cordial saludo:--Raimundo Pastor (talk) 12:18, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

@Raimundo Pastor: La Federación nacional española es la única que he encontrado con la grafía “kárate”. Todas las demás federaciones nacionales (por mencionar solo algunas: la mexicana, la colombiana, la argentina), así como muchas españolas regionales (como la de Castilla y León, la Comunidad Valenciana, la andaluza) usan “karate”. Como ya expliqué, la etiqueta de un elemento debe ser el nombre más común empleado, por lo que no procede su edición (y me sorprende que intente este cambio primero en Wikidata antes que en Wikipedia en español). Le ruego una vez más que respete las políticas y convenciones de Wikidata. Tome esto como una advertencia: si veo que continúa ignorando sistemáticamente WD:L y WD:D, será bloqueado. Andreasm ^{háblame / just talk to me} 20:56, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Q1075388, Q5801919, and sister links

Hi. I'm hoping you can help shed more light on a practical difficulty, relating to some changes you made back on December 8. (I just noticed these changes.) You moved a whole bunch of links from sex and the law (Q1075388) to sex crime (Q5801919), effectively separating —if I'm understanding the intent rightly— "sex and the law" from "sex crimes".

I'm trying to understand the purpose and implications, of this.

One effect of it, I observe, is to deprive readers of a lot of interwikis and sister links that would otherwise help them to navigate between projects. For example (the one I first noticed), there should be mutual sister links between English Wikipedia's article w:en:Sex and the law and English Wikinews's n:en:Category:Sex crimes; I can't honestly say the difference in names seems nearly enough to justify omitting those sister links. I see that of the projects linked from these two Wikidata items, no project has both. I've seen more extreme examples of this sort of thing, where different names apparently ought to be linked cross-project; a simple one that comes to mind is that some Wikinews projects have (translating into English) a topic category for "freedom of speech" while others have instead a topic category for "censorship"; but pretty much the same news goes in either.

I realize this is really a major awkwardness about Wikidata, that while Wikidatans tend to view what they're building as an ontology and therefore to analyze everything into the largest possible number of separate, narrow items, this minimizes the utility of Wikidata for generating interwikis/sister links (the purpose ascribed to Wikidata when asking local projects to agree to be linked from it). But I'm thinking, maybe we can start small and think about this one case, and understand it better. Thoughts? --Pi zero (talk) 19:38, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Both items cannot be merged not only because they refer to different concepts (as you have already noticed), but also because those two concepts have been described in two distinct identifiers both linked with Library of Congress authority ID (P244) and with GND ID (P227). So Wikidata is not the only place where the two concepts are clearly separated. --Andreasm ^{háblame / just talk to me} 21:07, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, this is a problem common to big classification systems in the electronic age. It's to do with the difference between digital classifications of the sort that can exist in technological artifacts such as databases or computers; and concepts which (as I understand the word) are things of the mind, inherently non-digital in practice, and therefore cannot in practice be held in any technological artifact. Not to get tangled in philosophy: the practical problem here is how to get a technological system to serve a conceptually-driven purpose — specifically, how to persuade the collective system of wikimedia projects to deliver interwiki/sister links useful to people who read our wikis.

As I recall, this was less of a problem in the old physical card catalogs of libraries I used in the 1970s and 1980s. Not that one didn't learn to try a bunch of different subjects, but the whole subject catalog would have much more of a conceptual rhyme-and-reason to it. Probably because those subject catalogs were created by human librarians —often generations of human librarians— driven primarily by intent to provide useful conceptual cross-references for human readers. That's our problem too, of course: interwiki/sister links should be conceptual aids for human readers. We "just" need to figure out how to coax this useful behavior out of the technological artifact of the wikimedia platform. --Pi zero (talk) 13:53, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Atletismo adaptado

