Logo of Wikidata

Welcome to Wikidata, GZWDer!

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) 14:26, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

  1. User talk:GZWDer/2013
  2. User talk:GZWDer/2014
  3. User talk:GZWDer/2015
  4. User talk:GZWDer/2016
  5. User talk:GZWDer/2017
  6. User talk:GZWDer/2018
  7. User talk:GZWDer/2019


Reckless false editsEdit

I have reverted the reckless false edits you made to Template:Q11608 in which you falsified the birth and death dates. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:57, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Two OliviasEdit

I'm still of the opinion that we should merge Olivia Evelyn Mary Fletcher-Vane (Q76152859) into Olivia Vane (Q76361064), or delete the Peerage item. The heart of the matter is, how much confidence do we need to be allowed to say two records refer to the same person? It is pretty clear from Olivia's academic profiles that she is also known as Olivia Fletcher-Vane, she is from England, and the years listed in her education profile would imply that she must have been born around 1991 - all of these corroborate with the information from the Peerage entry. I would say that's enough confidence. Even if somebody published her date of birth, one could still argue it's insufficient - what if there were two Olivia Fletcher-Vanes born on the same day? There's no proof to the contrary, and we should act based on the most plausible representation of facts, not a rigid requirement on external proofs of equivalence. Deryck Chan (talk) 13:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@Deryck Chan: It may be interested that for several year Chinese Wikipedia had two articles (and than, two items) for one person, because the lack of public source about the relationship (see zh:Talk:鬼頭桃菜). The community also argues the validity of self-published sources.--GZWDer (talk) 19:20, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
In the future, Wikidata is likely have much more case about multiple profiles (=items with set of identifiers/sources) in different fields about one living person. One may argue a simple merge may compromise the privacy of people involved.--GZWDer (talk) 19:24, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Another matter is different wikis (and other sources) using different standard when handling BLP data. When some wikis decides to remove some personal information (e.g. this), they may be still included in other Wikipedias and the data goes to Wikidata. Wikidata may also have dates imported from external databases (reliable or not), which comes from sources that are considered unacceptable in Wikipedia (like information brokers).--GZWDer (talk) 19:33, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Could always ask her if she thinks it should be merged or not, there's an email address at https://www.oliviavane.co.uk/research/about.html. Ghouston (talk) 00:57, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Deryck Chan knows her personally.--GZWDer (talk) 00:59, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

MergeEdit

You caused such a mess, I can't stop finding duplicate items, ie. Q75455126, please fix it...--Arnaugir (talk) 20:11, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@Arnaugir: Duplicated items should not be taken to RFD. See Help:Merge.--GZWDer (talk) 20:15, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
This doesn't invalidate my assessment above.--Arnaugir (talk) 09:02, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Same remark, can't you do something for fixing the situation? Like, do some merge automatically? At least for the items with the same label, same birthdate and deathdate (with precision to the day)? See https://w.wiki/FM7 (sadly the query timesout without the LIMIT, do you know a way to override that?) I did around 50 by hands and there was no false-postive (with such precise conditions, it's very unprobable). Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 13:38, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

CAS numbers, InChIs etc.Edit

Could you modify your future additions to not add statements that causes constraint violations? You have added many CAS numbers, InChIs etc. Many of them are correct, but in some items such statements were deleted for a reason during manual curation of data (databases have errors and that have to be curated manually by e.g. moving statements to other items). Unfortunately, you can't deduce automatically which statements were deleted from an item and are not present in WD anymore (that's why deprecated rank should be used for such cases), but you should take constraints into consideration during automatic import of data. Otherwise, all manual curation of data would be a Sisyphean task. Regards, Wostr (talk) 22:22, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

کمک کنیدEdit

سلام لطفا برای این مقاله شناسه مورد به ویکی پدیا اتصال بدهید Elmirasharifimoghadam

Mehdii158 (talk) 12:19, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Peerage projectEdit

