Open main menu

User talk:EncycloPetey

Logo of Wikidata

Welcome to Wikidata, EncycloPetey!

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

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

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

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

If you have any questions, please ask me on my talk page. If you want to try out editing, you can use the sandbox to try. Once again, welcome, and I hope you quickly feel comfortable here, and become an active editor for Wikidata.

Best regards! --Bill william compton (talk) 03:08, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Bot errorsEdit

It's correct. Wikidata:Infoboxes_task_force. --Kizar (talk) 21:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

As you can see here [1], there are only 6 main types and taxo is not one of them. --Kizar (talk) 21:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Maybe here or here. --Kizar (talk) 21:12, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


Something went wrong. Please restore this version. --Succu (talk) 06:40, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

No, that version would be wrong. Not all of those articles are about a particular subclass name as used in the Cronquist system of classification. All of those articles are about the group of plants, but only some of them are about the right group. Brya incorrectly split off a whole group of articles (based solely on the article name?), and created (incorrectly) a new data item for them. Some of them appear to use the Cronquist system, but many others are not. Look at the Korean article, for example, which is clearly about the magnoliids (sensu APG III), as it is obviously a translation of the article from the English Wikipedia. It belongs with the original data item, and not with this new one. Restoring the version you indicated would restore all the incorrect links. The links will need to be checked and corrected individually, as Brya did not check them. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:40, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't talk about interwikilinks, but taxon name (P225) etc. These claims are correct. --Succu (talk) 15:25, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Only some of those claims are correct. For example, it gives two different parent taxon statements, but only one is correct for the Cronquist system. As I said, the page had a lot of errors, so each item will need to be checked individually. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:17, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Then check them individually. I found no errors and restored Bryas version. --Succu (talk) 07:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Then you did not read the errors I pointed out above. Please give me time to check them instead of simply reverting my changes. Show some patience. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:23, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
The taxon name (P225) Magnoliidae (Q13582382) is used at the rank of a subclass (Q5867051) in An Integrated System of Classification of Flowering Plants (Q14244038) and A phylogenetic classification of the land plants to accompany APG III (Q13626292) with different parent taxon (P171) Magnoliopsida (Q1307404) and Equisetopsida (Q134677). All you had to do, was to check the sources of the claims. --Succu (talk) 10:33, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry that you're so impatient and not understanding at all. You have said I needed to check the sources for the claims, and I have and did. I own copies of both sources and keep them at hand. One of the claims is wholly incorrect; Equisetopsida is not, and has never been part of the Cronquist System, it is a proposal made by members who were part of the APG III, which is an entirely different system of classification. The data item therefore claims one classification, but is listed as if it were part of another one as well. In addition, you still have not acknowledged the many other problems I noted previously. Clearly this is an "owned" data item and so any edits, changes, and comments that I might make are not welcomed on Wikidata. I will not be wasting my time here trying to talk to you any more. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:39, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
To tell the truth: I never suggested Equisetopsida is part of the Cronquist System (see this). The data item is not about the Cronquist System (that is Cronquist system (Q213094)), but about the taxon name Magnoliidae (Q13582382). Thats different. --Succu (talk) 15:40, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
But aside from the German article, and maybe the Catalan one, none of the included articles are about the name as a topic. The English article is about the circumscription sensu Reveal & Chase, which is strictly an APG definition, and the Korean article is about the magnoliids as a group of plants under APG III, not about the name. You keep insisting that all the links be put back, even though they are mostly wrong. It is fine to have a data item about the name Magnoliidae, but nothing in the data item indicates it is solely the name and not the group of plants, and the links and information given are unclear about that as well. It is also important that such a data item actually have articles to go with it, and only the articles that go with it. As it stands, the data item is a mish-mash of multiple concepts, with no clear guidance as to what the data item is actually for. As such, it is either useless or redundant, but it is not possible to tell which. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:40, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Merge requestsEdit

You can do a merge yourself via Special:MergeItems, activate the merge gadget in your preferences or request it at WD:RFD, but please do not add a {{Delete}} to the talk page to request a merge. That's not how it works. Mbch331 (talk) 06:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I looked, but couldn't find any instructions anywhere for how to do a merge. If you want people to do merges themselves, then there needs to be clear information about how to do it. And people have to be able to find that information. --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:35, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Did you check Help:Merge? Mbch331 (talk) 13:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
I did not find that page. Where was it listed? I started at the community portal looking for a link to something that would tell me what to do. --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:45, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Don't know where it's listed. Just followed my logic. I want to know more about merging items, so I assumed there was a help page about that and just typed in Help:Merge in the search box. But I must say it indeed isn't easy to find. I'll address it at Project Chat, maybe someone there knows the best way to implement that information. Mbch331 (talk) 13:52, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. I found the page about requests for deletion, which told me about the deletion template and the decision to prefer merging, but there wasn't any information about how to do a merge. On most projects, merging content is restricted to admins, so I assumed that an admin would take care of that when handling deletion requests. The process and decision wasn't clear at all. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:26, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Greek tragediesEdit

Thanks for adding the titles of many tragedies ... I've continued your work, you can see the results here:

Tomorrow I will probably control Aristophanes. Thanks, --Epìdosis 20:04, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, thank you very much for adding more information / merging items. I have a table of authors and titles on my user page, if that helps. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:13, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

