Previous discussion was archived at User talk:Fractaler/Flow Archive 1 on 2016-08-17.

Logo of Wikidata

Welcome to Wikidata, Fractaler!

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!

--Ricordisamoa 18:06, 18 May 2013 (UTC)


I don't undertand the claims "has part of the type" you just added on the "network" item. Can you explain the rationale ? My understanding of this item that it was a rather abstract concept that was a superclass for anything that has a network structure. The networks are then subclasses, not parts at all. Properties like union of (P2737)   are then way more appropriate. author  TomT0m / talk page 07:09, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Please take part in the Flow satisfaction surveyEdit

(That message in other languages: العربية • ‎bosanski • ‎català • ‎Deutsch • ‎Esperanto • ‎français • ‎עברית • ‎polski • ‎português • ‎português do Brasil • ‎русский • ‎اردو • ‎中文 – ‎translate that message)


Like some other community members, you have tried Flow.

An increasing number of communities now use Flow or are considering it. Although Flow itself is not scheduled for major development during 2016 fiscal year, the Collaboration Team remains interested in the project and in providing an improved system for structured discussions.

You can help us make decisions about the way forward in this area by sharing your thoughts about Flow — what works, doesn't work or should be improved?

Please fill out this survey (available in multiple languages), which is administered by a third-party service. It will not require an email or your username. See our privacy statement.

Thanks for your ideas and opinions about Flow!

Trizek (WMF), on behalf of the Collaboration team, 12:04, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

The LanguagesEdit


Hello.It is clear that your knowledge of English does not help the talk here Google translate helps (much) to contribute here.


Hello.It ясно, что ваши знания английского языка не помогает разговор здесь Google Translate помогает (много), чтобы внести свой вклад здесь. --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 14:37, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I know about Google Translate. I'm tring to use the international language (like P/Q+number: Google Translate (Q135622); math symbol: ±, ∈, ∉, ⊂, ⊃, ~, =; pictures/movie and so on) for an international readers (human) and P/Q+number language readers (computer program for wikidata). --Fractaler (talk) 07:02, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Google Translate is useful in writing useful phrases --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 07:14, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
"Google Translate (Q135622)'s phrases" ⊂ "word (Q8171)'s phrases". "word (Q8171)'s phrases" ∉ "general/universal language's phrases" (using Wikidata's language/tools as the general frame of reference (Q184876)). In case of problems, I use English. --Fractaler (talk) 11:50, 27 October 2016 (UTC)


Hello.See Help:Слияние элементов.Greetings --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 08:40, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I will use it in obvious cases --Fractaler (talk) 11:58, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

has part (P527)Edit

STOP adding this as reverse property to subclass of (P279). Прекратите использовать это свойство в случаях, когда присутствует свойство P279 в противоположном элементе. Эти свойства не обратные! --Infovarius (talk) 05:49, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

"подкласс от"("subclass of") = "подмножество для" множества ("is a subset of" set). "состоит из" (has as part) = (множество) "состоит из подмножеств" (set "has subset"). Конечно, если бы использовали только терминологию теории множеств, такие вопросы не возникали (как и споры что класс, что подкласс, что элемент, что не элемент, что часть, что элемент и т.п.). В теории множеств всё чётко: подмножество (subset)->множество(set)->надмножество(superset). Без неё были, есть и будут вопросы с отображением картины мира на множество системы координат (URL) wikidata. --Fractaler (talk) 08:01, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Класс != множество, отсюда все ваши проблемы. Вы читали Help_talk:Basic_membership_properties? Например, в RDF написано: "RDF distinguishes between a class and the set of its instances". Но самое страшное, что "состоит из" не понимается здесь так, как хотите его понимать. Оно лучше всего определено для физических объектов (для них это просто "часть объекта"). Для классов его экстраполируют в том смысле, что любой пример этого класса "состоит из" таких частей. --Infovarius (talk) 10:04, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
class (Q217594) - "множество или его обобщение в математике" (collection of sets in mathematics that can be defined based on a property of its members). В Help:Basic membership properties класса нет, только подклассы. "в RDF" - можно определение терминов "класс", "instance"? "для физических объектов" - в wikidata физические объекты? "пример этого класса" - пример - ещё одна сущность? Зачем их к "подмножество (subset)->множество(set)->надмножество(superset)" столько наплодили? От лишних сущностей есть средство - Occam's razor (Q131012) --Fractaler (talk) 10:47, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Потому что не всё описывается множествами. "Пример" - мой перевод en:instance. --Infovarius (talk) 22:11, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Описывается где? Есть примеры реализации научной модели мира, где не работает правило "subset (Q177646) -> set (Q36161) -> надмножество (Superset (Q17130074))"?

part of (P361) zero-sum game (Q156612)Edit

On second thought your statement antihero (Q110910) opposite of (P461) hero (Q162244) is somehow right - at least in some respect. So I undid my undoing. Sorry for having been so rash :)

But I really don't know what you mean by antagonist (Q245204) part of (P361) zero-sum game (Q156612) (and the other variants). zero-sum game (Q156612) is an economical theory and I didn't find any hint that the literary typus antagonist (Q245204) is part of that theory.