Hola Andreasmperu. Veo que has revertido una edición correcta mía aquí. El deporte practicado por personas con discapacidad se llama deporte adaptado puesto que sus normas fueron adaptadas para su practica por dicho colectivo. El deporte paralímpico se refiere al deporte que forma parte del programa de los Juegos Paralímpicos. Por lo tanto mi edición es correcta. Un saludo.--Esp1986 (talk) 18:06, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Sí, entiendo la diferencia; sin embargo, los elementos editados se refieren al deporte paralímpico como se puede ver por el resto de etiquetas en otros idiomas y por las declaraciones incluidas. En tal caso, sería necesario crear un nuevo elemento (a menos que ya exista uno) y mover los enlaces de sitio que correspondan. Mientras tanto, he añadido alias. Andreasm ^{háblame / just talk to me} 18:11, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Gracias por responder. El problema es que en cada idioma tiene sus propias palabras. Por ejemplo, en inglés «paralympic sport» engloba tanto el «deporte adaptado» como el «deporte paralímpico», mientras que en el francés el término «handisport» hace referencia al «deporte adaptado» y el «sport paralympique» al «deporte paralímpico». Solo quería aclarar esto. Un saludo.--Esp1986 (talk) 18:34, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Campaña en contra de mis ediciones

El día de hoy la aplicación de Wikipedia en su apartado de ediciones recomendadas me ha recomendado agregar descripciones de artículos. Estos se me proporcionan de manera aleatoria y los escribo a base exacta de la naturaleza del artículo. Por alguna razón que solo tú sabes haz decidido sencillamente iniciar una eliminación masiva de estas contribuciones alegando una infundada acusación de vandalismo y contribuciones incostructivas cuando el propio sistema de Wikipedia me ha recomendado hacer tales aportaciones. Lo peor y más entrañable es que se nota un pobre intento de tu parte de leer el pequeño y breve edición que hago de los títulos. Ya que estos son completamente válidos tomados del propio artículo.

Un breve ejemplo:

En el artículo F.C. Blau-Weiß Linz el cual es sobre un equipo de fútbol Austríaco he puesto como es:

Equipo de futbol Austríaco

Y por alguna razón piensas que eso es vandalismo e información inconstructiva.

Espero tu respuesta en donde justificas tus acciones contra tales ediciones y como es que haz llegado a tu brillante deducción que son consideradas vandalismo e información inconstrutiva.

Veo que es capaz de escribir español correctamente. Por un momento, pensé que no era su lengua materna dadas las faltas ortográficas tales como el uso indebido de mayúsculas o de las tildes. Como le mencioné en mi primer mensaje, lea WD:D antes de continuar editando. Por favor, absténgase de añadir descripciones que no cumplen con las reglas del español ni con las de Wikidata. Finalmente, le ruego que no me tutee puesto que no le conozco de nada. Andreasm ^{háblame / just talk to me} 07:36, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

No, el español no es mi lengua materna, pero creo entenderlo en lo mejor posible como mi segunda lengua que es. Te ruego no hagas deducciones de mi vida puesto que no te conozco de nada.

También te pido que si encuentras una supuesto error ortográfico lo llames como tal y no como acto de vandalismo y de preferencia des aviso de éste y se corregirá a la brevedad que sea posible, ya que los editores queremos eso, que se revise y se edite la información las veces necesarias para que así nuestra Wikipedia sea mas rica y perfecta. Sencillamente no quieras deshacerte de los supuestos errores alegando cargos falsos de gravedad como el de vandalismo e información inconstructiva y mucho menos borrar este cuando no tiene error alguno. Ya que, por ejemplo creés que hay algún error en:

Símbolo nacional mexicano

O:

Distribución Linux basada en Debian

Doy el asunto como terminado.

De nada.

Mr. Pip-Boy (talk) 08:20, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

@Mr. Pip-Boy: Nuevamente he debido corregir absolutamente todas sus ediciones simplemente porque ha decidido ignorar mi indicación de leer WD:D. Entiendo que quiera colaborar, pero no es justo para los otros editores que deben perder tiempo arreglando sus errores. Así que si veo que continúa ignorando los criterios de Wikidata de forma sistemática, será bloqueado. Y, por segunda vez, le pido que guarde respeto en el trato: si lo trato de usted, espero reciprocidad y no ser tuteada. Andreasm ^{háblame / just talk to me} 17:04, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Secta

¿Alguna razón particular para haber revertido lo que fue mi corrección del término equivocado? Digo, porque claramente los artículos en cuestión se refieren al término inglés cult y clarmanete no al término inglés sect. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 07:26, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Si un editor revierte un elemento al status quo previo, entonces no es evidente que las ediciones sean correctas. Le corresponde al editor que pretende introducir el cambio proporcionar referencias o, al menos, argumentos para sustentar tal posición. Andreasm ^{háblame / just talk to me} 07:41, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Pues basta con leer lo que dice el artículo sobre cult y sobre sect en inglés para entender a cual conectan mejor:

Cult

In modern English, a cult is a social group that is defined by its unusual religious, spiritual, or philosophical beliefs, or by its common interest in a particular personality, object or goal. This sense of the term is controversial and it has divergent definitions both in popular culture and academia and it has also been an ongoing source of contention among scholars across several fields of study.[1][2] It is usually considered pejorative.