There is no data redundancyEdit

Maybe you are entirely new to metadata, but there is no metadata redundancy. Currently is technically most easy to extract that a given page have a category on Commons directly by a property than first requesting if the data isn't available on a page linked by a property. It isn't user intuitive, but is a current tech limit issue. Please stop acting like a revert bot: try to understand first why some is done in a current way than being the "OMG I'm the boy with divine powers that will fix the world!". Best. Lugusto (talk) 16:27, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I am not new to metadata, no. I have been working with collections data and databasing for decades now. Yes, I know that Wikidata has difficulties accessing related data because they put information information on separate pages; this is a huge problem for Wikisource, where every edition / translation of a single work of literature is a separate data item. That becomes an issue for Phabricator, not a reason to add data incorrectly. Instead of reverting my edits, insisting on keeping flaws in the data, and treating me like an idiot, try to understand what I'm doing and help to correct the problem. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:51, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Please stop. Be so kind and read Property talk:P373. P373 is not a property to be used as a qualifier. Andreasm háblame / just talk to me 21:28, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Then Wikidata has a lot of cleaning up to do, because I am following examples elsewhere that link in precisely this way. Please point me to the Wikidata page that explains correct linking to Commons; I cannot find it. I have opened a discussion on the administrator's discussion board because you have yet to provide any explanation for reversions. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:30, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Please read...Edit

... Wikidata:WikiProject Taxonomy/Tutorial. --Succu (talk) 19:50, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but the page as I found it was for a species, and needed to be merged. I have now corrected the basionym page to be a page about a nomenclatural synonym instead. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:31, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
And removed two basic properties? BTW: taxon author (P405) and year of taxon name publication (P574) are used as qualifiers for taxon name (P225). --Succu (talk) 22:42, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Names are not properties of names, they are properties of taxa. Is the Anthoceros laevis supposed to be a data item for a taxon or for the basionym? It can't be both. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:27, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Again: Please read Wikidata:WikiProject Taxonomy/Tutorial (before reverting!). --Succu (talk) 23:33, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
I have read it. Please respond to my comments and concerns before reverting. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:41, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Then try to understand it... --Succu (talk) 23:47, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Done. Now please discuss before reverting. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:48, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
[2]: taxon author (P405) and year of taxon name publication (P574) are used as qualifiers for taxon name (P225). --Succu (talk)
OK. I have removed those. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:54, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

If you want to discuss Wikidata:WikiProject Taxonomy/Tutorial go to Wikidata:WikiProject Taxonomy, but your actions seems very different from doing this. --Succu (talk)

None of the issues involved in my corrections are discussed as part of the tutorial, so the Tutorial does not need discussion. My concerns are with data structure and the logical error of an item being simultaneously a name entry and a taxon entry. It must be one or the other.
The tutorial gives plenty of instruction on how to set up pages for taxa, but no help at all for setting up the page of a basionym (taxonomic name). --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:09, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
See Taxon author(s) and year of description and The botanical Code (now ICNafp, formerly ICBN). A Basionym has the same four basic statements as all other items. If you need clarification (e.g. how to model taxonomic concepts) then discuss it there please. Your changes at Anthoceros laevis (Q17295302) caused a lot of constraint violation which I'll fix now again. If you want to change our modell discuss it there and stop reverting. --Succu (talk) 06:46, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
No, a basionym is a name. It is not a taxon, so to label the page as a taxon, but use it only as a basionym is to use entirely the wrong set of properties. I say again: the tutorial gives NO INSTRUCTION AT ALL about the formatting of a basionym page. It gives information about formatting taxa only. You keep asserting that a basionym page is the same as a taxon page, but that is NOT expressed anywhere in the tutorial, and cannot possibly be correct. It is like having separate pages for a woman and for her maiden name, and then placing biographical information at the page for her maiden name. A name is a label, and is not a taxon. --EncycloPetey (talk) 07:12, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

STOP vandalsim! --Succu (talk) 07:25, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I am stopping your vandalism. When I have corrected information, it is vandalism for you to put the incorrect information back into the item. --EncycloPetey (talk) 07:26, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion is now here. --Succu (talk) 07:44, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

"persona non grata"Edit

Please stop such attacks. --Succu (talk) 18:45, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Please stop harassing me. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:27, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
If you need to talk in public... I don't care. --Succu (talk) 23:28, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Next time I'd liked to be informed if you are talking about me @Administrators' noticeboard. Thanks! --Succu (talk) 23:45, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Stay away from my talk page. Stop harassing me. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:21, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Descriptions in other languagesEdit

Instead of creating and merging new items, try "labelLister" (the fifth in your "Preferences" > "Gadgets"). When your are in the item, click "Labels list", then "edit", then the language code. Bye, --Epìdosis 20:21, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I will try that. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:22, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Playwright or poetEdit

What's the difference between Eupolis (Q459517) ("Athenian poet of Old Comedy") and Menander (Q118992) ("Athenian playwright of New Comedy")? Thank you, --Epìdosis 13:38, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

A "poet" writes many kinds of poetry, but a "playwright" writes plays. Menander wrote plays. I don't know whether Eupolis wrote other kinds of poetry, so I do not know whether a change would be justified. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:46, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Queries for youEdit

Enjoy these! --Epìdosis 14:17, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Dutch versionEdit

Maybe I didn't understand, but what's the problem being a Dutch version? AFAIK Wikisource accepts the original texts and translation in various languages (and possibly disambiguation pages if there's more than one acceptable version in a specific language: e.g. this).--Carnby (talk) 17:25, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