The author (character's creator (Q2500638)) uses the characters as the players in their zero-sum game (Q156612) (fields - 1)intelligence (Q83500), 2) emotion (Q9415), emotional intelligence (Q191591)). I only use the description of term. It may descriptions need to be clarified? --Fractaler (talk) 13:04, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Are you thinking something like "antagonist and protagonist are part of a situationtype conforming to zero-sum game (Q156612)"?
I don't think that this statement is true, as not all stories with protagonists (and - optionally - antagonists) depict situations conforming to the model of zero-sum game (Q156612). There are stories with a protagonist, but without a clear antagonist. There are stories with protagonist and antagonist, where the gain of the protagonist is not balanced with the loss of the antagonist. Their abilities and inabilities don't have to be balanced etc. Of course there are stereotypical stories (of stereotypical heroes and stereotypical villains) where you can think of a zero-sum game (Q156612). But I don't think that that's the majority of stories - there are many stories using protagonists and antagonists to show situations not being zero-sum game (Q156612).Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 13:52, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
"good and evil (Q10797504)" (=good (Q15290)+evil (Q15292)) is the name of this zero-sum game. Of course, not all participants of this game can be clear represented in the model, which is described by the author of the work. There are such situations: 1) only the bad players, 2) only the good players, and 3) all (1+2). And you are right, we need wikidataterms: 1) "stories with a protagonist, but without a clear antagonist", 2) "stories with protagonist and antagonist, where the gain of the protagonist is not balanced with the loss of the antagonist" 3) "stereotypical stories" 4) "stereotypical heroes" 5) "stereotypical villains" 6) Other, "Unclassified stories" --Fractaler (talk) 11:11, 26 November 2016 (UTC)


Hey Fractaler, I generally like that approach, but I am not sure whether type of sport (Q31629) should be an indirect subclass of set (Q36161) — which is a purely mathematical concept. Do we have a non-mathematical analogon of “set” instead?

This change will also cause a lot of trouble at Wikidata:Database reports/Constraint violations/P641#Value type Q349, Q20037067. My estimation would be that some 36.000 constraint violations will show up there with one of the next updates, a steep rise from 121 right now. I’ll continue to work in this field, but I’m going to be on holiday soon and not able to do that much work.

Regards, MisterSynergy (talk) 13:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Set "type of sport" (type of sport (Q31629)) is subset of set "type" (type (Q21146257)). "type" is not "activity", type is "abstract", categorization (classification) of activity. Classification/categorization always is a setconcept --Fractaler (talk) 14:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I understand and appreciate this approach, but that is not the point here. I just wonder whether type of sport (Q31629) subclass of (P279) type (Q21146257) subclass of (P279) set (Q36161) is a proper chain to subclass things. I can’t say right now whether this works or not, but I’m a bit worried about the subclassing of the mathematical concept set (Q36161). Maybe I think about this at a later time again. It’s not something which would be complicated to fix, if a repair would at all be necessary. Regards! —MisterSynergy (talk) 14:12, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
We can use other examples: "model of car" is subset of set Model, "type of wine (Q282)" is subset of set "type". We have to decide what is "type"? --Fractaler (talk) 14:24, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
A possibility would be to split set (Q36161) into different, but similar concepts (mathematical set and a non-mathematical analogon). The mathematical set has elements and certain, well-defined allowed mathematical operations which can be used for its elements. I doubt that this is generally true for any non-mathematical set, thus I suggest to split set (Q36161). It subclasses five different items, maybe this is not an ideal situation anyway. However, there is no need to hurry and we might want to include the opinion of other users in such complicated situations, so have fun on your holiday first…   I will not touch the status quo meanwhile. Regards, —MisterSynergy (talk) 14:52, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
You're right, we have some chaos here. What we have now: category of being (Q714737), class (Q5127848) (philosophical term), set (Q36161) of naive set theory (Q903783) (math term), type (Q21146257), collection (Q2668072), group (Q18844919), metaclass (Q19478619), (meta)class (Q23960977) (WD's term), Category (Q224414) (Wikimedia term). --Fractaler (talk) 16:26, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
"non-mathematical set" - what is it? Fractaler (talk) 16:40, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I meanwhile studied the “mathematical set” again and found that it is indeed a surprisingly open concept for such uses. In fact, what I envisioned as a “non-mathematical set” can be described as a mathematical set, and a distinction is no longer useful then. Well, I did not expect that, but my math education is admittedly not that fresh. I guess I should withdraw my complaint, which I hereby do…   Regards, sorry for the trouble, and keep going! —MisterSynergy (talk) 17:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm trying to find out from wikidata editors why they are instead of "set" use the term "class". Then editors speak about the theory. Then I ask about the examples of that theory (here, in WD, WD's samples). while waiting for. I think we have the biggest problem - or lack of,no definition (as, for example, for the term "set") or inaccurate, broad, vague definition. --Fractaler (talk) 18:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Mathematically there is indeed a difference between the more general entity of a class and the more specific entity of a set (AFAIR from far past + some Wikipedia reading). The knowledge tree is mainly modelled using classes, although at some point down the tree these classes are in fact sets. Yet it is not always that clear at which level we start to talk about sets instead of classes in the mathematical sense. The mathematical background, which to some extent can help to understand this matter, is beyond the level of knowledge of most Wikipedians, Wikimedias, and Wikidatans… This is not at all easy stuff, so don’t be surprised. —MisterSynergy (talk) 18:43, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
"The knowledge tree is mainly modelled using classes" - for example? What points the tree are classes (but not sets)? --Fractaler (talk) 06:38, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