Hi! What's the current status of the import project from The Peerage website? I've been doing some reconciliation today from a London history source, and I have hit a number of cases where there are marriages recorded on the Peerage site for two people who have items here, but no spouse (P26) link. I thought these connections had been comprehensively imported. They're really important, for trying to trace chains of Peerage people who all need to be merged. Are there a lot still to do, or were most of them added? Jheald (talk) 19:55, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I do have a plan to import spouses, but this require analyzing of texts. Another thing is it may be a question that what counts as a spouse (father/mother relationship is rather objective), so I also propose to check other sources before importing (The Peerage does not have a consistent format describing spouses; genealogics.org does, but this will requiring matching and mapping against another external database).--GZWDer (talk) 21:46, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I see. I just came to bring up the same. There seems to be a gap of some 48000 items that don't have any family relationships: [1]. --- Jura 11:29, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

The formats seem to be:

  • "(name) married <..>

If there is some other parent mentioned:

  • (He or she) married <..>
    (He or she) married, (firstly|secondly), <..>

Hope that helps. --- Jura 07:34, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

It would also be very useful to have any "position held" information -- eg to chase down duplicate members of parliament, Lord mayors of London, bishops and archbishops, etc. Jheald (talk) 09:59, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
It looks like there may also be some further dates of birth & dates of death that were missed, eg on William Ireland Thomas de Courcy Wheeler (Q76354837). Jheald (talk) 08:42, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
This is a relative new entry, not in Mix'n'Match yet.--GZWDer (talk) 11:41, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Q22101484Edit

Hi! I have noticed that there might have a problem in the above item created by your bot. The zhwiki article name in this item should be linked to Q7590467 according to the article names of other Wikipedia versions. I have added the Chinese article name to Q7590467 and deleted the name on Q22101484 (which Q22101484 is now empty); however, when I checked on the zhwiki article, the linkage to enwiki is "Churches in Galveston, Texas", which it doesnt have an article with this name. I am not sure what to do in order to solve these issues as mentioned above and I would like to request your help. Thanks.--BenedictusFX (talk) 18:41, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

@BenedictusFX: Help:Merge--GZWDer (talk) 18:43, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
I have merged the two items, but it seems that the linkage to enwiki on zhwiki is "Churches in Galveston, Texas" and not "St. Mary Cathedral Basilica (Galveston, Texas)".--BenedictusFX (talk) 18:54, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
The local interwiki link should be removed.--GZWDer (talk) 18:56, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
I have noticed your edit on zhwiki (I first thought I have to do this edit until I realised what you mean when I saw your edit on zhwiki, that edit is now reverted by myself) and the problem is now solved. Thanks for your help!--BenedictusFX (talk) 19:05, 29 January 2020 (UTC)


Labels from importEdit

Hi GZWder, the problem mentioned at User_talk:GZWDer/2019#Prefixes_in_labels is still unresolved. To help you clean it up, I fixed some and another user some more, but many are still there. Please attempt to fix before adding more. --- Jura 10:48, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Notability criteria for new itemsEdit

I notice that you've been creating some new items from MnM, with information limited to eg just a Geni.com ID and a Genalogics ID, and no apparent connection to any person with an existing Wikidata item.

Perhaps I am wrong in the above, but do you consider these people notable? Because on the face of it, they don't appear to meet our criteria. Jheald (talk) 23:05, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

@Jheald: They (recent ones) may be found here. At least they have an ancestor that is notable.--GZWDer (talk) 23:09, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Who was that? I'm wary about pushing "inherited notability" further than one or perhaps at most two generations or degrees of separation. Jheald (talk) 23:12, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
  • If I can butt in: "inherited notability" is a concept from English Wikipedia. "Our criteria" is Wikidata:Notability in that entries on people must link to an outside source to show that they actually exist, and were not created as a prank or vandalism. Any genealogical database could be imported, if someone was willing to do the tremendous work load of running mix_and_match and then merging all the duplicates, and running various error detection queries. There appears to be a moratorium on adding any new large data sets of people because of current computational constraints. The query servers currently time out for even simple date queries for instance_of=human combined with at least two other fields. --RAN (talk) 00:43, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

wiktionary itemsEdit

please creat wiktionary items in wikidata with your bot Amirh123 (talk) 07:59, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

DOI upper-case constraintEdit

I notice you added this constraint recently on property P356 - do you intend to run anything to fix these? Or is there an existing bot that does this? ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:57, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