@Carnby: The Dutch version is in Dutch, not in Greek. The data item you added to was for the original Greek version, not for the various translations. Translations into other languages need to be added as separate data items and listed as "editions" of the original. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:27, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
So this item for the Czech version (check "translator" field) of La Marseilleise is wrong in your opinion? A possible workaround would be to create always a "soft redirect", pointing to translation(s) in a specific language (such as Template:Opera in Italian language Wikisource). Other possibilities will cause the loss of interwiki (or better intersource) links in the various languages--Carnby (talk) 17:39, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
@Carnby: It's wrong, but not because of my opinion. This is the norm established here on Wikidata for editions of written works. Yes, the interwiki language links get lost, and that's an unfortunate consequence of the way Wikidata has to handle the information, but that's happening to other projects too. In this case, it happens because the works themselves are different, and must have different data coded for them.
See Oedipus Rex (Q148643) and look at what's linked from the different Wikisource projects: they are versions pages that identify the work and list the locally hosted translations. Look in the middle of the data item (just above the identifiers section) to see how links to translations are meant to be handled. Consider also: If we didn't handle translations this way, then only a single translation of each work in each language could be linked. In some cases, we have multiple translations, by multiple translators, into the same language. There would be no way to put those into a single data item regardless. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:47, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Would you agree to link the Wikidata item always to a brief summary identifying the original work in a particular language with a list of translations and not directly to the translation(s)? In the meanwhile, I fixed the Czech issue.--Carnby (talk) 21:14, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that is the preferred solution. As for interwiki links, I recall someone at Swedish (or Norwegian?) Wikisource was developing code that would generate the links from Wikidata connections. If I remember where I saw that conversation, I will let you know. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:35, 15 October 2016 (UTC)



any hints how and when do you intend to restore interwiki that you have broken here, here, here and here?

Or, maybe, you would like to suggest that such edits moving interwiki to wikidata should be considered vandalisms?

Unsure if you noticed that the way you implement the work-translation model leads to few ping-pong type edits and is ineffective. IMO, this work (its core) should be done by a bot to avoid delays. Any comment? Ankry (talk) 19:24, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

@Ankry: I am aware of the consequences of the model. I am following Wikidata policy: each work receives its own data item. A French work, published in Paris in 1879 (with Artaud as its translator), is different from an Italian work, published in Rome in 1547 (with Romagli is its translator), is different from an English work, published in London in 1889 (with Plumptre as its translator). Each published book is a separate data item, and each edition of that book is a separate data item. It must be that way because none of the publication information is the same between the different works.
I am upset that Wikidata has no mechanism for preserving the interwiki links lost on Wikisource, but that is not my problem. I have raised the issue several times here, but Wikidata has chosen its own model, and it is different from the one Wikisource would like. I am told that the Norwegian Wikisource is working on a solution, but it is not generally available yet. Until then, the best idea is not to move interwiki links to Wikidata. On en-Wikisource, we are telling editors not to migrate the links, because they will be lost here.
The "ping-pong" edits you mention are not "ping-pong" edits. The content at the French page was originally a specific translation, so that link was moved. The page content on French Wikisource has now changed, and it is a disambiguation page for several translations. So what you think has happened, has not happened. What has actually happened is a change at French Wikisource.
I do not understand what you are saying about a bot. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:37, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Implementing the model is OK, but interwiki removed from Wikidata should be restored locally while doing so. At least till a new interwiki mechanism appears that uses the new model. Position "this is not my problem" is anti-cooperative and should not be applied on multi-use projects like Wikidata or Commons. Eg. would you accept that Commons users decide one day about standard naming schema for DjVu book files and implement it saying: "Fixing it in Wikisource is not our problem"?
A bot can be used to create the "edition or translation" Wikidata elements when splitting the "work" elements and restore local interwiki then. It was one of the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey proposals (#148 here). This work still can be done but it needs few people from various Wikisource projects (preferably bot operators) to co-operate. Moving the data manually (even the existent data) would consume a lot of time. Wasted time, IMO. Ankry (talk) 20:10, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Moving the data will almost have to be done manually. Neither Wikidata not the Wikisource projects currently have the necessary data in place for the process to be accomplished by a bot. I have been working almost exclusively with cleanup of Athenian drama (about 45 plays) to determine what needs to be done and how much work it will be. My experience is that the information is not placed so that a bot could do the job, and in many situations, I have had to hunt through several pages, or even the text of scans, to find the data necessary to set up a data item. Believing that a bot could do the job in multiple languages is naïve.
My position that "this is not my problem" comes because of your confrontational accusations that I needed to fix the problems created by Wikidata's model because you were dissatisfied. Making further accusations does nothing to help this issue. If you are interested in seeking a solution, then seek a solution. Do not drop in to tell other people that they have to solve your problems for you. If you move interwikis to Wikidata, then they will be edited according to Wikidata policies, not according to individual policies at other sites. And if pl-Wikisource wishes to preserve their interwikis, they may choose to do so, but it is not the responsibility of Wikidata, en-Wikisource, or any other project to do their work for them.
Restoring links locally to the Wikisources is also not a workable solution. For one, I find it difficult to edit in many languages, now the the Visual Editor pops up when I try to edit, and gives me a welcome and instructions in a language I cannot read. Also, in many cases, the local architecture has made changes to re-align with Wikidata. (There should be a primary data item for the original copy of any work, and set of other data items for the various editions and translations.) Without being able to read all of the linked languages, and reviewing which are which, the local links should not be restored. I have seen too many cases on en-Wikisource where the links were to the wrong work altogether. I do not imagine it will be any different elsewhere. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:19, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Moving the data will almost have to be done manually
It depends:
  • Old-style interwiki can be restored automatically with no problem
  • author information can be easily filled
  • the lins to/from work element can be set automatically
  • if the text is processed using ProofreadPage, some information can be extracted from the Index page
  • some wiki use templates that can contain extra information
Of course, some manual work is still needed. But this way it is not disruptive.
No, author information cannot be easily filled. Translations and editions typically do not get author information separately, because it duplicates data on the primary data item. And many works on various Wikisource projects have no Index page at all. There are lots of other issues, and they are different on each Wikisource. Index pages often lack necessary information. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:15, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
And: I do not care much on plwikisource here; we monitor Wikidata changes and we likely will notice these. Like in this case. The problem is for small wikis with almost no active users. Who will restore interwiki there? Where to hunt for the full interwiki set when somebody dissipate them?
No idea. But Wikidata repeatedly states that its primary purpose is not maintaining wikilinks for other projects, while those projects do not seem to know that and migrate links anyway. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:15, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
If you move interwikis to Wikidata
The move to wikidata was enforced in many wiki by users non active there, wikidata users, bots, etc. As I did see that 1-1 interwiki model is not good for wikisource since it was enforced (when wikidata did appear), I oposed the move as much as I could.
On en-Wikisource, we have stopped bots that do this, and reprimanded users who remove links. That is the only possible solution for now. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:16, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Observing wikidata/mediawiki development (that is Wikipedia-centric), I doubt that any new interwiki mechanism based on current work-edition wikidata model will appear earlier then in about five years. It is an epoch. And, IMO, we should have some temporary mechanism, even if not ideal. And, no, I did not observe many bogus interwikis before wikidata era. However, I observed few bogus interwiki added to wikidata by bots hunting for translations of short titles, like eg. Earth, Cat, Mud, etc.