Fractaler, this is simply the way WD is constructed. You can think of classes and subclasses as sets and subsets for many purposes. The instances of a class do indeed form a set. But the "subset membership" or "type" hierarchy of WD is built using the property "subclass of" (not "part of" or "type"), no matter what you want to call it. DavRosen (talk) 18:54, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
But if I can think of classes and subclasses as sets and subsets for many purposes, why I have to use "class" instead of "set"? --Fractaler (talk) 09:43, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
You have to use "subclass of" because that is the way that the WD project has chosen to do it, and that is the way that most of the rest of WD is constructed, whether you agree or not. We can't each choose a different way without consensus, or WD becomes chaos, right? DavRosen (talk) 13:25, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
I mean, for what (here, in WD) set is called the class? Used "set", but write "class". Why? What's the point of this? --Fractaler (talk) 12:09, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
That is not my area of expertise. My point is only that you were organizing some of transport in a way that did not match the way this is done throughout most of WD or the way that is described in the WD help. DavRosen (talk) 19:35, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Do you mean that Q28861955, private transport (Q1661652), transport (Q7590) (and so on) are not homonym (Q160843)? Or that those homonym's pages we need to format according to the WD help instruction? --Fractaler (talk) 14:24, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
I only mean that, according the way WD is constructed, Q28861955 is subclass of private transport (Q1661652) is subclass of transport (Q7590). Also *if* there were an item "motorized transport" (I'm not certain whether we do or should have something similar to this), then Q28861955 would *also* be a subclass of "motorized transport" which would be another subclass of transport (Q7590). Because subclass is transitive, it isn't necessary that these relationships be direct (there could be other levels of subclass in between some of them). I'm not going to try to answer your questions about homonymy, etc., because I know less about them. It may (or may not) be an interesting discussion for you to have with the Ontology team. Perhaps it would be beneficial to add additional structure to WD (I suggest making a very specific proposal before arguing about the principles), but in the meantime we have to use the established structure of WD. For one thing, WD is machine-readable and any tools that try to use it are not going to be very useful for parts of it that follow a different pattern. Just as a trivial example, Reasonator will trace the subclass hierchy back to its root (typically to entity) but it can't do this if you don't use subclass in this way for part of WD. BTW, it appears to me that the biological taxonomy has indeed chosen to use a different structure (largely instead of subclass of). I personally find this to be annoying as a non-expert, but I assume this was a consensus among those knowledgeable about that subject based on some specific reasons why a simple "subclass of" was inadequate for that particular membership hierarchy. DavRosen (talk) 15:02, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for such a detailed response! About transitive relation (Q64861): Of course Q28861955 is subclass of private transport (Q1661652) is subclass of transport (Q7590). Really,, we need setclass "type of motorized private transport"! And then it (type of motorized private transport) is subsetsubclass of Q28861957 is subsetsubclass of type of transport (Q28861884)! --Fractaler (talk) 15:22, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
In the way WD is constructed, "type of" is not explicitly used in most cases. "Motorized transport" is already a class which can be thought of as a type (or as a set I suppose), so it already *loosely* implies the concept "class/type of motorized transport" or I suppose "set of motorized transports" and there is no need for "type of motorized transport" which would loosely mean "class of types/classes of motorized transports". This my informal explanation because I'm not an expert on classification and ontology relations. In fact there are cases where WD *does* use "type of" -- as a metaclass (class of classes). For example there is "quantum particle" and there is also its metaclass "type of quantum particle" which is the class whose *instances* consist of all(or most?) of the direct or indirect subclasses of "quantum particle". The subclass hierarchy exists under quantum particle and is the primary means of representing the entirety of the membership relationships among among quantum particle, fermion, elementary particle, quark, etc. The metaclass ("type of quantum particle") is *not* the primary means of representing the membership relations and it doesn't specify the hierarchy -- it is flat. For example, "fermion" is a subclass of quantum particle and it is also an *instance* of "type of quantum particle". Quark is a subclass of fermion (directly or not) and is another *instance* of "type of quantum particle. "Type of quantum particle" itself needn't have any subclass or superclass. This metaclass "type of quantum particle" isn't strictly necessary and is arguably redundant but I *think* it's done so that one can easily obtain a list of types (classes) directly by all the direct instances of "type of quantum particle" rather than recursively traversing the subclass-of "quantum particle" tree itself. I might be wrong about the reasons for this, but in any case it illustrates an established use of "type of" in WD. But I hope we don't add a metaclass "type of" item for every existing item or the size of WD will double and in my view would add little or no semantic content :-) BTW, I'm not commenting further on the biological taxonomy because I know almost nothing about it. DavRosen (talk) 19:24, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
It's very interesting discussion! I see, we have to write "types of X" instead "type of X". So, we have sets: "types of motorized transport", "types of quantum particle" and so on. --Fractaler (talk) 07:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
The actual primary membership hierarchy of "quantum particle" uses the "subclass of" property and does not use "type of..." or "types of...". (In some places editors have used "instance of" rather than "subclass of", but they shouldn't because it doesn't allow for further subclasses.)DavRosen (talk) 09:13, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Property:P279: "type of" = "subclass of" = "hyponym of" = "kind of" = "subset of" = "has superclass" and so on. --Fractaler (talk) 09:21, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