This will be fixed once I collected all DOIs (likely via this tool). But I have other tasks for now.--GZWDer (talk) 21:00, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Looks like I added a lot of them; I'm working on fixing them now. Thanks for the pointer to the dumper tool, it's a lot more useful than the constraint violations page in cases like this! ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:21, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

d:Q86281122 d:Q86281152Edit

? 91.197.junr3170 (talk) 15:32, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikidata:Database reports/unmarked supercentenariansEdit

I noticed you helping on the error correction for people who died before they were born, here is another good one: Wikidata:Database reports/unmarked supercentenarians, if they are over 110 years mark as a supercentenarian, otherwise more errors, typos, and vandalism. --RAN (talk) 00:28, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

mergeEdit

https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q4416508

https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q85800152

Abieule (talk) 19:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Something wrong: your created a double of existed itemEdit

Q86372350 is obviously a double of long existed Q13283399

--Slb nsk (talk) 10:54, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikidata:Database reports/Humans with missing claims/P2600Edit

Wikidata:Database reports/Humans with missing claims/P2600 is outdated, any way to update? 77.11.15.97 13:07, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Large ..Edit

Hi GZWDer,

if some are available, would you be so kind to upload articles about Q84263196 in priority? Thanks. --- Jura 20:54, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Creating duplicatesEdit

Hi GZWDer. What is the point of creating an item without general label defined, when another item already exists on the same topic with the label equal to the title of the article on the French Wikipedia (French label)? Here is another example. Rather than create a useless duplicate, could you please check whether an item exists and if so directly link the Wikipedia article to that item. Thanks! Regards. --Ideawipik (talk) 19:02, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Here you may check whether there's existing items about a Wikipedia article, but often there're too many to check. After creation of items there're more tools to find duplicates such as projectmerge.--GZWDer (talk) 19:07, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, GZWDer, for the answer and the links. I understand the case and probably don't get all the facts. I just regret the artificial increase of the Item ID number. And the fact that it is much more difficult to merge items than to link a wiki article (without WD item) to an existing item.
Perhaps your bot (or script) should not create an item when another already exists with the same name. For example: Q3605395 (Adohoun) / Q86685478 (duplicate item with no name, frwiki article with the same title) and several articles from fr:Modèle:Palette Mono (département).
@Pasleim: couldn't this projectmerge list be made directly from wiki sites (or dumps) instead of Wikidata item when no WD item has been created.
For sure, we should strongly recommend page translators/creators to link their new pages to existing items. Regards. --Ideawipik (talk) 19:02, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

TR genea prop|P7977Edit

I don't see the underlying template but we have P7977. --RAN (talk) 21:27, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Andrew DrakeEdit

Thanks for catching my error! I will add the correct generations and link them together. The DAR website is terrible, there are supposed to be 4 other searchable databases but I cant find the search page for them. There is a descendant database and a grave database and a bible database. Even finding the ancestor database from their home page seems impossible. Have you found the search page for their other dbs? If so let me know and I will add a link to my Wikidata home page. --RAN (talk) 16:53, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Swedish nature reservesEdit

Thank you for all the fine work you have done! I was happy to find 4900+ nature reserves of Sweden imported by you, today :) --So9q (talk) 12:16, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

A lot of new nature reserves are being created right now in Sweden. I just loaded the latest source http://gpt.vic-metria.nu/data/land/NR.zip into JOSM and it reported 5041 features (with names) some 100 more than we have. Could you import the missing ones? The NVRID/Naturvårdsregistret ID (P3613) is unique I believe so you could filter based on that. Thanks in advance!--So9q (talk) 12:44, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Q86688005Edit

Q86688005 is junk; I've nominated it for deletion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:31, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

likewise Q87846062. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:33, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
and Q88114658 In each case you're creating items based, apparently, on invalid ORCID iDs. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:37, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
and Q87259374, where you added the ORCID iD "fix spelling". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:38, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
and Q86653963. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:44, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Per What links here this rarely happens (compared with several million ORCIDs the bot handled). I don't think special treatment is required as the bot will not revisit the same ID, and the import from current source (European PubMed Central) is mostly complete (more than 99% for first 30 million IDs).--GZWDer (talk) 10:50, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Why is your bot handling "several million ORCIDs"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:05, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't mean several million different ORCIDs (though it may reach that stage in the future), but the bot proceeded such a number of total authors with ORCID (each person may appears multiple times) and added such a number of author (P50) statements.--GZWDer (talk) 22:15, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
These errors are rare; I don't see how it can not be fixed manually.--GZWDer (talk) 04:42, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Your reply does not address why you are adding such bad values, nor say what you are going to do to reduce or prevent such issues in the future.