And, yes, I know the current model, even tried to fight with its misuses (eg. separate newspaper numbers linked as editions of a novel published in 50-100 parts in the sequent numbers of the newspaper). But they will still appear if there is no good documentation with various examples.
I also doubt if it is even possible to construct a reliable interwiki solution basing on current work-edition wikidata model; especially in complex cases:
  • a translator decided to split a novel into 2-3 separate novels (sometimes the "parts" have different translators). Are all of them "editions/translations" of the original work? Or, maybe, separate works? IMO, they should be linked to the original work, but definitely should not be linked together. What happens if another translator to another language did a similar (but not exact) split? The Bible may be a good example here (Old/New Testament editions, or even smaller; should Torah be linked to OT? whole Bible?). Also noticed that in some translations of Verne's works.
  • a translator decided to merge few works of the same author (eg. a novel and its sequel) into a single translation. Is this a translation of both works? Or, maybe, a separate new work not linked to them? (eg. translations of Sophie de Ségur's works into Polish)
  • a poet decided to add extra poems to the 2nd edition of his book of poetry. A translator decided to publish only the new ones in his translation of the book of poetry. Should the books be linked? How to link to the 2nd edition only an not to the 1st? (Polish translations of Heine)
  • multilingual works published simultaneously in few languages, possibly by various publishers. Which one is the original? All? An abstract one? How to link real translations to specific original language (eg. original was English/French; German translation basing on English, Italian basing on French)?
etc. Ankry (talk) 01:17, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
We are already wrestling with some of these issues at en-Wikisource. Some of them have been solved, but others have no clear solution. For example:
  • I am having to deal with a single translated "work" that was published in multiple volumes, and each volume came out in a different year. The same work then came out in a new edition with a different number of volumes.
  • I also have a work that was originally published in English, and has been translated into Japanese three time. But each Japanese translation is completely different from the other because each translator chose to leave out different material. Those translations each have several editions. And each translation came from a different edition of the English work.
  • There is no clear way to deal with anthologies. Anthologies of poetry, published in multiple editions with differences in titles and numbering are a huge headache.
  • There is a well-known book about medieval history that was originally in Dutch. The two English translations are completely different from each other. The earlier one was translated from the (unpublished) French translation which excised lots of material, and it was not translated from Dutch. The newer English translation has a different title and was translated from the original Dutch.
  • And for the Greek drama in which I work, there are no original editions. The Greek texts that exist are all editions, prepared by various editors from available source materials. So there is no "original" copy to link at all. However, the texts posted to el-Wikisource do not identify which editor prepared them, nor where they were published. So I can't create data items for them.
For these and other problems there are often no workable solutions as yet. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:15, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for reverting my edit!Edit

Dear EncycloPetey,

I am responsible for this. I actually wanted to click the link "opera teatrale" on the "Wikidata usefuls" box, but i did not realize that I clicked on the wrong link ("gioco di carte" was exactly on the upper line in the list of links to click).