biological taxonomyEdit

BT also (like WD) uses set theory (Q12482), nothing new: hierarchical level identifier of the set (taxonomic rank (Q427626)) is not a number, but the name (ie, instead of a decimal number system uses its own, nominal number system). "species -> genus -> family -> order -> class -> phylum -> kingdom -> domain (Q28777989) = "1 < 2 < 3 < 4 < 5 < 6 < 7 < 8" of decimal (Q81365) (machine-readable data (Q6723621)) --Fractaler (talk) 16:08, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

"type of private transport" (Q28861957), type of transport (public/private), etc.Edit

Hi Fractaler, I think you are trying to create a hierarchy of types of transport but by using "Type" and "Part" concepts. The correct way to make a hierarchy of this sort is to use only subclasses. motorized private transport is a subclass of private transport which is a subclass of transport, for example. "Part" is used only when instances are physically built from one another, e.g. a wheel is "part of" a bus. motorized private transport isn't "part of" private transport, it is a subclass. DavRosen (talk) 18:41, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi DavRosen, first I want to thank you for your order in particle physics! Would you please help make the classification of these items: resonance (Q2597997) -> "unstable elementary particle"/"unstable particle"?, resonance (Q172858), resonator (Q349669) , oscillator (Q365535), Zerfallskanal (Q191623) -> ?)?
About hierarchy (Q188619) (used set theory (Q12482): subset (Q177646) -> set (Q36161) -> superset (Q15882515)). For this we need no homonymy (Q21701659) here (in WD). "motorized private transport" is homonym (Q160843). Q28861955 - set, has subsets: 1) "components of motorized private transport", 2) "types of motorized private transport". Then, private transport (Q1661652) (again homonym (Q160843)) - set, has subsets: 1) "components of private transport", 2) Q28861957. Then, transport (Q7590) (again homonym (Q160843)) - set, has subsets: 1) "components of transport", 2) mode of transport (Q334166) (subsubsets: 2a) type of transport (Q28861884), 2b) by mode 2, 2c) by mode 3), ..., 2N) by mode N). And so on. --Fractaler (talk) 09:07, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi Fractaler, we can't each edit and organize WD according to different theories about how the knowledge should be represented, no matter how sophisticated or correct the theories may be. If you want to propose doing things differently then make that proposal, but don't edit WD according to such a proposal unless it is accepted -- and by the way I think half the items in WD might need to be updated to fit it if it were accepted. The "subclass of" property is the one that WD uses to represent these trees of this type of relationship -- when you start using something else it does not contribute to the usability of WD because different parts of it will represent similar relationships in a different way. DavRosen (talk) 13:22, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
different theories? WD does not use set theory? What items for example? --Fractaler (talk) 11:56, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Type of costumeEdit

I had merged your "type of costume" with the item "dress" but I have undone that merge. They were similar concepts, but not identical.