On Q88225145 you added the ORCID iD http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4122-373. That is clearly junk; it is no where near matching the REGEX for that property. Why are you not checking your data before adding it? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:28, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

On Q88335805 you added the ORCID iD [1], [1], [1], [1], [1], [1], [1], [1]. there are no other statements, other than that the subject is a human. Do you think that is acceptable? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:32, 16 April 2020 (UTC)


Yeah dude, your bot is bad. It can be good too, but also bad. Check out ORCID ID#Format violations. For example, it occasionally adds full URLS as ORCID IDs, and has trouble distinguishing between lowercase and uppercase X, see for instance Cafer Akkoz (Q92466947) and Elham Anisi (Q90621031). Please give your bot a stern talking to, and maybe set it (or some other bot) on the journey of fixing its mistakes. -Animalparty (talk) 04:36, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

CAS COVID-19 Anti-Viral Candidate CompoundsEdit

This is another time you are adding statements without any consideration of property constraints. You've managed to add one statement per item with two constraint violations: catalog (P972) with violation of value type constraint (Q21510865) and CAS Registry Number (P231) with violation of property scope constraint (Q53869507). Firstly, CAS number as a reference is nonsensical as it does not reference anything (and it should be modified or deleted), secondly – how do you plan to fix this situation you've created? Wostr (talk) 16:44, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm coming to this because I repeatedly find CAS links with nonexisting CAS numbers. Seems you only do promises about cleaning up, no actual work? --SCIdude (talk) 09:09, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
@SCIdude: Currently these items do not have constraint violations. Do you mean the CASID is invalid?--GZWDer (talk) 09:14, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, see Q90545647 for example. --SCIdude (talk) 09:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
@SCIdude: This means CAS itself published a list of entries with some invaild CAS IDs. I will deprecate these IDs, but you should confirmed these are not found in SciFinder (no other source has a complete list of CAS entries).--GZWDer (talk) 09:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Q88579292Edit

What is the point of items like Q88579292? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:04, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: Per Wikidata:Property_proposal/Archive/39#P2093 use of author name string (P2093) is temporary in nature. If an item can be found then it should be used. What's the problem of this item? Do you have evidence that this conflate multiple people? (in this case you can ask ORCID to lock the profile.)--GZWDer (talk) 22:12, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
The only issue I found is someone incorrectly merged it.--GZWDer (talk) 22:21, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
I didn't say anything about author name string. I didn't say anything about the bad merge, which I already fixed. I asked "what is the point of items like that"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:30, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Use of author name string (P2093) is temporary in nature, so author (P50) is preferred if available. Many users are resolving authors using various tools, but this should be able to be done automatically if possible.--GZWDer (talk) 22:32, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
again: I didn't say anything about author name string. I asked "what is the point of items like that"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:39, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
They works as normal items and more information can be added. Other toolses also make used of them (example).--GZWDer (talk) 22:56, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Bot appears to have created duplicate itemEdit

Hello. It looks like your bot has created a duplicate item? Q88643388 was created much more recently than Q16729936. I am new to Wikidata so not sure how this all works, but thought I should let you know. Cheers Ballofstring (talk) 22:50, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

@Ballofstring: In this case Philippa Howden-Chapman (Q16729936) did not link to an ORCID so the bot can not find the item. See Help:Merge for how to handle this.--GZWDer (talk) 22:53, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Ah right. Thanks for the link the merge page. I have done that now. Many thanks Ballofstring (talk) 23:18, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