I'm writing to thank you for your quick revert and to assure that I was in total good faith. I am sorry to have caused confusion. - OrbiliusMagister (talk) 09:18, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Interwiki link on Q868447Edit

Good morning. I would like to know why you reverted my edits on the element The Clouds (Les Nuées). As you can see, the only page about The Clouds on french wikisource is fr:s:Les Nuées, and no one else. There is no other way to link the different pages on the different Wikisources. If you have a better solution to resolve this question of interwiki links, I will listen. --Consulnico (talk) 09:07, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@Consulnico: If you want to have interwikis, then you can add interwikis at French Wikisource.
The reason for reversion is that all those translations are different books, published in different years, in different languages, by different people, through different publishers. Each different book or edition must have a separate data item at Wikidata, so that the data about that book or edition can be recorded. It is incorrect to merge items with different data. --EncycloPetey (talk) 09:36, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
I understand there are different translations, it's my job to correct them on wikisource, thank you. You are currently linking the wikimedia sites between them in the old and wrong way. I will not use manual interwiki links on fr.wikisource, just because you refuse to link the pages on Wikidata. For now, there is only one translation of The Clouds (Les Nuées) on fr.wikisource, so I link this translation with the other pages of the same subject on Wikidata. It's the way it has been presented for years. For instance, you can see it's done the same way for en.wikisource. So why acting differently for the two wikimedia sites ? --Consulnico (talk) 10:11, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
No, it is not done that way on en-Wikisource (except where the links were added incorrectly by a bot). I and others are correcting this problem. The sites are being done the same way, but there is much to fix. Wikidata has policy that each book and each translation have a separate data item. If the French Wikisource wants to link differently, the links must be done at French Wikisource. Wikidata stores the data about the books, and must have separate data items to do that. The Clouds (Q868447) is the data item for the original version written in ancient Greek, so no translations into other languages should be there except as "editions/translations", which is the way they are currently placed there. This is the way that Wikidata has chosen to handle the issue of editions and translations. --EncycloPetey (talk) 10:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
So, if you have only one translation of a text, you can not have an interwiki link with Wikipedia or other Wikisources on Wikidata ? --Consulnico (talk) 10:21, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
There should never be interwiki links through Wikidata between two different items. The number of translations does not matter, because translations are never linked between different Wikisources on Wikidata. It does not matter whether there is one translation, two translations, or twelve. They should not be linked on Wikidata unless they are the same item. --EncycloPetey (talk) 11:02, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
So why is there a link between en.wikisource (your wikisource !) and Wikidata on The Clouds (Les Nuées) ? Just to understand the correct way. --Consulnico (talk) 11:05, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Go visit the page. It is a versions page that describes the work, and which lists the translations that have been published in English. It is the same thing you have at fr, Wikisource for Iphigenia in Tauris (Q523227): a list of translations. --EncycloPetey (talk) 11:08, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Why didn't you explain that in the first place, and waited for your 4th answer to give clear explanations about your reverts ? Do you always revert contributions without any discussion with people ? --Consulnico (talk) 13:42, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
You didn't ask that in the first place. And I had seen that you had been linking versions pages from fr.Wikisource, so I knew that you knew what they were, and how to correctly link them. I assume from your reply that you didn't bother to follow the link before I asked you to do so, which means that this is entirely a failure to understand on your part. I have patiently replied to each of your inquiries, offering explanation each time, but am being met with rudeness and accusations. You can see plainly that I don't "always revert contributions without any discussion", because I am discussing it, here. If you have nothing constructive to say, then this conversation is ended. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:23, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

P451 reversionsEdit

Thanks for checking out and reverting some of my edits on partner (P451). Actually I was amending symmetric violations on the property. It is likely that if mistakes are not amended from both sides they would eventually pop up again. Cheers! --Jey (talk) 22:02, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


Sorry, my bad, I mistook one item for another. There's a mistake on VIAF, they mistook an Italian contemporary painter for the Biblical person. --Sannita - not just another sysop 14:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that happened from time to time. We had a whole series of Renaissance Italians mistakenly added on to an ancient Greek poet a while back. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

TLG linksEdit

Stop! Please dont' remove those. They are accurate and WILL be usable at some point. Jonathan Groß (talk) 16:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

They generate only an error message. The links do not go anywhere. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:09, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
They do if you have access to the TLG. You are a classicist aren't you? This is THE resource for Ancient and Byzantine Greek texts. Regardless if there's a link or not, the IDs are a valid and valuable reference. Please don't remove them! Cheers, Jonathan Groß (talk) 16:10, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

clade as rankEdit

About your revert.
Of course clades are not a rank in phylogeny litterature.
But here were are building a database.
The main problem is having instance of (P31)=taxon (Q16521) or monotypic taxon (Q310890) or fossil taxon (Q23038290) or clade (Q713623) or species aggregate (Q1297859)
This is human understandable but NOT computer reasonable.
It mixes different informations: it is a taxon + it is monotypic + it is extinct + it is monophyletic (clade)
We will require all combination like "extinct + monophyletic", "extinct + monotypic", "extinct + monophyletic + monotypic" ...
Conclusion we should have instance of (P31)=taxonOrClade, extinct=<yes|no>, monotypic=<yes|no>, monophyletic=<yes|no> rank=Always set (clade included)
Regards Liné1 (talk) 19:22, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