As several editors have commented above, Wikidata is structured to use subclasses and instances (not parts) for classification. There is already a hierarchy of hundreds of items of clothing, costume, and fashion in Wikidata. - PKM (talk) 20:59, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok, how about subsets of set "types of costume" (has parts of the class (P2670): traditional costume (Q3172759), costume (Q1410477), religious costume (Q28854909) by WP)? --Fractaler (talk) 07:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

source codeEdit

I saw your addition Q29042827 (source code) with no wiki link and description just "code". Isn't that a duplicate of Q128751 (source code)? I was already about to merge them but could not because one links to the other. What is this source code that is partially source code and partially genome? Cheers, Mutante (talk) 04:45, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

You're right, thanks. Indeed, item Q29042827 needs clarification (homonymy (Q21701659) problem). source code (Q128751) (text to create a virtual object) and genome (Q7020) (text to create a biological object) are subsets of set Q29042827 - text for the interpreter (in a general sense). Interpreter executes source code without a intermediate stage (at once). For example, interpreter (Q183065) - program that executes source code without a separate compilation step, interpreter (biosystem) - ribosome (Q42244) - executes source code (text - already as RNA (Q11053)) -> protein (Q8054). --Fractaler (talk) 08:29, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the detailed explanation. I understand better now. Mutante (talk) 04:44, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for locomotion moves, but we already had items for themEdit

new items: Q29361932 Q29361540 old items: Q777371 Q372949

They are used in means of locomotion (P3512). Please prefer old items when possible.

Bots will clean up redirects after you merge duplicate items. d1g (talk) 21:11, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

See also animal locomotion (Q925958) animal gait (Q2370000) horse gait (Q754659) gallop (Q1766807) - used in gait (P2839) d1g (talk) 21:21, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

It is not new/old, it is phenomenon (Q16722960) ("-izm/ism") and phenomenon (Q16722960)'s varieties/types/kinds/...; set "A" and set "types of A" (type A1, type A2, type A3, ..., type An, type of "-izm/ism". "-izm/ism" ≠ "types of -izm/ism" (also Talk:Q29359884). animal gait (Q2370000) is pattern (Q2083958) (pattern of movement), of (P642) terrestrial locomotion (Q2535935) --Fractaler (talk) 07:40, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
means of locomotion (P3512) "method that the subject uses to move from one place to another" - where subject? --Fractaler (talk) 07:49, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
I overlooked P2670 at Q29359884. I haven't thought about system for these things because we had so few items for locomotion. But we may have them as well.
object and Subjects of 3512 (animals, robots, characters) were described at Property talk:P3512. d1g (talk) 10:36, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, these are very interesting items/system for classification. means of locomotion (P3512) should be clarified "method that the subject uses to move from one place to another" only for "animals, robots, characters"? Or +"microorganism (Q39833)", +"plants" (tumbleweed (Q1060486), dispersal mechanism of plants (Q389981)), +"human+vehicle (Q42889)", "animals+vehicle (Q42889)"(equestrian (Q2730732)), "animals+other animals as vehicle", by passive motion (Q29374520)/active motion (Q29374366), by using a circle/disk or not, by propulsion system (Q29380218), etc, etc? --Fractaler (talk) 09:13, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Elements of clothingEdit

I have merged your Q28935403 "element of clothing" with costume component (Q28935403), alias clothing component, which already existed.

Please don't randomly assign clothing items as "elements of clothing". Wikidata:WikiProject Fashion has a structured hierarchy of classes based on published academic vocabularies for clothing; you can find more information on those at Wikidata:WikiProject Fashion/Taxonomy. - PKM (talk) 20:39, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Ok and thank you very much for the information! --Fractaler (talk) 06:39, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Has part relationshipsEdit

Hi Fractaler. As you've may have noticed, I've been reverting many of your edits adding statements using the property has parts of the class (P2670). This is because these statements were using the property incorrectly. (Some of the confusion may be caused by the fact that the Russian-language description of this property is somewhat ambiguous.)

The property has parts of the class (P2670) is not the inverse property (P1696) subclass of (P279). If X is subclass of (P279) Y, Y should not have has parts of the class (P2670) X. P2670 is for part-of relationships where the target (B) is a class that has members which are part of the subject (A). If members of class B are part of A, then A has parts of the class (P2670) B. The part-of relationship is different than the subclass-of relationship. There is no direct inverse property for subclass of. There have been proposals for them in the past IIRC, but they've been rejected. We do have P2737/P2738, but those are for more specific unions of items.

A single, specific fish, for example, is not a class or set. Its fins and other body parts are part of (P361) it, but not subclass of (P279) it. "This specific fish's fins" could be considered a class, and it could be said that the fish has parts of the class (P2670) "its fins", perhaps with a quantity (P1114) qualifier. This would not make those particular fins a subclass of (P279) the fish.