In the sociological classifications of religious movements, a cult is a social group with socially deviant or novel beliefs and practices,[3] although this is often unclear.[4][5][6] Other researchers present a less-organized picture of cults, saying that they arise spontaneously around novel beliefs and practices.[7] Groups said to be cults range in size from local groups with a few members to international organizations with millions.[8]

Beginning in the 1930s, cults became the object of sociological study in the context of the study of religious behavior.[9] From the 1940s the Christian countercult movement has opposed some sects and new religious movements, and it labelled them as cults for their "un-Christian" unorthodox beliefs. The secular anti-cult movement began in the 1970s and it opposed certain groups, often charging them with mind control and partly motivated in reaction to acts of violence committed by some of their members. Some of the claims and actions of the anti-cult movement have been disputed by scholars and by the news media, leading to further public controversy.

An older sense of the word cult is a set of religious devotional practices that are conventional within their culture and related to a particular figure, and often associated with a particular place. References to the "cult" of, for example, a particular Catholic saint, or the imperial cult of ancient Rome, use this sense of the word.

While the literal original sense of the word in English remains in use, a derived sense of "excessive devotion" arose in the 19th century.[10] The terms cult and cultist came into use in medical literature in the United States in the 1930s for what would now be termed "faith healing", especially as practised in the US Holiness movement. This usage experienced a surge of popularity at the time, and extended to other forms of alternative medicine as well.[11]

Sect

A sect is a subgroup of a religious, political, or philosophical belief system, usually an offshoot of a larger group. Although the term was originally a classification for religious separated groups, it can now refer to any organization that breaks away from a larger one to follow a different set of rules and principles.

In an Indian context, sect refers to an organized tradition.[1]

Y ahora veamos lo que dice el artículo de secta en español (me tome el cuidado de leer los de portugués, francés, catalán y alemán por si acaso, en el caso catalán no hice el cambio porque mo estaba tan clara la diferencia).

Una secta es el conjunto de seguidores de una doctrina religiosa o ideológica concreta, que representa una «sección» o un «sector» desprendido de un conjunto más amplio,1​ o bien que se ha «cortado», «separado», «desgajado».2​ En todos los casos, la palabra secta tiene una connotación de división o ruptura. El término se usaba originalmente solo para aludir a partidos o comunidades de personas con afinidades comunes (ideológica, sociales, culturales, religiosas, políticas, esotéricas, etc.), que a través de sus enseñanzas o ritos se diferenciaban de otros grupos sociales. Solo posteriormente adoptó el sentido secundario de «herejía», o creencia y grupo disidente que se separa de su fuente original, o que discrepa de las religiones mayoritarias, casi siempre con connotaciones peyorativas. Luego, en los años ochenta se define el concepto de "nuevos movimientos religiosos" para diferenciarlos del concepto negativo popular de "sectas", y evitar así la persecución de las minorías. Actualmente aún hay preocupación entre las autoridades civiles frente a los grupos sectarios auténticamente peligrosos, por lo que se ha sugerido el concepto de «sectas destructivas».3​

Ahora cuénteme ¿cual cree ud que se asemeja más, secta con cult o secta con sect? --Dereck Camacho (talk) 08:05, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Le pido por favor que no vuelva a llenarme la página de discusión de contenido disponible con un solo clic. También le ruego que no asuma de plano la ineptitud o falta de diligencia de los otros editores. Obviamente ya había leído las distintas versiones de Wikipedia antes de deshacer sus cambios, por eso le solicité presentara referencias o argumentos que sustentaran su propuesta de cambio. Como mínima muestra de respeto a su interlocutor, podría presentarlos o bien evitar la pérdida de tiempo y recursos. Andreasm ^{háblame / just talk to me} 17:11, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

No le entiendo, ud misma pidió que justificara el cambio, y eso hice. Parece que le disgustó que hiciera justo lo que me pidió. Pero bueno resuelto el asunto procedo entonces a devolver la edición original que como vemos ud revirtió incorrectamente. Saludos. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 01:27, 20 December 2019 (UTC)