For that reason, you will never find a taxonomy database (I know many many of them) with rank=<empty> for a clade.
Regards Liné1 (talk) 19:23, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
But that's not what the property of a taxon rank is for on Wikidata. The "Rank" of a taxon is the name of a taxonomic level at which that taxon is placed in the hierarchy. Saying it is a "clade" is a description of what the object is, not its rank. The property is for identifying traditional ranks in the Linnaean hierarchy. There may be a need for some additional property to capture what you are trying to do, but what you have done is a misuse of that property. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:27, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree. I had to revert some of your changes today, Liné1. --Succu (talk) 19:41, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Here the rank was not absent, It was empty/blank ! Reader can understand "there is a rank but we don't provide it", "we don't know the rank" ...
Why not age=<empty/blank> , locality=<empty/blank> , sex=<empty/blank> because it has no meaning for a taxon?
What you want is rank=noneBecauseItIsAClade which is not clearly explained by rank=<empty/blank>.
Regards Liné1 (talk) 19:51, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Logically, that is a combination of two separate claims: (1) that the item has no assigned rank, and (2) it is recognized as monotypic (a clade). Only the first claim belongs in the property of "taxon rank". --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:54, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Sorry I missed your meaning.
You think that rank=empty/blank is normal ?
empty/blank means "has no assigned rank" ?
If that is the case, it is quite confusing.
Regards Liné1 (talk) 19:59, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
The reason that "magnoliids" has no rank is that it does not conform to the requirements of the Code for plant names. It does not matter whether the taxon is monophyletic, because a monophyletic taxon can be given a rank (the clade Animalia has the rank of kingdom; the clade Insecta has the rank of a class; the clade Orchidaceae has the rank of a family). And a taxon that is not monophyletic can be named and given a rank (the paraphyletic group Reptilia, which excludes the birds, is given the rank of a class). So calling something a "clade" has nothing to do with its rank. It is inappropriate to call "clade" a rank.
The value of empty signifies that the taxon has no rank; no rank is assigned because it is not published according to the Code, and was not given a rank by the authors who named the clade. It has no assigned rank. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:05, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Your last sentense respond to my question. rank=blank has a meaning, even if not clear: no assigned rank. Regards Liné1 (talk) 20:09, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Strange possible values for instance of (P31)Edit

I think that it is bad for a taxon to have instance of (P31)=taxon (Q16521) or monotypic taxon (Q310890) or fossil taxon (Q23038290) or clade (Q713623) or ...
It mixes different informations: it is a taxon + it is monotypic + it is extinct + it is monophyletic (clade)
We will require all combination like "extinct + monophyletic", "extinct + monotypic", "extinct + monophyletic + monotypic" ...
Conclusion we should have instance of (P31)=taxon|clade, extinct=<yes|no>, monotypic=<yes|no>, monophyletic=<yes|no> rank=Always set except in case of clades without rank
Regards Liné1 (talk) 20:11, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. Splitting those property makes sense.
The only one I'm doubtful about is "monotypic", because it has three different meanings. It can mean (1) "containing only one living species"; (2) "containing only one published species (living or extinct)", or (3) "containing only one subordinate taxon". For this reason alone, monotypy becomes a difficult thing to code. Besides which, a taxon can cease to be monotypic is a second member is added, by discovery of a new species, by splitting an existing species, by reassignment of an established species, etc. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:27, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
I totally agree on monotypic. People setting it are not aware of extinct species in most cases.
But even more reason to avoid instance of (P31)=monotypic taxon (Q310890)
Best regards Liné1 (talk) 20:30, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

unhelpful edits, save your timeEdit


from discussion:

don't start any mass changes yet

somehow it is different from what you state

please do not remove data - consensus was to merge but NOT make changes yet

d1g (talk) 00:20, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Please stop making mass changes and deleting information. The matter of migration of the property is still being discussed at the very page you linked to. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:24, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Ancient Greek should be specified at proper item Victory Odes (Q1347171), not The Extant Odes of Pindar (Q29051090).

is still being discussed at the very page you linked to

Are you sure? d1g (talk) 00:32, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Your comments do not help resolve the issue, nor is this the proper place to discuss them. Please limit policy discussions to suitable pages, not talk pages of individuals. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:06, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

  Comment @EncycloPetey: you can subscribe to Wikidata:WikiProject Books/Participants to keep track on important discussions. Same about other projects you have strong interest in. d1g (talk) 00:56, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


Hoi, you choose to undo my edit. This edit was correct based on the information available. Your notion that it was incorrect is not here nor there, you could have deleted the statement. It would have been less confrontational. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 14:28, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

There was no statement to delete, and it took several requests for you to even suggest where the problem was. It does not help when you refuse to answer questions. There still was never any source for the information you added. And even after the incorrect category tag was removed in thge WP article, you continued to revert. Try talking next time. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:01, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
I think that somebody assigned Q2892444 to every person mentioned here. @GerardM: but only translators were awarded (most of them not notable), not the original work's authors. Ankry (talk) 23:05, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
@Ankry: I don't think you need to discuss here, if EncycloPetey is an actual edit war (Q764327) fun, just report to WD:AN. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 07:27, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
@Liuxinyu970226: My opinion is that EncycloPetey was right reverting this edit. Regardless the way how this was done. I was pointing to them more similar incorrect edits. I do not see any need for WD:AN here. Ankry (talk) 08:48, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Authors in editionsEdit