How to properly use part of (P361), has part (P527), and has parts of the class (P2670) is a really complicated topic. If you're interested in further information on the topic, I recommend this article in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on the mereology: . We also have several related properties, the discussions for which may be helpful reading.

I'm really sorry about the mess, and I hope this doesn't discourage you from continuing to make helpful edits. --Yair rand (talk) 23:50, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Yair rand! Thank you for such a detailed explanation and link. I'm very interested in the topic. Especially the tools for implementing the set theory (Q12482)'s method "subset (Q177646)->set (Q36161)->superset (Q15882515) in WD. As I understood, for set (Q36161)->superset (Q15882515)'s case WD provides subclass of (P279)'s tools, has parts of the class (P2670) for "set (Q36161) consist of subset (Q177646)" and instance of (P31) for "set (Q36161) consist of element (Q379825)". For fin's example, "shark's fin" is "component of shark's locomotor system". Also "shark's fin" is "fish's fin". And set "fish's fin" consists of "shark's fin", "trout's fin", "pike's fin" and so on.
About mereology. I prefer precise definitions, but with this term we have polysemy while: your link said: Mereology is the theory, WP said: In philosophy and mathematical logic, mereology is the study, wiktionary: (logic) The discipline which deals... Before using this term, it is good to eliminate this ambiguity. --Fractaler (talk) 09:14, 9 August 2017 (UTC)


Hi Fractaler! You created ocean surface wave model (Q31447505). This concept neither has any instances nor sitelinks so I wonder what it is needed for -- JakobVoss (talk) 13:38, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi JakobVoss! There is the redirect w:ocean surface wave model. It is need for the wikidata's model of the world. It has the superset. --Fractaler (talk) 13:52, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! Redirects and model of the world do not fully convince me but the linked article contains several references about ocean wave models so the item could be useful to link these publications too. -- JakobVoss (talk) 20:39, 20 September 2017 (UTC)


Please, do not rollback without explanation. Thank you, --Horcrux92 (talk) 12:51, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Do you know how to add an statement with an explanation? Please tell me how to do this?
Right after your comment the superset of converter (Q35825432) became entity (Q35120). I was hoping you saw this. --Fractaler (talk) 13:08, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Just rollback the edit, in such a way to:
  1. motivate your restoring;
  2. notify the involved user.
And, please, write in the talk page of the user that contacts you, or just ping him. Otherwise he (me, in this case) cannot know that you left an answer. --Horcrux92 (talk) 15:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
@Horcrux92: ok, next time I will not add an statement, but will rollback the edit (because only there is the possibility to add comments). Thanks!

So, how about editor (Q1607826)? converter (Q35825432) now is entity (Q35120) (instead of object (Q488383)). --Fractaler (talk) 05:59, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

In which sense editor (Q1607826) is a converter (Q35825432)? --Horcrux92 (talk) 07:18, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
@Horcrux92: converter: object that converts. The editor deals with information. Editing is the transformation of information from one type (unedited) to another (edited). --Fractaler (talk) 07:26, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
I think that it's not so obvious. You are treating "converter" as synonymous of "editor" (anything that edits something). In this case even an editor (Q985394), or sculptor (Q1281618) can be a converter, but the connection is very weak.
Wouldn't it be better to create a generic class for "editor"? But I don't know which relationship it should have with converter (Q35825432). --Horcrux92 (talk) 08:07, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
@Horcrux92: yes, it's all abstract/philosophy. editor (Q1607826) is person (Q215627), who is editing (~converts) the text. person (Q215627)'s Q35968258 is editor (Q985394). About sculptor (Q1281618) - good idea, so it is (converts sculpture material into sculpture)! About synonymous - you're right (I even sometimes used the nickname "space editor/space converter"), and "editor/convertor" is (generic) "changer". But changer's result can have different state ( 1) reversibility; 2) irreversibility: Q30327532/Q30337084). For example, transformer (Q11658) is "changer" ("voltage changer"), but power station (Q159719) is changer (of energy, energy transformer (Q40643813)) that causes the irreversible state (since there is a loss of energy). --Fractaler (talk) 09:03, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
I think there is also another point to take into account: converting can be seen as a discrete changing, from a state to another one. For example, a .mpeg file (state 1) is converted to an .avi file (state 2), a Christian (state 1) may converts himself to Mussulman (state 2), etc. What about editing?
Furthermore, if you add a character into a text file, would you say that you converted that file? I don't think so, at least in Italian that's not the meaning of "conversion". --Horcrux92 (talk) 09:31, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
May we define a converter as an editor that does changes between two well-known states? --Horcrux92 (talk) 09:31, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
@Horcrux92: about (Q30337049): converting (changing) is process (Q3249551). "discrete changing" (changing) is either process (Q3249551), or result (Q2995644). "mpeg-file to avi-file converting" is process (Q3249551) (one-step process), and avi-file is result (Q2995644). So mpeg->avi->mp4->etc is a discrete changing of the state of a file (during multi-step process). If ".mpeg" (".avi", etc.) is file's property (state), then process is "converting of file's property". "religion converting" (under the influence of information - human, books, Internet, etc.) is converting. Other terms (term "editing" is newer, probably, and sounds unusual in unusual places) "person's editing of his religion" (when "person edits his religion". Wiktionary said about term convert - a person who has converted to a religion). So, conversion and editing have superset "change (process)". Then the set "converter" and the set "editor" is a subset of the set "changer/modifier".