LargeDatasetBot imported invalid DOI please cleanupEdit

Have you noticed noticed that a your bot LargeDatasetBot has created a few Invalid DOIs - sample query (not all from your bot) - https://w.wiki/NL5 Any chance you're already in the process of cleaning these up? Wolfgang8741 (talk) 10:28, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Once I imported all entries (currently there're 1.28 million left, and will be completed in no more than 32 days) I will fix them. I am not planning an immediate fix as I need to deal with the holes (entries failed to import) first, and if the DOIs are removed they will be imported again. Eventually the invalid DOIs may simply be removed.--GZWDer (talk) 14:54, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Block of LargeDatasetBotEdit

Please, see User talk:LargeDatasetBot. Lymantria (talk) 17:23, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at project chatEdit

Hi! You might want to join this discussion as you have been indirectly mentioned. Bovlb (talk) 18:09, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

An item for every secondEdit

Please, stop your bot right now. All those items are perfectly useless at the moment, and have absolutely no need for being created. --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 10:05, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I am doing this as a echo of Wikidata:Property proposal/local time. People use refine date (P4241) to express time of day, but it can not express everything.--GZWDer (talk) 12:47, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Requesting Q76335638 for deletionEdit

I'm new, but I'm not sure this meets the notability guideline. Thanks, WikiMacaroons (talk) 11:21, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

William GrahamEdit

Just noticed your said-to-be-the-same-as edits to William Graham (Q8010075) - I've checked and all three items do seem to be the same man (the husband of each daughter has an ODNB entry, and both of these state their wife's father was the Glasgow MP). Do you mind if I just merge them directly or is there any reason I should hold off? Andrew Gray (talk) 18:05, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@Andrew Gray: Yes, I only added them because I does not found any indication in article that William Graham have more issues. Note I also asked in WikiTree.--GZWDer (talk) 18:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
@Andrew Gray: If possible, please also check Joseph Lawrence (Q76129051) and Joseph Lawrence (Q13529965).--GZWDer (talk) 18:11, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Great, thanks - I'll merge the Grahams, and I've left a note at Wikitree. Lawrence is definitely mergable as well - Pollen's ODNB entry says "he married Maud Beatrice, daughter of Joseph Lawrence, a prominent Conservative MP". I'll do that as well. Andrew Gray (talk) 18:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
@Andrew Gray: Check Paulina Pepys (Q75495083) - the parents provided in The Peerage seems wrong, but there're some websites following it.--GZWDer (talk) 18:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Hmm. The ODNB for her son Edward has "... the second but eldest surviving son of Sir Sydney Montagu (c.1571–1644) of Hinchingbrooke, Huntingdonshire, MP for Huntingdonshire, master of requests, and groom of the bedchamber to James I, and his wife, Paulina, formerly Pepys (d. 1638)"; the two-volume biography of Edward just says she was not very rich and doesn't name her parents, but it does point to a copy of her father's will here. This confirms her father was the John Pepys of Cottenham who died in 1589, with surviving children Elizabeth, Edith, Susan, Paulina, John (died 1604), Thomas (the elder), Thomas (the younger, d 1615), Robert (d 1630), Apollo (d 1644) & Talbot. His wife at the time of his death was Anne.
The footnote on p 104 about the eldest son John (died 1604) states that he married Elizabeth Bendish. Talbot is the same as Talbot Pepys (Q7679037), whose History of Parliament entry has "6th s. of John Pepys (d.1589) of Cottenham, Cambs. and Edith, da. and h. of Edmund Talbot of Cottenham".
So I think this indicates that John Pepys (Q75588710) is the brother of Paulina, and John Pepys (Q75588707) is the father - the opposite of the way the Peerage has it. Andrew Gray (talk) 18:57, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
@Andrew Gray: Joan Champernowne (Q6204937) - Are wife of Robert Gamage and wife of Anthony Denny one person? Wikipedia does not mention her marriage to Robert Gamage, and WikiTree have two profiles but they have the same day of death.--GZWDer (talk) 19:38, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
I suspect two different people (sisters?). History of Parliament & ODNB for Denny say they married in 1538 and she survived him as his widow in 1549, dying 1553. There's no date given for Gamage's marriage but their son was born 1535 and Robert Gamage died 1553 as well. This means she couldn't have remarried after being widowed, so it would imply that they had divorced, which was pretty unusual at the time and so I would expect the sources to have mentioned it somewhere if it was the case. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:31, 4 June 2020 (UTC)