Hi Petey, in this edit summary you say "author is placed in the work data item; not the edition data items". Part of the usefulness of the work/edition split, as I understand it, is that we can say how an author is named in different editions. If a book is written by Liz Smith and each edition is credited to Liz Smith, then that's a dull example and you might say it's uninformative. However, with some books, including important historical books, the author name will be stated differently in each edition. Maybe early editions will have a pseudonym e.g. "A gentleman of Oxford" and later have the real name. Maybe an author will be credited with her maiden name in one edition, full married name in later edition, name minus middle name later than that. That's why an author property on an edition can be informative, even when it just repeats the name associated with the work. It's data that's useful to bibliographers. Are you taking the position that author properties should never be attached to works, or just that this case was not worth recording? MartinPoulter (talk) 17:16, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Author properties should always be attached to works. My position is that author properties do not belong in editions. If you think we need a separate property to mark attribution as given on the title page, or some such, then that would be a new property to be proposed. All the various forms of an author's name is a property associated with a person, not of a book or edition. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:05, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi @MartinPoulter, EncycloPetey:
This is indeed quite strange and we shouldn't do it everytime but the current model is to put the author(s) both in the work item *and* the edition item (see Wikidata:WikiProject Books and the talks, for example P50 of edition (when there is already the same P50 on works)).
For attribution as given on the title page there is several existaing properties and qualifiers that can maybe be used, for instance possible creator (P1779) and/or author (P50) with named as (P1810) as qualifier.
For both subjects, don't hesitate to create a new section onf the Books project.
Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 11:45, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
@MartinPoulter, EncycloPetey: We should never be doing that. Firstly because it make no logical sense, but more practically, it confuses the people running bots to tag data items, and people doing searches. Any time I've had an edition with a P50 statement on the item, someone will tag is as "book by X" in their own language. This becomes a problem because it prevents the work item from being tagged this way, as it creates a duplicate label. It also misleads data editors using the search function. They will see the "book by x" (or Buch von x, etc.) as a description and incorrectly assume they have found the "work" instead of an edition. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:13, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Maybe (probably ?) we shouldn't it but this a what the project ask us to do for the moment. That's why I said we should have a discussion on the project to discuss about changing that (the discussion I mention last July was not conclusive as people talked about others subjects). My point of view is in between : we should remove it when the value is the same in both the work and the edition and we should add the author in the edition only when there is something different (like difference in the name of the author, different authors in re-edtion of technical manuals, etc.), or in some other limited exceptions. Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 17:47, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: I've come across this in creating a timeline of books by Voltaire: the fact is that a lot of editions have a author (P50) property, and the simple response is to use the query to filter out editions. Like VIGNERON says, it makes no logical sense to create a new property for how an author name is stated when we already have author (P50)/named as (P1810). If editors using the search function are misled by inaccurate descriptions, then those descriptions need to be fixed: this doesn't affect whether the items should have a author (P50) property. "All the various forms of an author's name is a property associated with a person, not of a book or edition." - this obviously doesn't fix the problem of how to represent that one edition is credited to the author under one name, another edition under another name. And it doesn't even need fixing because we already have a way to represent that. @VIGNERON: Your suggestion sounds sensible but the only worry I have is that if an edition lacks a author (P50)/named as (P1810) property that could mean the edition either has the author name stated exactly as for the book, or that we don't know how the author name was stated in that edition. For bibliography, that is a significant difference. MartinPoulter (talk) 11:13, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
@MartinPoulter:I'd like to say that, the first half of your response assumes an issue was raised that wasn't in fact mentioned. You are arguing against a strawman that no one had mentioned, but then dismsiss it. You say "If editors using the search function are misled by inaccurate descriptions, then those descriptions need to be fixed". No one said they are being misled by inaccurate descriptions. The problem is that we have led them to believe that author (P50) is a property of a "work", and my point is that (logically) that is what it should be. You then say that my explanation of the situation doesn't solve the problem. An explanation is never intended to solve the problem, it is intended to point it out and clarify the issue. At that point people should work together to find a solution, instead of dismissing the problem out of hand, as you have done. Finally, there is no reason to "ping" me on my own talk page. You do know that? --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:49, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
"It also misleads data editors using the search function. They will see the "book by x" (or Buch von x, etc.) as a description and incorrectly assume they have found the "work" instead of an edition." This is where you raised the problem caused by incorrect descriptions. If a description of an edition describes it as book, it is incorrect. "You are arguing against a strawman that no one had mentioned [...] No one said they are being misled by inaccurate descriptions." On the contrary, I'm addressing a point that you yourself made in the previous quote. "You then say that my explanation of the situation doesn't solve the problem. An explanation is never intended to solve the problem, it is intended to point it out and clarify the issue." Here you are arguing against a straw man of your own invention. I never suggested that your explanation was intended to solve the problem. I suggested that the situation described in your explanation leaves a problem unsolved. "people should work together to find a solution, instead of dismissing the problem out of hand, as you have done." This is contradicted by the previous discussion: I have raised a problem which you are dismissing out of hand. Apologies for the inconvenience caused by pinging you here: force of habit. MartinPoulter (talk) 15:14, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
@MartinPoulter: (1) And what is causing bot operators to add the incorrect descriptions? Answer: The defective model currently in place. The problem is not the incorrect descriptions, but the defective model that leads to the creation of incorrect descriptions. (2) That is why I summarized the problem, which (3) you said "obviously doesn't fix the problem" and in English "fix" is a synonym of "solve", and thus you dismissed the summary of the problem for something it was not intended to do, thereby attempting to justify not fixing the problem. (4) Claiming that there is no problem is the only way that is certain to not solve any problem. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:35, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

The Comedies of Aristophanes (Q21286489)Edit

I don't understand why I'm not right on The Comedies of Aristophanes (Q21286489), in particular I can't see any conceptual difference to your edits on The Dramas of Aeschylus (Q22810109) [3]. --Pasleim (talk) 21:55, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

That's what we're currently hashing out in Wikiproject Books. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:10, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
But why did you write "you weren't right" if you did the same edits [4]? --Pasleim (talk) 09:38, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
As with other times you've commented, you didn't look at which I actually did, did you? First, go look at what you linked, then look at what I linked, and you will see enormous differences. Second, we're currently in the process of deciding how we should be doing all of this, so initiating any changes may turn out to be wasted effort, or at the very least may require lots of additional cleanup. Hence, my previous comment. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:17, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
I looked in advance at your edits and I tried to model The Comedies of Aristophanes (Q21286489) in precisely the same way as you did with other ancient greek works. That's why I'm so troubled by your reverts and comments. Also at the second glance, I still can't see any difference. --Pasleim (talk) 15:34, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