The editor probably more suitable for the living (people), and the converter - for the lifeless. The common thing about them is that they are a modifier/changer. If adding a character to the text is a well-known condition, then you can describe it in this way.

--Fractaler (talk) 11:14, 22 September 2017 (UTC)


I don't think your use of has parts of the class (P2670) property is correct. Try to use it when the union of the subclasses that you indicate is the class itself. For example, I don't think that Q29169659 is just the union of the subclasses you indicated in it. Same for source (Q31464082).

Indeed, I think that indicating only four subclasses (where there can be hundreds of different types of "interpreter") is not exhaustive, and it's misleading about the meaning of the main class and about what it can really contain. Don't you think? --Horcrux92 (talk) 15:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

@Horcrux92: Yes, I have a problem with the representation of a subset in WP. If we work with categories, everything is very simple: just +[[Category:Example]] (superset). And on the page of this category all its subcategories (subsets) are automatically displayed at once. For classes, for some reason, there is no such convenient. Here also the discussion began. --Fractaler (talk) 06:22, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
By the way for categories it's just the same - you add only super-categories (by adding [[Category:...]]), you cannot add subcategories to category. --Infovarius (talk) 15:23, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, you just add [[Category:SomeCategory]]. Then, on category's page (SomeCategory) you can see all subcategory (subsets). It is very simple, very automaticly. --Fractaler (talk) 17:20, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Свойство distribution format (P437) только для творческих работEdit

правка И это не обратное свойство к "обладает свойством" d1g (talk) 08:52, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

@D1gggg: distribution format (P437): method (or type) of distribution for the subject. Right? Is there a limit on the distribution only in space? And if there is a distribution in time (when the object is the carrier of the property)?--Fractaler (talk) 08:54, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
@Fractaler: We might need separate a property for this.
Because current property is restricted to CD/DVD and creative works
Such things are never mixed together in real texts. d1g (talk) 09:04, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
@D1gggg: Ok, then what property to use to indicate the carrier/media/bearer/possessor of property? --Fractaler (talk) 09:10, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
@Fractaler: previous discussions were not to have inverse properties when they result in 1:m relations (not 1:1)
I support this, inverse relations are here to possibly speed up data entry, they are not the best layout.
Simply fill forward "has property". d1g (talk) 09:17, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
@D1gggg: I mean, we have: . Consequently, symmetry (Q29892597) is a property of the object symmetrical object (Q41074997) (= the carrier/distributor of this property is symmetrical object (Q41074997). Do we have such P... now? --Fractaler (talk) 09:29, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
@Fractaler:, no we don't have one. Reason why is above. d1g (talk) 09:32, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
@D1gggg: understood, thanks. Hence it will be necessary to do such "P..." --Fractaler (talk) 09:37, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

process ontology (Q42307072)Edit

Hi! You created process ontology (Q42307072) without any connection to Wikimedia project pages or other references. What's the purpose of this item and do you have references to state that this item is actually an established concept? -- JakobVoss (talk) 07:08, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

@JakobVoss: Hi! This item from here: In computer science, a process ontology is a description of the components and their relationships that make up a process. A formal process ontology is an ontology in the knowledge domain of processes. Often such ontologies take advantage of the benefits of an upper ontology. Planning software can be used to perform plan generation based on the formal description of the process and its constraints. Numerous efforts have been made to define a process/planning ontology. Do you think "formal process ontology"="process ontology"? --Fractaler (talk) 07:15, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
I think the difference does not justify an independent item unless we have other Wikimedia sites or Wikidata items that link to {Q|42307072}} in particular. As I read the Wikipedia article, both are equivalent, the difference is just a matter of emphasizing a specific aspect. JakobVoss (talk) 07:22, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Ok, then merge or delete --Fractaler (talk) 07:26, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Stop creating non-notable itemsEdit