If someone has occupation=essayist, then their field of work (among other things) is also essayEdit

Hi I am responding to your reversion here. Actually the term essayist is redundan because the occupation is writer. You can have it both ways, but you can't remove one and not the other. Jane023 (talk) 17:19, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

@Jane023: No, actually I'm not "having it both ways". Eliot was employed as an essayist separately from her employment as a literary editor or as a translator. These were separate positions held, paid by different employers. However, her field of work is "writing". An "essay" is not a field of work; it is a form in which a writer can work. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:23, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Then her field of work was also essay. Jane023 (talk) 17:28, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

To be clear, I am not saying that her field of work should not be writing. There should be a match for each field of work and occupation. Jane023 (talk) 17:31, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

And I am saying that your argument is not valid. If someone's occupation is "violinist", their field of work is not "violin"; it is "music". If someone is a "violinist, pianist, and conductor", their field of work is still simply "music", not "violin, piano, orchestra". You are confusing form of a work with field of work. Eliot's field of work is writing, or perhaps literature. "Essay" is not ever a field of work any more than "violin" is a field of work. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:35, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

About "Different from"Edit

Hi, I agree that people reading items that are already pretty detailed can figure if they are indeed different but games and bots identifying merge candidates will more easily figure if items are different with am explicit P1889 statement. It doesn't hurt, no? LaddΩ chat ;) 00:48, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

@Laddo: It isn't necessary for the cases I reverted. Bots are taught to know the difference between a human (Q5) and hamlet (Q5084). And each translation (Q39811647) and version, edition, or translation (Q3331189) is already marked as such, so there is no reason to double tag. You should probably learn more about Wikidata structure before adding more properties. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:18, 19 February 2018 (UTC)


Why this removal? It's certainly how I've seen it handled for film series; I would think this is exactly analogous. - Jmabel (talk) 04:08, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

It's not used that way in Project Books. The film project may have some rationale for it, but it doesn't add any information about the work. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:10, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Sure it does. It makes it explicit that nothing in the series precedes it, as against possibly having been accidentally omitted. - Jmabel (talk) 04:23, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
The description as "part 1" already does that. I can see how follows" might be useful in a sequence of variable length, or an open-ended run, but not with a trilogy. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:50, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

The 6th edition is also a "book" as well as a versionEdit

The 6th edition has different versions. What an interesting book that has had at least 6 rewrites? I will fix this here tomorrow.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 03:04, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Portal problemsEdit

I am making a data item for an encyclopedia. I dislike that Portal:Encyclopedia exists Q15657000, perhaps it works like the Catagory data items do for the commonscats but I really want to merge that Portal data item with encyclopedias Q5292 because of confusing redundancies and the open source link at the later.

Then the main subject with priority can point to the proper portal. It'd be EasyPeasy and very pretty.

If I could add things to the portal data item -- but there seems to be no way to link to it.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 03:36, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

You can't and shouldn't merge those data items. They are doing different things. One is a label to be used on items that are encyclopedias. The other is for Wikimedia Portals about encyclopedias.
But from your explanation, I can't tell why you would even want to merge the items or what the problem is. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:54, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Also, Portals and Lists are not the same thing. Lists exist in the Mainspace at Wikipedia; Portals on Wikimedia projects exist in the Portal namespace. A data item cannot be both. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:57, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
The portals needs something like Property:P935 or Property:P373. Q56444212 is an example of its use, since I figured it out.... I used them correctly, finally, as reflected at s:en:Domestic Encyclopædia (1802)/Cabbage-palm. Putting the portal there makes sense to me, as well as the wiktionary, species, etc.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 19:45, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
I still have no idea what you are seeking to do, but linking a gallery and category for a species under a specific article in an encylcopedia is incorrect linkages. What you probably want is to link the gallery and category at Wikisource directly, and not through Wikidata. Or else, link to the species data item using main subject (P921). --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:05, 3 September 2018 (UTC)


Hi! I'm involved in creating a new user group WikiClassics in order to discuss problems related to classical antiquity and archaeology between users from different projects and coordinate efforts to improve both the single linguistic projects (Wikipedias, Wikisources ...) and the multilingual ones (Commons and Wikidata). I hope you could be interested in joining our discussions! We will really start working in a month, I hope. Bye, --Epìdosis 22:07, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Las avispas = ΣφῆκεςEdit

Hi, bro. Las avispas is a translation to Spanish of the Classical Greek comedy Σφήκες by Aristophanes. Why did you revert this edition? --Pompilos (talk) 14:17, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

@Pompilos: Because the Ancient Greek text is not written in Spanish. Las avispas (Q63089514) is the data item for the 1881 Spanish translation published in Madrid by Federico Baraibar Zumárraga. The 1907 Greek text edited by F.W. Hall and W.M. Geldart needs a separate data item (Wasps (Q63098372)) because it is written in a different language, by different editors, in a different year, and published by a different publisher. Each published edition must be given a separate data item because the publication data will be different. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:21, 11 April 2019 (UTC)


The Greeks have only 496 and 406. Also the new dates 497/496 and 406/405 are in minority (two scholars), the rest gives traditional dates 496 and 406. — Paelius (talk) 21:30, 28 August 2019 (UTC) PS. I don't have notifications enabled, so could You answer on my discussion page. — Paelius (talk) 21:32, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "EncycloPetey".