Please read WD:N. You have already created plenty of non-notable items, despite being told there was no need of them by several users. All items that do not comply with Wikidata's notability policy will be deleted. If you continue to ignore the notability policy, your account might be blocked, so please stop. Andreasm háblame / just talk to me 00:39, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@Andreasmperu:, please сonfirm your agreement/disagreement with the statements 1 and 2 here:
Wikidata:Project chat#Rights of item and rights of item's creator. --Fractaler (talk) 13:41, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Just for jokeEdit

I am a Homo. Homo is a taxon. I am a taxon :-O --Horcrux92 (talk) 13:45, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

@Horcrux92:, No, I is a chemical element. But Horcrux92 is a nickname. Nickname is a code name. Code name is a name. Name is a sign. Sign is a knowledge. A knowledge is a philosophical concept. So, now Horcrux92 is a philosophical concept. --Fractaler (talk) 13:54, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

What is going on?Edit

Why do you keep spamming admins' noticeboard with your questions meant to individual admin? Stryn (talk) 10:05, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

@Stryn: Why spamming? Maybe I incorrectly translated the requirement:"If you happen to think that Andreasmperu has violated a specific Wikidata policy, you need to describe the case here in detail including difflinks to critical edits"? Then excuse me, I will no longer give of administrator's violations (in my sight). Then it turns out that the project no longer has a place where it is very likely to show violations and get answers to the questions asked (the personal page has already been tried: the administrator does not answer those questions that will prove my case) --Fractaler (talk) 10:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
It was said that "you need to describe the case here in detail including difflinks to critical edits". And I mostly see that you are just asking there personal questions from Andreasmperu. Stryn (talk) 10:39, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
@Stryn: ok, I will try to reformulate Fractaler (talk) 11:01, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


I've blocked you for 3 days for casting aspersions and attacking another user. If you wish to appeal, you are welcome to use {{Unblock}}. --Rschen7754 08:15, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

For reference, [1] is the link to the discussion. --Rschen7754 08:18, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
My actions to prove that the work of a budding editor is worthy of respect, was regarded as a harassment. To exclude my mistake for other novice editors, please suggest the appropriate options.
Please tell me, do I have the right to participate in Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Removal/Andreasmperu? And if not, why? --Fractaler (talk) 12:33, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Most removal discussions last for 7 days, and you are only blocked for 3. --Rschen7754 19:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
@Rschen7754: Please tell me why did you not say anything about the violations by Andreasmperu? Why you did not offer your options for editors from a situation where Andreasmperu does not answer questions that show her wrong? Is not the duty of the administrator to prevent (prevention)? --Fractaler (talk) 06:52, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Whatever legitimate points that you may or may not have had were lost in your attacks on that editor. --Rschen7754 06:58, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm taking Google to help me, which seems to be failing me. I'll try to reformulate: Andreasmperu does not answer questions that show that she is not right. How should editors act then? Also, is the offer of options (to prevent, prevention) an obligation of the administrator? --Fractaler (talk) 07:10, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Comment on content, not on the contributor. Keep your personal opinions about Andreasmperu to yourself if you cannot express them in a civil manner. This will be my last reply. --Rschen7754 07:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Hypotheses and factsEdit

Hypotheses: Any living system is subject to the influence of Entropy (Q4117933) (entropy). If such a system is not restored (by repair (Q2144962), repair), then the system is destroyed (death (Q4), death). Because of the entropy, power (Q25107) (power) corrupts human (Q5) (human). Absolute power corrupts absolutely. If the person (cell (Q7868) cell, the governing body, etc.), which the collective (Q13473501) (collective, society) endowed with power (gave more rights than others), not to remind (by re-elections, immune system's response, law enforcement (Q44554), etc.), for which he was given this power (maximum function), then entropy will do its work: the broken immune system destroys the body, the tumor destroys the body, the totalitarian / authoritarian / tyrannical power (= impunity (Q2745341), impunity) destroys the project (Q170584) (project), state (Q7275) (state), civilization (Q8432) (civilization). --Fractaler (talk) 17:48, 23 January 2018 (UTC)


You have been blocked via the reasons outlined in the previous discussion. ChristianKl❫ 21:48, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I challenge to a duel!Edit

Such statements create the impression that the author is a fighter for justice, who can prove his case by facts. But subsequent actions refute this hypothesis and give grounds for another hypothesis: now he is afraid of me! Just like the ru-admin who banned me on a false accusation, and did not give me the opportunity to defend myself. collective responsibility (Q1046415) helps to achieve personal goals without bearing personal responsibility. Personal responsibility is the criterion of courage! If a person is able to take personal responsibility, then this person will never hide behind other people's backs!

--Fractaler (talk) 08:13, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global surveyEdit

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

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia surveyEdit

WMF Surveys, 01:40, 13 April 2018 (UTC)